Sitting of 17 July 2000

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

    Lone Parents
    Ms Dari Taylor: How many lone parents have obtained jobs through the new deal for lone parents. [129319]
    Mr. Ben Chapman: How many lone parents have used the new deal to date. [129330]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Since the start of the new deal for lone parents, 154, 731 lone parents have taken part. Of those, 16, 294 have entered education or training and 54, 241 have obtained jobs—more than one in three of those participating.
    Ms Taylor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he comment on the report by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research which says that the new deal has made the employment market very much more
    2
    efficient because it has actually trained hundreds of thousands of young people? It also states that the new deal is value for money. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the belief that the new deal could be extended with flexible use of the benefits system? Will he also refute the comment from the Opposition that the new deal is an extravagant waste of money? It most certainly is not.
    Mr. Darling: The fact that the new deal for lone parents has seen into work nearly one in three of those participating seems to me to speak for itself. It is also worth bearing in mind that in 1979, there were 300, 000 lone parents on income support. By 1997, that number had grown to more than 1 million. Many of those people had been out of work for a long time, and leaving it to the market to do nothing would have meant that they—and their children, many of whom live in poverty—would not have been helped. My hon. Friend is right to say that the report produced last week by the national institute has pointed to the fact that all the new deals are changing the culture in this country. By providing help, we are ensuring that work pays and, as a result, we have more than 1 million people more in employment and we are beginning to reduce child poverty—something that the Opposition would never do anything about.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the new deal was abolished, as suggested by the Opposition, those thousands of lone parents who have been helped into training or work would find themselves without that help in the future and would, in effect, be abandoned? Is not that the key difference between the parties?
    Mr. Darling: The big difference is that we recognise that if we are to get people who have been out of work for many years back into work, extra help is necessary. That means not just the new deal, which the Conservatives would abolish, but the working families tax credit, which they would also abolish. Much of the training and education that is also essential to getting people back to

    3
    work would be cut, because the Conservatives are now pledged to finding £16 billion of cuts in public expenditure. That is a false economy which would result in more people being out of work, bigger benefit bills, lower tax receipts and a return to the days of the 1980s and 1990s when a whole generation of people and their children were written off.
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I acknowledge the success that the new deal for lone parents has been, although there is a danger that Ministers claim too much for it. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the only specific help available to lone parents is access to a personal adviser? As he knows, the Government plan to extend personal advisers to everyone, when the working age agency comes into being. Will the Secretary of State look again at what additional help can be provided—for example, in terms of subsidised employment or access to full-time education—for lone parents?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not only the new deal, but the tax and benefit reforms we have made—including the WFTC and help with child care, which never existed in the past and would be chopped as a result of what the Conservatives propose—which have made a big difference to individuals. The fundamental difference, when one considers all the measures that the Government have introduced, is that the culture has changed. We believe that people have a right to benefit when they are out of work, but that they also have a clear responsibility to help themselves. They also have a right to expect that the Government will help them to get back into work. All our measures would be at risk if the Conservatives were ever to get back, and the result would be more unemployment and more child poverty. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, we will continue to look at ways in which we can improve all the new deals and other measures to get people into work.
    Mr. David Willetts: Will the Secretary of State confirm that back in March, the target group for the new deal was lone parents with a child over five, that in May, that became a lone parent with a child over three and that in June, the target became all lone parents on income support? The Government have redefined the target group to include any lone parent who calls at a jobcentre looking for work. In fact, every time he misses the target, the Secretary of State just makes it bigger so that it is easier to hit.
    The Government have changed the target group so often that they claim credit for every lone parent who ever gets a job. Is not it typical of the Government that, when they are failing, they fiddle the figures? Should not the Secretary of State admit that, as all the evidence shows, the new deal for lone parents is an expensive failure?
    Mr. Darling: As ever, the hon. Gentleman is trying to be too clever by half. The new deal has been a success, as independent evaluation has shown. In the pilot projects, nearly one in three participants went into work at an average cost of £1, 300. That shows that the project is well worth the cost.
    The Tories were in power for 18 years, and the hon. Gentleman was a Minister for some of that time. What he cannot face up to is the fact that at the end of their time in
    4
    office, more than 1 million lone parents were on income support. They were out of work and written off. By contrast, this Government have introduced measures to ensure that lone parents get into work. Moreover, nearly 50 per cent. of children living in poverty are the children of lone parents. It is crucial that we get those children out of poverty. That makes good social sense, and good economic sense. No doubt that is why the Conservatives cannot see the sense of it.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: What plans he has to help lone parents to obtain the training they need to return to work. [129320]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): New deal for lone parents advisers currently help lone parents into work-related training courses and pay for child care during attendance at the course. So far, the scheme has helped 16, 000 lone parents to take up training or education. Personal advisers can also offer back-to-work training through Employment Service programmes. From April 2001, we will be introducing a £15 per week training premium for lone parents taking up training through the new deal.
    Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend will be aware of the phenomenal success of the Cheshire Oaks and Coliseum estates in my constituency, which is close to her own. The Benefits Agency and the jobcentre have worked with the local authority and local employers to help create jobs and to target them on people from the most impoverished part of my constituency. Does she believe that the announcement that she has just made will further assist women who are finding it difficult to bridge the skills gap, as many modern employers require?
    Angela Eagle: We are doing our best, by means of other refinements to the new deal, to make work pay for lone parents, many of whom have been out of the labour market for a long time. Getting lone parents into work ensures that their children do not grow up with nothing to look forward to but a lifetime on benefit. The help with training that we are offering lone parents is part of the support that they need to get back into work.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister confirm that, at the current rate, the new deal for lone parents will take 26 years to get the newly defined target group back into work?
    Angela Eagle: It took 20 years to get 1 million lone parents existing on benefits. What is the Tory legacy? Between 1992 and 1997, there was a 14 per cent. increase in the number of lone parents on income support, compared with a 10 per cent. decrease between 1997 and today. A total of 100, 000 lone parents have got off benefit and gone back into work. We aim to continue to help those who still have not managed to make the transition—and we will do so.

    Disabled Workers
    Mr. David Borrow: What steps he is taking to help people who become disabled while in work to keep their jobs. [129321]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Under the new deal for disabled people, a number of innovative schemes are already testing ways in which both employees and employers can be helped when a person becomes ill or disabled in work. We have also announced plans for job retention and rehabilitation pilots, beginning from next year, which will test the effectiveness of early work-focused employment and health strategies.
    Mr. Borrow: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for that answer, but may I emphasise the need for close monitoring of the way in which Government Departments and employers work together? A disabled constituent of mine was offered a job last summer, but it has taken the relevant Government Departments and the employer until this month to get their act together and ensure that the proper adaptations for a disabled worker were in place. That case may be an exception, but will my hon. Friend ensure that the pilot schemes are monitored closely to ensure better co-ordination in the future?
    Mr. Bayley: May I start by paying tribute to the close way in which my hon. Friend works with disability bodies in his constituency? I was there just last week at a meeting that he organised with voluntary bodies representing the disabled.
    I can assure my hon. Friend that the access to work provisions made by the Department for Education and Employment work smoothly and efficiently in the vast majority of cases. I am concerned to hear his comments about this particular case, and I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment will look at it. We will, of course, be monitoring our pilot studies very closely.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: Every penny lost through fraud means that less money goes to the genuinely disabled. What is the total amount lost in fraud on the disability living allowance? I ask this question because, according to the recent article in The Economist, the amount is now so large that the Government have stopped calculating it. Indeed, the article calculates that fraud amounts to between £3 billion and £7 billion. There are entire sleeper rings working in the Minister's Department who are garnering information, before they go out to work, to commit fraud. Is this a new form of welfare to work?
    Mr. Bayley: The Government are doing things to target disability benefits on those who merit them. We are, as a result, tightening the gateways. However, in relation to rehabilitation pilots, the hon. Gentleman needs to focus on the fact that every week, 3,000 people leave long-term sickness benefits and go on to incapacity benefits. Some 90 per cent. of them remain on incapacity benefits for life, although most would like to get back into work. That is what we are focusing on. We are avoiding the need for people to go on to incapacity benefits.
    Ms Helen Southworth: Along with many of my constituents, I welcome the rehabilitation pilots which will be started next year. I think that they will be very beneficial. As people in employment who become disabled are likely to need considerable health intervention and treatment, will my hon. Friend make sure that
    6
    the Department of Health is working closely with the Department of Social Security to facilitate people retaining employment and retaining dignity?
    Mr. Bayley: The rehabilitation and retention pilots are a three-way collaboration between the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. They can work only if there is joined-up government between those three Departments. That is how they were conceived, that is how they will work and that is why we believe that we will achieve real results for disabled people.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: As disability issues should not necessarily be a matter for political controversy, I am sure that the Minister will be as concerned as I am that 3,000 people a week leave the work force for permanent benefit and that the Post Office estimates that a single medical retirement can average some £80,000 of cost to the employer. In addition, there is the evidence of the report last week that ill-health retirement is concentrated in, although not exclusive to, the public sector. Will the Minister therefore bear in mind the experience of the disability pilots, particularly the St. Loyes transformation project in Exeter, which I know that he has visited, and make sure that these roll forward to adoption as soon as is practically possible? In addition, will he ensure that all those involved in providing disability advice to employees and employers have a proper, practical knowledge of the needs of the private sector and of what employers are looking for, showing them that it may well be cost-effective to retain the employee in employment and not simply to rely on benefit, which gives rise to the concerns that have been expressed from these Benches today?
    Mr. Bayley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken to draw a distinction between the private and public sectors. There is good practice and bad practice in both sectors. There is also very different practice between large firms which can carry people on long-term sickness benefits paid by the company, and smaller firms which cannot. The rehabilitation pilots seek to enable all businesses, whether in the public or private sector, to retain the employees they have, in whom they have invested by spending money on their training and building up their skills. At a time when unemployment is so low—the lowest level for 20 years—more and more employers want to retain people because they know that it is so hard to find others if they let employees go.

    Poverty
    Fiona Mactaggart: What assessment he has made of levels of poverty in the UK and other developed countries over the last 10 years, following UNICEF's recent report on poverty. [129322]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Research shows that we inherited one of the highest rates of poverty in the western world. As a result of policies that we have announced so far, we will lift over 1 million children out of poverty as well as tackling pensioner poverty.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that UNICEF's table on Britain's shockingly bad place in

    7
    child poverty leagues shows that we score among the top countries for the numbers of children in lone parent families, in workless households and in households with low wages? Does it occur to him that if he were to respond positively to the siren voices of the Conservatives by abolishing the new deal for lone parents, we should sink even further down the international child poverty league rather than tackling that scandal?
    Mr. Darling: The new deal for lone parents almost pays for itself, so there would be no great saving if it were cancelled. Indeed, the position would be quite the reverse. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that we inherited a scandal: Britain is one of the richest countries in the world, but the number of children living in poverty trebled during the 18 years to 1997. She was also right to identify the importance of measures to get more people into work. The number of people living in workless households is falling, but it is necessary to do more, such as increasing child benefit.
    The Conservative party has a point to answer. The Opposition are determined to find £16 billion in public expenditure cuts. We all remember that they froze child benefit when they were in office, which offers a pointer to the sort of thing that they would do. Those who would suffer are many of the children who still live in poverty and who rely on us to lift them out of it.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State is right to point to the high poverty that he inherited. On 1 May 1997, many people hoped for a break in the long-term rapid growth of a divided Britain. Does he share my dismay, therefore, at figures produced by his Department last week showing that the trend continues, particularly among pensioners? How confident is he that the measures that he has introduced since those figures were published will reverse the trend and return pensioner poverty to the level that he inherited? Over what time scale will we begin to see serious inroads into the problem?
    Mr. Darling: Let me deal with the point on pensioners. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the number of pensioners living in poverty has risen slightly. The reason is that although the proportion of pensioners living in poverty remains exactly the same, the pensioner population is increasing. He has not mentioned, however, that the minimum income guarantee and other measures were introduced only from April 1999 and do not, therefore, affect last week's figures.
    Mr. Webb: No.
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman may nod now, but that is not what he said to newspapers last week.
    We knew that many pensioners were in poverty. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee. If we had provided an across-the-board increase, we would not have solved the problem of pensioner poverty. The measures that we have introduced will do so. Year on year, people will see improvements as we reduce the number of pensioners living in poverty. In addition, we
    8
    shall introduce proposals for a pensioner credit later this year, which will help many pensioners who have modest savings or modest amounts in the bank.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: I am glad to hear the Secretary of State focus on pensioner poverty. I support the minimum income guarantee, which I, like others, have pushed hard in my own constituency. Does he accept, however—as I have said to him privately—that other measures such as the heating allowance are, according to the pensioners who have spoken to me, seen as gimmicks? What pensioners want, and what everyone wants for the sake of the Government's credibility, is a good, across the board increase for all pensioners. Will the Minister argue with the Chancellor for such an increase, on top of all the other measures, and when will pensioners receive it?
    Mr. Darling: I shall not repeat what I said privately to the hon. Gentleman. He draws attention to the minimum income guarantee; since we launched our take-up campaign earlier this year, more than 130, 000 claims have been received, showing that the availability of the guarantee has begun to extend beyond the 1.5 million pensioners already receiving it.
    I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the winter payments. The advantage of making those payments in their present form is that they are tax free and are not taken into account for benefits. If they were added to the pension, the very pensioners about whom he and I are concerned—those on low incomes—would lose out. I must disagree with him on that point.
    Mr. David Willetts: What a fascinating exchange. At last, the Secretary of State admits that the number of pensioners in poverty has gone up, and his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) rightly speaks for millions of pensioners who do not want the gimmicks; they want a reliable, basic state pension that is worth something. Buried on page 170 of the document that the Secretary of State published last week are some devastating figures. Do they not show that the number of families in poverty—with below half average income—has risen by half a million since Labour came to office? Many of those people are pensioners. Is that not a fraud perpetrated on the pensioner population?
    Mr. Darling: What is a fraud is to suggest that the Tory party had nothing to do with the problems that we inherited or, indeed, to suggest that the Tories would do anything in the future. We came into office inheriting a situation in which the number of children living in poverty had trebled and almost 200 million pensioners were living in poverty. The problem arose because, whereas some pensioners saw their income go up by as much as 80 per cent. during the past 20 years, far too many pensioners saw their income go up by substantially less than that.
    The problem with an across the board increase is that it does not help the poorest pensioners. The best that could be said for the proposals the Tories announced a month or so ago was that some pensioners would get 42, p extra a week before tax and before they started to lose benefits. Of course, 2 million pensioners would lose out as a result of their proposals—those pensioners are the poorest in the country.

    9
    We are determined to help alleviate pensioner poverty. We want to lift pensioners out of poverty and we will do that. The report published by the Government last week shows the scale of the problem that we inherited, as did the UNICEF report published a few months ago. Unlike the Conservatives, we are determined to lift pensioners and others out of poverty. Unlike the Conservatives, we have got, and are prepared to spend, the money to do so.
    Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State well knows that our proposals on pensions would go to all pensioners, including those who pay tax and those who are on means-tested benefits. Our proposals are costed on that basis.
    The Secretary of State is always keen to blame everyone else and to blame his inheritance. Let me quote from another report. A report from the Cabinet Office, drawn up while the Labour Government were in office, made the following statement on their record on poverty:
    there are too many Government initiatives, causing confusion; not enough co-ordination; and too much time spent on negotiating the system, rather than delivering.
    Is not that the record of the Government? Too much time is spent on negotiating the system and not enough on delivering. No wonder the Secretary of State's boss has admitted, as we know from today's memo, that
    All of these things add up to a sense that the government…are somehow out of touch with gut British instincts.
    Is not that their record on welfare?
    Mr. Darling: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not refer to the UNICEF report that is the subject of the question. When it was published two months ago, a Conservative party research bulletin was issued on the same day as the hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying:
    We recognise that there is a problem with child poverty in this country…The report—
    that is, the UNICEF report—
    reveals shocking statistics about life in Britain for millions of children.
    The hon. Gentleman did not point out that the report covered 1995, when he was a Minister. He should not complain when I draw attention to the fact that poverty—whether child or pensioner poverty—grew up over years.
    Of course, it will take time to turn that around. The difference between us and the Conservative party is that we are spending some £6.5 billion more on supporting pensioner incomes than they plan to do. We are spending a similar amount on helping families with children—especially on alleviating child poverty. Yes, it will take time, but the difference is that, at the end of this Parliament, people will be able to see that we are turning the situation around. If they ever have the Tories back, there will be more pensioner and child poverty in this country.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about the take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. [129324]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have announced details of the first Government take-up campaign to identify pensioners most likely to be entitled to the minimum income guarantee, and to encourage them to claim it. As the House knows, the campaign started on 30 May with intense activity on several fronts, including a fairly long television advertising campaign in three separate parts over the summer. Furthermore, the Government will be writing to 2 million identified pensioners who may have an entitlement, based on the information we already have. Pensioners can also claim without leaving their home by calling the new tele-claim centre's freephone service.
    Mr. Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Thora Hird for her contribution to the Government's take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee? The guarantee will increase pensions in line with average earnings and those over 75 have already seen it increase their incomes by £16 a week. Will he assure me that the pensioners of this country need to be reminded that that this is an entitlement and not a gimmick, which is what the Conservative party has said, and that it would be abolished if there were ever a Tory Government again?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to those, such as Thora Hird, who have assisted the campaign. In addition, Nerys Hughes has contributed to a Welsh version of the campaign and Peter Sallis has helped as well. The campaigns are having an impact, as my hon. Friend has just said. There have been 133, 000 responses to date but, as I told the Select Committee on Social Security last week, it is too early to estimate the net effect and say how many people have gained from the minimum income guarantee. We will not have a figure for that until the end of this month. So far, we have sent out 417, 000 letters, which is not a bad achievement for this stage of the campaign.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Should not the Government encourage people to make provision for their old age? How will the minimum income guarantee assist them to do that? Is it not the case that those on low incomes will see their savings set against the minimum income guarantee? The Government are therefore, instituting an active disincentive. Should they not be making quite sure that all those in retirement who have paid the stamp throughout their working lives get a decent state pension on which they can live?
    Mr. Rooker: It beggars belief to imagine where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last few years. The guarantee applies to today's poorer pensioners who are in that position because of the legacy that we inherited, in which the gap between the most well-off and the poorest pensioners had gone from a ratio of 2.5:1 to 3.5:1 in the 18 years that he sat sucking up to the Government whom he supported.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not true that today's pensioners have made provision for their old age by paying into the national insurance scheme for the last 50 years? The cost of the contributions that they paid in increased at the high rate of inflation, but the benefits that are paid out come to them at the lowest rate of inflation. We should restore the insurance principle.

    11
    The Government are to be congratulated on the take-up scheme, which is much better than any that has gone before. However, would it not be fair if the poorest pensioners, who were promised that the take-up scheme would start more than 15 months ago, had back pay for that period? The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), said that it would be perfectly possible to do that.
    Mr. Rooker: As my hon. Friend knows, we can pay the benefit only from the day on which it is claimed, and everyone knows that it is available to be claimed. We have gone out in a proactive way—and not just in television and newspaper advertising—to trawl the Department's records and we have located 2 million pensioners to whom we shall write individually.
    As my hon. Friend knows, today's poorer pensioners are in that position because, during their working lives, they were not able to contribute fully to the state earnings-related pension scheme, were not allowed to have an occupational pension scheme and were not among the group that would have been targeted by the pensions industry for the tins-selling of personal pensions. Today's poorer pensioners are there simply because the policy in the past was not sufficient to enable them to accrue a pension that would give them a decent standard of living. That is why we have a raft of other policies for tomorrow's pensioners, so that they do not find themselves in the same position as today's poorer pensioners.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: The Minister has given us a raft of statistics about how many forms have been sent out, but will he tell us how many have been sent back and whether anyone has been paid under the minimum income guarantee since the campaign started? Does he agree with Help the Aged in Scotland that one of the reasons why pensioners are put off claiming the minimum income guarantee is that the benefits are so complex? Would it not be better for the Government to give pensioners a decent increase to the basic state pension, as we have already suggested?
    Mr. Rooker: I may get done for repetition—and I bear it in mind that this is probably the last time that I shall appear at the Dispatch Box with you, Madam Speaker, in the Chair. I said that we have had 133, 000 responses since 30 May and I also said, as I told the Select Committee last week, that it was too early to give the House a figure for how many people had been successful. We will not know that figure until later in the month.
    The hon. Lady was a member of the Government who introduced income support, so it would be much better if she did not denigrate it. We are using modern technology in the system so that we do not have to send 40-page forms for pensioners to fill in, and a two or three-page form can be produced electronically and filled in over the telephone, so people do not have to go to the benefit office. We are trying to do that proactively; that is the difference between us and the Conservatives, who ignored pensioners.
    Mr. John Cryer: I accept what my right hon. Friend says about the minimum income guarantee. Is he aware that if the prices link alone had been in place
    12
    since 1948, the state pension would now be worth only £27 a week? Are we prepared to see the state pension, the basic building block of pensioner incomes, wither on the vine? Or will he rescue it by restoring the earnings link? On that subject, will my right hon. Friend remind the House who cut the earnings link in 1981? Was it the Tories, and if so, does not their pathetic posturing on pensioner poverty start to ring a bit hollow?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. Hon. Members on both sides of the House accept that had the basic state retirement pension been linked to prices since its introduction, it would be nothing like as much it is today—indeed, it would be far less. If we used the pensioner prices index, the increase would be less, so we do not do that. We must look at the average of total pensioner incomes. Taking the basic state retirement pension in isolation is not a true and fair reflection of pensioner incomes, so we must look at things in the round. That is why a previous Labour Government introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme, which has allowed people on average earnings who have worked for 20-odd years since its introduction without a break in service to retire today with a pension income double the basic state pension. That is the legacy of the previous Labour Government.

    Pensions
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations he has received on the level of the state pension; and if he will make a statement. [129325]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I receive many letters in relation to the state pension.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State regret the fact that he did not raise the state pension more when it was recently increased? That insulted pensioners, as the cost of petrol was increased more than the amount given to pensioners, thus saving his Department £90 million this year alone. Is he not embarrassed that the Conservative party is setting the agenda on pensions, and that pensioners realise that they will be better off under the next Conservative Government than they are under this Labour Government?
    Mr. Darling: If anyone should be embarrassed, it should be the hon. Lady. She may not even have read her own party's manifesto, and may not recall that her party, in common with all the other principal parties in this country, stood on the commitment to increase the basic state pension in line with prices. The difference between us and the Tories is that we are doing more than that, spending some £6.5 billion more on supporting pensioner incomes than they propose to do. We are making sure that nearly half of that goes to the poorest third of pensioners, because we wanted to deal with the problem of pensioner poverty that has arisen in the past 20 years. An increase across the board would not have helped the poorest pensioners. We are reforming and strengthening SERPS, especially for those with low earnings. Frankly, when it comes to pensions, fairness and

    13
    doing the right thing for the pensioners of today and tomorrow, the Conservatives have nothing whatsoever to say.
    Mr. Frank Roy: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has just said. I am delighted to hear that our party will continue to speak up on behalf of poor pensioners, which is why the minimum income guarantee is welcome in my constituency, as is the winter fuel allowance, which is certainly not regarded as a gimmick. That money is most welcome when it comes through to pensioners in December. If any Member does not want pensioners in his or her constituency to get their so-called gimmick, the pensioners in my constituency certainly need it. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the winter fuel allowance of £150 will be paid before Christmas this year, as that is, of course, the time when pensioners most need the money?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, this year the payment will be made in December again. My hon. Friend is right, and pensioners in Motherwell, and elsewhere, will remember that the legacy of the Conservative Government was to double VAT on fuel. The winter fuel of payment of £150, which Conservative Members intend to scrap, is of great help, especially to those on low incomes.
    I remind the House that no matter what the Conservatives say about their pensions policy, they should remember what the shadow Chancellor—who, it seems, is now in charge of all policy matters in the Conservative party—said about Conservative pensions policy:
    it is a one-off policy. It is money which is already being spent…
    There is no new money.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: In a rural area such as mine, public transport does not run everywhere and the car is essential. Will the Minister answer a simple question that is frequently put to me by my pensioners? Why was the price of petrol put up on the basis of an inflation rate of 3.3 per cent., while their pension was put up on the basis of an inflation rate of 1.1 per cent.?
    Mr. Darling: If there is no public transport in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I wonder whether he has explained to people that the Conservative party's policy of bus deregulation in the 1980s was largely responsible for damaging the public transport infrastructure.
    As for the indexation of pensions, the increase has been based on the September retail prices index for many years—under the Government whom he supported as well as under ours. I hope that he will take the opportunity to tell the pensioners in his constituency that all the Tory party pensions policy will do is take away money that they are receiving at the moment and give it back to them, and that the maximum that they can expect is 42p before they start paying tax, and before 2 million of them start to lose benefit.

    Housing Benefit
    Miss Geraldine Smith: How much central Government contributed to Lancaster city council in the year 1999–2000 for exceptional hardship payments for housing benefit. [129326]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We made £20 million available to enable local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to make exceptional hardship payments of housing benefit during the financial year 1999–2000. Lancaster city council's share was £79, 000, of which, I am told, it spent 3.7 per cent.
    Miss Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As she is aware, Lancaster city council spent only £1, 577 on exceptional hardship payments during 1999–2000, so the most vulnerable people in the area have missed out on those payments. What steps does her Department intend to take to make sure that exceptional hardship payments reach the people at whom they are targeted?
    Angela Eagle: Realising that not all the money was being spent, we issued enhanced guidelines last year to encourage local authorities to use the money. They are also allowed to use another £30 million from their own resources, and clearly they are not doing that. In the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, which is currently going through the House, we are changing the law to ensure that if local authorities do not use the money for the hardship scheme, we will take it back from them; currently, they keep it.

    Disablement Benefits (Appeals)
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If he will review the guidelines used by the Benefits Agency to ensure consistency of policy by doctors who consider reviews and appeals on disablement benefits on behalf of the agency. [129328]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Doctors do not make decisions on benefit entitlement. Reviews are conducted by trained Benefits Agency decision makers. Appeals against the decision makers' decisions are considered by independent appeals panels.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the widespread dismay in north-west Wales—and, I suspect, elsewhere—that people who have been awarded incapacity benefit or disability living allowance, perhaps only in the past year or two, and sometimes for life, find that those benefits are being taken away from them despite the fact that their medical condition has worsened, sometimes significantly? Will he look at the guidelines that have been issued by the chief medical adviser for use by examining medical practitioners to ensure that there is consistency? It seems that some examining medical practitioners have a different interpretation of those guidelines; indeed, many of the cases in my area can be identified as arising from one person, who seems to take a very stringent view.
    Mr. Bayley: In the Government's response to the Social Security Committee's report on medical services, we undertook to take four steps to drive up the quality and consistency of the medical advice given by medical services doctors. One of those four targets will require Sema to provide all its doctors, within one year, with training in behaviour, attitude and sensitivity when dealing with claims and assessments for people with disabilities, mental health problems or musculo-skeletal

    15
    problems. That is part of a national programme to train doctors to operate and give advice according to nationally determined standards.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: Does my hon. Friend have any plans to monitor successful review and appeals decisions in order to ascertain whether such decisions relate to any particular doctor's reports?
    Mr. Bayley: I know that many hon. Members have suggested that, but there would be problems in tying the outcomes of appeals to the advice of individual doctors because the decision is made not by the doctor but by the decision maker. Nevertheless, it is on occasion clear to the appeals panel that the report provided by one of the Benefits Agency doctors is deficient. We have started talks with Judge Harris from the appeals service to find out whether there are ways in which he can notify our chief medical adviser when appeals panels believe that an inappropriate or inadequate report has been made by medical services doctors, so that we can take further action.
    Mr. David Heath: I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Is it still the case that more than 50 per cent. of appeals are successful? If so, does not that suggest that there is something seriously wrong with the initial assessments?
    Mr. Bayley: The proportion of successful appeals varies from benefit to benefit, but I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to get more decisions right first time. That is what our decision making and appeals procedures are doing, by ensuring that correct medical and other evidence is collected at the outset of a claim, that it is properly assessed by the decision maker, and that the right decision is made. There will always be more scope for different interpretation with disability benefits, because they are more subjective than, say, income-related ones. One can look at somebody's bank account and it contains either more or less than the capital limit, whereas decisions on disability benefits are based on the advice of a doctor about whether, for instance, a person is unable, or virtually unable, to walk. That is more subjective.

    Lone Parents
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What assistance his Department is giving to help lone parents find work. [129331]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The new deal aims to make work pay, making it a practical choice for lone parents. The new deal for lone parents offers them help and advice on job-search, training, child care and in-work benefits. That is just one of a raft of measures that we have introduced, including the lone parent benefit run-on, the national child care strategy, the working families tax credit, and, of course, the national minimum wage.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply; I think that she knows that the legacy left in Plymouth by my Conservative predecessor was the poorest ward in
    16
    England. Indeed, such was the poverty that one of the two Oxfam projects in this country operates in the city. I thank my hon. Friend for the programme. Will she join me in congratulating the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, which, with the active help of the local evening paper, the Evening Herald, have delivered the new deal to lone parents in such a way as to enable 238 of them to enter employment in the past year, and several hundred more to take the first steps on the pathway out of poverty, which the new deal for lone parents represents?
    Angela Eagle: It gives me great pleasure to congratulate the authorities in Plymouth. Their outreach programme has been very effective. I know that the Benefits Agency and various other authorities work closely together to ensure that the benefits of the new deal for lone parents are made as widely available as possible. They hire a bus, operate from community centres and playgroups and go where lone parents and their children are. That is one of the more effective ways of getting the message across.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given the fact that, as was emphasised earlier, it would take 26 years for all participants in the new deal for lone parents to secure employment, and furthermore, that there is evidence that those outside the scheme have a better chance of securing work than those inside it, why does the hon. Lady not abandon her bluster, give up the unequal struggle, admit that the scheme is an expensive failure, and move to abolish it without delay?
    Angela Eagle: The scheme pays for itself and it is successful. I will not accept counsels of despair from a complacent Conservative party which caused the problem in the first place.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Paul Goggins: If he will make a statement on the role of the social fund. [129332]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The social fund is targeted at the most needy. It provides crucial help through grants and interest-free loans to people on benefits who would otherwise have trouble affording essential items.
    Mr. Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the decision to double the social fund maternity grant from March. Will she tell the House what impact a cut of £90 million would have on the work of the social fund? Does she agree that the fact that the Conservatives are now making such a proposal demonstrates that when it comes to paying for their policies, they are still more than ready to penalise the poor?
    Angela Eagle: I can tell my hon. Friend that the current annual budget for community care grants is £100 million, so if £90 million were cut, those grants would be almost wiped out. That would mean, for example, that a pensioner who needed a special sort of bed to remain in his or her home, or a disabled child's parents who needed

    17
    new bedding, or a washing machine, would find that the money was not available. The day the Conservatives announced that they would take that huge chunk out of the social fund, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), who is an Opposition health Front Bencher, said that it was essential that we had a social fund which could help people when they were in real need, because "every mother knew" that a washing machine was an "essential piece of kit". Yet the Conservatives would destroy that fund.

    Pensioners (Tax Credits)
    Mr. Roger Casale: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of a system of tax credits on pensioner incomes. [129333]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We believe that pensioners who have worked hard to provide for their own retirement should be rewarded rather than penalised. We intend to consult later in the year on proposals for a pensioner credit that will reward those who have modest pensions or savings.
    Mr. Casale: Although it is absolutely right that the Government should do most to help the poorest pensioners, is it not true that some poor pensioners feel that they are losing out because they have modest savings or a small occupational pension that brings them above the threshold of the minimum income guarantee? Will my right hon. Friend seek ways—for example, tax credits or some other means—to reward those who make some provision for their future, and so ensure that all pensioners feel that they are treated fairly by the Government, while he, of course, continues to focus the lion's share of extra resources on those who need it most?
    Mr. Darling: For years, the problem with the social security system was that it penalised those who had saved a little or who had modest occupational pensions. To ensure access to the minimum income guarantee we doubled capital limits, which as a result of Conservative policy had not been changed for years. Now we want to introduce a credit to make sure that if pensioners have built up a second pension—whether an occupational pension or a second pension under the amended and reformed state earnings-related pension scheme—they will receive the benefit of it. At present, under the system that has been in place for years, such people lose out.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If the Secretary of State is now a convert to the merits of tax credits, does he admit that the Chancellor was wrong to abolish tax credits on dividends? Does he defend the Chancellor, or does he agree with the senior No. 10 spokesman who was quoted in yesterday's press as saying:
    Gordon may not accept it but lie has made big mistakes on pensions and fuel prices and sooner or later he will implode…He is poisoning relations with half the Cabinet and the sooner he goes the better…?
    That must be a first—a No. 10 spokesman agreeing with the entire Opposition Front-Bench team.
    Mr. Darling: As far as our changes in company taxation are concerned, companies will start to see the
    18
    gain as the system works through from next year onwards. That will, of course, benefit pension funds. However, so far as I am aware, the Conservatives do not plan to reintroduce the tax credit system to company taxation. If they are not going to do anything about it, a period of silence on their part might be appropriate.
    On the subject of pensioners generally, let us keep reminding ourselves that the Labour Government are the ones who are prepared to spend more on supporting pensioner incomes. With their guarantee—even the amended version—the Conservatives would have to cut £16 billion from public expenditure, and we are told that most of that would come from the social security budget. Given that pensions take half the social security budget, it is not too difficult to see who would pay the price of the Conservative party's spending policy.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: I assure my right hon. Friend that in my constituency, there is great appreciation of the Government's efforts to help the poorest pensioners, who remember how they were treated by the Tory Government. There has also been a wide welcome for the establishment of a working party to consider how to assist pensioners who have small occupational pensions. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that when the working party produces a report, there will be wide consultation with pensioners and pensioners groups, such as the National Pensioners Convention, run by Jack Jones, so that we can take pensioners with us and make sure that they help us in shaping future decisions?
    Mr. Darling: It is important that any change to pensions should have widespread support. During the course of this Parliament, we have made changes to the pension system to ensure that more people can build up a second pension to go with their first pension, thereby increasing pensioner incomes. An essential part of that is the pensioner credit, which is designed to help pensioners who have saved a little money in the bank, or who have a modest occupational pension. The problem with the present system is that it works for those who are very well off, and the remaining pensioners lose out. We were not prepared to put up with that. That is why we have made the changes, which I believe will result in many pensioners being far better off than in the past.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Secretary of State heard the rant that the Minister of State directed at my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) when he dared to suggest that the minimum income guarantee was a disincentive to savings. Does the Secretary of State at least agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who said:
    As more and more people in work on low wages realise the futility of saving when every penny is taken from the Minimum Income Guarantee…fewer and fewer people on low income will save…?
    Mr. Darling: I see that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood has now gone, leaving just six Conservative Back Benchers present for this Question Time. I shall deal with the point that he made, albeit in his absence. He said that the minimum income guarantee was a disincentive for pensioners to save. However, the minimum income guarantee is designed to help people

    19
    who have already retired. Those are people who, through no fault of their own in most cases, have ended up in retirement with such low incomes that they are entitled to income support. If we abolished the minimum income guarantee, that would simply reduce the amount of money that poor people get, and that does not seem to be fair, or the right thing to do.
    We are determined to do two things. First, we are ending the situation that existed when we came to office, whereby one person in three of working age ended up on income support from day one of retirement. That is what the Tories left us—one third of people heading for retirement on income support. That is why we have improved SERPS, as well as improving the occupational pensions and stakeholder pensions available. Secondly, we had to deal with the plight of people who had already retired, and were so poor that they were on income support. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which has given many of them increases of £8 a week, over and above inflation. That would all be at risk under the Conservatives, because they would have to find £16 billion-worth of cuts. Pensioners, and others, would pay the price of any Conservative Government.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assessment he has made of the extent of the problems experienced by the Child Support Agency in obtaining money from partners who are (a) domiciled and (b) resident abroad. [129337]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): People who work abroad but live in the UK can be pursued for child maintenance by the Child Support Agency. Where possible, maintenance will be collected from wages by deductions of earnings orders. Non-resident parents who are not resident in the UK are outside the jurisdiction of the CSA. Parents with care who wish to seek maintenance in those circumstances must do so through the courts.
    Mr. Dalyell: Ministers will know, through their excellent Falkirk office, that the genesis of my question lies in a poignant constituency case. What will be done about men who have skedaddled? I understand what my hon. Friend says about jurisdiction, but more could be done on reciprocity, could it not?
    Angela Eagle: We have many reciprocal agreements with other countries on such matters, on which, in the circumstances, we must rely. We want the CSA to be effective, but I am not sure that we can use it to deal with men who skedaddle all over the globe.

    Child Poverty
    Mr. Derek Twigg: If he will make a statement on the measures his Department is taking to reduce child poverty. [129338]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Increases in benefits are contributing more than £2.5 billion towards the extra £7 billion a year spending on families with children by 2001. That will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty by the end of the Parliament.
    Mr. Twigg: All Labour Members are anxious to reduce and eliminate child poverty. Did the UNICEF report state that we were making good progress or that we had made a good start on reducing poverty? Is it not the case that the only guarantee from Conservative Members on which we can rely is that they will maintain and increase child poverty if they return to power?
    Mr. Bayley: When the Conservative party was in office, the number of children in poverty trebled. We have set an ambitious goal of halving the number of children who live in poverty in 10 years, and eliminating child poverty in 20 years. If we achieve our goal of reducing by 1.2 million the number of children in poverty by the end of the Parliament, we will be on track to fulfil our objectives.

PRP (Teachers)
3.30 pm
Mrs. Theresa May(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to make a statement on the High Court judgment of 14 July on the proposed teachers' performance related pay scheme.
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): May I first offer the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? As you know, Madam Speaker, he has written to you, and he will also write to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). My right hon. Friend is outside London, and is currently travelling back. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I have received a proper apology from the Secretary of State. I have accepted it, and I think that the House might do likewise. I know exactly where he is.
Ms Morris: I am grateful, Madam Speaker.
As the House knows, the Government's plan to reform the teaching profession and to make sure that good teachers are paid more was first published in a Green Paper in December 1998. Teachers' pay and conditions are set out on a statutory basis, by order, after report by an independent review body, the School Teachers Review Body, and consultation. In January, the STRB recommended a new pay structure, including a performance threshold giving a £2,000 pay rise to those who were successful on 1 September 2000, and access to a higher pay scale. That will be put in place.
The standards that teachers should meet for the threshold pay increase were first published in draft in February 1999 as part of consultation on the Green Paper "Teachers—meeting the challenge of change". Wide-ranging, informal consultation over the following year led to formal consultation with the STRB's statutory consultees in February this year. The STRB was provided with early drafts of the standards as background for its review.
As a result of action by the National Union of Teachers, the High Court ruled on Friday 14 July that the standards were invalid because they should have been formally referred to the review body and set out in an order. The court also ruled that duties on school managers to carry out threshold assessment were unlawful because the consultation on the draft duties had been too short.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believed that it was not necessary to refer the standards to the review body because they are about standards of teaching, not pay structures and scales. The written judgment of the court is not available. As soon as it is, my right hon. Friend will decide whether to appeal. However, the judgment did not comment on the standards themselves and did not give rise to any fundamental need to review Government policy on rewarding good teachers.
My right hon. Friend has today written to head teachers, advising them that the deadlines for threshold applications will be changed. We have already spoken to the STRB chair and will write to him formally today. The Government's pay reforms are the best opportunity that teachers have had for a generation for a radical pay
22
improvement. All the Government have asked in return is that teachers do a good job. We intend to press on with paying good teachers more money within the correct legal framework with as little delay as possible.
Mrs. May: Does not the Minister accept that the Secretary of State's incompetence and his obsession with pushing through changes to the teachers' pay scheme, with no proper consultation and no regard for anxieties that teachers have raised, have led to the humiliating defeat that the Government suffered in the High Court last Friday, and the fact that nearly 200,000 teachers are now in limbo? Teachers know that they will not be given an expected £2,000 pay rise in September, and they are uncertain about when it might be paid.
Will the Minister tell the House what the new timetable for the threshold applications will be; when the Government the expect the assessment of those applications to take place; and when they expect to pay the teachers the £2,000 pay raise that will result from successful applications? If that money is unlikely to be paid until early next year, rather than in September—a whole term late—what will happen to the interest accrued on the money set aside until it is paid? Will the interest be paid to teachers in recognition of the inconvenience that the Government have caused, or will it at least be made available to schools?
Last Thursday the Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation considered two statutory instruments relating to the teachers' pay scheme—the Local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 66) on Threshold and Leadership Group Payments, and the Local Government Finance Special Grant Report (No. 67) on Heads', Deputies' and Advanced Skills Teachers' Performance Pay Progression and Deputies' Assimilation. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked whether that discussion was sub judice and was told that it was not. In the light of subsequent events, will the Minister tell the House what will happen to the progress of those statutory instruments, given that they are clearly affected by the High Court decision last Friday?
In March, the National Union of Teachers persuaded the High Court that the Secretary of State must answer its case that he had acted unlawfully, but is not it the case that no member of the Government's legal team was present at that hearing? If so, why not? If the advice then being received was that the Government's case was doubtful, why did the Secretary of State not act until after the teachers had spent much of their half-term holiday filling in the over-bureaucratic forms that were required by the Government?
As the Secretary of State has attacked his officials and the advice that he received from them, will he publish that advice? Will the Minister publicly apologise to those officials on his behalf in the House today? Does she accept the judge's ruling that the threshold standards and the duty were unlawful and that the Secretary of State has bypassed the School Teachers Review Body, Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Hear, hear.
Mrs. May: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have a great deal to say about the Welsh Assembly's role

23
in the matter, but the judge made it absolutely clear that the Assembly has been bypassed, as has the House. He went on to say that Parliament requires an independent body to scrutinise any significant contractual powers. The Secretary of State has evaded that scrutiny. Are not the judge's remarks a damning indictment that shows how out of touch the Government are and how arrogantly they treat not only teachers, but Parliament?
Ms Morris: It is a long time since I have heard such hypocrisy in the Chamber. Throughout the past 18 months of consultation on the Green Paper, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has made it clear that she does not agree with paying good teachers more money. She has tried to block that proposal and is against the threshold standard. Let us be clear that if she or other Conservative Members had anything to do with the policy, there would be no chance of a £2, 000 increase being paid—albeit, late.
Let us be absolutely clear that, during last Thursday's debate in Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Cotswold said that he wanted the NUT action to be successful, and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) did not deny that. The action has been successful and has resulted in delaying a much needed, much deserved pay increase for good teachers who filled in the application forms.
I shall now deal with some of the points of detail that the hon. Lady has made. I cannot give her or the House a timetable because that will have to be agreed by the STRB. Today, we have written to the STRB to ask it to start the formal consultation process. It will then come back and let us know what the timetable will be. My fervent hope is that the delay in paying the £2, 000 to those teachers who have completed the application form and are doing a good job will be as brief as possible, which is in keeping with the proper consultation that the court has asked us to undertake. That is important.
The hon. Lady also asked why the Government did not take action when the judge first allowed the judicial review at Easter and why we did not change the substance of what we are doing at that point. She ought to know that the detailed point that is causing difficulty—not consulting properly on the threshold standards—was not put before the court by the National Union of Teachers until 22 June. It did not form part of its submission for judicial review until only some weeks ago. The judge said at Easter that the judicial review was to be allowed, but not on the important point of exactly what the threshold standards should be.
It is entirely reasonable that departmental managers should assist heads in carrying out threshold assessments. I happen to think that that is part of their duty and responsibility, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady does not share that view. After the consultation on the STRB's recommendation, at the request of teacher representatives we consulted on line managers' responsibilities through the fast track and with the STRB's approval. The STRB said that that was fine. The judge said that the consultation had been too brief and that we should consult in the framework agreed by the STRB.
We shall backdate the payment of the £2, 000 from 1 September. It remains our fervent wish, and it will be the case, that for the first time in the history of the
24
profession teachers will be able to stay in the classroom and have their professionalism recognised and rewarded. They will receive substantial pay increases for doing what they went into the profession to do—to teach, and to teach well.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many electors will be bemused and many teachers frustrated by the delay in introducing performance-related pay, which, I was told in my constituency on Friday evening, many teachers have provisionally spent? There is great disappointment about the delay, but I take it from her remarks that that will be sorted as quickly as possible for all those who believe, as I do, that performance-related pay will ensure that better teachers—that means the bulk of teachers—are rewarded. However, will she warn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to compete with a former Conservative Secretary of State? The House lost count of the number of High Court judgments that found that he had acted illegally. Off the top of my head, I think that the total was 20, but I am happy to be corrected on the exact number.
Ms Morris: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will read my hon. Friend's comments and take them to heart. The NUT is the first trade union in the history of the movement to go to court to block a £2, 000 pay increase for some of its members. I share his view that many teachers in the staff room today will wonder why their union has acted in that manner, particularly as the matter was not raised until 22 June.
Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister has grossly caricatured the NUT's position. It went to court to defend the principle that it should be consulted when significant changes are made to teachers' contracts. Does she accept that the Government had plenty of warning of the problem? The application was made in March and, although it did not concern the specifics, it still posed general questions about the scheme. The Government will also be aware that early-day motion 628, which was tabled in April and signed by 70 Members of all parties, highlighted exactly the problems that led to Friday's judgment.
Does the Minister accept that the Government have left teachers in an appalling situation as they head off for their summer holidays? Will she offer them certain guarantees? Will she guarantee that no teacher will have to reapply for the scheme, and that those who would have been successful under the current system will be able to go through without making further applications? Will she guarantee that payments will be made in September, as teachers had a right to expect before the Government made a cock-up of the system?
Will the Minister say under which Act the consultation will now take place, and what the mechanism will be for consulting the Welsh Assembly? Can she guarantee that there will be a debate on the subject and will she indicate when she expects that to take place? Finally, will she offer an apology to civil servants and teachers for what has occurred, which is the Government's fault and which cannot be laid at the feet of a trade union that is simply doing its job?
Ms Morris: I barely recognise some of the hon. Gentleman's comments, given the process that has taken

25
place. He says that there has been no consultation. There has been so much consultation on these standards that many people have been exhausted by it. The standards were first published in February 1999. There was informal consultation for almost a year. There was further informal consultation on amended draft standards in January and formal consultation for four weeks following the STRB's report in January. On two sets of draft standards and on one set of full standards, consultation took place over about 13 to 14 months.
The hon. Gentleman may want to consult for longer than that. Teachers would wait an awfully long time for money to get into their pay packets if the consultation were extended.
The hon. Gentleman is not right about the NUT seeking only to defend its members' interests in the process of judicial review. It went for judicial review for two reasons when it first made a submission. The first issue that it took to judicial review was a challenge to our wish to make line managers responsible for assisting heads in the proper assessment of teachers.
Mr. Phil Willis: The High Court said that the Secretary of State acted unlawfully.
Ms Morris: Not all teachers; just departmental heads. The NUT might argue the contrary, but that is not the case. That was made clear to it and it was accepted by every other teacher union.
I am happy to defend the proposition that it is right that departmental managers should assist heads in proper assessment. As a former teacher, I would want the manager most closely knowledgeable about my performance to be involved in assessment, as well as the head teacher.
The second issue on which the NUT went for judicial review involved matters concerning the Welsh Assembly, which it did not pursue. The matter which is now causing difficulty is not one on which it has spent months defending its members. It was added to the brief by its lawyers on 22 June. If the issue was so important that it struggled to talk to us about it during the 18 months of consultation, one might imagine that it would have drawn it to our attention before 22 June.
I am unable to give the assurances that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Timing is now in the hands of the STRB. We shall endeavour to ensure that there is as much expedition as possible within a proper consultation framework. We cannot say that payments will be made in September. Let it be clear that this is the effect of NUT action. The money will not be paid in September. There will be a delay, but within the framework of proper consultation we will do what we can to make it as easy as possible for the teachers who are eligible to get the pay rise that they deserve. I can promise that it will be backdated to 1 September.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the Minister confirm that there is no effective appraisal system anywhere that does not involve the recommendations and views of line managers? In that respect, the NUT was fundamentally wrong. Will my hon. Friend confirm also that the judge did not rule in favour of the NUT when dealing with the principle raised by that issue?
26
I met two teachers in my constituency yesterday who have applied to go through the threshold and are extremely concerned at the delay that the NUT's action will cause. Will my hon. Friend use all available means to resolve this issue as quickly as possible, even if that involves introducing legislation? That would have the merit of getting pay increases implemented as quickly as possible and of putting the Conservative party on the spot, by making it clear that it fundamentally opposes additional pay for teachers who deserve it.
Ms Morris: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. He is right about performance management. Indeed, many schools have no performance management system. That shows how successful the previous Government's system of appraisal was: it has withered on the vine through lack of financial support. We wanted to implement a system of performance management that could properly value teachers' skills, lead to professional development opportunities for teachers and provide a proper assessment of their performance.
It is right and it makes sense that departmental heads and line managers should be involved in appraisal and performance management. I assure my hon. Friend that on Friday the judgment did not criticise either the responsibility of line managers or the standards: it concerned a technicality on the consultation process. I well understand the actions and words of the two constituents whom my hon. Friend met, and the confusion as a result of this action that there must be in many staff rooms as the end of term approaches.
As I said, letters are going out tonight to head teachers making the position clear. I have today spoken to teachers' representatives, who will do their best to make the position clear. We shall continue to update teachers, head teachers and others. We shall write again next week, and post up-to-date information on the DFEE website from the end of this week. We shall do all we can to put this process back in order and back on the road.
Mr. Tony Baldry: I think the Minister and many people agree that the National Union of Teachers has scored a luddite own goal. Will she confirm a point that was raised earlier, but which she did not deal with? Many teachers have spent a lot of time filling in the forms to apply for the extra money to which they are doubtless entitled. Will she confirm that they will not have to go through that exercise again? If they have filled in the paperwork, they may have to be a little more patient, but they should not have to go through that exercise all over again.
Ms Morris: Yes. The list of luddites includes the hon. Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Cotswold, and the NUT. They are strange bedfellows, but we have seen that combination of personnel on the Opposition Benches already this year. I too hope that teachers will not have to fill in another form. If after proper consultation the standards remain the same, it is entirely likely that no more forms will have to be filled in, because the assessment will be made against the same standards. If it is decided to change the standards, quite honestly it is a different ball game.
It is right that the consultation should take place and the STRB should act properly—I am not for a minute suggesting that that will not happen. All I can say is that,

27
from my soundings today with representatives of other unions, I think that it is their wish that teachers do not have to fill in a new form. That leads me to believe that some of the representations in response to the consultation may be such that changes will not be made.
Fiona Mactaggart: I am very glad that the Minister does not intend to be put off providing increased pay for excellent teachers by this delay. I am concerned that teachers who had felt confident that they would achieve the threshold and were counting on the money will now become anxious.
I appreciate the fact that the Department is writing to head teachers, but I wonder whether it would be possible to give the information that the Minister has given the House directly to people who have applied for the threshold. I fear that the messages will be garbled, and people will become anxious about their prospects. The information about whether people will have to fill in new forms and about the commitment to backdate the payment should get to those teachers who deserve this money as soon as possible.
Ms Morris: I accept the points that my hon. Friend made. The Secretary of State will write to Members of the House today or tomorrow to make the position entirely clear to them. When writing to heads, we have asked them to pass on the information in the letter directly to members of their staff who have applied for the threshold. At the moment, because the application forms and the assessments were not due to be with the organisation that will collect them, we do not have a list of the people who have applied. We shall do everything we can to allay fears. As ever, teachers get their messages from people other than the Department for Education and Employment. I know that teachers' representatives and others will work with us to make the substance of the issue as clear as possible.
I do not want to get this wrong. I do not want to prejudge the consultation that, rightly, will now take place with the STRB. We will do all we can. It is our hope that the standards do not change, so that we can carry on from where we were on Friday lunchtime and so that the delay does not lead to disappointment as money is not paid over.
Mr. Eric Forth: May I remind the Minister of her words in the 6th Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation last week? When asked about the judicial review, the right hon. Lady said that if the NUT won its case, it would mean that
all the effort and good work that the teachers have put in to filling in and assessing the threshold applications and all the work that the assessors have begun to do to verify them would have to be scrapped and burnt.—[Official Report, Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 13 July 2000; c. 21.]
Does the right hon. lady stick by those words? Was she informing the Committee correctly? Are we going right back to square one? If so, how long will the process take? How much will it cost? What will the additional cost to the Department, the budget and the taxpayer be?
28
Finally, what will consultation really mean? If the real consultation process—when it is finally carried out and completed—concludes that none of this was worth while and that teachers are all against it, will the whole thing be dropped?
Ms Morris: The NUT action could have caused what I said to happen if the Government then took no action to make sure that it did not. That is what we have been doing since Friday. The judge has said that the standards themselves and the threshold were not properly consulted upon; so, to all intents and purposes, they do not exist. If the NUT's action through the court were left at that, all the forms that teachers filled in would come to nought. However, the Government are taking action to make sure that that does not happen. By our action in going back to the STRB—or possibly appealing—those forms that have been filled in will stand, as I have just explained. If the standards themselves do not change, an assessment against those standards can carry on. That is our intention.
We do not have an estimate of the extra costs, but our intention is to make sure that the plans to pay good teachers more money are put back on board within the proper legal framework. If the NUT had not taken the action and the Conservatives had not supported it, none of this delay would have happened.
Mr. Roger Casale: May I tell my right hon. Friend that many teachers whom I met at school fetes in my constituency at the weekend are looking forward to the introduction of performance-related pay, have been working hard in preparation for it and will be disappointed by the High Court decision? However, they understand that Friday's decision was taken on a procedural issue and they will welcome the Minister's statement that the Government wish to move quickly to put the procedural issue right. They also understand that if these measures were ever challenged by the return to office of the Conservative party, not only would we lose the opportunity to have more money for school teachers, but we would lose the opportunity of more money for schoolchildren, school buildings, school books and everything else in schools besides.
Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. I suspect that we will see a U-turn on the threshold from the Conservatives, just as we have seen U-turns on everything else by them in the past few weeks. I am happy to confirm that we are talking about a technicality. On Friday, the judge made no comment on the threshold, the threshold standards or the obligation of managers to help with the assessment. The main point of the judge's statement was that the consultation had not been proper and long enough. It is that which we are seeking to correct. I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents and the many thousands of teachers who have filled in the form will see their good work and excellent teaching properly rewarded as soon as possible.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister will be aware that the NUT in Wales took this action partly because of the agreement between all four parties in the National Assembly that we did not want teachers' salaries in Wales related to pupil performance. Given the strength of feeling and the opportunity that she now has to review the position in the light of legislation, will the Minister

29
look to clarify the issue and give the National Assembly for Wales the right to determine this matter in line with the wishes of all four parties?
Ms Morris: I am afraid that I cannot give that assurance. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a devolved matter. It falls to the Secretary of State, who is absolutely right to carry out those obligations as he has. It is also right that thresholds and standards should be the same across England and Wales, because of the movement of teachers between the countries. I happen to think that teachers make a difference. One of the ways in which they do that is by helping pupils to progress. It is right that pupil progress, as long as it is measured against the pupils' starting point and takes into account the circumstances of their learning, should be one—but only one—of the standards that form the threshold assessment.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the Minister remind the House that the Government embarked on this progress because they were determined that good classroom teaching should be rewarded, and that no scheme exists to reward teachers on the basis of the quality of their work? Will she confirm what she said on Thursday in the Sixth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation—that the money exists to give the increase to the vast majority of teachers who have applied and that a great number of people will now be disappointed because they will not get the money that they should be getting in September?
Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. This is of course an opportunity to get more pay on top of the pay increase this year. It is not that the increase is payable only on the basis of performance. There is an above-inflation, non-staged pay increase at the proper time this year, and above and beyond that the Government set aside £1 billion for teachers' pay.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that at the moment the only way of getting paid more than £24, 000 a year as a teacher is to take on management or administrative responsibilities. It must be right for good teachers who want to stay in the classroom to be able to access more than £24, 000 a year without having to take on those responsibilities. The previous Government made no opportunity for them to do that. We have put good teaching at the centre of our education agenda, because it is crucial to children's life chances. What is more, we have backed that up with a proper opportunity to be recognised and paid for good teaching.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister answer the question that she has repeatedly avoided answering this afternoon? Does she agree with the Secretary of State that it was civil servants' fault, or does she accept that Ministers must take the blame for this pathetic and costly courtroom fiasco?
Ms Morris: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that it is Ministers and he who carry responsibility for Government decisions.

Points of Order
4.2 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, extremely damaging reports were circulated that the Challenger 2 tank, made in Newcastle, could not fire German ammunition. It is a fact that, within days, there is to be a decision by the Greek armed forces on whether to buy Challenger 2 or a German tank. I know that my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is extremely concerned that thousands of jobs on Tyneside and elsewhere in northern England have been put at risk. Have you had any notification that Ministers of the Crown intend to come to the Commons to blow this damaging nonsense to pieces?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by the Ministry of Defence or any other Department that a Minister wants to make a statement on that matter, at least today.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a pukka point of order, Madam Speaker, that has lasting significance for the House. 1 refer to the difference between the questions that can be tabled in the Commons and in the Lords. I believe that your office has had some notice of the background to this matter. Today, I attempted—I make no criticism whatever of the Clerks at the Table Office—to table the following question to the Home Secretary:
In the light of the decisions of the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in R v. Weiz and the Attorney General's reference No. 3/1999 on 26th May, whether they will refer to the Law Commission the question whether the statutory restrictions on the use of DNA to be found in section 64(3B) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be maintained or relaxed; and, if not. why not
I have a lasting interest in the use of DNA in the criminal context, believing that it is of great value in establishing guilt and also in quickly proving innocence and allowing many people to be cleared who might otherwise hang around for months under suspicion. No one doubts that my question is highly significant. The Table Office, in detail with which I shall not bore the House, rejected part of the question and said that it did not fall within Commons rules. However, for once, the question was not dreamed up by me—although I am deeply interested in it—but came from the fertile and formidable legal mind of Lord Ackner, who tabled it in the other place.
In the twilight of your Speakership, Madam Speaker, could you bequeath to us a statement about the desirability of some synchronisation between the Commons Table Office and the Lords Table Office? As the Lords makes more and more claims for itself, surely it is a question of sauce for the Commons gander and sauce for the Lords goose? If the House of Lords is to change, there should be some synchronisation of the criteria used in the Table Offices. Personally, I would like the Table Office rules in the Commons relaxed so that we can ask what we really mean.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you confirm that there has not been in the past nor will there be—certainly for as long as you are Speaker—any tightening of the

31
rules and criteria applied by the Table Office? Many hon. Members feel that a change has taken place, possibly since roughly May 1997—without putting too precise a date on it. The House would be grateful, in the context of the point of order from the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), if you could give us that assurance.
Madam Speaker: I am pleased by the tribute that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) paid to the Clerks of the Table Office, who do a very good job on behalf of all Members of this House. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a little notice of what he called a "pukka" point of order. I would not quite say that, but it was long one and, having had notice of it, I have been able to make thorough inquiries.
I have seen the notice to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which he read out to the House. I am satisfied, as he is, of course, that it has been dealt with under our rules. What the House of Lords does in relation to questions is entirely a matter for that House, just as our rules are a matter for this House. As hon. Members know, our rules have evolved over many years and have been examined and reconfirmed by the House on several occasions. There are several areas in which our procedures differ from those of the House of Lords, but I see no reason why that should be changed. If the House wishes the procedures to be synchronised with those of the House of Lords, it must decide that that should happen. However, it is a matter for the House, not for the Speaker or for individual Clerks. If the House wishes to synchronise procedures with the House of Lords, it must table the proper motions to achieve that.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to ensure that journalists do not put a spin on the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—that there has been a tightening of the rules on the tabling of questions since 1997—will you confirm that there has been no change whatever?
Madam Speaker: There has been no change whatever. The Clerks at the Table and all the Clerks throughout the House operate, as they have always done, on the basis of helping and assisting individual Members in the best interests of those individual Members.

Points of Order
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

    EC BUDGET (BALKANS)
    That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. COM (2000) 300, the Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB) of the
    32
    European Communities for 2001 (Volumes 0, I, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8), and the Commission's Overview of the PDB (Provisional Volume 0); 8795/00, Commission Communication concerning revision of the financial perspective (2001–2006); financing of the programme of assistance for the Western Balkans; and re-classification of aid to Cyprus and Malta; proposal for revision of the financial perspective; COM (2000) 268, Commission Communication on 2000–2006 financial programming of heading four of the Community Budget; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 2 to 4.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security Amendment (Students) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.
    AGRICULTURE
    That the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Sheep, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved

    ANIMALS
    That the draft Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
    Question agreed to.
    Madam Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary to move the Football (Disorder) Bill (Allocation of Time) motion, I should tell the House that two manuscript amendments to the motion have been tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), and that I am prepared to select them for debate.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard a little earlier that manuscript amendments had been tabled. Will you ensure that those amendments are made available to hon. Members?
    Madam Speaker: I inquired about that some time ago. My understanding is that the amendments are available in the Vote Office. However, those concerned will have heard me raise my voice on this matter, and will no doubt make sure that they are.

Football (Disorder) Bill (Allocation of Time)
4.10 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill:—

Football (Disorder) Bill (Allocation of Time)

  Committee, Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) Proceedings on the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting
  (2) Proceedings in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this motion.
  (3) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
  (4) Proceedings on Consideration shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on this motion.
  (5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion seven hours after the commencement of proceedings on this motion

  Conclusion of proceedings
  2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put by the Chairman or Speaker—

  (a) under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or

  (b) under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill;

  the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions or (as the case may be) those provisions.

  Order of proceedings
  3. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill: and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Dilatory motions
  4. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Extra time
  5. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
  6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Supplemental orders
  7.—(l) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (2) If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  This is a guillotine motion. The House will acknowledge that such motions are to be avoided wherever possible, but it is accepted on all sides that they are sometimes inevitable. I hope that there will not be too much trade across the Chamber about this Government's record on guillotine motions, but I remind the House that, in 1988–89, 17 Bills were guillotined by the Conservative Administration, at a time when that Government had a majority of well over 100.
  It happens that one of those Bills was the Football Spectators Bill, for which the guillotine motion was moved exactly 11 years ago today, on 17 July 1989. It was moved by Mr. John Wakeham, now Lord Wakeham, in terms remarkably similar to the case that I have put before the House for the need for this business to proceed as quickly as possible.
  However, within the imperative that the business for the rest of the week, including that for tomorrow, has to be protected, the Government are anxious to proceed by agreement. The burden of the amendments shortly to be moved by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is that the Committee stage should end at 12 midnight, and that all other Commons stages should end by 5 am. I am pleased to tell the House that the Government will be ready to accept the amendments.
  It may also help the House in judging whether the motion, as amended, allows sufficient time for debate, if I say how we intend to deal with some of the principal issues raised by the amendments that will come before us. I promised in the statement that I made almost two weeks ago, on 4 July, that I and the Government would listen carefully to all representations made about the draft Bill and then about the Bill as introduced, and that we would respond positively wherever we could.
  The House will know already that I responded positively to two suggestions made about the pre-legislative draft by Lord Ackner and Lord Alexander of Weedon. Lord Ackner proposed that reasons given at the point of a direction being made to require an individual to attend a court under the fourth part of the Bill should be given in writing. Lord Alexander of Weedon proposed that the Bill should contain a sunset clause and that there should be a process for reviewing the legislation. Both proposals were worked into the Bill on presentation.
  I deal briefly with the other amendments, to indicate the changes that I am ready to accept, which will be obvious to those who have read through the Order Paper. Considerable concern was expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in respect of the key police power, in the fourth part of the Bill. There

  35
  was concern about whether the powers given to the police to detain people for inquiries and then to direct them into court were too wide.
  We have considered the provisions again in the light of the representations and the amendments which have been tabled. The criteria which are now before the House, contained in amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46, seek essentially to replicate the grounds for detention and arrest, which are already provided, and have been accepted by successive Governments and Oppositions, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the place of a power giving a constable a right to exercise those powers under proposed new section 21 A in schedule 1 to the Bill, if it appears to him that the behaviour of the person present before him is such that he may be a candidate for a banning order, amendment No. 42 now requires that the constable in uniform
  has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the condition in section 14B(2)—
  that the person has been involved in violence and disorder—has been met. He must also have reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order in the person's case would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches. The PACE power is a much more constrained power, which we propose, subject to the will of the House, to insert in the Bill.
  Concern was also expressed about the fact that it seems from the Bill that a police officer might hold an individual for questioning, with a view to making inquiries, for 24 hours. Under further amendments that we have tabled, the power to hold someone for questioning to find out whether there are reasonable grounds for a direction to be made to get someone into court is reduced from 24 hours to four hours, with an extension to a maximum of six hours when an inspector agrees. That period must be contained within the overall period of 24 hours specified in the Bill.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Home Secretary will anticipate, the amendments are welcome. However, given that they are being tabled now, in Committee, to a Bill that has already been published, does that mean that the original Bill was bad law or bad drafting?
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have been getting the impression from what the Home Secretary has been saying that he is going into the details of the Bill and not simply dealing with the allocation of time motion. I hope that he will be very careful on that point.
  Mr. Straw: Indeed; I fully acknowledge your point, Madam Speaker, as ever.
  I was seeking to reassure the House, given the position that the Government are taking on a series of amendments, that there would be sufficient time under the timetable motion, as amended. Had the Government intended not to make any amendments to the Bill to meet the will of the House, as expressed in debates last Thursday and outside the House, there might have been a
  36
  different argument for extra time to be allocated. That is why I felt that it might be helpful—I will be very brief, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Thank you—I think that we understand that now.
  Mr. Straw: If I may conclude my point, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11) has tabled amendments to the powers contained in proposed new sections 21C and 14C on criminal law in this country or outside. We propose to accept those amendments. We propose to accept amendment No. 37, in the name of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), on the need for a written explanation for a decision to detain a person to make inquiries, and amendment No. 32. We have also put down amendments on Report which accept the burden of amendments Nos. 23, 3 and 5.
  Mr. David Davis: In view of the number of amendments that the Home Secretary has, very properly, brought before the House today, may I take him back to his original statement, when I asked him whether, in organising the time available for the Bill, he would allow time for outside authorities to consider the changes? In other words, we want a gap—even the smallest of gaps—between Committee and Report so that we can take advice before giving the Bill its final consideration.
  Mr. Straw: We took account of representations made about the need for a gap between Second Reading and Committee and Report. That is exactly what we provided. The whole House—[Interruption.] I think that the whole House accepted the case for proceeding speedily with the Bill. That was certainly the view of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) in his speech of 22 June. He offered full support and co-operation in Parliament to Government legislation to do what the Bill provides for. We are meeting our obligation to introduce that legislation, and I hope that Conservative Members will accept the obligations made on their behalf by their leader.
  Mr. Eric Forth: indicated dissent.
  Mr. Straw: I should not suggest for a second that the Leader of the Opposition has any control over the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Indeed, I shall be happy to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency association is told about the insult that I apparently caused him by suggesting that he ever follows his leader. I shall personally write to his association to that effect.
  Let me deal with the point made by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). I said from the start that there was a need for speed with this Bill, but that it had to be combined with the need for care. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) cannot have it both ways—
  Mr. Davis: He is a Liberal.
  Mr. Straw: Perhaps I should rephrase my point. Those who try to have it both ways end up in pretty incredible

  37
  positions—[Interruption.] It is lucky that I am deaf in one ear. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cannot call for an inclusive process by which legislation is set before the House in early preliminary draft form while also suggesting that the Government should have brought proposals to the House that we would unswervingly refuse to change.
  During my time as Home Secretary, every Bill that I have introduced has been improved by debate and discussion. I happen to hold the perhaps slightly old-fashioned view that the collective wisdom of the House and the other place is greater than the individual wisdom of a Secretary of State for the Home Department, even one like me. I am grateful to the House for its positive suggestions.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's kind remarks, which I much appreciated. Is he prepared to distinguish between the alleged necessity for a Bill such as this to be passed quickly and the entirely artificial deadline of a football match? It has been claimed that that match creates the need for us to act with unseemly haste, but a distinction can surely be drawn—even in the Home Secretary's mind—between the need for properly expedited parliamentary process and the utter collapse of that process just so that we can meet the artificially imposed deadline of a football match.
  Mr. Straw: I happen not to think that the deadline of a football match is an artificially imposed one. It happens to be a reality. If there were not to be any international games of note during the next six months, the House could debate the matter more slowly. It is significant, however, that one of the main reasons advanced by the then Mr. John Wakeham in favour of a guillotine motion on 17 July 1989 was the imperative of having provisions on football spectators on the statute book because of impending international games.
  The views of the Leader of the Opposition may not persuade the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but they should persuade one or two other Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, in offering full support and co-operation in Parliament for Government legislation, made the point, among others, that England's qualifying matches for the next world cup are only months away. As a consequence of debates that we have had and that we will have today, the Bill should be able to go to the other place in good order, and it will be up to the other place to do its job as a revising chamber.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On the guillotine motion, I accept the Home Secretary's assurance that he has tried to ensure that he listens to the House and to colleagues. I am grateful for that.
  Given that point, why did the Government not accept the proposition on the guillotine put by my hon. Friend hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), our Chief Whip, and others, that we take the Committee stage today, allowing Members time to study amendments—including Government amendments—that appeared only today, and take the remaining stages on Wednesday? That would still leave reasonable time to complete proceedings on the measure before both Houses rise for the summer recess.
  Mr. Straw: That is a matter for the usual channels to sort out. We wanted to accommodate the official
  38
  Opposition by agreeing to an amendment today. My understanding was that the period was the maximum possible to allow the Bill to be considered in the other place, subject to its procedures, leaving time for it to return to this place for any changes. I think that is the view taken by the usual channels.
  Mr. Joe Ashton: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) who has referred to "a football match" that we are not discussing people who will be going to a football match? Six weeks on Saturday, hundreds of them will travel to Paris—a journey of three hours on Eurostar or of six hours in an old van with dozens piled into it. They will be going simply to try to wreck the city. They are not interested in football; they will have no tickets. The right hon. Gentleman is not even listening to the debate. He should understand that the matter is nothing to do with football—an invading, marauding army will be out to smash up Paris, denigrating the name of this country. That is the reason for the haste.
  Mr. Straw: I accept my hon. Friend's comments, although I do not think there is a fine line between haste and speed. I have tried not to be hasty in this legislation, but to ensure that we deal with it both speedily and carefully.
  If Members reflect on the measure, they will realise that a large part of it is uncontroversial. It consolidates provisions on national domestic and international banning orders and combines them. The parts that have caused controversy and given rise to concerns from some but not all right hon. and hon. Members are relatively few—although they are important. If hon. Members accept that, and reflect on the time that I have devoted to consultations outside the Chamber with Members of both Houses and in this House, they will realise that, by the time our proceedings are concluded later tonight, we shall have given almost as much time to the key operative clauses that aroused controversy as would have been spent on them had the Bill been dealt with more slowly. It is in that context that the guillotine motion, which will be amended, I hope by agreement, provides sufficient time for Members to consider this important matter and to come to conclusions on it.
  4.28 pm
  Sir George Young: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph 1(2), leave out from "conclusion" to end of sentence and insert "at midnight".
  Madam Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendment: in paragraph 1(4), leave out from "Consideration" to end of paragraph 1(5) and insert—
  "and on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 am on 18th July".
  Sir George Young: The House is entitled to a brief explanation of why the Opposition are amending a guillotine motion tabled by the Government. Such motions underline the difficulties of trying to programme all our debates and to place rigid barriers around them. Not only are the traditional ways of handling our proceedings more flexible, but they ensure that the time available is spent on the issues and not on—sometimes—

  39
  controversial procedural motions that prevent hon. Members from speaking. Furthermore, the original motion shows the time scale that the Government think suitable for timetabled Bills—four hours for the remaining stages of a controversial Bill gives a preview of a rather restricted regime.
  Last Wednesday, in a business statement, the Leader of the House announced that, on Thursday, the House would debate the Second Reading of the Bill after 7 pm. In response to a question from me, she said that she would not guillotine the Bill's Second Reading. In the event, the proceedings on Thursday evening were concluded after a reasonable period of debate, given the controversial nature of the Bill. Although I asked her about the arrangements for the remaining stages, she did not reply but referred to the usual business statement that she would make the following day.
  On Thursday, the Leader of the House announced the business for Monday as the remaining stages of the Bill, but she did not mention a timetable motion. Here we have to shine a torch on the subterranean world of the usual channels. On Thursday morning, we indicated that there was a good chance of concluding discussions on Monday after nine or 10 hours of debate. Our usual channel was reasonably confident of delivering on that and, by and large, we have a good record of delivering on such undertakings. We also believed that that offer would be acceptable to the Government, who would get their Bill on Monday night if the House so decided but without the aggravation of a time-consuming guillotine motion on a Bill that raises important issues.
  There was then a communication failure, and a guillotine motion was tabled by the Government to bring discussion to an end by about 11 pm. Not only would that allow inadequate time to debate the Bill, but up to three hours would be lost in debating the motion. The Government, I believe, accept that they were wrong to table the motion and were anxious to revert to an informal arrangement.
  The obvious way to resolve the problem would have been for the Government not to move the guillotine motion, but to suspend the 10 o'clock rule in the usual way. Discussion could then have proceeded normally. However, procedurally, that cannot be done—and some hon. Members can explain that better than I can. As the Government have not tabled a routine motion to suspend the 10 o'clock rule, the only way that the 10 o'clock rule can be suspended is if the guillotine motion is moved.
  The way to get the Government out of the difficulties in which they find themselves and to allow the House reasonable time for debate is for the Opposition to amend the guillotine motion to allow for the amount of time that on Thursday we thought was reasonable. That is exactly what we have done. We have proposed that the Committee stage end at midnight and that the remaining stages—Report and Third Reading—end at 5 o'clock in the morning.
  I hope that the House understands roughly what has happened even if it remains a mystery to most of the rest of the world. I hope that our amendments will be accepted.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Let me first deal with the issue of the usual channels. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is the usual channel for the Liberal Democrats for these purposes, made our position clear when he intervened on business questions on Thursday. Nothing underhand or behind the scenes went on. From the beginning, we have taken the simple view that we should have a proper Second Reading debate that was not guillotined—that was achieved—that we should have the Committee stage on one day and that there should be a further day between Committee and the remaining stages of Report and Third Reading. For reasons that I gave when I intervened on the Home Secretary, we made that case not just so that the House would have time to reflect on what it had done in Committee, but so that people outside the House—the Football Association, football clubs, proper football supporters, civil liberties groups, lawyers and ordinary people who take an interest in such matters and who read the newspapers that comment on them—could submit a view to us or to colleagues in the House.
  Two propositions are before us and both, in any logical world, are unacceptable. The first is that we have a seven-hour straitjacket: three hours for discussions on how long the debate should be; two hours for the Committee stage in which to debate 46 amendments of which 15 appeared on the amendment paper for the first time today and of which five are the Government amendments that the Home Secretary mentioned a moment ago; one hour for Report—how one would table amendments between Committee and Report is a mystery—and one hour for Third Reading. Under that proposition, debate would run from about 4 pm to 11 pm., and it is not satisfactory because the whole debate would be held on one day.
  In a strange, paradoxical, Alice-in-Wonderland and upside-down world, I suppose that we should be grateful for the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House. That says that the Committee stage will take place until midnight and that Report and Third Reading will go on until 5 o'clock. In a sane legislature, one would not imagine that at midnight—after having heard the Committee stage—the Football Association, football clubs, newspaper readers, our constituents or ordinary people will suddenly get out of their beds and phone in their ideas so that we can table, without debate being interrupted, our amendments for Report even if we could get them in on time. Those people would then sit happily, as we sit happily until 5 o'clock in the morning, as a sane Parliament introduces at sane hours a sane piece of legislation.
  I understand why the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire have tabled their amendment which, however, is barely more sane than the original proposition and is certainly not as sensible as the proposal that we should have Committee stage today, take a breather and think about what we were doing, before coming back on Wednesday.
  Mr. David Davis: I apologise for intervening on the hon. Gentleman. I did not get an answer from the Home Secretary when I asked

  41
  about this matter. The hon. Gentleman, however, did and was told that this action had to be taken to fit with Lords procedure and get the Bill back to us in time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than try to do this so quickly, a better procedure would be to extend our sitting into August for a couple of days?
  Mr. Hughes: The direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is yes. It is clearly logical that Parliament should seek to complete its normal business before we go on holiday than determine its business by when we fix our holidays. Again, that is an upside-down world. Most people who run a private business do not choose when to take their holidays and then decide to disappear and leave the business, even if they have to carry out a major contract.
  To be fair, the Home Secretary did not say absolutely that the suggested arrangement was impossible, but he was wrong to imply that it was, as the other place proposes to have Second Reading on Thursday and will have Committee stage next Monday, allowing time for reflection, before having Report stage and Third Reading next Wednesday. The Lords have therefore allowed days between Second Reading and Committee stage, and between Committee stage and remaining stages. Under present proposals, they plan to finish their consideration of the Bill next Wednesday night, which allows both Houses two days in which to undertake whatever backwards and forwards performance is necessary to achieve our aim. It would therefore be possible to debate the Bill on Wednesday, and it could go to the Lords the same day. All that would happen would be that the printers would have to work through the night, which they do anyway.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: I very much agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As an experienced parliamentarian, he may be able to help me, as I simply have no idea how any of us can table any amendments after the Bill's Committee stage. For example, I do not know whether I am meant to table them in manuscript, and do not know to whom I should hand them, how they will be selected and how much time I will be given. Does the hon. Gentleman have a view on that?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right, as there is no technically possible way of doing that, which is another nonsense. I do not understand why we are still behaving like this as we go into the new millennium.
  Like me, the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to realise that some of us have argued about such matters, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) who has debated them for many years. If the idea is to have a Committee stage, which is supposed to mean that a few people look at the matter in detail, and to which I shall come back in a second, followed by a Report stage, when all Members of the House, especially those who did not participate in the detailed consideration, can come back and have a look at the Bill, then logic should be that we have a little time in between, so that the work of the Committee can be shared for the benefit of those who have come for Report stage. Indeed, the logic is that one reads what happened in Committee before deciding what one wants to do on Report.
  42
  We have muddled that up in two ways. First, the same people are participating in the Committee and Report stages and, secondly, there is no time to amend the Bill. The proposal is not technically possible: it is a technical as well as a parliamentary nonsense.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind the fact that it is technically possible, but in such an absurd way that no one would ever do it. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) would have to write out his amendments in the closing moments of Committee stage and get to the Table in the few seconds between the motion to report the Bill to the House and the start of the Report stage. If there were a queue, I do not know how it could be managed.
  Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend reminds us that, over the years, many of us have given the Clerks amendments in, literally, a couple of seconds. My right hon. Friend is right, as that is technically possible. However, in commonsense terms, there is no chance for any of us to speak to a soul outside about what we have done in Committee. Furthermore, it is not possible for us to leave this place after the Committee and then to table amendments.
  There is one more nonsense. We will now debate a Bill that, on the kindest interpretation, is very technical and legalistic, particularly when one takes into account the amendments. We will be debating definitions of important terms such as "reasonable cause to believe" and "reasonable cause to suspect" and important legal and judicial processes such as detention, arrest and court proceedings. We are undertaking consideration of the 46 amendments collectively. Potentially, 654 Members could contribute, excluding you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your fellow Deputy Speakers and taking into account the one vacancy because of a death.
  Mr. Simon Burns: What about Sinn Fein?
  Mr. Hughes: I stand corrected. There are 652 potential participants, if one takes into account the fact that the two Sinn Fein Members cannot participate. What place in the world would sensibly hold a Committee stage with 652 participants?
  We welcomed the draft Bill, but we could have had a Special Standing Committee, time between the different stages of consideration and a chance to do this job well. To put it bluntly, when such legislation was always foreseeable and could have been introduced at the beginning of the parliamentary year, halfway through the year or even a month ago, this is not the way to run a country, let alone to treat a Parliament.
  Mr. Burns: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and if I understand him correctly, he is saying that to have 652 Members taking part in a stage of a Bill's consideration on the Floor of the House is not the best way to proceed. Has he ever made that argument before when we have taken legislation on the Floor of the House? I certainly have not heard him do so.
  Mr. Hughes: I have not made that a Hughes campaign, although I have made the argument before. We have amendments in the names of Conservative Members,

  43
  Government amendments and Liberal Democrat amendments, all of which relate to drafting, and there are various alternatives for defining offences. I should have thought that the most important argument is that it is sensible for us all—including the hon. Gentleman, who has been involved in this legislation—to try to ensure that we have a debate such as those that we have in a Standing Committee, where we listen to arguments, consider what works best and come up with something that is likely to stand up as good law.
  The point that follows from that, and which led me to intervene on the Home Secretary, is that we will end up with bad law or bad drafting, or both. The Bill must contain bad law or bad drafting, or both, because the Government will today seek to persuade us to change it. I only hope that if it contains bad law or bad drafting, or both, Ministers will not, after today, blame their civil servants.
  Many colleagues will not have had a chance to see many of the amendments because they appeared on the amendment paper only today. We all know that most colleagues travel from their constituency on a Monday morning and will have seen those amendments only when they got here, unless the Government sent them out round the country, which is unrealistic. That is nonsense. If we have to get the Bill on to the statute book by August, we should have had a deadline by which amendments had to be tabled. We could then have looked at the amendments and, depending on their number, we could have agreed a timetable and proceeded on that basis.
  The Bill has an extraordinary variety of opponents, including Liberty, the Law Society, former Attorney-Generals, former Home Office Ministers, the chairman of the Police Federation and Lord Tebbit, as well as good solid burghers such as ourselves. If that coalition does not suggest that something is wrong with the legislation, I do not know what coalition would. This is not the way to treat Parliament, to make sane legislation or to run a country.
  We gather from the memo that was leaked over the weekend that the Prime Minister wants to be tough. The price of rushing through incompetent but tough legislation is not one worth paying. It might be better to be a little less tough, a little less rushed and a little more competent.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I always oppose guillotine motions, and this one is no exception—save that it is worse than most because of the circumstances in which it has been tabled. Right from the start, I have not accepted any argument that there is some urgency or unusual circumstance surrounding the Bill simply because events—football matches, of all things—provide a backdrop for the legislative process. I find that an insulting and absurd proposition.
  I still do not see how the fact that our legal processes—and those of the host countries, for people travelling abroad—cannot deal, or more properly will not deal, with the matter in the present form, provides an adequate reason for this House and this Parliament to legislate in indecent haste. I reject the underlying reason that has been given time and again for the haste with which we are expected to deal with the Bill.
  44
  The second reason, which disturbs me more than usual, is the Bill's content. Without rehearsing it—there is plenty of time to start, but not complete that, this evening and into tomorrow—it affects citizens' liberties and freedoms and their relationship with the police and the judicial process. I would have thought that that is a sufficient reasonv—in fact, an overriding and overwhelming reason—to be more than usually cautious about how we deal with the Bill, and not the other way around. Yet, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, the whole matter has been stood on its head. We are being asked to process with indecent haste a Bill that touches on vital areas of individual liberty. That must be an absurdity.
  The House and this Parliament have a well established series of processes, but let us look at the detailed provisions of what we are expected to do. Not everybody agrees with the processes; people all over the place who call themselves modernisers are saying that we must sweep such things aside and change them—but we have not done so yet. We still operate under our traditional, well established rules and procedures, which we thought were well understood. Along come the Government, who say, "No, for this Bill, because of the claimed urgency, and never mind the content, we want to fly in the face of what we have always thought in Parliament was proper."
  The Bill was properly considered in principle on Second Reading last week, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, the House accepted. Yet we are to deny ourselves the normal Standing Committee arrangements, whereby a relatively small number of colleagues looks properly at the Bill and considers it in detail. Even more importantly, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, we are to deny other colleagues the opportunity to look at the Bill having considered what happened in Committee. Committees, after all, report to the House; that is the point of considering a Bill on Report.
  How on earth, therefore, are we to deal with the Bill properly in Committee and then report it properly and after due consideration to the House? We cannot because Members have not been provided with a proper opportunity—between Second Reading and Committee, certainly between Committee and Report, and even on Third Reading—for mature consideration.
  Mr. Straw: I think that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he had always opposed guillotine motions. If that is so, will he explain why he voted for the guillotine motion on the Football Spectators Bill on 17 July 1989?
  Mr. Forth: That would have been when I was a Minister; that changes everything. I meant to say to the House—I am grateful to the Home Secretary for pointing it out—that I have always opposed guillotine motions as a Member free to make my own judgment. As the Home Secretary kindly pointed out earlier, for which I was grateful, I believe that I am now a Member free to make my own proper judgments on these matters—and I hope that he accepts that I exercise that judgment in a parliamentary context when I properly should.
  However, if the Home Secretary is suggesting that, during the period in which I had the honour to serve as one of Her Majesty's Ministers, I should have exercise

  45
  that same freedom, he knows as well as I do that, at that time, I accepted the same degree of collective responsibility as he now accepts. It is for that reason, albeit on a slightly different subject, that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be pleading a deaf ear moment ago, so let us not dwell overlong on such matters.
  The urgency pleaded for the Bill is spurious and the timetable that has been suggested denies all that we have been brought up to believe is proper and necessary in parliamentary procedure. Not only are we as Members of Parliament not to be given an opportunity to consider such vital matters, but, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey points out, we are not to be given any opportunity to listen to, to consult or to receive advice and input from legitimate outside interests, whether football interests or legal interests or others—none of that will be possible.
  I suspect and fear that the result will be uniquely bad legislation, because of the way in which the Bill has been drafted and prepared, the haste with which it has been altered, the extent to which the House has been unable to give it proper consideration and, most important, the way in which Members of Parliament have been unable to receive proper advice and input from outside. That is wrong in every conceivable way. I can conceive of no justification for the Bill, for the way in which it is to be dealt with, or for the likely end result. For those reasons, I hope that the House will not go along with the suggested arrangements, because they are a recipe for disaster.
  4.51 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am an admirer of the current Home Secretary; unlike some others, I think that he does care about the House of Commons and that he makes every effort to listen to individual Members who raise valid points. However, although discretion might dictate that I do otherwise, I am afraid that I have to tell him that I am not happy about these arrangements. To push through such a guillotine in such a manner on such an important Bill is not a good idea. I believe that we shall end up with legislation that is not acceptable, especially because several of its provisions have a direct impact on people's civic rights. That causes me concern, even though I do not pretend to have an easy solution to the problem of those who would go abroad and wreck everybody else's cities, rather than stay at home and wreck their own.
  I am also concerned about something that my right hon. Friend said, although I might have misheard him. During his attempt to explain why he was being so amenable, he appeared to imply—I am sure that I must be mistaken—that the hours he had spent engaged in discussions with people outside the Chamber ought to be considered part of the debate and, therefore, a reason to allow the legislation to make swift progress. That is a slightly worrying suggestion and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make it clear that he did not mean it.
  Although it was an endearing moment, inasmuch as it appears that, for the first time in many years, we have heard discussed the byzantine ways of the usual channels—a moment that makes sitting here worth while even in the absence of any other reason—we still come back to the fact that if the House rushes legislation and has no time to consider the implications, it frequently makes mistakes. We have the right to push legislation
  46
  through in one day: it has been done in my lifetime and in yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recall several Acts dealing with terrorism passing with total agreement and astonishing speed—although even some of those proved to be less than good legislation and had to be reviewed.
  I do not want to detain the House and I am trying not to say anything that I have said many times before, but my misgivings are real because the Bill is one that will affect the rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom. They may be reprehensible citizens of the United Kingdom; they may be people whom I do not want in my living room; they may be people whom I would oppose root and branch in political terms and in terms of their commitment to very extreme organisations; and they may be people who, I hope, never get to go abroad and represent the United Kingdom in any way at all.
  However, I must say to my right hon. Friend that to rush a Bill through the House of Commons in short order at the end of the summer season, which is always a difficult period, may not be a good idea. I do not like it. I am not impressed with the Bill. Although my right hon. Friend has made enormous strides and has given way on various aspects of it, I remain extremely worried about the impact of the legislation.
  4.55 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: Those of us who were in the Chamber at a late hour the other night have rehearsed some of the arguments already.
  The Home Secretary has had two years since Marseilles, countless legislative opportunities to introduce a properly thought through, properly drafted Bill if he had chosen to do so, and ample opportunity for such a Bill to be properly debated in both Houses and for outside authorities to make representations and to have their views considered.
  There has been a considerable number of debates around the subject. It is a disgrace for the Home Secretary to present to the House in a knee-jerk reaction, a fortnight before the end of the summer Session of Parliament, a Bill hastily cobbled together on the basis of the "do something" school of politics, rather than do the right thing. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, and he knows that that is why he has had to table amendments today, in a desperate attempt to cobble together some sort of coalition that might allow the measure to get through the House tonight, in order that their Lordships can try to do a damage limitation exercise and turn the Bill into something remotely workable.
  This is a bad Bill. Hours of debate tonight—even the protracted hours that we are now told we are to be allowed to have—will not get it right, for the reasons given earlier by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). A few hours, without proper consultation, will not turn a bad Bill into a good Bill.
  The Home Secretary had to concede the other night, because he had no alternative, that the Bill's writ will not run in Scotland or Northern Ireland. All the commentators who have said that it is a Bill to control football hooliganism are wrong. It cannot do so, because the football hooligans can fly abroad from Scotland or Northern Ireland.

  47
  What is needed—this is why the timetable is wrong—is time, after the Committee stage and the acceptance of a few relatively minor amendments, to work out how to do properly the job that the Home Secretary says he wants to do. There is time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that it is wrong for the Bill or any legislation to be driven by a football match, or even several football matches, on the continent in the autumn. What matters is not that we do something, but that we do the right thing. The Bill is not the right thing; it is patently the wrong thing.
  My friend the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said the other night, recalling the dreadful and now infamous Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, that he did not believe that the Bill was a replica of that. I am one of the relics of that Act. I am ashamed to admit that I was one of those who initially supported it. It went through under a Conservative Government, but with cross-party support. It was legislation in haste, which was repented at leisure. That was dreadful legislation because it was a knee-jerk reaction, on the basis of the "do something" school of politics, and it took us five years to amend it. It is still bad legislation, although it is marginally less bad than it was when we put it on the statute book.
  What we are about to do, at the Home Secretary's behest if he is allowed to ram the Bill in its present form through the House in 24 hours, is to recreate a dangerous dog's breakfast. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do that. Even at this very late hour, I say to the Home Secretary, for pity's sake, allow the Committee stage to go through today, as it must, and then allow time, so that proper representations can be made and there can be a half-decent chance of our getting proper legislation on the statute book that stands an outside chance of working.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Paul Flynn: The Bill is coarse and degrades Parliament; it is a tabloid Bill. We are discussing it today because of tabloid reaction to Euro 2000. The tabloids demanded that something be done; they always do. In such circumstances, there are great scandals and tabloid headlines; dogs bark, priests pray and politicians legislate. The statute book is littered with such legislation—for example, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which has already been mentioned. We were told that if we opposed it, we were in favour of young children having their faces mutilated by dogs.
  After the well-publicised, tragic death of a young woman from drugs, the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Act 1997 was passed. It was meant to achieve three objectives: to change the licensing of clubs in which drugs might be used; to alter the conditions of the licences and close specific clubs, and to persuade local authorities to change their licensing system. Nothing has resulted from that Act.
  Horror comics were banned from being imported to this country in 1955. There was a Bill to control the windows of sex shops. There is a long list of legislation that has come to the House because of a demand from the press. Politicians have prostituted their office and this institution by not legislating in the right way, and by throwing away opportunities and wasting time on measures such as this Bill in order to seek popularity.
  48
  I gave advice, as I always do, to my party. I suggested 18 months ago that Ministers should stop taking the tabloids. Sadly, that has not happened. We have evidence that the leaders of our country, like the leaders in the previous Government, need to be hooked to a drip-feed of daily admiration from the press. If they do not get it, they become nervous and fretful. We should be in touch with the public mood, but not with the lowest common denominator of racism and hatred of other nations. We should be in touch with the public's best instincts.
  The Bill is the result of a misreading of the events of Euro 2000. We have heard a great deal about Charleroi and Brussels, but nothing about Eindhoven. The essence of what happened can be distilled in the difference between the approach of two police forces—between intelligent, subtle policing and—[HON. MEMBERS: "Drugs."] I do not need to mention that. I am talking about the difference between intelligent, subtle policing and crude, tough policing. It resembles the difference between reaction in this country to the miners strike and the current farmers demonstrations.
  Farmers are taking similar actions to those of the miners during their strike: blocking roads, breaking the law and committing acts of vandalism. As far as I know there have been no arrests and no court cases involving farmers. However, the miners were imprisoned, some for a long time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the allocation of time motion.
  Mr. Flynn: I am making the point that the Bill is based on events surrounding three football matches. If Euro 2000 had not taken place, we would not be here now.
  In Brussels, the police prepared for confrontation. They turned up in riot gear, they had water cannon and they allowed the sale of double-strength beer. Inevitably, confrontation occurred. It was an example of the stupid, tabloid, tough reaction that won great praise from the Belgian press and the press in this country. The Dutch police turned up in informal clothing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was trying to bring the hon. Gentleman back into line and back to the allocation of time motion. However, he is still straying wide of the mark. I should be grateful if he would now refer directly to the motion.
  Mr. Flynn: We are considering whether to allocate time to a Bill, the fundamental basis of which has not been established today or last week. There is no basis for the Bill because the problem is not about this country but about the way in which matters were handled by the Dutch police, who dealt with the same football crowd when England lost its matches. There was no riot or bad behaviour by the English fans against whom we are trying to introduce changes in the law. The Dutch police handled matters intelligently and subtly. If we tried to tackle the problem by influencing the police in the foreign countries to which our fans travel, we would get a result. In Eindhoven, the police described the fans' reaction to an English defeat as mild disappointment and polite applause.
  This is bad legislation which will not help Parliament in any way. Neither this Bill nor any other should be introduced to satisfy the demands of the tabloid press.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke good and true about how the House should legislate. In fact, the cheerful cynicism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) lies behind the Government's position on these matters. The Home Secretary referred to a time when 17 Bills were guillotined, but 37 Bills have been guillotined during this Parliament alone and 20 have not been agreed between the Front Benches. That shows the scale of the problem that has confronted our legislative process, but the Government still go ahead despite the concerns that have been rightly expressed by my hon. Friends, as well as by those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench.
  We now have the most exclusive new Labour Government conceivable. They are so exclusive that they do not want to involve the wider public in the legislative process. Those on the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches have rightly implied that the legislative process should not be exclusive. We must reach out and test whether the Bill receives the public's consent or merely their acquiesence. By tabling the motion, the Government are bypassing the processes of Parliament.
  Opposition to a measure should be exhaustive, because in such debates, we test whether legislation can be borne. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich spoke good and true, because how can we involve anyone in the debate on Report? Second Reading finished shortly before 1 am on Friday and the House did not sit on Friday, yet a Committee of the whole House will soon consider the Bill. What outside representative could weigh up any amendment that has been tabled? It is difficult for hon. Members on both sides of the House to try to collate amendments and ensure that they are in order and to consider whether the allocation of time motion allows adequate time for debate.
  I was genuinely surprised to see a guillotine motion on the Order Paper. Nothing in Thursday's debate suggested that the usual grounds for expediting legislation existed. Reasoned arguments were put forward, but the speeches were not long; perhaps the most loquacious was the fine speech of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). However, there was no will to impede the process of government by delay—by argument, yes, because this is clearly a contentious Bill that touches on civil liberties, our self-respect and that for our fellow citizens.
  I refer again to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich because there were truths in the essence of her speech. None of us approves of thuggery or intimidatory conduct, but the House should be allowed to take time to weigh up how legislation impacts on freedom, arrest, detention and magistrates courts.
  The Home Secretary tried to anticipate the debate by stating which amendments he would accept. I have no doubt there will be joy in certain sections of the House, but who has had the opportunity to lobby and to reflect on the Bill? How can we reflect on it between Committee, Report and Third Reading? There was no need for the guillotine. I genuinely believe that the business would have probably been disposed of in a much shorter period than the time limit proposed. We can now only make a stab at what is appropriate.
  50
  The Government have used 37 guillotines in slightly more than three years. A Government guillotine is, in essence, a denial of freedom of speech; it simply stops Members speaking. Time and again, the Government have said that there is an imperative to table a guillotine motion, but why should a Bill stand if reasoned opposition to it cannot be exhausted? Our processes depend on allowing those who do not agree with the majority sentiment to express opposition, but guillotines are a way to inhibit the expression of opposition to what will become criminal law.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has not been prevented from contributing, nor was he prevented from contributing on Second Reading, and I doubt whether any Member interested in debating the Bill will be prevented from having his or her say. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wondered how 652 Members will be able to get involved in debates in Committee. Oh that 652 Members were interested in getting involved! I suspect that the same Members will be involved in Committee and on Report and very much doubt whether any others will come to the Chamber, so there will be a continuum in the process.
  I have opposed and supported guillotine motions. Like most Members, I trust, one exercises judgment as to what is appropriate. I find it distressing that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and I are on opposing sides. However, I want to address a couple of points made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) about the prevention of terrorism Acts. If a Bill came to the House cold and we were asked to act immediately, that could be described as a knee-jerk reaction, to use that horrible expression, but so far as I can see the Bill is almost incremental. It is not as though the issue has not been discussed in the House on various occasions and at great length.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but if the Bill is simply incremental as he says, it would not have been necessary for the Home Secretary to take note of the points made by Members of the other place and various groups outside. I am afraid that the Bill contains the kernel of a civil rights problem.
  Mr. Banks: I can understand the controversy over the Bill, but it is up to us to exercise our judgment as to how we can best address the problems. We cannot always complain about having to consider legislation to a time scale briefer than the norm. It must be possible to exercise judgment over a brief period, as it must possible to do so over an extended period. There are problems, but that is what the process is all about.
  I described the Bill as incremental to show that the issue has not just hit us smack in the face, like the problems with dangerous dogs or issues surrounding the prevention of terrorism Acts. For example, there was a sudden, calamitous experience in Birmingham and an immediate rush to do something. Such legislation worries me far more than the Bill. The Football Spectators

  51
  Act 1989 was amended by the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, which was promoted by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is right: we would not be discussing the Bill but for the events at Euro 2000. As I understand it, the Government thought that existing legislation was adequate to deal with the problem, but clearly it was not. It was thought that the 1989 Act was adequate, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford still introduced the 1999 Act. At times, one has to keep fine tuning legislation, and I believe that the Bill has been introduced in that spirit, although I accept that it is highly controversial.
  Mr. Gale: I have a modicum of sympathy with the argument that the hon. Gentleman is deploying, but what is not incremental—indeed, it is a new circumstance—is that the Bill is being considered following the introduction of devolved powers to Scotland and Northern Ireland. So far as I can see, no discussions have taken place and no legislation is being introduced in the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly to support the Bill. There is a gaping hole below the Bill's waterline, which is why it must be delayed. All the powers must be properly co-ordinated
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and my right hon. Friend must deal with that issue. There is clearly a loophole, but at least we know about it, so we must find a way of closing it. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has discussed this matter with whoever passes for his equivalent in the Scottish Parliament, but it must clearly be addressed. The problems of devolution are now revealing themselves, but we must handle them—devolution was a decision of the House, so we must deal with its implications. This will not be the only time that a problem will arise.
  I hope that my hon. Friends are prepared to accept my right hon. Friend's statement and the way in which he proposes to enact this legislation. Some say that we should not worry because it is only a football match between England and France. I do not see many hon. Members in the Chamber who are noted for their devotion to our beautiful game of football or who are regular attenders. I shall not tempt fate by asking everyone who regularly supports a football club to stand up, but I know the hon. Members present well enough to know that not many of them are fully conversant with football or the ways of football hooligans. That will come out in due course.
  It is not just a matter of the France versus England match: Intertoto matches are taking place now, and the UEFA cup and the Champions league will start in September. They are not matches that usually give rise to the problems that we saw in Charleroi or Brussels because they involve our clubs, but it is imperative to have a timetable, and that requires us to support the Secretary of State. I trust that my hon. Friends, including that excellent parliamentarian, my good and trusted hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West, will support our right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Shepherd: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this issue affects not only people who love football,
  52
  but anyone who passes through any of our ports, who could be detained even though they have no interest in football and no intention of going near a football ground?
  Mr. Banks: I find it difficult to understand that point. This legislation will apply when football matches are in the offing. I cannot believe that people who are stopped but who clearly have no interest in or knowledge of football will be caught up in this. I do not want to fall foul of Mr. Deputy Speaker's strictures to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West about the principle of the Bill, but I should point out that it contains safeguards that, in my opinion and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, would prevent that from happening. I am satisfied that we can discuss those provisions during Committee stage, but for the moment I give my right hon. Friend my full support on the timetable motion.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I reject the notion that those of us who are regular attenders at football matches should hold our peace in this debate. I am an occasional attender of matches in the Highland league, but they have not caused the problems that we are dealing with today.
  The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) raised a point about Scotland that is of considerable importance. The House should not legislate in vain on anything, and there is such a major loophole in the Bill that it would be prudent at least to ascertain the view of the Scottish Executive on the merits of the Bill before proceeding to enact it.
  I have a major concern about the timetable motion. I am not opposed to programming of legislation by agreement, subject to there being adequate time for external consultation. That view was recommended by the Hansard Society during consideration of the reform of the legislative process—I was a member and it was chaired by Geoffrey Rippon—and it seemed to me to make sense.
  There is no such provision proposed in the allocation of time motion. We have heard from the Home Secretary an indication that his mind has moved on the issue since he last addressed the House. We have not had any opportunity to discuss with those who might have a direct interest in seeking to enforce the Bill what their view is of how the Secretary of State's mind has moved. It is not satisfactory to take that movement as the end of the story.
  Mr. Burns: The Home Secretary can confirm that one of the more controversial proposals in the Bill—namely, the proposal to take passports away from unconvicted football hooligans—was published by the Government, with a series of other proposals on football hooligans, in March last year and went out to a full consultative process, to which the Government received responses. When I proposed a similar idea two months later, there was further consultation, in that a number of other organisations wrote to me and to the Government on it. To say that there has been no opportunity for consultation or to get outside views on that controversial issue is factually incorrect
  Mr. Maclennan: I made no suggestion that the matter was factually different from what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, a number of matters are being considered

  53
  as a result of the Home Secretary's mind moving. One of the most important innovations is in respect of detention, which goes to the heart of our civil liberties. Here I wholeheartedly endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), whose wise words ought to be listened to by the House on this and many another occasion.
  This is one of those issues that shows it is wrong to rush legislation. The kind of urgency that has been suggested by the Home Secretary and the Government stems from the existence of a possible difficulty because of a possible breakdown in policing or some possible determined hooliganism on a particular occasion in the future. That is a classic statement of the circumstances in which it is wrong to legislate. We do not legislate for an occasion in this place, but with the intention that what we do should have a lasting and beneficial effect and should change practices and behaviour.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that the changes or development in the Home Secretary's thinking were due to the original Bill being either bad law or bad drafting, or possibly both. If by bad law he meant bad policy, that is where I think the fault lies.
  The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that we should make up our minds and reach a judgment quickly. Candidly, he has been applying his mind to this issue for a long time and no doubt his mind is settled on it. He could scarcely have done the job that he has done for as long as he has and come to the debate without a clear view. However, he is in a different position from many hon. Members: I would venture to say, most hon. Members. When measures are proposed seriously restricting our civil liberties, it is right that we should consult, and consult the law enforcers in particular. When there is evidence of unease—as has been expressed in the last three days—it is wrong to act in the way that is proposed.
  By running the Committee and Report stages into one, although it may be possible to deal with points raised in Committee through manuscript amendments on Report, we put the Chair in an extremely difficult position. There are inadequate opportunities to consider the merits of manuscript amendments. We might table nonsensical amendments because of the difficulty of drafting under the likely circumstances. It is not an appropriate way for us to proceed.
  I considered seeking your advice on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is perfectly possible that matters will be raised in Committee that give rise to ways of proceeding. It would be invidious, however, to spring such an inquiry on you at this stage, although I am aware that there are precedents.
  A clear gap of 24 hours—of one whole day's sitting—should be allowed between Committee and Report stages. That would not defeat the Government's purpose of enabling the Bill to go to another place and return here before the summer recess, but even if it did frustrate our intention to complete our deliberations before then, we should greet that with irritation but accept that it is our duty to return to consider the Bill appropriately.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Jim Murphy: Either the Bill—or something very similar to it—will be enacted this side of the recess, to enable matches played in the autumn and
  54
  early parts of the winter to be covered by it, or we will delay, and allow the matches to take place under earlier legislation.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has outed himself as a Highland league fan. That is no bad thing, as it was a Highland league team, Inverness Caledonian Thistle, that destroyed my team and its manager's career this year. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the legislation will go through, and it is simply a matter of timing. We should act as promptly as possible, to enable good, but tougher, legislation to be in force when the games to which I have referred take place.
  We are not in an ideal situation; Ministers may want to expand on that later. Ideally, there would be prolonged gaps and further consultation. Ideally, we would not be having this debate at all, because we would not have such a massive problem of football hooliganism. With that caveat, we must discuss and develop the arguments on how to get effective legislation on the statute book in time for all the games mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), as well as Intertoto, European Champions league and UEFA matches, and the friendly between Manchester United and Galatasaray, which could cause problems.
  The Bill is not the enormous attack on civil liberties that has been suggested. On Second Reading, one of my hon. Friends said that what is at stake is the denial to individuals of the right to travel abroad to attend a football match that they will be able to watch at home. That does not constitute the enormous attack on individual civil liberties that some people have identified this evening.
  The difference between Scotland and England and Wales is also not a reason for delaying the legislation. The Bill will apply to England and Wales, and the Scottish Parliament may discuss its own legislation. To delay legislation in this House simply so that a devolved Parliament can decide to enact its own legislation when it returns from recess would not close a loophole. Indeed, it would create an enormous open door. It misses the point to argue against legislation covering England and Wales timeously to prevent a small number of people from leaving the country on the basis that they could leave from Scotland.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: To be fair to the debate, nobody—apart from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—has argued that we should not have legislation in place by the summer holiday. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and that there will be a later issue for Scotland and, possibly, for Northern Ireland. However, he should recognise that we are all saying that we should have legislation, but that it should be reasonable and as watertight as possible.
  Mr. Murphy: I do not know what happens in Bermondsey in the next couple of months, but in my area we will have a recess rather than a holiday. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, this House and the other place do not have the legislative responsibility to do anything in respect of the loophole in Scotland, which is entirely the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. Even if we decided to delay legislation, there is no guarantee that the Scottish Parliament would decide to do anything.
  The argument has been made that we should delay so that we may consult public opinion, but the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has already identified

  55
  the fact that similar legislation was mooted more than a year ago. I said on Second Reading that I had written to every English and Scottish premiership club two years ago and several of them suggested measures similar to those in the Bill and in some of the amendments. On those grounds, it is important that we have legislation in place in advance of the recess that will deal with many of the problems that have been identified.
  Right hon. and hon. Members have warned of the consequences if we pass legislation that is not as good as it could be in the understandable desire to have something in place, be that because of the necessity for the Government to compromise with Opposition Front Benchers or as a consequence of amendment in the other place. It is essential that we have legislation in place specifically on the passport issue and on the connection between convictions for violence and the inability to travel abroad.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) confessed an affection for Newport AFC, but I suspect that he is not worried about foreign travel, because his team is many decades from travelling outside England and parts of Wales. His point was that we should not pass legislation on a whim or as a knee-jerk reaction, but the Bill is nothing of the sort. The problem has existed for more than 20 years and various Governments have tried their best to deal with it. To say that the problem comes down to what type of beer was being sold in Holland or Belgium—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying well wide of the timetable motion. I would be grateful if he brought his remarks back to the motion before the House.
  Mr. Murphy: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was just responding to the points made by my hon. Friend which you correctly ruled out of order earlier. If we do not pass meaningful and effective legislation this side of the recess, this House and this country will be blamed for continuing to export our violence when we had an opportunity to pass the legislation that would prevent it.
  5.35 pm
  Mr. Peter Lilley: With the exceptions of the hon. Members for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) and for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I have agreed with all speakers from all parties who have so far contributed to the debate and responded to the Home Secretary. That is as it should be, as it is the function of hon. Members to uphold the liberties of subjects. So far as I know, no hon. Member was elected on a manifesto of restricting people's liberties, or of restricting opportunities to debate changes to those liberties.
  I agree especially with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I have a certain respect for the Home Secretary, as does the hon. Lady. I see him as a Jekyll and Hyde character, and I respect the good, Dr. Jekyll side of his character that shows respect for parliamentary traditions and freedoms. I am therefore grateful to him for the small mercies that he has shown the House today in accepting the Opposition amendments to the motion and extending debate beyond the ludicrously short time originally planned.
  56
  However, I am afraid that the other side to the Home Secretary's nature is a desire to appear tougher than tough, and more brutal than brutal. That side of his character panders to the Prime Minister's requirement that tough-sounding measures be produced, however shoddy they may be.
  Earlier, Madam Speaker pointed out to the Home Secretary that, during the debate on the guillotine motion, he could not discuss the substance of the Bill. I take it that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow the House to discuss the question of timing during the Committee stage. That is why I wish now to discuss the issue of the timing of the debate on this Bill.
  Despite the concession that the Home Secretary has made, major questions remain about the amount of time devoted to consideration of the Bill, and how it is allocated. First of all, there is no real urgency about the measure. Football matches have been held over the past few months, and there will be another one in September. It is, I believe, only a friendly match that does not matter very much. If the Home Secretary thinks that that match is so crucial that the Bill must be on the statute book before it takes place, he has the option of asking the football authorities to delay it until a later date.
  Alternatively, he could arrange for the start of the recess to be delayed. That would allow the House to consider the Bill fully—if we were not able to do so before the end of July, in the way that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) set out. There is therefore no real urgency about the matter. The Bill was pushed forward so that the Government could show that they had initiated legislation before the 2006 world cup decision was taken.
  The Library has produced a useful brief on this matter, and it shows that football hooliganism is not a recent phenomenon. Governments have been legislating about it since the 14th century. It seems a bit foolish to contend that it is crucial that this Bill be rushed through before the end of July in the year 2000, given that we have spent 600 years not getting the matter right.
  Above all, before today's Committee stage, there has not been enough time properly to table amendments to the Bill, whose Second Reading debate began last Thursday and ended in the early hours of Friday. Friday was a non-sitting day, and most hon. Members did not realise that amendments could be tabled then. When I tried to table amendments this morning, I was told that handwritten amendments would be frowned on, as there were already starred amendments for consideration. However, I gather that that did not stop the Government putting down further handwritten amendments. I gather that they have not been able to put down sufficient amendments for the Committee stage and have had to put down amendments for the Report stage before the Committee's consideration has been completed—or am I mistaken about that?
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman's last question. However, my understanding is that not only were the Government amendments put down on Friday, but they were put down towards the end of the time permitted because when we tabled our amendments, there was no sign of them. Therefore, any chance of trying to take that into account was effectively foreclosed.
  Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that clear.

  57
  Normally, we consider the principles of a Bill on Second Reading, after which we go back to our constituencies and discuss it with our constituents, professional organisations and interested parties. We can then put down amendments, often with detailed help and advice from the interested parties, so that the measure can be improved when it is considered in Committee. None of us has had the opportunity to do that. The only organisations that we could consult were those which work over the weekend, of which there were not a great many. However, in my constituency I was able to talk to doctors, neighbours, and people at church and in the pub. When I told them what was proposed, they all had grave reservations, but none had written amendments handy for me to submit this morning.
  The initial motion in the name of the Home Secretary, which would have allowed but a few hours' debate—seven in total, including that on the guillotine motion—was manifestly insufficient and rather sinister in trying to concertina the whole process into such a short time. In addition, most of the debate will take place during the night. That does not worry me—I am quite happy to spend all night discussing this legislation to make sure that we get a better Bill than the one the Government have submitted. However, the timing is intentional, so that the Government get as little coverage as possible in the press for what they know to be a shoddy and dangerous Bill. That is why they are trying to get the debate over with quickly and during the hours of darkness. [Interruption.] Yes, there is something of the night about the Home Secretary's proposals, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) says. [Interruption.] It may well be a qualification for Home Secretaries, but that is only the current political fashion.
  I believe that the Bill raises many important issues. We need to examine them in Committee by putting down amendments to test whether those issues have been catered for by the Bill's wording and, if not, to amend the wording to ensure that they are properly covered. First, is the Bill reconcilable with the human rights provisions that the Government introduced? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), a former Attorney-General, says that it is not compatible with the human rights legislation, and he is a powerful and persuasive figure. The Government, however, say that the Bill does not conflict with the human rights provisions of the Council of Europe. If it is not incompatible with those provisions, it shows what an inadequate defence of our human rights these foreign provisions are. I have always maintained that. We in this place should be the principal defenders of our rights, regardless of whether the measures that we introduce are compatible with the European convention on human rights, which we have signed elsewhere.
  The Bill raises many issues about the traditional rights of the English man and woman and the Welsh man and woman who are primarily affected by it. Does the Bill conflict with the presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty, or does it not? We need to examine that and test it with appropriate amendments. Is it right to detain people simply to seek evidence of whether they may have indulged in some behaviour that might indicate that they would, at a future date, commit an offence, which would not be a criminal offence in this, or any other, country? We need time to consider all that.
  58
  Indeed, we must ask whether we should legislate at all to punish people for something that may not be a crime in this country or any other. We need time to consider that question. Should we punish people by withdrawing their passports on the basis of procedures that do not require criminal standards of proof, but only civil standards? Is the Bill compatible with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? The Home Secretary said that he would introduce amendments to help to achieve compatibility, but we need to make absolutely sure of that. That is a major issue, and it cannot be resolved in just a few moments.
  Once the House has heard the full list of issues that we must consider, it will realise that each of them will receive short shrift, even under the extended timetable that we are being permitted. There are questions of extraterritoriality. Should the House try to legislate to maintain peace and order in other jurisdictions? Surely that is primarily the duty of the Governments concerned. Should we place greater restrictions on the liberties of British subjects than we do to maintain domestic peace in order that peace may be maintained in France, Belgium, Germany and other places?
  Does the Bill conflict with freedom of movement in the European Union? Freedom of movement is one of the aspects of the European treaties that I most support, but we appear to be restricting it. We need time to debate these matters and to test them by amendment, so that we may judge whether the Bill is incompatible with freedom of movement in the EU. If it is not, several people have said that restrictions of the kind proposed could be achieved only by the introduction of identity cards. I oppose that, but it may logically be compatible with the Bill and necessary as a result of it. The Government, who seem to be having second, third, fourth and fifth thoughts about the Bill, may want to move further in that damaging direction, and we should debate the point.
  Is there a retrospective element to the Bill? Are we applying punishment to people who were previously found guilty under terms and conditions that did not include those punishments? Is there not a degree of double jeopardy in that respect? I understand that the German Government refused to participate in the administrative arrangements that we put in place to try to prevent the problems that occurred at Charleroi, because they believed that even those arrangements conflicted with the provisions in the German constitution preventing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to link all his different points to the amendment before us, but I am not sure that he has always succeeded.
  Mr. Lilley: I am endeavouring to show that important issues before us require time for discussion and that the Government have not allowed for that time in their allocation of time motion. I do not intend to delay the House artificially; I merely want to put on the record how serious, important and numerous those issues are.
  There are questions of discrimination against a particular group—football fans. We should remember that football fans, not football hooligans, will be impinged on by the Bill. Should it be restricted only to that group, or extended to fans of other sports? Should it include people wishing to travel abroad to take part in demonstrations

  59
  that might be rowdy and at which they might be aggressive? Should it include people who wish to go abroad to participate in other illegal activities, such as taking drugs in Ibiza, where, we learn, many British behave in a deplorable manner? Those people would certainly arouse the wrath of the hon. Member for West Ham, who hates to see any British person travel abroad for illegal reasons and bringing the fair name of England into disrepute.
  We must go through the measure line by line and word by word.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The right hon. Gentleman mentions a range of issues that, as you pointed out earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be dealt with in Committee and on Report. Will he confirm that he intends, whatever the circumstances, to vote against the measure on Third Reading?
  Mr. Lilley: No, I cannot confirm that. I did not vote against the measure on Second Reading, because, stretching my credulity and my willingness to compromise with the Government to their limits, I had hoped that the Government might remove both the uncertainties and the offensive aspects of the Bill so that it became comparatively harmless and was restricted to the two or three provisions that, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary pointed out, were not especially controversial.
  Above all, we must consider the measure line by line and word by word to ensure that it is not an unworkable, shoddy, spin doctor's stunt. From this morning's newspapers, we know that the Prime Minister sent out an edict to his Ministers, stating that:
  On crime, we need to highlight tough measures…We should think now of an initiative…Something tough, with immediate bite which sends a message through the system.
  The Bill shows all the symptoms of being a response to that plea from the Prime Minister to send out tough messages. Of course, when he was in opposition, he had a wonderful slogan: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime." That always seemed inadequate, because it missed out the words, "tough on criminals".
  The Bill, however, would be tough on the innocent and tough on suspects—people who look as though they might be racist thugs and hooligans, but might turn out to be Members of Parliament in mufti. We need to consider such matters seriously and at greater length—with the opportunity to consult people outside the House—before the measure is passed into law.
  We need to ensure that we rub the faces of the Government's Back-Bench supporters in the measure. That is how we shall ultimately achieve change in this place. The Government have a massive and overwhelming majority. They can steamroller the guillotine motion and the Bill through the House. However, if, before doing so, their Back Benchers have to spend so much time considering the measure that they are unable to obscure from their consciousness how contrary it is to their beliefs, they will get hold of the Home Secretary in the Lobby, as we vote on successive amendments, and say to him, "Heavens above Jack, Dr. Jekyll—whatever your name is—please alter this. Haven't you made a mistake? Give more time for consideration. Defer until the autumn".
  60
  If they did so, perhaps the measure would be made compatible with the principles that I believe a majority of Labour Members share with me, but with which the Bill is at present incompatible. If we support the allocation of time motion, we shall have insufficient time to ensure that the Bill is fit for the House to pass.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in the debate, because in the past the city of Portsmouth has suffered considerable hooliganism, sadly associated with our team. That hooliganism was taken around the country, much to the discredit of the city. I am glad to say that there have been improvements and there is little or no trouble either at Fratton Park or at away games.
  It is not unreasonable for people to expect the Government to react to the events that we saw over the summer. However, games that are about to take place have been cited as the reason for doing so—especially the one between Manchester United and Galatasaray. If the Football Association is really interested in doing something about the matter, and bearing in mind that it asked Manchester United to play in Brazil, it should ask the team, in the national interest, not to play a friendly match against Galatasaray in Belgium. That would be a major step.
  We should remember that the two Leeds supporters who were killed in Istanbul were innocent, committed, long-term football supporters. They had travelled with their team on many occasions. They went to watch a football match, but were killed—innocent bystanders of events that overtook them. Whatever laws we pass, the innocent football supporter will always be caught up in the turmoil of hooliganism, when emotions run away with people.
  When the measure received its Second Reading last Thursday, we all wanted the time for debate to be unfettered. As hon. Members have pointed out, the debate was successfully concluded. Everyone who wanted to speak was able to do so and there was no dissension as to the way in which our democratic processes had worked.
  We then found out that the Government were intending to deal with the Bill's remaining stages in seven hours. That is a ludicrous proposal and we had to object to it. If it had been accepted, several Labour Back Benchers would have supported it only reluctantly. However, what have the Government conceded? They have agreed only to lengthen the proceedings—they have not allowed the reflection time that was essential between Committee and Third Reading, so that there would be a day or so between them.
  We could fall in line with the other place by making a decision tonight—even at this late stage—to reconsider the timetable. We could take the Committee stage until midnight or, if necessary, until 5 am. The House could then adjourn business on the measure until after 10 pm on Wednesday. The House and the outside world would thus have a chance to reflect on it.
  When the Home Secretary opened the debate, he said that over the weekend he had considered what had been said on Second Reading and the representations put to him by the Conservative Front-Bench team through the usual channels. I am sure that he also took into account what the outside world was telling him—either through

  61
  his noble Friends or through Labour Back Benchers. The right hon. Gentleman was prepared to listen and the Bill is dramatically different. Even that small period made the Home4Secretary see the sense of allowing a break.
  Common sense should prevail. The shadow Leader of the House explained why the Opposition had tabled their amendments, but why must the procedure be so complicated? Surely, it would be simpler for the Home Secretary and the Government to realise that it would make sense not to pass a Bill about which there will be grave reservations and in which people will try to find loopholes. Even before the measure leaves this place, lawyers will be relishing the opportunity to take on the Government and the state by defending people who will be caught up by it.
  We do not need a Bill that will end in tears. We need a measure that delivers what most reasonable people want: justice and dignity for the nation as a whole and the preservation of the liberties of the individual. The legislation should not interfere with those liberties unnecessarily. That is what we expect. Unfortunately, the time we are offered for debate this evening and early tomorrow will not provide an opportunity to fulfil that expectation.
  The Home Secretary enthuses about being tough; but if, in being so, he opens a hornets' nest that will lead to widespread disappointment, that cannot be right. He has had to admit that he thought the Government had enough powers to deal with the problems over the summer. How wrong he was. He should learn from that mistake and listen to what is being said by hon. Members who do not want to stop the Bill, but want it passed in a form that delivers what reasonable people want: justice administered fairly, with no pressure on individual policemen to do more than should be expected of them.
  A match takes place in Paris in a few months' time. Ten to 12 ferries leave Portsmouth every day. Sometimes, thousands of people go through the passenger terminal, but who will vet them all to ensure that the undesirable element that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and I do not want to travel to football matches does not get through?
  We need a Bill that will deliver what we want. We need time to reflect on its current provisions, the provisions that will be in it at 12 o'clock, and on where we shall be at 5 o'clock on Tuesday when the Bill travels the short distance down the Corridor to the other place. If it goes out of this place in good shape, it stands less chance of being amended in the other place and of creating further difficulties for us the following week.
  I hope that the Home Secretary has listened to this constructive debate. Unlike many debates on guillotine motions, hon. Members have not only expressed their anger at the guillotine, but have made constructive comments on how to improve a Government Bill that none of us wants to vote against.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. David Davis: I agree with almost everyone who has spoken in the debate, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). He lobbied me in the past when I was a Foreign Office Minister on the civil and civic rights of people in many other countries, so he surprised me when he said that, if we were not football fans, we might not understand the problem.
  62
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. I presume that he is right to say it is necessary for the Bill to become law before the summer recess. I cannot judge accurately the seriousness of the possible hooliganism that might follow the matches that are held abroad, so I shall take it as read that the Bill must become law by the beginning of August. However, even if we accept that assumption, we are involved in a hazardous parliamentary process.
  There are good reasons for the structure of Second Reading and then a pause, Committee stage and then a pause and then the final stages of a Bill before it goes to the Lords. That is the only way that the House generates decent legislation. On every other occasion when we have not followed that procedure, we have ended up with bad legislation. Even when we follow that procedure and there is insufficient argument about the issues, we sometimes end up with bad legislation.
  The Bill and the amendments demonstrate my argument. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lye11), who is a former Attorney-General, and I tabled amendments Nos. 28 and 29. In their amendments, the Government have accepted amendment No. 29 and substantively accepted amendment No. 28, but our amendments were tabled at the last minute—on Thursday evening, because the House did not sit on Friday—after relatively short consideration of the Bill. That the amendments were necessary was fairly obvious at that point; so much so that the Government probably agreed to accept them because, if they did not, the Bill would be illegal under the European convention on human rights. On that basis, the Bill was badly flawed even at first sight and who is to know what would have become apparent between Committee and Report?
  The fact that there is no gap between the Committee and Report stages is what aggrieves me most about the process suggested for the debate. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) told us that it would be possible to create a timetable for the Bill so that its Report stage would be taken on Wednesday. That would still allow the Lords sufficient time to complete its consideration of the Bill and send it back to us before the summer. That is the only intelligent way to consider the Bill. If we do not take that approach, flaws will undoubtedly remain in it.
  The Bill is designed not just for the summer, but for the foreseeable future. It will be the basis on which the courts deliver law and it will impinge fiercely on the civil rights of individuals—not just football hooligans but all football fans and probably all those who travel on the day of international football matches. All of us—whether we are football fans or not—represent people in that latter category. Therefore, it is our duty—not just our right—to make the points that we have made today.
  Although I tried to table a manuscript amendment to break consideration of the Bill into two parts so that we could debate it today and on Wednesday, that was unfortunately not possible under the procedures of the House. That is a tragedy, in my judgment. It will lead to the Bill having a harder time in the Lords and it may lead to its being greatly flawed when it becomes law.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I have listened to much of the debate this evening and on Second Reading and I am persuaded that the case for the Bill is not made. Certainly the case for proceeding with the indecent haste that the Government propose is not made.
  The problems stem from the failure of law enforcement authorities to invoke existing powers. Doubts must have been created in the minds of those Members of Parliament who listened to the "Today" programme this morning and heard the father of the only football fan who was charged as a result of the scenes in Charleroi. Scores of arrests were made, but only one person was charged and the manner in which that was done appears to have been unsatisfactory. The proposed new law is unnecessary because existing law is not being invoked. We are in danger of doing the wrong thing—albeit for the right reasons—because of the indecent haste with which we are proceeding with the Bill.
  We are in danger of legislating for one specific event in September because of the unacceptable behaviour of a very small minority. However, as has been pointed out, we have a duty and a responsibility to legislate for everyone in our society and in a way that does not prejudice the civil liberties of the majority. Any law that is made without the arguments for and against it being properly tested in debate risks becoming bad law.
  Hon. Members have made the point that it is important to listen to a wide range of views. Parliament does not have the monopoly of wisdom on such subjects. Although Parliament has listened with great interest to those Members who have a specific interest in football and have knowledge of the problems occasioned by soccer hooliganism, many Members do not have such knowledge. Therefore it is wrong for us to proceed at break-neck speed without having time to consider the other views that might have been fed into the debate had it not been timetabled in such an unsatisfactory fashion. Given the fundamental civil liberty issues that are at stake, truncating the debate in the manner suggested by the Government is ill advised and offends against the finer traditions of law making in this Parliament.
  6.9 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief, but I want to associate myself with what has been said by almost everyone on both sides of the House. In particular, I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who made a catalogue of points that all deserve serious consideration.
  I do not want to sound churlish because I am grateful to the Home Secretary for accepting the substance of the two amendments that I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) tabled. As my right hon. Friend said, they were tabled late at night, and many more amendments need to be tabled.
  I strongly support the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who said that the proposal is a sticking-plaster palliative and that it would be much better to have the Report stage after 10 pm on Wednesday, rather than after midnight tonight, as at least that would provide two more days for some kind of reflection. It is quite wrong that a Bill that delves deep and make a major attack on the civil liberties of people in this country should be rushed through in this way. We have already
  64
  said that it is not necessary, as there have been eight pieces of legislation on football matters since 1980, and a friendly match with France in September is no justification for rushing in this way.
  I shall briefly highlight the important points. The Home Secretary has already acknowledged one human rights error by accepting our amendments. However, the Bill contains another human rights error as, under schedule 1, proposed new section 21C(1) of the Football Spectators Act 1989 makes the measures applicable only to citizens of this country, which directly contradicts article 14 of the ECHR, under which such action is discriminatory. If the Home Office cannot get such matters right and, as is his statutory duty, the Home Secretary states on the front of the Bill that, under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, in his view
  the provisions of the Football (Disorder) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights,
  within a few days he will be demonstrated to be wrong on one occasion and, I believe, wrong on a second. I say that with deep respect for the Home Office lawyers who are advising the Home Secretary, many of whom I know personally and who are of a high calibre. However, if they can get it wrong when advising the Home Secretary, as we must presume, and the Home Secretary is wrong about fundamental human rights, about which the Government have made such a song and dance about introducing, the need for close scrutiny is strongly demonstrated.
  I shall say a quick word about extraterritoriality. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden tabled an amendment with which I have a good deal of sympathy, as it proposes that a criminal action that takes place abroad but is not dealt with there could be dealt with here. However, before we breach that dam, big issues are raised.
  Let us suppose that one is seen on videotape in a crowd that is milling around and clearly taking part in public disorder. If one is in such a crowd, one is likely to be contributing to disorder, whether or not one wishes to. However, one's opportunity to defend oneself may be extremely limited. Consequently, I am hesitant about supporting a measure which, if we can get the wording right, might be sensible.
  I have made the few points that I need to make immediately, and which add up to the fact that the rush on the Bill will cause us to regret at leisure what we have done in haste.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, I shall seek to reply to the debate.
  I recognise that those who have consistently opposed guillotine motions while supporting their party in government as well as in opposition have strong moral authority for what they have said today. Of those members of the official Opposition who have spoken against the guillotine, the only person in that position is the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who, throughout the period in which he was a Government Back Bencher, honourably opposed Government guillotines. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) rashly spoke about Jekyll and Hyde and people saying one thing and doing another, I must point

  65
  out that what I said about the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills does not apply to him, the right hon. Member for, famously, Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the right hon. Members for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House.
  Those Members, when Ministers or Back Benchers in the previous Government, all voted for guillotine motions, including that on the Football Spectators Act 1989 which was debated exactly 11 years ago today. I have refreshed my memory on that debate but, for those right hon. and hon. Members who have not, the case for guillotining that Bill was much less urgent than the case for guillotining the Bill today.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman voted against the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: I voted against it. There is something synthetic about the lather worked up by most Members on guillotine motions, although I except those such as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills who have a principled position that they maintain through thick and thin.
  I shall cherish the reply of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst who is on the record as saying that he always opposed guillotines. When I put to him the fact that "always" was subject to Clintonesque qualification and that he voted in favour of the guillotine on the Football Spectators Act, he explained that he was in government then. The right hon. Gentleman had a strong principle against guillotines, but another principle collided with that, namely the principle that he wished to carry on collecting the Queen's shilling as a Minister.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I ask the Home Secretary to be terribly specific and, instead of making a general defence of guillotine motions, address himself specifically to this guillotine motion? Will he tell us what circumstance makes the curtailment of debate necessary, when he received all the necessary assurances and when there was not a single indication on Second Reading to suggest that there would be any undue delay? Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) took up precisely five minutes of Second Reading. No previous indication was given in any business statement that there was going to be a guillotine. What is the justification for this guillotine?
  Mr. Straw: The justification is straightforward, as the right hon. Lady knows. The record of the Conservative Opposition is that, whatever they say, they cannot deliver undertakings that they make to the House. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire implicitly accepted that when he said that, in seeking an informal arrangement not bound by a guillotine motion, the Opposition were reasonably confident of delivering a timetable. We have Government business tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, and the day after that, and at this stage, especially in July, any Government must not be "reasonably confident" of having its business delivered, but certain. I remind the
  66
  right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that the shambles of the Opposition is such that, earlier this year, maverick action by her own Back Benchers meant that they shot themselves in the foot by preventing Prime Minister's questions from taking place and by causing the abandonment of two Opposition debates.
  There is no point the right hon. Lady shaking her head, as that is the truth. Given the fact the Opposition can wreck their own business with that kind of maverick action, they could wreck Government business more easily still. What the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, as shadow Leader of the House, said about a communications failure treads delicately over the events that took place. I was present at some of the discussions and the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that, had there been a cast-iron guarantee that the Opposition would deliver the business tonight and to which every other Member of the House was bound, we would, of course, happily have proceeded by agreement. However, having been a Minister in the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald knows only too well the imperatives on Government and the need for Government to get their business—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) shouting across the Chamber. She has had a very good innings and made an intervention.
  Mr. Straw: I turn now to some of the other matters that have been raised.
  Mr. Maclennan: In response to the right hon. Lady's intervention, the Home Secretary made the case for having a guillotine motion, but not for having this guillotine motion. Surely the argument is not so much about guillotines—the Government may be right to say that they must complete their business before the House rises—but about whether we should continue the debate right through tonight.
  Mr. Straw: I do not believe that all legislation should be guillotined, and I recognise that the fact that most legislation is not guillotined is an important safeguard for the rights of Back Benchers, whether they are on the Government or the Opposition Benches. However, for reasons that I have already explained, I think that it is necessary to complete this business tonight so that it can go to the other place. That, I understand, is what has been agreed between the business managers.
  I shall deal now with the other points raised in the debate because it is important that I sit down by 6.35 pm so that any votes can take place and the House then has a full opportunity to debate the amendments. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden made the interesting observation that hasty legislation was bad and that legislation on which there had been insufficient conflict also turned out to be bad. I happen to agree with him on the latter point. It would be interesting if one of the House Committees examined whether all legislation that had been put through the House with some speed has turned out to be bad legislation, although I do not think that that is the case. Governments of both parties sometimes have to pass legislation quickly. I had that duty in September 1998 in the aftermath of the Omagh

  67
  bombing, and I believe that it was appropriate to pass that legislation and that there is nothing defective about it, although people may have argued about its merits.
  I am in no doubt that the legislation that is most likely to be defective is not that which has been dealt with speedily, but that on which there has been no argument. I can think of several pieces of legislation during the previous Government and earlier Governments on which there was a broad consensus, and we repented in leisure about the fact that there was no engagement about the detail in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
  In this case we are proceeding with greater speed than I would wish for in a perfect world, but one of the benefits of that, not only in the process that I have sought to adopt outside the House, but inside the House, is that there is a real engagement on the key issues and, to some extent, a greater engagement than would have been the case if the Bill had proceeded at a normal pace.
  Mr. David Davis: Will the Home Secretary explain exactly why he could not separate the Committee and Report stages and meet the point, made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that we could get the Bill through the Lords and back again in this Session?
  Mr. Straw: That was discussed and determined by the business managers, and I understand that there was anxiety that if we did as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, there would not be enough time to have the Bill printed and sent to their Lordships' House by Thursday. If there is any change to that, I will ensure that it is put on the record later in the debate.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the legislation was always foreseeable, and that point was also made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) noted, three of the four measures in the Bill were perfectly foreseeable—so much so that they have been discussed at great length in the past. That ought to reassure the House. As the whole House has accepted, the first two measures are nothing more than a compression of the domestic and international banning orders on which there has been almost no disagreement in our debates or in earlier debates on the consultation papers.
  The third measure relates to the football banning order, and here I make another observation sparked by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford pointed out, 15 months ago we published a consultation paper about a football banning order that was not exactly the same as, but similar in concept and structure to the one in the Bill. One thing that I have learned since becoming a Minister is that one can publish as many consultation documents as one likes, but it is not until there is legislation before the House that—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Everybody wakes up.
  Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman says, everybody wakes up. One can try to spray on people's faces what one is proposing, but it is not until the legislation comes
  68
  before the House that people begin to wake up. None the less, if one does consult, as we did 15 months ago, people are given notice and can start putting forward their ideas. We have not suddenly thought of banning orders; the idea has been around for a long time and has been the subject of discussion for a long time.
  On the fourth element, the hon. Gentleman was simply wrong to say that the legislation was foreseeable. In the abstract, one could have foreseen our taking the powers that I propose should be taken under proposed new sections 14 and 21C in schedule 1. However, in advance of the trouble in Charleroi and Brussels, it was broadly accepted and I made it clear that such powers would be disproportionate. Our judgment was that those powers were not needed because all the advice that we had received was that our existing powers were likely to prove sufficient to deal with the problem.
  Circumstances have changed and, to paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, if circumstances change, it is a good idea to change with them. As I argued extensively last Thursday, I have sought to make it clear that in addition to the hard core of known hooligans, against which there is pretty effective police and legislative action, we must deal with the new dimension that we saw in Charleroi and Brussels—the considerable proportion of people who turn out to have records for violence and disorder in general but not for football-related violence and disorder. That is why it is nonsense to say that the fourth element of the Bill was foreseeable.
  Mr. Hughes: We do not disagree about that. I have never argued that the fourth proposal, on summary detention, was foreseeable. However, it was foreseeable that we would have a football-related Bill, so the Government cannot refute the argument for introducing it earlier in the year, when it might have been amended or expanded. When three of the four measures were always predictable, it is not defensible for them to bring the Bill to the House two and a half weeks before the recess.
  Mr. Straw: I have already made it clear to the House about 15 times that I would have preferred the powers relating to the banning order to be included in the legislation introduced by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford. We have been over the history of that, and there is no argument about that. It must be said, however, that the advice that we received, which I transmitted to the House, was that there was a general belief that the existing powers were likely to prove satisfactory to deal with known hooligans, and indeed they did. They did not prove satisfactory to deal with an emerging and substantial problem.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) said that he thought that there might be a loophole in the Bill because it did not cover Scotland and Northern Ireland. Whether we take the Bill through the House slowly or quickly there will be what he describes as a loophole because Parliament, with his full approval, has legislated to transfer responsibility for the criminal law in Scotland to a Scottish Parliament. It does not matter how much time we take because any criminal law legislation that we pass will be confined to England and Wales and, in certain circumstances, to Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked what is the view of the Scottish Parliament, and I can tell him the Scottish Executive's view. They do not at present see any need

  69
  to bring in legislation parallel to the measures that I am proposing for England and Wales, but they have undertaken to keep the matter under review.
  In the meantime, arrangements will be made for the closest possible liaison between police officers north and south of the border to establish whether there is any evidence of people seeking to evade the new controls in the way suggested. We shall also be looking to set up similar contacts with the police force in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland.
  The right hon. Gentleman's point about the Bill not applying to Scotland extends to the Republic of Ireland, where we have had no legislative authority since 1921—and quite right too. However, as it is part of the common travel area, it is possible for someone to seek to evade the controls by travelling to Dublin without a passport, because none is needed, and then travelling elsewhere.
  The point is that there is no legislation anywhere in the world that can eliminate all criminal behaviour. The question is whether legislation will better control that criminal behaviour. The judgment that the Bill will do so carries the approbation of the House. Just because one cannot do everything—in this case ensure that the legislation extends to Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—should not mean that one should not do anything. In other words, we should legislate for the serious site of the problem: England and Wales.
  I believe that there is adequate time for debating the details of the Bill in this House and the other place. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald squeaks at that proposition and seeks to raise objections to it, but I remind her of the extraordinary position into which the Conservative Opposition have got themselves. Before the end of the tournament in Netherlands and Belgium, her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was calling for legislation to be brought forward and dealt with immediately.
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady says yes. Had such legislation been brought forward straight away, aside from the fact that it is extraordinarily difficult to envisage how it could have operated effectively in a matter of days, one thing is absolutely certain: it could not conceivably have received the care and attention that has been devoted to this Bill on this occasion—[Interruption.] It is no good other Opposition Members squawking at this stage. That was the Leader of the Opposition's proposition.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, I am about to finish.
  Before the right hon. Lady starts to quibble about the time that has been allocated under the guillotine motion, she needs to remind herself of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in Bradford on 22 June. He said:
  I say the time to act is right now, for England's qualifying matches, for the next World Cup are only months away. That is why I am making this important offer to the Prime Minister.
  He did not use the word "guarantee", but he might have done—
  The Conservative party will give our full support and co-operation in Parliament to Government legislation that will stop known hooligans from travelling to football matches abroad, extend the
  70
  restrictions on international matches, give consideration to increasing the severity of punishments. Other European countries have shown that tough measures and a clear political will can win the battle against hooligans.
  That is what he said, that is what we are delivering and that is what we expect the Conservative Opposition to deliver with us—for that is the guarantee that the Leader of the Opposition gave on this legislation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: in paragraph 1(4), leave out from "Consideration" to end of paragraph 1(5) and insert—
  and on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 am on 18th July.—[Sir G. Young.]
  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 56.

  Division No. 269]

  [6.35 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Colman, Tony

  Alexander, Douglas

  Connarty, Michael

  Allen, Graham

  Corbett, Robin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Corston, Jean

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Ashton, Joe

  Cox, Tom

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cranston, Ross

  Banks, Tony

  Crausby, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Cummings, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Battle, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Darvill, Keith

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Berry, Roger

  Davidson, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blackman, Liz

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

  Blizzard, Bob

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dawson, Hilton

  Borrow, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Drew, David

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burgon, Colin

  Edwards, Huw

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Efford, Clive

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Cann, Jamie

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Galloway, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clelland, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Grogan, John

  Coleman, lain

  Gunnell, John

  71

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hanson, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Healey, John

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Heppell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hoey, Kate

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hope, Phil

  Olner, Bill

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pond, Chris

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pope, Greg

  Jamieson, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Jenkins, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rammell, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rapson, Syd

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Roy, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Laxton, Bob

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lepper, David

  Salter, Martin

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Levitt, Tom

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Linton, Martin

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McCabe, Steve

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Soley, Clive

  Macdonald, Calum

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McDonnell, John

  Spellar, John

  McFall, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McIsaac, Shona

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McWalter, Tony

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McWilliam, John

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stringer, Graham

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meale, Alan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Merron, Gillian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  72

  Timms, Stephen

  Watts, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Todd, Mark

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Vaz, Keith

  Wyatt, Derek

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Baker, Norman

  Keetch, Paul

  Ballard, Jackie

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

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Leigh, Edward

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Livsey, Richard

  Burnett, John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Burstow, Paul

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Moore, Michael

  Chidgey, David

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Chope, Christopher

  Oaten, Mark

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Rendel, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cotter, Brian

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Shepherd, Richard

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

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Townend, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Tyler, Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Webb, Steve

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Gale, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Willis, Phil

  Hancock, Mike

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Harvey, Nick

  Mr. Donald Gorrie and

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mr. Tom Brake.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved, That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Football (Disorder) Bill:—

  Committee, Report and Third Reading
  1.—(1) Proceedings on the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.
  (2) Proceedings in Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at midnight.
  (3) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
  (4) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 am on 18th July.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  2.—(1) for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

  and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put by the Chairman or Speaker—

  (a) under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or

  (b) under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill;

  the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions or (as the case may be) those provisions.

  Order of proceedings
  3. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Dilatory motions
  4. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
  Extra time
  5. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
  6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

  Supplemental orders
  7.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
  (2) If at the sitting this day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraph 1, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In its wisdom, the House has passed an amendment to the motion ensuring that
  Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 5 am on 18th July.
  You will know that the Order Paper for tomorrow will carry the date 18 July, but the convention and tradition of the House is that the House remains in the day on which it is sitting until the Adjournment or the rise of the House on that day. That will mean that the House must adjourn prior to the conclusion of the Third Reading, in order that the Third Reading may end on 18 July. That is immensely wise, as it will give us time for further consideration. What representations have you received to indicate at what time on 17 July the House will adjourn, in order for us to reach 18 July?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have received no representations. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that sometimes, at 5 o'clock in the morning, I lose track of the date, but I certainly do not lose track of the time. The House will manage to get through the proceedings all right.

Orders of the Day

  Football (Disorder) Bill
  Considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [this day].
  [Mr. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Football (Disorder) Bill
    Clause 1

      FOOTBALL MATCHES: PREVENTION OF VIOLENCE OR DISORDER
      6.52 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 20, page 1, leave out lines 17 to 20.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 21, in schedule 1, page 9, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on page 10.
      Amendment No. 28, in schedule 1, page 9, leave out lines 5 to 19.
      Government amendment No. 42.
      Amendment No. 7, in schedule 1, page 9, line 8, leave out—
      'If it appears to a constable in uniform'
      and insert—
      If a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds to believe'.
      Amendment No. 6, in schedule 1, page 9, line 9, after "him", insert—
      '(being behaviour which the constable has reasonable grounds to believe constitutes a criminal offence under the law of England and Wales)'.
      Amendment No. 33, in schedule 1, page 9, line 14, leave out—
      'until he has decided whether or not'
      and insert—
      'for such time as is reasonably necessary for him to ascertain whether or not it is necessary'.
      Amendment No. 36, in schedule 1, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
      'if authorised to do so by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent'.
      Amendment No. 37, in schedule 1, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
      'and shall give the person his reasons for detaining him in writing.'.
      Government amendment No. 43.
      Amendment No. 38, in schedule 1, page 9, line 19, leave out "24 hours" and insert "12 hours".
      Amendment No. 34, in schedule 1, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
      '; and the grounds for, and continued necessity of, such detention shall be reviewed by an officer of at least the rank of superintendent every three hours, and by a chief officer of police after 12 hours.'.
      76
      Amendment No. 35, in schedule 1, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
      '(5) No person shall be detained under subsection (3) above more than once in any period of 48 hours, nor shall any person be subject to detention under subsection (3) above for a total period of more than 24 hours within any one period of seven days.'.
      Government amendment No. 44.
      Amendment No. 8, in schedule 1, page 9, line 20, leave out—
      'If it appears to a constable in uniform'
      and insert—
      'If a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds to believe'.
      Amendment No. 9, in schedule 1, page 9, line 23, leave out—
      'an officer of at least the rank of inspector'
      and insert "a magistrate's warrant".
      Amendment No. 11, in schedule 1, page 9, line 24, leave out "inspector" and insert "superintendent".
      Government amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
      Amendment No. 39, in schedule 1, page 10, line 21, at end insert—
      '21D—Where a person, having been detained under section 21A(3) or having been issued with a notice under section 21B(2), appears before a magistrates' court as respondent to a complaint for the making of a banning order, and the complaint is dismissed, the court may on the application of the respondent order that the appropriate chief officer of police shall pay to the respondent such sum as, in the opinion of the court, is justified to compensate the respondent for any costs incurred as a result of any delay in, or cancellation of, a journey being undertaken by the respondent when he was detained under section 21A(3) or issued with a notice under section 2IB(2), as the case may be.'.
      Mr. Hughes: I shall speak specifically to amendment No. 21. As a warm-up, may I point out to the Committee that at 6.52 pm we are beginning the first of 17 scheduled debates, all of which must be finished by midnight? If ever there was a nonsense, this is it. The first group contains 20 of the 46 amendments, including one significant amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General; 11 amendments tabled by right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Front Bench, all of which relate to important issues; two amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me; and five Government amendments, tabled on Friday to a Bill that the Government published on Thursday.
      A Government change of mind is sometimes welcome, but one does not usually see such a speedy transition in legislation—[Interruption.] In case the Hansard writers did not hear the sedentary comment, I shall repeat it, as it deserves recognition: new Labour, new amendment. One might add new Labour, new tough measure every new day. Nevertheless, all the amendments are a move in the right direction.
      The debate takes us immediately to what the Home Secretary called in the previous debate the core and important new proposal in the Bill, not floated before, not discussed before, not trailed before: Parliament is asked to agree to a new form of summary detention, whereby people can be stopped when they fulfil certain conditions. At the end of the debate, I shall ask the Committee to agree to the two things that we can do to take out that proposal and start again.

      77
      There are two parts to the proposal—a trailer in clause 1(1)(d), which my hon. Friends and I seek to delete, and the substantive matter, which appears in schedule 1, paragraph 4, under the heading "Summary measures: detention", the first part of which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire has also proposed we should delete. He goes part of the way towards what we seek to do, but we believe that it is better to start again.
      I pray in aid, because it is so supportive, the editorial in The Guardian on Saturday, which appeared after my hon. Friends and I had held our discussion. It was entitled:
      MPs play a blinder but hooligan bill should go to extra time.
      Having agreed that three bits of the law need to be changed—which is the view taken by my hon. Friends and I and many other members of the Committee—the editorial continues:
      But more important, are two issues of civil rights.
      Government Ministers must be more specific in the bill about the conditions under which people can be banned for behaviour which falls short of criminal actions. It is far too vaguely worded at present ("there are reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order would help prevent football-related violence or disorder"). Second—
      this is the matter that we are debating—
      the trigger which allows a police officer to arrest and detain someone for up to 24 hours, simply on the basis that their behaviour is such that immediate inquiries should be made—
      that is the only justification required—
      must be totally rewritten.
      My hon. Friends and I agree. We formed that view last week. We would end up with a nonsense, badly drafted and still arguably inconsistent, even if we carried all the good amendments on the amendment paper. We ask the Committee to send to Report stage and on to the other place a Bill without that provision, so that the other place can start again and try to get some decent drafting, with a decent proposal that commands the support of Parliament.
      As a result of debates in recent days, the proposal has been shown to be bad law. I refer not so much to the enabling provision in clause 1 as to the substantive provision in the schedule. I shall try to persuade the Committee of why those parts of the Bill should go.
      The Bill breaks down the procedure as follows: a constable in uniform does not believe that the behaviour of the person in front of him is a criminal offence or even that the person is violent. All that is necessary is that the person's behaviour makes the constable decide that immediate inquiries should be made as to whether various conditions, which appear elsewhere in the Bill, are met.
      The conditions that must be met are, first, that the person in front of the police officer at Dover, Newhaven or any other port or airport has at any time, whether before or after this Bill becomes law, caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere—in other words, the issue is whether the person has, at any time, anywhere in the world, done anything that may or may not have been a criminal offence, and which has caused or contributed to violence or disorder. That is the trigger, and the police officer has only to decide whether the behaviour of the person in front of him makes him want to make inquiries as to whether that is the case.
      I have described the first trigger. The police officer then has to decide that he or she will detain somebody, potentially for 24 hours. During that 24 hours, the police
      78
      have to decide whether to serve a notice, for which they have to see a senior officer. The notice states that the person who has been detained must appear before a magistrates court, cannot leave England or Wales and may have to surrender a passport. If the police believe that the person will disappear before the notice is served, they can make an arrest. They therefore have the power to detain, arrest, hold, consider for 24 hours and go to a magistrates court.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for precisely the reasons that he has outlined, the police should be required to take the person to an immediate magistrates court hearing? They would then know that their tackle was in order and that there were substantial reasons for preventing the person from leaving the country.
      7 pm
      Mr. Hughes: I agree with that. [Interruption.] It is worth repeating the sedentary comment that whether their tackle is in order is not the first question that the police should ask themselves. If it has been a long night and a hard day, that might be a relevant question. We could speculate on that; it might enliven an otherwise tedious and difficult shift.
      Let me paraphrase the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has tabled an amendment which proposes that there should be a magistrates court or sitting wherever a person can be detained. Although that is a good idea in theory, my hon. Friends and I believe that it is not a good idea in practice, given that the Government are closing magistrates courts throughout the country. We would end up with no magistrates courts apart from those at every airport and seaport, and any other point of departure abroad for a football hooligan. That is probably not a good idea.
      Our view, which I hope that the hon. Member for Gainsborough—who is so competent in such matters—shares, is that the person should be taken to a court as soon as possible. Courts, magistrates and judges can sit during the evening or the night, especially if they are alerted. To be fair to Conservative Members, they have tabled another amendment which would provide for a warrant to be issued to begin the process. Like Conservative Members, we believe that if we are going to start taking liberties away from people, it should be done on good, independent authority. If the police wanted to raid the house of the hon. Member for Gainsborough or that of the Home Secretary, we would expect them to go a magistrate to get a warrant to do that. I accept that judicial, not administrative, authority should be required for the process that we are discussing.
      The whole procedure breaks down into two stages. The first can be described as, "I'll think about it, with nothing to go on other than behaviour." How are police officers meant to judge behaviour? We debated that at length on Thursday. What constitutes behaviour? Does wearing a shirt with colourful language printed on it constitute had behaviour? Does being rowdy, or with others who are rowdy, or saying nothing when asked a question, constitute bad behaviour? The Bill does not answer those questions. It is merciful that the Government have had second thoughts about some proposals.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: If a person who was stopped by the police said, "I've decided not to

      79
      go abroad; I want to go home", would the person's desire to leave constitute a breach, which would be an arrestable offence because the man was resisting the policeman's attempt to detain him against his wishes?
      Mr. Hughes: Yes. I am not being arrogant, but I have been here for a ridiculous number of years—more than 17—and I honestly do not believe that we have considered more nonsensical drafting than that for this Bill. If people detained under the power that we are considering resisted detention, they would be committing an offence for which they could be arrested and then charged, even though the police officer was not satisfied that they had behaved violently, or reached a conclusion about whether they might behave violently. Prospective criminality can thus be created because someone says, "Excuse me, I've given up. I was going shopping abroad by taking a coach with mates who were going to the match, but I'm actually going to go home because I don't want the hassle." That is nonsense.
      As well as nonsense, there is huge uncertainty in the Bill. With every day that passes, people realise what nonsense the original Bill was. More and more drafting and other changes have improved it. That suggests that there is something wrong—or that it is business as usual—in the Home Office. Producing a Bill that contains so many flaws is hardly acceptable. However, the next unanswered question is where the detention can happen. It is not obvious to me that it must happen at a port or any embarkation point. It could happen at the gates of Fratton park, Old Trafford, Roker park, St. James' park, Anfield or any football club in the country.
      Mr. Bob Russell: Roker park no longer exists; it is now the stadium of light.
      Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend is much more knowledgeable than me. I was about to end with the great denouement that one could be detained outside the New Den, off the Old Kent road. It may be sufficient to stop people outside those football grounds. There is a question about where the power can apply.
      Ms Claire Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill has to be drafted sufficiently widely to stop an individual on his way to ports as well as at ports? The relevant person could be on the Heathrow express; police officers at Victoria station therefore need powers to detain.
      Mr. Hughes: I believe that the Bill allows anyone to be stopped anywhere. If the hon. Lady came out of her house behaving madly, badly or oddly—
      Ms Ward: As if!
      Mr. Hughes: I have never seen such behaviour from her, so I am not in a position to comment. She could leave her house early in the morning or late at night and risk being nicked. She supported the Bill on Thursday; I hope that mature reflection over the weekend means that she is a little less able to support it without significant amendment.
      80
      A person could be stopped anywhere—on the Heathrow express, at a railway station, on the road to the railway station or in the coach park on the way. We did not originally believe that we were legislating for that.
      As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said very effectively on Thursday, the proposal affects a series of important constitutional points. Detention on the say-so of a police officer, without any previous charge or conviction, could lead to a further loss of liberty, to being taken to court and receiving a banning order—not on the ground of beyond reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities. That could remove further liberties for up to 10 years, the breach of which could make a person liable for imprisonment for several years. That could happen to someone who has no previous conviction at home or abroad, for something that was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The House must consider carefully whether it wants to go down that road. The whole process could be triggered by a police officer's view of someone's behaviour or words.
      It is absolutely certain that we need to amend the Bill. Steps have already been taken to allow us to move in the right direction. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is present. My hon. Friends have tried to emphasise that we are considering a point about liberty that is as important as several other points that have taken up much of the House's time when we understood the significance of our actions.
      The Terrorism Bill and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill included proposals that shifted the burden of proof. They have taken much time in both Houses because both have said no to that proposal, and the Government have altered the definition to make it clear. There has been opposition in both Houses to the proposal that the right to jury trial can be taken away. The other House threw out that proposal and this House will give it a hard ride when the measure returns from the other place. Those constitutional proposals about the criminal justice system are no more or less important than determining when and on what basis people can be detained, arrested and charged. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) has made a point about the basis on which an unconvicted free citizen can be given a criminal record.
      I ask the Committee to throw out clause 1(1)(d) and paragraph 4 of schedule 1 for the reasons alluded to earlier. We work on the assumption that, constitutionally, people are allowed freedom of movement in the country. Freedom of movement between the countries of the European Union is part of the treaty of Rome. People are entitled to move by virtue of their passports, unless good reason is shown to stop them doing so because there is a challenge to the state as well as to the citizen. We should ensure that no legislation reduces any of those rights without its being clear and precise. On the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, any such legislation must include provisions for judicial review at the earliest possible opportunity.
      The Committee should consider amendments Nos. 20 and 21 and decide that the best way to proceed is not to tinker with the summary detention power as drafted, but to remove it and start again. I shall give two reasons why those provisions are so ridiculous, and I choose that word advisedly. Proposed new section 21B, which will be inserted into the Football Spectators Act 1989, includes several different tests that must be passed before police officers can act. The constable involved will be asked to

      81
      judge whether it appears to him that someone's behaviour should trigger certain action. He will be asked to consider whether it appears that the person has met the condition that he has a pedigree of trouble in the past. However, unusually in legislation, proposed new section 21B(2) states:
      The constable may give the person a notice in writing requiring him…to appear before a magistrates' court…and giving the constable's reasons for thinking that the condition is met.
      I do not know about other colleagues, but rarely, if ever, have I seen the phrase
      "giving the constable's reasons for thinking"
      included in legislation. Normally, phrases such as "reasonable belief" or "reasonable suspicion" are used to provide a test of reasonableness. Something more than the fact that a little thought has popped in and perhaps out of a constable's mind is necessary.
      The Government and the draftspeople have mercifully realised that another odd proposal must go. Suddenly, as if from the heavens, proposed new section 21B(6) states:
      A person may not be arrested under subsection (5) … after he has appeared before the magistrates' court.
      Does that mean that he cannot be arrested ever again for anything in any part of the country? That cannot be the intention. That is the second example of the nonsense in the Bill, and it is why we should not pass such legislation.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I believe that that provision will be deleted under Government amendment No. 46, but does not that raise the further issue of whether someone can be immediately rearrested on another allegation?
      Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct that the provision will be deleted under Government amendment No. 46, but that does not answer his question. It is not clear whether people could be detained under the provision and miss the ferries, planes, trains or coaches that would have taken them to whichever match they wanted to attend, effectively vitiating the purpose of the journey. Even if police officers then decide, in whatever time is allowed to make such a decision, that it was wrong to stop those people and that they should be let go, they could decide to rearrest them because of new information, a hunch, a new idea or speculation. That would be nonsense, and we should not have such legislation.
      I am conscious of the time, so I shall deal with the other amendments in the group. I have dealt with amendment No. 28, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Hancock: Before my hon. Friend moves on, can he explain what he understands to be the position of someone who has been detained, but is released by the police before the magistrates court hearing? Will that person be entitled to ask the policeman to put in writing the reasons why he was originally detained and to ask the arresting officer to put in writing the reasons why the case has not been pursued? If not, why not?
      Mr. Hughes: The answer to my hon. Friend's perfectly good question is no. The Bill does not require the person who is stopped to be given notice in writing. That
      82
      requirement would be added under an amendment. Certainly, it is proposed that people should be given the reasons for their detention within 24 hours, but they would not necessarily know those reasons at the outset. The police officers will not have to give any reason explicitly; they will just have to form a view. That is a dangerous and broad provision.
      Mr. Hancock: Would the police officer have to tell people why they have changed their minds and on what evidence they have based their decision not to pursue the matter?
      Mr. Hughes: The more questions my hon. Friend asks, the more likely I am to be caught out. I think that the answer is no. The Home Secretary has accepted that an Opposition amendment is good in principle. Under that amendment, there would be a right to compensation if someone were unlawfully stopped, detained and arrested. We would support that proposal. However, to challenge such decisions, people need to know the reasons why they were made, although they might be compensated if they were given no reason and then released, especially if they had missed their planes or whatever. My hon. Friend's sensible questions show exactly that the Bill is nonsense.
      I shall allude to two more dangerous provisions. First, to trigger the process, the coppers involved have to decide whether the person in front of them has at any time in their lives caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. People need not have been convicted, shown to be likely to have been convicted, or convicted if they had been tried here for an offence that occurred abroad. The test simply involves the policeman deciding whether someone has caused or contributed to any violence or disorder, and then only on the balance of probabilities.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to address the Chair.
      Mr. Hughes: I beg your pardon, Mr. Martin. I was trying to deal with my hon. Friend, but I accept what you say.
      There is a second trigger. People must fulfil not only that very general requirement, which has never been seen before in English law. I stand to be corrected by more learned lawyers than me. The copper has to fulfil a second test, which the court has to fulfil later, and show that, after the 24-hour detention, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder from occurring at or in connection with any regulated football match. That extremely wide provision should not be included if we want the law to be clearly interpreted by the citizen—our constituents, who may make representations about it—as well as the state.
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the police officer's state of mind, namely, that he should have "reasonable grounds to believe", which is of course incorporated in Government amendment No. 42—the compromise amendment. For the benefit of those of us on the Labour Benches who will support the hon. Gentleman's amendment relating to

      83
      reasonable grounds, would he like to reflect on whether those reasonable grounds will be objective or subjective, given that the Bill is silent on that matter?
      Mr. Hughes: In the words, I think, of Edward Lear, I was coming to that; I was about to turn to the Government amendments. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the Bill is silent on the matter. Under Government amendment No. 42, which is supposed to improve the Bill, but which is difficult to justify, the constable in uniform must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the first condition has been met—that is, someone has a history of violence.
      Furthermore, he will have to have reasonable grounds not for suspecting, but for believing that a banning order should be made. Imagine a group of lay magistrates deciding at short notice whether a succession of people appearing before them as speedily as prostitutes appear before the magistrate at King's Cross on Monday mornings—[Interruption.] I think that someone on the Conservative Benches said, "Oh happy days, " but I may be wrong. Perhaps experience that I had not anticipated being discussed will be brought to light. [Interruption.] Indeed, some of those on the Conservative Benches are not even lawyers.
      Magistrates would have to judge individuals on their merits with no guidance and according to those two criteria because they would have to decide there and then, and on the balance of probabilities, whether to make a banning order which would stop a person travelling. Magistrates would not even have to be certain. That represents a huge intrusion on civil liberties. The Bill, even with the amendments, would be impossible to interpret properly and fairly in terms of logical drafting, sensible English and dealing with the issues in a logical order.
      Mr. Desmond Browne: I return to what the hon. Gentleman has described as a conversation we had on Second Reading on that issue. I happen to agree about the need to clarify the reasons for detention and when detention can be repeated, but I part company with him when he describes the power of summary detention as a constitutional innovation. Police officers in Scotland have enjoyed the power summarily to detain in all police investigations since 1980, when it was introduced by the Conservative Government. Similar legislation—the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995—was introduced subsequently. I venture to suggest that the hon. Gentleman voted for it, although I am not certain. More interestingly, I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), the Minister for Justice in Scotland, has no intention of changing those powers, because of their constitutional implications.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman properly reminds us of his intervention on Thursday. To be honest, I have not had the chance to read the Scottish legislation. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), to whom 1 have spoken about the Bill, is responsible for those matters in Scotland. Even the hon. Gentleman would concede that my hon. and learned Friend has been busy in the past year introducing lots of
      84
      good, reforming legislation. He may have it in mind to change those powers, but all I know is that, as the Home Secretary rightly said, the proposal has not been adopted by the Scottish Executive or by my hon. and learned Friend, as acting First Minister. [Interruption.] Nor has the Bill. In fairness to my hon. and learned Friend, I cannot say whether he has it in mind to change the law.
      Mr. Browne: rose—
      Mr. Hughes: Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's substantive point before he intervenes again. Scottish law and English and Welsh law have allowed both the power of detention and the power of detention for a particular purpose, but I think I am right to say that there has never been a power of detention in the absence of a previous conviction or the belief than an offence has been or is about to be committed. Under the Bill, the whole process could be gone through and a ban introduced without an offence having been committed and no view being formed that a person would ever commit an offence. That is mischief. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not accept it as good law.
      Mr. Browne: I want to engage the hon. Gentleman on his contention that summary detention is a matter of great constitutional significance in the United Kingdom. In fact, it has been the norm since 1980 and was legislated for in Scotland by this Parliament. In Scotland, it is possible for a police officer with reasonable cause to suspect that an offence may have been committed to detain a person. It is possible—[Interruption.] Wait a minute. A detainee may breach the terms of the detention and accumulate a criminal record, although no offence was ever committed.
      Mr. Hughes: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman makes the point better than I. Of course there is a power of detention in Scottish law, as there is in English law, but people are detained on the basis of a reasonable suspicion or a belief that an offence has been or will be committed. There is always a link between the detention and the offence. Under the Bill, a person could be detained without having committed an offence or without ever having been likely to commit an offence, because the threshold does not have an offence on the radar screen. Not only that, the Bill would not require it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that an offence had been committed. That represents a significant difference.
      I say to the hon. Gentleman that were we going through normal procedures and were the Committee meeting upstairs today and again in two days, I would be able not only to take advice, talk to my colleagues and his in the Scottish Executive and check the Scottish legislation, as would all other hon. Members, but to confirm all that with authority outside the House. That is why these are important matters. I would not want him to mislead the Committee by saying that there is a precedent for this proposal, because I do not think that there is, although there is a precedent for detention.
      That leads me to the important point that my hon. Friends and I have never said that there should not be a power of detention in English law. That is not our argument. Our argument is that powers to detain have to be carefully given, clearly circumscribed by judicial authority and tightly defined so that there can be no uncertainty. On all those tests, the Bill fails.

      85
      Let me deal with the remaining points quickly as I am hugely conscious of the deadline that the Government have imposed on us, in spite of my colleagues and me resisting it as much as we could. Government amendment No. 42, to which the hon. and learned Member for Medway referred, is an improvement because it would introduce new tests. However, it also gives rise to the set of questions with which we dealt a few minutes ago. Government amendment No. 43 is an improvement, but that makes me wonder about the original drafting. Since last week, the Government have changed their view: a person could have been detained for 24 hours, but could now be detained for only four, which could be extended to six with authority. That is a significant improvement
      Mr. Leigh: We are going that way.
      Mr. Hughes: We are going in the right direction, but if the Government now believe that four hours is the right proposal, how could they believe last week that 24 hours—six times as long—was right? I would find that change difficult to justify and it is another example of dangerously bad legislation. To be fair to the Government, a six-hour detention would need the authority of an inspector.
      Mr. Leigh: Legislation on the hoof.
      Mr. Hughes: Not only did I write that phrase down when thinking about today's debate, but it keeps coming back into my mind and has done so ever since we first saw the Bill on Thursday. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is being unreasonable.
      The Government have tabled amendments to proposed new section 21B, which make the case for getting rid of it and proposed new section 21A and rolling them together to achieve a clear provision that includes all the different parts of the offence. I have made the point that the removal of that extraordinary arrest provision and the phrase "constable's reasons for thinking" represents a welcome improvement.
      The Conservatives' amendment No. 7 represents an improvement, but it would retain the behaviour test. Amendment No. 6 would keep the behaviour test, but it also refers to an offence. I am not clear as to what offences the Conservative amendments would deal with. Would they cover football violence offences that do not merit an arrest under present law? Perhaps the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will explain. We are not discussing people who will be nicked for dropping litter, although that is an offence, because clearly such an offence is not covered by the Bill.
      Amendment No. 33 would produce a nonsense provision. There would be two tests of the words "reasonably necessary". It would have to be "reasonably necessary" for the police officer to discover whether it was "reasonably necessary" to detain a person. That would not make good law.
      7.30 pm
      The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has proposed that the officer who has to give authority should be of a higher status, which would be an improvement. Her amendment to place on the person an earlier requirement to give reasons in writing deals with
      86
      the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) raised. If there is to be an earlier stage, that is certainly something we should provide.
      The Tories have proposed a 12-hour detention period. The Home Secretary has gone further than that and has dealt with the criticisms that my hon. Friends and I made by making it three hours. The Tories suggested a three-hourly review. They would probably accept that that may not be necessary if there is a four-hour maximum period. The Tories have made a good point in their amendment No. 35, which is that no person should be detained seriatim. We must prevent vexatious detention. If a police officer realises that he has made a mistake, he cannot continue to detain that person. We need to put that in the Bill somehow.
      The "reasonable grounds to believe" provision in amendment No. 11 is better and more consistent, but still does not wrap everything up coherently, and is open to the criticism that the hon. and learned Member for Medway made. We may need to consider the requirement for a warrant, but there is no consensus on that yet. We welcome the sensible compensation provision.
      We welcome the proposed changes to the Bill. We welcome the fact that the Government propose to reduce detention from 24 hours to four or six hours. We welcome the fact that the Government propose that detention should be with the authority of an officer of a higher rank, and that detention will be on the basis not of someone's behaviour, but of reasonable grounds to believe or reasonable grounds to suspect.
      The Home Secretary knows that we have at all times been willing to try to get the Bill right, whether we liked it or not. The Bill as amended still contains a lot of nonsense and inconsistency, and it raises but never adequately answers the question why we need the power to detain. If someone is going to commit or has committed an offence, he should be nicked. Arrestable offences already exist. If the Government want a banning order, let us have one. The burden of proof is on the Home Secretary to make the case, and he must satisfy the House that this power is needed. He must explain whether anyone would be caught by it without a breach of their civil liberties who would not have been caught by the other three provisions. We think that we need to remove this provision and start again, and we believe that the other place will support us.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It may be of assistance to the Committee if I explain the approach that the Government intend to take to the amendments. I should first like to deal with the gravamen of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which is whether it is appropriate and proportionate to have the powers of summary process in what is described as the fourth part of the Bill.
      My understanding, not least from the relative silence of the Liberal Democrats, is that they support in principle the idea of a football banning order available through civil process, in slower time.
      Mr. Hughes: indicated assent.
      Mr. Straw: I am glad to have that agreement. In that case, the hon. Gentleman's argument that one should never have a power of arrest unless it leads to a criminal

      87
      conviction falls away. The football banning order is a civil process, and is similar to that of an anti-social behaviour order—that was accepted by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) when it was originally proposed two years ago, and by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) in discussions last year on the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999.
      If there is a process by which an order can be made by the court under a civil jurisdiction, there has to be a process to get those people into court. In extremis, the only way of getting people into court is by a coercive power, which amounts to the issue of a warrant by a court or other more summary process. When a football banning order is being dealt with in slower time, if a respondent fails to respond to the complaint, the court can issue a warrant for his arrest and it is for the police to execute it. I accept that there is a difference between the bench issuing a warrant and its being executed by the police and an individual police officer, off his own bat, deciding to make an arrest, but there is no difference in principle in those circumstances. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that a power of arrest should never apply when only the civil process is involved, and the process does not lead to the prospect of a criminal offence. That is simply not the case.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am having enormous difficulty understanding how a process can be described as a civil process if it allows someone to be arrested and detained—in other words, locked up—even for a comparatively short period as the Home Secretary now proposes, and makes him subject to an order of the court that restricts his liberty to travel, which is contrary to European law, or at least requires strong reasons under European law. The Home Secretary is well aware that the European convention considers the substance, not the language, of the process. Could the Home Secretary explain how he maintains the notion that it is a civil rather than a criminal process?
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there is a difference between the civil and the criminal process. He also knows that the House, with agreement from both sides, including his own party, has accepted the principle of the anti-social behaviour order, which is that there should be civil process.
      Mr. Humfrey Malins: I have not.
      Mr. Straw: I realise that there were deep divisions in the Conservative party on this issue, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the debates that took place almost exactly two years ago on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the principle of the anti-social behaviour order was supported from the Opposition Front Bench by the then shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. The House accepted that civil jurisdiction of the magistrates was an appropriate vehicle to constrain the anti-social behaviour that is described in the 1998 Act. That is a civil process. It leads to the courts making a coercive order, which amounts to a restraining injunction.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall not give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman again, because I must make progress.
      88
      The House has accepted the coercive orders issued by magistrates courts exercising a civil jurisdiction with regard to anti-social behaviour orders, yet they are just as oppressive as, if not more oppressive than, the restraint that is exercisable by a football banning order.
      As the right hon. and learned Gentleman very well knows, the civil courts have long had powers of injunction against individuals to restrain a commission of nuisance and many other public and private acts. They are coercive, but there is not the least suggestion that they are outwith articles 5 or 6.
      Sir Nicholas LyeII: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for his courtesy in giving way. With all respect, I believe that he is confused on this matter. The comparison with anti-social behaviour orders is a fair one, but there is a fundamental distinction between an injunction, which orders someone not to do something illegal but does not restrict his liberties—it is not a restriction of liberty to have to obey the law—and the Bill, which enables someone to be arrested and detained on suspicion or on reasonable grounds that they have committed a criminal offence. The Home Secretary has rightly indicated that he will accept that aspect. There is a fundamental distinction there, and the Home Secretary should take advice—even if he does not want to answer that point now—on how he calls the two things the same.
      Mr. Straw: With great respect, I do not accept that there is a fundamental distinction. Many injunctions issued by the courts—regarding nuisance, for example—prevent somebody from doing what they want to do or from going about what they think is their lawful business. We see this order and the anti-social behaviour order as similar to injunctions; they are preventive and not penal in nature. When a court has decided that there is a risk of a person contributing to violence and disorder at a football match, I do not happen to believe that preventing him from going to that match is a penal sanction. It is a minor and modest restriction of something that he wanted to do, but it is pretty minor and modest, given that he can watch the match on television.
      In terms of proportionality, the courts are well versed in balancing rights under the convention, because the public have rights under the convention, as well as individuals. We are balancing the rights of an individual to go abroad and commit violence and disorder at or around a football match against the right of the rest of the country, for example, not to have the reputation of the country so vilely abused as it was at Charleroi and Brussels.
      Mr. Browne: Under the Scottish equivalent of an injunction, it would be possible to restrict someone's movement with an interdict. Would it be possible for Chelsea, for example, to seek an injunction against named supporters to prevent them from attending football matches?
      Mr. Straw: Since Chelsea is a private company, it could, if it wished, go to court and seek injunctions against any of its supporters who sought to gain entry to its ground without permission.
      The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) may not accept the principle of the football banning order as a civil process, but the

      89
      Liberal Democrats do. If he believes that there are no circumstances in which civil process should ever be used to deal with this kind of problem, he must accept that we have to wash our hands of taking effective action against what we saw in Charleroi and Brussels. Obviously, the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is shared by a number of Conservative Members. However, there is no point in the Conservatives' complaining the next time trouble occurs, because they will have decided that no other process is available to restrain such behaviour.
      The Liberal Democrats take the view that the civil route to a football banning order ought to be available. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has accepted that there has to be a process for getting respondents into court if they do not wish to go there. In slow time, the process is a summons or complaint served against the person. If he refuses to comply with the summons, a warrant is issued for his arrest. The fourth part of the Bill deals with circumstances where someone is in the process of leaving the country—although not necessarily at the port—and when there are reasonable grounds for believing that he will get involved in violence or disorder at or around a football match.
      If we want to deal with that, we must have a process for getting those individuals into court as quickly as possible—if that is what the Committee wants. We have thought about this matter and we have shown that we are open to suggestion on amendments. However, I cannot conceive of any other means by which we can get individuals into court for consideration of whether or not a football banning order ought to be issued except by giving the police powers, however constrained, that are ultimately coercive to require that person to go to court.
      Moreover, because the alternative is to do nothing and let the person go abroad and commit mayhem, there has to be a court process and a means of getting people to court before there has been a court process. That is why we have suggested that the police should have a power to stop someone, question them—to form a proper judgment about whether they ought to be subject to a court process—and get them to court. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person will not comply with the notice given, we should arrest him and deliver him to the court, as the bench does in other circumstances. The structure of this part of the Bill is, I suggest, perfectly coherent. Some may disagree, but we have thought the process through.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: That is a perfectly proper point, and I have not argued that there could not be detention. If the precondition were a previous conviction, for example, and if detention immediately followed—based on action that was authorised by judicial process and on reasonable grounds—we could have one process, rather than two. If the Home Secretary is willing to look at that, he will be moving in the right direction.
      Mr. Straw: We have one order. At the time of Charleroi, many suggestions were made that we should take powers similar to those used in Germany, where it appears that the police had a power simply to stop people and turn them back, partly on the basis of lists that they had maintained.
      We know from experience in Belgium that, in certain circumstances, the police there have an administrative power of arrest under which they need no grounds
      90
      whatever to pick someone up and detain them for 12 hours. I never thought that such a process was appropriate; it is quite inconsistent with the rule of law and traditions of this country to give the police a power to pick people up without that ending in court action. There are limited circumstances—I am not suggesting that they are parallel—where the police have the powers to detain and that does not end in court process, as under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts and immigration legislation. Those are different circumstances.
      Given the desire to deal with the mischief of people not previously known as football hooligans going abroad and causing the kind of mayhem that we saw in Charleroi, there is a process by which the police could intercept those people—but that has to be linked to a court process. We have proposed to deal with that by the football banning order: one order with two routes—one slower and one more urgent—to achieve that end.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey cannot have it both ways. I have tried to be as open as possible and I put a draft before the House as early as possible to be the subject of discussion. Legislation is an iterative process, and so it should be. I have sought to respond whenever right hon. and hon. Members have made suggestions.
      As this is a faster process than usual, we have had to act quickly. I listened to the debate on Thursday, discussed the matter with the Minister of State and came to the view that we had not got the Bill right and that we should therefore table amendments. Since we had formed that view, we decided to respond straight away, rather than dragging things out until today.
      Government amendment No. 42 changes new section 21A(2) in a way that I hope will command widespread agreement. It makes it clear that a constable must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person before him has
      at any time…caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewher
      before detaining him to make further inquiries. He must also have reasonable grounds to believe that
      making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches
      New section 21B is similarly amended so that the constable must also have those grounds before directing someone not to leave the country.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: What possible reasonable grounds might a constable have for believing that somebody had
      caused or contributed to any violence…?
      Mr. Straw: That goes to the heart of the measure. It depends on the evidence. The constable must believe that there are reasonable grounds for such a suspicion and for believing that a banning order would help to prevent such violence or disorder. The phrases are directly paralleled by powers that have been in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for more than 15 years, and the courts are well used to interpreting them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) said, such powers are also paralleled in legislation in Scotland. We decided to make this important change in the light of comments made on Thursday.

      91
      The inclusion of "reasonable grounds" aims to dispel any lingering notion that the measure could be used to detain and issue a notice to people solely on their appearance or on the basis of meagre evidence. The constable is effectively required to ask himself the same question as the magistrate and consider whether the evidence would justify a banning order before issuing a notice.
      Government amendment No. 43 responds to concerns about the maximum period of detention for further inquiries as originally drafted. Originally, there would have been 24 hours, either for inquiry or for process to the court, or both. It would not have been possible for someone to be detained for more than 24 hours overall.
      I accept the concerns that have been expressed, and I am satisfied—and so, more importantly, are the police—that four hours, or six if authorisation is received from an inspector or above, is sufficient time to enable the constable to make his inquiries. At the very latest, a decision on whether to issue a notice will have to be made on the evidence before the constable when the period expires. I feel that that strikes an acceptable balance between the rights of the individual and the operational imperatives on the police in the necessary effort to combat hooliganism.
      Government amendment No. 44 is consequential on the foregoing two amendments. Government amendment No. 45 further tightens up the procedures. There will now be a requirement on the constable to state the grounds for issuing a notice directing someone not to leave the country and to appear before a magistrates court.
      The additional safeguards that the Government amendments put in place should go a long way to reassuring those who have been concerned about the powers granted to the police that they are no more than is required in order to tackle the problem of hooliganism effectively. They are no more than is needed to ensure that, when there are reasonable grounds for believing that a banning order should be made, the individuals can be got to court quickly so that the court can make the decision.
      We cannot accept amendments Nos. 20 and 21, as they would entirely remove the measure that empowers a constable to issue a notice. Similarly, we cannot accept amendment No. 28, which would remove the power to detain to make immediate inquiries to ascertain whether a person has
      at any time…caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
      Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are superseded by the Government amendments about which I have just spoken, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will not press them to a Division.
      Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 are not acceptable because operational practicalities are such that an inspector may well be the senior officer present at the scene. Authorisations for many parts of PACE used always to be given at the level of superintendent or above. As a result of a process that began under the previous Administration, with our support, of providing greater empowerment to ranks lower down, some of the powers are now authorised
      92
      at the level of inspector. My recollection is that we made proposals to extend authorisations at inspector level as amendments to PACE in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and I believe that those amendments carried the support of the whole House.
      Inspectors are senior and experienced police officers, well used to making difficult decisions, and I think it wholly appropriate that they should be able to authorise the use of this new power. Those who are worried about some continental police practices should bear it in mind that all these powers take place in the context of strong powers—to be made stronger in due course, when we fulfil our commitment to introduce firmer arrangements—that already exist in the Police Complaints Authority to investigate complaints against the police.
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: What about amendment No. 9?
      Mr. Straw: I will come back to that in a moment.
      Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 38 are superseded by Government amendments reducing the maximum period of detention, and I hope that they will not be pressed to a vote.
      Amendment No. 35 is designed to ensure that the police are unable to detain a person on more than one occasion in 48 hours and to limit the maximum aggregate period of detention in any seven-day period. I am not sure that the first limb is helpful. The second is unnecessary in the light of the Government amendment restricting detention periods to a maximum of four hours.
      Providing that someone shall not be detained more than once in 48 hours has the following consequence: if someone is detained and then released and a direction not to leave the country is issued, and that person seeks to breach the direction and leave the country from another port, it becomes illegal for officers at that port to detain him while inquiries are made. That would not be a sensible outcome.
      I understand that amendment No. 35 is designed to ensure that the power is not used oppressively. I am certainly ready to consider the matter further, and if I conclude that a serious mischief has been left undealt with, we will arrange for suitable amendments to be introduced in another place.
      Amendment No. 36, as it relates to authorisation of an extended period of detention, is superseded by Government amendment No. 43. I hope that that will be accepted.
      Amendment No. 37 is not strictly necessary. It is a long-established requirement of English law that reasons for detention must be given. However, I am content to accept this additional safeguard and agree to the amendment, so we will have belt and braces.
      Amendment No. 9—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah! He has found it."] Like a genie out of a bottle. I have suddenly remembered the answer. Luckily, I can read my handwriting for once. The amendment would require a magistrate's warrant before a notice could be issued. That is simply impractical. The Bill is designed to get the person before the court as soon as possible.
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: indicated dissent.
      Mr. Straw: That is how we read the amendment, even if the hon. Gentleman thinks otherwise.

      93
      Amendment No. 39 deals with compensation. I accept that the Bill would be improved by explicit provisions on compensation, going beyond the provisions of common law, and we are currently preparing an amendment on the subject to be introduced in another place. Among the matters to be covered that are not covered by amendment No. 39 are the maximum amount and the possibility of appeal against refusal to grant compensation. I spent 18 years in opposition and I well recognise the difficulties of drafting amendments, so I make no complaint about the amendment. It raises an important principle, but I hope that in the light of what I have said the right hon. Lady will withdraw it.
      I have spoken as briefly as I can to cover the ground and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will accept that we have gone a long way to meet the spirit and, in some cases, the letter of the amendments that have been tabled, except those that simply seek to remove a major, operative part of the Bill, which we cannot accept.
      8 pm
      Miss Widdecombe: This is an important group of amendments, many of which go to the heart of the doubts and queries that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have about the Bill. So important is this group of amendments that I regret that we were obliged to spend more than two hours debating a completely unnecessary guillotine motion: that time would have been much better spent debating the merits of the Bill's various clauses.
      It is true that both my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I—not to mention other right hon. and hon. Friends—have called for some time for measures to be taken. However, if the Home Secretary is frank, he will admit that the fourth of the four options that he set out in his statement had never been sought; was completely new; and is the source of most of the concern that has surrounded our debates. The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that on no occasion did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition or I urge him to introduce that particular power. I have never suggested that that power does not have merit, but I have said that it is new and unexpected and has serious implications for the civil liberties of innocent people and for the police vis-a-vis the courts, and that there should therefore be a full and proper examination of that power. What the Home Secretary sees as a contradiction in the Opposition's position is not in fact a contradiction at all.
      Mr. Straw: I do not disagree for a second with the right hon. Lady about the need to debate the issue properly, or that our proposal is new. However, she said last month that my position would have been very much strengthened if I
      had taken all measures that other countries have taken.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000: Vol. 352, c. 38.]
      I took her to mean such powers as the German police had taken, and that, while at that stage we did not have such powers in mind, she did.
      Miss Widdecombe: I admire the elegant wriggle that the Home Secretary has just performed, but it does not take us any further forward.
      I shall, with as much brevity as the Home Secretary, turn to the amendments before us. Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 stand in my name. I recognise that Government
      94
      amendment No. 42 seeks to cover the sources of concern, which were the grounds on which a constable or an inspector could detain, delay or prevent somebody from travelling. I recognise that Government amendment No. 42 takes care of many of my concerns, and the Home Secretary will be relieved to know that I shall not press my amendments.
      I must, however, take up an issue which I find puzzling—and which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also found puzzling. I do not believe that the Home Secretary gave a response to it in his contribution. In Government amendment No. 42, the Government use the phrase "reasonable grounds for suspecting". In our amendments, we offer the phrase "reasonable grounds to believe". The Government have also used "suspect" and "believe" in different places in the Bill. Is there a distinction between those words? Are we being asked to accept a lower standard in Government amendment No. 42—or is it just an accident that the Government resort to the two different words in different places? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey also raised that point and I should be grateful for clarification. Even in the absence of clarification, however, we will not press amendments Nos. 6, 7 or 8.
      Amendment No. 33 makes an important point which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey appeared unable to understand, but which is in fact rather obvious. We sought to apply the test that detention should last only as long as reasonably necessary, and not until the officer had decided whether to proceed. If detention could last only as long as reasonably necessary, that would introduce an objective test. A police officer detaining somebody until he gets round to deciding whether to proceed is not an objective test. I accept that some of the Government's amendments cover that point and I shall not press amendment No. 33.
      I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary had to say about amendments Nos. 36 and 11, when he took issue over the suggestion that the appropriate rank to grant authorisations should be superintendent. Amendment No. 36 also seeks to introduce an authorisation process: there is an authorisation process for the new powers in proposed new section 21B but not for the exercise of powers in proposed new section 21A. I await the Home Secretary's comments before deciding whether to take the matter further.
      I thank the Government for accepting amendment No. 37, but I do not think that it is as superfluous as the Home Secretary tried to suggest. As the right hon. Gentleman is in emollient mood, I shall not press him further on that. Similarly, I accept that Government amendment No. 43 goes beyond what we propose in amendments Nos. 44 and 38, in which we sought to limit the time of detention and to reduce it from 24 hours. We shall not, therefore, press those amendments.
      Mr. Straw: It may be helpful if I pick up the right hon. Lady's point about the use of the words "suspect" and "believe" in different places. It is deliberate, I am relieved to tell the House, and—more important—it minors and draws on the provisions of PACE. The phrase "reasonable grounds to suspect" is appropriate for the powers of detention and to make immediate inquiries. Once the inquiries have been made, the constable needs to have

      95
      "reasonable grounds to believe" that the conditions for a banning order have been met. That is consistent with PACE.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am glad that the Home Secretary's brain caught up with him. It did not have far to travel. I note his explanation and, as I have said, we shall not press those amendments. However, I ask him to accept that amendment No. 35 has merit in that it would provide that the power of arrest and detention in proposed new section 21A should not be used repeatedly. Without that safeguard, it could be used seriatim as a power of preventive detention. The Home Secretary has acknowledged that there could be merit in the proposal, and I will accept his offer of considering it further and perhaps seeking to introduce an amendment in the other place. If he does not, others may seek to do so.
      I note the Home Secretary's comments on amendment No. 11. I retain some doubt about whether proposed powers of such gravity should be left in the hands of the inspector, but the right hon. Gentleman has described operational reasons and I am prepared let that rest.
      We shall, however, press amendment No. 9 to a Division when the appropriate time comes, unless the Home Secretary can persuade me that I am in deep error. The right hon. Gentleman lost his response to that amendment, then found a relevant bit of handwriting in the margin to his notes, but he did not go on to explore it very thoroughly. He has therefore not convinced me that I am in any error.
      Amendment No. 9 would make the issue of a notice to appear authorisable only by judicial warrant. That process is not unknown in law. The amendment would modify what at present is an arbitrary power. Unless the Government can give me a good reason to the contrary, we shall feel constrained to press the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady knows that I am sympathetic to the thrust of her argument. Does she not agree, however, that the correct process should be that the police officer who stops a person initially must have formed the view that he has sufficient justification to convince a magistrate that his action is appropriatein—in addition to his obtaining the judicial authorisation of a magistrate's warrant? If the Bill provided that the same test had to be applied by the officer making the initial decision to stop a person and by the court, the measure would be simpler and clearer.
      Miss Widdecombe: Yes, that is a reasonable suggestion.
      Mr. Straw: I want to help the right hon. Lady on amendment No. 9. The conundrum concerns the need to get people into court, and to instigate a process that will ensure that matters are properly considered by the court. For the purposes of this argument, at least, it appears to be accepted that the police will have to intercept people about to leave the country who are intent on hooliganism. However, there will then be a need to get those people into court, and for the court to have an opportunity to consider the case against them.
      96
      First, the Government propose that the constable should have a power to stop people, to make inquiries about them, and to stop them disappearing while those inquires are made. The time limit governing that power is now to be four hours, extendable to six, but the inquiries may only take a short time. Secondly, it is our view that, if the constable is satisfied, on the basis of previous convictions, that further action is necessary, he must be able to issue a notice to get people into court.
      The right hon. Lady appears to be saying that, if a constable forms the view that people have contributed to violence and disorder in the past and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they will contribute to violence and disorder at a football match, those people must be taken to a magistrate who will issue a warrant to get them into court. I hope that she will consider—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the Home Secretary that he is making an intervention.
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady's proposal would mean that magistrates would have to be on hand day and night wherever the power was exercisable. That would simply not be practicable.' see that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the former Attorney-General, is nodding, so I think my point about practicality is accepted.
      Miss Widdecombe: I do not agree. What is impracticable about having a stipendiary magistrate on duty? If there were a real will to safeguard the rights of innocent citizens, there would be a much greater will to involve the courts and judicial processes at all stages. Therefore, I still intend to press amendment No. 9 to a Division. By the end of the debate, the Home Secretary may have thought up some even more impressive arguments, but at the moment I cannot believe that the amendment is impracticable.
      8.15 pm
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I nodded at the Home Secretary because he was raising a practical problem, but my right hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Enormous practical problems will arise from the Bill. A person can be under arrest for up to six hours, but what happens if he walks off before being called before the court?
      Miss Widdecombe: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valid and helpful point.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with amendment No. 39, which would provide for compensation to be paid if a person prevented from travelling abroad did not qualify for a banning order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he accepted the principle of the amendment but not its drafting, and that he would raise the matter in another place. On that basis, I am happy not to press the amendment.
      We welcome Government amendments Nos. 42 to 46, which do much to improve the Bill and which reflect some of the sentiments in our amendments. We are glad that they have been taken on board.
      I have given much consideration to Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 20 and 21, and also to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member

      97
      for North-East Bedfordshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). I do not think that we on the Opposition Front Bench can support or press them, although my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend are entitled to make their own decisions. The amendments would effectively negate this part of the Bill. We continue to want to try to improve the Bill instead of throwing it out altogether. That is why we shall not stand in the way of Third Reading tonight, although very substantial improvements must still be made before we can have confidence in the Bill.
      Mr. Browne: I shall be brief. I made clear my feelings about summary detention when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). As to whether the phrases "reasonable cause to suspect" or "reasonable cause to believe" would generate difficulty for magistrates, my experience in the summary criminal courts in Scotland leads me to believe that there is plenty of help with their meaning to be found in road traffic legislation. For years, those phrases have been used liberally in that legislation, and they have been well chewed over by lawyers north and south of the border. They are clearly and well understood.
      I wish to speak to two issues—the right to re-detain, about which I have some concerns, and the absence in the Bill as previously drafted of any requirement for constables to record the reasons for stopping a person, or to supply those reasons to the people detained. I hope to make clear to the Committee why I think that those issues are related.
      Now that amendment No. 37 has been accepted, I am satisfied that the requirement to record the reasons for stopping a person has been incorporated in the Bill. That is important, but so is protecting people from the misuse of the power of summary detention. That is why the Bill should contain a clear provision preventing constables from using the four or six-hour power of detention to prevent a person from travelling, when those constables do not have the power to move to the next stage of the process—in other words, where there is no evidence to support a statement or warrant application under proposed new section 14B.
      I agree with the principle of amendment No. 35, but not with its wording. I suggest that a simple amendment should be incorporated in the Bill requiring that, where a person is released at the termination of a period of detention under the relevant provision in the Bill, he will not thereafter be detained under that provision
      on the same grounds, or on any grounds arising from the same circumstances
      The purpose of such a simple amendment—and I understand the Home Secretary to have indicated that he has an open mind about the issue—is to prevent someone from being detained again for exactly the same reason as he was detained before. If information or reasons additional to the information or reasons previously recorded come to the constable's attention, such an amendment would allow him to exercise his statutory power again.
      That suggestion to the Government is in response to the problem identified in amendment No. 35. I have nothing further to add.
      Mr. Malin: I wonder whether I might raise with the Minister a few nuts-and-bolts issues about the amendments in connection with detention and reference to court. By way of preamble, it is a tragedy that a Bill of this importance should be debated in such a short time. Many in the House could contribute at length to debates on amendments to improve the Bill. I was given a draft Bill on Wednesday, then a further draft, and then I sat down to work out some amendments. To cut a long story short, it was not until this morning that I knew that they had been selected, and I had them in my hand—what a way to do business. If people could see what we were doing, they would be ashamed of us.
      Let me give the Government an example of practical problems that might arise when England plays football against France and 20,000 people from this country decide to go to France to see the match. Some 10,000 have tickets, 10,000 have not. The match is on a Saturday, so people will travel to France on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday, or Saturday morning. Of that 20,000, let us say for the sake of argument that a fifth—4,000—will be travelling from Dover, spread over a few days, and that the police and authorities will be seriously concerned about 10 per cent., or 400 people.
      Let us picture the scene. Four hundred people will be stopped by the police at Dover—or around Dover, because they are going there by different routes. Unless the police wait outside the front door of their home—I understand that under the Bill it is entirely possible for the police to stop them at any time they want to—we shall assume that all those people get to Dover. What on earth will the practical situation be?
      I pause now to ask whether the Government have taken advice or soundings from the bodies that could advise on detention and trial. There are so many of them—the stipendiary bench, the Magistrates Association, immigration officers, the court service, magistrates clerks, the Law Society and the Bar Council. Will the Minister tell us informally how many of those bodies were consulted before the Bill was presented on Thursday? Will he tell us formally? Perhaps the answer is that no real consultation took place with any of them.
      Let us picture the scene at Dover. If one spreads those 400 people over three days, that is 130 or 150 per day. Each of them is, in simple terms, taken into custody by a police officer who is suspicious of them. Are there enough police at Dover to do that? Will the immigration authorities at the point of exit have any powers given to them in this respect?
      Mr. John Gummer: My hon. Friend fails to point out that these 150 people will be among a large number of other people. I still find it difficult to understand how, in the absence of any previous conviction, one could form a reasonable consideration that one had reasonable grounds, at that point, to detain a particular person among so many. It seems a fiction from the imagination of the Home Secretary that such a situation could arise.
      Mr. Malin: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We shall be coming on to that a little later. How can an officer make a judgment? Even so, he or she will make a judgment and the person will be taken into custody. Can the Minister confirm that that person can be in custody

      99
      for up to six hours only? If that is right, what happens to the person then? He has so far been treated under a criminal umbrella in that he has been placed in custody. Will the Minister tell me how many custody suites there are at Dover, and whether the police believe that they can cope? Given that the person is in a criminal situation, will the Minister confirm that he has to be released after six hours?
      If that person is released, is he given bail under the Bail Act 1976, with all the criteria that apply; or is his case simply adjourned civilly, without there being any duty on him under the 1976 Act to return? If it is under the 1976 Act, and he does not return to face the court case, will the Minister confirm that all the powers of arrest and 1976 Act offences can and will be used, and that they will be used in the same proceedings as the civil complaint?
      Mr. Browne: Has the hon. Gentleman looked at proposed new section 21C(2), which appears to answer his question? It provides that if people do not comply with notices under proposed new section 21B—presumably the notices that will be issued to people who are released from detention if they are not then free to go—they will be guilty of a criminal offence and may be arrested.
      Mr. Matins: Yes, I have seen that. However, I am going through an exercise to find out what will happen. The position remains that a person will be taken into custody by an officer. has to be released after six hours, and has to go before the court within 24 hours. If the person is released, is he on bail, it being an offence under the Bail Act 1976 not to return to court? Can conditions be imposed under the 1976 Act for someone to return to court the next day?
      If 150 cases are to take place in one day, a serious handling problem will arise. If 150 defendants are to come before the court, their cases will not be handled in one court building or in 10. Does the Minister understand that dealing with such cases will require, on those dates, certainly 10 and possibly 20 acting or full-time stipendiary magistrates in court buildings that can take them.
      What happens when one gets to court? Does the case automatically go ahead? What happens if the Crown—if it is the Crown—says, "We would like to put this off; our paperwork is not in order"? There could be a huge handling problem at our ports of exit in relation to detention and reference to court, which has not been discussed sufficiently.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Am I right in assuming that what will be required under the law is not just that people be brought before the court within four or six hours, their names read out in court and the cases adjourned, but that the court actually deal with them; otherwise the power of detention expires? That means that there would have to be a substantive hearing
      Mr. Matins: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I think it is the case—I am trying to draw it from the Minister—that when the person appears before the court, that is the substantive hearing which is dealt with on the spot, rather than adjourned for a month; otherwise, one
      100
      would be in a state of complete chaos. Again, I want to know that the Minister has thought the matter through and that the nuts-and-bolts problems of mass exit from our ports over two or three days have been considered in terms of lack of staff, court space or detention space.
      8.30 pm
      My final point is important, although it is very much a Committee point. What will happen in ports where port authority police work? What will their role be? In Harwich, for example, the port authority police have certain functions and powers. How will those officers overlap with ordinary police officers in cases of this sort?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall try to speak briefly. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for, in effect, accepting amendment No. 28. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who tabled it with me, made it clear before putting his name to it that he would be here for a limited time this evening because of a longstanding constituency engagement.
      The Government are accepting that an officer may detain an individual for only four to six hours with a view to bringing that individual before a court. As my hon. Friends have asked, should an individual be brought before the court on the say-so of an inspector, or should there be a warrant from a magistrate? That is a sensible question, and the answer is not easy. There are practical advantages—swiftness for one—in having a police officer undertake that function, but if it is done in summons to a warrant, it may be easier to hold the person until the court can hear the case.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) that there is a real danger of chaos in our courts and ports when the Act is put into operation. That is one reason why it is so sad that we are trying to rush the Bill through. Acceptable legislation can be crafted, although it is difficult to do so, but I doubt whether it can be done on the timetable before us and the other place. There is a real risk that we shall end up with an Act that is unworkable.
      I shall discuss briefly whether this should be a criminal or civil process. Detention in order to bring someone before a court smacks much more of criminal than civil procedure. With respect, I ask the Home Office to reconsider that aspect. I am much comforted that the Home Office has indicated that it will accept, in a later amendment, that whatever the individual is accused of must constitute criminality. I am grateful for the effective acceptance of amendment No. 28, which will mean that someone can be brought before magistrates only on the basis of reasonable grounds for suspecting that the condition in proposed section 14B(2) of the Football Spectators Act 1989—that the person must have caused or contributed to violence or disorder—is met.
      I wish to make two points of substance, on which I shall probably table amendments on Report. I shall probably go to the Public Bill Office to table those amendments during the next hour or two. First, it should not be possible for someone to be subject to an order of the court if the only basis for it is a spent conviction under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. 1 do not believe that it can be fair to place a football banning order on someone on the basis of a conviction that is out of date.

      101
      Secondly, there should be some time limit on the conduct that caused or contributed to violence or disorder. As I look around the Chamber with the deep respect in which I always hold Parliament, I expect that 98 per cent. of us—I do not discriminate on grounds of sex—have at some stage in our lives contributed to violence or disorder. There are no mirrors in the Chamber, but, if I saw one, I might find myself in that category.
      The definition in proposed section 14B(2) is astonishingly wide. Happily, it is qualified by the proposal that actual criminality must be required. However, anyone who has been caught up in a football crowd that is becoming slightly out of hand will fall within the definition. Any ancient piece of video tape that showed them there, perhaps the worse for wear or a little merry, could be brought forward as evidence, and I am sure that there are many such tapes. That would be going too far and would be oppressive. Some time limit—five, seven or 10 years—should be established to keep the use of such evidence under control.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last two points. May I draw his attention to amendment No. 41, which deals with the spent conviction point, although I do not pretend that it is perfectly drafted?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. One of the problems with the time scale facing us is the difficulty of finding time to read the amendments and spot exactly how they fit into the tapestry of the Bill.
      I welcome Government amendment No. 46, but must return to practicalities in the magistrates courts. Can the Minister explain how the process will work? Let us suppose that someone is arrested because an officer believes, because of that person's demeanour at the port or airport, that he is the kind of person likely to cause trouble and may well have a previous conviction. If the officer finds that the person does have a previous conviction—a relevant one, which all of us agree should cause the person to be brought before a court and banned—how will the person be kept available to the court once the six hours in which he may be held in detention has passed? What practical arrangements will be made? If, having been let out after six hours, a person may walk away or even board a later P&O ferry, the Act will fall into disrepute. I hope that a sensible answer can be found to that question, and I should be happy to co-operate with the Government in seeking one. For now, however, the position is not clear.
      Ms Ward: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman studied the detail of schedule 1? New section 21B(2)(b) refers to what the notice may require of the person who has been detained. It states that the person would be required
      not to leave England and Wales before that time—
      and, under (2)(c), might be required
      to surrender his passport to the constable.
      That would take place before the person's appearance at a magistrates court.
      102
      Unless I misheard the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not see how someone released after six hours, and before appearing at a magistrates court, could wander on to a ferry. Could he explain his point again?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Lady may have a good point, provided that there are enough police to spot what is happening. The individual certainly could not be detained in a cell after six hours on the basis of that provision. If there were enough police officers to keep such individuals under surveillance and to spot them making for a boat, and if they have been summonsed—
      Ms Ward: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, under the provision to which I referred, they would be required to hand over their passports? After the six hours—whether or not they had been detained—they could not physically leave the country, because they would have no passport. It would also be an offence for them not to appear at the magistrates court. That would clearly be a further consideration for people who believed themselves innocent and wanted to prove that point.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: That may be correct. To take the passport may be the practical answer, but I should like to hear it from the Minister. I should like him to piece those points together to show that they produce a coherent whole. My objective is not to make clever points, but to try to ensure that we produce coherent legislation. The hon. Lady plays a useful role—at least in educating me—and I thank her for that.
      Amendment No. 35, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), would prevent repeated arrest and deserves careful consideration. The simple removal, under Government amendment No. 46, of a safeguard in the measure—the provision that someone could not be rearrested within 24 hours—could leave too little protection.
      We are all struggling to achieve a balance so that the measure is workable and fair, but there are real difficulties. My main reason for speaking to the amendment was to highlight questions on spent convictions and time limits.
      Mr. John McDonnell: I want to follow up the pragmatic approach taken by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), and to seek some reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State on a constituency point.
      Heathrow is in my constituency and a large number of people might be detained there at any one time under this measure. I have visited the facilities available there for the detention of suspects and others; they are extremely limited—at the most there are a dozen cells. It is thus possible that overspill detainees might be transferred to police stations in my constituency. That would require additional police resources to supervise the cells and to assist in processing the detainees to the magistrates court. Uxbridge magistrates court is also in my constituency.
      I am anxious to obtain assurances that before we implement the legislation, there will be a full review of its resource implications in constituencies such as mine. It could be a significant drain on police resources that would have an impact on the ability of the police to tackle crime and disorder generally in my community
      Mr. John Gummer: I am concerned because, if there is a need for sub-paragraph (4), it means that a considerable number of people would have to be apprehended under that provision. If it were to apply only occasionally, it is unlikely that we should be dealing with the matter in that way. The more people who come under that category, the more difficult it is to explain or to defend the whole procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) suggested.
      We are in danger with this measure, because, as none of us like football hooligans and naturally want to stop them travelling abroad and lowering the reputation of our country, we start with the assumption that the Home Secretary must be right in trying to find an answer to the problem. However, many of us are concerned that he has found not one answer, but several. After each successive attempt to find the right answer, he has found that his previous answer was wrong.
      It is not possible to believe that, if a period of 24 hours was considered essential three days ago, a period of four hours, with a possible extension to six hours has now become practicable. I suspect that it has not. I suspect that the Home Secretary has discovered that perfectly reasonable, decent, sensible, law-abiding, non-hooligan Members of the House recognise that detention for 24 hours is intolerable if it takes place because a constable believes that someone may have done something in the past that does not—or will not until the Bill is amended—constitute criminality or may in future do something that does not constitute criminality, but that may contribute to violence or disorder.
      8.45 pm
      If we bring the period down to four hours, we shall face the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking raised. At places where we expect large numbers of people to congregate to go to a match abroad, we shall need not only large numbers of police officers but new arrangements for magistrates to operate. I do not believe that there will be all those policemen or the arrangements for the magistrates. The provision will not work. The same people will return to the same ports and travel abroad to make the same row and the Home Secretary will return to the House and say, "I am frightfully sorry. I did my best, but the provision did not work." That is what worries me about this clause.
      The House appears to be saying that there is a problem for which there must be an answer. Any answer will do—the period can change from 24 hours to 4 hours—because if we do not have an answer, people will say that we are not doing our job. However, the worst job that we can possibly do is produce an answer that we know will not work just because we think that we must do something.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: If one reads the Bill, one might imagine that the court procedures will take five minutes. However, court procedures with the opportunity, I assume, of some form of representation for those brought before the court are likely to take days. Individual cases will take hours and, if they are not resolved in that period, they may take days, with adjournments, so that the necessary evidence may be adduced.
      Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because that might happen, the tendency will be to treat
      104
      such cases like speeding offences. It does not matter whether one gets the cases wrong because the important point is to get them through. The provisions in the Bill are serious because I fear that local magistrates will have no alternative but to proceed at a pace that does not fairly give people an opportunity to ensure that they put their case and are heard properly. Magistrates will be tempted to think, "I'm sure this officer is doing the best thing. Indeed, if I do not accept that, I shall undermine an important provision that is necessary if the reputation of my country is to be defended."
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The implications are that if someone cannot be brought before the magistrates within 24 hours—a notice being served after he has been held by a police officer for four or six hours—he is bound to be released. That will discredit the earlier part of the process and, in reality, many people will probably be in that category.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is not only right, but does not go far enough. I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but my reading of the clause is that the constable may give the person a notice in writing that requires that person to do several things and the constable can take the passport away. In the debates on Second Reading and in those held so far today, we have not been clear enough about what that would mean. Passports are not granted through the grace of Governments, but are owned by citizens as the result of their being a citizen of the European Union and the British Isles.
      Several hon. Members: rose—
      Mr. Gummer: I shall give way in a moment. I want to restate that that is an important issue. Taking away someone's passport is not a mere passing matter, and the House should be extremely concerned if they cannot get it back because the process takes longer than the period that we are discussing. I am not sure to which boiling pot on which side of the House I should give way, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) first and then the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward).
      Mr. Simon Burns: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has recently looked at page 3 of his passport, which states that the passport is the property of Her Majesty's Government and that an individual may keep it only as long as Her Majesty's Government wants him or her to.
      Mr. Gummer: I have certainly read that, but I am also aware of the fact that, in this country, we have always felt that the passport is a disagreeable necessity which is required because other people tend to stop our citizens if they are unable to present one. One does not need a passport, which is just a convenience for making sure that one does not get stopped. It is true that, in this House, we have always felt that the passport is a matter not of grace, but of right. I do not wish the provision to undermine that fundamental belief, which is why the amendments are crucial to ensure that the Bill is not a pain.
      Ms Ward: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are already precedents in law for the removal of

      105
      passports that may not relate to criminal convictions? For example, a court can remove a passport on the basis of a bail condition or in relation to a feared child abduction. Under existing law, courts have the power to remove a passport under football banning orders. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that a passport cannot be taken away, but it can be removed under certain circumstances.
      Mr. Gummer: Not for the first time, the hon. Lady has mistaken the position. She referred to occasions on which the courts remove passports. We are considering a position in which policemen remove passports. I am merely saying that if one holds a passport as a matter of right and importance, taking it away is of considerable concern, and I want due process of law. If one follows the matter through, the court will not be in a position to undertake such action within the reasonable period to which the Minister referred.
      The Minister is trying to get there, and has spent a lot of time altering his first thoughts to second, third and fourth thoughts, but he is not there yet. At the moment, if the power is to be used sensibly, it will have to be used for more than the occasional person. It could be used for a significant number of people—after all, we were talking about 300, 400 or 500 people being sent back, let alone the ones who were prevented from going out—and the numbers that we talked about when discussing the reasons for this rushed legislation lead us to believe that there will be many people in one place and the courts and the police will not be able to deal with them. The provision is therefore not tolerable unless there is significant alteration.
      Unusually, I find myself in some sympathy with the amendments tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, who do not normally table amendments for which I have any sympathy and, of course, they belong to a party with which it is difficult to sympathise.
      On this occasion, however, as must be true in the random nature of life, they have hit on something closer to truth than is their habit. They have suggested that it would be a good idea if we did not introduce the Bill in this way but went away and thought about it again.
      We have suggested a number of ways in which we could do that, such as having a small gap between the different stages in this House. We were told, rather unconvincingly, by the Home Secretary that he had had a few words with people and they thought that it could not be done. Well, they ought to have found a way of doing it. I worked out the number of days, and it is perfectly possible to do it. There is no reason why the Government should not have given us more time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out. We are subject to the disagreeable necessity of asking the Home Secretary whether, given that by his own admittance he has got the legislation wrong several times in a short period, he should not give himself the benefit of the doubt and allow himself more time to think about it.
      I do not want to be churlish to the Home Secretary because it is kind of him to have given way on a number of issues, although he probably did so because he realised that he was wrong. That is why I want to argue with his position on the amendments, particularly those that my right hon. Friend has said that she may press if he does
      106
      not give her a better answer. We can argue about parties disagreeing on amendments and about Members being in favour of guillotines when they are in government and against them when they are in opposition, but sometimes the Opposition are trying to help the Government. On this occasion, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats wish to help the Government to avoid getting themselves in a pickle, and no doubt the Welsh nationalists, Ulster Unionists and others would share that wish if they were here.
      I remember that, from time to time, the previous Government tabled legislation that had the universal support of the House. If anyone asked them whether they were quite sure that it was right, they said that it must be right because everybody wanted it. I have been in the House for about 25 years and I have come to suspect any proposal that everybody seems to be happy with. I find that the press are very happy with a measure until they start to wonder whether it would not be better to do something else, which they start to do the moment that something goes wrong.
      I end with a message to the Minister which I hope he will pass on to the Home Secretary. The worst task in the House is that of the Minister who has to defend actions that were popular when proposed but which turn out to be a disaster. All those people who supported him when he proposed the measures do not turn up, and the only ones present are people such as my hon. Friends. We will all turn up and tell the Minister, "I told you so. We tried to be helpful and you didn't listen to us."
      I simply say to the Minister that it would do the Government good to step back and give themselves more time by accepting amendments such as those in the names of my hon. Friends and of Liberal Democrat Members. I suppose, therefore, that I hope that they will not accept them, because obviously they will get in a mess and I ought to be pleased that they will be in yet another mess—they are getting into a mess most of the time. On this occasion, however, I must try to help the Government simply because this is not a trivial matter but one of considerable importance.
      I have young sons, and many hon. Members have young sons and daughters who, with their friends, could so easily and quite innocently be affected by the Bill, and their first brush with the law should not be in circumstances so ill conceived, ill thought through and badly drafted as the fourth proposal in the Bill. I hope that the Government will think again, even though if they do not, I suppose that we might have a drink on the fact that within six months they will feel very silly indeed and wish that they had listened.
      9 pm
      Mr. Vernon Coaker: Having spoken on Second Reading and from listening to the debate in Committee so far, I think that we have not only improved the Bill but are significantly continuing to do so. That should make us all proud of the procedures that we are adopting. As we saw, dialogue, debate and discussion between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), led to considerable improvement. Such constructive dialogue and opposition is the House working at its best.
      I want specifically to speak against Liberal Democrat amendment No. 20, to which the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke,

      107
      which would delete the fourth option. I want to address the point that he made—and made well, although I fundamentally disagree with it. It is a very important point for the Committee to consider. I made the point on Second Reading and do so again under the amendment.
      With such legislation, there is always a clash between public interest and individual liberty. Law in general often infringes the rights of individuals to pursue their actions or freedoms without constraint. We do not allow people so to behave because we believe that, for the common good, in the public interest, there must be certain constraints on the actions and freedoms of individuals. We therefore legislate on different issues to constrain individuals. We have one such piece of legislation before us.
      The Bill is about how we as a Parliament and a Government consider the problem of football hooliganism and deal with it. We have the serious problem of a number of individuals who are exercising their freedoms in a way that impacts on the law-abiding majority not only in this country but in other countries. That presents us with the difficult question of whether, because such people are infringing the rights of the majority—the rights of the majority of those conducting business, of countless families to enjoy football matches or go abroad without feeling harassed, and of huge numbers of people to feel free from fear—a limited number of individuals should forfeit some rights that we would normally wish to convey to them.
      I think that the honest answer to that question is yes. Although the majority of people in this country would not wish their Government to legislate for the fourth option, I think that they would reluctantly conclude that, if the law is not to fall into disrepute, it must deal with the unacceptable behaviour that they have seen and the awful way in which some people have abused their freedoms.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a very clear point, but would he take it to this conclusion: that it is justifiable for some people who are innocent either to have their liberties taken away or to be convicted, rather than that some people who are guilty should be let off? The existing criminal process always tends to let off some of the guilty rather than convict some of the innocent. Which side of that line does he fall?
      Mr. Coaker: My point is that we have to curtail the individual liberty of some to protect the liberties of the many. That is why I support the fourth option—not because it will be popular or because it is something in which we can glory, but because it is a measure that people feel is necessary if we are to protect the law-abiding majority.
      Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman could be assured that everyone made subject to the Bill will be guilty, the views he expresses would be perfectly right, but our concern is that the Bill will result in large numbers of people who are not guilty finding themselves subject to a process that will be extremely damaging to them, and that they will have few means of averting that damage.
      Mr. Coaker: First, I do not believe that the number of people will necessarily be large; and, secondly, the police
      108
      will ultimately have to take individuals involved before the courts. Any law has the potential to affect individuals who are accused of doing something that they have not done, or who have not done anything wrong.
      My point is that I believe that the majority of people in this country feel that it is necessary for Parliament to reflect their concern about the way in which some so-called football supporters conduct themselves. They believe that Parliament needs to act. I believe that the majority of people outside and inside the House accept the necessity of our taking actions that, in an ideal world, we would not want to take. In other words, the curtailment of the liberty of some individuals is necessary if the law-abiding majority is to be protected. If the law fails to protect the majority who conform to it, that brings the law into disrepute.
      Of course, the individual must be protected under the law and we must respect people's rights, but we cannot do that at the expense of public disorder, which flies in the face of the public interest. We cannot allow the law-abiding majority to feel that their rights are being usurped and that the rights of those who do not respect the law are being put before theirs.
      Mr. Roger Gale: My name appears above the lead amendment, along with that of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and others. If the hon. Gentleman chooses to press it to a Division, I shall support it, and I shall outline the reasons why.
      I am especially glad to have waited long enough to be speaking after the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), because he has, inadvertently, articulated all my fears. Those fears were mentioned the other night by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), and no one doubts that he has worked extremely hard to respond to those issues. The hon. Gentleman has, in effect, echoed something that my hon. Friend said on Second Reading: that, in the interests of the greater good, the liberties of a few may need to be curtailed.
      I represent a constituency in east Kent—one of those constituencies that is closest to the continent; one of those constituencies with greatest access to the channel ports of Ramsgate, Dover and Folkestone, and to Le Shuttle; one of those areas where the innocent law-abiding citizens are extremely likely to be affected by the legislation. Those are not, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford and the hon. Member for Gedling, the minority. They are the majority.
      Thousands of people travel daily through the port of Dover, and millions of people travel annually through the south coast ports. Most of them are law-abiding citizens, with no convictions in any court anywhere in the world, going about their lawful business. Under the Bill, those people are just as likely to be picked up as those whom the Home Secretary described as going abroad with a view to causing trouble. Unless we issue the Kent constabulary with crystal balls, I do not see how those policemen are to distinguish one from the other.
      Ms Ward: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that a large majority of his constituents act in a way that might reasonably be considered to arouse the suspicion that they will cause disorder or behave violently, or that

      109
      they have convictions for violence in the past. Is he suggesting that a large majority or all of his constituents, as I understood him to say, fall into that category?
      Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the hon. Lady because she leads me to my next point. During the timetable debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) suggested that although the Bill is supposed to deal with football hooligans, the overwhelming majority of people travelling across the channel during potential closed seasons, which the Bill will introduce, are not going anywhere near a football match and have no desire to do so.
      Those people are travelling from all over the south coast of England and beyond, from London and East Anglia, to spend a couple of days across the channel, to go shopping in Cité de l' Europe or Océan or wherever, to buy their duty-free goods and put our traders in east Kent out of business. That, at present, is their lawful right. They have nothing at all to do with football.
      Having travelled frequently on channel ferries, I can say, and the hon. Lady may agree, that not all those travellers are endearingly attractive. One or two, on the passage out and on the passage back, have been known to consume alcohol. It is just possible that some of them may attract the eye of Mr. Plod.
      The Bill places on the Kent constabulary a duty somehow to discern the day-trip traveller, the two-day traveller, the person visiting northern France, and others who may or may not be going to a football match, some of whom may or may not have an aura about them that suggests unpleasantness.
      The Home Secretary said at the Dispatch Box earlier that the Bill would give the police powers to apprehend and detain people who had no convictions. As I said, I am not sure how the police will work that one out. The other night the Home Secretary told the House that of 950-odd people arrested during Euro 2000, only about half had criminal convictions. Therefore, he said, we need to control the others who had no previous convictions, implying that all the people who had been pulled in by the police were guilty—of what? It is of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and, as a result, under the Bill, having a stain on their character that could lead to their being pulled in by the police next time they wanted to go abroad.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman should not create a largely mythical monster against which he can rail. I do not understand his point; perhaps he can explain it. Why does he believe that police officers would detain large numbers of people? The Bill does not require them to pick up large numbers. The hon. Gentleman should also answer the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) made. What makes him believe that large numbers of people would be caught? If many people were detained by a police officer, what would be the impact on them? If they were innocent, they would not end up with a criminal record.
      Mr. Gale: For good reasons, of which I am aware, the hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) spoke about likely numbers. We were considering the possibility of
      110
      400 people being apprehended. If the Bill is of any value, which I doubt, and each of the 400, some of whom may be on a day trip and thus have their entire day ruined, is detained for up to six hours—
      Mr. Gummer: If not many people are apprehended, and mayhem ensues in some football match abroad, will not the public demand, "Why were not more people stopped?" It would be almost impossible thereafter for the police not to stop more people. That will continue until The Sun suddenly decides that it is on the wrong side, and twists right round and tells us that we have dealt with the rights of the individual in a cavalier manner. That will happen, and my hon. Friend should say so.
      Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend is right. The police are between a rock and a hard place. They will either pull people in, which entails the great danger of pulling in people who should not be apprehended, or they will not, and be blamed the moment another riot occurs abroad. I am concerned on behalf of the Kent constabulary. Neither the chief constable nor any other Kent policeman has said to me, "Roger, this is a wonderful Bill. You've got to get behind it because it gives us a power that we've really been waiting for." Not one police officer has said that.
      Mr. Burns: I wonder whether the chief constable of Kent, or any Kent police officer, has approached my hon. Friend to say that the Bill is dreadful and to ask him to stop it.
      Mr. Peter Lilley: They have had no time.
      Mr. Gale: As my right hon. Friend says, there has been no time. It is significant that the police have not woken up to the fact that, as well as policing economic migrants and contraband goods, they will be lumbered with deciding who should be detained under the powers that the Bill gives them.
      I do not like the blackmail that always accompanies measures such as the Bill: the assumption-which minor, share—dealing tabloid editors will pick up—that anyone who does not support the measure is soft on football hooliganism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) clearly said that we would support any Bill that reasonably tackles football hooliganism. However, the Bill does not tackle it because it has no writ north of the border or in Northern Ireland.
      The Bill is holed below the waterline before it has even been launched. Anyone who is seriously intent on making trouble will not go with the innocent through Dover, Folkestone or via Le Shuttle; they will go where they know that they will not be stopped. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is an expert on the subject and has frequently said that we are considering organised hooliganism. It is folly to believe that people who are so organised that they carry briefcases and wear pinstripe suits will not travel through Glasgow, Edinburgh or Belfast. Meanwhile, those who use our ports in Kent will pick up the wreckage of a bad measure.
      I shall go with the Home Secretary on the Bill's initial provisions, which we can all support, but when the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey presses the amendment to a Division, as I trust he will, I shall support it. It will take the rotten guts out of a bad Bill.
      Mr. Hancock: The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) spoke with conviction and referred to a Minister having to return to these matters; he seemed to be speaking from personal experience. Ministers should take careful note of what he said might happen because there was more than a true word in his comments. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) began to explore the scenarios that might arise not only in Kent, but in other parts of the south of England and elsewhere. Heathrow is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), and he made a similar point. I represent another port of entry to, or exit from, the United Kingdom.
      Let us consider the scenario of a weekend game being played in France. Let us start in London. Eurostar trains leave Waterloo at the rate of one an hour throughout the day and, on the way, stop in Kent—the county of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Policemen would be needed at Eurostar in Waterloo and at Ashford International. Let us consider the ferry ports. People would be needed at Ramsgate as ferries go from there to Dunkirk. There are dozens of ferries a day from Dover, all of which would have to be manned by policemen. The same applies at Folkestone and, a little further along the south coast, at Portsmouth.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Newhaven is on the way.
      Mr. Hancock: Ferries do not currently operate from Newhaven, but I hope that they will return in time. Up to 12 ferries a day regularly travel from my constituency to four ports of entry in France. Ferries also cross to France from Poole, which is a little further along the coast. All those sites will have to be manned.
      Three shuttle trains leave this country every hour. I have often travelled on Le Shuttle and have seen perhaps 30 transit vans on some trains. Most of the people in them are going over to France to buy booze, but I suspect that, in future, they will be full of people who want to watch football matches. Every car and person will presumably have to checked.
      If policemen had to be at all those ports during the three or four days leading up to a match, an enormous strain would be put on the resources of the police forces of Hampshire and Kent and on the Metropolitan police to ensure that all those trains, ships and cars were properly inspected; otherwise the law would be unfair: it would not operate universally.
      Let us consider what could happen if a policeman were to detain someone—the point made by hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). If a policeman had reason to believe that someone was worthy of detention, what would happen at that moment? Would the policeman have to spend a considerable time with that person? Would he have to take the person to a place where he can be detained, perhaps in a room somewhere at the port, which would have to be manned by other policemen who would ensure that the paperwork would be done? Would the policeman then simply return to his place at the front of the queue to look for other people, or would there be other policemen waiting to fill his place so that the process could continue, ensuring that people were properly checked?
      How will the selection process take place? Obviously, the police will use their network of sources, and those sources will point out known offenders who have not got
      112
      convictions. Will those people be put on the list and identified? At least a dozen ports and airports would have to be covered by that process and policemen throughout the country would have to be briefed extensively over a long period to ensure that they picked out the right people.
      Let us suppose that a busload of football supporters turned up wearing their England jerseys, jeans and sneakers with their jumpers tied around their waists, and they had all drunk a can of beer on the way to the port. The policeman would say, "I have a reasonable belief that one of you 30 could be a problem on the other side." What would happen to the other 29? What judgment would the policeman exercise? Would the passengers all have to get off the coach at Le Shuttle, although that does not have to happen at present? Would the other 29 be paraded in front of the Kent constabulary and would those who look more suspect than the others be picked out? That would be nonsensical.
      Mr. Browne: Again, I seek clarification. In Scotland, drinking in a coach on the way to a sporting event is a criminal offence. Is it not an offence in England and Wales?
      Mr. Hancock: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has the better of me. I am not sure whether that is a criminal offence in England, but no doubt the Minister will put us right. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have passed or travelled on many a coach on which a can or two has been taken. The provision would open the door to all sorts of scenarios that would be difficult to police, difficult to control and difficult to resource.
      Ms Ward: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Under the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985, that is an offence under English law, as it is under Scottish law.
      Mr. Hancock: The hon. Lady once again refers to sporting events, but people may be travelling abroad on a coach for another purpose. Presumably that would not be covered.
      Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentleman must not criticise the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), because his story involved people in football strips wearing jeans, sneakers and sweat shirts around their waists. People do not usually go shopping dressed like that. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do!"] One or two perhaps, but not 30 on a coach.
      Mr. Hancock: If the hon. Gentleman represented a city with a football culture, he would have seen many people shopping, going to church or doing myriad things in a football strip.
      Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is changing the scenario to suit his speech, which is all over the place. There will not be as many difficulties as he makes out. The provision would be used at designated times—not at any time during the year—when the England team played abroad. If he has travelled with English—
      Mr. Hancock: I have.
      Mr. Banks: In that case, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is not difficult to spot people who sing "No surrender

      113
      to the IRA" as they are usually abusive, plastered out of their minds and shouting racist comments at airports or ports of exit. There will not be as many difficulties as he suggests to the Committee.
      Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman does not do justice to thousands of supporters who go to matches, sing, enjoy themselves, have a drink and do not cause problems. Many Members have tried to explain to the Government that they still have time to address that issue. They have already moved considerably.
      Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has given the game away? If the provision were confined to those who behave as he describes, we would have no problem with it. However, it does not so confine itself, which is why we are in this mess.
      Mr. Hancock: I could not agree more. Many Members who under previous Governments held high office in Departments dealing with the law have experienced the difficulties of hastily conceived legislation—and paid the price. They had to try to dig their way out trouble after the legislation was passed. The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) said why he supported the Bill. Those who have been to a football match or travelled with their team or the national side know that events do not take place over 24 hours. People travel to away internationals over three or four days, using different modes of transport, and arrive at grounds at different times. Some stay for a long time afterwards.
      9.30 pm
      The hon. Gentleman described hooliganism and explained why we should do something about it. I have been at football matches in this country and abroad, and have been subjected to the worst side of hooliganism next to me, across the terrace from me and across the other side of the pitch. As a city councillor in Portsmouth, I represent the area where the football ground is located. For 30 years I have represented people who for long periods were victimised by football hooligans who thought nothing of throwing a dustbin through the front door or window of a flat-fronted terraced house as a passing gesture on their way home, simply because Portsmouth had done their team on the park that afternoon. That happened week after week. I understand the problem, and I want something done about it.
      I want resources to be provided so that we can achieve what we are trying to do. It is sometimes difficult to police football matches properly, because the police are hard pressed and the clubs do not want to pay the cost of policing. Hon. Members who have raised the issue of resources are dead right.
      We want to ensure that the police officers who make the initial stop are fully able to do their part of the job within the law—that is, they must have good reason. In the four-hour process, when does the clock start ticking? Is it the minute the policeman stops the person, or the minute the person is in a place where he can no longer exercise free will and has been removed from the port, airport or train station? Those questions must be answered tonight.
      114
      I doubt whether, at 12 o'clock when we finish the Committee stage, any Member or Minister, including the Home Secretary, could honestly report to the House what the Bill can do. The Minister will report that we have been through the Committee stage and have amended the Bill. What does the Bill do, and what does it not do? The Home Secretary was honest enough to say that between Thursday and Monday he had changed his mind and accepted that there were some good ideas about how the Bill could be amended. The amendments offer him the opportunity to go that little bit further. They do not say, "Come back at a later stage when you have got it right." They say, "For goodness sake get it right. Get three quarters of the Bill, do what most of us want to do, but if you are going the whole hog, ensure that the system is robust enough to stand the test of time, that it can be resourced properly and that it can deliver what the nation expects." A good headline tomorrow will not be sufficient to prevent trouble in September.
      Mr. Lilley: I shall make clear what I am in favour of before I explain what I am against. I have no objection in principle to banning orders that prevent people from attending domestic or foreign football matches if that is part of the punishment for a criminal offence of which they have been convicted. I have no objection to giving the constabulary the powers to enforce such banning orders, and ensuring that they can do so effectively and efficiently. However, the Bill goes far further than that, and some of the amendments would rein it back. I favour amendments that try to restrict the powers of the police to enforcing bans on those who are convicted of criminal offences from attending football matches, either here or abroad, as part of their punishment or as a consequence of their criminal conviction.
      Before amendment No. 42 was tabled, the Bill referred, as a ground for restricting the movement of someone through the ports, to behaviour of the person present before the constable. If a person is behaving in the port, or on the way to it, in a manner which constitutes a criminal offence—for example, if he is behaving in a drunk and disorderly fashion, committing a breach of the peace or indulging in racial incitement—the constabulary already have the powers to charge that person with an offence. They do not need any special powers. Just the process of charging and arresting them will stop those people going abroad and, in effect, will prevent them from attending the football match.
      If those concerned are doing something which is not a criminal offence—they may be a bit merry, raucous or rowdy—it is hard to say that they should be prevented from travelling further to the football match. One is effectively reducing the level of offence if one gives the powers to the police to stop people going to a football match when they are not doing anything which, in itself, is a criminal offence.
      If amendment No. 42 is accepted, reference to the behaviour of a person before the constable is omitted and ceases to be the primary consideration in determining whether the constable should detain them. The amendment would mean that if a constable in uniform had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the respondent had at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, the constable could detain that person in his custody.

      115
      There seem to be five possible circumstances in which the constable could subsequently be justified—and the magistrates court could conclude—that the person detained had caused or contributed to any violence or disorder. The first is if they could show that the person had been charged and convicted of a crime that would be relevant to the circumstances of travelling to a football match. I would have no objection, in such circumstances, if the banning order were part of the punishment. However, if we are to add retrospectively to the punishment of people who, in the past, have been guilty of crimes, we will be guilty of retrospection and double jeopardy.
      As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) asked, what if the previous offence's time had expired? In general, if a person has been charged and convicted of a crime, it is perfectly reasonable that he should have restrictions imposed on his right to attend football matches.
      The second circumstance might be if the person has been charged with a crime, but not convicted. Are we saying that, in such circumstances, the constable would be reasonable in detaining the person—and the magistrates would subsequently be able to prevent them from travelling—because, under a lesser, civil burden of proof, the magistrates might think that although the person was acquitted on a criminal charge, there was a reasonable basis for thinking that they were reasonably guilty and, therefore, that we should stop them going? Is that what the Home Secretary is saying?
      The third circumstance might be if the person had been arrested for something that constituted a criminal offence, but had never even been charged with it. Are we now to say that as an arrest took place, there must have been reasonable grounds for thinking that the person committed that offence and that he is responsible for causing or contributing to violence and disorder, so we will stop him? It is an enormous step in our law—that merely having been arrested for something can be a cause for having one's liberties restricted. The Home Secretary referred to the 965 people who had been arrested—but only one charged and convicted—by the Belgian police. The Bill specifically says that an arrest that is not even made by a British authority can constitute a reason for believing that the person has committed an offence of violence or disorder.
      Fifthly, the person may be found to have caused acts of violence and disorder that are not in themselves crimes. The Bill specifically says that people can have their passports removed on the basis of acts that need not be a criminal offence anywhere in the world. It even says that they need not even themselves have caused the violence or disorder, but only have "contributed to" it—perhaps by being present or joining in the singing.
      Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend must labour that point. In 1961, I was one of the leaders of an anti-ugly march, protesting against an appalling building in Cambridge. If, on the edge of that march, there had been some disorder—and there was—I could evidently have "contributed to" it as one of the march's leaders. Is that a
      116
      sufficient reason for my being prevented, today, from going to a football match? That is precisely what the Bill allows.
      Mr. Lilley: That is a very good point. I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us what he means by "contributed to", as distinct from "caused". For example, if someone had organised a coach tour on which some people behaved in a thoroughly reprehensible manner, is he held to have contributed to the offence and will he be prevented from travelling to football matches? What if someone had contributed in his youth as a student organiser to events that turned a bit unruly, and possibly at which an excessive amount of drink was consumed?
      It is pretty offensive that we should be introducing to the law of our land the right of the constable to detain and of the courts to restrict the liberties of people who have done something that falls short of being proven a crime. What is most reprehensible of all is that the Bill allows the magistrates to double-guess, on a lower standard of proof, people who have previously been charged and not convicted, or even merely been arrested and not charged, and take that as evidence that they were guilty of an offence. That is bad not only for the individuals whose liberty may be infringed but for respect for the law, as doubt is cast on the conclusions of the courts and the forces of law and order.
      For all those reasons, I strongly support the widest of the amendments, which would comprehensively remove the offensive aspects of the Bill. I also support the narrower amendments. I do not want us to be reduced to the converse of the famous anti-Australian story that causes such offence to my Australian relatives, about the chap who arrived in Australia without a visa. Immigration officials asked him all sorts of tedious questions about his place of birth and his mother's maiden name, and he got more and more irritated, so that when they asked whether he had any criminal convictions, he unwisely said, "I didn't realise they were still required to get into Australia." Under the Bill, one does not even need a criminal conviction to be prevented from leaving the United Kingdom. That will give the last laugh to the Australians.
      9.45 pm
      I have some factual issues that I would like the Home Secretary to address on the amendments. How many people does he believe are likely to be affected, or are being targeted by the Bill? How many people do not have banning orders against them but are believed to be the sort of people whom we should stop going abroad to football matches because they might provoke the sort of disorder that we saw on our television screens occurring in Belgium, although not in Holland? How many of the people that the Home Secretary expects to fall within the ambit of the legislation are likely to be restricted from travelling not because of a previous conviction for a criminal offence, but because they have caused or contributed to violence at a lower level than would constitute a criminal offence?
      I suspect that the Home Secretary will say that he does not know how many, but that legislation is necessary to stop all who might do such things. However, he was able to be quantitative when it came to justifying the Bill as a whole. He referred to the 965 people arrested in Charleroi

      117
      and the fact that 42 per cent. had a conviction. Earlier today, he said that the only reason the Bill was justified was the events in Charleroi. Before that, he claimed, one could not have predicted the need for the Bill. It is only because of those 965 people, 42 per cent. of whom had a conviction, that we are considering the Bill today.
      I would like to know a little more about those convictions. What proportion had criminal convictions for violence? What proportion were for disorder and what proportion for motoring offences? The Home Secretary is not listening at the moment, but I hope that his officials will wake him up and ask him to tell us more about those 42 per cent. with some sort of conviction.
      Mr. Straw: I am listening and I gave that information on Second Reading. It was the right hon. Gentleman who was not listening.
      Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that I was not listening and I shall go back to the debate and find out whether the Home Secretary did tell us how many had motoring offences. Perhaps he can remember and remind those of us who were inattentive so that we have that fact, which he thought important enough to give us then, to consider now. If he does not remember it, perhaps he could withdraw his accusation that I am somehow reprehensible for forgetting it too. [Interruption.] It appears that the Home Secretary does not know, any more than I do.
      If we took a random sample of football fans—not the general population—what proportion might we reasonably expect to have some sort of conviction?
      Mr. Straw: On Second Reading, I said:
      Of the 391—
      that is the 42 per cent. with previous convictions—
      133 had convictions for violence, 200 for disorder, 38 for possession of an offensive weapon and 122 for criminal damage. I stress that those convictions were, in the main, not football-related.
      Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for what is important information, which is why I wanted it before us now. That leads to my next point: how do those figures compare with those that might be found for a random sample of football fans? We heard on Second Reading that a surprisingly high proportion of the general population have some kind of conviction against them.
      Mr. Gale: It is a pity that the Home Secretary did not continue his quotation. He also said that
      97 per cent. of those arrested were not convicted or known football hooligans. That is of great importance in framing further legislative measures to tackle the phenomenon.—[Official Report, 13 July 200; Vol. 353, c. 1182.]
      His assumption is clearly that those 97 per cent., unconvicted of any offence anywhere in the world, were guilty.
      Mr. Lilley: Indeed, there was a presumption that on the balance of probabilities any one of those 965 was guilty of some offence because they had all been arrested by the Belgian authorities, even though 964 of them were never charged or convicted of any offence. I think that it is rather important for the Home Secretary to give the House information as to how many people will fall foul of the Bill if it targets only those whom he intends it to target.
      118
      The Home Secretary should also consider whether other people might fall foul of the Bill unintentionally. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said that not all ferry travellers were "entirely endearing" in their behaviour. I use the ferry to France at least six times a year, and my hon. Friend's description of some of my fellow passengers is correct. Under the influence of drink, some behave in a way that is a little too effusive, but they do not necessarily commit any criminal offence.
      If the constabulary consider that those people are travelling to a football match, will they be detained and brought before a magistrate? How often could that happen? What harm might the fear of that action do to the relations between the police and the general public?
      For those and other reasons, I hope that the various amendments restricting the excessive powers in the original Bill will be accepted today.
      Mr. Donald Gorrie: I wish to make three points in support of the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. First, I see no mention in the Bill of the police being required to ask if people are going to a football match. That seems a basic point because otherwise they will have to guess where people are going.
      Secondly, it has been suggested that alleged hooligans might leave the country via Scottish airports. If a Scot making a brief visit to England is detained by a policeman who thinks that he is a potential football hooligan, will the policeman be able to prevent the Scot from returning to his domicile in Scotland if there happens to be a football match somewhere in the area? That would not seem right.
      The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) touched on my third point, which concerns the phrase
      caused or contributed to any violence or disorder.
      Many people innocently cause or contribute to disorder. Pop and rock groups cause an enormous amount of disorder. A policeman might reasonably assume that, because a rock group had caused riots in the past, they might do so again if they attended a football match. Would that group be prevented from going to the match?
      Throughout history, from Helen of Troy onwards, attractive females have often caused disorder—wars, or something less. Will a lady who in the past has caused men to behave riotously be prevented from going to a football match where she may again cause such behaviour?
      Mr. Banks: I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He mentioned Helen of Troy and said that many wars had been caused by attractive women. May I test his historical knowledge and ask him to give the House a list of all the wars caused by attractive women? I thought most wars were caused by very ugly men.
      Mr. Gorrie: My point was that one can quite innocently be the cause of violence. Helen of Troy misbehaved herself in leaving her husband, but she did not fight the war. The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me.
      Suppose that the management or board of a football club was very unpopular and there had been riots at that club protesting against their incompetence. A policeman

      119
      might believe that there might be another riot if they went to a match and their team lost yet again. Should the policeman stop the management of the club going to the match? As for some of the more violent football players—whose conduct on the pitch is violent in the strict sense—the police may think that if they take part in the match there is liable to be trouble on or off the pitch. Should the police stop them going to the match?
      An enthusiastic policeman who had read the Bill carefully and was on duty in Downing street might even believe, if he had looked at television coverage of Prime Minister's Question Time, that the Prime Minister had caused or contributed to disorder. If the policeman believed that Britain or the Prime Minister personally was very unpopular in the country to which the right hon. Gentleman was going for the match, he might believe that the Prime Minister could cause further disorder.
      Ms Ward: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman is managing to say all this with a straight face. Is he really suggesting that the Prime Minister or—I will be generous here—the Leader of the Opposition could be classed as potential football hooligans on the grounds of their conduct on a Wednesday afternoon? I can only hope that the hon. Gentleman is trying to amuse the House.
      Mr. Gorrie: I am trying to illustrate the absurdity of the Bill's wording and the fact that people can innocently cause or contribute to violence or disorder. That is what the Bill says, and it leads to all sorts of absurdities.
      I have great regard for the Prime Minister, and I am quite sure that he is not a football hooligan. However, the Bill will catch many people who are not football hooligans—that is my point.
      Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie), in trying to find absurd situations, has done the police no great service. We must be realistic. There is no way the police will stop all these people, ranging from the Prime Minister to attractive women, leaving the country on the grounds that they might cause an affray when they reach their destination. One must assume that police officers have a modicum of good sense even if the hon. Gentleman does not have much.
      Ms Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that what the hon. Gentleman said is a terrible slur on women, who in general are not the cause of violence at football matches and make up only a small part of the criminal population?
      Mr. Banks: That is certainly true. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but I doubt whether very many women have been included in the number of those arrested for football disorder or offences. One of the good things about football these days is the civilising presence of so many women and families at matches. We are trying to ensure that that happens when our supporters go abroad, when we have dealt with the problem of hooliganism at home.
      To accept amendment No. 21 would be to destroy the whole purpose of the Bill. The police need these powers. People who understand about football hooliganism know that unless we have the powers to stop people travelling,
      120
      trying to deal with the export of hooliganism is bound to fail. Having said that, I am not certain that even this Bill will work in the way that we want, because I believe that there are enough hooligans or potential troublemakers who will see what we are doing as a bit of fun and will find ways around any legislation that we introduce. But that does not mean that we should not make it as difficult as possible for them to do so.
      10 pm
      Mr. Lilley: In a genuine spirit of inquiry, since I do not purport to know much about football hooliganism, may I ask why we need more severe powers to stop hooligans travelling abroad than we possess and have used domestically to reduce the incidence of hooliganism in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. Banks: The answer to that is simple. The right hon. Gentleman should go to football matches more often. There have been improvements in the law, in policing and in stewarding inside football grounds. The clubs segregate supporters, the police stop supporters going into grounds if they are drunk and many other means have been used to deal with the problem at home. That is why we find it so perplexing when a problem largely dealt with here is exported abroad.
      I do not suggest that there are any easy solutions. No one in the House says that. However, instead of Opposition Members—and some of my hon. Friends—popping up to say that all sorts of strange things may happen, they could acknowledge that we need to do much more than we are doing now. At times, I hear strange words coming from my own mouth: we must sometimes rely on the good sense of police officers at certain specified times to stop people travelling whom they genuinely suspect of being likely to cause trouble if they go abroad. As I said to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) a few moments ago, the problems we face are difficult, but not as difficult as some hon. Members are suggesting.
      Mr. Hancock: When he was Minister for Sport, the hon. Gentleman made great play, particularly during the world cup, of not wanting English fans without tickets to travel to football matches abroad. Would he think it right for a police officer to ask a group of fans whether they had tickets for a game? If some did and some did not—and given that incidents abroad in the past have sometimes been caused by fans without tickets—would that be a good enough reason for the police not to allow a person to travel?
      Mr. Banks: That could be a further piece of evidence that a police officer could use to detain an individual or group of people. Of course it could be that the people involved were not on their way to a football match. Clearly, the police officer would have to ask whether they were. Whether an individual chooses to tell the truth is another matter, but a police officer who was trying to ensure that someone did not travel could use several means to filter information so that he or she could feel reasonably confident that a particular individual should be detained for long enough to find out whether there was any further reason why a magistrate should prevent them from travelling.

      121
      We must give the police credit by believing that, at the times designated in the Bill, officers would be looking for potential football hooligans rather than for ordinary, decent, honest citizens who were not interested in football but were going to France for a day out. Why would a police officer make trouble for himself by scooping up large numbers of the constituents of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) just so that he could say that he had made his contribution to anti-hooliganism by arresting people trying to leave that area?
      Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. Many hours ago, when this debate began, the Home Secretary said that the purpose of the Bill was to catch people who were going abroad to make trouble. How the blazes can a Kent policeman know that someone is going abroad to make trouble? How can he know that until a person who probably had no intention of making trouble has been abroad, had too much to drink and made trouble?
      Mr. Banks: I accept that that is a problem. The point is not that a police officer knows that someone will make trouble. How can he or she know what will happen in future? However, an officer can suspect that someone may cause trouble.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out that, if the measure went wrong, Opposition Members could say, "We told you so". That could apply the other way round. If the amendment is accepted and if there is trouble because the powers provided for the police under the Bill have been removed, what will Opposition Members say? They will have removed from the Bill the one provision that would give the extra filter at the port of exit that police officers require to try to prevent from leaving the country those people who it is suspected might cause disorder.
      Of course, the use of such powers is conditional. That is why it is so difficult to draw them up. However, it is worth taking the risk. That is the important point. Opposition Members and some of my hon. Friends should realise that identification of troublemakers would not be as difficult as they seem to think. Many clubs keep lists of such people even though they do not have convictions. That information could be given to the police.
      If the Bill is enacted, the police could use their discrimination and discernment, with information from other sources, to try to stop people travelling if they are likely to cause trouble.
      Mr. McDonnell: As they did during the miners' strike.
      Mr. Gale: The sus laws.
      Mr. Banks: The measure is not sus law—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Hon. Members should not make these interventions.
      Mr. Banks: I must pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) about the miners' strike. My hon. Friend and I, and other people, ferried supplies to coalfields in Derbyshire. We were stopped regularly by the police—I do not know under which powers—and had to explain
      122
      what we were doing. I was offended by that because I was—and am—a law-abiding citizen. That might come as a surprise to some Opposition Members.
      However, any law-abiding citizen who is stopped under this measure will not end up with a criminal record. There is sometimes a price that we have to pay as law-abiding citizens to stop those people who are intent on breaking the law, either in this or another country. I am prepared to pay that price.
      Mr. Burns: In that context, should we not also remember that, if the measure does give rise to problems, there will be an annual review by the House—as there is for the prevention of terrorism Acts? The sunset clause also affords additional protection in case the legislation is not as ideal as we hope.
      Mr. Banks: The sunset clause and the review are important, because if the measure is wrong, we can do something about it. Although I support the Bill because I have seen the damage that football hooliganism has done to our reputation all over the world, I point out to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this will not be the last time that we deal with the subject. This Bill is not the complete answer but I am sure that, if the Liberal amendment were accepted, there would be nothing in the Bill to prevent hooliganism abroad—[Interruption.] I am asked if I have read the amendment: of course I have.
      Mr. McDonnell: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the argument that the innocent have nothing to fear was also used to justify all the stop and search measures that were used so prejudicially against the black community in London?.
      Mr. Banks: I did not say that the innocent have nothing to fear, because some innocent people will undoubtedly be caught by the legislation. There will be inconvenience. However, in this place, we have to draw lines—we have to decide on the issues. Although there are times when I would wholly agree with my hon. Friend's point about the use of sus laws to stop black youths in our community, I can also see a reason for the Bill. We have to draw lines. Sometimes we cross or fall short of a line, but we ultimately use our judgment. Our judgment may prove to be wrong.
      Mr. McDonnell: It is not our judgment: it is a police officer's judgment.
      Mr. Banks: It will be our judgment tonight and a police officer's judgment tomorrow. We will then see how the provision operates in practice. Tonight we must use our judgment alone, and my judgment says that this is a good Bill and that the amendment is a bad one.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents one point. Those of us who argue that we should remove this measure from the Bill would leave three of the other four measures in it. We would also give the other half of a two-Chamber Parliament a chance to do a much better job than the Government have so far done with this measure.
      Mr. Banks: I understand that point. Obviously there is no argument about three of the measures in the Bill. This measure is the crucial one, and that is why we are spending so much time on it

      123
      To return to what I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), our judgment is as good as that of those in another place. Why do we not trust it? I trust our judgment and I trust my judgment on this point. I believe that we should pass the Bill tonight. If we get the Bill wrong, we shall test it against the reality of practice and change it if necessary.
      We are dealing with people who will find their way around the legislation, but we must never give up. If we give up, they will make fools of all of us. Quite frankly, enough of us have already made fools of ourselves.
      Mr. Grieve: rose—
      Mr. Banks: I was going to give way, but I have had enough.
      Mr. Grieve: I had not originally intended to speak on this group of amendments, but the debate has developed with a genuine exchange of views. I have therefore been prompted to speak.
      I have now had a chance to examine the Bill carefully and I think that some of the Bill's basic thrust on banning orders is misunderstood. It is interesting that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) seems to misunderstand aspects of that. Leaving aside the summary procedure to which I shall come shortly, it is clear that it will be a searching and ponderous procedure to secure a banning order against someone when it is not immediately linked to his being convicted by a court.
      One only has to examine the procedures in schedule 1 to learn that the process will not take one, two or three hours; I suspect that, in some cases, it will involve a court case that will spread out over several days. That is even before we come to the process by which one goes to the Crown court on appeal. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is making suggestive gestures—that might be the best way of describing them—but he knows the reality.
      A complaint will be made, a summons will be issued, an individual will be targeted and he will be told that, notwithstanding the fact that he is not standing trial for an offence, he will be brought before a court because the police have accumulated sufficient evidence that they consider to be valid to obtain a banning order against him. There will then be a substantial hearing. That hearing will take place—[Interruption.] I shall continue for as long as necessary to make the Home Secretary understand the importance of the point that has to be made. That procedure will take time and it will involve witnesses being called. Undoubtedly, character witnesses will be called for the person against whom the allegations are made and, if we are dealing with video evidence, I am sure that there will be issues of identity and a host of other problems.
      Notwithstanding those points, I do not think that the procedure that the Home Secretary is introducing for banning orders for people against whom a complaint is made will in any way be unfair. I think that individuals will be targeted who have previously escaped conviction and on whom the courts can make an order and enforce it, which will be regarded as right. In view of that,
      124
      the summary procedure to bring someone before a magistrates court appears to be all the more remarkable, as it places on a police officer the burden of making a snap decision—it cannot have been made previously; otherwise someone would have gone off and sought a banning order—and applying it to a form of public order control on the spot. The two are not easily reconciled.
      10.15 pm
      Those who will have banning orders brought against them will be few in number. However, the summary procedure is being depicted as a measure that will result in large numbers of people being picked up at a port or place of exit from this country and prevented from leaving on a general hunch of the police, backed by a few hours of investigation. I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will pay careful attention to amendment No. 9, which would at least require the intervention of a magistrate before such an order is made. He may also wish to consider carefully whether the summary procedure marries easily with the safeguards that he has introduced in the main procedure for getting the banning orders. I cannot help but think that, in reality, when such a situation arises the police will have to make on-the-spot decisions and will have plenty of time to repent at leisure as they subsequently discover that they have inhibited the exit from this country of those against whom they do not have sufficient evidence to obtain a banning order.
      Mr. Straw: May I respond to some points that have been raised in our debate, which has gone on for three and a half hours and which, I hope, has been as helpful for the Committee as it has for me?
      May I return the compliment to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who invited me to listen? I shall not follow up everything that he raised as, although I am sure that he had good reason for not being here earlier, I have been into considerable detail about the reasons for the orders. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the procedure will not be unfair. Whether it turns out to be ponderous depends on the nature of the court, but it is proper that it should be searching, as our courts established.
      The hon. Gentleman suggested that a limited number of people will be processed under the civil procedure in the third part of the Bill, which allows me to answer in the negative the question asked by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) about whether I knew how many orders would be processed in the ensuing period. Of course the answer is that one cannot tell. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that I suspect that how long a particular case takes depends, as in any other case in the civil or criminal courts, on the strength and complexity of the evidence. It does not follow that, in every case involving an individual who is subject to the civil process, he or she—although typically he—will resist the complaint or have much of a case to make in defence.
      In situations in which it turns out that the application is founded on thin evidence or there is argument about identity, it is perfectly possible that proceedings may take some time. However, we have learned from the process for anti-social behaviour orders that as courts gained experience of the process, they obviously became more skilled in dealing with the matters before them.

      125
      In my opening remarks, I made the point at length that the summary power needs to be seen as supplementary to the core power, which involves obtaining a banning order by a civil process. It is to be hoped—the police have this hope—that, so far as possible, candidates for banning orders will be dealt with by the slower process of a normal complaint issued in the magistrates court, where, if a matter is adjourned for a week or so, it will not materially affect the risk that the individual poses.
      There has also been much speculation about whether the police in Dover or any other port will be able to identify every person who will cause trouble abroad. Of course they will be unable to do that because, as the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) said, they are not clairvoyant. The Association of Chief Police Officers, superintendents and the National Criminal Intelligence Service strongly support both the powers because they believe that they will assist them in better controlling hooliganism.
      I make it clear to the Committee that the Bill will not in itself end football hooliganism abroad any more than the Football Spectators Act 1989, which was the subject of a guillotine exactly 11 years ago today, led to an immediate reduction in football hooliganism in this country. Over time, however, the powers should greatly assist in reducing the threat of football hooliganism abroad.
      There is another effect, which I point out in response to the hon. Member for North Thanet. There are people who would be intercepted by the police if better information were available, but at present they may slip through the cordon, go abroad and cause trouble. If there is evidence against them that we can use, it can retrospectively be brought into play to obtain a banning order by the slower process when they return to this country.
      Dr. Lynne Jones: Earlier, I asked my right hon. Friend to explain what would be reasonable grounds on which a police officer might believe that an individual had caused or contributed to violence. He responded that provisions such as these are available in other legislation. He has dismissed the idea of tattoos or slogans on clothing being grounds for suspicion, so is it not clear that a police officer would require—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady's intervention is too long.
      Dr. Jones: I was drawing my intervention to an end, Mr. Martin. Is it not clear that the police officer would have to have intelligence to have reasonable grounds for suspicion, and if that intelligence is available—this is the point that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was making—surely the proper procedure would be to use the other provisions for acquiring a banning order?.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend has two worries. First, she is worried about whether the police will use the power arbitrarily. Secondly, she is concerned that if there is not good intelligence, which is normally inadmissible in a court because of its nature, but there is good evidence, that should be used to obtain a criminal conviction.
      On the first point, we have in amendments Nos. 42 to 46 considerably narrowed the grounds on which the police can intercept someone, make inquiries of them, hold them
      126
      while their inquiries are taking place and issue them with a notice to attend court. Those grounds now parallel those in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on reasonable suspicions and beliefs. The reasonable belief must be that if the person concerned is taken to court, which must happen within 24 hours, the court is likely to grant a banning order against them. That power is very constrained, and the police will not, except in very exceptional circumstances, misuse it because whether they have exercised it reasonably will be a matter of judgment within a court process that will begin 24 hours later.
      My hon. Friend's other point raises the central issue of whether banning orders by the alternative route of civil process should be available. As she will notice from schedule 1 on page 10, banning orders by criminal process are available only where there are football-related convictions. We are proposing—it receives the general approbation of the three main parties—that there will be a basis for a banning order when there is evidence of someone's past involvement in violence or disorder, which typically will be convictions not for football-related offences but for violence, and when there are reasonable grounds for believing that if, for example, they go abroad, they will cause further violence or disorder around the football ground. I think that that will work fairly and proportionately.
      I shall deal briefly with some of the other matters that have been raised. I understand, although I am afraid that I was not present to hear it, that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) asked about a power of arrest after a notice had been issued. That arises under proposed section 21B(5) if, in the opinion of the police officer, reasonable grounds make it necessary to arrest the individual in order that the notice is complied with.
      Several right hon. and hon. Members have asked about the practicalities of the summary procedures. If grounds for detention under proposed section 21A are met, the constable may detain for immediate inquiry for a maximum of four hours on his own decision and up to six hours in total with the approval of an officer of the rank of inspector or above. As soon as a decision whether to issue a notice is reached, the person is either released, if it is decided that there are no grounds to issue a notice, or the notice is issued. The notice will contain conditions for the person to appear in court within 24 hours, not to leave England and Wales before then, and to surrender his passport if the offence relates to the control period. If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to ensure compliance with the condition of the notice, there is, as I have explained to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, a power of arrest. In other cases, the person will be released.
      On appearance in court, the case may be dealt with immediately and dismissed or dealt with immediately and a banning order made. Alternatively, the court may adjourn the case and remand the person either in custody or on bail, as in normal circumstances. Bail may be subject to conditions not to leave the country and to surrender his passport.
      I gather that a number of hon. Members asked for figures on the number of custody suites available and on the additional manpower required. There are custody suites all over the country and, obviously, provision will

      127
      be made proportionately, according to available police resources. That is always so because that, by definition, determines the amount of police activity.
      Several questions have been raised about the 24-hour limit. We have consulted the Lord Chancellor's Department, and it believes that the 24-hour limit for a magistrates court hearing is doable. Plainly, it is in everyone's interest to get the individual into court as quickly as possible, and in under 24 hours if possible.
      Sir Robert Smith: I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but I understand that a ban would at one point require someone not to leave England and Wales. I may be at the limits of testing the legislation, but if a resident of Scotland passes through an English port and is then suspected by the police, will that person be banned from returning to their home in Scotland?.
      Mr. Straw: The legislation applies to United Kingdom citizens, who include residents of Scotland as well as of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, so the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. However, if the person happens to be a Scottish supporter, it is extremely unlikely that they will be caught up in the legislation. [Interruption.] I make a serious point; we have a good deal to learn in England from the behaviour of Scottish fans.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Malins: We understand that the Home Secretary is unable to cover every point that has been raised by Opposition Members, but, as many important points will remain unanswered at the end of the debate, will he undertake during the next week to send detailed written responses to those of us whose points have not been answered?.
      Mr. Straw: I am happy to do so.
      Mr. Gummer: Is the Home Secretary saying that, for the first time in British law, we are going to stop people going from England to Scotland? Even if it were to be invoked only rarely, that would constitute a real constitutional change. If that is what he is telling the Committee, he is putting before us an entirely new fact of considerable importance.
      Mr. Straw: I do not believe that it is the first time in English law that people are to be required not to leave the jurisdiction—
      Mr. Gummer indicated dissent.
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but it is often the case that people are required not to leave the jurisdiction for a certain period. I shall write to him if further inquiry into the matter proves me wrong on that.
      We are dealing with new powers. By definition, any legislation passed by Parliament is new; if we never had to change things, we would never need to sit. They are new powers for new circumstances and, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) pointed out, the
      128
      process of legislation involves speculation about the future. We have to use what intellectual and political resources we have to speculate as accurately as possible.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) asked whether a person could be arrested more than once in the same 24-hour period. Plainly, it would be wrong to make repeated arrests to circumvent the time limit on the arrangements that we have provided, and we shall consider whether that should be made more explicit. However, I ask the Committee to consider the following case: the police intercept a person on his way to port X; they make inquiries of that person, but conclude that there are not sufficient grounds to serve him with a notice requiring him to go to court; that person then moves off to a different port and, at that port, more evidence emerges as a result of different police officers following different lines of inquiry; it is decided that there are good grounds to serve that individual with a notice; that individual is served with the notice and, in due course, the court endorses the banning order. I do not think that would be inappropriate police action, any more than it is inappropriate for the police to stop and search someone who has committed a crime but who has managed to evade detection in a previous stop and search. However, I accept that we need to ensure that there are provisions to prevent gratuitous exploitation in circumstances which, although unlikely, might arise.
      Finally, I promised to address Opposition amendment No. 9, which would require a magistrates warrant rather than an inspector's authorisation before an officer could issue someone with a notice not to leave the country and to attend a magistrates court within 24 hours. Our judgment is that insisting on a magistrates warrant before notice is issued is likely to lead to longer delays and longer periods of detention by interposing another procedure between the initial decision to issue the notice and appearance in court. It would complicate matters and I am not sure that it would necessarily be welcomed by the magistracy. It would give magistrates summary powers of arrest and detention which, in our system, are typically given to the police, and then made the subject of proper adjudication by the courts.
      I hope that I have dealt with the burden of the main issues raised by right hon. and hon. Members. I have explained the Government amendments and invited the withdrawal of Opposition amendments. I commend the Committee for a constructive debate.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: If ever there were an argument for not going from Committee stage to Report without interruption, the past three and three quarter hours have made the case. Like the Home Secretary, I commend colleagues in all parts of the House—Scots and English colleagues—for making important contributions on various matters, demonstrating the need for us to proceed slowly and with caution if we are not to produce legislation that we will live to regret.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) reminded us that although we can speak at length about the drafting, we are discussing real people—often young people—going on innocent journeys, who might find themselves face to face with the law.
      That is why I take a different view from that of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), with whom I often agree, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)

      129
      and the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), who, in summary, argued that we must provide the powers so that when the authorities suspect people who, in the words of the hon. Member for West Ham, might cause the trouble, they can take their liberties away. That is not a view that we share.
      The hon. Member for Gedling seemed to suggest that protecting the liberties of the many is sufficient justification for risking the liberties of the few. That is not the principle on which we have worked. Historically, we have been willing to let off the few in order to protect the liberties of the many. The hon. Member for Watford said that it was all about what people had done in the past. It is not; it is about what the police might think that people had done in the past, which is an entirely different question.
      In a way, this is back-to-front legislation. We should have decided in what circumstances a ban is appropriate, decided whether a previous conviction should be the precondition of a ban, and then decided what power we wanted to give the authorities to detain people, with the prospect of a ban being imposed.
      In their contributions, our two Scots colleagues, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) suggested that in some respects we could learn from Scotland, and that the Bill would benefit from the inclusion of those points.
      My hon. Friends and I will shortly ask the Committee to vote on amendment No. 20. The Committee has a straightforward choice between accepting the fourth power, amended as it may be by Government amendments, or deciding that there is now such a muddle and so many unanswered questions that it is better to take it out, not necessarily for ever, but until there is some agreement about what it might do, what it might mean, how it might be enacted and what the practical implications might be. I hope that in a few moments colleagues in all parts of the House, other than those who take the Government pay and are on the Government payroll vote, will join us and decide that we should not support the measure.
      To address the question posed by the Home Secretary, of course there must be a power so that people can be apprehended and dealt with in the courts. However, we take the view that people should be apprehended in certain circumstances, and that it must be clear that they have a record of violence before the authorities have the power to detain them.
      Although the police might have said in principle that they supported the Bill, one of the obvious outcomes of the debate is that if they had heard the questions raised by colleagues from the courts, I am not sure that they would have been at all happy, but there is no chance to ask the police or to speak to the Association of Chief Police Officers or the Police Superintendents Association. There is no chance to discuss with them the objections that have been raised.
      The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) slightly misrepresented us. We think that amendment No. 33 is an improvement. We are in favour of amendment No. 37 being accepted, and we think that amendment No. 35 is worth considering. We entirely understand why she may want to move amendment No. 9 later in our oh-too-limited proceedings.
      130
      Four colleagues raised questions of practicality—the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell).
      Practicalities are as important as anything else. Will the courts and the police be able to handle the measure? We are not simply considering Euro 2000 or a world cup tournament, but every year's European cup or cup-winner's cup. The measure will be used regularly, and it will affect all the ports and airports. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire said, it contains a sweeping definition that covers anyone who might have been guilty of violence and disorder.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal reminded us that the Bill will take away not only a few hours' liberty, but people's passports and potentially their ability to travel abroad for many years. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) reminded us that it may be sufficient for someone to have contributed marginally to violence and disorder. Someone who was around the edges of, for example, a student demonstration or civil rights protest in the past could be picked up under the Bill. We do not claim that the police will necessarily intervene, but if they are in the front line and getting some grief, they will have the power to do so.
      The choice for the Committee is whether we want to go along with such a Bill or whether we have a duty to say that we shall not make such legislation, that we cannot ignore the plethora of objections or risk people's liberties. When so many hon. Members from different parties have raised so many objections to what one colleague described as the tapestry of the Bill, I hope that the Committee will realise that we are not considering fiction but fact, and that we owe it to people to get the measure right. I hope that a great coalition, consisting of those who want to remove the provision and those who want to go back to the drawing board and start again, will support the amendment.
      I hope that the Government realise that they cannot continue to legislate in such a manner. In the words of the hon. Member for West Ham, we have had enough.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 58, Noes 211.

      Division No. 270]

      [10.42 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Allan, Richard

      Flynn, Paul

      Baker, Norman

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Gale, Roger

      Barnes, Harry

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hancock, Mike

      Brake, Tom

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Harvey, Nick

      Breed, Colin

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Burnett, John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Burstow, Paul

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Chidgey, David

      Keetch, Paul

      Corbyn, Jeremy

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

      Cotter, Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Leigh, Edward

      131

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Livsey, Richard

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonnell, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      MacIennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Moore, Michael

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Oaten, Mark

      Tyler, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Willis, Phil

      Rendel, David

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mr. Donald Gorrie.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Alexander, Douglas

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Flint, Caroline

      Banks, Tony

      Follett, Barbara

      Barron, Kevin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Battle, John

      Galloway, George

      Beard, Nigel

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Best, Harold

      Goggins, Paul

      Betts, Clive

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Blackman, Liz

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Blizzard, Bob

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Grogan, John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Hain, Peter

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Browne, Desmond

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Burden, Richard

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Burgon, Colin

      Healey, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Heppell, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Home Robertson, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Clelland, David

      Hope, Phil

      Clwyd, Ann

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Colman, Tony

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corbett, Robin

      Hurst, Alan

      Corston, Jean

      Hutton, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cox, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cranston, Ross

      Jamieson, David

      Crausby, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Khabra, Piara S

      Darvill, Keith

      Kidney, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

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

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lammy, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Lepper, David

      Drew, David

      Levitt, Tom

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Edwards, Huw

      Love, Andrew

      Efford, Clive

      McAvoy, Thomas

      132

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Macdonald, Calum

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McNulty, Tony

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McWalter, Tony

      Snape, Peter

      McWilliam, John

      Soley, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Meale, Alan

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Stringer, Graham

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

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

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mountford, Kali

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mullin, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Pope, Greg

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pound, Stephen

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Watts, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Rapson, Syd

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Woolas, Phil

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wyatt, Derek

      Roy, Frank

      Ruane, Chris

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Salter, Martin

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      SUPPLEMENTARY.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 14, leave out from "under" to "may" in line 16 and insert "this Act".
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 25, in page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
      Mr. Hughes: This will be a brief contribution, Mr. Martin. The amendments are about what procedure the House will retain for controlling orders that will be made under the Bill when it is enacted. On Thursday, the Home Secretary announced that he had accepted

      133
      representations from Opposition parties and outside that the Act should have a limited life of five years and that the controversial banning order and summary detention powers should be the subject of renewal orders. The renewal order provision needs a positive motion of the House to be confirmed and the summary detention order and the banning order require the House to be asked its view every year.
      The amendments seek to make sure that all the orders that come under the Bill are covered by the affirmative order procedure. The other day, I put it to the Home Secretary that the powers that he has reserved to himself in clause 3 are Henry VIII powers. He said that they were not; they were Edward II powers—puny little extras which allow the Home Secretary to do little things at the edges. I am prepared to go halfway; they may have to be tied to the Bill, which refers to
      supplementary, incidental or consequential…transitory, transitional or saving
      provisions. Some could be persuaded that those provisions could go quite wide if one wanted them to.
      There are certain things that we hope are included. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her colleagues have referred to the power to make provisions for compensation, legal aid and other things. That would be consequential, so we want to make sure that there are powers available. The general principle is that we ought to have the ability to have a debate on a Bill that is clearly controversial and it ought not to be left to the rather uncertain negative resolution procedures of the House as to whether or not the orders renewing the controversial parts of the Bill are passed by the two Houses.
      Amendment No. 24 would sweep the whole Act into the affirmative resolution procedure, while amendment No. 25 takes out the exception so that the rest of the matters that are not specifically provided for would be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. The amendments go together, and they are straightforward. I can indicate now that we do not propose to divide the Committee on this matter. I hope that the Government will be positive and will give us one generic piece of information. What do they intend to use the power for? What powers will have to be introduced? If the Minister is as helpful as possible about that, it will alleviate some of the concerns.
      11 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The powers invested in the Secretary of State to make orders under the Bill are limited to "supplementary, incidental or consequential" provisions. Such powers are well precedented, for example in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill and the recent Greater London Authority Act 1999. The Bill already requires the affirmative resolution procedure for any amendment to primary legislation and for any order extending the life of the powers under new sections 14B, 21A and 21B.
      In accordance with the precedents that I mentioned, other amendments to secondary legislation can perfectly appropriately be dealt with under the negative resolution procedure, which ensures adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Among the matters that may be dealt with by such secondary legislation is the legal aid entitlement of persons issued with a notice to appear before a magistrates court.
      134
      For those reasons, the Government are resisting the amendment. I appreciate the motives behind it, but we believe that our approach in the Bill should be similar and equivalent to the way in which we have dealt with these issues in other legislation.
      Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Minister say, off the cuff, whether there are also precedents for allowing the affirmative resolution procedure for amending secondary legislation?.
      Mr. Clarke: I believe that there are precedents, but I cannot give them off the cuff.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The Data Protection Acts.
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is always extremely helpful in all matters concerning the welfare of the nation. He gives one example of a precedent, but I was going to offer to write to give further precedents to help the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley).
      I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Committee will have heard what the Minister said. He has been helpful in giving us an example of what the Government would use the power for. We have the power in both Houses to have a compulsory vote on important renewal matters. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      EXPENSES
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may consider amendment No. 10, in schedule 1, page 9, line 51, at end insert—
      '(8) The Lord Chancellor shall ensure that during any control period a magistrates' court is convened for the purpose of hearings under this section at each port and airport in England and Wales that is a designated port under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.'.
      Miss Widdecombe: I want to speak to the amendment. The Home Secretary and the Minister will know that the Opposition attach great importance to this matter. We have made it clear throughout that, unless this can be resolved in one form or another, we will not be able to support the Bill at subsequent stages. Should the amendment fall, which I hope that it will not, we will seek to examine the issue again with a view to finding some means of dealing with it in another place.
      The issue, which I raised on Second Reading, concerns the availability of magistrates at the ports and airports. We are very concerned that speed is of the essence in dealing with these cases. I have already pointed out that I am concerned about the civil liberties not of hooligans, but of the innocent.

      135
      People will need to travel and their arrangements will be time sensitive. It could be something as serious as travelling to see sick relatives, something as commonplace—but still important—as travelling on business, or simply a matter of missing a match if the process is unduly delayed. It could even be a matter of missing connections if a person does not get a particular flight.
      There will always be cases in which a particular urgency to travel is pleaded. Even with the Government's welcome improvement of reducing the 24-hour period, the fact is that there will still be some urgent referrals to be made. Those would be best served if magistrates were present at the ports to sit and hear a case immediately, when that was feasible in terms of the evidence being presented and the case made by the person who had been detained. If the Government will not accept that, they must provide some optional arrangement that will serve to convince the Committee that it will always be possible for an urgent case to be heard immediately.
      On the last day of the five-day process, when it is crucial for people to travel if they are to see the match, those detained must have immediate access to a judicial process. After all, they may be perfectly innocent and not travelling to the match to cause any trouble, but may have been caught up in the process—and not even the Home Secretary would claim that in 100 per cent. of cases will the person involved be proved to be worthy of detaining and prevented from travelling. It is crucial that the Government accept amendment No. 10 or put forward a substitute for it in order to secure our support for later stages of the Bill. I intend, therefore, to press the amendment to a vote.
      Mr. Malin: I rise in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on amendment No. 10. It is important that rapid justice be provided at the ports and airports. I do not know how many designated ports are listed in the schedule to the Bill, but some of the airports and ports, such as Dover, already have courts in operation. There is no court at Heathrow, but there is one close by.
      My right hon. Friend said that a magistrate should be present, and I would add that a metropolitan or provincial stipendiary magistrate would be a useful addition if cases needed to be heard expeditiously. That point is no reflection on the lay bench, but lay magistrates sit in threes and that makes the process longer. Anyone who has practised in the courts will know that a lay bench takes longer to reach a decision. It is no better or worse a decision than that reached by a stipendiary magistrate, but the bench needs to retire together to consider the matter. If speed is necessary, there is a strong argument for having available a pool of stipendiary magistrates—I have declared my interest in previous debates—because that would speed the judicial process at the ports in question. My right hon. Friend is correct to stress that point.
      Mr. Gale: My support for amendment No. 10 is reflected in the fact that I tabled amendment No. 31, which has not been selected but which called for the establishment of stipendiary magistrates and for the resources to be provided for in clause 4 to fund those stipendiary magistrates.
      136
      At the end of the previous debate, in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the Home Secretary indicated that court space would somehow be made available. If many people were detained, I presume that they would have to be dispersed around the south-east of England. It is not clear how that would work and perhaps the Minister of State will enlighten us. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that if the process is to be made to work—I have made it clear that I have grave doubts on that score—it must be possible for people to appear before magistrates very quickly. Otherwise, people will be detained who have nothing to do with football hooliganism but who are travelling abroad perhaps, as my right hon. Friend said, for emergency purposes. Facilities must be made available during the banning periods for those people to be heard.
      I wish to raise one other issue in relation to clause stand part, and it has to do with the amount of resources devoted to implementing the Bill. Clause 4 states:
      There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment.
      I said earlier that the Bill would place a tremendous strain on the already hard-pressed resources of the Kent police, who have the duty to enforce law and order at the several ports in our gateway county. The Government have recently increased the Kent police budget by an amount equivalent to 30-odd officers, who are dedicated solely to policing the ports. If the Bill is enacted it will place an additional burden on Kent, and the Home Office must make available the resources and personnel necessary to implement it.
      I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee that he will accept amendment No. 10, and reassure me that the necessary resources will be made available to the Kent police.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am sympathetic to the amendment. The Minister should answer the practical questions raised by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Does he envisage ad hoc courts at some or all of the ports? What is the minimum and maximum number of ports likely to be so covered?
      Earlier, the Home Secretary said that the Lord Chancellor had assured him that the system would be able to deal with the demands imposed by the Bill, but what are the cost implications? How many magistrates does the Lord Chancellor consider he has available?
      The hon. Member for North Thanet made a general inquiry about the clause, which authorises the money to be spent by Parliament. The newspapers tell us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may announce more resources for the police tomorrow. What is the Home Office assessment of the policing costs incurred by the additional powers? What minimum number of extra police hours does the Minister think will be required to implement the legislation? What will be the cost to the Exchequer?
      What guarantee can Ministers give that any additional court sittings or police attendance at them will not harm the availability of courts elsewhere? Many magistrates courts have been closed, and others are under threat.

      137
      Many hon. Members of all parties have raised concerns about that, as have their constituents. We need to be sure that the Bill does not cause a reduction or termination of services in other parts of the country.
      Mr. Leigh: I rise to support the amendment, which goes to the heart of the Bill. The Minister has said, in his reasonable way, that the penalty is proportionate—that a person denied the opportunity to go to a football match can watch it on television. The impression given is that that person would be turned away by means of a friendly grip on the arm, and that he would go and watch television quite happily. However, we are talking about arrest and detention, which are far more serious and unpleasant matters. No one has difficulty about hooligans—whoever they are—being detained, but we are worried about perfectly innocent people being detained—or even potential hooligans, who, after all, will not be accused of having committed any crimes. This is a serious matter. It is not simply a matter of telling people that they can watch the match on television.
      11.15 pm
      We are after all committed to the rule of law. We believe that people should be denied their liberty and their ability to enter or leave their country only on the say-so of a properly constituted court of law.
      I can understand what the Government are saying in one sense. The Home Secretary was very dismissive towards my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on Second Reading, talking about setting up trestle tables and implying that the courts would be drumhead courts.
      If we are talking about arresting people—and arrest is unpleasant and embarrassing—it surely is not beyond the ken of the Home Office to arrange for an immediate court hearing to take place. Many of us are worried, especially as no crime has to be proved, and the arrest does not need to take place in the area of the port, that we are talking about a return to the old sus laws. I served on the Committee considering them, and many right hon. and hon. Members, particularly those on the Labour Benches, quite rightly railed against the sus laws and the powers that they gave the police. We do not want a return to those days—we want the Minister's reassurance that that will not happen.
      It is not good enough for the Minister to say that this procedure is just like the anti-social behaviour order—it is quite different. Anti-social behaviour orders simply require people to obey the law of the land. That is not an unreasonable request.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The amendment is about resources. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of that subject.
      Mr. Leigh: I appreciate that, Mr. Martin.
      Ministers constantly claim that to set up these courts in time is not achievable, that resources are not available and it is all too difficult. I do not think that that is right—this is a very important principle.
      I do not think that my right hon. Friend is asking too much, and I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will not be as dismissive as the Home Secretary was last
      138
      Thursday. There has been movement—in one weekend, we have brought down the period from 24 hours to four or six, and I give credit to Ministers for that.
      I hope that the Minister will approach my right hon. Friend's amendment in a positive and constructive way, and explain why it will not be possible to have immediate court hearings, with the resources available to set them up.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I approach the amendment of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in a constructive spirit; I think that she tabled it in a constructive way. We cannot accept it for reasons that I shall explain in a moment, but we have agreed that magistrates' hearings will be convened at weekends when necessary to ensure that individuals issued with a notice preventing them from leaving England and Wales will have the opportunity of a hearing as soon as possible, and certainly before the limit expires. I acknowledge the importance of that to the legislation.
      I agree that it is vital that the hearings be held in close proximity to the port or airport concerned. I accept, in the spirit of the debate that was mentioned, the point of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins); I think that the use of stipendiaries is a positive suggestion, and I am prepared to assure him that we will look at it carefully.
      Mr. Burns: The Minister said that he thinks that it is important that hearings be held in close proximity to port and airports. Would he include Eurostar and its railway station?.
      Mr. Clarke: Yes, I would.
      I am prepared to give the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) the assurance that he seeks—that we are actively looking at the costs of the legislation for police forces, particularly in Kent. We are considering the situation of those forces, and what grant could be made. He will know that Kent police received a significant grant last year for handling immigration issues, and we are prepared to consider the issue in that context.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about ad hoc courts. I am prepared to look at that suggestion too, because it is very positive, and we want to meet the spirit of what is proposed. His point on costs is covered at paragraph 27 of the explanatory notes: we estimate that the additional cost to magistrates courts will be about £150, 000 a year.
      I do not accept what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said about a return to the sus laws. I had intended to tell the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald that while I do not believe that it will be necessary to set up courts in air or sea terminals, the Government are willing to reconsider that matter when the measure is reviewed in 12 months, to see whether we should have done something different.
      I accept the legitimacy of the right hon. Lady's point, but cannot accept her amendment because her reference to ports and airports designated in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Bill is not appropriate. She may or may not have had a chance to read the list of ports involved. The airports include Aberdeen, Biggin Hill, Birmingham, Blackpool and many more. The ports include Ardrossan, Campbeltown, Fishguard, Fleetwood, Heysham and more.
      There are two problems with the amendment. First, the designated ports include none of those in Kent and Essex that usually deal with the heaviest traffic in football

      139
      supporters. I am aware that that is a drafting point and I intend no criticism by saying that the right hon. Lady's definition would not help us with the ports most important to the Bill. Secondly, her amendment states that a court would have to be convened at each designated port in England and Wales. The list of such ports is substantial, but it may be that none bears a relationship to travel to and from football games. It would be ridiculous to provide for court sittings at all the locations during every control period. For example, if the control period were triggered by a London club playing in Europe, setting up a court at Ardrossan, Campbeltown or Fishguard would not be appropriate.
      I make no criticism of the right hon. Lady's intention, but we cannot support the amendment because it would not work. I hope that she will accept what I have said about the spirit of what we intend and the assurances that I have given to her and her hon. Friends, including the assurance that we shall reconsider the matter in 12 months' time if necessary.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is being helpful, but I did not hear him respond to my questions about the minimum number of ports affected by the Bill and on the number of police or police hours that the Home Office expects to result from a control order.
      Mr. Clarke: I did not answer that question because we have made no assessment of the number of ports through which people would travel. The number—perhaps eight to 10—is relatively small by comparison with the number contained in the schedule to the Terrorism Act. Similarly, we have made no estimate of the costs of policing, although we have done so on the court side. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an estimate.
      I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald will withdraw her amendment.
      Miss Widdecombe: I have listened carefully to the Minister. I am prepared to admit that the amendment might have been better drafted. However, it is the only amendment before us that addresses an important issue. I intend, therefore, to press it to the vote, and the Government will have an opportunity to amend the Bill on Report or in the other place. The issue is of such importance that the Committee should make a statement on it.
      The First Deputy Chairman: The right hon. Lady will appreciate that her amendment will come up for decision at a later stage.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION
      Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 34, leave out "one year" and insert "six months".
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 2, line 40, leave out "four years" and insert "eighteen months".
      140
      No. 22, in page 2, line 40, leave out "four" and insert "two".
      No. 23, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
      '(5) Before an order is made under subsection (4) above, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the working of this Act in the previous twelve months.
      (6) The Secretary of State shall appoint an individual or individuals in order to produce a report under subsection (5).'.
      Miss Widdecombe: I intend to press amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to a Division. The two amendments relate to the so-called sunset clauses, seeking to reduce the periods involved. The Government propose that the Bill should cease to exist after five years. If it were thought to have been successful, fresh primary legislation would be needed. They also state that the first review of the Bill and its first annual renewal will take place one year after its commencement.
      We propose that the Bill should cease to have effect after two years without fresh legislation and should be reviewed, with a view to renewal, for the first time after six rather than 12 months. The reason for that is that the Bill has been exceptionally rushed.
      As a matter of form rather than of substance, I pointed out to the Minister that if he did not like my proposal, he could amend it on Report. As the Committee will be aware, it is exceedingly unlikely that, as Report will immediately follow the Committee stage, the Minister will have enough time to draft a suitable amendment.
      The rushed proceedings of the Bill make it imperative that we review the measure as soon as possible. At this stage, we should include provisions for renewal, for the Bill to cease to exist and for the introduction of fresh primary legislation. Even if the time limit is two years, that would enable us to get past the world cup qualifying period and the matches about which the Home Secretary and the Minister are so worried. We should have been able to test the measure repeatedly. If it works well, the Minister need have no fear about the ease with which it would be renewed under fresh primary legislation. However, if it is not working, the sooner we get rid of it, the better. It would be counterproductive to add a further three years before it ceases to have effect.
      If the legislation had been taken at a more leisurely pace, I would have considered six months unreasonable for the first review date. I would have said that we should have at least a year, so as to give the Bill time to work and to see what happened. However, there has been an exceptional rush. The Government have already had to amend their proposals many times. There were many additions and amendments to the first draft of the Bill before it became the second draft. That too was changed before the final Bill was issued. We have proposed amendments this evening—some of which the Government have accepted. They have added their own amendments and have tabled some on Report. We assume that there will be further amendments in another place.
      The whole process has been so rushed that we need to give ourselves an early point of renewal. That is why I propose six months. That period will take us past several matches. The measure will have been exercised in different circumstances in several parts of the country. We shall have been able to form a judgment as to how well it is working. If it is not working—if it turns out to be an expensive piece of inefficiency—the sooner we get rid of it, the better.

      141
      If the Minister has confidence in the measure, however, he will accept my proposal. If he believes that the measure will work, there will be no difficulty whatever. Given that we have co-operated in trying to get it through and have done what we can to amend it to make it better, we shall not stand in its way if it is actually working after six months. Indeed, the Minister might like the opportunity to stand at the Dispatch Box and gloat in six months' time—that might be a crucial moment for him to gloat. If he has confidence in the Bill, he will accept the amendments. I intend to press amendments Nos. 1 and 2 to a Division.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Hon. Members will have heard me quote the remark of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson's great ally. He said that the three wisest words in the English language were "Wait a minute".
      I commend my right hon. Friend for her moderation in asking for only six months and not for a lesser period. I have sat through most of the proceedings of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. As the minutes go by, the disadvantages of the process through which the measure is passing become ever clearer. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. In choosing a period of six months, my right hon. Friend makes it clear that she has considered both the football programme that lies between now and that deadline and the desirability of reconsidering the measure, given the manner in which we have been considering it.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and I are concerned about this clause and we have tabled an amendment that is similar, although not as immediate in its effect, to the one tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Like the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I believe that the process today has confirmed my original view that we should review the Bill sooner rather than later.
      If, over the next week, and with the help of the Lords, the House gets the Bill right, we may not need to do much work. However, that is not the issue. The issue is when we give ourselves the lever to do something about it, so I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to three proposals. The first is that we bring forward the timetable for review. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald suggested that it should be six months, and the Home Secretary made the good point that it would be unrealistic to have a review at about the time of a general election. It is sensible to plan for the review outside the probable general election month of May and, to be fair to the right hon. Lady, a review in six or in 18 months would achieve that aim.
      Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many matches England will play away in the next six months?
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer better than me, but I understand that there is at least one away match in that period. I understand that England will play a friendly against France and the first world cup
      142
      qualifying match is against Germany, but that is a home game at Wembley. At most there will be two away games; but the hon. Gentleman knows the answer better than I do. However, as we were reminded earlier, there will be club matches that may also trigger the powers in the Bill. There is a competition in Germany in August in which Manchester United are scheduled to play, and the Government may want to act on that.
      Secondly, we need to establish what the backstop to the Bill will be. As a result of representations, the Government have offered a backstop of five years, but we, like the Conservative party, are trying to persuade the Government to bring that forward. Such a Bill should not be left for as long as that.
      The third proposal appears in amendment No. 23. I hope that the Minister can be positive about the fact that, as with much other legislation—including legislation that has passed through the House this year—there will be provision to report to Parliament on how the Bill has worked before we debate its renewal or extension. The Government should consult the police, the port authorities, the airports and the magistrates so that an informed report is produced by an independent person, and it is clearly not fixed, spun or in other ways subject to political bias.
      I hope that my proposals appeal to the Minister and that he will give a positive response to all the amendments in the group.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I shall respond to the amendments in reverse order. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will consider withdrawing amendment No. 23. We acknowledge the importance of reporting to the House and we intend to table on Report an amendment that deals with that point directly. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is one of the signatories to that amendment.
      I am pretty militantly against amendment No. 1, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Six months is too short a period to review any legislation seriously. Considering it after 12 months is perfectly reasonable, because we need to go through at least a full international football season to have an idea of how the Bill has worked in practice. I do not want to be personally critical, but to suggest that we can review the Act in six months is ridiculous and disrespectful to the House. It is perfectly reasonable to report to the House after 12 months, and I would resist the amendment on that basis alone.
      Amendments Nos. 2 and 22 are similar in character and relate to the length of the Bill's operation. The total of five years is perfectly reasonable, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendments if they are pressed to a vote. However, I do not feel as strongly about those as I do about amendment No. 1. I acknowledge that there is a balance of judgment about how long we should operate the Bill. Some say it should be five years, some say two years and others say 18 months, and we are prepared to continue discussions on that point, so if the Conservatives want to table different amendments in another place, we will consider them constructively. However, amendment No. 1 should be resisted as ridiculous.

      143
      In summary, I urge the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) not to press amendment No. 23, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 22.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 207.

      Division No. 271]

      [11.36 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Loughton, Tim

      Amess, David

      Luff, Peter

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Baldry, Tony

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Bercow, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Body, Sir Richard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Boswell, Tim

      Malins, Humfrey

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Maples, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Brazier, Julian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Norman, Archie

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Burns, Simon

      Paice, James

      Butterfill, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Cash, William

      Prior, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Clappison, James

      Robathan, Andrew

      Collins, Tim

      Robertson, Laurence

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Cran, James

      Ruffley, David

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Evans, Nigel

      Simpson Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Fallon, Michael

      Fox Dr Liam

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Fraser, Christopher

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Spring, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gibb, Nick

      Streeter, Gary

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Swayne, Desmond

      Green, Damian

      Syms, Robert

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hammond, Philip

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hancock, Mike

      Townend, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Tredinnick, David

      Hayes, John

      Trend, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Horam, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wilkinson, John

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Willetts, David

      Wilshire, David

      Key, Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Yeo, Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Leigh, Edward

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Mr. John Randall and

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. Peter Atkinson.

      144

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Godsiff, Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Goggins, Paul

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Alexander, Douglas

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Allen, Graham

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Banks, Tony

      Grogan, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Hain, Peter

      Barron, Kevin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Battle, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Beard, Nigel

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Best, Harold

      Healey, John

      Betts, Clive

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Blackman, Liz

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Blizzard, Bob

      Heppell, John

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Hesford, Stephen

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Hoey, Kate

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Home Robertson, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Hope, Phil

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Burden, Richard

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Burgon, Colin

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hurst, Alan

      Cann, Jamie

      Hutton, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Jamieson, David

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Clelland, David

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Coaker, Vernon

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cohen, Harry

      Kidney, David

      Colman, Tony

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Connarty, Michael

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Corbett, Robin

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Corston, Jean

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Lammy, David

      Cox, Tom

      Lepper, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Levitt, Tom

      Crausby, David

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Love, Andrew

      Cummings, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian(Makerfield)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      McIsaac, Shona

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Darvill, Keith

      McNulty, Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      MacShane, Denis

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      McWalter, Tony

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

      McWilliam, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Martlew, Eric

      Drew, David

      Meale, Alan

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Miller, Andrew

      Edwards, Huw

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Efford, Clive

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Mountford, Kali

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Mullin, Chris

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Flint, Caroline

      Olner, Bill

      Flynn, Paul

      O'Neill, Martin

      Follett, Barbara

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Pollard, Kerry

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Pope, Greg

      145

      Pound, Stephen

      Stringer, Graham

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Rapson, Syd

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rooney, Terry

      Todd, Mark

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Truswell, Paul

      Rowlands, Ted

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Roy, Frank

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Salter, Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Savidge, MaIcolm

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Ward Ms Claire

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Watts, David

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Snape, Peter

      Woolas, Phil

      Soley, Clive

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed:No. 2, in page 2, line 40, leave out "four years" and insert "eighteen months"—[Miss Widdecombe.]
      Question put,That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided:Ayes 152, Noes 208.

      Division No. 272]

      [11.50 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Clappison, James

      Allan, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Cotter, Brian

      Baker, Norman

      Cran, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Ballard, Jackie

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Day, Stephen

      Bercow, John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Body, Sir Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brake, Tom

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Fraser, Christopher

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger

      Breed, Colin

      Garnier, Edward

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gibb, Nick

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Burnett, John

      Gorrie, Donald

      Burns, Simon

      Green, Damian

      Burstow, Paul

      Grieve, Dominic

      Butterfill, John

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Chidgey, David

      Hammond, Philip

      Chope, Christopher

      Hancock, Mike

      146

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Robathan, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Robertson, Laurence

      Hawkins, Nick

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hayes, John

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Heald, Oliver

      Ruffley, David

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Horam, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Sanders, Adrian

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Johnson Smith,Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Keetch, Paul

      Spring, Richard

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

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Streeter, Gary

      Key, Robert

      Stunell, Andrew

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Syms, Robert

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Leigh, Edward

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Loughton, Tim

      Townend, John

      Luff, Peter

      Tredinnick, David

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Trend, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tyler, Paul

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Viggers, Peter

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Waterson, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Webb, Steve

      Malins, Humfrey

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Maples, John

      Whittingdale, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Wilkinson, John

      Moore, Michael

      Willetts, David

      Norman, Archie

      Willis, Phil

      Oaten, Mark

      Wilshire, David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Paice, James

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Paterson, Owen

      Prior, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Mr. John Randall and

      Rendel, David

      Mr. Peter Atkinson.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Burden, Richard

      Ainger, Nick

      Burgon, Colin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Alexander, Douglas

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cann, Jamie

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Banks, Tony

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Battle, John

      Clelland, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Clwyd, Ann

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Best, Harold

      Cohen, Harry

      Betts, Clive

      Colman, Tony

      Blackman, Liz

      Connarty, Michael

      Blizzard, Bob

      Corbett, Robin

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cousins,Jim

      Cox, Tom

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cranston, Ross

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Crausby, David

      Browne, Desmond

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      147

      Cummings, John

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      McIsaac, Shona

      Dalyell, Tam

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Darvill, Keith

      McNulty, Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      MacShane, Denis

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      McWalter, Tony

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

      McWilliam, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Martlew, Eric

      Drew, David

      Meale, Alan

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Miller, Andrew

      Edwards, Huw

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Effort, Clive

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Mountford, Kali

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Mullin, Chris

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Olner, Bill

      Flint, Caroline

      O'Neill, Martin

      Flynn, Paul

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Follett, Barbara

      Pickthall, Colin

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Pope, Greg

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Pound, Stephen

      Godsiff, Roger

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Goggins, Paul

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Purchase, Ken

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Rapson, Syd

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Grogan, John

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Hain, Peter

      Rooney, Terry

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Roy, Frank

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Ruane, Chris

      Healey, John

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Salter, Martin

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Heppell, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Hesford, Stephen

      Sawford, Phil

      Hinchliffe, David

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Hoey, Kate

      Sheerman, Barry

      Home Robertson, John

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Hope, Phil

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Snape, Peter

      Hurst, Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Hutton, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Jamieson, David

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Jenkins, Brian

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Stringer, Graham

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Kidney, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Lammy, David

      Todd, Mark

      Lepper, David

      Truswell, Paul

      Levitt, Tom

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Love, Andrew

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      148

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Vaz, Keith

      Woolas, Phil

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wareing, Robert N

      Watts, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Mr. Jim Dowd and

      Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after 12 midnight, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [this day], proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      AMENDMENTS OF THE FOOTBALL SPECTATORS ACT 1989
      Amendments made: No. 29, in page 6, line 2, leave out from "football" to end of line 5.
      No. 32, in page 9, line 6, after "match", insert "outside England and Wales.
      No. 42, in page 9, line 7, leave out from "tournament" to end of line 12 and insert—
      'if a constable in uniform—

      (a) has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the condition in section 14B(2) above is met in the case of a person present before him. and

      (b) has reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order in his case would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches'.

      No. 37, in page 9, line 15, at end insert—
      'and shall give the person his reasons for detaining him in writing.'.
      No. 43, in page 9, line 19, leave out "24" and insert—
      'four hours or, with the authority of an officer of at least the rank of inspector, six'.
      No. 46, in page 9, leave out lines 47 and 48.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
      Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments, pursuant to Order [this day].
      As amended in the Committee, considered.

    Clause 5

      COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION
      12.7 am
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): We now come to amendment No. 2—
      Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the tremendous rush—the Bill has gone straight on to Report after being in Committee—has the Home Secretary requested an interlude in which to.

      149
      make a statement to the House on the crime figures released four minutes ago, which show a substantial increase in robberies and crimes of violence?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Lady is pushing her luck.
      Mr. Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I tabled a series of amendments to schedule 1 for the Committee stage. It occurred to me at about 10 minutes to midnight that the chances of reaching those amendments was fairly slim. What is the procedure if I wish to table those amendments to be debated on Report?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has missed his chance. I am sorry about that.
      Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you can help the House with this matter. I went to the Vote Office a few moments ago, and the amendments tabled up to 10 o'clock for consideration on Report had been printed, but there was no list of selected amendments. Can you tell the House which amendments you have selected for discussion on Report?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: A revised list will be available within the next quarter of an hour. We can deal now with amendment No. 2, and I understand that there is another amendment that we can discuss. I assure the hon. Gentleman that a revised list will be available soon.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that it is impossible under the guillotine motion for the House to be suspended, which is to be regretted. Some of us have not seen the amendments that were tabled before midnight. Can you tell us whether you have selected any other amendments to be taken with amendment No. 2, which you have just called? Can you give us advance warning about the second group of amendments, so that we have a chance of knowing what is coming and preparing for it?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman what is coming. Amendment No. 2 has been selected on its own, and amendment No. 4 is coming. The list that I mentioned will be available within a quarter of an hour or even sooner.
      Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) raised a point of order about the amendments that he had tabled and which we were about to reach in Committee. He could not possibly have tabled those amendments for consideration on Report because he did not know whether we would reach them in Committee. Surely such amendments can be tabled during these proceedings
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can seek to table his amendments, but there is no guarantee that they will be selected.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 40, at end insert—
      '( ) Before making an order under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must lay a report about the working of this Act before each House of Parliament.'.
      The amendment is in response to amendment No. 23, which was debated earlier. The Government acknowledge that it is important for the House to have a report about the workings of the Act so that a proper assessment can be made of it. We also acknowledge that there has been substantial debate about the matter, and concerns of substance have been expressed. We think that there should be a review, and it should be informed by a proper report on these matters.
      I hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment, which I believe gives yet a further guarantee that the House will be able, throughout the operation of the Act—as I hope it will become—to make its judgments as we move from step to step.
      Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition welcome the amendment and have no difficulty accommodating it. However, I wish to make it clear that affirmative motions, reports or anything else are no substitute for a proper review at a much earlier stage than the Bill now provides for. With that caveat, we are happy with the amendment,
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Government's amendment is welcome. However, this is the speediest turnaround of amendments that I have ever known. We spoke to our amendment at 11.30 pm, and I now discover that the Government are tabling their rewritten version of the same amendment at 10 minutes past twelve. There is some merit in speed.
      Mr. Paul Tyler: It is called spinning.
      Mr. Hughes: It is spinning in another sense at this time of the morning.
      I am assuming the best, but would the Minister be kind enough to confirm that the report provided for by the amendment—which was anticipated by our amendment in Committee—will be prepared and written by someone who is entirely independent of the Government and can do the job without any partisan view?
      Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for what the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has said, and I acknowledge that the amendment does not go beyond what she herself has argued previously.
      I am grateful also for what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said, although I cannot give the absolute assurance that he is looking for on this point. There is merit in what he says about the need for someone independent to do the report, but we have not come to a view as to the best way of reporting to Parliament on the matter. I am prepared to listen to the hon. Gentleman, but there is a perfectly good case for the Home Secretary to lay the report with the Home Secretary's conclusions. It may well be that the Home Secretary of the day decides that it is better to ask an independent person to carry out that report. I take seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I cannot give him the absolute assurance he is looking for.
      Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for his honesty. The experience of the last three years, and the

      151
      welcome Government initiative and principle of having an annual report, have shown that an independent report has much more credibility than a report that is not independent.
      Mr. Clarke: I accept that there is weight in that point. To use a word that we will become accustomed to in the forthcoming years, proportionality is called for here. In terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the terrorism proposals, the issues are significant for the state, and having somebody who is clearly seen to be independent is well established in what we do. The point is not so overwhelming in this case, which is why I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that he seeks. However, it is true that the more independent any report is seen to be, the more it is likely to command general consent and support. That is why I say that I am prepared to look at the proposal, which has merit.
      With that, I commend the amendment to the House. Despite the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald's caveat, I hope that she and everybody else will acknowledge that this is an important step and will provide reassurance that the legislation will be kept under close scrutiny.
      Mr. Leigh: There is an important point of principle here. This debate on an important procedure has been dismissed in four or five minutes, with some short speeches, and I understand that the amendments were tabled by the Government today. This is a most extraordinary way of dealing with serious legislation. I wonder how many Members know in any detail what the amendments are about. The Government talk about modernisation and how it is bad to make laws after 10 o'clock at night. What an extraordinary way of proceeding. Is it really necessary to gallop through this after midnight and not even wait a day?
      12.15 am
      Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that. The amendment is one of the most clearly phrased that the House has had to deal with. I acknowledge that there are more complicated issues on other amendments that require close study, but we should also acknowledge that the amendment is clear in its phraseology.
      Mr. Heald: Will the Minister amplify a little more what he would expect the report to contain? Will it simply be a list of the number of orders and detentions or will it give a wider view of the effect, for example, on the crime figures, which are rising extremely fast, with violent crime in particular up by a huge amount in the past year?.
      Mr. Clarke: I hesitate to embarrass the hon. Gentleman in front of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who has been so eloquent, but the wording is crystal clear when it says
      report about the working of this Act.
      The question was fair, apart from the general political soundbite surrounding it.
      Mr. Heald: Ignore it, then.
      Mr. Clarke: That is a good idea.
      The question is simple. It concerns how often the powers are used; how they have been used; what pressures they have put on the criminal justice and police systems; to what extent we believe that we have successfully apprehended individuals who would have been involved in violence abroad; how the legislation has taken effect; and to which football matches it has been applied. In short, it is a list of how the legislation has operated, how the various players have behaved and what problems and difficulties have arisen as a result of trying to implement it.
      I hope that some of the concerns expressed by the Opposition will not be borne out by events. The report will allow us to assess the extent to which their concerns have been justified.
      Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the report include the costs of implementing the legislation?.
      Mr. Clarke: I would certainly assume so. In the financial section of the explanatory notes, we have made an estimate of the costs, and it would be entirely appropriate for Parliament to know what the costs have in fact been.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      OFFENCES
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 37, at end insert—
      'but, for the purposes of paragraph (a), any football match included in the qualifying or pre-qualifying stages of the tournament is to be left out of account.'.
      The amendment is intended to clarify, in response to the Second Reading debate elsewhere, the way in which the Secretary of State might use his or her powers to apply the legislation. We felt that it was important that the qualifying or pre-qualifying stages of a tournament be left out of account. For example, in considering the world cup finals or the Euro 2000 finals, we would not take into account all the qualifying games over two years, or whatever is the relevant period.
      The amendment is sensible and responds to concerns that have been raised by hon. Members. I hope that the House will support it.
      Miss Widdecombe: The amendment reflects what we sought in amendment No. 3. The Minister did not acknowledge that.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend and I meant to acknowledge that, and I did indeed acknowledge it earlier in our proceedings.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that acknowledgement, but why was amendment No. 3 not accepted? I am prepared to believe that there is a good reason for that, but how is amendment No. 4 better than amendment No. 3? The purpose of amendment No. 3 was to clarify the definition of the phrase "external tournament", which the Bill uses to define overseas tournaments such as Euro 2000. The amendment stated that that definition
      shall not include any …qualifying or pre-qualifying stages.
      As far as I can see, amendment No. 4 has the same purpose. I do not oppose it, but I ask out of curiosity: did the Government refuse to accept amendment No. 3 on a matter of principle?.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a practical question that relates to earlier interventions by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and others. Will matches in the qualifying or pre-qualifying stages of the next world cup be excluded from the provisions of the Bill? I thought that the House was speeding the passage of the Bill in order to include games in the first stages of a competition. I understand that competitions such as Euro 2000 should be ring-fenced, but will England's first away game in the world cup qualification group be covered by the Bill?.
      Mr. Banks: I can help the hon. Gentleman. England's first away game in the qualifying stage for the 2002 world cup is against Finland on 11 October. On 28 March next year, the England team will travel to Albania. Crucially, the team will travel to Germany on 1 September next year, before finishing the programme with home games against Albania on 5 September, and against Greece on 6 October.
      I assume that those matches—and especially the away match against Germany—would be covered by the Bill.
      Mr. Hughes: There is agreement among hon. Members of all parties that those games must be covered by the Bill. However, the relevant control period may be not the one that governs the tournament, but a different control period that specifically ring-fences individual fixtures. The House needs to know the score about that, and exactly what powers we are being asked to approve.
      How will the Bill affect the away games that England will play between now and the end of the qualifying period? I hope that the Minister will clarify that. If he cannot reassure the House that everything is fine, we may need to table another amendment.
      Mr. Clarke: First, may I say that I in no way intended to snub or offend the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) by not acknowledging the critical contribution of amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 4? However, after discussions with the parliamentary draftsmen, the Government decided that the clarification
      for the purposes of paragraph (a)
      in amendment No. 4 made matters much clearer and addressed the situation more effectively. We sought the most precise form of words for the amendment, and this is it. I am genuinely sorry if the right hon. Lady was offended earlier.
      154
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about regulated football matches. He will see that schedule 1 states:
      `Regulated football match' means an association football match …which is a prescribed match or match of a prescribed description.
      The control period relates to a regulated football match and can be itemised to deal with a particular game, whatever type it may happen to be, in whatever kind of way. It could be one of the games in the qualifying period, for example.
      Subsection (6) of proposed new section 14 relates to a tournament. We believed that it was important to restrict the period to the finals of the tournament, so that we did not have a much more general power. The changes have restricted the Home Secretary's freedom to do this in a way that is important and rational but does not remove the danger referred to by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—that particular games might be left out. The Home Secretary will make a judgment about whether a particular game, in any circumstances, poses risks of the type that we acknowledge, based on the information that he has. He will then decide whether to establish a control period and consider the various relevant issues.
      Where we wish to deal with the finals of a tournament, as we have seen in Belgium and Holland, and saw in France last year, rather than citing a whole series of different games, we think it right to make it explicit that the provision deals only with the final stage of that tournament rather than with all the pre-qualifying stages as well.
      Mr. Hughes: The Minister is clear; he is giving us the interpretation that careful reading—I was reading as he spoke—makes clear allowance for the two different types of prescription.
      In practice, how will the fact that this law is applied—that the Home Secretary has made a decision to apply the law to a particular match or set of matches—be widely enough known in advance for everybody in the country to be aware that it applies to that particular fixture, and to club games as well as national games?.
      Mr. Clarke: That is one of the practical things that we will have to address in detail—how to communicate exactly when and where the Home Secretary will make his decisions. What the hon. Gentleman says is right—it is important that everybody should be quite clear what the situation is before the event. We will ensure that that is the case. It is straightforward to do that, as I think the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next amendment, I should like to tell the House that an up-to-date list of the amendments that we are discussing is now available in the Vote Office.
      12.30 am
      Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I first thank the staff of the House who have produced this in virtually no time at all? I also thank the civil servants, who have been given slightly more work than they had bargained for.
      My point of order is this: I see that in Madam Speaker's provisional selection of amendments on Report, the next group includes amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. The next amendment selected—amendment No. 12—is in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), and is about the rehabilitation of offenders and a backstop point. Amendment No. 8, in my name, is also about spent convictions. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider whether it would not be more sensible to take the two amendments on spent convictions together? I have not had a chance to consult the right hon. Gentleman about this, for which I apologise, but it seems to me that they are about one subject, whereas amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9 are about another.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It is not normal to query Madam Speaker's selection of amendments, but I will reflect on the hon. Gentleman's point.
      Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that in British industry it is fashionable to talk of just-in-time delivery, but is it usual for the selection of amendments to be delivered to us literally two minutes before we are told that you have selected them for debate?.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not I who have been selecting the amendments but Madam Speaker. The Clerks are doing their very best to keep ahead of the procedures before the House.

    Schedule 1

      AMENDMENTS OF THE FOOTBALL SPECTATORS ACT 1989
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 27, leave out—
      'caused and contributed to any violence or disorder'
      and insert—
      `been convicted of an offence involving violence or any other relevent offence
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 7, in page 5, line 28, after 'or' insert—
      `caused or contributed to any violence or disorder'.
      No. 8, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
      '(2A) A conviction under subsection (2) above does not include a spent conviction.
      No. 9, in page 6, line 2, leave out from 'football' to end of line 5 and insert—
      '(3A) In this Part, "violence" and "disorder" are limited to conduct which constitutes a crime under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or conduct which, if committed outside the United Kingdom, would constitute a crime under the laws of the United Kingdom if committed in any part of the United Kingdom.'.
      12.30 am
      Mr. Hughes: I shall speak first to amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 9. When I have finished my relatively brief remarks on those, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps you would be kind enough to say whether you wish me to take amendment No. 8 together with them or separately.
      In the bizarre, Alice in Wonderland world of this debate, we have moved from a Committee stage in which we debated one important issue—summary detention—but could not debate how to deal with banning orders into a Report stage in which we may debate banning orders but will have no opportunity to reflect on the debate on summary detention.
      As the Report stage began, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said to me that crucial issues affecting the police relate to both issues, and there has been absolutely no chance for anyone to talk to any representative of the police between the first debate and the second—
      Mr. Banks: I have.
      Mr. Hughes: No representative, that is, except those available to us locally, who deal with parliamentary hooligans.
      Amendment No. 6 is extremely important. My colleagues communicated our agreed position to the Home Secretary and the Government before Second Reading. We want to replace the general and dangerously wide provision in schedule 1 with a more specific provision.
      At present, there are two conditions for a banning order that is triggered other than by a court decision on punishment. The order can happen on conviction or by complaint. The post-conviction order is non-controversial, if I have judged the mood of the House correctly. The order triggered by complaint is more controversial. It was anticipated by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford and others, but we had not seen the exact wording involved.
      A banning order may be made on the complaint of a police officer who has detained someone summarily and who, after four or six hours, must serve a notice saying that he or she intends to seek a banning order. That notice, in writing, indicates an intention to seek an order within a further 18 or 20 hours, the total period being 24 hours. My colleagues and I strongly hold the view that to say that it is sufficient for a police officer or a court to think that someone's past history qualifies that person for a banning order on the basis that the person may have caused or contributed to any violence or disorder, but without having been convicted, goes dangerously wide. We reject that as a trigger for a banning order.
      Instead, we offer the House a straightforward statement that a banning order can be considered if someone has previously been convicted of an offence involving violence or any relevant offence. That takes the law further than at present, when banning orders happen only if there has been a football-related offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and I are of the clear view that it is part of the job of politicians to deal with violence in our society, and it is reasonable that someone convicted of violence unrelated to football might be regarded as having a greater propensity to violence in a football-related context than someone with no convictions for violence.

      157
      Unlike the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)—who is not in his place—we do not think that domestic violence should be excluded. It is not reasonable to say that violence in the home does not show a propensity to violence elsewhere. Indeed, we think that it is clear evidence of violence. A conviction for domestic violence must be part of the material background.
      The third issue relates to amendments that have been selected for debate later and on which we have similar views to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). It would be wrong for the measure to recriminalise a person whose other convictions were spent. Under rehabilitation of offenders legislation, if a date has been specified after which a person can put his crime behind him, it would be wrong to resurrect that crime simply for a banning order
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman said that people's previous convictions for violence should be taken into account and they should be arrested on that basis. Unless I have misunderstood him, that is surely a departure from the normal principle that previous offences should be taken into account only when sentence is imposed. They cannot be considered in any initial action by the police against an individual.
      Mr. Hughes: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. I am dealing with proposals for banning orders, which, as he is aware, are in effect an injunction. If that injunction is breached, a criminal action will be triggered. We have tried to be reasonable and to co-operate with the Government. As Parliament has accepted banning orders in the past—on a "Let's see if they work basis"—and as several councils have used that procedure, it is reasonable to use it in the measure, in certain limited circumstances.
      There are two strands that have to come together before a banning order can be imposed. The first is a consideration of the person's history and the second is that we must believe that the person is about to do something—I shall come to that point in a moment.
      Our view is that we should not base the first strand on the fact that the person has a general association with violence or disorder in the past. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out that the fact that people had been on a demonstration where there was violence—even though they were not personally involved—might mean that they were swept up under the measure. We should not be able to get over the first hurdle unless it can be verified that the person has committed a criminal offence. The offence must be football related—including offences involving alcohol—or violence related.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful for that explanation. However, I am not entirely happy. Surely any police action or arrest has to be based on the fact that an offence has been committed. The court should take account of past offences only after guilt has been proved and sentence is being considered. The danger with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that it would seem to give the police the power to interpret previous but wholly unrelated offences according to the action that they proposed to take.
      Mr. Hughes: That is why the Liberal Democrats—and some Labour and Conservative colleagues—have resisted
      158
      a provision that would permit a banning order when there was neither a previous nor a current offence. Amendments tabled in Committee and on Report would meet the hon. Gentleman's requirement. They provide that people should not be detained unless they are committing an offence.
      That point returns us to an earlier debate. Most relevant offences are those for which people can currently be arrested—the use of racial abuse, or violent or drunk and disorderly behaviour. The power of arrest already exists for such offences. No one has satisfactorily answered the question: what are the offences for which a person would currently not be arrested that would cause the police to act in the context of football? I do not think that there are any. Dropping litter is technically an offence, but it cannot be considered relevant in these circumstances. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the test must be that a person has committed an offence in front of a police officer.
      Ms Ward: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and he might have been planning to come to this point later. However, will he explain how the amendment would assist when someone is arrested abroad and there is evidence—it may be documentary or video evidence—to suggest that he was involved in an offence? That person might not be charged but would be deported, so how would the amendment assist in such a case?.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady asks a perfectly proper question. I suggest that she looks at the other amendments in the group. 1 do not want to deceive the House because amendment No. 7 is controversial. It would allow for a slightly wider past history to be taken into account for offences that take place abroad. We had an interesting and important debate on Second Reading and in Committee, and amendment No. 7 keeps the Bill's current wording for offences committed outside the United Kingdom.
      There must be a conviction for offences committed in the UK, but the question is how we deal with offences, such as those that we saw on television being committed in Charleroi, for which no one is convicted. Clearly any sensible person would regard hitting someone over the head with a chair in a town square or throwing something through a window as an offence.
      I do not pretend that amendment No. 9 is perfect, but a similar amendment was tabled in Committee by the Conservative party and ourselves. It attempts to deal with the second half of the question that the hon. Lady reasonably asked. We wanted to find a way that ensured that something that happened abroad could be prayed in aid as long as it passed the test that it was a criminal offence. The amendment states that
      "violence" and "disorder" are limited to conduct which constitutes a crime under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, or conduct which …would constitute a crime under the laws of the United Kingdom
      if it had been committed here.
      I am slightly nervous about that proposal, but it is only a probing amendment. 1 am nervous about it because of a point raised by Conservative Back Benchers last week. We do not know what the tests of a foreign court might be. Let us take an extreme example. In China, one might be convicted by processes that we would regard as

      159
      anathema to us and as entirely unacceptable. We would not want to sign up as a Parliament to the automatic importation of a conviction that took place abroad. We have tabled that probing amendment to try to discover the Government's view because we have not yet had a chance to find out their thinking.
      Ms Ward: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I read from the amendment that he accepts the principle that someone in this country can be stopped under the provisions in the Bill without having been convicted of an offence. We are referring to offences that were committed abroad and would have constituted a crime in the UK if they had been committed in the UK. In this very amendment, he accepts the principle that someone can be caught by the provisions in the Bill without actually having a conviction.
      Mr. Hughes: As it happens, we do not. We intend to press amendment No. 6 to a vote later and it insists that the precondition should be a conviction in the courts of this country. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9—the latter was originally tabled by the Conservatives in Committee—are probing amendments. We are not persuaded—certainly my colleagues in the other place are not persuaded—that what might or might not have been an offence abroad is sufficient reason to trigger the powers in the Bill. Our view is that the precondition—part one of a two-stage process—is that there must have been a relevant conviction in the United Kingdom. That would be achieved by amendment No. 6. The second part of the process is that a offence needs to be committed if someone is to be marched off to the magistrates court for a banning order.
      12.45 am
      Mr. Browne: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's remarks closely, but it seems to me that amendment No. 6 would not achieve that objective because it leaves the word "elsewhere" in proposed new section 14B(2). If amendment No. 6 were made, the Bill would read:
      That condition is that the respondent has at any time …been convicted of an offence involving violence or other relevant offence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
      Mr. Hughes: To be fair, the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not pretend that the amendment is perfect; we have been acting under the same time constraints as he has. We want to ensure that there can be action by the police and in the courts in the United Kingdom—or England and Wales—only if there has been a conviction. The hon. Gentleman may be right to imply that we should have sought to delete the word "elsewhere", and if amendment No. 6 is not made, we should seek to delete the word in amendment No. 7
      Mr. Corbyn: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could help me because I have become completely puzzled by his arguments. I cannot understand why he has tabled amendment No. 9 at all because he appears to be speaking strongly against that amendment, which in effect would
      160
      allow a prosecution to take place in Britain for an alleged offence in another jurisdiction, where the quality of evidence and prosecution is unknown and it would be hard to collect any serious evidence other than photographs in newspapers. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he may be better off withdrawing that amendment.
      Mr. Hughes: That is a perfectly reasonable objective, and we have been trying to tease out all the issues so that we can debate them. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that amendment No. 9 is a probing amendment and we will not pursue it.
      In a debate triggered by the Government, it was said that video footage and evidence of activities abroad could be prayed in aid and would be sufficient, but we do not accept that—it is a dangerous view. I gave an extreme example, and we may not play football against China very often, but there are countries closer to home where we would be suspicious about evidence. In Euro 2000, some of the activities and administrative procedures carried out by the Belgians gave cause for concern.
      The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) referred to such a case. Some of us heard the contribution on the "Today" programme on Monday morning from the father of the one person who has been charged by the Belgian authorities, and he said that his son had an alibi and was not even on the scene. I do not want to prejudge that case, but there are good reasons for arguing that such activity should not be imported into domestic law.
      I reassure the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that our objective in the debate is to make sure that the first leg of the process is achieved by a previous, relevant conviction in the UK. We accept the Government's argument that relevant convictions should not only be alcohol related, but we believe that those convictions should be limited to violence, football and alcohol and should not include spent convictions. The Bill certainly should not import activity from abroad that has not resulted in a conviction in the United Kingdom. I hope that that is clear, and we shall ask the Committee to divide only on amendment No. 6.
      Mr. Leigh: I like amendment No. 6 because it has a certain neatness. It deletes the provision that has always worried me about the Bill, which is that one can be subject to the measures if one has
      caused or contributed to any violence or disorder.
      It is terribly hard to define exactly what that means in terms of bad language, gestures, demeanour or actual violence.
      The strongest part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was his point that amendment No. 6 will make it clear that if one is to be the subject of an order, one must have been properly convicted in a court of law. All of us have confidence in our courts, so we believe that that provides a clear basis. Therefore, I am perfectly happy with amendment No. 6.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey does not mind my saying that the weakest part of his speech was that relating to amendment No. 9.

      161
      I do not blame him for that because he is working under time constraints that are unfair to him and others who have sought to table amendments. His provision would apply—he may certainly interrupt me if I have this wrong—a very different test abroad from that applied here.
      I accept the part of amendment No. 9 that states:
      "violence" and "disorder" are limited to conduct that constitutes a crime under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.
      That is sensible. The hon. Gentleman is right that there are jurisdictions not in Europe but elsewhere in the world of which we are very suspicious and in which civil liberties are infringed. Why is he not also insisting that the conduct is of such a nature that it would not only constitute a crime here but result in a conviction abroad? Would not that be a double test, a belt and braces approach?
      If the hon. Gentleman had tabled amendment No. 9 in such terms, he would be insisting that the person would have had to be subject to a conviction either here or abroad for such an order to be made. I do not know why he has not made that clear.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: To put it bluntly—I am not trying to defend an attempt to cover all bases without an opportunity for consideration—amendments Nos. 7 to 9 were fall—back positions to test the water if we did not succeed with amendment No. 6. I repeat that the only amendment in the group to which we want to be signed up and will go through the Lobby to support is amendment No. 6.
      Mr. Leigh: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that clear. Amendment No. 6 is a very important amendment. It is rather a pity that we are discussing it at eight minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning, but that is the procedure that we have been given. That is not the hon. Gentleman's fault. I commend him for moving the amendment.
      Miss Widdecombe: I have some sympathy with some of the amendments, but, oddly, I am not totally convinced of the wisdom of amendment No. 6. Effectively, amendment No. 6 would ensure that unless somebody has been convicted of an offence involving violence or any other relevant offence, that person will not be caught by the provision. We are specifically asked to
      leave out "caused or contributed to any violence or disorder".
      I know that the provision is controversial, but it is possible that somebody who could have contributed to violence or disorder could, for example, have organised violence or disorder but not been convicted of it. If intelligence and the use of material known to the police and others is to mean anything at all, clearly the only test applied to it cannot be that somebody has been brought before a court and convicted. So, in fact, amendment No. 6 goes against the spirit of much that we are trying to achieve.
      However, I have very substantial sympathy with amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendment No. 9 is more or less a re—presentation of amendment No. 4 that we tabled in Committee, which was not reached. We tabled that amendment because there was then in the Bill a very clear statement that behaviour on which police would make a judgment as to whether it deserved detention and an
      162
      application for a ban need not be confined to behaviour that constituted an offence. That rang tremendous alarm bells on the Conservative Benches—we were talking about behaviour that might not be criminal.
      I am quite happy to say that the behaviour might not have resulted in a criminal conviction because, as the Home Secretary pointed out, such offences were committed abroad but no prosecution took place, or because, under the law of that jurisdiction, the behaviour was not as easily definable as an offence as it would have been in the UK. The Home Secretary made that clear and I understood that difficulty. However, that is why we made a provision that behaviour would be judged according to UK law, not the law that might prevail in whatever jurisdiction in which the behaviour took place.
      Perhaps I became confused during the rash of Government amendments taken at the end of Committee, but I got the impression that a Government amendment was made that took care of the problem, simply by eliminating that chunk of the clause—restricting the definition to violence and disorder and eliminating the offending provision whereby the behaviour had to constitute a crime. There appears to be a flurry of activity on the Treasury Bench—perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm that that amendment was made. If so, I am happy not to support amendment No. 9, because the matter with which it deals has already been addressed; if not, we shall support amendment No. 9 if it is pressed to a Division.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I was checking the number of the amendment; it was, in fact, amendment No. 29, made in the final flurry of amendments in Committee.
      Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Minister for that confirmation—I thought that that was what happened. In that case, I see no point in the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pressing amendment No. 9.
      That brings me to amendment No. 8. Before committing Conservative Members, I should be interested to hear what justification there might be for relying on a spent conviction. If it is to be relied on, it will have to be made public and be the subject of discussion, with all that that implies for the rehabilitation of offenders. It would be an extremely serious proposition to say that spent convictions could be used for the purposes of the legislation. I remain to be convinced, but, for now, I believe that amendment No. 8 and amendment No. 12—which, for some reason, appears separately and stands in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—are wise amendments, which we might support depending on the Minister's reply.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: We have had a helpful debate, the nub of which has been amendment No. 6 moved by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), which I shall address later.
      First, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is right to say that amendment No. 29 was passed in Committee. We believe that it

      163
      satisfactorily addresses the issue she raised, and I am sorry for the delay in providing the exact number of that amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Like everyone else, I am trying to keep up. Amendment No. 29 was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and it only partially deals with the problem. It merely removes the second part of the definition of "violence" and "disorder" on page 6. I acknowledge that, at some point during the final group of amendments made in Committee, we might have passed a new definition, but that certainly was not achieved through amendment No. 29, which was certainly not a Government amendment.
      Mr. Clarke: I know that amendment No. 29 was not a Government amendment. I believe that, in his opening remarks this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the0 Home Secretary stated his intention to accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). The Government accepted that amendment, rather than table our own, because we felt that it was correctly phrased and dealt with the issue—although it might not have done so to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—and we were keen to accommodate the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman both on Second Reading and in his amendment No. 29.
      Mr. Hughes: I accept that, and I did not intend to misrepresent the Home Secretary. I am not trying to put the Minister on the spot, but can he tell us where we have amended the Bill to put back in another definition of previous convictions, the first definition of which was removed by amendment No. 29?
      1 am
      Mr. Clarke: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that in a moment, if 1 can, but first I shall respond to the various points that were raised.
      On amendment No. 8, to which the right hon. Lady spoke, I accept the intention behind it, but the amendment is not necessary by virtue of section 4(1 )(a) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, under which no evidence relating to spent convictions will be admissible in proceedings before a judicial authority.
      When we debate amendment No. 12 in a moment, I intend to tell the House that we accept the spirit of that amendment, and also of amendment No. 8, but we will table amendments in the other place to put them in precisely the wording that we consider correct.
      The motive behind amendment No. 7, as we understand it, is to provide further clarification of the conditions set out in new section 14B(2), but I am advised that the purpose and meaning of the conditions are already explicit, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
      Amendment No. 6, as the hon. Gentleman said, is the nub of this group of amendments. It is fair to say also that
      164
      it was at the core of the debate on Second Reading. As I said when replying to that debate, the issue is key and clear. By proposing amendment No. 6, the hon. Gentleman is effectively seeking to ensure that the only evidence relevant to a banning order by complaint would be a previous conviction.
      We believe that although there are perfectly reasonable arguments for that, which I understand, that would undermine the basis of the banning order by complaint. It is necessary for the courts to be able to impose banning orders on people who, for example, have been filmed causing trouble overseas, yet were not prosecuted in that country. Unless we are able to make the change, we would effectively preclude the police and the courts from tackling much of the football hooliganism of the type that we witnessed in Brussels and Charleroi. The intelligence issues highlighted by the right hon. Lady are correct and raise the same sort of questions as do film.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that this is an enormous departure from the normal legal process, and that we are in effect encouraging prosecution on the basis of circumstantial evidence imported from another jurisdiction? Would it not be better to seek international agreement so that, instead of countries merely deporting everyone who causes trouble—as happened in the case of Belgium as we understand it—they should be encouraged to undertake prosecution within their own jurisdiction? After all, that is where the offence has been committed. Does my hon. Friend further agree that there is a risk involved in the use of video evidence, which can be confused, inaccurate and dangerous, and can result in innocent people being convicted of serious criminal offences?
      Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes two important points. First, I agree that it would be far better to get international agreements. That is the best way to proceed on all the international jurisdictional issues. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said on Second Reading that the best way to deal with these matters is to ensure that the forces of law and order in the jurisdiction of the country concerned deals with the situation. I understand the point, and it is a legitimate one.
      However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will understand from his own experience, there can be a long wait for international agreements to be secured. What do we do in the meantime? Do we say that no action can be taken until we have those international agreements, or do we say that, even in the absence of such agreements, some action is necessary? I acknowledge that that is a matter of judgment.
      That brings me to the second point that my hon. Friend raises, which has emerged as the key debate in relation to the Bill today and on Second Reading. When we consider the proportionality of the relevant issues, we must weigh up the view that there should be no violation of individuals' civil liberties in the circumstances that we are discussing—a perfectly fair point of view—and the need,

      165
      which the Government perceive, to inhibit the hooliganism. The penalty is not ultimately very great because only limited sanctions are available. One has to make a judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has been clear about his judgment, which I respect; I also respect that of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. However, it is not our judgment.
      Mr. Tyler: Does not the Minister recognise that the fact that this country could put the Bill on the statute book in its current form will delay and dilute the likelihood of international agreement? Other countries will reasonably ask, "Why should we bother? If we deport people back to the United Kingdom, it can deal with the problem under its legislation."
      Mr. Clarke: I do not accept that. The Government have worked hard to develop a stronger international jurisdiction, especially in the European Union. My right hon. Friend stressed that at the EU Tampere summit, and will do so in all the debates that he will attend later this week. He is keen to achieve mutual recognition of jurisdictions, and we have worked hard to that end. I therefore do not believe that the Bill will inhibit progress. For that reason, we will oppose amendment No. 6.
      Mr. Corbyn: In the event of football supporters from another country arriving here to watch a match and causing all sorts of trouble, is it normal practice to prosecute or simply to deport without prosecution? In view of the obvious urgency with which the Government are pursuing the issue, will my hon. Friend at least open discussions with major neighbouring European countries and ask them whether they are prepared to prosecute in the event of drunken and disorderly behaviour such as that in Brussels, and thus abandon the incredibly complicated and possibly unsuccessful attempt to pass the Bill?
      Mr. Clarke: I am prepared to assure my hon. Friend that we will discuss the matter with our allies in the EU. However, it is generally acknowledged that events at Euro 2000 and the fact that English so-called supporters were predominantly, although not uniquely, involved, to our national disgrace, puts us in a different position from some other countries in trying to deal with the issues that we are discussing. On prosecution or deportation, I am not familiar with the relevant legislation in detail, but I believe that prosecution rather than deportation is the normal course.
      We had memorandums of understanding with Belgium and Holland in which they agreed to prosecute those committing offences. We also made Orders in Council that set out corresponding offences to enable banning orders to be made here. In the event, those involved were not prosecuted.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey made another point about the position on section 29 of the Football Spectators Act 1989.
      Mr. Chope: Does the Minister accept that unless amendment No. 6 is passed, someone who is prosecuted and acquitted will be in double jeopardy? On the basis
      166
      which the Minister outlined, of someone who has a spent conviction being let out, it is surely more important to accept amendment No. 6 and ensure that people who are prosecuted and acquitted are not subject to double jeopardy.
      Mr. Clarke: I shall answer that point directly later. However, I want to deal with the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. Proposed new section 14C defines violence clearly in the context of the Bill.
      I intended to conclude by saying that while I do not accept the position that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey presented, I respect it, as I respect that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North. I also respect the comments made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald on amendment No. 6. She is right to take that stance, although, to be blunt, that has been difficult for her as there are clearly different views in her party, as the remarks of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) have shown. Conservative Front Benchers are right to have made such a judgment and I pay respect to her for that.
      I know that there have been differences and disagreements in the Conservative party, and I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch. We have to decide whether a previous conviction alone is the only test and the only evidence relevant to making a banning order by complaint or whether we accept that there is a wider test. He says that a conviction should be the only test. I understand that point of view—I made a similar response to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—but I do not accept it.
      Mr. Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He has conceded the point about spent convictions, so how can he put a spent conviction in a superior position to an acquittal?
      Mr. Clarke: We have to make a simple choice: should we allow other forms of evidence to be taken account of? We say yes, clearly and categorically. That is our judgment.
      Mr. Browne: I am concerned that confusion between civil proceedings—proceedings by complaint—and criminal proceedings and convictions is creeping into the debate. My experience of the law north and south of the border and throughout the United Kingdom is that there is a healthy and growing jurisdiction under which people take proceedings to the civil courts even though a complaint to the criminal courts may have been unsuccessful. The Stephen Lawrence case is a prime example. Were we to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment, we could be in a ridiculous situation: citizens of the United Kingdom could be subject to civil proceedings and prevented by injunction or interdict from attending football matches in this country, but the Government would be unable to use civil proceedings to prevent the same people from travelling abroad to create mayhem. That would be nonsensical.
      Mr. Clarke: That extremely helpful intervention has helped to clarify the discussion and I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has set out the situation clearly.

      167
      I have responded to all the points and I hope that amendments Nos. 7 to 9 will not be pressed. If the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey presses amendment No. 6 to a vote, I urge my hon. Friends to reject it and support the Government.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The choice is clear, and the Minister has been fair about that. The present law covers people with a previous football-related conviction, but the Government argue that we will be able to catch more people if the range of activity is extended to include people who have no convictions. However, that would lead to the anomalies to which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred, to his credit. The most extreme and bizarre would be that a conviction for a violent or football-related offence secured under the "beyond reasonable doubt" rule would be blotted out if it fell outside the period for the rehabilitation of offenders, which varies according to the offence, whereas a person who had appeared before the court, but whose case was not proven, could find himself in double jeopardy.
      May I deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne)? North and south of the border, the United Kingdom allows civil and criminal proceedings. Indeed, injunctions secured in civil proceedings have been available for a long time. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should bear with me. On the balance of probabilities—often in domestic cases, in which I have acted myself—a person has to persuade a judge to make an order prohibiting another person from going within a certain distance of, or from interfering with, him. That triggers a criminal conviction only if that individual disobeys the injunction. That then represents an offence and the individual can be arrested. The same applies here. Do we want the fact that someone has a track record of bad behaviour to be sufficient to allow an injunction-type order and a criminal sanction?
      1.15 am
      We should proceed gradually, because there is a big danger that we will catch not just people who have caused trouble at home or abroad, but those against whom the evidence has never been tested to a satisfactory conclusion. We can argue about the right procedure, but Liberal Democrats do not think that we should move in one leap from people with convictions for football-related offences, past people with convictions for all violence-related offences, to people with no convictions at all. That is not a justified leap to take in legislation that has been through the House in two days, that has had no chance to be assessed externally, that many organisations are unhappy about, and that has not been proved necessary on the experience of Euro 2000 or anything else. It is a step too far. It is of course much more likely that people will be prevented from going abroad, but do we want to have the power to do that on the basis of thin, arguable and marginal evidence?
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: It is my understanding that if there is no conviction on which the magistrates can base a banning order, they have to have evidence and proof of the circumstances. They cannot simply have something mentioned: it must be established. I believe that it must be established to the criminal standard of proof.
      Mr. Hughes: The legislation is silent on that matter. On Second Reading, the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised the question whether the criminal balance of proof will be required to establish the second head. The court, as well as knowing the history of previous activity, must be
      satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that making a banning order would help to prevent violence or disorder at or in connection with any regulated football matches.
      The combination of those two leaves unclear what the balance of proof must be. The right hon. and learned Gentleman properly argued that this was another matter for which we should have explicit, not implicit, law.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I think that it is the criminal standard of proof. The two ingredients in new section 14B(4)(a) provide that the application can be made to a magistrates court only if
      it is proved on the application that the condition in subsection (2) above is met.
      The condition of subsection (2) is that the respondent has been guilty of violence or disorder.
      Mr. Hughes: I tend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view. I did not do as much in the courts as he did, and I was not as eminent as he was—[Interruption.] Yes, I was cheaper. My recollection of the civil courts is that one did not have to prove the circumstances but merely had to satisfy the judge on a balance of probabilities. It was a "more than 50 per cent." test. Therefore, that question remains unanswered.
      The experience that justifies the Government's case has not been proved to our satisfaction. I ask the House to proceed cautiously. We should not legislate if we are in doubt about whether we should take away people's liberties, their passports, their right to go abroad, or their ability to be detained or to walk free.
      I understand that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) feels obliged to support the Government on this provision, because it provides a tougher power. The leader of her party often seems to set the agenda on law and order for the Government to follow. Some of us are arguing that we must defend the Liberty position and ensure that the case for prosecution and for further extension of the criminal law is made.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 196.

      Division No. 273

      [1.20 am

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brake, Tom

      Allan, Richard

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Baker, Norman

      Breed, Colin

      Ballard, Jackie

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Barnes, Harry

      Burnett, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Burstow, Paul

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Chidgey, David

      169

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Oaten, Mark

      Cotter, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Rendel, David

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Sanders, Adrian

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Hancock, Mike

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Harvey, Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tyler, Paul

      Webb, Steve

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Willis, Phil

      Keetch, Paul

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McDonnell, John

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Moore, Michael

      Mr. Donald Gorrie.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Drew, David

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Edwards, Huw

      Allen, Graham

      Efford, Clive

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Banks, Tony

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Barron, Kevin

      Flint, Caroline

      Battle, John

      Follett, Barbara

      Beard, Nigel

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Best, Harold

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Betts, Clive

      Godsiff, Roger

      Blackman, Liz

      Goggins, Paul

      Blizzard, Bob

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Grogan, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Hain, Peter

      Browne, Desmond

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Burden, Richard

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Burgon, Colin

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Burns, Simon

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hayes, John

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Healey, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Heppell, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hoey, Kate

      Clelland, David

      Home Robertson, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hope, Phil

      Clwyd, Ann

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cohen, Harry

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Colman, Tony

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Connarty, Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corston, Jean

      Hurst, Alan

      Cousins, Jim

      Hutton, John

      Cox, Tom

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cranston, Ross

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Crausby, David

      Jamieson, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Kidney, David

      Darvill, Keith

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Davidson, Ian

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

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

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lepper, David

      Day, Stephen

      Levitt, Tom

      Dismore, Andrew

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Dowd, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      170

      Luff, Peter

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Snape, Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Soley, Clive

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      McWalter, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWilliam, John

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Stringer, Graham

      Meale, Alan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Miller, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mountford, Kali

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Tipping, Paddy

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Todd, Mark

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Truswell, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pound, Stephen

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Randall, John

      Watts, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Woolas, Phil

      Roy, Frank

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Salter, Martin

      Wyatt, Derek

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sawford, Phil

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mr. Tony McNulty.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      1.30 am
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 19, at end insert—
      '(4A) A court shall not take into account any conviction which is spent pursuant to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, or conduct which took place more than ten years prior to the relevant control period.'.
      I shall be brief. Under proposed new section 14B(2), the court can make a banning order on the basis of a conviction, or on the basis of evidence brought before it. However, the Bill contains no time limit in relation to such a conviction or to evidence. The amendment would make it clear that the court could not take into account a conviction that had become spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.1 am sure that the House will find that reasonable. It would also mean that the court could not take account of evidence that related to an event more than 10 years before the relevant control period.
      It is wrong that the Bill should contain no limitation. The limitations in the amendment are reasonable, and I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: The position on spent convictions is covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, as the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire said. Section 4(1)(a) of that Act provides that no evidence relating to spent convictions is admissible in proceedings before a judicial authority, including a magistrates court. Section 7(1) makes an exception of criminal proceedings, but proceedings under proposed new section 14B will be civil, not criminal, proceedings.
      It follows that the effect of the amendment would be the same as the effect of the law already. However, I accept that the amendment would add clarity and certainty. Although we believe that the amendment is not necessary, we accept the spirit in which it was moved.
      I also agree that the point about conduct of more than 10 years before is legitimate, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will consider it further. We will table amendments in another place to give effect to the proposal, and we believe that we can do so in a way satisfactory to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire. On the basis of that assurance, I hope that he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I and my colleagues are grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire for tabling the amendment. We hope to be associated with the consideration of a proposal to ensure that an amendment along the lines of amendment No. 12 finds its way into the Bill.
      Mr. Lilley: The amendment covers spent convictions, but will the Minister say whether it will be possible for the court to consider unspent convictions? Proposed new section 14C(4) states:
      The magistrates' court may take into account the following matters … so far as they consider it appropriate to do so.
      The first of those matters is
      any decision of a court or tribunal outside the United Kingdom.
      None of the four prescribed matters relates to decisions of courts in the UK, so it is not clear whether the court could consider a conviction, spent or unspent.
      I tabled an amendment to proposed new section 14C(4)(a) to include courts inside the United Kingdom, but Madam Speaker was unable, in the time available, to include it for consideration. That is certainly no criticism of Madam Speaker or of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the fault of the Government that we have had no pause between Committee and Report, when these matters could have been given proper consideration. However, it is clear that there is a very odd feature in the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will explain why that is.
      Miss Widdecombe: As I indicated in the debate on amendment No. 8, we have enormous sympathy with the proposal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). However, in
      172
      view of the Government's promise to address the matter in another place, if my right hon. and learned Friend were to withdraw his amendment, we would be equally happy.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I appreciate what the right hon. Lady has said. I can give her and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) the assurance they seek—on Front-Bench spokesmen will be involved in discussions about the nature of the amendment in the other place.
      Proposed new section 14C(4), referred to by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), says:
      The magistrates' court may take into account the following matters (among others)…
      The purpose of the provision, as I understand it, is to make clear the power of the magistrates court to look at those wider areas. I believe that the magistrates court's right to look at unspent convictions is covered adequately in other parts of the Bill, and I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with the details at a later stage if he wishes.
      With that, I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) will consider withdrawing his amendment.
      Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 6, line 48, at end insert—
      '( ) If it appears to the court that there are such circumstances, it must in open court state what they are.'
      To give the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) the credit that she is due—and which she seeks on every occasion—the amendment gives effect to amendment No. 5, tabled in Committee by the Opposition. As proposed by the right hon. Lady and agreed in Committee, the Government accept in principle that if the court does not impose a requirement of passport surrender when making a banning order, the court should state in open court the relevant exceptional circumstances. The amendment gives effect to that proposal, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.
      Miss Widdecombe: I thank the Minister for those few kind words and for accepting the spirit of the amendment, which was important to us. One of the reasons why the Government have had to toughen up considerably on banning orders is that they have not been used by the courts as often as they might have been. We therefore strongly believe that it is only in exceptional circumstances that they should not be used, and that, where such exceptional circumstances are deemed to exist, we should have the full reasons.
      Will the Minister please explain why our amendment No. 5 in Committee and his amendment No. 5 on Report differ so substantially as to make a significant difference? I am not sure that I see why, although the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's reaction is gratefully received.
      Mr. Burns: I know that it is late and I hope that the House will forgive me, but I have a genuine concern. It is not about the intention of the amendment but about its

      173
      working and meaning. Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain and the answer will be very simple: unfortunately, I am not a lawyer.
      The intention of section 5(3)(5A) of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999 was to make the courts impose international banning orders on those convicted, unless, in the courts' mind, there were exceptional circumstances which meant that such an order should not be imposed. The court would have to give a reason, in open court, as to why it had not used the powers in the 1999 Act.
      We have seen, in the evidence since September last year, that the courts have been reluctant to do that, so the Government have rightly decided to toughen up the provision. However, I do not understand how amendment No. 5 to proposed new section l 4E(3) would do anything different from what the 1999 Act provides, except that "shall" is used in the 1999 Act, whereas "must" is used in the Bill. I cannot believe that that is of paramount significance. We can tell the court that it must do something, but that is diluted by the rest of the Bill. If the court believes that there are exceptional circumstances not to do that thing, it will, as a result of the amendment, have to give reasons why, exceptionally, it is not using the powers.
      What is the difference between the 1999 Act and the Bill? And, if there is little difference and no statutory duty on the courts to impose orders except in exceptional circumstances, how will the Government actually be tightening matters to ensure that banning orders on conviction of hooligans become the norm rather than the exception, as has been the experience under the 1999 Act?
      Mr. Charles Clarke: First, on the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), we are all in the hands of the parliamentary draftsmen, who said that our version was better because it was simpler, shorter and clearer than the otherwise excellent wording proposed by the right hon. Lady.
      On the point made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), what has happened so far has not been good enough, and we need to strengthen the provisions. "Must" is a stronger word than "shall", and our amendment, in response to the Opposition's wishes, will strengthen the powers further. We shall monitor matters and report to the House. This debate and the tighter legislation that has resulted give reason to believe that we shall achieve more rigorous adherence to what the house wants than the has been the case under existing provision. As with the rest of the Bill, however, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and we shall assess that at the appropriate time.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      1.42 am
      Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am acutely aware of criticisms about the time taken to address the Bill and consider its various aspects. Let me return to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier—we have had a substantial and full discussion of the points of principle. Moreover, we have
      174
      sought, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) have acknowledged, to work in the most consensual way possible—for the practical reason that we wanted to get the Bill through both Houses as quickly as possible, and for the equally practical reason that the more consensus there is in the House, the easier it will be to put the Bill into effect.
      Important judgments remain to be made. Ultimately, the important question is whether we are determined to do all in our power to stamp out the football hooliganism that has so disfigured our society. The Government are determined to do so, and to ensure that international and club games can take place in a more positive and constructive atmosphere than has existed until now. We are determined to carry the Bill through, and I hope that it receives the unanimous support of the House so that the other place may consider it in its entirety. I commend the Bill to the House.
      1.44 am
      Miss Widdecombe: After a fairly consensual approach, I hate to end our proceedings on a note of dissent: the procedures that have been inflicted on the House today—although not those debates that we have been allowed to hold—amounted to a farce.
      We have tried to discuss the Bill responsibly. The Government obtained a Second Reading with no difficulty, in the same time that would have been taken if we had debated it on the Friday originally proposed by the Government. We have been in constant discussion with the Government about possible or agreed amendments. We have done all we could. All we wanted today was the opportunity to debate some major issues in Committee.
      We wasted more than two hours discussing the ill-considered guillotine motion when we should have been discussing the Bill. As a result, half the amendments tabled in Committee were not debated. If we had been allowed to complete the Committee stage properly, it would not have been necessary to return to some matters on Report: we could have debated and voted on some important issues.
      When the Bill was introduced, we made it clear that, if we were to support it at later stages, certain matters were extremely important to us—for example, the presence of magistrates in the ports. Today, we held an important discussion on magistrates warrants. We were not able to vote on that matter—not because there had been no debate, but because the guillotine fell at midnight and we had not yet reached that point in the order of consideration.
      The same point pertained in another important discussion on magistrates in the ports. The debate was held, but we were not allowed to vote. We have not been able to amend the Bill to our satisfaction. What is even worse is that we did not even debate the amendment on the criminal standard of proof. That issue is central to the Bill. It came up tangentially in other discussions, but the amendment was not debated.
      Against that background, we have made it clear throughout the Bill's proceedings that we will not obstruct its further consideration. We shall not obstruct sending it to another place. However, it goes there in a much less

      175
      satisfactory form than if there had been no guillotine today and if we had been allowed to co-operate as we have done all along.
      Mr. Charles Clarke: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the political divisions in the Conservative party are the main reason for today's guillotine? We saw those divisions on Second Reading, when Conservative Members voted against the right hon. Lady's lead. Moreover, certain Conservative Members have made a practice of disrupting the business of the House. It is the Opposition's failure to control their Back Benchers that has led to what occurred today—there are splits and divisions in the right hon. Lady's party, as she is aware.
      Miss Widdecombe: That is utter tosh. The Minister is well aware that we made it clear through the usual channels that we did not expect any undue delay in tonight's proceedings and that we expected to conclude them at a reasonable hour—although certainly not by 10 pm, which would have been the effect of the original guillotine that the Government had the gall to table. We gave such assurances as we could in the circumstances, having talked to all the people who had difficulty with the Bill.
      The Government had no grounds other than their own muddle and incompetence for tabling the guillotine motion. The hon. Gentleman should not say that it had anything to do with divisions in the Conservative party. There have been divisions over the Bill in the Labour party, too—a fact which the Minister persistently ignores. The Bill will receive quite a rough passage in the other place—and not only from the Opposition. Considerable disquiet will be expressed by Labour Members; they will not say that they want to curtail discussion of the measure because they fear dissension in one particular party. I am sorry that it has come to this, for the simple reason that, until the guillotine motion was tabled, we were proceeding in a spirit of co-operation. We could have had a sensible debate tonight and we could have reached and voted on the other issues. The Bill that is being sent to the other place would have been in better shape, and that would have been better for the Government had they wanted it to receive the quick passage through the other place which I suspect it is most unlikely to receive.
      1.50 am
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I note that three hours and 10 minutes remain to debate the Bill, but it may be for the convenience of the House to learn that I anticipate that we shall finish this debate in 10 minutes and not three hours.
      Mr. Corbyn: Do not talk the rest of us out.
      Mr. Hughes: I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
      I share the general view, as expressed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), about the procedure that has been used. It is nonsense that Parliament has been asked to take all the Bill's stages in two days and, in particular, that in the past 12 hours we have taken its Committee and Report
      176
      stages and are debating its Third Reading with no chance to consult people between those stages. We have not been able to consult key people such as the police, the courts, the football authorities and the rest. The House has been asked to consider amendments on Report to a Bill that was not even before us simply because it had not been printed as amended in Committee. People who had not been here would not have been able to follow debate on the Bill that we were amending, and those of us who were here all day have found it difficult to follow the implications of each and every amendment.
      It was not necessary to take all these stages today. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said last Thursday, and as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) argued earlier, we could have held the Committee stage today and the remaining stages on Wednesday. The whole House could have participated and we would have completed the Bill in time for it to go to the other place. The Lords could have completed its consideration on separate days and that would have still left some days before the end of term. Not only was the guillotine motion bad practice, but it has probably resulted in bad legislation.
      On the policy issues, we have always said that we wanted further legislation to deal with football hooliganism. We have always said that the problem was particularly an English one and that it was logical, because of the procedures that we use, to have a Bill that covered England and Wales. We have always said that we would support a Bill that would make international a domestic ban and that, in such cases, the courts could make it a requirement to surrender a passport.
      However, we have also made two points very clear. We said that banning orders must have the precondition of a conviction. We moved an amendment to that effect on Report, but we were not able to carry the House with us even though Members from both the other main parties supported it. We also said that we were not willing at this stage—without testing for toughened legislation with further bans and further entitlements to remove passports—to intrude so much into the individual liberties of the citizen that we would introduce summary detention on the basis of a record that might not have involved a conviction or that might never involve a conviction. That would be a piece of legislation too far. We tested that proposition and, again, we had support from Members of both parties, but we were unable to carry that point in Committee.
      It would be inconsistent of us to say that we were now happy with the Bill. Let me be honest with the Minister. If this were a single-Chamber Parliament, we would have the crude choice between voting against the Bill, knowing that we had no chance to improve it, and seeing no Bill on the statute book. This is not a single-Chamber Parliament and another Chamber will give the Bill significant consideration next week. We hope that it will pick up many of the unresolved issues that have been left from these debates.
      It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that the Government have moved their position and not to accept the co—operation that they have offered and that there has been between the three parties. That has improved the Bill, but it is still not a good Bill and, in some respects, it is still a dangerous Bill. The dangerous, extended

      177
      provisions, which my colleagues and I do not think are good law or good drafting and which are not justified, mean that we feel obliged to vote against Third Reading.
      If the Bill is passed tonight and goes to the Lords, we hope that they will amend it and teach the Government that it will be better to have the Bill without the fourth provision than to have a badly drafted Bill with the fourth provision included against considerable opposition in this House and elsewhere. The Government have about nine days to think again; we hope that the other House will persuade them to do so.
      1.55 am
      Mr. Banks: It might be regrettable that the House has had to consider football hooliganism again today, but that does not mean that we are passing bad legislation.
      The arguments that we have heard today have been well rehearsed over a long period. The 1989 legislation and the Act introduced by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) have contributed to the argument about how we deal with football hooliganism, and we have moved on stage by stage in a reaction against the behaviour of the minority of fans who still do so much to damage the game abroad.
      My feeling is that this Bill will not be the last because, whatever the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) thinks, it would not be worth anything at all without the fourth provision. He shakes his head, but we will see who is right in the long term. We will probably have to revisit the subject in the House—so be it. We will have a chance to assess whether the Bill is effective. We must get it right, and the important point is that if we keep getting pushed by hooligans, we will keep pushing back.
      We have had a short debate, but the arguments have been well heard and well rehearsed and we have answered them very well.
      1.57 am
      Mr. Burns: Like the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I suspect that this will not be the last legislation on football hooliganism that a Government have to pass. I do not believe that legislation alone will solve the problem, but it is an important part of the equation in minimising hooliganism.
      If one studies the record and considers the seven pieces of legislation since 1985, one realises that there has been a significant drop in incidents of hooliganism at domestic matches. As the Home Secretary said earlier, the problem has now shifted overseas with a vengeance. Last year, I introduced the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999, but was unable, as a private Member, to include the provision for a court to take away the passports of unconvicted football hooligans if it was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that if those people travelled abroad, they would cause problems. As a result of that debate, that provision has been included, and the Bill will now move from this House to another place and hopefully become law before we rise for the summer recess.
      It would have been perverse of me not to support the Government's proposals because I have been arguing for over 15 months for most, but not all, of the Bill's provisions. Some of them have built on my Act; some are
      178
      measures that I desperately wanted in my Act, but could not, as a private Member, achieve; and some are totally new. On Second Reading, I expressed concerns about some of those new provisions. I am not opposed to them in principle because, like the hon. Gentleman, I think that if we removed the fourth provision, we would gut the Bill, and that would mean that we would return to the House to deal with further legislation far sooner. I had some reservations about certain aspects, as did many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I am pleased that, as a result of the concerns that were expressed on both sides of the House on Second Reading on Thursday and—presumably—in discussions since then, the Government have proposed changes to build in greater safeguards. From a purely personal point of view, I am satisfied with those safeguards.
      I genuinely hope that, when the Bill reaches the statute book, it provides the state with a significant weapon with which to deal with those people who have caused so much misery to so many other people and ruined the reputation of the game of football and enjoyment of it among innocent citizens of this country.
      I conclude by saying what I said on Second Reading: of course the House has a proper duty to safeguard and protect the civil liberties of the minority, but there comes a time in the affairs of state when the civil liberties of the majority, which have been infringed for so long in this area, must be protected and strengthened so that they may also enjoy them free of fear, intimidation or violence.
      2 am
      Mr. Corbyn: After 10 hours of debate, it is a little odd to call this Bill a rushed piece of legislation. However, although what happened in Charleroi and Brussels was appalling, as is the violence associated with England playing international games, the House ought to ask whether pushing a Bill through in two days on a ludicrous timetable is a sensible way to deal with the issue. Quite why the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) suddenly tabled an amendment so that we could talk until 5 am on Third Reading but curtailed debate in Committee by speaking for so long on the timetable motion beggars belief. One wonders about the Conservatives' intentions.
      I hope that the Bill is significantly amended in the Lords because it is a very bad piece of legislation. There ought to be a great deal more examination of its long-term and very serious implications.
      Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although everyone shares the shock and horror at the outrageous scenes in Charleroi in Belgium, legislation passed in a hurry on a wave of popular outrage is inevitably shoddy? Sadly, that may prove to be so with this Bill.
      Mr. Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend because it is a serious issue to condemn—rightly, as everyone does—the violence associated with Euro 2000 and the abominable racism that surrounded much of the violence not just in Brussels and Charleroi but earlier in Copenhagen and at other events surrounding matches between Leeds and Galatasaray and Arsenal and Galatasaray. I was pleased

      179
      that the Home Secretary yesterday started to address the chauvinism, nationalism, racism and violence associated with so much of the trouble.
      We must ask some serious questions. If other countries are capable of playing international football matches without their newspapers leading up to them as though it were the start of a war, perhaps we have some lessons to learn. Perhaps football commentators could say and do a little more, rather than merely reporting with glee that the England fans at the game were playing the music from "The Dam Busters", singing "Rule Britannia" and behaving as though Britain could never be defeated at anything—as if England suddenly became Britain at a football match. I welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has opened up that debate because it is high time that was done.
      I still think that the Bill is dangerous and misguided. If anyone commits an offence at a football match—drunken behaviour, violent behaviour, racist violence or some other offence—there are laws to deal with such behaviour both in this country and in all the western European countries on which our debate has focused. It is only right that prosecutions should take place within the jurisdiction in which the offence is committed.
      My objection to the Bill is that it gives a great deal of power to individual police officers, based on their own perception and on suspicions arising from evidence of what individuals may or may not have done abroad, to apprehend people, remove their passport and deny their right to travel. It might be said that no more is involved than those people missing a football match which they can watch on television—provided that they can afford to subscribe to Sky—but the reality is that it is a serious matter to give such powers to the police.
      When I first entered Parliament, there was a campaign to get rid of the sus laws introduced in 1824, which gave the police the power to apprehend people on suspicion. The people whose behaviour in Brussels and elsewhere that we have discussed do not sound like especially nice people or people with whom one might have much sympathy, but I urge the House to think about the serious implications of giving such powers to the police outside any judicial process.
      We must also ask the simple question, will the legislation work? It does not apply to the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland or Scotland, so there are obviously enormous loopholes. If trouble surrounds the England-France game in September—after the Bill has been pushed through both Houses of Parliament—what will we do then? Will we come back and give the police even more sweeping powers of arrest? Will we prevent people from travelling at all? Will we ban everyone from watching the games? There is a danger that the Bill will not work.
      I recognise that the House will pass the legislation—both major parties are agreed on it and a majority of Members have been whipped to pass it. However, our experience of rushed legislation is that it is ineffective and inaccurate. Legislation passed in haste means that, at some point, we shall have to return to the subject and repeal parts of the legislation.
      180
      Finally, the statements made by Liberty and the Law Society suggest that the Bill is outwith the European convention on human rights. A case will end up before the European Court and I suspect that the British Government's position will prove untenable. We should remember that the civil liberties we want for ourselves should apply to everyone else. If we give powers to the police without considering the implications, we shall have done an extremely bad job in the House today.
      2.8 am
      Mr. Lilley: On Second Reading, I expressed my fear that all five of the conditions that typically give rise to bad legislation prevailed in respect of the Bill and accounted for its poor quality. It has been carried through in undue haste; it was introduced after cries that "Something must be done, " even to influence events that take place outside our jurisdiction; it is the subject of Front-Bench collusion; it is driven by an orgy of sanctimonious vilification of an unpopular minority; and it will be carried through because the Government lack any firm commitment to the principles of liberty and individual freedom.
      I am afraid that all those conditions still apply. The result is a Bill that, although somewhat improved, is not a great deal better than the one we started with, and certainly not a Bill that is good enough to command the support of the House. As for the process by which the measure has been considered, it is fair to say that it has been carried through with unnecessary haste. We have had time enough to see how bad the Bill is, but not time enough to make it better. Above all, we have not had time before Committee stage to seek advice and amendments from our constituents, interested parties and experts outside the House, and no time at all between Committee and Report. Indeed, nobody could table an amendment after Committee stage and before Report—we had to table them before the end of Committee stage. If they were tabled late, they were too late for consideration by the Speaker, so could not be included in the rather brief Report stage that we eventually had.
      The Home Secretary gave a devastating indictment of his own case when he was at the Dispatch Box earlier and considered the question whether the Bill had been introduced with undue haste. First, he said that the ideas for such legislation had been around for months and people had had plenty of time to consider them. Then he said that no proposal such as that tabled by the Government today could have been conceived before the events at Charleroi. It was only those events that made us see the need for such a Bill.
      So, far from there having been months to consider the proposal, it is only since the proposal arising out of the events at Charleroi was presented to the House a few days ago that there has been any opportunity for anyone to consider the issues on which we are legislating, allowing the House to give the police powers to arrest on suspicion, to detain, and to remove people's civil liberties, even though they have never committed a crime or been tried according to standards of criminal proof.
      The Secretary of State went on to note that in his experience, proper consideration was never given to a set of proposals until concrete proposals had been published, which in the case of the Bill was not until last Thursday.

      181
      It is only since last Thursday that we have had an opportunity to spark off detailed consideration of the truly offensive nature of the proposals before the House.
      As an example of how bad the legislation is, the central issue is whether we should remove people's right to travel and their passport only if they have been convicted in a court of law, or should we remove those rights on some lesser basis, if they have never been convicted of any crime?
      That is the central issue, yet a few moments ago the Minister could not even tell us why, in the clause in which the courts are invited to consider relevant evidence as to whether someone has behaved in a way that means that he should not be allowed to have a passport and travel abroad to a foreign football match, the courts are invited to consider any decision of a court or tribunal outside the UK, but they are not invited to consider the decision—that is, the convictions—of a court within the UK.
      The Home Secretary could not tell us why. He will write to me—very nice. After the Bill has been passed, we will know something about the central matter that we have debated for a few brief hours and on which the liberties of British citizens are to be taken away. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill did not need to tell the courts that they could take into account the decisions of British courts—they could take that for granted. However, the very next item on the list of factors that courts can take into account is
      any decision of a public authority, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
      The courts can take into account decisions by public bodies that do not result in the conviction of a citizen, but we are not invited to take into account the convictions of courts.
      That is how bad the legislation is. Ministers do not even know and cannot explain to us what it means. They could not explain in the final part of the Report stage whether the courts would have to be convinced of a standard of criminal proof, or merely of civil proof, whether a person had committed an offence of violence and disorder, or done something equivalent to an offence of violence and disorder. My right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney-General thought—he was being helpful to the Government—that the Bill probably required a criminal standard of proof, but others, including the Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal party, thought that only a civil standard of proof was required. That was what the Home Secretary himself had been suggesting up till now.
      On the Bill's central issue, we do not know the standard of proof that will be required of the courts. Even now, the Minister cannot tell us that. In their heart of hearts, Labour Members believe at least as passionately as I do in the rights of the individual citizen, and they were elected on a manifesto to uphold the liberties of their constituents. Yet they will go blindly into the Lobby to vote for a Bill that will enable the police to arrest on suspicion someone who might have committed an offence, which may not be a criminal offence, and will not have to be proved to the standard of criminal proof. Are they happy that the Bill will be passed? Are not they relieved that we have a second Chamber, which will—I hope—turf it out or alter it before it returns here and give them a chance to reconsider before their Front-Bench Members get them into real trouble?
      182
      The measure will be operational by the autumn. Hon. Members will witness innocent people being caught by the Bill. Some doubt that, and believe that the Bill will not affect too many innocent people. I prefer to proceed on a basis of legislative certainty rather than hope.
      The third factor that leads to bad law is legislating on the cry that something must be done, especially about events overseas. The Home Secretary said that the measure could not have been foreseen, and that it was provoked by the events that took place in Charleroi when 965 British citizens were arrested. Only one was charged and convicted. However, the Home Secretary said that they were obviously a bad lot because 40 per cent. had criminal convictions, many of which, as the right hon. Gentleman helpfully showed the House, were for violence and disorder offences. Many of them are, therefore, bad lots.
      The essence of our debate is deciding whether we should, as is right and proper, deprive people who have committed an offence and been convicted in a court of violence and disorder, of the right to travel to football matches and remove their passports, or whether we should extend the power to cover people who have never been convicted of an offence. If we are considering stopping only the 40 per cent. of the 965 people from travelling abroad, we do not need extra powers such as the fourth power for which the Bill provides. We could do everything on the basis of those who had been convicted. As the Home Secretary said, a large minority had been convicted.
      The Bill invites us to go far beyond considering whether people have convictions from United Kingdom courts and to consider whether they have been arrested and expelled from countries such as Belgium, and whether they are part of the 60 per cent. who had no convictions. The Bill provides for the courts to take into account the fact that people have been arrested and expelled from abroad even though they have never been charged with or convicted of any offence abroad or at home. Under the Bill, those people can be deprived of their passports.
      The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) assured me, during a friendly debate that we had on television at midnight, that the Home Secretary had assured him about the innocent ones at Charleroi—among whom he nearly found himself because he was there, but, happily, was not in the square and was not rounded up. The hon. Gentleman is patently innocent—a vegetarian, teetotal Scot—who is therefore incapable of wrongdoing. However, if he had been in the square, he might have been caught up, arrested and expelled. He assured me that the Home Secretary assured him that the names of people who were expelled but had no convictions against them would not be made available to the courts.
      I ask the Minister, who is covering his eyes to help him better to concentrate on my words, to say whether the rest of the House can have a similar assurance that the details of those who were expelled from Charleroi despite having no convictions against them in English courts—indeed, they had no convictions against them in Belgian courts, nor were any charges made under Belgian law—will not be given to the courts should a policeman stop them, detain them, take them to a magistrate and seek to prove that they are the sort of people who might get involved in trouble abroad. I hope that he will make that clear; he had better do so if the debate is to be meaningful.

      183
      The fourth aspect that gives rise to bad legislation is collusion between Front Benchers, which is often used to curtail debate. The Minister himself said that he had curtailed the debate only because he saw opposition coming from the Conservative Back Benches. Had Conservative Front Benchers been able to prevent that opposition, he would have allowed full debate. Ministers subscribe to the wonderful doctrine that there will be full debate on a Bill only if there is no opposition to it or if those on the two Front Benches have conspired to curtail or prevent opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] If the Labour Members who have taken no part in these brief proceedings and who want to curtail the rights of their constituents would care to tell me their constituencies, I shall read them into the record so that their constituents will know how lightly and trivially they take citizens' rights. [Interruption.] The more they go on, the longer I shall go on pointing out what is wrong with the measure—until 5 o'clock if need be, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and as long as that is in order. This serious matter deserves serious consideration, but otherwise I do not intend to prolong the debate unnecessarily.
      The fifth aspect that gives rise to bad legislation is a sanctimonious orgy of vilification of a currently unpopular minority. Hooligans, thugs, racists and drunks are unpopular, and rightly so. We are all happy to see legislation introduced that bears exclusively on those who commit crimes so that they can be brought to court and properly and duly convicted. What worries Conservative Members is that innocent football fans are likely to be caught up by these measures. Some will be suspected by a constable because of their demeanour or behaviour in front of him, which is what the original draft of the Bill said. They will be taken to court and deprived their liberty on a standard of proof less than that required to convict them of any crime, even though they may have done something that may not be a crime according to the Bill.
      We know why the Government are happy to risk a lot of perfectly innocent young working class white males getting caught up with the thugs, whom we would all like to be caught by the law. That is part of the new Labour strategy. The Government can take the working class for granted, but they have to pander to middle class susceptibilities. The Prime Minister's memo made it clear that he wanted dramatic measures—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that he must talk about the content of the Bill. He must not go into matters relating—
      Mr. Lilley: rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should remain in his seat when I am standing. He cannot go into what happened in Downing street today or the other day. That is not in the Bill.
      Mr. Lilley: Obviously I abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was endeavouring to explain why this is such a bad Bill and its origins in the memo leaked to the newspapers today. The memo called for precisely
      184
      such a Bill and said that tough measures were needed to deal not with a real problem, but with the Labour party being perceived as weak on crime and crime that affects the middle classes. However, I shall not elaborate for fear of incurring your displeasure.
      The final aspect of bad legislation—a Government's lack of firm commitment to any principles—prevailed in this example. The Government have made a principle of not having principles, and have admitted that this measure will curtail the rights of innocent as well as guilty people. It will affect the innocent, and it will abrogate the normal assumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It requires a lower level of proof than that normally required. It is retrospective in some respects, and has an element of double jeopardy. It may infringe the human rights convention. It possibly curtails the rights of free movement under European law.
      At no point was the principle brought to bear that says beyond this no sensible Government ought to go, because alas the Government put spin above substance. They put the desire for a soundbite and for a measure that bites above real measures that properly target only the guilty and protect the rights of the innocent. I for one shall not support the Bill.
      2.26 am
      Dr. Lynne Jones: People across the length and breadth of the country who have campaigned for the past three years for the introduction of worthy legislation will be amazed that the Government have been prepared to rush this Bill through the House simply because an international football match is being held in September, and a friendly game at that.
      Hon. Members arrived at the House today not having seen the amendments that were to be debated during our consideration of the Bill. A guillotine was imposed between the Committee stage and Report. Such a procedure is unacceptable, and I am surprised that the Government were prepared to abuse the procedures of the House in that way. I have no problems with the use of the guillotine, but to use it to ensure that there is no opportunity for the House to take stock of the debate in Committee before moving on to Report is unbelievable.
      I support many of the provisions in the Bill. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) that the most important part of the Bill is the fourth pillar—the ability for police officers to detain people at ports simply because they have suspicions that they may have participated in violence or disorder. When I queried that, I had no answer to my question about the grounds on which a police officer may have such suspicions. As it has been ruled out that those grounds could relate to the appearance, clothing or demeanour of the individual, one has to assume that they must relate to some intelligence or information about the past behaviour of the individual concerned. If that information is available, why could not other powers that are provided in the Bill be used to take that individual through the courts and to ban him from participating in overseas football matches? I disagree entirely with my hon. Friend. I believe that measures in the Bill could ensure that if there is appropriate evidence or information that people would be likely to cause violence, their cases could be taken to the courts.

      185
      I cannot support the Bill as it stands. I hope that amendments in the other place will mean that when it comes back to this House it is in a much better state than when it leaves.
      2.30 am
      Mr. Jim Murphy: I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). I cannot help feeling that some of his frustration is explained by the fact that he may hope to travel to France this summer, as I understand that he has a house there.
      I wish to refer to the summary measures and the fact that the Bill does not apply to non-UK residents living in the UK. There are approximately 2.5 million non-British residents living in the UK, many of whom are passionate football supporters. I am not alleging that there is a disproportionate criminal element among them, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to keep the issue under review, as this is a potential loophole.
      2.31 am
      Mr. Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) who makes the case for a UK Parliament—a Parliament in which we can discuss all at once football hooliganism as it affects Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the Bill is confined to England and Wales. Despite that, it will be voted upon by right hon. and hon. Members from all four parts of the UK. That must cause concern.
      I cannot support the Bill, for the same reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), and because of some of the arguments from Labour Members. One of the advantages of voting on the Bill is that I have had the opportunity of speaking to people such as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).
      The Bill combines the worst elements of gesture politics and rushed emergency legislation. That was encapsulated by the Minister's earlier remark that the Government were determined to do all in their power to stamp out football hooliganism. If that is how he feels, why does he not say exactly the same thing about stamping out the truly terrifying increase in violent crime in London, as announced today by the Government? If he had the same approach to violent crime as he says he has to football hooliganism, we might have expected a knee-jerk reaction and instant legislation to reintroduce the sus laws, to change the advice on Macpherson and so on.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In a Third Reading debate, hon. Members must speak about the Bill and not other matters.
      Mr. Chope: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The reason why the Government are concentrating on this Bill is because they think it is a soft target and a diversionary tactic that enables them to avoid the much more serious issues. My constituents will think that the Bill demonstrates the Government's failure to grasp the real priorities. My constituents are interested in dealing with hooliganism, but they are much more concerned about hooliganism at home than abroad. They want to
      186
      make sure that the anti-social behaviour orders brought in by the Government can be implemented. I am told that it costs £20,000 per order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying again. Even though we are into the early hours of the morning, I am still sharp enough to notice that.
      Mr. Chope: I am addressing my remarks to the issues of the priorities of the Government as encapsulated in the Bill—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Let the Deputy Speaker deal with the matter. This is a Third Reading debate. I am bound by the rules of the House. The hon. Gentleman must not talk about anything other than the Bill. He will have another opportunity at some other time to speak about these matters.
      Mr. Chope: I am against the Bill because it introduces infringements of liberty that are not justified by the mischief that the Government have described. They said that the mischief involves about 900 people who were arrested on the continent during the recent international football season. That represents fewer than two people per constituency. The Bill is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and a total overreaction by the Government, who have wasted valuable parliamentary time that could have been better used to deal with other priorities affecting people and their liberties.
      2.35 am
      Mr. Hawkins: The Minister must respond to some important questions as the Bill proceeds to another place. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) drew attention to some of the continuing issues relating to national boundaries and nationality. The Minister and the Home Secretary have been pretty co-operative in responding to and accepting amendments. I hope that the Minister recognises that there are still substantial concerns among both Opposition and Government Members. Those concerns will be reinforced in the debates in another place.
      In particular, I hope that the Minister will confirm that he continues to keep under review what we may call the national borders loophole—the fact that, even if all the powers become law in more or less their current form, it will still be possible for people to go to Scotland or Northern Ireland in order to try to evade what the Government suggest will be a tough new law.
      We welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the idea of sunset clauses. It was suggested earlier that there should be a shorter period before the legislation is reviewed, and we were grateful that the Home Secretary and the Minister agreed to keep under review the period after which it will be further considered.
      The Minister said that the Government's report on the legislation would deal with the costs, but I think that he will concede that the costs set out in the explanatory notes will already have increased as a result of amendments that the Government have tabled or accepted. Will further explanatory notes be provided before the Bill goes to another place, updating the estimate of what the costs will be?

      187
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, the guillotine was entirely inappropriate and unjustified. Because of it, some matters were either never discussed or not voted on. Amendment No. 1 on Report was not selected for debate and, more significantly, we debated amendment No. 10 in Committee but were not able to vote on it. With the benefit of hindsight, the Minister may recognise that the Government were very unwise indeed to impose a guillotine.
      To correct a misunderstanding that cropped up on Third Reading, it was the Government's original intention to try to curtail debate at 10 pm, and it was only because they accepted an Opposition amendment to the guillotine motion that we were able to continue until midnight in Committee and could have gone to 5 am to complete Report and Third Reading. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald was right to say that the proceedings today have been something of a farce. The Government suggest that, through the Modernisation Committee, they will introduce changes to the procedure that will mean that all debate must end at 10 pm every night. However, they also said that they needed to rush this Bill through, and that meant that the House sat into the night last Thursday and tonight. That is indecent haste.
      Finally, I shall deal with some points raised by other speakers. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised his fervent concerns and said that the Government were providing only crude choices. That will be a grave worry for the House of Lords.
      The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said that he was worried that this would not be the final Bill on this matter. He may be right, and the House of Lords will have concerns about that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) spoke of the valuable work in his private Member's Bill, but he also mentioned the importance of protecting the law-abiding football fan. I am sure that he is right.
      The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) misunderstood the fact that it was the Opposition who tabled the amendment to the original timetable motion and who therefore gave us a few more hours for debate. However, his contribution reinforced the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald that there is opposition to the Bill among Labour Members. That was also made clear by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). The hon. Member for Islington, North made it clear that he considered that the Government were introducing the sus laws, or even "sus plus".
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) pointed out that the background to the Bill lies in the Prime Minister's memo. He also drew attention to some of the issues that the Government have not yet resolved, and which no doubt will be raised again in another place. He also pointed out the dangers to innocent football fans of bad legislation.
      188
      The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) referred to the important position of non-British citizens resident in the UK, and he asked the Minister to deal with that point, which has not yet been addressed. It is clear that problems remain.
      The Opposition made it clear that we would not stand in the way of a Bill that dealt properly with the issues relating to football hooliganism. We have kept that promise, and we have even managed to bring the debate to a conclusion a fraction earlier than the Government's revised and amended timetable motion set out. However, substantial concerns remain. Even before we saw the first draft Bill or its revision, we said that the measure had to receive proper parliamentary scrutiny. I have no doubt that that scrutiny will continue in another place.
      We shall not stand in the way of the Bill proceeding to another place, but we think that a great deal of work remains to be done.
      2.42 am
      Mr. Charles Clarke: Almost all the issues raised in this Third Reading debate were dealt with earlier, so I shall not speak to them in detail.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) asked about UK citizens. We considered extending the Bill to citizens of all countries, but the complications involved persuaded us to go for the simplest option.
      I think that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) acknowledged that amendment No. 10 was not drafted perfectly, for reasons of which I have no criticism. However, she will also accept that we stated that we would try to take into account in later amendments the principles that she established in amendment No. 10.
      The review process has been set out clearly. I do not accept the contention that there will necessarily be an increase in costs as a result of the amendments that we have accepted, but I shall monitor the matter carefully.
      Questions were raised about the guillotine. I am advised that the Government's original proposal was for a seven-hour debate, which would have ended after 10 pm. However, we were happy to accept the Opposition amendment on that matter.
      Points have been raised about the procedure, but I can tell Liberal Democrat Members that the House of Commons is the primary Chamber in our parliamentary system. They should accept that the law of the land is made in this House, and not take a provisional view, based on amendments that may be passed in another place.
      It is not surprising, given the speeches of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that the official policy of the Conservative party has been to abstain on the Bill. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said a number of times that the Conservatives would not stand in the way of the Bill. In the words of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, the Conservative party would give the Bill
      our full support and co-operation in Parliament …
      Full support and co-operation is different from not standing in the way. The official Opposition are abstaining on the matter because they have no unity within their party, and a

      189
      decision to vote for the Bill, as the right hon. Lady would have wished, would, not have commanded the support of Conservative Members.
      Question put, that the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divides: Ayes 171, Noes 42

      Division No. 274]

      [2.45 am

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Alexander, Douglas

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Allen, Graham

      Godsiff, Roger

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Goggins, Paul

      Banks, Tony

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Barron, Kevin

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Battle, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Beard, Nigel

      Grogan, John

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Hain, Peter

      Best, Harold

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Blackman, Liz

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Healey, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Heppell, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Browne, Desmond

      Hoey, Kate

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Home Robertson, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hope, Phil

      Burgon, Colin

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Burns, Simon

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hurst, Alan

      Cann, Jamie

      Hutton, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Jamieson, David

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Clelland, David

      Kemp, Fraser

      Coaker, Vernon

      Kidney, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Colman, Tony

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Connarty, Michael

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Corston, Jean

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Cousins, Jim

      Lammy, David

      Cox, Tom

      Lepper, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Levitt, Tom

      Crausby, David

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Love, Andrew

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Darvill, Keith

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Davidson, Ian

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      McNulty, Tony

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

      MacShane, Denis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Dawson, Hilton

      McWalter, Tony

      Dismore, Andrew

      McWilliam, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Drew, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Martlew, Eric

      Edwards, Huw

      Meale, Alan

      Efford, Clive

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Miller, Andrew

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Flint, Caroline

      Mountford, Kali

      Follett, Barbara

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      190

      Olner, Bill

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pound, Stephen

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rapson, Syd

      Todd, Mark

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Truswell, Paul

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Roy, Frank

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Sawford, Phil

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Watts, David

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Soley, Clive

      Woolas, Phil

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stringer, Graham

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Baker, Norman

      Keetch, Paul

      Ballard, Jackie

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Beith, Rt HonA J

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      McDonnell, John

      Brake, Tom

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Moore, Michael

      Breed, Colin

      Oaten, Mark

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burnett, John

      Rendel, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Chidgey, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Chope, Christopher

      Stunell, Andrew

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Cotter, Brian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Tyler, Paul

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Webb, Steve

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Willis, Phil

      Gidley, Sandra

      Hancock, Mike

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Harvey, Nick

      Sir Robert Smith and

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mr. Donald Gorrie.

      Question accordingly agreed to. Bill
      read the Third time, and passed.

DATA PROTECTION
Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to the salary of the Data Protection Commissioner shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall]

School SSAs (Cornwall)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
2.56 am
Mr. Matthew Taylor: It is some time since I took part in an Adjournment debate at such a late hour. I had hoped that late sittings had been abandoned, but, during the past few weeks, they seem to have made a remarkable return. They are no better for their brief absence. I am sure that all of us who took part in tonight's proceedings would prefer that they had been handled differently—even those hon. Members who caused them to be so.
To make rushed changes in response to immediate circumstances is likely to result in bad legislation. It was for that reason that I voted against the measure in our earlier proceedings. However, the exact opposite applies to the subject of this debate: no movement at all has resulted in a bad situation and I hope that we can change it.
The problem is due to the distribution formula and it affects most rural counties—not only in education, but in policing, local government and health. However, it strikes especially at education. The formula was developed by the Conservatives in the 1980s and has never been substantially changed. Year after year, it has delivered a lower spend per pupil in schools in areas such as Cornwall than in other parts of the country. It discriminates against children in rural schools.
In counties such as Cornwall, a primary school of about 100 pupils receives about £10, 000 less each year than the English average. A secondary school of about 500 pupils receives about £50, 000 less. That was Labour's inheritance when they came to office. People in my county expected that the formula would be changed under Labour, but that has not yet occurred. As a result, our county and similar counties fall further behind every year, despite the fact that they face higher costs in delivering education.
Those counties have to bear the costs of supporting and providing for small rural schools and the costs of rural transport. Cornwall county council's transport budget was overspent by £1.2 million last year. The council and the county's head teachers analysed the shortfall facing Cornwall's schools. Under the present formula, there is a minimum shortfall of about £37 million, compared with the amount that is needed to deliver the basic national curriculum.
In April last year, when I initiated a similar debate on this issue, a rising number of Cornish children were in classes of 31 or more. Numbers had risen in Cornwall, although they had declined in the rest of England.
Mr. Colin Breed: Does my hon. Friend find it perverse that at a time when the Government are providing more funds to build a new classroom at a school, the very same school finds itself without the funds to employ a teacher to go in that classroom?
Mr. Taylor: Not only do I find it perverse, but it makes me angry to see the problems that schools suffer. Schools in my constituency face similar problems and those
192
problems will get worse as the demographics mean that a declining number of children will go into small schools. That will mean a loss of funds and a loss of teachers.
I am not using the debate as an opportunity to lambast the Government. The disaster was caused by the Conservative funding formula, but the disappointment lies in the problems that have been caused by the lack of early action by this Government. We are more than three years into the Parliament and we still have not seen a solution to a problem that Ministers themselves acknowledge. Indeed, the last time we debated this issue, more than a year ago, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the funding formula was not fair, adding that with a bit of determination and
with a bit of give and take and some realism from Members of all parties representing all geographical areas, we can improve it.—[Official Report, 21 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 874.]
The problem is that there has been no improvement.
Indeed, the standard spending assessments for education for Cornwall mean that spending for primary school pupils has fallen behind the national average by £105 for every pupil and for secondary school pupils by £117. That is substantially worse than the position that the Labour Government inherited. It is an average underfund of £111 for every pupil in Cornwall. That has directly impacted on the quality of service. The number of pupils has risen by 1, 107 since 1997, but the number of teachers has dropped by 13 since then. No wonder there have been increasing class sizes.
The Liberal Democrat team in the county decided to contact every head teacher to allow them to express their views. Those views make worrying reading. The policy to reduce infant class sizes that has been pursued by Labour has meant larger class sizes for older pupils. Head teachers predict rises in both junior and secondary class sizes over the next three years, despite a falling birth rate in the county.
More than two out of three head teachers have had to cut spending on books and classroom equipment since 1997, when Labour was elected. Three out of five made cuts last year and fewer than two out of five feel that they can afford sufficient materials to guarantee the quality of the education that they provide. Two thirds of head teachers say that their schools do not have sufficient funds for building maintenance.
The impact of that is perhaps most disturbing when one considers the response that head teachers gave to questions about how they felt about their own profession. They universally talked about the importance that they attached to teaching and about how they cared about the service that they could give their pupils, but fewer than two in five said that they would recommend teaching as a profession to a member of their family. Fewer than a third said that they would recommend head teaching, and seven out of 10 head teachers are considering early retirement. No wonder that 95 per cent. supported our argument that more resources were needed. Every teacher surveyed endorsed our campaign to secure equality of funding with the rest of England and a fair funding system across the country.
Mr. Andrew George: Is my hon. Friend prepared to comment on the fact that in my constituency a survey identified that nearly four out of five schools had experienced cuts in staff since 1997? Despite the welcome

193
resources made available by the Government, there are clearly pressures on staff. As we have heard today, they have resulted in the fact that 10 per cent. of head teachers have taken leave owing to stress.
Mr. Taylor: The figures are alarming and they are reflected across the county. Four in five schools have cut staff since Labour was elected. More than half have had to reduce teacher non-contact time and more than half say that they are employing younger teachers when vacancies occur as a way of saving funds.
That is the reality behind Labour's claims substantially to have increased spending. First, the county has fallen further behind the average because of a funding formula invented by the Conservatives which Labour has not yet changed. Secondly, although in the earlier debate the Minister for School Standards claimed that the previous comprehensive spending review made £19 billion available for education, Labour has since been forced to acknowledge that its figures were misleading and inflated, as we argued at the time.
One reason why I am so pleased to have secured this debate, despite the late hour, is that the second comprehensive spending review will be announced tomorrow, and it will be time to correct the exaggeration of last time, when the Government did not deliver the money that the Chancellor claimed they would. Teachers have suffered as a result, not least because much of that money was taken up not only by inflation and double and triple counting, but by non-funded salary increases for teachers, which the schools have found to be a burden in distributing resources and which have forced them to lose staff.
Lack of resources has meant that over two thirds of head teachers have had to cut spending on classroom equipment; over 60 per cent. have had to make cuts in equipment; and over one third have had to find other forms of fundraising to meet the shortfall. Indeed, 77 per cent. said that they relied on fundraising by parent-teacher associations and others not only for extracurricular activities, but for books, equipment, computers and educational trips. Reliance on fundraising for basic essentials has increased in 53 per cent. of schools.
The survey is at its most telling when one reads what teachers have to say about that. One said:
We have been forced into having class sizes under 30 in infant classes. This is a simplistic argument and does not show any understanding of current education policy coming out of the standards department.
Another said:
We have mixed age group classes in the juniors due to a lack of space for any additional classrooms.
Another said:
We have to buy a great deal of second hand equipment from schools which have closed, to provide a reasonable level of equipment in most classes.
Another said:
We have no staffroom, no headteacher's office. A toilet block and classroom were funded by the Parents Association because the LEA would not pay.
Another teacher said:
We have been allocated £600 this year for capital expenditure, but what can that provide?
194
Another said:
We always have 1 or 2 pupils below the threshold for the third teacher to be reinstated … in January, and usually go over the threshold during the summer term.
In other words, the school is a teacher short. Another said:
To make a manageable budget we are making cuts in resources year on year.
Yet another said:
Rising teacher costs means that there is very little left in your budget for resources.
Finally, one teacher said:
We had substantial reserves four years ago and dig deeply into them each year to set the budget. It is unlikely that we will be able to set a reasonable budget after this year.
I know that these problems are inherited from the Conservatives. They created a funding system that discriminated against rural counties such as Cornwall and left our schools underfunded. It played a major part in the general election campaign, when we fought on the argument that the Conservative party was underfunding Cornish schoolchildren by an average of £100 a head. I do not believe that, on the election of the new Government, anybody in the county believed that that would get worse, but it has done, both in the absolute problems of schools having to cut staff, as I have said, and, perhaps worse for our county, in that discrimination against us has widened that gap, even as the Government have sought to put extra funding into education.
The comprehensive spending review to be announced tomorrow provides a double opportunity, first, to release those resources from the war chest that could and should have been spent in the past three years and to release extra spending to schools. All the signs are that that will happen, and if it does, it will be welcome. We will see where the money is spent and criticise where we think it spent wrongly. Secondly, I press the Minister to take the opportunity to sort out this discriminatory, unfair funding system that she has inherited from the Conservative party and which has left Cornwall, Devon and other rural counties so badly served.
It is difficult for Governments to create new funding formulae to redress the balance when it means having to take from some areas to give to others. However, there is an opportunity in the context of extra spending in the comprehensive spending review, which I hope and believe will be realised tomorrow, to redress the effects of the funding system by investing extra money into counties such as Cornwall without snatching it off others. We are talking not about cuts but about a fair funding formula for those who so richly deserve it—those who work in our schools and deliver good results but do so with big classes and under-resourcing, having to rely on parents in the poorest county in the country to provide essentials.
Schools are left thousands of pounds a year worse off because of a funding formula that Labour has so far failed to change. There is an opportunity to redress that; I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance that that opportunity will be taken before we have to fight another general election. If the formula has not been changed by then, people will ask, "What was the point of a Labour Government when they could not deliver?" I do not believe that the Minister wants to have to answer that question from angry Cornish parents. The Conservative

195
party has nothing to say on the issue because it was responsible for the formula in the first place. Ministers must take action if they are to justify their position.
3.11 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Despite the lateness of the hour, I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) not only on securing this Adjournment debate on the issue of school funding, which is clearly important to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but on doing so at the start of an important day in the history of this Government's commitment to putting into our schools the resources that we all agree are important.
As a Worcestershire Member of Parliament, I share and have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view of the unfairness of the distribution system. I come from an authority that fares even worse than Cornwall in the standard spending assessment arrangements. Although I will not, therefore, be defending the current funding system, I will be defending the Government's commitment to increasing overall spending in our schools, as well as explaining the effects that that has had on Cornwall and the actions that the Government are taking to improve fairness and transparency in the funding of schools.
The first thing that I must reiterate is that the Government have delivered an overall increase, allowing for an extra £2.1 billion to be spent on education in 2000–01 and an education SSA increase of 5.4 per cent. across the country. On top of that, an extra £500 million has been made available for the standards fund, £50 million for support of school budgets and £14 million for excellence in cities authorities. There is £19 million extra spending headroom through the deferral of an increase in pension contributions and an extra £290 million was announced in the Budget.
Notwithstanding the way in which that is distributed across the country, that is a substantial real-terms increase in funding—equivalent to an increase per pupil in real terms of £180 this year, and of £300 since 1997. Under the previous Government, funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. Our increases are significantly more than could have been delivered from putting 1p on income tax.
I have said that it is not my intention to defend the distribution system, but I must point out that the Government's overall funding increase has significantly benefited Cornwall. Cornwall's education SSA for 2000–01 is £199.6 million—an increase of £9.77 million or 5.32 per cent.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Given the Minister's sympathetic comments about the distribution system, does she acknowledge the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), that the time to correct a discrepancy is when one is in a position to be more generous? I hope that she will at least give an
196
assurance that she will make representations to her right hon. Friends in the Cabinet that now is the time to correct the discrepancies.
Jacqui Smith: Later in my speech, I shall outline what the Government intend to do in that respect.
As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell points out, Cornwall's is not the best placed LEA, being 101 out of 150 LEAs in terms of funding per pupil. Nevertheless, the increases that Cornwall has received are substantial—not only in its SSA, but in its standards fund allocation for 2000–01 which, at £20.58 million, represents an increase of 82 per cent. on the 1999–2000 allocation; in its share of the additional £50 million announced in November, which is £483, 000; and in its share of the additional £290 million announced in the Budget, which is more than £2.7 million. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the latter was not allocated according to the SSA formula, so schools throughout the country, and in Cornwall in particular, will receive increases of up to £50, 000 per secondary school and up to £9, 000 per primary school.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned capital expenditure. It may well be that schools in Cornwall feel that that is not yet adequate, and I do not suggest that we have addressed fully our inheritance from the previous Government of crumbling schools. However, this year we have spent three times as much on capital expenditure as was planned by the previous Government; and, in the new deal for schools 4 allocation alone, Cornwall received £5.7 million, which constitutes a significant contribution to improving schools' infrastructure.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Cornwall's teachers, governors and pupils on their excellent results, with the percentage of pupils with five or more A-starred to C GCSE passes standing at 51.6 per cent., which is above the national average of 47.9 per cent. It is clear that the authority has been making good use of the extra resources provided by the Government, and that teachers, governors and pupils have been working hard to improve results.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned class sizes. The Government targeted money on fulfilling our pledge to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year olds. The hon. Gentleman appeared to dismiss that achievement, but the Government believe that it will have a lasting effect on children as they pass through the education system, and we shall make £620 million available to support that pledge. Allocations to Cornwall so far total £3.5 million, which has helped to reduce average key stage 1 class sizes in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to 24.9 from 25.4 in January 1997, and in Cornwall as a whole to 25.3 from 26.2 in January 1997. That additional investment in Cornwall has had a direct effect on reducing key stage 1 class sizes.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: I did not gloss over the figures for five to seven-year-olds, but I did make the point that overall class sizes have increased, with substantial numbers of pupils in older age groups in classes of more than 31. I am sure that the Minister will concede that,

197
despite the Government's belief that priority should be given to younger pupils, that is a cause for concern arising from the process.
Jacqui Smith: Overall in the country, the size of the average primary class has fallen, and average class sizes as a whole have fallen. Were secondary head teachers to use the extra money that they received—between £30, 000 and £50, 000—to reduce class sizes, the pupil-teacher ratio could be reduced by 0.4. We have put in place the money to enable our class size pledge to be met, and to ensure that some of the side effects identified by the hon. Gentleman do not occur.
It is important to consider the position with regard to early years. Since 1997–98, the Government have prioritised the provision of places for four-year-olds and five-year-olds. The funding available through the SSA and the nursery education grant has increased nationally by almost £400 million. That has enabled some 120, 000 new, free early education places for three and fouryear-olds to be created nationally across all sectors.
In Cornwall, 5, 216 free four-year-old early education places are to be created during the summer term 2000, of which 3, 697 were funded through Cornwall's under-fives SSA sub-block and 1, 519 from nursery education grant. For three-year-olds, during 1999–2000, £40 million was made available and targeted on helping children in 65 local education authorities chosen on the basis of social need.
In autumn 1999, funding was initially given to the 57 most deprived authorities, using the Government's index of local deprivation, augmented by two additional child-centred measures. We then made available to eight more authorities, including Cornwall, extra funding to create three-year-old places for the spring term. In that way, Cornwall benefited overall from the Government's commitment to providing early years places and from specifically targeted funding that recognised the levels of deprivation in the county.
It is important to recognise that Cornwall has benefited from the Government's policy on education action zones. Although it is not in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the zone covering Camborne, Pool and Redruth, which was approved by the Secretary of State in November 1999 and allocated a Department for Education and
198
Employment grant of £500, 000 each year for three years and up to £250, 000 match funding, will be important for the innovative initiative that it is proposing and for the fact that such innovation has knock-on benefits for other schools in the area.
As I stated at the beginning, my hon. Friends and I have not attempted to defend the current system of local authority grant distribution. That is why the Government are undertaking a review. It was not possible to find a way forward as quickly as the hon. Gentleman and probably many other hon. Members would have wanted, but we were honest about that and are now looking for a longer-term way of reviewing that distribution. Because education accounts for about 40 per cent. of local authority revenue expenditure, the future of education funding makes up an important part of the Government's review.
The Government expect to publish a Green Paper later this summer, setting out a range of options for debate. We are seeking arrangements that will be fair between different parts of the country; which will be more transparent; and which will provide greater predictability and stability. They could include methods for improving the distribution of funding from central Government to make it fairer and to address the points that the hon. Gentleman outlined, giving LEAs three-year funding settlements so that they can plan ahead, and giving separate assessments for schools and LEAs, to increase the clarity and certainty of funding.
Our objective is to remove the worst of the disparities that exist in the country. We look to levelling funding up, not down. We will therefore take action to ensure that future distribution of funds is fairer, more rational and more satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine. However, given the announcements—about which we are hopeful—that will be made later today, I ask hon. Members to acknowledge not only the challenge of distributing the money that is made available for education, but the challenge of providing more genuine resources for our schools. I suggest that the Government are already meeting that challenge; they will certainly meet it in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Three o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Queen Mother's Birthday
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister how much public money will be spent as a result of marking the 100 birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. [128809]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 10 July 2000, Official Report, column 376W.

  Civil Service Management Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions since May 1997 on which civil servants have been disciplined for failing to comply with the rules in sections 4.2 to 4.4 of the Civil Service Management Code. [129183]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Okinawa Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 455W, on the G8 Summit, what representations he has received on the funding of the Russian plutonium fuel programme; and what response he has made, indicating the dates of (a) representations and (b) replies. [130022]

  The Prime Minister
  There has been discussion among officials over funding for the disposition and management of weapons-grade plutonium designated as no longer required for defence purposes.

  The issue will be on the agenda at the G8 Okinawa Summit.

  Euro (Leaked Documents)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he takes to prevent the leaking of official documents from Government departments relating to the Government's policy on the euro; and if he will make a statement. [129444]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: The "Ministerial Code" and the "Civil Service Code" set out the respective responsibilities of Ministers and civil servants in relation to their duties of confidentiality.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Prime Minister if Lord Levy has been entertained at public expense at Chequers since May 1997. [130282]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations it is not my practice to provide details of all such meetings.

  Severance Payments (Ministers)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if Ministers who receive severance payments following resignation or dismissal are required to repay such payments on being reappointed to ministerial office. [130397]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: Under the Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, all Ministers (except the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor as well as the Speaker) are entitled to receive a severance payment of a quarter of their ministerial salary when they leave office. However, Ministers who are appointed to another paid office within three weeks of leaving office are not eligible for severance pay. For this reason, no severance payment is made within three weeks of a Minister leaving office in these circumstances.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he was consulted over the Eurofighter cannon deselection; and if that aircraft, in its original planning phase, had a secondary ground assault capability. [130785]

  The Prime Minister
  The decision to delete the 27 mm Mauser cannon from Eurofighter was taken by the Secretary of State for Defence on the advice of RAF and MOD officials. The minimal operational utility of the cannon on Eurofighter in any role is outweighed by its support, fatigue and training cost implications.

  The original 1985 European Staff Requirement included both air defence and offensive air support for Eurofighter, but with air defence as its priority. This position remains unchanged.

  Lobby Briefings
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister how often he has meetings with(a) his Press Secretary and (b) the senior civil servant who now briefs the Lobby daily. [130719]

  The Prime Minister
  Regularly.

  Govan Shipyard
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent petition in support of the Govan shipyard signed by 80,000 people from Scotland and delivered to him. [130955]

  The Prime Minister
  I received the petition to which my hon. Friend refers on 5 July 2000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has written to my hon. Friend confirming this.

  The Ministry of Defence received the revised offers from the bidding consortiums in its Strategic Sealift competition on 6 July and is currently assessing them.

  Dorneywood
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) discussions and (b) consultations took place between the Government and the board of trustees at Dorneywood before the recent refurbishment programme was agreed. [129706]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  None. The trustees act independently of the Government.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will make a progress report on the completion and occupation of Portcullis House. [130940]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend that the work will be substantially complete by the end of this month. Hon. Members and their staff will, therefore, be able to start to occupy the building during September, as planned.

  Most of the accommodation will be handed over this month. Already, the four office floors, with their furniture, have been handed back ahead of schedule; the remaining two floors should be complete by the end of the month, with the exception of the installation of specialist equipment in the committee rooms and the main entrance.

  My hon. Friend will wish to note that the conference and interview rooms will be available for use by hon. Members with effect from 18 September. The four Select Committee rooms and the two multi-purpose rooms will be available from 26 October. I am pleased to announce that my Committee has agreed that these latter rooms should be named after prominent Parliamentarians, rather than numbered; and that they are to be named "Boothroyd", "Attlee", "Grimond", "Macmillan", "Thatcher" and "Wilson".

  During the Summer Adjournment work will be carried out around the periphery of the building. This work will include the installation of the bridge link to the Norman Shaw South Building, restoration of the roads and pavements and the installation of the shop fronts.

  Work to repair and restore the subway under Bridge street is being carried out by London Underground and the project team. The intention is that it would be reopened at the beginning of September. This will then provide a direct route between the Palace and all the parliamentary outbuildings north of Bridge street and a covered route to the Underground Station.

  Negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily with prospective tenants for the three shop units, which it is intended will be open by the time the House returns. Based on responses from hon. Members to the type of shops they wished to see provided, there will be a small supermarket, a coffee bar and a dry cleaners.

  Finally, my hon. Friend will wish to note that the forecast final cost of Portcullis House is now £230 million.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing Quotas
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is on quota trading; and if he will make a statement on his analysis of the impact of such trading on the United Kingdom fishing fleet. [130548]

  Mr. Morley
  The trade in quota has been initiated by fishermen themselves. Transfers of quota between groups with quota management responsibilities must be conducted in accordance with the rules on quota management drawn up by the Fisheries Departments in the UK. These rules are the subject of regular consultation with the fishing industry and those affecting the trade in quota are currently under review by a working group comprising representatives of industry and the Fisheries Departments. A report on possible modifications to the quota management rules, including arrangements for adjusting the fixed quota allocation units attached to fishing vessel licences to take account of transfers between fishermen, is expected shortly.

  Regional Service Centre Costs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the costs of RSC administration of the organic farming and rural economy programmes in the current and next financial years. [131442]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The costs of RSC administration of the organic farming and rural economy programmes are estimated to be:

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Organic farming (RSC administration) CP:040

  92

  87

  Rural economy (RSC administration) CP:050

  765

  732

  Table 10.5 and Annex 5 of MAFF's Departmental Report 2000 included scheme costs against these programmes in error. A corrigendum to the report will be issued shortly.

  GM Seed
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the German authorities contacted the Government directly in regard to the Advanta rapeseed contamination incident. [126819]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: No.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reason for the time taken from when the Government first learned about the contamination of Advanta rapeseed with GM varieties to the date at which it first made a public announcement on this matter. [126857]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: The co-ordination of Government policy in this area falls outside my ministerial responsibilities.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment first met to discuss the contamination of Advanta rapeseed with GM varieties. [126858]
  5W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 19 June 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 19 June 2000, Official Report, columns 1–2W.

  Organic Food
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total value of organic food sales in the UK for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what he estimates sales will be in each of the next five years. [127790]

  Ms Quin
  There are no official estimates. However, estimates covering some of these years will be found in the Soil Association publication "The Organic Food and Farming Report 1999" (ISBN 0 905200 73 X).

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that(a) 30 per cent. of agricultural land will be organic and (b) 20 per cent. of food consumed will be organic, by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [130485]

  Mr. Morley
  No. We do not believe that setting arbitrary targets for the area of land in organic farming or for the consumption of organic food is sensible. But we do wish to see organic farming succeed and we have made available considerable sums of money in support for farmers converting to organic farming through the Organic Farming Scheme. We will make a further £140 million available in support for organic conversion when the European Commission has approved the England Rural Development Programme later this year.

  BSE
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle were affected by BSE in each of the last two years for which figures are available; what the projected numbers are for the next five years; when he expects that BSE will be eradicated from the United Kingdom herd; and if he will make a statement. [127842]

  Ms Quin
  BSE was confirmed in 3,178 animals first placed under restriction in 1998, and in 2,254 animals first placed under restriction in 1999. To the end of June 2000, 611 cases of BSE had been confirmed with 223 diagnoses outstanding (of which about 80 per cent. are expected to be confirmed). The latest (3 July) forecasts of the BSE epidemic produced by the VLA model are given in the following table:

  Year

  Estimated confirmed BSE cases

  95 per cent. confidence levels

  2000

  1,115

  890

  1,340

  2001

  477

  330

  624

  2002

  171

  84

  258

  It is not yet possible to give a precise date when the disease will be eradicated from the UK.

  Estate of Farms
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Estate of Farms. [128305]
  6W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Ministry owns a number of farms. Some of them are leased to ADAS Consulting Ltd. and some are leased to Horticulture Research International. Others are used by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Research commissioned by the Ministry is undertaken on the farms.

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on grants paid by his Department to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. [128307]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Under the terms of the National Heritage Act 1983 and the Ministry's responsibilities for sponsorship of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, my Department pays a grant in aid towards the body's staff, running costs and for certain capital works.

  In recent years, annual grant in aid averaging some £18 million has been paid representing about half of their annual income. The grant allocated for the current financial year is £15.735 million.

  Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the recorded incidences of rabbit haemorrhagic disease in the United Kingdom in each of the list five years, indicating if the rabbits concerned were(a) domestic and (b) wild. [128308]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Viral haemorrhagic disease of rabbits (RVHD) was a notifiable disease from 1991 until 21 October 1996 in Great Britain, and until 21 August 1997 in Northern Ireland.

  The number of outbreaks notified in 1995 and 1996 in the United Kingdom were:

  1995

  19961

  Wild rabbits

  35

  23

  Domestic/Farmed

  479

  249

  Total

  514

  272

  1 to October for Great Britain

  In Northern Ireland in the period 1 January to 21 August 1997, two outbreaks of RVHD in domestic rabbits were notified.

  The disease is now endemic in wild and domestic rabbits in the United Kingdom. Therefore the number of outbreaks are no longer recorded.

  Primates
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many primates were transported(a) into and (b) out of Dover during (i) May and (ii) June. [129192]

  Ms Quin
  According to our records, 188 primates were imported through Dover in May and 164 primates were imported through Dover in June. Records of primate exports from Great Britain are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the(a) cost and (b) impact on the environment of disposing of over-30-months scheme cattle carcases by (i) rendering, (ii) burning and (iii) other methods. [129650]

  Ms Quin
  Four companies have contracts to render OTMS carcase material at an average gate fee of £80 per tonne (equivalent to approximately £40 per animal). The Intervention Board has concluded contracts with three companies for the large scale incineration of meat and bone meal derived from the rendering process at an average gate fee equivalent to approximately £10 per animal. Five companies have contracts to incinerate OTMS carcase material from approved abattoirs at an average gate fee of £88 per animal, and 16 companies have contracts to incinerate casualty OTMS animals at an average gate fee of £80 per animal.

  All rendering plants and incinerators handling animal waste must be authorised under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to the UK in terms of lost compensation from the EU if the target for the disposal of over-30-months scheme cattle is not met. [129651]

  Ms Quin
  Compensation from the EU is not dependent upon disposal targets being met. It is dependant upon the remains of all purchased cattle being destroyed by incineration. Where such cattle have initially been disposed of by rendering, 80 per cent. of the available compensation is claimed at that point. Once an equivalent amount of the resultant meat, bonemeal and tallow produced from the rendering process has been incinerated, the balance of the compensation can be claimed.

  Year

  Total women appointed

  Number women appointed to paid posts

  Percentage of women in paid posts

  Number women appointed to unpaid posts

  Percentage of women in unpaid posts

  19971

  15

  9

  12.16

  6

  12

  1998

  21

  17

  20.99

  4

  20

  1999

  31

  29

  21.37

  2

  25

  1 May to 31 December

  The Government are committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. In support of this, the Department has drawn up an action plan for increasing the number of women and ethnic minorities holding public appointments. The latest plans, together with the Government's overall plan, were published on 24 May 2000 in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 2000–2003", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Organophosphate Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what costs have been incurred, in each of the most recent three years for which figures are available, by his Department in approving and supervising the use of
  8W
  Although the EC Regulation governing this scheme lays down no time limit by which such destruction has to take place, the UK has an internal target of incinerating 60 per cent. of all meat and bonemeal produced by 31 March 2002.

  Pig Farmers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans for an outgoers' scheme for pig farmers. [129401]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 July 2000]: As part of the "Action Plan for Farming", agreed at the Prime Minister's 30 March meeting with industry leaders, the Government decided to introduce a Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme (FIRS). £26 million was made available to the scheme in its first year and bids have been made for funding in subsequent years. Under state aid rules, the European Commission must approve the scheme before it can be introduced. To begin that process, the scheme was formally notified to the Commission on 30 March. The Commission has since carried out its studies of the scheme and raised a number of questions which have been addressed. The outgoers element of the scheme has just ended its consultation period and will be introduced as soon as possible following Commission clearance. This part of the scheme will operate in order to reduce UK pig production capacity by 16 per cent. from 1 June 1998 total, using a sealed bid system.

  Appointments (Women)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129849]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: The numbers and percentages of women appointed between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1999 to paid and unpaid posts in Non-Departmental Public Bodies sponsored by my Department are given in the following table:

  organophosphate sheep dips; and what is his estimate of the cost of training, certification and protective clothing to sheep farmers during the same periods. [130399]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: No new organophosphorus sheep dip has been authorised in the period 1997 to 1999. There has been one variation of a marketing authorisation for an OP sheep dip during this period, at a cost to the marketing authorisation holder of £155. The use of veterinary medicines, including sheep dips, is not supervised by the Ministry.

  From the inception of the Certificate of Competence Scheme in 1995 to 7 July 2000, 16,188 certificates have been issued. The cost of the test for the certificate is either £30 or £60 depending on whether an applicant wishes to

  9W
  be assessed for Part 1 only or Parts 1 and 2. Training for the certificate is not compulsory but is available from agricultural colleges or training establishments or instructors registered with Lantra National Training Organisation. Figures for the cost of training are not held centrally but training costs could be expected to average about £100 per day. The cost of personal protective equipment will vary depending on a number of factors, including supply and demand, and durability and suitability of a sheep farmer's existing equipment. At current prices, the cost of a full set of PPE for someone handling the concentrate would be likely to be in the region of £45.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Ruth Day
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what remuneration Ruth Day receives; and what her official duties are. [130405]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I take it that the questioner is referring to Mrs. Rachel (not Ruth) Day, the Steward at Old Palace, Canterbury. She was appointed in 1991, on terms in line with those applicable to comparable posts. The Steward at Old Palace is provided with tied accommodation. Since then her remuneration has been increased in line with increases paid to other episcopal staff generally. The Steward is responsible for the general management of Old Palace.

  The Commissioners do not disclose the salaries of individuals employed by themselves or by bishops.

DEFENCE

  Police Agency
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Ministry of Defence Police Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [131150]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following Key Targets have been set for the Ministry of Defence Police Agency:

  Key Target 1(a)

  CPS—submission of prosecution files
  In England and Wales to submit at least 80.5 per cent. of prosecution files to the CPS within the timescales set out in the Manual of Guidance

  Key Target 1(b)

  CPS—submission of prosecution files subject to Narey measures
  To maintain a submission rate to the CPS at least equal to the Home Department Police Force submission rate for Narey prosecution files.

  Key Target 1(c)
  CPS—to produce a standardised MDP procedure for the administration of CPS files, thereby allowing quality assurance benchmaking against Home Department Forces in future years.

  Key Target 1(d)
  Submission of 70 per cent. of all Scottish crime/prosecution files to the Procurator Fiscal within a maximum of eight weeks of the offence being reported.
  10W
  Key Target 2
  To achieve a minimum of 50 per cent. patrol activity from those officers devoted to patrolling.

  Key Target 3
  To maintain or improve upon the target solving rate of 38 per cent. set for 199–2000 in the light of the average solving rate over the four year period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2000.

  Key Target 4
  By the use of data produced by Key Target 7 of 1999–2000, to deploy uniformed and CID resources more effectively so as to achieve an efficiency saving of 3 per cent. on travel and subsistence costs of CID officers when investigating crime.

  Key Target 5
  By 31 March 2001 to rial and prove the Efficiency Index devised under KT5 of 1999–2000 in respect of the business areas of Firearms, Marine Policing and Dog Handling with a view to its introduction across the Force for April 2001.

  Key Target 6
  To achieve 2 per cent. ethnic minorities and 15 per cent. of women recruited to the Force during 2000–2001; and to take steps to make possible 3 per cent. and 20 per cent. respectively in 2001–02.

  Warships
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will provide a schedule of dates when orders for new warships for the Royal Navy will be placed; [126192]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect upon warship building yards of no new orders having been placed in the past three years; [126190]

  (3) what was the most recent date on which a new warship was ordered for the Royal Navy. [126191]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made on 11 July 2000,Official Report, columns 701–12.

  On 19 June 2000, it was announced that the prime contract for the procurement of two new Multi-Role Hydrographic and Oceanographic Survey Vessels had been awarded to Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. The contract includes the provision of 25 years' contractor support for the vessels and is worth some £130 million in total over the life of the ships. The ships will be built under sub-contract at Appledore Shipbuilders in North Devon and are due to enter service in 2002 and 2003.

  As for the schedule for future warship orders, the Strategic Defence Review set out our plans for a forward RN shipbuilding programme which included plans for Type 45 Destroyers, two future Aircraft Carriers and up to 20 Future Surface Combatants, as well as a range of other vessels over the next 15 to 20 years.

  We keep the position of UK warshipbuilding yards under careful review; our assessment is that they possess adequate capacity to build vessels in accordance with our forward RN shipbuilding programme and to win such orders through competition with each other. Under Smart Procurement, we continue to consult closely with the shipbuilding industry across a range of individual programmes to ensure effective communication and planning between us.
  11W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to(a) issue invitations to tender in respect of and (b) place the order for, the production of the first Type 45 destroyer; and if he will make a statement. [124915]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 11 July 2000,Official Report, columns 701–12.

  Naval Procurement
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to change the practices under which his Department procures naval vessels; [129013]

  (2) what plans he has to spread work between UK yards when (a) tendering for and (b) building naval vessels. [129015]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are no plans to change the practices under which we procure naval vessels. It remains our policy that where possible orders are placed following competitive tendering (either direct by the Ministry of Defence or by the Prime Contractor), and that warships and major naval auxiliary ships are built in the United Kingdom. For other vessels, where we are bound by EC treaty obligations and World Trade Organisation rules which will not permit discrimination in favour of United Kingdom industry, every effort is made to ensure that United Kingdom yards have the opportunity to tender for the build of such vessels on an equal basis.

  The Department has no policy to spread future shipbuilding work between specific shipyards. Such a policy would not deliver value for money or an efficient, effective industrial base. We seek, nevertheless, to ensure that our forward shipbuilding programme is capable of sustaining a competitive industrial base. For example we have required the T45 Prime Contractor to involve both Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems Marine in the design and construction of the initial contract for three T45 destroyers, announced on 11 July, to ensure a more effective competition for subsequent follow-on vessels.

  Falklands Airbridge
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to put the operation of the airbridge between the UK and the Falkland Islands out to commercial tender; [129653]

  (2) what plans he has to change the type of aircraft used to maintain the airbridge between the UK and the Falkland Islands; [129655]

  (3) if he intends to use the Private Finance Initiative to support the airbridge between the UK and the Falkland Islands. [129654]

  Mr. Spellar
  The airbridge service to and from the Falkland Islands is provided by TriStars. Previous consideration of whether we should contract out the airbridge, in response to unsolicited proposals, has concluded that, taking into account the operational requirement to retain the Royal Air Force TriStars, the use of military aircraft was the most cost-effective solution.
  12W
  However, as part of work into how the MOD's strategic passenger lift and air-to-air refuelling capabilities should be provided, we are currently exploring with industry (under the Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme) whether capabilities provided by the VC10 and TriStar aircraft might be replaced by a service provided under a Private Finance Initiative/Public Private Partnership venture within the 2007–09 timeframe. The Statement of Requirement for this programme includes provision of the airbridge to the Falkland Islands.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much plutonium released from dedicated military-end use under the Strategic Defence Review has been placed under safeguards; what quantities remain to be so placed; and if he will list the current locations of the plutonium re-designated as non-military. [129965]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence gave him on 14 March 2000,Official Report, columns 104–05W. Since then, a further 39 kgs of weapon grade plutonium stored at AWE Aldermaston has been transferred to Sellafield and into safeguards, making the total transferred to date 112 kgs. The remaining MOD stocks designated as no longer required for Defence purposes are currently stored at Aldermaston and will be transferred as soon as is practical.

  Former Civil Servants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) of 10 July 2000,Official Report, columns 377–78W, he will set out the (a) duties of and (b) responsibilities undertaken in his Department by (a) Professor Sir David Davies, (b) Sir Charles Masefield and (c) Mr. M. J. V. Bell in the 10 years prior to the private sector appointments listed. [130804]

  Dr. Moonie
  Professor Sir David Davies joined the Ministry of Defence on a fixed-term appointment in October 1993 as the Chief Scientific Adviser. His duties were to provide high level advice on current and future issues having a scientific content and technical implications. He chaired both the Equipment Approvals Committee, which evaluated all major defence equipment procurement, and the Defence Research Committee that had oversight of the Ministry of Defence's Research Policy and Programme. His appointment terminated on 30 March 1999.

  Sir Charles Masefield was seconded to the Ministry of Defence from British Aerospace in September 1994 to fill the appointment of Head of Defence Export Services. In this role, he was responsible for supporting British defence companies in their export activities.

  Mr. Michael Bell joined the Ministry of Defence in 1965. Between 1988 and 1992, he was Deputy Under-Secretary (Finance), the Ministry of Defence's Principal Finance Officer. He then became Deputy Under-Secretary (Defence Procurement)—later retitled Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (Support)—where he managed the Procurement Executive's support functions including personnel, finance, contracts and procurement policy. He held this appointment until he was

  13W
  seconded to British Aerospace in 1996 as their Project Director European Consolidation, a member of the company's team responsible for the development and implementation of strategy for European consolidation.

  Malaysia
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Government support was provided for British companies to attend the DSA exhibition in Malaysia in April. [128279]

  Dr. Moonie
  Consistent with the Government's policy to encourage and promote the legitimate sales of defence equipment overseas, the Ministry of Defence's Export Services Organisation carried out its usual role in support of the exhibition and marketing of UK defence industry products at DSA 2000. This included assisting the Defence Manufacturers' Association to co-ordinate the UK industrial presence and providing advice to UK firms on export markets in line with the Government's responsible policy for arms exports.

  In addition to the support provided by my own Department, a number of UK Companies exhibiting at the show were in receipt of grants under the Support for Exhibitions and Seminars Abroad scheme run by British Trade International, which is aimed at assisting companies with promotional activities at exhibitions and seminars abroad.

  Royal Squadron
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights undertaken by(a) the Queen, (b) the Prince of Wales and (c) other members of the Royal family in aircraft of the Royal Squadron in each year since 1997 were unconnected with their royal duties; and if he will make a statement. [129808]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total number of flights undertaken in aircraft of 32 (Royal) Squadron RAF not connected with royal duties is shown in the following table.

  All these flights were reimbursed and full details are in the "Grant-In-Aid for Royal Travel" Annual Reports, copies of which are in the House Library.

  Private flights undertaken by

  The Queen

  HRH The Prince of Wales

  Other members of the Royal Family

  1997–98

  0

  2

  1

  1998–99

  1

  3

  1

  1999–2000

  2

  1

  2

  DERA
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 June 2000,Official Report, column 134W, if, under his proposals, the land and buildings occupied by DERA West Freugh will transfer to the new DERA company. [130174]

  Mr. Hoon
  Under our current proposals, we envisage that the capabilities provided by West Freugh will form part of the NewDERA company. We are currently analysing the views and comments received during 14W
  consultation on our proposals and this analysis will inform the final decision on the way ahead for DERA, which we hope to be in a position to announce shortly. In principle there would be an appropriate split of land and buildings between both NewDERA and RetainedDERA in order to ensure both organisations are able to carry out the role and capabilities required of them. In transferring any assets to the private sector, our aim would be to ensure maximum return from the transaction to reflect the level of taxpayers' investment.

  Soldier Deaths (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates since 1974 on which soldiers of the Ulster Defence Regiment and Royal Irish Regiment have died during training exercises, indicating(a) where the death took place, (b) barracks in which those soldiers were stationed in Northern Ireland, (c) whether the soldiers had, during their military career, been seconded for special duties or on assignment to other regiments and (d) in each case who was responsible for the investigation of the cause of death and what their findings were. [130420]

  Mr. Spellar
  One soldier (of the Royal Irish Regiment) has died during a training exercise since 1974. The death occurred in Wainwright, Canada on 13 June 2000. The soldier was stationed in Drumadd Barracks, Armagh and was on attachment to 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards for the duration of the exercise. The incident is currently the subject of a Board of Inquiry and the findings will not be known for some time. A small number of deaths arising from natural causes while soldiers have been on annual camp exercise with their own units have not been included.

  Army (Complaints)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of complaints to the Army Board and Her Majesty the Queen were upheld in the last five years for which figures are available. [130746]

  Dr. Moonie
  A central database has been in use only since April 1997, and since that time 24 per cent. of cases to the Army Board have been upheld in whole or in part. None has been upheld by Her Majesty The Queen.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints to the Army Board and Her Majesty the Queen are being processed. [130744]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army Board is currently processing 18 cases. There are at present no petitions being considered by Her Majesty The Queen but there are 10 petitions in preparation.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of complaints rejected by the Army Board and Her Majesty the Queen were pursued in the civil courts in the last five years for which figures are available; and what percentage of the complaints so pursued were(a) successfully defended by his Department, (b) settled out of court, (c) won by the complainant and (d) dropped. [130747]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Typhoon
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are(a) the roles for which the Typhoon is specified, and (b) aircraft types which it will be replacing in the RAF. [129318]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: Typhoon is the name given by industry to the export version of Eurofighter; it is not the name for RAF aircraft. Eurofighter will, on achieving full capability, have air defence and offensive support roles. It will replace the Tornado F3 and Jaguar aircraft respectively in these roles.

  HMS Orkney
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons HMS Orkney has been towed to Devonport from Portsmouth; and which organisation or department paid for the towing. [130442]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: HMS Orkney has been towed to Devonport to enable a Docking and Hull Survey to be undertaken. This is a prerequisite for the sale of HMS Orkney to the Trinidad and Tobago Defence Force (TTDF) who will have representatives in attendance during the survey exercise.

  The Ships Support Agency, part of the Defence Logistics Organisation, has met the cost of towing the vessel and the survey exercise.

  Training Exercises
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which training exercises in the past 12 months within British waters have involved foreign submarines. [130446]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: During the past 12 months, foreign submarines have been involved in two Joint Maritime Courses (JMC), Exercise Northern Light 99, as well as weekly exercises in the South Coast Areas, in support of Operational Sea Training.

  Vessel Sales
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which vessels have been sold by his Department since 1 May 1997; and to which countries. [130449]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: The Ministry of Defence has made no actual sales of surplus Royal Navy vessels since 1 May 1997. However, the following transfers, not strictly sales, have been arranged in the period:

  Vessels

  Country

  Terms of transfer

  Four Upholder Class Conventional Submarines: HMS Upholder, Unseen, Unicorn, Ursula

  Canada

  Lease with option to buy by 2007

  Two Hunt Class Mine Counter Measure Vessels: HMS Bicester and Berkeley

  Greece

  Sold through Vosper Thornycroft

  Military Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 July 2000,Official Report,
  16W
  column 381W, on military aircraft accidents, if he will disaggregate the number of gross, culpable and serious negligence findings for the 486 accidents between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1999. [131075]

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

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 the funds budgeted for by his Department that were not spent, the budget head any underspends came from, the reason for any underspend and if underspends were carried forward into the next year's budget; and if he will make a statement. [130659]

  Mr. Spellar
  The overall underspend in 1997–98 was some £225 million and in 1998–99 it was some £74 million. I can confirm that the provisional outturn for 1999–2000 indicates an overall underspend of some £318 million. The underspends for 1997–98 and 1998–99 were carried forward into the subsequent financial year. I am confident that the same procedure will be followed for 1999–2000. The final amount carried forward will be reduced by the amount of underspend on Kosovo and Bosnia, for which my Department was given access to the Reserve.

  I will write to the hon. Member concerning the detail of the years in question and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Army Training and Recruitment Agency for the financial year 2000–01. [125578]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 July 2000, Official Report, c. 643–44W]: The Key Targets set out for the Army Training and Recruiting Agency were for the previous financial year 1999–2000 and therefore incorrect.

  The following Key Targets have been set for the financial year 2000–01:

  1. To meet the Army's requirement for 560 trained mainstream officers available to take up their first appointment within a permissible variance of 2 per cent. The 1999–2000 performance was an output of 523,

  2. To meet the Army's requirement for 10,623 soldiers available to take up their first appointment within a permissible variance of 5 per cent. The 1999–2000 performance was an output of 9,573.

  3. Achieve a 98 per cent. first time pass rate for all officers made available to undergo career or professional development training. The 1999–2000 performance was a pass rate of 99 per cent.

  4. Achieve a 96 per cent. first time rate for all soldiers made available to undergo career or professional development training. The 1999–2000 performance was a pass rate of 96.7 per cent.

  5. To achieve an overall 3 per cent. improvement in the efficiency of ATRA operations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (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; [129172]

  (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. [129158]

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

  Extradition
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for extradition of persons from(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Great Britain for (i) terrorist-related offences and (ii) non-terrorist related offences, from the Irish Republic made in each of the years (1) 1997, (2) 1998, (3) 1999 and (4) 2000 to the latest available date are outstanding; and how many persons are being sought by the United Kingdom police forces under these extradition requests. [128824]

  Mr. Ingram
  Extradition requests made by the Republic of Ireland authorities for persons in England and Wales are dealt with on a police to police basis and figures are not collated centrally.

  For Scotland figures were not collated centrally prior to 1998. In the year April 1998–99, four applications were made and in respect of which three individuals were returned to the Republic of Ireland. In the year 1999–2000, two applications have been made, both of which are still pending. All applications were in respect of non-terrorist offences.

  For Northern Ireland all the cases are non-terrorist related. The figures are as follows:

  Number of requests made still outstanding

  Number of persons still sought

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  2

  1

  2000

  2

  1

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 2000,Official Report, column 495–96W, if he will list for each of the previous three years and in the current year the number of applications for extradition to (a) Great Britain and (b) Northern Ireland which were for (i) terrorist offences and (ii) non terrorist offences; and for each category of offences in each of these years how many persons were extradited. [128859]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table provides details of the extraditions sought from the Republic of Ireland by UK police forces in the years 1997 to date. It should be noted 18W
  that the figures for England and Wales are not necessarily complete, as figures are not collated centrally, and the 1997 figures for Scotland are not available.

  Numbers of persons for which requests were made for extradition

  Sought for terrorist offences

  Number Extradited

  Sought for non-terrorist Offences

  Number extradited

  (a) From Republic of Ireland to Great Britain

  1997

  1

  0

  21

  10

  1998

  0

  0

  28

  15

  1999

  0

  0

  17

  11

  2000

  0

  0

  4

  1

  (b) From Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland

  1997

  3

  0

  5

  3

  1998

  2

  0

  4

  6

  1999

  0

  0

  6

  3

  2000

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Telephone Steering Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many agencies of his Department use touch tone telephone steering systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [129630]

  Mr. Mandelson
  None.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what the total cost was up to 30 June of the Saville inquiry into the events in Londonderry on 30 January 1972; [129131]

  (2) what sums were spent from 1 May until 30 June, on the Saville inquiry into the events in Londonderry on 30 January 1972, broken down by (a) salaries of staff, (b) travel and subsistence, (c) accommodation, (d) hearing/ witness costs, (e) fees to solicitors representing those killed, and others, (f) fees to barristers representing those killed, and others, (g) IT/communications and (h) miscellaneous, including general office expenditure. [129130]

  Mr. Ingram
  The figures are not yet available in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as they are ready.

  Opus Dei
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons he has proposed that members of Opus Dei should declare their membership on wishing to be recruited into the proposed Police Service of Northern Ireland; and whether existing members of the RUC who are members of Opus Dei will be called upon to reveal their membership. [130501]

  Mr. Ingram
  The organisations listed in the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill are those about which there is public concern about police membership—including Opus Dei.

  Serving members of the RUC who are members of Opus Dei will be required to register their membership when the provision in the Bill is brought into force.

  Barristers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 778W, on banisters, if he will (a) make a statement on correspondence with the Lord Chancellor and (b) place copies in the Library. [124105]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the relevant period there were two items of correspondence. The first was a letter of 25 May 1998 in which the Lord Chancellor set out proposals for having the responsibility for the appointments of Queen's Counsel in his office. The second was a response of 30 May from the then Secretary of State in which she agreed to the Lord Chancellor's proposals. However, both letters contained personal opinions on particular policy issues and copies have not been placed in the Library, in accordance with Part II, Section 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the UN Secretary-General regarding the recent UN Assessment Team's visit to Sierra Leone. [127653]

  Mr. Hain
  We understand that the Assessment Team visited Sierra Leone between 2–8 June. We continue to support all efforts by the UN Secretary-General to improve UNAMSIL's efficiency and are currently engaged in seeking agreement on how to proceed with fellow members of the Security Council and UN officials.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the UNAMSIL's authorised maximum strength is; how many UN troops(a) are and (b) were deployed prior to 8 May to Sierra Leone. [127654]

  Mr. Hain
  UNSCR 1299 of 11 May 2000 increased UNAMSIL's authorised strength to 13,100. The present strength is very slightly below this but we expect it to be reached shortly. Prior to 8 May UNAMSIL's ceiling was 11,360.

  Drugs Trade
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of his Department to counter the drugs trade. [130025]

  Mr. Battle
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office lead in co-ordinating and prioritising the UK's international activities to reduce the availability of illicit drugs in the UK in close co-operation with the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell. The UK plays an active role in international forums dealing with the threat posed by illicit drugs, including in the UN, G8 and EU. Last year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spent over £6.5 million on international counter-drugs activities.

  Travel Advice
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries on which his Department gives travel advice to the general public. [130525]

  Mr. Hain
  At present we issue notices for 163 countries. A list of these countries showing the date on which the notice came into effect is shown in the table. The full notices can be seen on the FCO website at: www.fco.gov.uk

  Country

  Date of issue during 2000

  Afghanistan

  4 July

  Albania

  12 June

  Algeria

  5 May

  Angola

  31 May

  Anguilla

  29 June

  Argentina

  3 July

  Armenia

  19 May

  Australia

  9 June

  Austria

  19 June

  Azerbaijan

  25 May

  Bahamas

  13 June

  Bahrain

  13 June

  Bangledesh

  16 June

  Belarus

  20 April

  Belgium

  28 June

  Belize

  10 May

  Benin

  24 January

  Bhutan

  23 May

  Bolivia

  2 May

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  28 March

  Botswana

  3 March

  Brazil

  31 May

  Brunei

  13 June

  Bulgaria

  3 March

  Burkina Faso

  28 June

  Burma

  25 May

  Burundi

  17 May

  Cambodia

  15 May

  Cameroon

  7 June

  Central African Republic

  7 June

  Chad

  7 June

  Chile

  28 June

  China

  20 April

  Colombia

  27 June

  Comoros

  5 July

  The Republic of the Congo

  22 March

  The Democratic Republic of the Congo

  30 June

  Costa Rica

  3 April

  Cote d'Ivoire

  6 July

  Croatia

  3 April

  Cuba

  7 July

  Czech Republic

  8 June

  Djibouti

  23 June

  Dominica Republic

  8 June

  East Timor

  9 March

  Ecuador

  10 April

  Egypt

  18 May

  E1 Salvador

  28 June

  Equatorial Guinea

  8 June

  Eritrea

  23 June

  Estonia

  23 March

  Ethiopia

  23 June

  Fiji

  7 July

  France

  5 July

  Gabon

  7 June

  The Gambia

  6 June

  Georgia

  25 May

  Ghana

  2 June

  Greece

  8 June

  21W

  Country

  Date of issue during 2000

  Guatemala

  16 May

  Guinea

  13 June

  Guinea Bissau

  13 June

  Guyana

  13 June

  Haiti

  17 May

  Honduras

  4 April

  Hong Kong and Macau

  31 May

  Hungary

  12 June

  Iceland

  23 June

  India

  19 June

  Indonesia

  12 June

  Iran

  31 March

  Iraq

  22 May

  Israel and the Palestinian Authority

  26 May

  Italy

  8 June

  Jamaica

  12 April

  Japan

  17 April

  Jordan

  30 March

  Kazakhastan

  17 March

  Kenya

  23 June

  Kiribati

  14 February

  Democratic People's Republic of Korea

  9 February

  Kuwait

  25 May

  Kyrgyzstan

  3 July

  Laos

  5 July

  Latvia

  9 June

  Lebanon

  2 June

  Lesotho

  19 June

  Liberia

  26 May

  Libya

  7 June

  Lithuania

  4 April

  Macedonia

  7 July

  Madagascar

  5 July

  Malawi

  8 June

  Malaysia

  24 May

  Maldives

  25 May

  Mali

  13 June

  Malta

  27 June

  Mauritius

  28 April

  Mexico

  29 June

  Moldova

  12 June

  Mongolia

  8 June

  Monteserrat

  19 May

  Morocco

  26 May

  Mozambique

  27 April

  Namibia

  18 April

  Nepal

  15 May

  Netherlands

  9 June

  New Zealand

  5 July

  Nicaragua

  5 June

  Niger

  25 February

  Nigeria

  26 June

  Oman

  12 April

  Pakistan

  16 June

  Panama

  30 June

  Papua New Guinea

  19 June

  Peru

  26 June

  Philippines

  22 June

  Poland

  7 April

  Portugal

  16 June

  Qatar

  29 March

  Romania

  8 June

  Russia

  17 June

  Rwanda

  16 June

  Samoa

  15 March

  Saudi Arabia

  19 June

  Senegal

  13 June

  Seychelles

  29 March

  Sierra Leone

  28 June

  Singapore

  12 June

  Republic of Slovakia

  15 May

  Republic of Slovenia

  12 June

  Solomon Islands

  5 June

  22W

  Country

  Date of issue during 2000

  Somalia

  25 May

  South Africa

  23 June

  Spain

  28 June

  Sri Lanka

  16 May

  Sudan

  16 May

  Swaziland

  17 April

  Syria

  19 June

  Taiwan

  13 June

  Tajikistan

  3 July

  Tanzania

  11 April

  Tailand

  5 July

  China (Tibet)

  25 May

  Togo

  9 June

  Trinidad and Tobago

  30 March

  Tunisia

  20 April

  Turkey

  9 June

  Turkmenistan

  3 July

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  26 May

  Uganda

  21 June

  Ukraine

  16 May

  United Arab Emirates

  25 May

  United States

  25 May

  Uruguay

  28 March

  Uzbekistan

  3 July

  Venezuela

  8 June

  Vietnam

  28 June

  Western Sahara

  19 June

  Yemen

  14 April

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia (inc Kosovo) and Montenegro)

  19 May

  Zambia

  26 April

  Zimbabwe

  7 July

  IT
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the cost savings for(a) his Department as a whole and (b) embassies and high commissions, of the use of IT, including e-mail, in the past year. [130123]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: In the past year the benefit to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office resulting from prior investment in IT is estimated at (a) £20 million for whole Department, of which (b) over £11 million was overseas.

  These figures include new cost savings last year of £0.5 million in the UK messenger service, resulting in part from the use of e-mail. They do not include savings which will accrue once our new Information and Communications Technology infrastructure is in place.

  Overseas Prisoners (British Nationals)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British nationals were in prison overseas on 1 July; and if he will list the country and the offence committed in each case. [130526]

  Mr. Hain
  As of 1 July, we were aware of 2,750 British nationals in prison overseas. Around 40 per cent. of these prisoners were convicted of drugs related offences.

  To list the countries and offences for which each prisoner was convicted would incur disproportionate costs.

  British Council
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase the Government grant to the British Council. [131058]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Council has a good case for increased funding. In the current Spending Review my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been pressing for a significant increase in funding for the Council, as for the BBC World Service and the FCO as a whole.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Government grant-in-aid was to the British Council in Greece in(a) 1995–96 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available, together with the percentage change in the grant-in-aid to the British Council in Greece in real terms over the same period. [131055]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides the British Council with grant-in-aid funding for its activities world-wide; the Council decides on its distribution, in consultation with this Department. In 1995–96 the Council allocated £1.9 million of the grant-in-aid to Greece; in 1999–2000 the figure is £1.4 million. This represents a decrease in real terms of 37 per cent. The total British Council budget in Greece in recent years has been boosted by substantial revenue-earning activity, chiefly in administering examinations and teaching English.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the contribution made towards his Department's objectives by the British Council in Greece. [131056]

  Mr. Hain
  The primary focus of the British Council's work in Greece is on co-operation in education and promoting the United Kingdom as a dynamic, modern partner. This is fully in line with the FCO's objectives.

  Diplomatic Cars
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list HM missions overseas that maintain a(a) Rolls-Royce, (b) Daimler and (c) Bentley motor car. [131057]

  Mr. Battle
  There are currently 11 Rolls-Royce cars and four Daimlers in use in Her Majesty's missions overseas.

  They are detailed as listed:

  Post

  Make

  Location

  Dhaka

  Daimler

  At Post

  Gibraltar

  Daimler

  At Post

  Islamabad

  Daimler

  At Post

  Kuala Lumpur

  Daimler

  At Post

  Berlin

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  Brussels

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  Cairo

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  Hong Kong

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  New Delhi

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  New York

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  Peking

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  Riyadh

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  Singapore

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  Tokyo

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

  Washington

  Rolls-Royce

  At Post

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [129481]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department currently has no members of staff paying reduced rates of National Insurance contributions, and has had no such staff since 1989. The policy would be to follow the Inland Revenue guidance note if such circumstances were to arise.

  Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what definition of ethnicity the Appointments Commission will use in taking forward the proposals by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords to make the House of Lords more representative of the United Kingdom population. [130630]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The present Appointments Commission was appointed in accordance with the Government's proposals in "Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords" (Cm 4183, January 1999) and is unconnected with the Royal Commission's proposals. It will publish the details of how it intends to fulfil its remit in due course.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Call Centres
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to(a) monitor and (b) improve working conditions and health and safety standards for call centre industry employees. [130200]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have been asked to reply

  The responsibility for monitoring and ensuring appropriate health and safety standards in the call centre industry rests with local authorities. Local authorities enforce the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and other relevant statutory provisions made under it, in call centre premises.

  HSE has commissioned the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to conduct further detailed study of call centre working conditions. This will be reporting in spring 2001 and will result in further guidance to local authorities on the enforcement of health and safety law in these premises.

  Internet Regulation
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from industry in the last three months concerning the regulation of the Internet. [130939]
  25W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry receives regular representations on various aspects of internet regulation. In the last three months, the main topics have been domain names and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.

  The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport invited comments by 23 June from industry and others on the Communications White Paper, which will consider the issue of offensive and illegal content on the internet.

  Import Tariffs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level is of each import tariff imposed on British exports to the United States of America. [130849]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, some data are available on average tariffs applicable to imports of industrial products from all Most Favoured Nation trading partners following the Uruguay Round negotiations which took place during 1986–93. The simple average of all US industrial tariff rates (excluding petroleum products) after the Uruguay Round Agreement was 3.9 per cent.

  In the case of agricultural products, tariffs are not the main means of protecting domestic producers from overseas competition, and any available tariff data are likely to give a misleading indication of the openness of the market in question.

  Source:

  WTO Integrated Database.

  Miners' Compensation Claims
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons Mr. Onllwyn Glyndwr Williams, a constituent, is not yet in receipt of his compensation from British Coal; and if he will make a statement. [130295]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Mr. Williams underwent spirometry testing, the first stage of the assessment process, at home on 1 December last year. In light of the results the Department made Mr. Williams an expedited offer, in full and final settlement of his claim, which he chose to reject and he has since elected to proceed through the medical testing, the second stage of the assessment process. IRISC, the Department's claim handling agents, subsequently forwarded the necessary forms to Mr. Williams' solicitor. The forms have been returned and once Mr. Williams' medical records have been collected an appointment will be made for a respiratory specialist to attend his home to carry out the assessment.

  As with most claimants who choose to reject an expedited offer Mr. Williams received a further interim payment of compensation in addition to that which he had originally received in June 1998.
  26W
  To date the Department has received nearly 110,000 claims from former miners and their families. Of these some 22,516 claimants have received interim or full and final payments in settlement of general damages totalling over £64 million.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been paid from 1970 to date to members of the legal and medical professions in connection with the miners' compensation claims against British Coal; and if he will make a statement. [130294]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Prior to 1996 British Coal Corporation did not make a provision in their annual reports for personal injury and health claims. In their last report before the Department assumed responsibility for the health liabilities the Corporation made a provision of £34 million, as they considered there was considerable uncertainty with regard to both the Corporation's liability and the potential damages.

  Since assuming the liabilities in January 1998 some £12.5 million has been incurred by the Department in relation principally to Counsel, external solicitors, medical experts and medical assessments. In addition some £23.3 million has paid in legal fees and trial costs to solicitors acting on behalf of claimants.

  Joint Infrastructure Fund
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much has been made available to higher education through the Joint Infrastructure Fund; what proportion of bids have been successful to date; and what estimate he has made of the overall cost of preparing bids on the part of the institutions involved. [130088]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: The Joint Infrastructure Fund (JIF) has made 109 awards worth just under £600 million to 39 universities. The final two rounds of awards, with a total value of £150 million, will be decided in November 2000 and March 2001.

  So far, in Rounds 1 to 3 of JIF, the Wellcome Trust and the Research Councils have received around 550 applications totalling approximately £3.2 billion. The success rate is in the region of 20 per cent. by number of bids and amount bid for.

  I have not made an estimate of the overall cost of preparing bids on the part of the institutions involved. This information can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants the coal industry has received as a result of the measures announced in his oral statement of 17 April 2000,Official Report, columns 697–99. [130307]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: The statement made it clear that the support was linked to the lifting of the stricter gas consents policy.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which companies manufacturing cars in the United Kingdom have received regional selective assistance since May 1998. [130308]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: Since May 1998, the following companies in Great Britain have received payments of Regional Selective Assistance:

  Rover Group

  Jaguar Cars

  Peugeot Motor Co

  Vauxhall Motors Ltd.

  Ford Motor Co Ltd.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which companies manufacturing cars in the United Kingdom have received(a) offers and (b) indicative offers of Regional Selective Assistance since May 1997; [130309]

  (2) what was the amount of (a) offers and (b) indicative offers of Regional Selective Assistance made since May 1997 to companies manufacturing cars in the United Kingdom. [130310]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: Since 1 May 1997, 10 companies in Great Britain have been offered Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) totalling £245.7 million. This includes £129 million offered to the Rover Group. One offer was conditional on the approval of the new Assisted Areas Map by the EC. However, for reasons of commercial confidentiality details of individual offers cannot be given until the first payment of grant has been made. Three companies have received some payment of grant and are shown in the table with the amount of RSA offered:

  £ million

  RSA offered

  Rover Group

  22.5

  Jaguar Cars

  40

  Peugeot Motor Co

  2.0

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help he is giving to the shipbuilding industry. [130760]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department's strategy is to assist the industry to improve its competitiveness. In July 1998 my Department established the Shipbuilding Forum whose membership comprises representatives of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry, trades unions, equipment suppliers and customers, both private and public sector. Also involved are the National Training Organisation for the marine sector and relevant Government Departments. The Forum's terms of reference are to consider the current situation of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry and how to improve its competitiveness so as to increase its share of the European market, leading to increased output, profitability and employment.
  28W
  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired a meeting on 13 July where a number of Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, met leading members of the shipbuilding industry and trades unions to discuss the further steps necessary to build a world class shipbuilding industry.

  Following that meeting, the Government will take forward discussions on the issues raised on skills, training, productivity and financial support and then present them to the Shipbuilding Forum meeting in the autumn.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on 4 July 2000,Official Report, columns 137–38W, concerning tests to assess the medical benefits of cannabis, from what source the cannabis extracts will be obtained. [130689]

  Ms Hewitt
  The source of cannabis extracts are plants legally grown in Switzerland for scientific purposes by a not-for-profit organisation. From there the plants are taken to Germany for extraction and encapsulation of the cannabinoid. Importation of the extract requires a Home Office licence and this has been applied for by the trial co-ordinator.

  Small Firms (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms operating in the Greater London area have a labour force of fewer than(a) 50 people and (b) 25 people. [130522]

  Ms Hewitt
  There were 219,800 firms with fewer than 50 employees registered in the Greater London area at the start of 1998, the latest year for which figures are available. Of these 215,000 had fewer than 25 employees.

  In addition, there are an estimated 343,000 businesses without employees in the Greater London area.

  Competition Commissioners
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is regarding attendance of Competition Commissioners at party political fund-raising functions. [130698]

  Mr. Byers
  The Competition Commission is an independent body and its commissioners are not civil servants.

CABINET OFFICE

  Crop Contamination
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Genetic Modification Information Unit was consulted about the contamination of Hyola oilseed rape seeds; and if she will make a statement. [128055]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The GM communications unit was told of the GM-contamination of oilseed rape on 18 April, the day after Advanta first told MAFF and DETR officials of the issue, and the day before I myself was informed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to reduce the reliance of lone parents on social security benefits. [129340]

  Angela Eagle
  This Government have introduced a raft of measures to help lone parents move from benefit dependency into work, and to help make work pay.

  These include the New Deal for Lone Parents; the Lone Parent's Benefit Run-On; the National Childcare Strategy; the National Minimum Wage and the Working Families Tax Credit.

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [129353]

  Angela Eagle
  Since the start of NDLP 154,731 lone parents have taken part, 16,294 have entered education or training and 54,241 have obtained jobs—over 1 in 3 of those participating. Independent evaluation of the prototype areas found a reduction in the number of lone parents on Income Support in NDLP areas compared to comparison areas.

  We are supporting the New Deal with a raft of measures to help lone parents move into work including the Lone Parent's Benefit Run-On, the National Childcare Strategy, and Working Families Tax Credit.

  From April 2001 (and in three pathfinder areas from this autumn) we will be introducing work-focused interviews for lone parents with school age children to ensure that they are aware of all the help and opportunities that are available for them.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the New Deal for Lone Parents, including the costs involved. [129355]

  Angela Eagle
  The New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) programme was introduced in July 1997 in eight prototype areas and extended nationally to all Income Support claimants from October 1998. The prototype phase cost £7.9 million, including set-up costs, and the national programme has provisionally cost £60.1 million (to March 2000). Independent evaluation of the NDLP prototypes estimated that NDLP was recovering 90 per cent. of its total costs and more than covered its on-going running costs.

  From April 2001 we will be introducing a £15 weekly training premium for lone parents moving into work-focused training through NDLP; increasing the earnings disregard in income-related benefits; and providing more help with child care for those moving into part-time work. We will also be introducing work-focused interviews for lone parents on Income Support with a youngest child of school age to ensure that they are aware of all the measures that we have introduced to help them move into work.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [129336]
  30W
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the performance of the New Deal for Lone Parents. [129327]

  Angela Eagle
  Since the start of the New Deal for Lone Parents, 154,731 lone parents have taken part, 16,294 have entered education or training and 54,241 have obtained jobs—over 1 in 3 of those participating.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many initial invitation letters for the New Deal for Lone Parents were sent out between October 1998 and April 2000. [130229]

  Angela Eagle
  The total number of initial invitation letters issued between October 1998 and April 2000 was 489,481. From April 2001, we will be introducing compulsory work-focused interviews for all lone parents on Income Support whose youngest child is of school age.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under the New Deal for Lone Parents, how many lone parents in each month between February and April 2000(a) attended an initial interview and (b) found work, broken down into those whose youngest child was (i) over and (ii) under five years and three months. [130228]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Number of lone parents who attended an initial interview and number who obtained jobs

  Over 5 years 3 months

  Under 5 years 3 months

  Number attending initial interview with a youngest child

  February

  4,390

  4,360

  March

  5,190

  5,340

  April

  3,880

  3,030

  Number of jobs obtained by lone parents with a youngest child

  February

  1,650

  1,270

  March

  2,470

  1,920

  April

  1,870

  1,710

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it a requirement that the alleged father of a child in disputed paternity cases should be required by the CSA to take a second blood test if the mother requests it. [129341]

  Angela Eagle
  The CSA cannot require non-resident parents to take a blood test and we have no plans to enable them to do so. In the new child support scheme, alleged parents who refuse to take a DNA test will be presumed to be the parents of the child. If the parent with care refuses to accept the outcome of a DNA test she can apply to court for a declaration of parentage that will be binding on the CSA.

  Benefit Sanctions
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about depriving claimants who are in breach of community service orders of their benefits. [129343]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have received a number of representations from a number of national organisations, members of the public and Members of
  31W
  Parliament, relating to the timing of the benefit sanction and the fiscal implications of the measure. We have considered carefully these opinions while designing our main policy of linking entitlement to benefits with the discharge of social responsibilities.

  Pensioners
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to link pensioners' incomes to average incomes. [129344]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the last 20 years pensioners' incomes have grown on average by 60 per cent. This exceeds the growth in average earnings.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received from pensioner organisations about the Government's policy on the basic state pension. [129348]

  Mr. Rooker
  Further to my written answer to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 19 June 2000,Official Report, column 79W, we have received about 1,000 more letters about the level of the basic pension, some of them from pensioner organisations. However, we have not kept a separate count of the latter.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the value in percentage terms of state old age pensions as against the projected level of average earnings in financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02. [129352]

  Mr. Rooker
  This information is contained on page 20 of the Government Actuary's Report on the Quinquennial Review for the period ending 5 April 1995, "National Insurance Fund Long Term Financial Estimates", Cm 4406, published July 1999, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to eliminate pensioner poverty in Chorley. [129329]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the course of this Parliament, an extra £6.5 billion over and above inflation will be spent on pensioners. Of this, half is going to help the poorest third of pensioners, primarily through increases to the Minimum Income Guarantee and winter fuel payments.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the minimum income guarantee and winter heating allowance are available to British pensioners living in other EU countries. [129736]

  Angela Eagle
  The minimum income guarantee and the winter fuel allowance are funded from general taxation, not from social security contributions. Payment is only made to qualifying persons who are resident in the UK.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of policies implemented by the Government on child poverty; and what further steps he proposes to take to reduce child poverty. [129345]

  Mr. Bayley
  Our £7 billion a year tax and benefit package will lift 1.2 million children out of poverty by 2001. We are committed to eradicating child poverty in 32W
  20 years, and aim to do this through a combination of measures which will reduce worklessness, and reform the tax and benefit system. But poverty is more than just low income. So we are also implementing a wide-ranging programme of action including raising standards in schools, improving children's health, and regenerating local areas. We will report on progress on all fronts in our second annual report on poverty and social exclusion, due to be published later this year.

  "Winning the Generation Game"
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what responses he has received following the publication of the performance and innovation unit's report, "Winning the Generation Game". [129346]

  Mr. Rooker
  The report has been broadly welcomed and commentators have been supportive of what we are doing to improve opportunities for older people.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost of social security spending on welfare was on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 2000. [129347]

  Mr. Rooker
  Real terms spending on social security benefits and their administration and on Working Families Tax credit in 1999–00 is estimated to be £103.7 billion. The equivalent figure for 1996–97, the last year of the previous Government, is £104.1 billion.

  Benefit Payments (Post Office)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the value of benefits paid through the Post Office was in 1999. [129349]

  Mr. Rooker
  The value of social security benefits paid through the post office by order book and girocheque during 1999 was £56 billion.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the administration of housing benefit. [129350]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend to reform Housing Benefit to improve customer service through a modernised, streamlined system, to tackle fraud and error, and to reduce the barriers to work.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is conducting an on-going programme of inspections of local authorities, encouraging them to develop action plans to improve administration and tackle fraud and error. Best practice guidance, developed through this programme, has been made available to all local authorities. The current round of inspections focuses on the 30 local authorities with the highest Housing Benefit expenditure. We have made it abundantly clear to all council Chief Executives that where the inspectorate finds evidence of persistent

  33W
  failings, we will use our powers to direct the authority on the standards it is to meet and the timescales for achieving them.

  We have set Best Value performance indicators from this April designed to ensure that authorities provide their communities with a faster, more accurate Housing Benefit service which is more secure against fraud, and which provides value for money and takes account of the views and needs of clients. Authorities are required to set challenging targets against these indicators and demonstrate that they are achieving year on year improvements in the standard of service they provide. And we are making better use of IT to speed up administration and reduce the scope for fraud and error. By this autumn, nearly all of the 20 million forms currently sent by the Benefits Agency to local authorities through the post will be sent electronically, significantly reducing the time taken just to transfer information.

  We have already made significant progress; our Housing Green Paper, currently out for consultation, sets out how we can take this further.

  Housing Benefit recipients in deregulated tenancies by Housing Benefit scheme, Great Britain, May 1998

  Total private deregulated tenants

  Assessed under LRR scheme1

  Assessed under SRR scheme

  Total

  803,000

  542,000

  32,000

  Total restricted under scheme

  —

  191,000

  10,000

  As a percentage of all private deregulated tenants

  —

  24

  1

  As a percentage of private deregulated tenants assessed under each scheme

  —

  35

  31

  1 January 1996 and October 1997

  Notes:

  1. Information refers to the number of benefit units.

  2. The figures are rounded to the nearest thousand and the percentages are to the nearest whole number.

  3. Information is in respect of tenants on Housing Benefit living in the deregulated private rented sector.

  4. We do not centrally collect data on contractual rents neither do we record whether the rent is exceptionally high or significantly high because the local authority is required to use the lowest of the determinations made by the rent officer to calculate the rent for Housing Benefit purposes. They therefore record the figure rather than the determination to which it relates.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample, taken on the second Thursday of May 1998.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of winter fuel payments on pensioners. [129351]

  Angela Eagle
  Winter fuel payments were introduced in the winter of 1997–98, to alleviate worries older people might have about finding the money to meet the higher fuel bills which winter brings.

  In each of the three winters of the scheme so far, around 10 million people have benefited from the payments, which will increase from £100 to £150 for each eligible household from this winter. As a result of extending the scheme to men and women aged 60, the number of people eligible will increase by up to 1.5 million this winter, with as many as 1.9 million people eligible for backdated payments.
  34W
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on the performance of IT NET in the delivery of Islington's Housing Benefit contract. [129334]

  Angela Eagle
  I am aware of reports on the administration of Housing Benefit in Islington and of my hon. Friend's concerns about this issue. The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is currently carrying out an inspection of Islington's benefit service and has received representations on the real problems that the borough and many people claiming benefit are facing. We will decide what further action may be necessary in the light of the inspectorate's findings.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of private tenants claiming Housing Benefit have had their benefit payments restricted to below the level of the rent payable due to(a) local reference rent restrictions, (b) single room rent restrictions, (c) exceptionally high rent determinations and (d) significantly high rent restrictions in the last year for which figures are available. [130243]

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

  With nearly £4 billion committed to provide winter fuel payments over the lifetime of this Parliament, we have ensured that today's elderly do not have to worry about turning up their heating when it is cold.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what impact the working families tax credit has had on reducing child poverty. [129354]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on 22 June 2000,Official Report, column 448.

  Discrimination at Work
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with employers' representatives about ending discrimination against older people in the workplace. [129356]
  35W
  Mr. Rooker
  We have discussed tackling age discrimination in the workplace with individual employers and a wide range of expert representative organisations. We hope to meet employers' representatives later in the year.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to increase the financial security of people who have had to retire early; and if he will make a statement. [129357]

  Mr. Rooker
  Income related benefits such as the minimum income guarantee are available to people, from age 60, who have had to retire early and have insufficient resources to provide for their own financial security.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have responded to the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign; and how many new payments have been made. [129358]

  Mr. Bayley
  Since the end of May, there have been 123,000 responses to the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign.

  Preliminary details on the number of successful claims will be available later in the summer.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners qualifying for the minimum income guarantee; and what the most recent uptake figures are for(a) Swansea West, (b) the City of Swansea and (c) Wales. [130563]

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

  Minimum Income Guarantee pensioners by Parliamentary constituency, Government office region, and unitary authority—Swansea, February 2000

  Thousand

  Area

  Number of claimants

  Swansea West PC

  3.3

  Swansea UA

  8.8

  Wales GOR

  93.3

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and therefore subject to sampling error.

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

  3. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where the claimant and/or their partner is aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 2000.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2000,Official Report, column 343W, on the minimum income guarantee,
  36W
  if he will estimate the total cost of the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign; and if he will make a statement. [130702]

  Mr. Bayley
  We estimate that around £15 million will be spent over the course of the campaign.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made on encouraging pensioners to take up the minimum income guarantee since the launch of his Department's publicity campaign. [129323]

  Mr. Bayley
  Since the end of May, there have been 123,000 responses to the minimum income guarantee take-up campaign.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2000,Official Report, column 343, on the minimum income guarantee, if he will estimate how many of the 35,000 claim packs issued have so far produced successful claims. [130703]

  Mr. Bayley
  Pensioners receiving the minimum income guarantee claim packs have one month in which to complete and return them. Information on the results of the first wave of claims will be available later in the summer.

  133,000 responses have been received so far and 87,000 claim packs have been issued.

  Benefits (Backdating)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received recently concerning the backdating of benefits; and if he will make a statement. [129335]

  Mr. Bayley
  The most recent representation concerning the backdating of benefits I have received, has been a letter from my hon. Friend in relation to linked benefit claims.

  Carers (Pensions)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the impact of pensions reform on long-term carers. [129342]

  Mr. Rooker
  Our proposed State Second Pension will help some 2 million carers a year build up entitlement to a second tier pension for the first time.

  Each qualifying year of caring will mean about £1 a week extra pension in today's terms. So the greatest gains will go to long-term carers.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [128980]
  37W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is as follows:

  The respective car and commercial vehicle manufacturers whose products comprise the Department's motor fleet

  Car manufacturer

  Carbodies

  Citroen

  Daewoo

  Fiat

  Ford

  Hyundai

  Lancia

  Nissan

  Peugeot

  Renault

  Rover

  Seat

  Toyota

  Vauxhall

  Volkswagen

  Volvo

  Commercial vehicle manufacturer

  Toyota

  Vauxhall

  Mitsubishi

  Renault

  Bedford

  Citroen

  Fiat

  Ford

  Leyland

  Volkswagen

  Mercedes.

  From April 2000, following an extensive tendering process with all the major manufacturers which began in August 1999, a new three year purchase contract for the Department and Inland Revenue, but available to other government Departments, has been negotiated and awarded to six manufacturers (Ford, Vauxhall, Peugeot, Fiat, Nissan and Citroen). It is expected that all future purchases, both for cars and light commercial vehicles, will be made from this framework contract and will be based on available discount at the time of purchase.

  At the present time, the Department does not have any long-term lease arrangements for these vehicles.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reports of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate have been published in respect of(a) local councils and (b) other organisations, in Scotland. [130297]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) reports on the administration of Social Security benefits by local authorities and seeks to drive up standards of administration.

  To date, we have published eight reports following BFI inspections of Housing and Council Tax Benefit administration in local authorities in Scotland.

  BFI has not published reports on any other organisations in Scotland.

  Informal Economy
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations made in the report by Lord Grabiner QC on The Informal Economy. [131151]

  Mr. Darling
  Lord Grabiner's report made a number of useful recommendations that the Government are committed to implement. A confidential telephone helpline has been launched to provide advice on tax and benefits to people who want to put their affairs in order. We are extending the tightened procedures for allocating National Insurance numbers to the rest of the country. We are also taking steps to deny benefit to people who have been convicted twice of benefit fraud—"two strikes and you're out".

  An important recommendation was that the Government should make greater use of information from private sector sources. Today I am publishing a consultation document on how we can better check claims in the fight against fraud. The public and all interested parties will have three months to respond. Copies of the consultation document have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Exceptional Hardship Fund
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many applications were made for housing benefit exceptional hardship payments in each local authority area in England and Wales(a) in total and (b) from households with children; and, in each case, what proportion were accepted, in each of the last three years; [129693]

  (2) what proportion of the exceptional hardship fund was unspent in each local authority in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [129694]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for exceptional hardship payments were made by households on income support or incapacity benefit; and, of these, how many were accepted, in each of the last three years. [129695]

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

  The number of awards of Housing Benefit exceptional hardship payments made for each of the last three years for which data are available

  Year

  Number

  1996–97

  10,096

  1997–98

  19,705

  1998–99

  25,177

  Remote Terminal Access
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's study of remote access terminal usage. [130713]
  39W
  Angela Eagle
  There has been no specific study of local authority usage of Remote Access Terminals (RATs). However during the period April 1999 to March 2000 over three million enquiries were made via RATs. The first wave of the Department's Local Authority Omnibus Survey, published in April 2000, established that 80 per cent. of local authorities believed that RATs had made a positive contribution to the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by his Department in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of (i) goods and services, (ii) a valid invoice and (iii) other agreed payment terms. [130038]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the written answer from the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, on 13 July 2000, Official Report, column 621W.

  Money Purchase Pension Fund
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the size of a money purchase pension fund required to purchase(a) a level and (b) an indexed annuity equivalent to the difference between the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee for (i) a woman aged 60 years, (ii) a man aged 65 years and (iii) a married couple with a basic pension eligibility earned through a single partner. [130799]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  The capital sum required to purchase an annuity to provide an annual income equalling the difference between the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee in 2000–01 based on the annuity rates available in July 2000

  £

  Level annuity

  Indexed annuity

  Woman aged 60

  7,600

  11,100

  Man aged 65

  6,100

  8,000

  Married couple, both aged 65

  9,000

  12,500

  Note

  Figures rounded to the nearest £100

  Anyone considering taking out an Occupational Pension would want to consider the State Second Pension and SERPS.

  Inland Revenue (Staff Transfers)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff have been transferred to the Inland Revenue as a result of the transfer of policy and other responsibility for(a) pension credits, (b) the state second pension, (c) stakeholder pensions, (d) pensions forecasting, (e) incapacity benefit changes and (f) bereavement benefit changes; and how many such staff remain working for his Department. [130822]

  Mr. Rooker
  Responsibility for the specific areas mentioned has not transferred to the Inland Revenue, nor, therefore, have any staff.

  PFI Projects
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what clawback mechanisms exist under private finance initiative contracts within his Department in respect of contingencies other than refinancing; and if he will place copies of each private finance initiative contract in the Library. [130262]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: The PRIME (Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate) contract has numerous clawback mechanisms where gains, profits and savings are shared between the Department and Trillium, the PRIME contractor.

  The Department receives: one quarter of savings from the deferral or avoidance of maintenance over a three year period but does not share in higher than planned costs; half of the utility cost savings achieved against an annual target set by a joint Departmental/Trillium liaison committee; half the savings from contribution in lieu of rates (business rates from 1 April 2000) negotiated by Trillium and 90 per cent. in following years until a further saving is made, when the base CILOR year is reset; 20 per cent. of savings derived from changes in contractor's service methods; 50 per cent. of savings in landlord's service charges on rented properties; 50 per cent. of development proceeds from disposed properties, after deduction of a fixed developer's profit, costs and the value that Trillium had agreed for the property with the Department. The Department may seek to recover a share of any windfall gain arising during the first five years of the contract, after either a sale of the rights of more than half of the net cashflow of the project or the flotation of more than 25 per cent. of Trillium. The Department may also seek to recover a share of any windfall profits arising during the first five years of the contract, where the net cashflow to Trillium's owners exceeds a predetermined level compared with the original expectation.

  Treasury Taskforce Policy Statement No. 5 (Provision of Information to Parliament) sets out best practice in relation to Departments' obligations to disclose information to Parliament. This approach has been agreed with the National Audit Office. The Department has not found it necessary to deposit additional information in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the net present cost is of each project undertaken in his Department under the private finance initiative; what the value is of their public sector comparators in(a) pre-risk and (b) risk-adjusted terms; what risks have been identified as having been transferred; and if he will place information on other relevant costs for each private finance initiative project in the Library. [130248]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: The cost of the PRIME (Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate) deal over the 20 year life of the contract is £2.008 billion (using the Government's real discount rate of 6 per cent.). This is £560 million less than the cost of continuing public sector provision. The bidding process established that the gap between the cost of the public sector comparator and the bids from all three consortia were such that the pricing of risk transfer was

  41W
  not a factor in demonstrating value for money to the taxpayer in this instance. Other relevant costs on PRIME may be found in the National Audit Office report "The PRIME Project: The Transfer of the Social Security estate to the private sector HC370 Session 1998–99" which was presented to the House of Commons and subsequently published on 23 April 1999. The NAO report also identified some 16 areas of risk as having been transferred to Trillium, the PRIME contractor.

  Benefit Discontinuance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for(a) Disability Living Allowance and (b) Attendance Allowance have been (i) refused and (ii) stopped because the claimant lives in a local authority owned or managed residential home in each year since 1997. [130409]

  Mr. Bayley
  Withdrawal of benefit in these situations is based on the principle, established since the beginning of the Social Security system in 1948, that funding to meet a specific need should not be provided from more than one public source at the same time. These rules have applied to Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance since the benefits were introduced.

  Figures for homes owned or managed by local authorities are not available separately from homes funded generally by local authorities or the National Health Service. Such figures as are available for Disability Living Allowance are in the table. No equivalent figures are centrally available for Attendance Allowance, since this may be stopped by local offices where payment of Attendance Allowance is combined with other benefits, in particular Retirement Pension.

  Numbers of cases where Disability Living Allowance was refused or stopped because the claimant was in a residential care or nursing home

  Year

  Benefit refused1

  Benefit stopped2

  1997

  14,700

  36,400

  1998

  15,400

  40,700

  1999

  15,600

  43,500

  1 Figures relate to DLA care component not payable because the claimant was in a residential care or nursing home, funded by either a local authority or the National Health Service, at the time they established entitlement to the benefit.

  2 Figures relate to cases where payment of DLA care component stopped because the claimant has spent more than 28 days in a residential care or nursing home funded by either a local authority or the National Health Service.

  Note:

  Figures relate to 30 November each year.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 5 per cent. data. Figures rounded to nearest hundred.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Refrigerants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what alternatives to CFCs and HCFCs as refrigerant products his Department has identified which are non-flammable, non-toxic and energy efficient. [126977]
  42W
  Mr. Meacher
  We recognise that for a number of applications, including some in refrigeration and air-conditioning, there is no immediate alternative to the continued use of HFCs. That is why we are not proposing a ban but rather are sending a clear signal to industry and end users that they need to look closely at all the alternatives and to select those that are more environmentally acceptable where they do exist, taking safety, feasibility and cost effectiveness into account.

  GM Crops
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is in respect of GM maize trials in the future; and what views have been expressed to his Department at local residents' meetings on GM maize trials. [127793]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Farm Scale Evaluations are a three-year programme. The Scientific Steering Committee (SSC), which is overseeing the trials, has advised that there should be around 60 to 75 GM maize sites during this period. The SSC is due to meet in the autumn to consider its requirements for next year. It is too early to predict what it might advise.

  The Scientific Steering Committee has stated that where farmers' normal rotation is to have consecutive years of maize on the same site, it is possible that trial sites used this year could be used again. However, site selection is a matter for SCIMAC and the independent researchers, using criteria set by the Scientific Steering Committee.

  At each public meeting held during the spring, a range of views was expressed by local people, from strong opposition to definite support for the trials. One group of activists opposed to the trials attended several of the meetings.

  DVLA (Data Protection)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many names and addresses of vehicle owners and keepers have been disclosed to third parties by virtue of that party showing reasonable cause for the disclosure in the last three years; if he can break down disclosure statistics by categories of reasonable cause if the DVLA alerts such third parties to the offence under section 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998; what data matching exercises he has undertaken to identify those who might be using the third party facility as a means of tracing individuals who do not want to be traced; and if he will make a statement. [129189]

  Mr. Hill
  The number of 'reasonable cause' inquiries of the vehicle register maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) during the last three years is as follows:

  1997–98: 629,808

  1998–99: 830,970

  1999–2000: 883,522

  The main source of inquires is insurance companies in respect of claims, and finance houses for vehicle-related loan agreements. The remainder are from solicitors and

  43W
  car parking enforcement companies etc. Information is disclosed under strictly defined terms and conditions and recipients are subject to periodic audit.

  Information is released to about 2,500 private individuals each year. They must give a full written explanation for their inquiry together with supporting evidence, such as a police incident or insurance policy number. Around 1,500 such inquiries are refused each year.

  The Agency works closely with the Data Protection Commissioner to facilitate prosecution for the handful of offences that come to light each year.

  Department of the Environment Transport and Regions private finance initiative (PFI) contracts

  PFI contract1

  Date of contract signature

  Capital value (£ million)

  Subject to refinancing?

  Does DETR have a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing?

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  February 1996

  4,178

  No

  2Yes

  Birmingham North Relief Road3 (Highways Agency)

  February 1992

  4450

  No

  No

  A69 Carlisle to Newcastle (Highways Agency)

  January 1996

  9

  No

  No

  A1(M) Alconbury to Peterborough (Highways Agency)

  February 1996

  128

  No

  No

  A419/A417 Swindon to Gloucester (Highways Agency)

  February 1996

  49

  No

  No

  M1-A1 Lofthouse to Bramham Link Road (Highways Agency)

  March 1996

  214

  No

  No

  A50 Stoke to Derby (Highways Agency)

  May 1996

  21

  No

  No

  A30/A35 Exeter to Bere Regis (Highways Agency)

  July 1996

  75

  No

  No

  A19/A168 Dishforth to Tyne Tunnel (Highways Agency)

  August 1996

  29

  No

  No

  M40 Denham to Warwick (Highways Agency)

  October 1996

  65

  No

  No

  A13 Thames Gateway (Highways Agency)

  April 2000

  146

  No

  No

  Catering (Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre)5

  February 1997

  3

  n/a

  n/a

  MOT Computerisation (Vehicle Inspectorate)

  February 2000

  38

  No

  No

  Spirit IT (Countryside Agency)5

  November 1997

  4.5

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Contracting authority in brackets

  2 Although there is no clause for sharing in the benefits of refinancing of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, the Department would directly benefit as it would reduce the requirement for an operating subsidy in future years

  3 Finance for the Birmingham Northern Relief Road has yet to be finalised

  4 Approximate figure

  5 The contractor did not require finance for this contract so refinancing would not arise

  Private finance initiative contracts which required the approval of Department of the Environment Transport and Regions Ministers

  PFI contract1

  Date of contract signature

  Capital value (£ million)

  Subject to refinancing?

  Does the contracting authority have a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing?

  Northern Line Trains (London Underground)

  April 1995

  409

  No

  No

  Power (London Underground)

  August 1998

  108

  No

  No

  Prestige (London Underground)

  August 1998

  137

  No

  No

  British Transport Police (London Underground)

  March 1999

  13

  No

  No

  Connect (London Underground)

  November 1999

  355

  No

  No

  Croydon Tramlink (London Transport)

  November 1996

  205

  No

  Yes

  Oceanic Flight Data Processing System (National Air Traffic Services Ltd.)

  June 1997

  18

  No

  No

  1 Contracting authority in brackets

  BSE
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the health risks associated with spreading the condensate from the process of rendering cattle carcases on to land. [129649]

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [129048]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The tables set out the details requested.

  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency commissioned an assessment of the risk from BSE infectivity from the spreading on to agricultural land of condensate from the rendering of cattle slaughtered under the Over-30-Months Scheme (OTMS). A copy is being placed in the Library of the House. The assessment concluded that:
  45W
  The concentration of infectivity in condensate from rendering plants processing OTMS material is low, even when that condensate is untreated;
  Spreading of condensate on farmland is unlikely to represent a risk to people owing to contamination of drinking water with BSE infectivity, or to people being exposed to aerosols of the condensate as a result of the spreading activity; and
  Cattle grazing on treated land would be extremely unlikely to be exposed to a dose large enough to result in infection with BSE.

  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) reviewed this assessment and concluded that the risk to human health from the practice was negligible. However, SEAC advised that the practice of spreading rendering condensate on land should be discontinued because of the presence of detectable levels of ruminant protein in samples, which could pose a risk to animal health. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is considering how to take forward the SEAC advice and hopes to consult on proposals shortly.

  Petrol Prices
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on the rural economy of recent increases in petrol prices; and if he will make a statement. [129643]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government recognise that transport provision is particularly important to people in rural areas because jobs and services are more widely dispersed than in urban areas. Within the 10 Year Plan for transport, we are developing a package of measures to improve public transport in rural areas and we shall be developing our ideas further in the forthcoming Rural White Paper.

  We recognise that the car will remain central to rural life, and any substantial increase in motoring costs may have adverse impact on the rural economy. We are therefore carefully monitoring the recent increases in petrol prices. These recent increases have been primarily due to a sharp increase in international gasoline prices caused by the combination of higher crude oil prices and gasoline supply problems, especially in the United States, not the Government's tax policies.

  Trans-European Network
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to develop the Trans-European Network roads in the UK up to 2010. [129467]

  Mr. Hill
  The development of Trans-European Network roads in the UK is considered as part of the motorway and trunk roads programme as a whole. Within that programme all new schemes are assessed by the same rigorous appraisal criteria and brought forward as and when resources permit. Further details of our current plans can be found in the following publications:

  A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England—July 1998

  A Strategic Review of the Welsh Trunk Road Programme—July 19981

  Travel Choices for Scotland: Strategic Roads Review—November 1999.

  A formal review of road schemes has not been carried out in Northern Ireland. All new proposals there are considered on their own merits.
  46W
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what amounts of(a) European Union and (b) United Kingdom funds were spent on each section of Trans-European Network roads in the United Kingdom in each year since 1994. [129799]

  Mr. Hill
  The European Union has so far allocated 9.125 million euro from the TEN budget for expenditure on UK motorways and trunk roads.

  Article 18 of the TEN Guidelines, adopted in July 1996, requires Member States to provide the European Commission with a biennial implementation report on national investment in the TEN. The first report—COM(1998)614—was published in October 1998. It covers investment in the years 1996 and 1997 and is available in the House Libraries. The next report, covering 1998 and 1999, is due to be published later this year.

  Information on investment prior to 1996 is not required by the Commission and is not available.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the Trans- European Network roads in the United Kingdom. [129794]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is in the Official Journal of the European Communities, Volume 39, a copy of which is available in the House Library. The United Kingdom Trans-European Network roads are detailed on Map 2.14 in Section 2 of Annexe 1 of that document.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions 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. [129488]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Neither the former Department of the Environment nor the former Department of Transport introduced such reminders. DETR has not sent any reminders to staff regarding NI contribution rules. Arrangements are being introduced to comply with the Inland Revenue guidance.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the safety implications of the cost reductions in the operations of National Air Traffic Services recommended by the economic regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority; and if he will make a statement; [129760]

  (2) what representations he has received from (a) the management of NATS and (b) IPMS about the cost reductions in the operations of National Air Traffic Services recommended by the economic regulation group of the Civil Aviation Authority; [129761]
  47W
  (3) if he will place a copy of the paper entitled, "NATS' Response to ERG's Second Consultation Paper", dated 26 May, in the Library. [129764]

  Mr. Mullin
  Under the proposed public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services, NATS' charges will be regulated using an RPI-X formula. The Economic Regulation Group of the Civil Aviation Authority has the task of advising the Secretary of State about the initial value of X. The CAA is carrying out a consultation process designed to help it prepare that advice. The consultation paper issued by ERG on 26 April, and NATS' response of 26 May, are part of that process.

  The figures in the consultation paper, to which these questions refer, were preliminary and we have made no assessment of them. We expect ERG's final advice in the next few weeks. Decisions on the regulatory benchmarks, including the value of X, will be taken by Ministers. We shall consider ERG's advice carefully when we receive it before taking that decision. In doing so, we shall consider the safety implications and take account of the views of the CAA's Safety Regulation Group.

  We have seen NATS' response but have received no direct representations from NATS or IPMS on the ERG paper.

  I am arranging for copies of the ERG paper and the NATS response to be placed in the Library shortly.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his forecast is of capital spending by NATS in the current year and each of the next five years; and what increases in capital spending are anticipated as a result of the proposed public-private partnership. [129762]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government do not make forecasts for NATS' capital expenditure. NATS has recently produced its first 10-year investment plan and is currently consulting with its customers on this document. The form, timing and appropriateness of the plan will also be reviewed by the CAA. NATS' estimate is that capital expenditure over the next decade will be of the order of £1.4 billion (in current prices).

  The Government believe that the Public-Private Partnership is the best way to deliver the investment needed, and will provide the additional management expertise to ensure that this capital programme is achieved on time and on budget for the benefit of NATS' customers and for the Government as shareholder.

  Powershift Programme
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many companies have benefited from grants under the Powershift programme so far in financial year 2000–01; [129819]

  (2) how many applications have been made for grants under the Powershift programme in financial year 2000–01; [129818]

  (3) how much money was spent under the Powershift programme between 1 April and 30 June. [129816]
  48W
  Mr. Hill
  Between 1 April and 30 June, grants totalling £2,619,984 were offered under the Powershift programme towards the cost of purchasing alternatively fuelled vehicles. These grant offers will be progressively taken up over the summer.

  So far this financial year, 440 applications for grants have been made under the Powershift programme and grants have been offered to 235 different companies.

  Environmental Change Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the benefits which have accrued from the global environmental change programme supported by the ESRC; what successor programmes are planned; and what steps are being taken to ensure widespread knowledge of, and access to, the Gecko data base. [129971]

  Mr. Meacher
  My officials have been actively involved in the planning and management of the Programme since its inception and all its reports have been disseminated throughout the Department. The longer-term impact of the Programme will be reviewed by the Department's Chief Scientist and the Chief Executive of the ESRC in the autumn under our Concordat arrangement.

  I understand from my noble Friend the Minister for Science that the Programme is being followed up by a number of activities including work at the new Joint Climate Change Centre and the Environmental Decision-Making Centre, and with a potential new Link Programme investment in Environmentally Sustainable Technologies. I also understand that the Gecko website is being maintained for 12 months while arrangements are being made for longer term curation of the database.

  Fishguard Harbour
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on the use of(a) pleasure craft and (b) other craft by anyone under the age of 16 years, in Fishguard Harbour. [130077]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government believe that pleasure craft should be used safely and are acting to improve safety on three fronts: the launch of a voluntary code of practice earlier this year, a continuing and enhanced coastguard education programme; and a Review of the Coastal Byelaws. The code of practice specified that for users of personal water craft (jet skis), persons between the ages of 12 to 16 should be directly supervised by an adult; persons under 12 should not be allowed to use them.

  Regulation of the use of such craft in Fishguard Harbour by way of byelaws is a matter for the local harbour authority. Revised byelaws are currently being considered by the Secretary of State and a decision will be made in due course.

  Homelessness
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many lettings each transfer association made available to homeless households for each year after stock transfer has taken place. [130240]
  49W
  Mr. Mullin
  This information is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by his Department in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of (i) goods and services, (ii) a valid invoice and (iii) other agreed payment terms. [130030]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: (a) I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 23 July 1999, Official Report, columns 677–78W.

  (b) The information for 1999–2000, including the DETR figure, is being collated currently, and will be made available to the House shortly.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to improve(a) the effectiveness of the Health and Safety Executive and (b) its responsiveness to the public. [130220]

  Mr. Meacher
  I place very high priority on improving, with the help of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive (HSC\E), standards of health and safety. I am particularly keen that the procedures to reach those standards should be carried through in the most open, transparent and accountable manner feasible.

  The Government will be looking to HSE to deliver improvements in health and safety not only through their Public Service Agreement targets, but also through meeting the challenging targets set out in the Revitalising Health and Safety Strategy Statement.

  Since coming to office this Government have significantly increased the resources available to health and safety—additional resources of some £63 million were made available to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive (HSC\E) in the three year Comprehensive Spending Review in 1998. These additional resources are enabling HSE to recruit and train more inspectors. As a result of the additional funding the HSE has agreed to increase the number of its regulatory contacts with employers and duty holders (including inspections) to 200,000 by 2001–02. The number of prosecutions for health and safety offences has been rising each year, as have the number of investigations into complaints from employees and members of the public. We have also been arguing strongly for extra resources through the SR2000 process.

  Construction Sites
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what formal means of cooperation there are between the Corporation of London, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency to facilitate the supervision of construction sites in the City of London. [130199]
  50W
  Mr. Meacher
  There are currently no formal standing arrangements between the Corporation of London, the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency to facilitate the supervision of construction sites in the City of London. There is, however close liaison between officers of the three organisations on an individual site basis as the need arises.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many inspections by the Health and Safety Executive in the last two years were concerned with safety on construction sites. [130216]

  Mr. Meacher
  In the two years from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2000 there were 39,233 preventive inspection contacts made to construction sites out of a total number of construction site contacts of 64,142. Details of other site contacts are shown in the attached table. The figures shown are provisional. It is not possible to distinguish between those contacts dealing only with safety, as opposed to health and welfare issues: the vast majority of inspections will cover all three matters.

  Construction site contacts between 1 April 1998 and 31 March 2000

  Number

  Preventive inspection

  39,233

  Investigation—Accidents and complaints

  15,724

  Product safety

  62

  Asbestos

  593

  Enforcement

  6,659

  Advice

  1,153

  Education/Promotion

  268

  Standards

  12

  Sector work—National issues

  23

  Civil litigation

  40

  Local projects

  367

  Total

  64,134

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many deaths and serious injuries have occurred on construction sites in each of the past 10 years. [130219]

  Mr. Meacher
  In the 10 years for which figures are available, the number of deaths and major injuries1 reported to all enforcing authorities are shown in the table.

  Fatal and major injuries to employees, self-employed and members of the public in the construction sector 1 April to 31 March 1989–90 to 1998–99

  Year

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries

  1989–90

  165

  4,220

  1990–91

  133

  3,961

  1991–92

  105

  3,447

  1992–93

  100

  2,844

  1993–94

  94

  2,683

  1994–95

  88

  2,748

  1995–96

  82

  2,594

  Introduction of RIDDOR '95

  1996–97

  93

  4,459

  1997–98

  86

  4,665

  1998–99

  68

  5,034

  1 As defined by the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 and 1995

  51W
  Note:

  Data prior to 1994–95 are classified under the Standard Industrial Classification 1980 (SIC80)

  Data from 1994–95 are classified under the Standard Industrial Classification 1992 (SIC92).

  Injury from 1996–97 cannot be directly compared to previous years figures due to the changes introduced by Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1995.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he is taking to improve the Environment Agency's supervision of waste generated on construction sites; [130224]

  (2) what powers are available to him concerning the treatment and disposal of waste from construction sites. [130217]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has a range of powers to make regulations on waste under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and some limited powers either to direct or to issue statutory guidance to the Environment Agency.

  Section 33 of the 1990 Act requires that waste from construction sites must be treated and disposed of in accordance with the conditions of a waste management licence, or within the terms of a licensing exemption, and in a way which does not cause pollution of the environment or harm to human health. Section 34 of the 1990 Act imposes a duty of care on those who produce, carry, keep, treat or dispose of construction waste. Contravention of these controls is a criminal offence.

  We are currently reviewing two of the licensing exemptions which allow the use of construction waste and which have been the subject of allegations of abuse. The aim of the revised controls under consideration is to enable the Environment Agency to supervise more effectively the use of construction waste at exempt sites.

  CITES
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that Greek authorities enforce the EU Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [130385]

  Mr. Mullin
  The European Commission, rather than the UK Government, is responsible for ensuring that member states meet their obligations under community law. As far as the CITES Convention itself is concerned, following pressure from the CITES Standing Committee (then under UK Chairmanship), Greece announced a series of improvements in February last year which led to the withdrawal of CITES trade sanctions imposed for unsatisfactory implementation of the Convention in September 1998. It will be for the Convention and the Commission to assess whether these improvements have been implemented.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make all requirements of the disabled facilities grants mandatory; and if he will make a statement. [130383]
  52W
  Mr. Mullin
  Disabled facilities grants are mandatory in all cases set out under section 23(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, and local authorities must follow the provisions of that Act in giving them. The grants are subject to a test of the applicant's resources to ensure that they are directed at those who are unable to afford the cost of adaptations on their own. In addition to their statutory duties, local authorities have powers to approve grants for the welfare, accommodation and employment of disabled people, and to pay grant above the £20,000 limit for the mandatory grant. These discretionary provisions enable local authorities to respond sensitively to individual cases without weakening the statutory entitlement of disabled people to a grant. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the operation of the disabled facilities grant, with particular reference to the needs associated with childhood and adolescence; and if he will make a statement. [130482]

  Mr. Mullin
  Earlier this year, my Department reviewed the arrangements for disabled facilities grants in relation to the needs of disabled children and young people. In the light of that review, we introduced changes to the test of resources for the grant in April this year, to reflect the higher housing costs incurred by parents of disabled children. We have no plants to make further changes to the arrangements governing the treatment of disabled children and young people, which are consistent with those for other housing-related benefits.

  Litter Fines
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been fined for dropping litter in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [130293]

  Mr. Hill
  In the 12 month period, 1 April 1998–31 March 1999, local authorities in England and Wales issued 4,576 fixed penalty litter notices. Of these 2,520 were paid and 13 cases were taken to court.

  Dorneywood
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those people that have been entertained at public expense at Dorneywood, since May 1997. [130281]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 12 June 2000,Official Report, columns 438W-39W.

  Britannic House Site
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Environment Agency is taking to monitor the waste disposal process from the former Britannic House site in the City of London. [130391]

  Mr. Meacher
  Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires that waste from construction sites is treated and disposed of in accordance with the conditions of a waste management licence, or within the terms of a licensing exemption, and in a way which does not cause pollution of the environment or harm to human
  53W
  health. Section 34 of the 1990 Act imposes a duty of care on those who produce, carry, keep, treat or dispose of construction waste. Contravention of these controls is a criminal offence.

  It is the responsibility of those who produce and dispose of construction waste to comply with the requirements of sections 33 and 34 of the 1990 Act. However, in view of my hon. Friend's concern, the Environment Agency has undertaken to visit the site.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Health and Safety Executive is taking to check safety standards at the former Britannic House site in the City of London. [130390]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive received an initial notification of construction work at the former Britannic House site in January 1998. Since then there have been five visits to the site by HSE Inspectors to check health and safety standards, the last one being in March this year. At least one further visit is planned before the project is completed.

  Peat
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to meet the aim published in the UK Biodiversity Habitat Action Plan for Lowland Raised Bogs, of achieving 90 per cent. replacement of the total market requirement for peat with alternatives by 2010. [130681]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The preliminary target in the Lowland Raised Bogs Action Plan is for 40 per cent. of the total market requirement for soil conditioners and growing media to be met by peat alternatives by 2005. The plan also indicates the promotion of research and development of sustainable alternatives to peat to speed up reduction of peat used in both amateur and professional markets, with the longer-term aim of 90 per cent. peat-free by 2010. We are closely monitoring the UK markets for peat and alternatives. In 1998, peat alternatives accounted for 32 per cent. of the total market. The provisional results for 1999, which will be published later this year, indicate continued progress towards the published target.

  We wish to maintain a competitive UK horticultural industry, and the quality of products available to the amateur gardener, and recognise that unless the sustainable alternatives are acceptable to the consumer they will not be taken up. The report of the Peat Working Group, published in November 1999, identified possible courses of action to increase further the use of alternatives in the longer term, including the dilution of peat based products, and the development of quality standards for growing media. We are now looking at means of taking these ideas forward.

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent to which the level of local authority spending on the management and maintenance of their dwellings differs from the amount provided through the housing subsidy system; and if he will make a statement. [130487]
  54W
  Mr. Mullin
  Provisional outturn figures for 1999–2000 indicate that local authorities have spent £4.0 billion on the management and maintenance of their dwellings. This compares with total allowances of £3.1 billion included within the calculation of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy. These allowances are just one component of the subsidy calculation, which also takes into account expenditure on debt charges and assumed income from rents. It is for local authorities to decide how best to balance their various sources of income and expenditure so as to meet the needs of their tenants.

  Aarhus Convention
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government will ratify the Aarhus Convention on the Environment. [130637]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK is committed to ratifying the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the "Aarhus Convention") as soon as possible. The Explanatory Memorandum for the Convention (Cm 4736) outlines the steps that need to be taken before this can be done. We anticipate that we will be in a position to ratify the Convention by summer 2001. However, the exact timing will depend on the legislative programmes of the devolved administrations.

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will set out the timetable for awarding the rail franchise for the services operated by Connex South Central; [130651]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 7 July 2000, Official Report, column 314W, on rail franchises, what contractual commitments Connex South Central has to provide for a well-planned and smooth changeover period if it fails to win the next franchise; and what action he can take if Connex fails to meet these commitments. [130561]

  Mr. Hill
  Although Connex have no such contractual requirements, they currently hold more than one franchise and are pre-qualified bidders or potential bidders for other replacement franchises. The Franchising Director is entitled to take into account the past performances of operators when considering the award of franchises. The Franchising Director has set no specific dates for the award of any replacement franchise, as to do so may prejudice his negotiating position.

  House Sales
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in his review of legislation on the buying and selling of houses; and if he will make a statement. [130977]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 11 October last year we announced our intention to take forward a package of complementary measures, which were based on a detailed survey and consultation exercise and studies of experience in other countries.
  55W
  The key proposal is a requirement that before putting a home on the market, the seller or seller's agent should put together a pack of standard documents and information for prospective buyers.

  Introducing a compulsory seller's information pack requires legislation and we are awaiting a suitable legislative opportunity. In the meantime, we have set up a pilot scheme in Bristol to test out the components of the seller's information pack and to provide information on its practical operation.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the bid by Gedling Borough Council for SRB6 funding for Netherfield; and if he will make a statement. [130510]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The bid by Gedling Borough Council for Single Regeneration Budget round 6 funding, along with other bids from the region, is currently being assessed by the East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA). EMDA will make recommendations to the Secretary of State, who will decide which bids to support early next month.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the areas which have been successful under the SRB6 programme. [130509]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Final bids under round 6 of the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) have been assessed by Regional Development Agencies, who are now making recommendations to myself and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Regions. After we have consulted other ministerial colleagues, the Government and the RDAs plan to announce the successful bids in early August.

  In London, responsibility for the SRB passed to the Mayor and the London Development Agency on 3 July. An announcement about successful round 6 bids in London is therefore a matter for the Mayor.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply substantively to the question from the hon. Member for Putney of 21 June, to which he gave a holding reply on 26 June. [130538]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have written to my hon. Friend today. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne dated 26 April relating to his constituent, Mrs. J. E. Jones. [130655]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I replied to the hon. Member's letter on behalf of the Secretary of State on 25 May.

  Virgin Trains
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will discuss with Virgin Trains their criteria for making APEX tickets available to passengers. [130794]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has no plans to discuss with Virgin Trains the criteria for making APEX tickets available. APEX fares represent a substantial discount over the regulated fares and are offered in return for corresponding reduction in flexibility. They are not regulated by the Franchising Director and the criteria and conditions applied to them by Virgin Trains, or any other Train Operating Company (TOC), are entirely commercial matters for the TOC concerned.

  Refrigeration Appliances (Waste Disposal)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to ensure that discarded domestic refrigeration appliances producing CFC gases are collected in Cumbria. [127806]

  Mr. Mullin
  [Pursuant to the answer of 29 June 2000, c. 603W]: Under section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities are not under a duty to collect waste which is fly-tipped. Section 59(1) provides that a collection authority may serve a notice requiring the occupier of the land to remove fly-tipped waste.

  Section 59(7) provides that a collection authority may remove fly-tipped waste itself to prevent pollution etc.

SCOTLAND

  Civil Servants
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior Civil Service, in his Department for 1999–2000; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [121651]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: The average performance-related pay increase for staff of the Scotland Office was 4 per cent. The increase was not staged.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the Government's policy is regarding distributing Civil Service posts more widely across Scotland. [129916]

  Dr. Reid
  Relocation of civil servants is a matter for individual departments and agencies. As I announced at the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 21 July 1999, I have established my main office, and the bulk of my small staff, in Glasgow.

  The policy in relation to the relocation of civil servants who work for the Scottish Executive and related public bodies is devolved and is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Executive made announcements on their approach to location and relocation of public service jobs in Scotland on 15 September 1999 and 6 July 2000.

  Sewage Works
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Scottish sewage works at which untreated effluent(a) is used to wash screens in screen houses and (b) has been so used during the past five years. [126273]

  Dr. Reid
  Matters relating to the Scottish water authorities are devolved and are now for the Scottish Parliament. In the four years prior to 1 July 1999, the water authorities used potable water to wash screens in screen houses using an automated process in the majority of cases. However, waste water (sewage works effluent) was used at the following 10 sewage works:

  North of Scotland Water Authority
  Biologically treated wastewater was used at Persely, Halkirk and Tain

  East of Scotland Water Authority
  Settled wastewater was used at Edinburgh and Dunfermline
  Screened wastewater was used at Kirkcaldy and Tayport
  Biologically treated wastewater was used at Galashiels

  West of Scotland Water Authority
  Screened wastewater was used at Meadowhead and Stevenson.

  Water Workers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if Scottish water workers who have been transferred to a private company under a PFI contract retain their public servant status with regard to pensions and conditions of service. [126271]

  Dr. Reid
  Matters related to the Scottish water authorities are devolved. Pensions are generally reserved, but pensions for staff in Scottish public authorities are excepted under Schedule 5, Head F3 of the Scotland Act 1998. This is therefore a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the application of TUPE rules to employees transferred from Scottish council water departments to water boards and subsequently under PH to a private contractor company. [126272]

  Dr. Reid
  Although the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 are reserved under Schedule 5, Head H1 of the Scotland Act 1998, matters relating to the Scottish water authorities are devolved. Application of the TUPE rules to Scottish water authorities' staff is therefore a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet representatives of the(a) Scottish Parliament and (b) Scottish Executive to discuss mechanisms for consulting on the Government's policy on changing the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. [126772]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 21 June 2000]: It was agreed during the passage of the Scotland Act 1998 that a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament would lead to a reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament. However, we have made it clear that this issue will be examined in due course, in the light of the experience of the Scottish Parliament's operation.

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many departmental telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems. [127402]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has no telephone lines using interactive voice response systems, other than those to allow messages to be recorded.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [128994]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department does not maintain a list of approved vehicle manufacturers. The Department does not operate any cars other than those provided through the Government Car and Despatch Agency or the Government Car Service (Scotland).

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (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; [129166]

  (2) 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. [129177]

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

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money his Department has spent in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available on(a) lords lieutenant and (b) their deputies in Scotland. [129679]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: Expenditure incurred by the Scottish Office on lord lieutenants' expenses in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  £000

  Year

  Amount1

  1990–91

  10

  1991–92

  12

  1992–93

  13

  1993–94

  14

  1994–95

  25

  1995–96

  43

  1996–97

  27

  1997–98

  24

  1998–99

  30

  1999–2000

  234

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest £1000

  2 Provisional

  No expenditure has been incurred in relation to deputy lords lieutenant.
  59W
  Although the subject matter of the Lieutenancies Act 1997 is reserved, other aspects are now devolved and expenditure on lords lieutenant is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on measures under discussion on standardisation of arrival procedures for asylum seekers throughout the EU; and what discussions are currently on-going concerning the definition of a refugee. [128236]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government's approach to minimum standards on asylum procedures was set out in the Explanatory Memorandum dated 26 March 1999, which was a response to the Commission working document dated 3 March 1999, entitled "Towards common standards on asylum procedures". A copy of the Explanatory Memorandum was deposited in the Library.

  Discussions on minimum standards for qualification as a refugee have not yet begun.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers were sent from the Greater London area to other areas of the United Kingdom in the last three months; and if he will list the areas. [129509]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service is not yet responsible for providing support to destitute asylum seekers who were living in London at the time of their application for asylum. Some of those applying for asylum at ports of entry may have been placed in emergency accommodation in the Greater London area while their application for support was being considered. From 3 April until 30 June, a total of 3,212 asylum seekers, including dependants, had been dispersed under the national asylum support scheme. I am afraid that we do not hold information on how many of these were dispersed from emergency accommodation in the Greater London area. The areas to which they were dispersed are the East Midlands, North East, North West, Scotland, South West, Sussex, West Midlands and Yorkshire.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many units of accommodation currently being paid for by the National Asylum Support Service are standing empty; and what percentage of the total numbers being paid for this represents. [130697]

  Mrs. Roche
  On Friday 14 July, 4,126 bed spaces which represent 42 per cent. of all property available to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) were being paid for but not used. The exact number of units available

  Financial year

  Applications made

  Applications resolved

  Awards made

  Compensation paid (£ million)

  Administration costs (£ million)

  1990–91

  50,820

  53,384

  35,190

  109.3

  10.3

  1991–92

  61,400

  60,113

  39,249

  143.7

  13.1

  1992–93

  65,977

  58,688

  36,638

  152.2

  14.2

  1993–94

  73,473

  65,293

  40,635

  165.1

  17.3

  1994–95

  71,734

  64,549

  37,365

  175.4

  17.8

  1995–96

  75,667

  76,225

  44,036

  179.0

  19.3

  1996–97

  75,414

  79,219

  46,942

  210.6

  20.3

  60W
  changes day by day as providers notify NASS of properties. Equally, the number of asylum seekers provided with accommodation by NASS changes daily. In order to ensure that adequate numbers of accommodation units are available to satisfy current demand, and make provision for the forthcoming roll-out of the scheme, NASS has to maintain a stock of available property. The total stock currently standing empty represents approximately three weeks of accommodation needed when the NASS scheme has been fully rolled out.

  Special Units (Prisons)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were resident at any time in the Special Unit in C wing at Parkhurst Prison between 1 July 1991 and 1 July 1993; and if he will list for each prisoner in an anonymised form the number of(a) recorded assaults and (b) violent episodes in each of (i) the two years prior to joining C wing, (ii) during his time on C wing prior to 1 July 1993, (iii) during his time on C wing after 1 July 1993 and (iv) since leaving C wing to date. [128619]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested can be obtained in full only at disproportionate cost. In Parkhurst C-Wing between July 1991 and July 1993 the population varied from 10 to 16 prisoners. During that period there were 217 incidents including seven fights, five assaults on prisoners, six assaults on staff, 16 verbal threats on prisoners and 37 verbal threats on staff.

  Prisons (Religious Practices)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Prison Service has to extend its recognition of religious practices and faiths; and if he will make a statement. [129196]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prisoners of all religions are free to practise their religion, consistent with good order and discipline within prisons. The Prison Service does not recognise Scientology, the Nation of Islam and Rastafarianism as religions. There are no plans to change these arrangements.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the total number was of(a) applications, (b) applications resolved and (c) awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement; [128539]

  (2) what the total expenditure was on criminal injuries compensation in each of the last 10 years (a) in total and (b) per category; and if he will make a statement. [128538]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 5 July 2000]: The available information requested is set out in the table.
  61W

  Financial year

  Applications made

  Applications resolved

  Awards made

  Compensation paid (£ million)

  Administration costs (£ million)

  1997–98

  77,743

  79,544

  45,080

  201.5

  21.0

  1998–99

  78,897

  85,493

  46,240

  194.3

  22.1

  1999–2000

  78,891

  83,021

  43,495

  206.1

  24.7

  The figures are for both the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (which dealt with applications received under the old scheme prior to 1 April 1996) and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (which deals with claims received under the new tariff scheme on or after 1 April 1996).

  The figures for 1999–2000 are subject to audit. Applications resolved in a year do not necessarily relate to applications received in that year.

  Expenditure on criminal injuries compensation per category of injury is not available in respect of cases settled under the old scheme. I will write to the hon. Member with the available information about categories of injury under the tariff-based scheme.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [129485]

  Mr. Straw
  The validity of the certificate of election is checked when new staff join the Home Office. Action is taken if this is not in order or staff notify a change in circumstances. It is for the individual concerned to notify any change in circumstances after he or she has joined the Home Office.

  Speeding Offences
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend the issuing of fixed penalties for speeding offences to individuals driving in the UK on non-UK driving licences; and if he will make a statement. [130205]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no plans at present to extend the fixed penalty system in the way proposed. Speeding is an endorsable offence which, under the fixed penalty system, puts three penalty points on an offender's licence. The courts can endorse only licences issued under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and foreign licences do not have the space for recording such endorsements. But we are in discussion with the European Union about mutual recognition issues on road traffic offences.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average per capita cost was of 62W
  prosecuting drivers for speeding offences in England and Wales since 1998 using (a) the fixed penalty system and (b) the courts; and if he will make a statement. [130206]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much revenue was received from fines imposed for motor speeding offences in 1999. [130523]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on fines for speeding offences in 1999 is not yet available.

  London Local Authorities Act 1995
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many notices have been served using sections 12 and 13 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995; [130299]

  (2) what the average cost is to local authorities of serving a notice using sections 12 and 13 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995; [130300]

  (3) what plans he has to modify sections 12 and 13 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995 to make it quicker and cheaper for local authorities to use their powers; and if he will make a statement. [130301]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not held centrally about the number of notices served and their cost under sections 12 and 13 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995. We have no plans to amend those provisions.

  Prison Service (IT)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the performance targets set in the Prison Service's contract with Electronic Data Systems; if they have been met to date; what penalties have been included in the contract for not fulfilling the performance targets; and what safety precautions have been taken to ensure that the Prison Service's IT requirements can be satisfied if Electronic Data Systems' contract is terminated. [130302]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service's Quantum Agreement with Electronic Data Systems sets out a range of performance targets. These are given in the table.

  Electronic Data Systems took responsibility for the day to day operation of the Prison Service's information technology and telecommunications services—"live running"—on 3 July 2000. It is therefore too soon to assess performance against targets. Regular service review meetings are required under the terms of the Agreement. The first of these will take place in August 2000.

  The Quantum Agreement provides a comprehensive range of financial remedies in the event of unsatisfactory

  63W
  performance against targets. These have been developed in consultation and are consistent with the guidance of Partnerships United Kingdom (formerly known as the Treasury Taskforce on Private Finance Initiatives).

  Prison service quantum agreement performance targets

  Service

  Description

  Target

  Desktop Services

  24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year

  98%—monthly

  Prisoner Administration

  24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year

  98%—monthly

  Intranet

  24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year

  98%—monthly

  Personnel

  24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year

  98%—monthly

  Finance

  24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year

  98%—monthly

  Other applications

  24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year

  98%—monthly

  Purchasing and Stock control

  24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year

  98%—monthly

  Training Services

  Candidate throughput

  100% to plan—monthly

  Achieve agreed standards

  95%—monthly

  Post evaluation

  100%—quarterly

  Help Desk services

  Call response time

  90% within 15 seconds—monthly

  97% within 30 seconds—monthly

  Confirmation of action

  97% within 15 minutes—monthly

  Fix times

  Fixes within agreed criteria

  Criteria dependent—Monthly

  Moves and Changes

  On time and quality

  99%—monthly

  Removal and disposal

  98%—monthly

  Report provision

  Management reports on time and to quality

  99%—monthly

  Performance reports on time and to quality

  99%—monthly

  Usability

  Customer and User satisfaction

  100%—yearly

  Customer care complaints

  Less than 5 per quarter year

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made with completing the Government's review of penalties for road traffic offences. [130303]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on 13 July 2000,Official Report, column 665W, the work of the review of penalties for road traffic offences is almost complete. The Government hope to publish a consultation document, setting out the proposals of the review, shortly.

  Transsexuals
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Transsexual People has made with regard to transsexual people obtaining an amended birth certificate. [130285]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 12 July 2000,Official Report, column 596W.

  Coroners
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 July 2000,Official Report, column 513W, how much money his Department is spending on research into the way information is provided by coroners to the bereaved; and what the terms of reference are. [130811]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total sum allocated for this project is just under £70,000. The terms of reference are as follows:
  64W
  Comprehensive termination arrangements are provided for in the contract. They allow, inter alia, for the transfer of service provision to a replacement contractor and have been devised to minimise the business risk to the Prison Service.

  to identify the range of experiences that families have regarding receipt of information from the coroner service; including: what families learn about the death, how much information they receive, and how long it takes for this information to be given;
  to identify where complications arise, including research into how long it takes to release a body to the family for subsequent burial, cremation or other disposal; and
  to identify models of practice which families perceive as good.

  False Evidence
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is towards the recovery of police costs where investigations have been undertaken following the submission of evidence subsequently found by the police to be false. [130699]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Assuming that the provisions of the criminal law relating to the wasting of police time do not apply, this would be a matter for individual police forces.

  Police (Devon and Cornwall)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the percentage change in funding for the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary in the last three years. [130701]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The percentage change in Government funding (police grant, revenue support grant and national non-domestic rates) was 6.4 per cent. between 1998–99 and 2000–01. This was made up as follows:

  Year

  Government funding (£ million)

  Percentage change

  1998–99

  141.1

  +6.2

  1999–2000

  146.7

  +4.0

  2000–01

  150.2

  +2.4

  65W
  In addition, the force will have received over the three years capital, special, firearms and Special Constabulary grants totalling over £6.6 million.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the(a) Kent County Constabulary and (b) North Yorkshire Constabulary figures for crime in (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94, (iii)1994–95, (iv) 1995–96, (v) 1996–97,

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police

  April 1992-March 1993

  April 1993-March 1994

  April 1994-March 1995

  April 1995-March 1996

  April 1996-March 1997

  April 1997-March 1998

  April 1998-March 1999

  Kent

  Burglary

  31,898

  29,348

  27,770

  34,332

  31,219

  24,452

  22,978

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  89,838

  89,139

  83,077

  77,717

  67,752

  58,002

  57,314

  Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle

  19,318

  18,030

  16,606

  16,445

  14,270

  11,078

  10,335

  North Yorkshire

  Burglary

  16,390

  16,031

  16,765

  16,406

  12,661

  11,402

  11,237

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  29,868

  30,486

  31,621

  31,097

  27,128

  26,051

  25,608

  Theft or unauthorised taking of motor vehicle

  4,497

  4,976

  5,399

  5,315

  4,172

  3,805

  2,990

  Market and Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123809]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: Copies of research reports are not routinely placed in the Library. A list giving details of market and opinion research undertaken by the Department is made available. This has been updated and placed in the Library. The list may not include all research projects as some information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Decisions on whether to publish research are taken on an individual basis.

  We are committed to consulting and involving the public to help inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public services. Responsive public services are an important part of the Modernising Government initiative.

  Opinion research projects undertaken by the Department of Health: 1999–2000

  Type

  Title

  Published?

  Where

  Focus Group Research

  NHS Executive South West: The organisation of Commissioning—involving the public in local decision making for health care February 2000

  1997

  Social Research 19: 1–4

  The global challenge of health care rationing (Coulter A, Ham C) Milton Keynes: Open University Press Not published

  Focus Group Research

  NHS Executive South West: Understanding compliance with Physiotherapy

  66W
  (vi) 1997–98, (vii) 1998–99 and (viii) 1999–2000 with respect to (A) burglary, (B) theft and (C) vehicle theft. [130931]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of offences recorded by the Kent County Constabulary and North Yorkshire Constabulary in the years ending March are given in the table. The data from 1 April 1998 are not directly comparable with earlier years because of changes to the counting rules for recorded crime which occurred on that date. Recorded crime figures for the year ending March 2000 will be released tomorrow. Figures for Kent and North Yorkshire will be available in the Library.

  We conduct or commission market or opinion research only when it is justified by the needs of the policy or programme and is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the opinion research projects undertaken on behalf of his Department in the financial year 1999–2000, itemising(a) focus group research, (b) quantitative surveys and (c) other market research surveys, in each case specifying when and where the results were published. [123261]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: A list of research projects carried out by the Department in the financial year 1999–2000 is in the table. The list may not include all research projects, as some information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  We are committed to consulting and involving the public to help inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public services. Responsive public services are an important part of the Modernising Government initiative.

  We conduct or commission market or opinion research only when it is justified by the needs of the policy or programme and is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose.
  67W

  Opinion research projects undertaken by the Department of Health: 1999–2000

  Type

  Title

  Published?

  Where

  Focus Group Research

  NHS Executive South West: With Mended Voice—a focus group study of patients with head and neck cancer and their carers

  Not yet published

  Focus Group Research

  Nursing Recruitment Advertising: Pay research

  Not published

  Focus Group Research

  Nursing Recruitment Advertising: Qualitative research findings

  Not published

  Focus Group Research

  Public Attitudes and Perceptions of the NHS

  Not yet published

  Focus Group Research

  Risk Taking Behaviour Among Young People

  Not published

  Focus Group Research

  Violence Against Social Care Staff—Qualitative Research

  Published June 2000

  DH website

  Focus Group Research

  Winter 2000 Advertising Development Research

  Not published

  Focus Group Research/Quantitative Survey

  Impact and awareness of Quality Protects

  Not published

  Focus Group

  Improving access to and convenience of primary care services

  Not published

  Other Market Research

  COI Public Evaluation Smoking: Giving up for Life

  Not published

  Other Market Research

  GP Registrars' Experience of Vocational Training for General Practice

  Not published

  Other Market Research

  NHS Corporate Identity Research

  Not published

  Other Market Research

  Qualitative research to help develop a tobacco education campaign

  Not published

  Other Market Research

  Sexual Health for All: identifying key obstacles to sexual health for gay men, lesbian women and bisexuals

  Not available yet

  Other Market Research

  Tobacco Education Campaign Desk Research

  Not published

  Other Market Research

  Tobacco Education Communications check

  Not published

  Other Market Research

  Winter 2000 Advertising Awareness Evaluation

  Not published

  Other Market Research

  Winter 2000 Doctors and Pharmacists Self-Completion Survey

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  British Social Attitudes Survey 17th Report

  To be published autumn 2000

  The 17th British Social Attitudes Report

  Quantitative Survey

  Survey of NHS Chiropody Heads of Services

  To be published summer 2000

  NHS Executive publication

  Quantitative Survey

  Cranstoun Drugs Services—Pre testing 'real time' video

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  Department of Health Corporate Exhibition Stand appraisal

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  H. E. A/Alcohol Concern: Pre Testing resource on alcohol and young people

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  Keep Warm, Keep Well

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  Monitor of attitudes to Nursing

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  National Children's Bureau and Drug Education Forum

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  NHS Media Impact Research

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  Nurses Day Project

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  Nursing Recruitment Advertising: Pre and Post campaign measurement

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  Organ Donation—Campaign Tracking Research

  Not yet published

  Quantitative Survey

  Survey of Investment in CPD, Modern Apprenticeships and National Traineeships

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  Tacade Pre Testing—Information postcards for the children of drug misusing parents

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  Tacade Pre Testing—Resource for school children with mild to moderate learning difficulties

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  The Elfrida Society

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey

  Tobacco Education Campaign evaluation: report on results of benchmark and wave 2

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey (Postal)

  The National Survey of NHS Patients—Coronary Heart Disease Questionnaire

  April 2000

  A statistical press release outlining preliminary results was issued. More detailed information will be published in the summer and made available on the DH website

  Quantitative Survey (Postal)

  The National Survey of NHS Patients—GP Questionnaire

  October 1999

  A book of national results is available,(£10) plus a summary of key findings, free of charge, from DoH, PO Box 777 London SE1 6XH. Results are also available on the DH website at http:// www.doh.gov.uk /public/nhssurvey.htm

  68W 69W

  Opinion research projects undertaken by the Department of Health: 1999–2000

  Type

  Title

  Published?

  Where

  Quantitative Survey/Other Market Research

  A practical guide for disabled people

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey/Other Market Research

  NHS Careers—Schools Competition

  Not published

  Quantitative Survey/Other Market Research

  Understanding the Careers Guidance Needs of Junior Doctors

  To be published summer 2001

  Publication of briefing document/CRAC website

  Foodborne Illness
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of sickness resulting from the consumption of fresh meat emanating from British abattoirs were recorded in 1999. [126189]

  Ms Stuart
  Most cases of infectious intestinal disease are not part of recognised outbreaks (i.e. they are sporadic cases). It is very difficult to obtain scientific information implicating a specific food as the cause of infection for these sporadic cases and, as such, it is not possible to provide data on specific foods associated with sporadic infection.

  However, meat and meat products are an important vehicle of foodborne illness. There was at least one large outbreak in 1999 which was attributable to meat from a British abattoir.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authorities have more in-patients waiting over one year than in May 1997. [128503]

  Mr. Denham
  The list compares March 1997 (the last data collection before May 1997) with March 2000.

  Health authorities who have seen an increase in patients waiting over 12 months for elective admission March 1997 to March 2000

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Bradford HA

  Durham HA

  East Riding HA

  Leeds HA

  Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  North Cumbria HA

  Northumberland HA

  Sunderland HA

  Tees HA

  Wakefield HA

  North Yorkshire HA

  Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  Trent

  Leicestershire HA

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  west Midlands

  Birmingham HA

  Coventry HA

  Dudley HA

  Herefordshire HA

  Sandwell HA

  Shropshire HA

  Solihull HA

  North Staffordshire HA

  70W

  South Staffordshire HA

  Walsall HA

  Warwickshire HA

  Wolverhampton HA

  Worcestershire HA

  North West

  South Lancashire HA

  Liverpool HA

  Manchester HA

  Morecambe Bay HA

  St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  Salford and Trafford HA

  Sefton HA

  Stockport HA

  West Pennine HA

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  North Cheshire HA

  South Cheshire HA

  East Lancashire HA

  North West Lancashire HA

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  Wirral HA

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  North Essex HA

  South Essex HA

  Suffolk HA

  East and North Hertfordshire HA

  West Hertfordshire HA

  Cambridgeshire HA

  Norfolk HA

  London

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  Bromley HA

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  Barking and Havering HA

  Camden and Islington HA

  East London and City HA

  South East

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  East Kent

  West Kent

  East Surrey

  West Surrey

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  West Sussex

  Northamptonshire

  71W

  North and Mid Hampshire

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  South West RO

  Somerset HA

  South and West Devon HA

  Wiltshire HA

  Avon HA

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  Dorset HA

  North and East Devon HA

  Gloucestershire HA

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01

  Name

  Date of commencement (financial close)

  Value (£ million)

  Have they been refinanced?

  Is there a re-financing clawback?

  Dartford and Gravesham

  July 1997

  94

  No

  1No

  Carlisle

  November 1997

  65

  No

  2No

  South Buckinghamshire

  December 1997

  45

  No

  No

  Norfolk and Norwich

  January 1998

  144

  No

  1No

  North Durham

  March 1998

  61

  No

  Yes

  Greenwich

  July 1998

  93

  No

  2No

  Calderdale

  July 1998

  65

  No

  Yes

  South Manchester

  December 1998

  66

  No

  Yes

  Bromley

  November 1998

  118

  No

  1No

  Barnet and Chase

  February 1999

  54

  No

  No

  Worcester

  March 1999

  87

  No

  Yes

  Hereford

  April 1999

  64

  No

  Yes

  South Durham

  May 1999

  41

  No

  1No

  South Tees

  August 1998

  122

  No

  2No

  Swindon and Marlborough

  October 1999

  96

  No

  Yes

  King's

  December 1999

  64

  No

  Yes

  Leeds Community

  March 2000

  47

  No

  Yes

  St. George's

  March 2000

  49

  No

  Yes

  1 There are no specific clawback arrangements, but the contract places a limit on the private sector's ability to refinance without the trust's approval.

  2 These are transactions financed by bond issues. The nature of these transactions means re-financing is extremely unlikely.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what clawback mechanisms exist under private finance initiative contracts within his Department in respect of(a) refinancing and (b) other contingencies; and if he will place copies of each private finance initiative contract in the Library. [130211]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply above to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). This details the major National Health Service private finance initiative contracts with clawback arrangements regarding re-financing.

  No other specific clawback arrangements are made except in the case of schemes with forward land sales. Where the land is sold in advance, there are clawback arrangements in the event of the land eventually beings

  £

  Costs

  NHS Trust

  Legal

  Financial

  Other

  Total

  As percentage of capital cost1

  Bromley

  1,710,000

  1,759,000

  743,000

  4,212,000

  3.5

  Norfolk and Norwich

  1,559,000

  1,938,000

  932,000

  4,429,000

  3.0

  Hereford

  2,500,000

  1,200,000

  900,000

  4,600,000

  7.2

  Greenwich

  1,169,000

  676,000

  351,000

  2,196,000

  2.4

  South Manchester

  1,224,000

  888,000

  1,051,000

  3,163,000

  4.8

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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 clawback entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129050]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on refinancing in private finance initiative contracts is collected centrally for the major schemes (capital value £25 million or over) which have reached financial close. The position regarding these schemes is as follows:

  sold on at a higher price. Only the contracts at Dartford and Gravesham and Bromley have forward land sales and both have such protection.

  Copies of the full business cases and detailed contract summaries for all PFI schemes with a capital value greater then £10 million are available in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to public funds of external advisers in the negotiation of private finance initiative projects for hospitals, expressed as a proportion of each contract's value. [130260]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: Information on the total amounts spent on advisers' costs is collected centrally for major private finance initiative schemes (capital value of £25 million or above) which have reached financial close. The data are set out in the table.
  73W

  £

  Costs

  NHS Trust

  Legal

  Financial

  Other

  Total

  As percentage of capital cost1

  Wellhouse

  2,531,000

  980,000

  1,175,000

  4,686,000

  8.7

  Carlisle

  605,000

  475,000

  736,000

  1,816,000

  2.8

  Calderdale

  901,000

  654,000

  527,000

  2,082,000

  3.2

  Dartford and Gravesham

  1,215,000

  960,000

  180,000

  2,355,000

  2.5

  South Buckinghamshire

  1,653,000

  780,000

  169,000

  2,602,000

  5.8

  North Durham

  375,000

  438,000

  888,000

  1,701,000

  2.8

  South Tees

  1,706,639

  938,407

  310,000

  2,955,046

  2.4

  South Durham (Bishop Auckland)

  1,088,000

  1,087,000

  247,000

  2,422,000

  5.9

  Worcester

  1,050,000

  1,110,000

  300,000

  2,460,000

  2.8

  Swindon and Marlbrorough

  1,135,000

  680,000

  1,730,000

  3,545,000

  3.7

  King's

  2,606,575

  1,374,357

  785,554

  4,766,486

  7.4

  St. George's

  637,897

  181,904

  361,897

  1,181,698

  2.4

  Leeds Community

  685,000

  308,000

  514,000

  1,507,000

  3.2

  Totals

  24,351,111

  16,427,668

  11,900,451

  52,679,230

  —

  1 Capital cost defined as: total capital cost to the private sector consortium which includes cost of land, construction, equipment and professional fees but excludes Value Added Tax, rolled up interest and financing costs such as bank arrangement fees, bank due diligence fees, banks lawyers fees and third party equity costs.

  All PFI schemes, including the 'second wave' and `third wave' of major prioritised schemes, are now using the new PFI guidance and standard form contract introduced under this Government, the aim of which is to reduce procurement time and transaction costs. Further standardisation of documentation on payment mechanisms and output specifications will be published shortly, which will further reduce transaction costs.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (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; [129171]

  (2) if he will list the occasions on which 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. [129105]

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

  Mental Health Act 1983
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's summary of responses to the Green Paper on reform of the Mental Health Act 1983. [129497]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has received over 1,000 responses to the Green Paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983" and we are considering them all carefully. We will be making an announcement on the next stage of this reform process in the near future.

  Children in Care
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what standard procedures exist to initiate police investigations and search operations in cases where children go missing from children's homes. [129765]
  74W
  Mr. Hutton
  Part III of the Children's Homes Regulations 1991 requires the authority responsible for children's homes to draw up written procedures to be followed when children go missing from children's homes.

  In order to improve practice in this area, in January 1998 the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers issued guidance to local authorities on procedures and good practice when children go missing from care. Social services and police forces were advised to develop locally agreed protocols to cover the circumstances in which initial reports should be made to the police and to act on any report of a child going missing from care immediately. The Department was represented on the working party which produced this guidance. We intend to publish further good practice guidance later this year aimed at helping statutory and voluntary sector staff identify potential runaways and will suggest preventative measures which they can take. The guidance will reiterate the need for inter-agency planning and provision of services for runaways.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what protection exists for children in care in relation to corporal punishment. [129778]

  Mr. Hutton
  Corporal punishment is prohibited for all children looked after by local authorities, under the Children Act 1989 and associated regulations.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the capacity of children's homes was in each year from 1992–93 to 1998–99; and what the average percentage utilisation of these homes was in each year. [129776]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information for 31 March 1996 and 31 March 1997 (the only years for which data on the capacity of children's homes are available) is given in the table.

  Capacity and number of looked after children accommodated in children's homes in England—31 March 1996 and 1997

  1996

  1997

  Total capacity of homes (places)

  10,892

  10,869

  Number of children

  6,600

  6,400

  Average occupancy rate

  61%

  58%

  75W
  In addition, a further 3,800 and 4,000 children were accommodated in children's homes during the years ending 31 March 1996 and 1997 respectively, under a series of short-term placements. It is not possible to estimate how many of these were in residence at the end of the year.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions exist for the protection of privacy in children's care homes, with particular reference to uncensored mail. [129767]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Children's Homes Regulations 1991, made under the Children Act 1989, provide that children's homes should have appropriate facilities for children to meet privately with parents, relatives, friends and others, and for children to be able to make and receive phone calls in private. The Children Act guidance on residential care makes it clear that homes should recognise the need for privacy. There are no particular provisions in respect of uncensored mail.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that qualified former residents of children's homes are fully represented on the short lists for the post of Children's Rights Director on the National Care Standards Commission and among the Director's staff. [129775]

  Mr. Hutton
  The appointment of staff to the National Care Standards Commission will be a matter for the Commission itself once legally established in 2001. The Department will, however, define the role of the Children's Rights Director and suggest a model structure for their Directorate.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that victims of abuse in children's residential homes receive(a) an official apology and (b) compensation. [129809]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 15 February 2000,Official Report, column 784–87, when he presented Sir Ronald Waterhouse's report "Lost in Care" to Parliament. Our response to "Lost in Care", published on 29 June 2000, acknowledges that the awful events in North Wales are not unique and that the abuse of children in the public care system across the United Kingdom has been a source of shame for all.

  Anyone who has been the victim of a criminal act is entitled to seek compensation. For victims of child abuse, we realise that this can be a particularly difficult process to see through. However, it must be for individual people to decide if they wish to seek redress through the Courts or the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. Each case will need to be judged on its own merits.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents of children's homes were officially recorded as missing in the period 1992–93 to 1998–99; and how many of these have subsequently been traced. [129777]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data supplied by local authorities show that during the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1999 there were an estimated 1,700 occasions when children being looked after in children's homes in England absconded for more than one week. In 1,500 of these 76W
  cases, the child concerned subsequently had a further period of care with the same local authority. Where no further period of care with the same authority is recorded these children may have been traced but not subsequently looked after or the responsibility for the care may have transferred to another authority.

  Elderly People
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to publish a White Paper on Care for the Elderly; and if he will make a statement. [130076]

  Mr. Hutton
  We will be announcing our response to the Royal Commission on Long Term Care very shortly.

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by his Department in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of (i) goods and services, (ii) a valid invoice and (iii) other agreed payment terms. [130041]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 23 July 1999, Official Report, columns 679–80W. Departments and their agencies are currently collating this information for 1999–2000 and this will be made available to the House shortly.

  National Research Register
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason access to the NHS National Research Register on-line is no longer available to members of the public. [130265]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Research Register (NRR) provides a systematic record of research projects supported, undertaken or of interest to the National Health Service. The NRR contains currently over 57,000 records. It is freely available on-line to the public at the Department of Health Research and Development website: www.doh.gov.uk/research.

  The NRR can be accessed both from the Research and Development home page and the "Information from Research" section on the Research and Development pages. Access from the Research and Development home page to the NRR was recently disrupted by a technical fault. During this time, the NRR remained accessible from the "Information from Research" section. The fault has now been rectified.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne dated 12 April relating to his constituent Mr. L. G. Robinson. [130654]

  Ms Stuart
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 13 July.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne dated 12 April relating to his constituent Mr. J. M. Hawthorn. [130656]
  77W
  Mr. Denham
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 7 July 2000.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letters dated 7 April, 10 May,8 June and 6 July from the hon. Member for Broxbourne relating to Miss Sue Burr, a paediatric nurse adviser at the Royal College of Nursing. [130084]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 13 July.

  Source Informatics
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 6 July 2000,Official Report, column 283W, on Source Informatics, for what reasons it was not in the public interest to pursue the case against Source Informatics. [130430]

  Ms Stuart
  I concluded that further time, effort and expense pursuing this appeal could not be justified.

  Psychotherapists
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the shortfall in the number of local authority psychotherapists by authority; what proposals he has to increase the number of psychotherapists; and what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities in each of the last five years of employing psychotherapists in private practice. [130424]

  Mr. Hutton
  Separate figures for the number of specialised psychotherapists employed in health and local authorities are not collected centrally and no estimate has been made of the cost of employing the skills of psychotherapists working in private practice.

  We have given a high priority to improving service quality in general in the National Health Service and social care services and to strengthening the work force. The National Service Framework set out how effective psychotherapy forms an important component of mental health care and treatment. The Workforce Action Team under the chairmanship of Sue Hunt is taking forward what education and training of staff is required to deliver the standards set out in the National Service Framework for Mental Health.

  The Workforce Action Team will focus not only on specialised psychotherapists but also those professionals with training and responsibility to deliver effective psychotherapies as a component of their role in health and social care.

  Out of Area Treatments Scheme
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the right of a patient to obtain a second opinion is ensured under the Out of Area Treatments scheme. [130646]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 1 April 1999 patients are always treated under service agreements. Emergencies and other situations which preclude the use of specific pre-arranged service agreements are covered by arrangements termed Out of Area Treatments (OATs).

  Detailed guidance on the OAT arrangements is set out in HSC 1999–117. A copy has been placed in the Library.
  78W
  The Patients Charter states that patients have a right to be referred to a consultant who is acceptable to them when their general practitioner thinks it is necessary, and to be referred for a second opinion if the patient and GP agree it is desirable. The OATs arrangements do not alter this.

  Clozapine
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if NICE will investigate the effectiveness of clozapine as a standard treatment for psychiatric illness. [130943]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is currently developing a guideline on the treatment of early schizophrenia, which will include an evaluation of the use of clozapine and other atypical anti-psychotics.

  CJD
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease have occurred in Leicestershire; if this represents an unexpectedly high rate of disease incidence; and if he will make a statement. [131247]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are currently aware of four confirmed cases and one probable case of variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD) having occurred in Leicestershire. This compares with 75 known confirmed and probable cases of vCJD throughout the United Kingdom. Statistical experts advise it is unlikely that the higher number of cases in Leicestershire will have occurred by chance.

  A locally based investigation is now under way to look into the circumstances of this apparent cluster. To that end, the Department, through its Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive, will be working closely with the Local Health Authority and its Public Health Department as well as with experts from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the National CJD Surveillance Unit, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre of the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  It is important to recognise that the cases we have identified will have been exposed to the infective agent many years ago. Control measures to protect public health from risk of exposure to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy have been in place for many years and progressively strengthened over recent years, and the Government will continue to take whatever steps the experts recommend. The Food Standards Agency stands ready to assist with the investigation as necessary and will in particular wish to be satisfied that no new factor is involved in these cases which requires further action to ensure the safety of food.

  Tranquillisers and Anti-depressants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what general practitioner prescriptions of(a) tranquillisers and (b) anti-depressants in each health authority in England (i) in total and (ii) as a ratio per 1,000 of resident population of each health authority there were in (A) 1997, (B) 1998 and (C) 1999; and what was their value. [130823]
  79W
  Ms Stuart
  The information requested for 1998 and 1999 has been placed in the Library. Information for 1997 is no longer available at this level of detail.

  Nut Allergies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent action he has taken to increase awareness of nut allergies; and if he will make a statement. [131004]

  Ms Stuart
  A major catering awareness campaign was carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in November 1997. I am advised that officials in the Food Standards Agency have recently met interested parties to explore what more could be done to increase awareness of nut allergies.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to encourage food producers to produce food free of nuts; and if he will make a statement. [131001]

  Ms Stuart
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that it has entered into dialogue with representatives of the food industry to consider what can be done to minimise problems of food allergy. Initial discussions have focused on the need to strengthen food labelling rules and to encourage good manufacturing practice.

  Epi Pens
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many Epi Pens were(a) prescribed and (b) used in the last 12 months; and what was the total cost to the National Health Service; [131007]

  (2) what advice he has issued to (a) medical practitioners, (b) NHS trusts and (c) primary care groups on the (i) prescription and (ii) use of Epi Pens. [131006]

  Ms Stuart
  The number of prescription items dispensed in the community in England in 1999 for Epi Pens was 50,300. The associated net ingredient cost was £1,754,900. Information is not available on the numbers used or on the number of items dispensed in hospitals.

  The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Guidance on anaphylaxis and its treatment appears in the British National Formulary (BNF) which is issued twice a year to doctors, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals by the Department. It is a joint publication of the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. The BNF aims to provide doctors, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals with up to date information about the use of medicines.

  Further advice was also included in the Chief Medical Officer Update No. 2 issued in May 1994 and the Chief Medical Officer Update No. 19 issued in August 1998.

  Substance Abuse
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths were associated with volatile substance abuse in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [130924]
  80W
  Ms Stuart
  Statistics collected by St. George's Hospital Medical School and published on 13 July show that there were 70 deaths in the United Kingdom in 1998 associated with Volatile Substance Abuse (VSA). Deaths in 1998 were less than half the number recorded at their peak in 1990. We take any death associated with VSA very seriously and are committed to continuing action to address this problem.

  It is particularly important that young people should know about the dangers of abusing volatile substances. We are supporting a programme that will enable general practitioners and other healthcare professionals to assist teachers in communicating health messages about the dangers of drugs and solvents. Other measures to address this issue include a campaign to inform retailers about the risks of volatile substance abuse, and their responsibilities under the law. The Department is also working with voluntary organisations to develop training packages for professionals working with young people at risk of abusing volatile substances.

  The report "Trends in Deaths Associated with Abuse of Volatile Substances 1971–1998" is available in the Library.

  St. Dunstan's
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many applications for grant aid from St. Dunstan's have been received for the financial years 1998–99, 1999–2000, and 2000–01; how many have been granted; for what purposes and at what value; and if he will make a statement; [131072]

  (2) for what reasons an application by St. Dunstan's for section 64 grant aid towards the replacement of the swimming pool was refused. [131703]

  Mr. Hutton
  No applications were received from St. Dunstan's for section 64 funding in the 1998–99 and 1999–2000 rounds, although there were applications from the Diana Gubbay Trust for the Blind, which is administered by St. Dunstan's. Under the 2000–01 round, St. Dunstan's submitted an application for a section 64 grant of £500,000 towards the repair of the roof covering of their swimming pool.

  Under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 the Department has power to fund voluntary organisations in England whose activities support the Department's policy objectives relating to health and social services. As applications for grant aid exceeded funds available for 2000–01, each application was considered on its merits, and grants awarded when they were judged most likely to further the Department's policy objectives. St. Dunstan's application was one of a large number of unsuccessful applications.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nut Allergies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what advice he has issued to schools, nurseries and playgroups about catering provision for children with nut allergies; and if he will make a statement; [131009]
  81W
  (2) if he will make a statement on the impact of nut allergies on children's access to places in nurseries, playcentres and summer play schemes; [131010]

  (3) what advice he has issued to school nurses, schools, nurseries and playgroups on how to deal with children with nut allergies; and if he will make a statement. [131059]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department has issued joint good practice guidance, with the Department of Health, for schools on "Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs" which contains advice on anaphylaxis. It recommends drawing up individual health care plans to enable children to take as full a part as possible in school activities. I commend the guidance to other bodies having children in their care. Advice is also available on the joint DfEE and Department of Health "Wired For Health" website (www.wiredforhealth.gov.uk). The guidance that we will be publishing this autumn for school caterers to support our new nutritional standards for school lunches will include advice on catering for those children who stay for a school lunch but who have particular medical needs, including nut allergies.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many supply teachers were employed(a) in England and Wales and (b) by local education authorities in (i) inner London and (ii) outer London in (A) July 1998 to June 1999 and (B) July 1999 to June 2000. [130777]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of supply teachers employed within the specified periods are not available centrally.

  Admissions (Infant Schools)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appeals for admission to infant schools in the next academic year have been refused on the grounds that admission would breach the class size limit for five, six and seven-year-olds; and in how many cases the child had a sibling already in the school. [130696]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not hold this information. The admissions framework we have established aims to ensure that local admission arrangements accommodate parental preference wherever possible, but there have always been cases where this cannot be met. Our infant class size initiative, which is being pursued in such a way that popular schools are able to expand, enables more parents to obtain a place for their child at their preferred school. A net gain of 12,000 places at popular schools is being provided as a result of the policy.

  We are well on course to deliver our pledge to limit infant classes to 30 pupils. £620 million is available to support the pledge, and allocations so far to Trafford LEA amount to some £2 million. This has helped to reduce the size of the average Key Stage 1 class in the Altrincham and Sale, West parliamentary constituency to 25.9. The figure in January 1997 was 29.6.

  Class Sizes (Suffolk)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class sizes were in Suffolk for(a) primary schools, (b) middle schools and (c) upper schools in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [130749]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The requested information is shown in the following table.

  In the Suffolk local education authority area, the number of pupils in key stage 1 classes of 31 or more pupils was 1,850 in January 2000, compared with 2,590 a year earlier. This means that less than 10 per cent. of these pupils remain in classes of over 30 pupils.

  The number of pupils in key stage 1 classes in England of over 30 pupils has already fallen by 300,000 and the Government are well on target to deliver their infant class size pledge in England. Some £620 million is available to support the pledge and allocations so far to Suffolk LEA amount to some £3 million. This has helped reduce the average size of key stage 1 classes in the parliamentary constituency of Bury St. Edmunds from 25 in January 1997, to 24 in January 2000. Over the same period, the average size of key stage 2 classes in the constituency has fallen from 27 to 26.

  The size of the average secondary class in Suffolk has risen slightly over this period, but at 21.8 this is still four fewer than in primary schools. Secondary classes nationally have been rising steadily for the last 12 years. In 1988 the figure was 19.9. In the budget, secondary headteachers received between £30,000 and £50,000 each to spend as they choose. If they spent it on teachers, they could reduce the secondary pupil:teacher ratio by 0.4.

  Average class size of one teacher classes in maintained primary, middle and secondary schools in Suffolk local education authority: 1998–20001

  Position as at January each year

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Key stage 1:

  Average class size

  24.1

  24.1

  24.3

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  3,011

  2,590

  1,850

  Key stage 2:

  Average class size

  26.3

  26.3

  26.2

  Overall primary2:

  Average class size

  25.0

  24.9

  24.9

  of which middle deemed primary:

  Average class size

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Secondary:

  Average class size

  20.8

  20.8

  21.2

  of which middle deemed secondary:

  Average class size

  23.7

  23.6

  23.8

  1 Provisional

  2 Includes nursery classes and mixed stage classes

  3 Not applicable (no schools of this type)

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what impact changes in public expenditure on schools have had on class sizes since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [130284]
  83W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Since this Government came to power, the average size of Key Stage 1 classes has fallen dramatically, and we are well on course to deliver our pledge to limit infant classes to 30 pupils. £620 million is available to support the pledge, and allocations so far to Lancashire LEA amount to nearly £15 million. This has helped to reduce the size of the average Key Stage 1 class in the Burnley parliamentary constituency to 25.6. The figure in January 1998 was 27.1.

  As far as funding more generally is concerned, while spending per pupil fell by £60 between 1994 and 1997, we have increased it by £300 per pupil in real terms since 1997. This has helped to reverse the trend towards bigger classes in primary schools. The size of the average primary class fell in January 2000 for the second year running, after rising for the previous 10 years. The size of the average Key Stage 2 class has also started to fall—from 28.4 in January 1999 to 28.3 in January 2000.

  The average size of secondary classes has risen slightly, but at 22 still remains more than five below those in primary schools. Class sizes in secondary schools have been rising steadily since 1988, when the figure was 19.9. The pupil/teacher ratio in secondary schools is 17.1—more than six lower than in primary schools. In the budget earlier this year, secondary heads each received between £30,000 and £50,000. It remains for heads to decide how to use this money, but if spent on teachers, the secondary pupil/teacher ratio could be reduced by 0.4.

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) of 1 March 2000,Official Report, column 313W, on the New Deal for Lone Parents, if he will place in the Library a copy of the invitation letter issued to 443,700 lone parents. [130753]

  Ms Jowell
  I have arranged for a copy of the invitation letter to be placed in the Library.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the New Deal for Young People on levels of long-term unemployment among young people in Glasgow, Pollok. [130296]

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

  Claimant unemployment among this group has fallen by 70 per cent. in the three years since April 1997 and by 56 per cent. since April 1998 when the New Deal was introduced. Part of this fall is due to the delivery of a strong and stable economy, but the New Deal for Young People has helped unemployment to fall even faster. The fall of 56 per cent. since the New Deal was introduced compares with a fall of 18 per cent. in total unemployment, 23 per cent. in total youth (18–24) unemployment and 26 per cent. in the total number unemployed for six months or more. The effect of the New Deal is confirmed by independent research from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
  84W
  It is not possible to measure the New Deal effect exactly in each constituency. However, in Glasgow, Pollok the falls in unemployment among the New Deal client group have also been substantially faster than for other groups. In Glasgow, Pollok constituency in the two years since April 1998 claimant unemployment among those aged 18–24, unemployed for six months or more, has fallen by 68 per cent. from 315 to 101. This compares with a fall of 18 per cent. in total unemployment, 28 per cent. in total youth (18–24) unemployment, and 32 per cent. in the total number unemployed for six months or more.

  School Uniforms
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he gives to school governors regarding school uniform policies which ban girls from wearing trousers. [130433]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have not issued guidance about school uniforms because we believe school governors should be free to decide what their school uniform or dress code policies should be.

  Teachers (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost is of the implementation of each part of the teachers' performance-related pay scheme; and what the current cost is of administering the scheme. [130207]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: We have made up to £1 billion available to support the cost of our teaching reforms in England until March 2002. Most of this extra money will be spent on the new teachers' pay system. The total cost of administering the pay reforms will be dependent upon the number of school visits carried out and this will not be known until later in 2000.

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for the latest date for which figures are available, the total value of grants made by each local education authority in England and Wales to schools, through the New Deal for Schools, for the repair of school buildings. [130209]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: The following table shows allocations made to local education authorities in England under the New Deal for Schools rounds 1 to 4. Information covering Welsh Authorities is not held by this Department.

  £000

  LEA name

  Total NDS allocation

  Barking and Dagenham

  6,096

  Barnet

  7,686

  Barnsley

  6,615

  Bath and North East Somerset

  4,907

  Bedfordshire

  6,906

  Bexley

  5,469

  Birmingham

  24,635

  Blackburn

  4,647

  Blackpool

  3,783

  Bolton

  8,963

  85W

  £000

  LEA name

  Total NDS allocation

  Bournemouth

  4,122

  Bracknell Forest

  2,467

  Bradford

  28,592

  Brent

  6,415

  Brighton and Hove

  4,481

  Bristol

  7,458

  Bromley

  5,398

  Buckinghamshire

  9,254

  Bury

  4,397

  Calderdale

  7,104

  Cambridgeshire

  10,727

  Camden

  3,462

  Cheshire

  15,390

  City of London

  0

  Cornwall

  11,246

  Coventry

  7,676

  Croydon

  7,848

  Cumbria

  8,639

  Darlington

  2,392

  Derby

  5,492

  Derbyshire

  17,747

  Devon

  15,714

  Doncaster

  7,251

  Dorset

  9,197

  Dudley

  8,472

  Durham

  12,212

  Ealing

  5,981

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  8,479

  East Sussex

  10,440

  Enfield

  6,474

  Essex

  25,232

  Gateshead

  5,317

  Gloucestershire

  12,482

  Greenwich

  6,287

  Hackney

  5,087

  Halton

  4,291

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,896

  Hampshire

  25,586

  Haringey

  6,514

  Harrow

  4,554

  Hartlepool

  3,413

  Havering

  5,422

  Herefordshire

  6,005

  Hertfordshire

  22,356

  Hillingdon

  5,925

  Hounslow

  6,434

  Hull

  7,584

  Isle of Wight

  3,425

  Isles of Scilly

  108

  Islington

  6,455

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,625

  Kent

  27,506

  Kingston upon Thames

  3,962

  Kirklees

  9,231

  Knowsley

  4,760

  Lambeth

  5,566

  Lancashire

  26,454

  Leeds

  16,517

  Leicester

  9,566

  Leicestershire

  12,755

  Lewisham

  9,951

  Lincolnshire

  9,012

  Liverpool

  16,773

  Luton

  3,576

  Manchester

  12,176

  Medway Towns

  6,007

  Merton

  4,938

  Middlesbrough

  4,922

  Milton Keynes

  5,025

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  14,717

  Newham

  8,819

  Norfolk

  16,793

  86W

  £000

  LEA name

  Total NDS allocation

  North East Lincolnshire

  5,573

  North Lincolnshire

  4,704

  North Somerset

  5,444

  North Tyneside

  5,088

  North Yorkshire

  12,799

  Northamptonshire

  14,231

  Northumberland

  11,012

  Nottingham

  6,328

  Nottinghamshire

  19,308

  Oldham

  10,264

  Oxfordshire

  13,285

  Peterborough

  4,252

  Plymouth

  6,395

  Poole

  3,428

  Portsmouth

  4,063

  Reading

  4,346

  Redbridge

  5,868

  Redcar and Cleveland

  10,900

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,670

  Rochdale

  6,791

  Rotherham

  7,124

  Rutland

  1,548

  Salford

  8,361

  Sandwell

  8,486

  Sefton

  6,764

  Sheffield

  18,669

  Shropshire

  5,699

  Slough

  2,730

  Solihull

  6,690

  Somerset

  11,780

  South Gloucestershire

  6,329

  South Tyneside

  5,539

  Southampton

  5,085

  Southend-on-Sea

  3,266

  Southwark

  4,700

  St. Helens

  6,638

  Staffordshire

  18,920

  Stockport

  7,566

  Stockton-on-Tees

  4,967

  Stoke-on-Trent

  8,626

  Suffolk

  13,331

  Sunderland

  7,581

  Surrey

  17,725

  Sutton

  3,664

  Swindon

  5,632

  Tameside

  8,378

  Thurrock

  2,835

  Torbay

  3,772

  Tower Hamlets

  7,677

  Trafford

  6,198

  Wakefield

  9,328

  Walsall

  8,001

  Waltham Forest

  5,612

  Wandsworth

  4,651

  Warrington

  5,359

  Warwickshire

  11,404

  West Berkshire (Newbury)

  3,337

  West Sussex

  14,501

  Westminster

  3,457

  Wigan

  11,335

  Wiltshire

  8,998

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,783

  Wirral

  9,094

  Wokingham

  3,784

  Wolverhampton

  7,081

  Worcestershire

  11,022

  Wrekin

  4,895

  York

  4,562

  Total allocation for local education authorities in England

  1,243,488

  Further Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about trends in enrolment to further education in the last 12 months. [130086]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: Snapshot figures for November 1999 show that adult learners funded by the Further Education Council (FEFC) declined by 1.9 per cent. on 1998 while numbers of 16–18 year olds rose by 2.5 per cent. in the same period. The decline in adult learners reflects our squeezing out of the inappropriate franchising by some colleges allowed by the previous Government. The measures announced by the FEFC this year will help ensure that recruitment rises in line with Government projections for 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Neo-natal Hearing Screening
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources his Department(a) has allocated and (b) plans to allocate to develop language and educational provision in preparation for the launch and national roll-out of the pilot project for neo-natal hearing screening. [130104]

  Jacqui Smith
  There has been a £1.1 billion increase in education through Standard Spending Assessment (SSAs) in 2000–01. Through this, money is made available to all local education authorities (LEAs). It is for LEAs to determine how to make best use of this money and decide which services they make resources available for.

  In addition in 2000–01, we have made the following increases in funding available to schools and LEAs: £500 million extra in grant to the standards fund; £50 million to support school budgets; £14 million in extra support for Excellence in Cities; and £290 million directly for schools in the March Budget. Taken together these amount to an increase in funding per pupil of £180 in real terms.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to Non-departmental Public Bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129841]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: The total number of appointments and re-appointments to DfEE Non-departmental Public Bodies since 1 May 1997 is 410. Of these, 141 have been women, 15 of which have been paid appointments (25 per cent. of all paid appointments and re-appointments) and 126 have been unpaid (36 per cent. of all unpaid appointments and re-appointments).

  This Government are committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. In support of this, the Department has drawn up an action plan for increasing the number of women and ethnic minorities holding public appointments. The latest plans, together with the Government's overall plan, were published 24 May
  88W
  2000 in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments 2000–2003", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.

  Residential Care Homes
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements exist to ensure that residential care establishments teach the National Curriculum. [129770]

  Jacqui Smith
  Although residential care establishments are able to access and use the National Curriculum if they are undertaking education within their establishments, only maintained schools are obligated to do so.

  The Government expects and is committed to providing mainstream education including access to the full National Curriculum for all children of school age, wherever this is suitable. The recently published joint Department for Education and Employment and Department of Health "Guidance On The Education of Children and Young People in Public Care" stipulates that: "The Government expects local authorities to set a maximum time limit of twenty school days within which they must secure an education placement for any pupil in public care. It will be a full-time place in a local mainstream school unless the circumstances of the child make full-time or local or mainstream provision unsuitable". This is supported by statutory guidance in Circular LAC(2000)13.

  Youth Employment
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the numbers of 16 and 17 year-olds in full-time work with no training. [127615]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department's latest estimate is that there were 114,000 16 and 17-year-olds in employment and not in education or training in England at the end of 1999.

WALES

  A3XX Airliner
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning a regional selective assistance grant for the A3XX airliner, with reference to the likely date of the First Secretary's decision; and if he will make a statement. [129500]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular basis, and our discussions have included the A3XX project. I understand that BAE have submitted a new RSA application with a new case for a grant for £25 million and that the National Assembly is awaiting more detailed information from the company in support of the case before a decision can be made.

  New Deal
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales aged 25 years and over have left the New Deal for jobs lasting less than 13 weeks but
  89W
  have been included in the number leaving for sustained employment as a result of not having returned to jobseeker' s allowance. [131035]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The definition of a sustained job is one from which the employee does not return to Jobseeker's Allowance within 13 weeks. Information is not available on whether those employees retain the same job.

  Latest figures, to the end of April 2000, show that 2,382 people had gained sustained employment from the 25+ New Deal programme.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales have joined the New Deal since it was established. [131037]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To April 2000, 29,330 young people joined the 18–24 New Deal programme. 13,440 joined the 25+ New Deal programme.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have left their New Deal scheme in Wales to be placed on(a) Incapacity Benefit, (b) Income Support, (c) Jobseeker's Allowance and (d) other benefit. [131053]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To the end of April 2000, 4,590 people left the 25+ New Deal and continued to claim Jobseeker's Allowance. An additional 1,190 transferred to other benefits including Incapacity Benefit and Income Support. No breakdown of this figure is available.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many New Deal participants in Wales have found sustained unsubsidised jobs of 13 weeks or more before having had a New Deal interview. [131041]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  To April 2000, 1,060 participants left the 18–24 programme and 225 left the 25+ programme for sustained unsubsidised jobs before participating in a New Deal interview.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the average cost of the New Deal in Wales is per participant. [131048]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Approximately £1,577.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of New Deal participants in Wales have seen their wages rise on leaving the scheme. [131040]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No central information is held on the wage levels of those leaving New Deal.

  Police Time
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the average amount of time spent by a police officer on the beat was between(a) May 1997 and May 1998, (b) May 1998 and May 1999 and (c) May 1999 and May 2000. [130983]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The deployment of police officers is a matter for individual Chief Constables.

  Information about the percentage of officer time spent in public has been published by the Audit Commission in the 1997–98 and 1998–99 editions of "Local Authority Performance Indicators—Police and Fire Services".

  Home Office Allocation
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money Wales was allocated from the Home Office budget between(a) May 1997 and May 1998, (b) May 1998 and May 1999 and (c) May 1999 and May 2000. [130984]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The allocation of the Home Office budget is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Towel Rails
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost was of each towel rail installed in the last 12 months in the premises used by the Lord Chancellor privately or officially in the Palace of Westminster; how many towel rails were installed; and what the labour cost was for the installation of each towel rail. [130805]

  Mr. Lock
  The Parliamentary Works Directorate is responsible for carrying out repairs in the Palace of Westminster. Two defective heating radiators in bathrooms in the Lord Chancellor's residence have been replaced by them in the last 12 months. Each radiator cost £536.66 and was subject to a 5 per cent. handling charge, the total labour charge was £174.20 and the VAT was £227.71, giving a total of £1,528.90 for the two radiators. The entire cost went to the House of Lords current works 2000–01 budget.

TREASURY

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to(a) establish environmental guidelines for the Export Credits Guarantee Department and (b) support the introduction of such guidelines at the G8 summit in Okinawa. [130830]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply

  ECGD has enhanced its procedures to assess the environmental impact of projects for which its support is requested. In the context of the current review of its mission and status, ECGD is also looking carefully at what more should be done to ensure its support for projects is consistent with the Government's sustainable development objectives, including possible further improvements to its environmental screening and assessment process.

  At the forthcoming G8 summit in Okinawa, the UK will support moves to reaffirm the mandate from the Cologne summit, at which it was agreed to work within the OECD towards common environmental guidelines for export credit agencies. At their meeting in June, OECD Ministers welcomed the good progress made in the OECD Export Credit Group on strengthening common approaches on the environment and requested a report on progress at the next meeting.

  Mortgages and Endowment Policies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers are available to the Financial Services Authority to regulate, and take sanctions against, market abuses of the sale of financial products which seek to offer protection against shortfalls in endowment policies designed to pay off mortgages. [130821]

  Mr. Timms
  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and other legislation provide the relevant regulators with an effective statutory framework with which to tackle market abuse of all kinds. It is illegal to conduct unauthorised insurance business.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what approaches(a) he and (b) the Financial Services Authority have made to individual firms requesting the numbers of 25 year endowment contracts (A) with-profits and (B) unit linked purchased (i) one year ago, (ii) five years ago, (iii) 10 years ago, (iv) 15 years ago and (v) 20 years ago which are still in force today; and if he will publish the data received. [130635]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On behalf of the Financial Services Authority, the Personal Investment Authority (PIA) collects and publishes information on the persistency of endowment contracts, but only for periods of up to four years after policies begin. The latest figures were published in October 1999 in the PIA's "Fifth Survey Of The Persistency Of Life And Pensions Policies", a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to bring forward amendments to the law to protect house purchasers from the mis-selling of mortgages. [130650]

  Mr. Timms
  The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 provides a statutory framework for the regulation of mortgages.

  The House will be asked to approve a Regulated Activities Order in the next few months. This will include further details of how mortgages will be regulated.

  On the timing of mortgage regulation, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on 27 January 2000, Official Report, columns 263–64W.

  Motor Service Garages
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many motor service garages which subcontract their MOT business to an approved test centre have been investigated by HM Customs and Excise for under-declaration of Value Added Tax since November 1996; how many have been found to have under-declared their Value Added Tax liability; and if he will make a statement. [130718]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Visit information about motor service garages that subcontract their MOT business is not held centrally by Customs and Excise. But visits are made to check businesses' Value Added Tax declarations on the basis of Customs' overall assessment of revenue risk. This takes account of local information including knowledge about under-declarations found on visits to other businesses. In the years 1998–99 and 1999–2000 the 92W
  number of visits made by Customs to motor service garages to check their Value Added Tax declarations was 2,249 and 1,987 and the number found to have under-declared their Value Added Tax liability was 1,347 and 1,227 respectively.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the costs to business of the implementation of the Working Families Tax Credit. [129339]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the regulatory impact assessment which was published and placed in the House Library in December 1999.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have taken place in(a) staff and (b) premises since the introduction of Family Tax Credit; and what further changes are planned. [130005]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: Around 3,500 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff transferred from the Benefits Agency to the Inland Revenue in October 1999 to form the Tax Credit Office (TCO). Staffing levels have not changed significantly since that time, and there are still currently around 3,500 FTE staff in the TCO. The TCO still occupies the same premises as it did in October 1999. There are no plans within the TCO to change either staffing levels or accommodation, although both are kept under review.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the operational effectiveness of the introduction of Family Tax Credit. [130003]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: The Tax Credit Office (TCO) was set up in October 1999. For the period between October 1999 and 31 March 2000, most of the TCO's inherited targets have either been met or exceeded. A full analysis of performance against targets will be contained in the Inland Revenue Plan 2000–01 which is to be published shortly.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average time is from receipt of application to receipt of tax credit for Family Tax Credit; and what is the current number of cases being processed. [130006]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 July 2000]: We do not record the average time between receipt of Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) applications by the Tax Credit Office (TCO) and receipt of tax credit payments by applicants. However, the TCO aims to settle 90 per cent. of all WFTC applications within 30 working days of receipt. The actual percentage of applications settled within 30 days since the beginning of this financial year and the end of June 2000 is 97.6 per cent. The number of applications being processed as at 30 June 2000 was 61,000.

  Withholding Tax
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Austrian Government's blocking of the withholding tax proposal, with particular reference to the use of the national veto. [129921]
  93W
  Dawn Primarolo
  All 15 member states have agreed to accept exchange of information, and not a withholding tax, as the way forward for the EU to tackle the problem of cross-border tax evasion.

  VAT (Continence Pads)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 268W, on VAT, by what mechanism incontinent people apply for zero-rated continence pads. [130754]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The mechanism for claiming VAT relief on supplies of continence pads works on the basis of self assessment. Individuals living in their own homes and suffering from incontinence declare to suppliers that they are chronically sick or disabled and are therefore entitled to purchase zero-rated continence pads.

  Departmental Initiatives
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will list each departmental initiative since May 1997 requiring bids for funding together with the total resources available, the number of successful bids and the proportion this represents of total bids received; and what data he collects on the average expenditure of organisations bidding for funding through each initiative. [131088]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  New spending plans for the years 2001–02 and 2003–04 are being considered in the current Spending Review. The outcome of the review will be announced on 18 July.

  Pensioner Savings
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners benefited from the changes to income tax on savings announced in the Budget. [130959]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Six out of 10 pensioners do not have any income tax to pay. Many of the remaining pensioners with savings could benefit from the measures announced in the Budget.

  Married Person's Allowance
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men born between 6 April 1935 and 5 April 1936 are affected by the withdrawal of the married person's allowance in(a) the UK, (b) Wales and (c) Ceredigion. [127871]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Six out of 10 pensioners do not have any income tax to pay. People become entitled to the age-related personal allowance at the age of 65. This is worth up to £1,405 over and above the basic allowance.

  In his 1999 Budget, the Chancellor increased the age-related personal allowance by more than inflation, and someone aged 65 to 74 can have an income of £111 a week in 2000–01 before paying tax.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the additional tax collected in 2000–01 as a result of the abolition of the married couples allowance. [130769]
  94W
  Dawn Primarolo
  An estimate was provided in appendix A2.1 of the March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report. A copy is held in the Library of the House.

  Imports (Israel)
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 449W, if the European Commission has asked the UK, through HM Customs and Excise, to begin a posteriori verification measures under the Origin Rules Protocol in respect of imports from Israel. [130181]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 450W, following the Israeli Government's admission concerning the definition of territoriality it uses in issuing certificates of origin, if the European Commission will require security bonds or deposits on new importations of products labelled, "Made in Israel", similar to those previously shown to have been produced in settlements on the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. [130183]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such decision has yet been taken.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in cases prior to October 1999, where HM Customs and Excise initiated a posteriori verification procedures with Israel's customs concerning importations under preferences of products that Customs and Excise had reason to suspect may have been wholly produced or substantially processed in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, what answers HM Customs and Excise received from Israeli customs concerning the originating status of the products concerned. [130185]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such verifications were initiated.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 449W, if HM Customs and Excise have begun to apply, or will apply, a posteriori verification measures under the Origin Rules Protocol to (a) all Israeli products and (b) new imports of products labelled, "Made in Israel", similar to those previously shown to have been produced in settlements on the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. [130182]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise have begun a posteriori verifications based on information supplied to it by the European Commission. No decision on additional verification measures beyond this has yet been taken.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 449W, when the European Commission completed its assessment of the evidence provided by HM Customs and Excise relating to Israeli violations of the EC-Israel Trade Agreement. [130180]

  Dawn Primarolo
  At the beginning of April 2000, the European Commission instructed member states to commence verification inquiries with Israel as set out in Article 32 of Protocol 4 to the EC-Israel Trade Agreement.
  95W
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there have been instances where imports to Britain, accompanied by Israeli certificates of origin, have been prevented by HM Customs and Excise from benefiting from preferential treatment because the labelling, the locales named in the origin certificates, or other information indicated that the goods in question were wholly produced or substantially processed in the occupied territories of the West Bank, Gaza or Golan Heights. [130184]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There have been no such instances.

  BEST Pensioners
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the dispute between the Inland Revenue and Standard Life in respect of the BEST pensioners. [130058]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are unaware of any such dispute.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many forms have been sent out inviting people to apply for the Children's Tax Credit; how many completed forms have been returned; and what proportion of completed and returned forms have been completed(a) incorrectly and (b) by someone who is ineligible for the Children's Tax Credit. [130222]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Children's Tax Credit will reduce the tax bills of 5 million families by up to £442 a year. Taken with other reforms such as the record levels of Child Benefit and increases in the amounts of Working Families Tax Credit, 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty by April 2001.

  Claim forms for the credit were sent at the end of June to around 8 million PAYE taxpayers whom our records suggest may be eligible. Over 1.5 million forms have already been returned. No figures are available on the number of forms filled in incorrectly.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total cost to date is of the administration of the new Children's Tax Credit including the costs of(a) producing and distributing the forms, (b) advertisements and (c) the telephone helpline. [130221]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Children's Tax Credit will reduce the tax bills of 5 million families by up to £442 a year. Taken with other reforms such as the record levels of Child Benefit and increases in the amounts of Working Families Tax Credit, 1.2 million children will be lifted out of poverty by April 2001.
  96W
  We estimate the costs to date of implementing the credit at around £4 million, including £1.5 million for publicity and £1.7 million for the issue of claim forms. No separate figures are available for the cost to date of the helpline.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if entitlement to Working Families Tax Credit will be affected by the Children's Tax Credit. [130381]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Families who are eligible to claim both credits will be entitled to do so.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many call centre jobs there were in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2000 in (i) England and Wales and (ii) the City of Sunderland; [130201]

  (2) what the average salary was for employees of the call centre industry in (a) England and Wales and (b) the City of Sunderland in (i) 1992, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2000. [130202]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 17 July 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent questions regarding the number of call centre jobs and the salaries of employees in call centre jobs. (130201/2)
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is National Statistics major source of labour market data on individuals and the New Earnings Survey (NES) is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in Great Britain. Both surveys use the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) to allocate people to a certain code depending on their occupation. Under the current classification for 1990 (SOC90) call centre staff are allocated to a number of occupation codes, depending on the industrial sector in which they work, which include:

  Telephone salespersons - SOC Code 792

  clerks (not otherwise specified) - SOC Code 430

  counter clerks and cashiers - SOC Code 411

  accounts and wage clerks, book-keepers, other financial clerks - SOC Code 410.

  However, these occupations also include those people who do a similar job with the same SOC number, but who do not work in a call centre - e.g. bank and insurance clerks. Thus the number of call centre staff, and hence their salaries, cannot be separately identified.
  In the newly updated SOC2000, call centre agents/operators will be identified as a separate code. LFS and NES data for SOC2000 will be available in 2001.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what percentage of the(a) paid and (b) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [129839]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: This Government are committed to increasing the

  97W
  representation of women in public life. In support of this, I have drawn up an action plan for increasing the number of women and ethnic minorities holding public appointments in public bodies of the Chancellor's Departments and Agencies.

  The same question was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) in April 1998 and an answer was subsequently given on 29 April 1998, Official Report, columns 161–62W. Information of appointments made since then is as follows:

  Number of appointments since 29 April 1998

  Paid

  Unpaid

  Number of women appointed

  5

  33

  Women as percentage of appointments

  38

  85

  Departmental Payments
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by his Department in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 within 30 days of receipt of (i) goods and services, (ii) a valid invoice and (iii) other agreed payment terms. [130031]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 11 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister for Small Businesses and E-commerce on 13 July 2000, Official Report, column 621W.

  Taxation and National Insurance
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of GDP is taken in taxation and National Insurance contributions(a) in the UK and (b) in each other EU member state. [130083]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested can be found in the OECD publication, "Revenue Statistics 1965–1998", a copy of which is in the Library.

  IR35
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the views expressed by the Professional Contractors Group concerning the effect of the IR35 proposals on(a) the wages paid by large foreign-owned companies and (b) United Kingdom entrepreneurs. [130392]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no reason why the IR35 changes should have any effect on the wages paid by large foreign-owned companies or on genuine UK entrepreneurs.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received concerning the IR35 tax proposals. [130393]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We continue to receive correspondence expressing a range of views on this policy.

  Adoption
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend the regulations to enable prospective parents of children placed for adoption and awaiting its confirmation to qualify for(a) Working Family Tax Benefit and (b) Sure Start maternity grant. [130425]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tax, benefit and local authority support systems will be considered in the light of the recommendations of the recently published report on adoption undertaken by the Performance and Innovation Unit.

  VAT (EU)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what value added tax(a) rates and (b) exemptions are applied by each Government in the EU states; and what court cases have been (i) initiated and (ii) concluded in the European Court of Justice concerning the application of value added tax since 1 May 1997. [130292]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is supplied periodically in the "International VAT Monitor."

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies(a) are being undertaken and (b) have been undertaken by the Government concerning the effect on trade and competition of the United Kingdom entering the single currency. [130247]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 February 2000, Official Report, column 687W.

  Public Sector
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of(a) public sector net worth and (b) public sector gross worth in financial year 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [130275]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: Forecasts of public sector net worth as a percentage of GDP were published in Table 2.6 of the March 2000 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Forecasts of public sector gross worth are not available.

  Net worth has recently been on an upward trend. This follows a prolonged period in which the poor state of the public finances led to it falling below 15 per cent. of GDP, from over 77 per cent. of GDP in 1980–81.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria he uses to decide whether the Monetary Policy Committee members have knowledge and experience which is likely to be relevant to the Committee's functions; and on what grounds he decides whether to renew their membership. [130313]
  99W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 July 2000]: All members appointed to the MCP have distinguished professional track records in fields relevant to monetary policy. In deciding whether or not to reappoint external members the Chancellor takes into account the need to strike a balance between continuity and ensuring that there are opportunities to bring new ideas and perspectives into the MCP at regular intervals.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of allowing duty on fuel products to be paid at the terminal instead of at the point at which they leave the refinery. [130717]

  Mr. Timms
  I have made no such assessment.

  Nigeria
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement in respect of debt owed by Nigeria to the UK. [130991]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK welcomes Nigeria's new democratic government and its determination to push ahead with economic reform. As Nigeria's largest creditor we have been working to help Nigeria resolve its debt burden within the context of IMF support so that freed-up resources can be devoted to poverty eradication. The Chancellor has taken a two-stage approach: first, a generous debt rescheduling at the Paris Club once an IMF programme has been agreed; and then, once Nigeria has built a track record of reform, the UK has made clear that it would be willing to consider partial debt cancellation subject to a debt sustainability analysis.

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

Energy Policy
Lord Hunt of Chesterton Lord Hunt of Chesterton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their energy policy in the light of the 22nd report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the recommendations in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution will be taken into account when the Government finalise their climate change programme in the autumn. We aim to make a full response to the report's 87 recommendations within a year. That is the normal time frame for responding to Royal Commission reports.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, what will the Government be doing, along with United Nations agencies, to monitor other countries' actions in respect of the convention?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the UK is working closely with the commission and the International Energy Agency to monitor projections of emissions and how they compare with the Kyoto targets and the policies to deliver savings.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister give us any indication when the House will be able to debate that very important Royal Commission report? In view of the great urgency of countering climate change, as set out in the report, will he prevail on his noble friend Lord Whitty to reconsider his comment in the House a week ago that, on CO2 emissions, the total volume of traffic is not the issue? Even at this late stage, road and air traffic limitation targets could be introduced in the Transport Bill.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it will be for the usual channels to consider when such a debate can take place. I think that I can speak authoritatively for my noble friend in saying that the answer to the question about the Transport Bill is "No".
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Government's forthcoming statement deal with the period beyond 2010? They have a demanding objective for 2010 that we may get somewhere near, but with the withdrawal
576
of the nuclear-powered stations, the problems after that date will be much more serious. We ought to be planning for that now.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the finalisation of the climate change programme, which will come in the autumn, will give more consideration to the long-term position. As the noble Lord says, the target for 2010 is very demanding, but the situation after that will be even more difficult, particularly on the assumption of a run-down of nuclear energy.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has the Minister been made aware of the increase in pollution arising from Internet shopping? A study in the Netherlands has shown that Internet shopping has already added 17 per cent to the traffic involved in buying household goods. If that carries on, the Government will have a real problem with increasing road traffic pollution. What do they propose to do about that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, although I know quite a bit about Internet shopping, I was not aware of that fact. There is another school of thought that equally confidently believes that Internet shopping will help by cutting the transport requirements of major supermarket chains, which is clearly a highly desirable goal.

Water Supply
2.40 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the prospects for a national water grid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whiny): My Lords, watercourses and pipelines already transfer water over long distances in several parts of the United Kingdom to provide water supplies. The development of further transfers will be subject to assessment of their environmental impact, future demand for water, and the availability of sustainable supplies. In a proposed joint venture with the private sector, British Waterways is examining further use of the canal network to supply water of all qualities, including potable, linking the North West and the Midlands to London and the South East.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister give us more information about that interesting proposal? For years, we have been trying to devise a scheme for moving water from the North, where it is more plentiful, to the South, where it is lacking. It seems that there is now a real prospect of overcoming that problem. When could such a project come about? Might it seriously alleviate the problems in the South

577
over the next few years, bearing in mind the Government's plans for building so many more houses in the South East?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the main pressure on water supplies is in the South East and the main supply of water is in the North. The canal system can deal with only part of that, because it is not a universal network. However, I assure the noble Lord that the proposed public/private partnership has passed its initial feasibility study. There is a prospect of the supply of water of different qualities to ultimate suppliers through the canal system. That may come into play within a few years. There has been definite progress.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my noble friend has been asking this question since 1989. Have not the Government had long enough to think of a rather less preliminary answer?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot answer for the first eight years of that period. Since my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had responsibility for waterways, he has been extremely anxious that British Waterways should look at the way in which it can use its assets for wider purposes—both regeneration and, in this case, developing long-term ability to transfer water. We have gone ahead with the study. The technical side has been addressed and we are looking at the financing side. We believe that if we can provide different qualities of water for different consumers, there will be a strong commercial case for the proposal. Therefore, we are now well on the road.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I recognise the desirability of transferring water from the wetter regions to the drier regions and I note the contribution which the canal system can make to regional transfers. But will the Minister take note also of the very considerable energy costs which would be involved in any large-scale and long-distance grid system transferring water over very considerable distances? That was certainly one of the factors which influenced the view of the National Rivers Authority during the time that I was its chairman.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, if we were looking to use the canal system and existing waterways for a total transfer and a total national grid, clearly there would be substantial energy implications. There will be some energy implications even for those areas which we are looking at, but we believe that those will be taken care of in terms of the investment that is required, the commercial return and the environmental benefit which could be achieved by using British Waterways' assets in that way.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, it seems that there is a proposal to transfer water from the North West to the
578
South East. Surely, if energy is needed to pump water up hills, hydro-electric energy can be generated beside locks when the water comes down hills?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sure that, in principle, my noble friend is absolutely correct on that. However, the water course does not operate quite as systematically as his question implies. There will be points at which a degree of help with the flow may be necessary; but in general we shall be working with gravity rather than against it.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, perhaps the Government may find it easier to make it rain when the water is required than to use some of those very complicated systems. What research is being carried out into rain-making in the areas where it might be required?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, judging by recent days, that requirement is perhaps less immediately necessary than the noble and gallant Lord suggests. However, there are longer-term climate change issues which must be addressed. It may well be that the South of England will become drier and the prognostications tend to suggest that the North of England will become wetter. In those circumstances, the proposed scheme would be even more desirable, without intervening directly with precipitation in the way in which the noble and gallant Lord was considering.

Part-Time Police Force
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in considering the potential of a part-time police force to support regular forces.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government are currently looking at whether a part-time or retained police officers scheme would be a viable and useful tool in the fight against crime, particularly, although not exclusively, in rural areas. Creating such a force would not be straightforward. We shall need to discuss the issues it raises with the police service and police authorities before reaching any firm conclusions on the merits of the proposal.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for that reply, from which I draw considerable comfort. Is the Minister aware of the very serious recruitment crisis in the police, particularly in London and the South East, where house prices are so high?
Although the Government have made money available for recruitment, is the Minister aware of the wastage rates? In my own police force of Thames Valley, in June we recruited 23 new officers, which is the number needed to meet the Government's targets. Twenty officers resigned in that time. So that is a net improvement of three.

579
Is it not time to face up to the potential crisis and that real urgency—perhaps something which is in rather short supply sometimes in the Home Office was directed towards how police numbers could be enhanced by the use of retained or auxiliary policemen?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I dispute the noble Lord's comment that there is not real urgency in the Home Office in relation to this problem. There obviously is a real problem, both in the Metropolitan Police and the Thames Valley Police, which the noble Lord mentioned. Of course, he has a distinguished role with that force.
The figures for Thames Valley are that the force may recruit a maximum of approximately 240 new officers per year, dictated by training course capacity. A number of officers voluntarily resigned from the force during the course of last year. Twenty-six officers were transferred in from other forces during last year. But I am pleased to say that 151 probationer constables were appointed during this year. There is a problem of recruitment which the Government are determined to conquer.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, obviously, the police force operates in an employment marketplace? The real answer to the problem is proper establishments and a police force which is fully up to strength. In the light of that, does my noble friend agree that remuneration is a crucial element? The previous government took away the housing allowance. The sooner that is replaced throughout the country, the better it will be for recruitment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend is right. He has made the point on a number of occasions. In the opinion of the Government, it is one which cannot be made too often. Police pay is based on national pay scales. Starting pay for police officers compares favourably with other public service occupations. A police officer will now earn £16,635 on recruitment, whereas a fire-fighter will earn £15,381; a prison officer £15,842; an immigration officer £14,224 and a graduate teacher £15,537. Anyone who suggests the Government are not doing anything about that is obviously wrong.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hope this is not a stupid question. Could the Minister tell me the difference between a part-time police force and a special constabulary?
Lord Bach: My Lords, that is certainly not a stupid question, but an extremely good one, if I may say so. It appears that I may!
The essential difference is that of payment. Special constables are unpaid. Many special constables join up through altruism and obviously not for financial gain. However, the relationship of the special constabulary
580
to a part-time force is one of the issues raised by the creation of such a force. The Government are considering that issue at present.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, it is necessary for the Government to continue to involve the normal citizen in helping the police authorities where needed. Does the Minister agree that it is the duty of the citizen to support the maintenance of law and order, and, therefore, that the Government should do everything they can to create the climate of opinion in which this naturally arises from the duty of citizenship?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend is right. It is the duty of citizens both to assist the police and do their own bit as far as concerns maintaining law and order. Noble Lords will know that the neighbourhood warden scheme is up and running. That affects ordinary members of the public associated with it. However, it should be said that special constables are ordinary citizens who give up their free time in order to preserve law and order. They do their bit for the public, unpaid. I know that this House greatly respects what they do. I am delighted to say that the Ferrers Trophy—named after the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—for the special constable of the year, has been awarded to Daren Fitter of the Leicestershire Constabulary, a special constable in my home town of Lutterworth.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the targets set up following the Macpherson report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence about the recruitment of people from ethnic minorities, black and Asian police officers, have not been met and are very much below target? It is highly unlikely that the target set by the Home Office will be met. Does the Minister accept that one way to build the confidence of the minority is to establish a part-time police force within which at least they would have a first stepping stone towards a career in the police service?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the ideas and views of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on this issue are always treated by the Government with the greatest respect. His idea concerns the very real problem of recruiting and retaining ethnic minority police officers. We shall consider this proposal with the same interest as we consider his other proposals.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, is not the problem as much in the deployment of existing policemen as in the recruitment of new ones? I ask the Minister to comment in particular—he probably cannot do so immediately—on the employment of an armed car in the Isle of Wight which has meant that the police force available to police the island, which is very small in any case, has been depleted by 14 men.
Lord Bach: My Lords, deployment is important. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on the position in the Isle of Wight. However, I shall look into the matter and write to him.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of one other possible source of recruitment for police

581
forces in England and Wales; that is, Northern Ireland. What are the Government doing to make it possible for serving RUC officers to ask to be transferred to the Metropolitan Police or other police forces over here where there is a shortage of recruits?
Lord Bach: My Lords, interesting and new ideas do not come only from the Liberal Democrat Benches. My noble friend's idea is new to me and one that I should like to consider. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noticed the reports in the newspapers of the law and order problem created by the growth of late night clubs operating in inner cities, generally in disused warehouses and similar premises, which turn out their occupants in the middle of the night, sometimes at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m? Would it not be difficult to get part-time police officers to serve at such inconvenient hours? Would not a better answer be for local authorities to refuse planning permission for these operations which cause such great difficulties for the police?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord invites me to comment on issues which are far beyond my brief. All I would say is that police officers, whether regular officers or special constables, have to put themselves at considerable risk in a way that many members of the public are not always aware of. They do so at night, not just in our big cities but in our small towns, at "chucking-out" time, whether it be in clubs or pubs. Their bravery, in the face of unwarranted aggression by those who are kicked out, has been praised in this House before and should be praised again.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, can the Minister say what encouragement the Government are giving to neighbourhood watch schemes?
Lord Bach: My Lords, like the previous Government, this Government have supported neighbourhood watch schemes to a great extent. I am not in a position to give figures to the noble Baroness, but we support the schemes in precisely the same way as her Government did, and so that should be. This is a matter which should be beyond party.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the suggestion by his noble friend Lord Dubs is one which could have wide support, particularly when the situation in Northern Ireland permits? Can the Minister tell us about the present position of the exiting part-time police force in Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary reserve? Are they being looked after properly?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall be frank with the House. I have no information about the part-time police force in Northern Ireland. The best I can do is to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, can the Minister tell us if there is any indication that there will
582
be a Government Statement within this calendar year on the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw? Is he aware that the point made by his noble friend Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate is a powerful one? The recruitment crisis in London is caused by the acceptance of the then Government's Sheehy report, which has done so much damage to the police service in this country.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot give a definite answer to the first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as to whether or not that will be within this calendar year. The matter is under active consideration by the Home Office. The noble Lord will know better than I what that means. There must be every chance that a fairly early conclusion will be reached. However, I cannot go further than that. My noble friend was right; the Sheehy report and all that followed did, and continues to do, quite a lot of damage.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that many police forces have been selling police homes and police stations in rural areas. Are the Government now satisfied with the policing of rural areas in general?
Lord Bach: No, my Lords, we are not satisfied. That is the reason that extra money already has been given to ensure that policing, and particularly call-out times, in rural areas are improved. We are not satisfied. More needs to be done, and something is being done already.

Guide Dogs: Carriage by Taxi
3 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress there has been in introducing regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to allow the carriage of guide dogs in licensed taxis and private hire cars.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act covers the carriage of guide dogs and hearing dogs in licensed taxis. There are no powers in that Act to cover private hire cars. We shall be starting consultation this week on our proposals for implementation of Section 37. A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the Library.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. However, does he accept that in many parts of the country if one needs to hire a driven vehicle, one is restricted to using a private hire firm? If those hire firms decide to ban people who have with them a dog for sight or hearing support, that person is effectively restricted to their home or may be forced to pay higher sums of money for the service. Is not the Act therefore effectively condoning a form of discrimination?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is much in what the noble Lord says; but the fact is that the powers in the

583
DDA do not at the moment cover private hire cars. There will shortly be consultation in relation to private hire cars in London, but the situation is as I described it in the rest of the country.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am astonished at my noble friend's reply. Does he agree that it is obvious that blind people need to be accompanied by their guide dogs and it is therefore amazing that Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act has not already been implemented, especially bearing in mind that the Act itself was enacted in 1995? Does my noble friend recall that the Government stated last year that action would be taken to implement Section 37 early in the new year? He now says that considered discussions will start this week. Can he assure us that those discussions will not be protracted and that there will be no further slippage? Blind people are suffering as a consequence of lack of proper regulation.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says in relation to the non-coverage of private hire vehicles. Nevertheless, it remains the fact that we have no powers to issue regulations covering private hire vehicles. My noble friend is right that we originally hoped to start this consultation earlier in the year. Indeed, I indicated to the House that we hoped to start it in March. It has taken slightly longer because of the need to address the issue of medical exemptions on this front. However, the consultation document requires the medical exemptions to be sorted by November this year and the full regulations to come into force in March next year. There will be no delay in that.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the initial reply from the noble Lord indicates that the situation has not changed since his Written Answer to me on 25th May. Does he accept that a substantial and important part of the Disability Discrimination Act applies to transport? That was strongly advocated and supported in this House especially by our mobile Bench; in other words, by the "wheelchair squadron".
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is why we prioritised the regulations covering buses, coaches and railway carriages. The regulations therefore cover much of the public transport system already. The next stage is for them to apply to taxis.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that among the few private hire firms that carry dogs, it is common practice to apply extra charges? In one case which recently came to my attention, the increase was 20 per cent. Will the Minister consider that for those who are on benefit that may be a severe imposition on an already limited income?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one would have to look clearly at the individual circumstances and the
584
charging regimes that apply within those private hire companies. But, on the face of it, I agree with the noble Earl.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the consultations have to be so complicated? They seem quite simple to me.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, one of the lessons one learns from sitting on these Benches is that consultation is never simple. It always appears simple at the beginning, but ends up being extremely complicated. We are talking of a consultation period of approximately three months, which is normal in such circumstances. That will cover all those who are interested in these regulations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, can the Minister say why it has taken this Government three years to move towards consultation which, if it is going to take only three months, could have been done long ago?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, we prioritised applying regulations to buses, coaches and other areas of the transport system. We have to do this sequentially, and we are now addressing the taxi problem.
Lord Addington: My Lords, can the Minister give us an assurance that in future when the Government consider transport policy they will consider whole journeys which cover more than one type of transport? We are talking here of a broken link in the transport chain. Can the Minister assure us that in future all the various links in a journey will be brought together as a whole?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when the noble Lord considers the Transport Bill later today and the transport plan later this week, he will find that we are addressing transport problems in a holistic way and in a way that is of benefit to the disabled members of our community.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Blackstone will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on teachers' performance pay: the High Court judgment.

Liaison: Select Committee Reports
3.6 p.m.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff)The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff) rose to move, That the 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Select Committee (HL Papers 62 and 81) be agreed to.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I regret to have to inform the House that the Chairman of Committees is somewhat unwell, and I regret even more that I therefore have to stand in to move this Motion for him. I rise to move that these reports be agreed to with double trepidation because I am not actually a member of the Liaison Committee, although I sit in attendance along with the noble Lord, Lord Winston.
The reports are the outcome of a review by the Liaison Committee of the committee activity of the House. This is the first general review of committee work since the report of the committee on the committee work of the House in 1982, which noble Lords will remember was under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and on which both the Chairman of Committees and I had the honour to serve.
The setting up of the Liaison Committee was one of the fruits of that work, as was the setting up of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which I am sure we would all agree has been extremely successful. The Liaison Committee has now concluded that the time is right to build on the foundations laid by the Jellicoe Committee and to expand on the range of committee work which the House undertakes. The two reports propose the appointment of two new sessional committees, one to consider constitutional questions and the other to consider economic questions. Taken together with the new Joint Committee on Human Rights, the new committees represent a significant expansion of the House's committee activity and will require substantial additional resources. Last week the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee agreed to the provision of the necessary additional Clerks and other staff.
Finally, I should mention that the Liaison Committee shares the Jellicoe Committee's wish to continue to make regular use of ad hoc committees and recommended the appointment of an ad hoc committee on animal experimentation. The Liaison Committee would welcome your Lordships' constructive suggestions—I repeat, constructive suggestions—for future ad hoc committees. I beg to move.
Moved, That the 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Select Committee (HL Papers 62 and 81) be agreed to.—(Lord Tordoff)
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, perhaps I can briefly detain the House. Although I am interested in the appointments, the setting up of the economic committee, which is an extremely important development, does not have the advantage of having included with it terms of reference, as there are with the proposed constitutional committee. I am sure that these will be agreed. But I hope that the noble Lord can give us an assurance that, in drawing up those terms of reference, he will ensure that there is proper complementarity between the role of the proposed economic committee and the current role of Sub-Committee A of the European Union Committee. I
586
hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me that assurance this afternoon. Clearly, it is important that each committee should be able to continue with its role without there being a turf war between them.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome these proposals. I believe that Select Committees reflect this House at its best. I am very keen on expansion of such committees, as envisaged in these reports, but I have two questions for the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees. First, I welcome the fact that a committee is to be established to study animal experimentation, but is there any reason why this is to be an ad hoc committee rather than part of the Science and Technology Committee?
Secondly, the last sentence of paragraph 9 of the Third Report says that the recommendations are made,
"on the assumption that the House will be prepared to provide these resources".
Can the noble Lord tell us whether this is a matter for the House or for the Treasury?
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Dubs, I believe we all recognise the great value of these committees of the House, which are acknowledged almost throughout the world for their impartiality and fairness. I have one question to raise on the third report as regards the proposed constitutional committee, which has terms of reference:
"To examine the constitutional implications of all public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution".
The following paragraph says that the,
"staff needs of the Committee beyond a clerk will depend on how it chooses to work. We recommend that initially the Committee should seek any specialist support which it needs from specialist advisers".
My point to the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees is as follows. As regards these specialist advisers, can the noble Lord say whether we will have the same stage army of pressure group people coming in under this guise and purporting to give impartial advice to a House of Lords committee?
My question may sound far fetched, but on 5th July this year, when speaking during the Committee stage of the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill, I drew attention to the recent publication by Charter 88 under the pretentious title of Unlocking Democracy and said (at col. 1486 of Hansard) that I feared the monarchy would be a target of these zealots in the not too-distant future. I also drew attention to the All-Party Constitution and Citizenship Group of Parliament which, as noble Lords will know, represents all shades of opinion in both Houses. I looked into the background of this group and found out, as I then informed the Committee, that, under the heading "Benefits from outside sources", it also says:
"Administrative support is provided by Charter 88".

587
That information then goes on to give the contact name of,
"Michelle Mitchell, Parliamentary Officer Charter 88".
Despite its success, this is only a pressure group. However, if that is right at the heart of an all-party group, can the noble Lord give me an assurance that it will not be right at the heart of the proposed constitutional committee?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees a question on a different point. Can he tell us what progress, if any, has been made on the committee on treaties? Such treaties are now expanding in large numbers and there is very little accountability to either House on these issues.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I should like to raise the issue of animal experimentation, as I understand that one of the proposed groups is to look into the matter. This also reflects the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. We know that pressure groups come to this House and visit the committees, as well as giving advice. However, there are companies that carry out legitimate business during the process of which they save many people's lives in this country—that applies especially to our children. I speak with some knowledge on the subject because I had a son who, before he died, was diabetic. His treatment came quite precisely from animal experimentation.
Such companies have to survive and they are very much affected at present by lobbying groups that engage in almost terrorist activities to disrupt their work. While this review takes place, I believe that it is beholden on the Government to support those companies. They are governed by very rigorous rules and regulations to which they are adhering. As long as they do so, the Government should quite overtly protect their legitimate activity and their role in the fight against disease in this country.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I have a question for the noble Lord about the proposed constitutional committee. Can he tell the House into what degree of detail it is intended that the committee will go when it considers public Bills? From time to time, UK Bills on matters reserved to Westminster have implications for the Scots Parliament, of which the latter turns out not to be aware—or, alternatively, such Bills should have implications for the Scots Parliament but do not because the Government have tried to avoid getting into a matter that has in fact been devolved but which would be necessary for the implementation of the UK Bill.
Can the noble Lord say whether that kind of issue will arise? Indeed, it has just happened on the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill. I can provide the noble Lord with information in that respect, if he wishes. However, I just wonder whether that kind of issue will be considered or whether the proposed committee will be thinking at a higher level.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady
588
Williams of Crosby. It is absolutely essential that we should not delay any longer than necessary the setting up of a committee for the scrutiny of international treaties. In that context, can the noble Lord tell us when the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons is expected to report—for example, are we talking in terms of weeks, months or years?
Lord Winston: My Lords, as chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, perhaps I may address an issue raised by my noble friend Lord Dubs. I believe that it was widely felt both on that commit tee and, to some extent, on the Liaison Committee that an issue as far reaching as animal experimentation, which was not merely a scientific issue, could quite properly form part of the considerations of an ad hoc committee. Concern was also expressed that, as scientists, a number of the members of the Science and Technology Committee might be regarded parti pris as having certain interests and a particular view about animal experimentation.
It was also widely felt that this is a hugely important subject and one that affects our science base. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, it affects some very key social and ethical issues. There are also important legal and regulatory issues involved that would be well worth considering at this stage. That seemed to us to be a very timely subject for an important ad hoc committee.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his contribution. I believe that his remarks have answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and probably gone some way towards answering the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Clearly, the matters raised by the noble Baroness fall within the scope of this committee. However, it will be for that committee to decide how far it will look into such matters. The composition of such a committee is also important. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, we must ensure that it is not simply scientists who take part: the committee will also need to take into account and consider ethical, moral and, indeed, legal issues. I am quite sure that the type of issues raised by the noble Baroness could be swept up within the considerations of this committee. If she wished to give evidence to the committee, I dare say that its members would welcome such a move.
The noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, raised the question of the overlap between Sub-Committee A and the proposed economic committee. Putting on my European Select Committee hat, I have to say that that prospect gave me some concern. It is a matter that we shall have to discuss to ensure that there is no turf war, as sometimes happens in the other place between committees; for example, there is occasionally an overlap of interests between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee. However, I am sure that we can sort out such matters between us. The opportunity for disputes could arise in that respect. We must be aware of them and ensure that we resolve such issues.

589
The noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, mentioned specialist advisers. I remind him that he should not confuse membership of all-party groups and the discussions on Select Committees of your Lordships' House. In my experience, specialist advisers are very carefully chosen. They are people who have knowledge but who are not too parti pris. Occasionally you cannot avoid that. The thing to do then, of course, is to have two specialist advisers, one from each side of the argument. We hope to avoid that wherever possible. The noble Lord mentioned Charter 88 being used by the all-party groups. However, that is a different matter from that of specialist advisers. Bodies such as Charter 88 may be asked to give evidence to a Select Committee, but I think that they are unlikely to be asked to be specialist advisers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the scrutiny of treaties. As she will note from paragraph 6, it has been decided to await the report of the House of Commons Procedure Committee before we make a recommendation. That is right and proper as we do not want to tread on each other's toes. I am not sure that I can say when that is likely to be completed. I suppose that the normal answer from the Dispatch Box in that regard is "soon".
The Scottish implications of the constitutional committee need to be considered. I should have thought that that would fall within the scope of the constitutional committee, but that will depend on the way in which it interprets its terms of reference. A submission to that committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, or others might help it considerably in drawing up its agenda. I believe that I have answered the questions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cheques (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Viscount Younger of Leckie: 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.—(Viscount Younger of Leckie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Street Works Bill [HL]
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: 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.
590
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Peyton of Yeovil.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill
3.22 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, 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 Macdonald of Tradeston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 162 [Preliminary]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 98, line 39, leave out from ("vehicle") to end of line 41 and insert ("unless incurred in respect of the use or keeping of that motor vehicle on a road by a person in possession or control of that motor vehicle without the consent of the registered owner (in which event that person shall pay the charges in question)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 268, the wording of which is identical. Amendment No. 268 seeks to amend Schedule 13.
The Bill provides that the owner of a vehicle shall be liable for any charges payable for the keeping or using of a vehicle on a particular road. That is fine, assuming that the relevant charge is paid, but there are, unfortunately, numerous occasions on which the person liable to pay the charges inadvertently is not responsible for his car.
I can best illustrate that point by referring to my son-in-law, whose car was taken from outside his house in Notting Hill some years ago. The police found it about a quarter of a mile away. The thieves had thoughtfully changed the number plates which made identification somewhat of a problem. The car appeared to have been used for almost everything except transport purposes. Under the terms of the Bill, my son-in-law would have been liable for any charges incurred during the time the vehicle was stolen. We do not think that is right.
This simple little amendment is designed to ensure that in such unfortunate circumstances, or in others that people can envisage without too great a stretch of the imagination, the owner should not be liable for the charges that we are discussing. I believe that it is appropriate to include the amendment on the face of the Bill. The question of who should, or should not, pay taxation in particular circumstances is an important matter. Taxation should be introduced by legislation, not regulation. This is a point of principle.

591
I hope that the Minister will adopt a positive attitude and will say that he will take on board what I have said. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the amendments in this group. I am pleased to be able to start our deliberation on Part III by entirely agreeing with the spirit of the noble Lord's amendments. However, I hope that I can assure him that his concern will be dealt with through regulations.
Clause 162 provides that the registered keeper of a vehicle will be responsible for paying road user charges unless regulations under subsection (2)(b) of that clause provide otherwise. We intend that these regulations will provide that where a vehicle is reported to the police as stolen or taken without the consent of the registered keeper, any charges incurred will be the responsibility of whoever took the vehicle. We also propose a similar approach for penalty charges, using regulations under Clause 172, and that the same approach will apply in London. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister's response is satisfactory to a large degree in that he has addressed the intention of the amendment. I suspect that on a number of occasions as we progress through this part of the Bill Divisions will occur over what should or should not be on the face of the Bill. As I say, I question whether it is appropriate to introduce taxation through regulation. I shall need to reconsider the matter. Whether my patience on the matter runs out before the end of the day's proceedings remains to be seen. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 162 agreed to.
Clause 163 [Local charging schemes]:
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 99, line 26, at end insert ("provided those policies lead to an overall reduction in local traffic").
The noble Lord said: The amendments in this group are designed to ensure that the money raised through road user charging and the workplace parking levy—which we totally support—is used for the right purposes. The Bill is a little ambivalent on that point. As one of the main objects of the Bill is to get traffic off the roads, that money should not be spent on road building. It should, for example, be spent on better public transport services and on facilities for cycling or
592
walking, much of which may involve roads m one way or another. It should on the whole he applicable only to those purposes which will reduce road use by vehicular traffic. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have some sympathy with the amendments—although they are somewhat prescriptive in the sense that if the money can be used only for the purpose of reducing road traffic and not, for example, for improving safety on the roads, we shall get into a difficult situation. However, can the Minister tell the Committee the relationship between this Bill and the Road Traffic Reduction Act, which places an obligation on local authorities to reduce traffic in their areas?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for explaining the thinking behind these amendments. Although I am unable to accept them for reasons that will become clear, I am sympathetic to his concerns.
As drafted, the Bill contains the safeguard that local authority charging schemes must help to achieve the policies in a local authority's local transport plan. We have already said that the Secretary of State's approval for schemes introduced in England will depend on the local authority demonstrating that its scheme will have a direct impact on tackling local congestion problems. In particular, we have said that we do not envisage approving schemes that are designed only to raise revenue. We will want each scheme to state clearly its objectives and to set out how its performance will be monitored against those objectives. Consequently, I contend that the noble Lord's amendments are unnecessary.
Further, I fear that the noble Lord's amendments would create unintended difficulties because of the way they have been worded. As drafted, the amendments would mean that a scheme could not be introduced if it resulted in a reduction in the growth of local traffic levels rather than in an absolute reduction in local traffic levels; nor would a scheme be able to proceed if it resulted in a reduction in peak-hour congestion by encouraging the redistribution of road use over the remainder of the day rather than in an absolute reduction in total traffic. Reducing traffic growth or encouraging better use of road space could bring significant benefits to areas where charges are introduced. I do not believe that it would be right to rule out those possibilities.
For the record, I should like to assure the Committee that we shall be working with charging authorities and funding research to monitor the impact of road user charging schemes to make sure that we learn lessons and pass on best practice to others.

593
I hope that my comments and assurances have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that I do not feel that anything in the Bill will be at odds with attempts to reduce congestion elsewhere. On the issues of congestion and pollution, we have said that we are looking to local authorities to begin to benchmark at local level what is required across the country. We are very grateful to the Commission for Integrated Transport—on which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, sits—for its advice on how best that may be introduced by local authorities.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank the Minister for his explanation and reassurances. I shall read what he said. I think it unlikely that I shall come back to this matter at a later stage as I believe that I have received enough reassurances in regard to the Government's intentions and their proposed ways of putting them into practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 99, line 26, at end insert—
("(3) In a case where the charging authority is a county council, it shall not make a charge in relation to a particular town in its area without the agreement of the district council within which the town is placed.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 163 deals with the creation of local charging schemes. In drafting the amendment, I debated with myself whether it was appropriate to this clause or whether it should form a new clause. However, I think it sits perfectly well with this clause. Although there are other aspects of the clause which I do not regard as satisfactory, they concern different principles from those covered in this amendment.
In most non-metropolitan areas of the United Kingdom—I am sorry; we should bear in mind that we are talking here only of England and Wales—local authorities have two separate tiers. If this Bill is eventually passed, the authority responsible for the local transport plan—the local transport authority—will be the county council, which will have, rightly, all the powers under the Bill. In giving it those powers, Parliament will create an enormous potential for conflict between those responsible for administering transport policy and, in many cases, those who may feel that they have to sit and suffer the consequences—that is, the district councils.
District councils are rightly proud of their integrity and responsibility within their own areas. In this situation the closest co-operation, consultation and negotiation will be absolutely essential for the smooth running of any transport plan in a shire area. One has to think only of the circumstances which exist in my own county and across many other counties—where even a district council may have three or four main towns within its area—to see that there could be difficulties. Some district councils already have
594
problems with the integrity of a particular town within their district; exacerbating the situation in a large county such as Essex— it has 13 districts, many of which are multi-town districts—could produce real problems.
The amendment seeks to ensure that where the charging authority is a county council, it shall not make a charge—I think the correct wording should have been a "charging scheme"—in relation to a particular town in its area without the agreement of the district council within which that town is located. If we are not to create a series of minor civil wars across the face of this land, that should be on the face of the Bill. It is very important.
It may be that the Minister will feel inclined to say that he has every intention of introducing regulations to bring about the situation I seek. If he has, he could equally honourably say that he will accept the amendment—or, at least, if he does not like the wording, that he will bring back an amendment of his own. I look forward to his reply. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Again I find myself in sympathy with the concerns of the noble Lord. I certainly expect district councils in two-tier areas to be fully consulted about any proposals to introduce a charging or licensing scheme in their area and their views to be taken carefully into account. I should say that we are talking here only about England and not about Wales. However, we do not consider that it is appropriate to give district councils a veto over the introduction of schemes. The statutory responsibility for the charging and licensing powers rests firmly with the local traffic authority. Allowing district councils to veto plans would blur that responsibility.
However, I assure Members of the Committee that we will ensure that district councils are properly consulted over any proposals, using our scheme approval powers, or regulations on the procedures for making scheme orders. If there is a disagreement between a local traffic authority and a district council I envisage that that is something the Secretary of State would consider as part of his approval of schemes. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore agree not to press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are on more or less the same ground as we were previously. Will the noble Lord consider bringing forward amendments to the Bill to give effect to what he has said rather than simply do it by ministerial fiat or by regulation? We really do need to see this case decided clearly.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am not able to offer that assurance. However, in the context of all the other assurances that I have offered—not just on the use of regulations on procedures but on scheme approval powers—I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the point.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, decides what to do about his amendment, can the Minister tell the Committee how he sees the situation when congestion charging or a reduction in congestion is being sought not in major towns such as Nottingham or Derby, which are recognised centres for their areas, but in one of our smaller towns, where total cessation of movement of any kind is most likely to occur? If a scheme was introduced in small town A but no scheme was introduced in small town B, all the traffic would move to small town B in order to try to get into the town for free. How does the Minister think the Secretary of State would deal with that kind of observation were it to be brought to him during the course of his approval activities?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: We would respond to that situation by ensuring that there had been full consultation and that the Secretary of State was well informed of the concerns expressed by the smaller towns. If there was going to be any disproportionate effect on any specific area, that would be taken into account by the Secretary of State as part of his approval of the schemes.
Lord Dixon-Smith: In his reply the Minister makes it remarkably difficult to disagree with him. The problem is that an outcome which is satisfactory as to conclusion but is not satisfactory as to method is not one which I find to be wholly satisfactory. Although it is early in the afternoon and we are not used to walking and exercising at such an early hour, I nonetheless want to test the view of the Committee.
3.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 201) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Henley, L.

Attlee, E.

Hogg, B.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Byford, B.

Kingsland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Liverpool, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lucas, L.

Courtown, E.

Luke, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lyell, L.

Denham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

McConnell, L.

Elles, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Fookes, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Geddes, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Glentoran, L.

Moynihan, L.

Hanham, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

596

Noakes, B.

Reay, L.

Northbrook, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Northesk, E. [Teller]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

O'Cathain, B.

Seccombe, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Sharples. B.

Strathclyde, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Trumpington, B.

Peel, E.

Vivian, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Addington, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Allenby of Megjddo, V.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Alli, L.

Amos, B.

Islwyn, L.

Andrews, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lard Privy Seal)

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bach, L.

Laird, L.

Barnett, L.

Laming, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Layard, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lipsey, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blease, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Borrie, L.

Ludford, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brennan, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Brett, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Brookman, L.

McNally, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Maddock, B.

Burlison, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Marsh, L.

Christopher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morgan, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Orme, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Palmer, L.

Dholakia, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Paul, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Dubs, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Richard, L.

Filkin, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Fitt, L.

Russell, E.

Gale, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Gavron, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Grabiner, L.

Simon, V.

Greengross, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Grenfell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harrison, L.

Taverne, L.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayman, B.

Tenby, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thornton, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Tordoff, L.

597

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Whitaker, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Wilkins, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 99, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Where a local charging scheme is introduced in order to fund improvements to facilitate the achievement of policies in the charging authority's local transport plan, the charging scheme shall cease when the relevant improvements have been paid for.").
The noble Lord said: I have tabled a series of amendments which seek to determine exactly what are the Government's intentions as regards these new taxes. Perhaps I may put it this way: are those intentions honourable and straightforward? Are the taxes intended to be levied locally and then used for the benefit of local people? Furthermore, if an authority cannot think of a good use to which to put them, will they cease? That, I believe, is what should happen.
Unfortunately, the Bill provides otherwise. It states that such taxes can be initiated locally, but subsequently can become national taxes. In my view, that would impose on local transport authorities the odium of having to introduce a new tax which subsequently would be pocketed by the Treasury, to its benefit. I do not think that that is an appropriate way of approaching this.
This amendment provides that, where a local transport authority sees the need for particular improvements to help with traffic flows within its own area, it should be able to design a charging scheme which relates directly to those improvements. Thereafter, the charge should cease.
It is conceivable that the Minister will say that that is perfectly possible. However, we have encountered many problems in the Bill on the matter of hypothecation. The best assurance that we have received so far has been that schemes begun within 10 years from when the Bill comes into effect will have revenue hypothecated to them for a period of 10 years from their initiation. However, anyone familiar with the development of the transport industry over the centuries—from the time of the horse and cart, through to stage-coaches, canals, railways and so forth—will know that one needs to deal with a constantly evolving situation. Transport demands change all the time, and the problems to be solved change alongside them. People will always seek new and often radical solutions.
However, it is almost always the case that those who deal with such problems at the local level know best what needs to be done to improve their own particular circumstances. I have every confidence that if charging schemes are introduced, they will be used well and in the local interest. That is right and proper. However, I am also of the view that if an authority cannot think of
598
any scheme to be funded by the new charge that would significantly improve matters, either the new charge should not be introduced or—this is probably more likely because I suspect that all authorities will be able to devise new schemes—when no more valid ideas are put forward, no more charges should be levied.
That does not mean that the charging system would become invalid. That is because if, after a number of years, new problems are revealed, the power will still be in place under the Bill to introduce a charging scheme to fund the necessary changes to solve those new problems.
This little amendment addresses what is in fact a very important principle for local transport authorities, for local government generally and, indeed, for national government. If the amendment were accepted, that would signal that national government had accepted—almost for the first time in my long experience in local government—that local government can, and does, behave responsibly and that it acts in the interests of local communities. That, in itself, would be rather novel. I accept that the amendment may not be perfectly worded, so if the Minister would like to take it away and bring forward an improved version at a later stage, I should be a happy man.
I repeat: the issues that lie behind this little amendment are both profound and important. I felt that it was important for us to hold a short debate—even if that debate is to be held between only myself and the Minister. I am sure that we shall have several fascinating discussions across the Table today. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: The noble Lord has rightly said that the amendment raises an important philosophical point. It goes to the heart of the purpose for which road charges are to be levied. If the amendment were accepted, it would reduce road charging to an entirely pragmatic and practical device for dealing with local problems: for example, easing some physical phenomenon causing congestion or introducing some scheme to even out traffic flow through the day so as to lessen congestion.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the Bill had been conceived in the context of wanting to deal not only with practical issues but with environmental ones. In the broad environmental context, the secondary purpose of road charging is to deal with physical problems in local areas. Its primary purpose, however, is to deter people from using their cars as much as they presently do. If that is the primary purpose and it is the Government's intention that it should remain so, I very much hope that the amendment will be resisted. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would reassure the Committee that one of the reasons for charging, whether on trunk roads or in local areas, is to deter traffic and to encourage people to find other means of going from A to B, or indeed to encourage them to travel less.

599
If that remains the primary purpose of road charging, it could reasonably be said that it will never be achieved. It may work slowly and gradually, but the prospect of lifting the charges simply does not arise, because the necessity to restrict traffic growth will continue, and indeed increase. If we take seriously the recommendation of the Royal Commission that we must cut CO2 emissions by 60 per cent over the next 50 years, there will have to be an enormous reduction in road traffic use. Charging schemes can play a part—not the only part—in achieving that reduction. The amendment goes to the heart of the philosophy behind the Transport Bill. I should be grateful if the Minister would respond on that point.
4 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising an important issue. It goes to the centre of the objectives of the charging scheme.
The Committee should be assured that we do not envisage approving charging schemes that are designed simply to raise revenue. The right reverend Prelate went straight to the heart of the matter. We can confirm that we expect the charges to have a direct bearing on local congestion problems. We believe that, to be effective, the introduction of charges must be matched by increased spending on local transport to provide people with real alternatives to the car. Our ground-breaking hypothecation guarantee will ensure that that can happen.
However, it is clear that the introduction of transport improvements alone may, in many cases, not be sufficient to reduce congestion. It is likely that the restraint effect of a charge to enter a town or city will be an essential part of the package that manages traffic demand and delivers lower congestion. One can envisage a situation some years hence where significant transport infrastructure improvements have been paid for through a charging regime, congestion has been reduced, and an authority may decide at that point to discontinue charges. But there is the other important consideration: sustaining the reduction in congestion. That may require that road user charges are kept in order to restrain traffic. It would therefore be wrong to rule out the possibility of local authorities deciding that charges should continue.
Amendment No. 202 ignores the important traffic demand management effect that the charges will have. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will agree not to press his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his contribution on the problems created by congestion, particularly carbon dioxide and other noxious emissions produced by the internal combustion engine. Those problems will be solved not as a result of provisions in the Bill but as a result of developments taking place in the motor industry, as we still call it, because what will happen over the next 25, 30 or 40 years is that the internal combustion engine will become out of date.
600
I should declare not so much an interest as a fascination. I chaired the sub-committee of the Science and Technology Committee which examined the future of the internal combustion engine specifically in regard to exhaust emissions. There is the obvious progress that is being made with the internal combustion engine, but that is not an answer in itself. The committee arrived at a conclusion that surprised me; namely, that we shall see fuel-cell-powered cars on the roads. Initially, they will still produce carbon dioxide, but not all the other noxious emissions. Ultimately, they will be hydrogen powered and will produce nothing except water. At that point we shall face an ethical dilemma. We shall have completely non-polluting vehicles that are absolutely silent. I can see the time coming when we put bells on them, rather like bicycle bells, so as to warn pedestrians that they are coming—but that is a slight red herring. That is the way in which the industry is moving. The provisions in the Bill to deal with pollution will not provide a solution before the motor industry itself provides the technical answer.
Congestion could be argued to be a voluntary tax paid by society for the benefit of enjoying a reasonably high degree of mobility. I would always rather pay a voluntary tax than a compulsory one. It is a simple principle. The Minister seems to be saying that he would prefer the situation to be the other way round, and that we should reduce the need to travel. That need could have been reduced voluntarily, apart from the fact that we have spent 30 or 35 years developing a society in which we do need to travel. Anyone who thinks that the hundreds of thousands of housewives whom I see shopping every week, coming out of the supermarket with a trolley laden with goods that must often weigh more than a hundredweight, are going to carry that home on a bus has another think coming. They will pay a road congestion charge if they have to, because, sadly, there is now no alternative—unless we return to having large numbers of small shops and, more importantly, unless housewives are prepared to spend the time to go shopping every other day, as my mother used to do. I do not think that that kind of reverse revolution in society will take place. The issues are important. I do not believe that the situation will necessarily be better if these moneys are continued on a national basis rather than being decided locally.
There are two possible outcomes. One is that local authorities levy the charges and they are called in aid of other local expenditure, which may or may not be reasonable. If we are simply creating another form of local revenue, so be it. But that is not what we are told the Bill is about. If the money is to be part of the national revenue, we are in an even worse situation. The initiative for introducing the charges will have been taken locally. There is no certainty, apart from the small piece of blackmail in the guidance to which I have referred, that local transport authorities will necessarily introduce these charges all over the country. There is no compulsion to do so. I can envisage that they may not be introduced by a number of authorities in less well advantaged parts of the country than the South East. Not the least of the

601
problems that any government in this country face is that after a time they are seen as representing the South East. Many parts of the country may be reluctant to introduce charges, where there is high unemployment and too many socially disadvantaged people. Welcome though an additional source of revenue may be, the disincentive to industry and other employers would be such that not introducing charging would be a positive incentive.
We should not blithely assume that everybody will leap into road charging with any speed. There will be considerable caution. In any event, Ministers in the other place have touched on traffic flow improvement in an area being seen before charges can be introduced—post facto. We need to consider little parts of the proposal as well as its totality.
The Minister answered in favour of the right reverend Prelate, who I think is wrong. Nevertheless, I will study the noble Lord's response. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 163 agreed to.
Clause 164 [Joint local charging schemes]:
[Amendment No. 203 not moved.]
Clause 164 agreed to.
Clause 165 [Joint local-London charging schemes]:
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Clause 165 agreed to.
Clause 166 [Trunk road charging schemes]:
On Question, Whether Clause 166 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: This clause concerns the creation of trunk road charging schemes and I thought we should debate whether or not it is appropriate or useful. What will happen when a trunk road passes, as many do, through a town centre? A specific example is the A3 through Portsmouth, which is virtually the only means of accessing the Isle of Wight—which gives Portsmouth the power of ransom over the island. It would have to be a Secretary of State scheme because the A3 is a trunk road, so he should exercise extreme caution. He may find that doing what one community wants would have untold consequences for another down the road.
Regrettably, there are many towns without bypasses. We may hear something to improve that situation within a few days. One never knows what the future holds. In this rather leaky age, there have been occasional minor hints that even I can understand. One has to be careful when talking about England and Wales (where the appropriate national authority is the Welsh Assembly), but where a trunk road passes through a number of urban centres, another problem is how to congestion charge private travellers or commercial users—who might pass through 10 town centres in a day. There are technical problems to solve before charging schemes can work in the way that the Minister wishes.
602
I hope that more noble Lords will involve themselves in this aspect because side issues are fundamental to the way in which present society lives and works.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: There are many different ways of reaching the Isle of Wight and they do not all involve travelling through Portsmouth. It is clear from Clause 166 that a trunk road charging scheme can be used only if the local traffic authority agrees. If Hampshire County Council is the charging authority, presumably a scheme need not cover the whole county but could apply to only one or two towns. I considered tabling an amendment to delete subsection (2) because I am enthusiastic about trunk road charging but Clause 166 is good as it stands and I oppose its removal.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Paragraph 148 of the helpful Explanatory Notes states:
"Clause 166 also provides that the occupier of a premises will be responsible for paying charges, but allows the Secretary of State or NAW powers to specify other persons in certain circumstances through regulations."
Unless I have got it wrong, that explanation does nothing but add to the confusion.
Perhaps I have totally misunderstood it.
I am obliged to my noble friend for speaking to the Question whether Clause 166 stand part. My forlorn hope is that someone somewhere will remember that originally roads were designed for movement. When I wallowed in the Department of Transport and vaguely suggested that from time to time, it was regarded as an old-fashioned and wholly reactionary idea that I should cast out of my mind without delay. It is still my belief—I hope that it is not entirely misconceived—that roads exist to help people to move around and are not intended primarily as parking lots.
Highway authorities and the organisation known as the Highways Agency are apt to forget the principle that, on the whole, roads are intended to facilitate movement, and they find every possible means to obstruct movement. Almost every week I travel the road to London from the M3. I salute the inventiveness of the Highways Agency in finding new means to obstruct the traffic. It never leaves that stretch of road alone. All of the authority's most energetic and inventive minds—I do not suggest for a moment that the number at its disposal is in any way limited—are devoted to finding, with minimum effort to themselves, yet further means to create bottlenecks. When those bottlenecks have been created, they remain totally unmanned and nobody cares for them. The bottlenecks, being very obliging, stay where they are and nobody does anything about them.
Without trying to be facetious, I ask the noble Lord to remind these bodies, in particular the Highways Agency, that they exist to help people to move around. I hope that what is sought to be done under this clause will not be used to add to the number of people whose

603
talents and inventiveness are wholly devoted to obstructing and hindering people who wish legitimately to use the roads for movement.
Lord Whitty: I have come to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has at some point, and possibly repeatedly, been deeply scarred by the activities of the Highways Agency. I can only convey the authority's apologies to him and assure him that its practices and techniques are now directed at exactly what the noble Lord seeks; namely, to speed up maintenance and complete it as rapidly as possible and to ensure, as far as possible, the free flow of traffic. That is also the objective of this clause. We want to make sure that appropriate traffic, both economic and passenger, which has no other means of moving from A to B is able to get through.
As to the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the Explanatory Notes were based on the original clause numbers prior to the Grand Committee stage. I believe that the clause to which he refers is now Clause 177. No doubt the noble Lord will return to the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests that we should remove this clause. This is a very important but limited clause. It is not a provision of the kind to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred. The clause provides for two very limited circumstances in which congestion charging can be raised on the trunk road network: one relates to bridges and tunnels and the other, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, concentrated, relates to those cases where part of a trunk road affects any local charging scheme. The power can be used only at the request of the local authority in order to complement its own charging scheme. That scheme will itself have been subject to a substantial period of consultation. In the case of Portsmouth—to correct my noble friend, Portsmouth is a unitary authority and therefore has highway responsibilities—the authority would be required to consult the Isle of Wight and other surrounding authorities, businesses and others within its own area. Therefore, that consultation would already have taken place.
The power does not permit the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly, to introduce widespread charges along the whole length of the road; nor does the Secretary of State have to agree with the local authority to impose charges, if requested, to complement the scheme. Therefore, in circumstances where it seems to the Secretary of State that the scheme is detrimental to the general flow of traffic or to neighbouring authorities, he will have the right not to accede to the request.
In general terms, however, it is important that as to those stretches of trunk road which impinge on the local authority area where major diversion would otherwise occur or the scheme would be undermined, the Secretary of State should have ability to raise charges. Therefore, this clause is necessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will not continue to oppose it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I welcome the Minister's assurance. The noble Lord has a very pleasant manner
604
when he is communicating good news. When he tells me that the Highways Agency is there to help movement, that is very good news. I very much hope that evidence of that fact will reach me.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that it would be remarkable if in debating a Bill of this kind, there was universal agreement on the amendments. I should be wholly surprised if somebody, perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did not oppose the Question that the clause stand part.
The Minister has spared me the necessity of explaining the difference in status between a city as important as Portsmouth and a county council as significant as Hampshire. The fact is that Portsmouth will be a local transport authority, which was implicit in the response of the Minister.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. If he achieves nothing else, he always makes us think. His statement that roads are to facilitate movement is fundamental. That is very nearly a point on which there is a fundamental division within the Committee. One may argue about what facilitates movement; occasionally, even limited restrictions do so. Therefore, in this matter there are deep shades of grey.
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that in considering its particular problems Portsmouth would be obliged to undertake a very wide degree of consultation. Therefore, the Minister is supportive of a group of amendments in my name which are to be debated later. The Bill provides that the local transport authority may do something. We believe that the word should be "shall", not "may". I should be satisfied that Portsmouth would consult the Isle of Wight if the Bill said that it should do so. However, the Bill does not say "shall" but "may". We shall turn to that point later, and I am delighted to have the support of the Minister for those amendments.
We have had a very good debate. As is very often the case with clause stand part debates, the purpose of debating the Question that Clause 166 shall stand part is to be clear exactly what will be the consequences of what we seek to do here. Often, Bills are obscure in that regard.
I do not believe that I have wasted the time of the Committee in initiating the debate and I withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 166 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 166 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.

Teachers' Performance Pay: High Court Judgment
4.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement a Private Notice Question on teachers' pay, which has been taken today in another place.
"Teachers' pay and conditions are set on a statutory basis by order after report by an independent review body, the School Teachers' Review Body, and consultation. In January of this year, the STRB recommended a new pay structure, including a performance threshold giving a £2,000 pay rise on 1st September 2000 and access to a higher pay scale. This will be put in place.
"As the House will know, the Government's plan to reform the teaching profession to make sure that good teachers are paid more was first published in a Green Paper in December 1998. The standards which teachers should meet for the threshold pay increase were first published in draft in February 1999 as part of consultation on the Green Paper, Teachers—meeting the challenge of change. Wide-ranging informal consultation over the following year led to formal consultation with the STRB's statutory consultees in February this year. The STRB itself was provided with early drafts of the standards as background to its review.
"As a result of action by the NUT, the High Court ruled on Friday 14th July that these standards were invalid because they should have been formally referred to the review body and set out in an order. The court also ruled that duties on school managers to carry out threshold assessment were unlawful because the consultation on the draft duties had been too short.
"My right honourable friend believed that it was not necessary to refer the standards to the review body because they were about standards of teaching, not pay structures and scales.
"The written judgment of the court is not available, but as soon as it is I will decide whether or not to appeal. But the judgment did not comment on the standards themselves and did not give rise to any fundamental need to review government policy on rewarding good teachers.
"The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has today written to head teachers advising them that the deadlines for threshold applications will be changed. We have already spoken to the STRB chair and will write to him formally today.
606
"The Government's pay reforms are the best opportunity teachers have had for a generation for a radical pay improvement. All the Government have asked is that teachers do a good job in return. We intend to press on with paying good teachers more money within the correct legal framework with as little delay as possible".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.33 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Statement which the noble Baroness has repeated, and which has been made in another place in response to a Private Notice Question, is deeply regrettable. First, the Secretary of State blames the National Union of Teachers for daring to challenge his handling of the PRP scheme. In a press release, the Secretary of State stated:
"The NUT need to ask their leadership why they have taken legal action".
It did so because the Secretary of State had not heeded advice from so many about the process adopted for the introduction of PRP and because of the corners which were cut by the Secretary of State in order to implement a scheme, which is, as the noble Baroness and Secretary of State know, controversial.
Secondly, I turn to the role of civil servants and their advice to Ministers. To blame the civil servants, as Mr Blunkett has done, is disgraceful behaviour; civil servants are unable to defend themselves and must therefore be deemed guilty by the Secretary of State.
Speaking on a radio programme, the Secretary of State said that he cannot rely on his civil servants to advise him and therefore he was going to read the judgment himself and decide himself the next steps. Does he intend to take no advice at all? If he does intend to take advice, from where will he obtain it?
While PRP in principle is to be welcomed, the particular scheme, rushed through and now thwarted by the courts because of the Secretary of State, has not been thought through. It is excessively bureaucratic; it requires an army of external assessors; and it is supported by brain-numbing training which is an insult to professional teachers and governors. For example, many of those compelled to undertake training knew more than the trainers. They came away from the training very dissatisfied indeed.
Much of the work has been carried out in our schools, but will it now be aborted? Do the Government intend to appeal the judgment? The Minister said that they are waiting to read the judgment, but it would be helpful to know what is in the mind of the Secretary of State. Will schools be reimbursed for the time already spent on the bureaucratic process? Only today, I was in the presence of a head teacher who told me that when 68 teachers applied to go through the threshold at least two hours were spent on each application by that head teacher. Having undertaken all that work, what price is time now?
What is the delay likely to be for those teachers whose expectations have been raised by the Secretary of State only to be dashed by his arrogant disregard for the proper processes? Schools and teachers should not be made to pay the price for this fiasco.

607
The Statement indicates:
"My right honourable friend believes that it was not necessary to refer the standards to the review body because they are about standards of teaching, not pay structures and scales".
They are about pay. Indeed, the DfEE's press release states:
"The Government's pay reforms are the best opportunity teachers have had for a generation to radically improve their pay".
The whole PRP issue related to the standards necessary to trigger pay awards. The suggestion that the standards are not about pay, and to give that as an excuse for failing to follow the proper process, is unacceptable.
There is no doubt that the present situation is very frustrating for schools, teachers and governors. However, make no mistake about it, the blame lies with the Secretary of State.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I believe that the Secretary of State must be naive if he thought that the proposals were about standards of teaching and not about pay structures and scales. After all that has been said in this House about performance-related pay, it was clear that they were about pay as well as about standards of teaching.
In many senses, this is a victory for parliamentary democracy as well as for the courts. As Mr Justice Jackson made clear, the Secretary of State, in imposing threshold standards for performance-related pay, bypassed the School Teachers' Review Body, Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. As the judge said, Parliament required that any significant contractual powers are subject to the scrutiny of an independent body; namely, the School Teachers' Review Body. The Secretary of State evaded that scrutiny. Furthermore, at the start the Welsh Assembly wanted to remove pupils' performance as a criterion for the teachers' assessment. It will now have its way unless the Secretary of State amends the existing legislation and introduces new statutes.
The real question is: why did not the DfEE and the Secretary of State scrutinise the court's decision in March, when it was decided that there were sufficient grounds for a judicial review with a view to withdrawing the flawed order relating to school teachers' pay, and undertake proper consultation rather than allow the review to drag on until July?
My second question returns to an issue raised many times by the Liberal Democrats. As the Minister knows well, we opposed the proposals for performance related pay because we did not believe that a school environment was appropriate for such a system. Essentially, teachers work as a team. The proposals would have introduced considerable extra administrative burdens on head teachers, who are already overloaded with bureaucracy, and would have required teacher to inform upon teacher with the risk of setting one member of staff against another within the team. We also opposed them because we felt, and said at the time, that four days of formal consultation was too short for so important a measure.
608
Therefore, my second question is: why did the Secretary of State not heed the voices not only of the Liberal Democrats but of over 70 Members of Parliament of all the main parties who signed an Early Day Motion in the other place calling on the Secretary of State to carry out proper consultation with teachers and to allow Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to debate such significant changes?
Lastly, I bring to your Lordships' attention the chaos that has now been caused. With less than a week to go before the end of term, teachers do not know where they are. I have many teacher friends who spent a whole weekend filling out the threshold forms. They do not know where they will stand when they return to school in September. Similarly, heads and governors have also had to spend a great deal of time deciding how to respond to them. I gather from the Statement that the matter is now on hold and that the Secretary of State is writing to the School Teachers' Review Body. However, how long will it be before teachers know whether they will receive their threshold payments?
Finally, I echo the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Why has the Secretary of State blamed officials when, in his summing up, the judge made it clear that, given the pace and pressure of changes imposed by the Secretary of State at the moment, mistakes were bound to occur?
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by clearing up the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—a point raised also by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State takes full responsibility for what happens. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked from whom the Secretary of State takes advice. He takes advice from many different quarters: from officials, legal advisers, special advisers and representatives of the teaching profession.
I am dismayed that the Liberal Democrats, and, I believe, the Conservative Party, too, do not accept the desirability of moving towards a pay system in which good teachers are rewarded fully for what they do by passing over a threshold and receiving an increase of £2,000. The noble Baroness wants to intervene, but perhaps I may say that the Opposition have attempted to block many of the proposals, have opposed them and have got into bed with the NUT over them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will read what I said. I said that PRP is welcome. We criticised the particular system and the bureaucratic nature of it. However, we have always said that PRP is welcome as a system of rewarding good work in classrooms.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, if the noble Baroness was so in favour of it, I wonder why she did not introduce it when she was in government. I suggest that that points to a small failure on her part and that of her party when in government.

609
Perhaps I may turn to some of the other questions raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was critical of the training provided for head teachers in support of their work in carrying out assessments of teachers for the purpose of performance-related pay. At the May training events, 94 per cent of participants were satisfied or more than satisfied with the quality of the training they received, and an average of 91 per cent similarly were satisfied with the follow-up events. On the basis not of anecdote but of a proper sampling of the teachers concerned, that shows that they welcomed the training, were appreciative of it and considered it to be good.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the Government will appeal. As I implied in my response to the PNQ, the Government have not yet seen the written judgment and cannot make a decision until they have had the opportunity to do so.
The noble Baroness asked about the likely delay so far as concerns teachers. The Government regret the delay just as much as the noble Baroness. Until the issues raised by the court case have been resolved, it is impossible to say exactly how long the delay will be. However, I can say—and I believe that it will be reassuring to the many teachers who have applied to go over the threshold—that when decisions eventually are made about those who are successful, their pay will be backdated to 1st September.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the time spent on the applications and on their consideration by head teachers would be wasted. The Government very much hope that that will not be the case. If the threshold standards are not changed, we can proceed on the same basis. If the standards are changed, the Secretary of State will of course have to reconsider the whole position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, mentioned the National Assembly for Wales. Perhaps I may make it clear that this is not a devolved matter. Therefore, the National Assembly for Wales does not have a remit in this particular area, although the Welsh Ministers responsible are consulted. The Government do not consider that it should be a devolved matter. They believe that the threshold standards should be the same because there is a considerable amount of movement by teachers across the border between Wales and England. It would be undesirable for that movement to be in any way constrained.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, am I right in saying that if the Secretary of State were to use the 1986 Act, this would be a matter for devolution to Wales? It is a question of whether he uses the 1986 Act or the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1991 for appraisal. If he uses the latter, I gather that it would not be a matter for devolution. However, if he used the former, I believe that it would be.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, when Welsh devolution was debated and agreed in both Houses of Parliament, it was made absolutely clear that this would not be a devolved matter.
610
Perhaps I may return to the noble Baroness's point regarding the grounds for judicial review in March. When the NUT originally applied for judicial review, it was not in relation to the matter of threshold standards. That subject did not come into play until the last week of June. Therefore, the issue was introduced into the court case by the NUT only recently.
I believe that I have now answered the specific questions raised by both noble Baronesses. However, I make absolutely clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will write to head teachers this week to set out exactly what they now need to do. Clearly the date by which they must complete the assessments will be put back. We have also made it clear that we shall provide them with further information and updates on the DfEE's website.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of a private school and, therefore, as an employer of teachers. Is it not unsatisfactory that, as was made clear by the Minister, everyone is now left in a state of limbo because no one knows what will happen next?
The Minister has said that the Secretary of State will write to head teachers this week. Does that mean that he will receive the written judgment before the end of the week? Will it be made widely available? If it is available in time for the Secretary of State to issue guidelines to the teaching profession and to head teachers, might it not have been possible to have got hold of it sooner and made it available to Parliament now?
The Minister has also said that the application deadline will be changed. Will she at least tell us the new date for applications?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is for the courts to make the written judgment available. I understand that it is likely to be available in the very near future. The Government will make a decision on whether to appeal by Thursday, which is the deadline. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wishes to ensure that all head teachers receive a letter before the end of term, so it will have to go out tonight or tomorrow, which means that it will be impossible for him to give any details in that letter about his decision on an appeal. As I have said, head teachers will be updated through the department's website.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's assurance about backdating the pay award when matters are settled. Over the weekend I met two teachers who intend to retire during the coming year. Their pension entitlement will be affected by whether they get the money. It would be helpful if it was made clear that their pensions will not be threatened.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I reassure my noble friend that teachers who go through the appraisal

611
successfully will have their pay addition backdated to 1st September. Any teacher who is likely to retire will not suffer in any way in terms of their pension.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, under what rules does the Secretary of State continue in office? Surely he has disqualified himself by all normal standards, having publicly declared the advice that he received in confidence from his civil servants.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I utterly refute that suggestion. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been one of the most successful holders of that office for many years. He has pushed through a remarkable range of reforms to improve standards in our schools and to ensure that lifelong learning becomes a reality. As I said earlier, he accepts full responsibility for what has happened.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister has said that the pay will be backdated to 1st September. Can she assure us that the Secretary of State has sound advice that that will be legal, whatever the outcome? Teachers would like to know.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question asked by my noble friend Lady Blatch about whether schools will be repaid for all the work that they have done on the process?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the work is part of the responsibility of head teachers. There is no need to repay them for what that they have done, because they have accepted that appraisal is part of their job and have been doing it for some years. In no sense would it be appropriate to repay schools. Moreover, we hope that most of the work that they have done will not be affected, because we hope that the standards will be accepted. There was a great deal of consultation about them and they have largely been accepted in the teaching profession.

Transport Bill
4.57 p.m.
House again in Committee (on Recommitment).
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: I was told that I was expected to be on at 3.30 p.m. and had to wait here for a whole hour. Given that my noble friends dealing with the Bill think that they are due to be out of the Chamber for 40 minutes, I wonder whether the House agrees that it would be appropriate to adjourn for a few minutes until they arrive.
Noble Lords: Here he is.
Clause 167 [Charging schemes to be made by order]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 100, line 23, leave out ("any of").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee. I was caught out by the speed with which the Minister dealt with her education Statement. It was unforgivable of me.
Curiously enough, the amendment is designed to help the Government. Clause 167(2) deals with the variation or revocation of charging schemes. It says:
"The charging authority or the charging authorities (acting jointly) may by order vary a charging scheme under this Part and the charging authority or any of the charging authorities may by order revoke such a scheme".
It is entirely proper that the agreement of all the authorities concerned is needed before a scheme is brought in. However, it appears that any single participating authority could unilaterally revoke t. That is rather peculiar and cannot be right. Ira scheme has to be brought in by joint effort, it cannot be correct that any of the charging authorities can revoke it. I hope that the Minister will accept that there is at least a point to our amendment that he could accept. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am always grateful to the noble Lord when he is helpful. I understand what he is driving at. The problem is that the amendment would lead to the opposite situation, because it would require all local authorities involved to agree before a joint scheme could be revoked. That would make it impossible for a single authority to decide that it was no longer in its own interests to participate.
Our general approach has been to avoid having too many barriers for authorities that decide to revoke a charging scheme. Therefore, the consequence of that approach is that a single authority would have the right to revoke its part of that scheme.
The noble Lord is concerned that the right of a single authority in a joint scheme may be used precipitately as a result of this clause. There will be plenty of other safeguards to ensure that that will not happen. In practice, a scheme would not be agreed or approved unless there was a clear period of notice before any of the participating authorities could withdraw from a joint scheme. No doubt there would be also a number of other contractual arrangements in relation to the operation of the scheme which all participating authorities would have to consider.
Therefore, although the noble Lord's amendment appears to be aimed at stability, in fact the nature of the schemes will provide a fair degree of stability. The requirement that all authorities participating would jointly have to agree the revocation is too onerous and would reduce the flexibility and accountability of the individual local authorities concerned. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment despite the fact that I recognise his good motives in that regard and he points to a problem. However, this amendment creates another problem.
5 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are dealing with a question of what I can only describe as relative problems. But what the Minister has not said in his reply is that the individual local authority which is participating in a scheme may withdraw from the scheme in relation to its own territory. The Bill says that it can revoke a scheme.
I accept that there will be a great number of safeguards. Obviously, any joint scheme will have fairly tight contractual arrangements, such as periods of notice and so on. I accept that there will be a degree of stability. But we need to be extremely careful about the words on the face of the Bill. I can understand an authority in a joint scheme being able to revoke a scheme in relation to its own area so that what was formerly a joint scheme would no longer apply in that area. The Minister says that if a transport authority which is part of a joint scheme wishes to withdraw, the whole scheme will go. That is beginning to fly in the face of the earlier remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, about the intended disincentive effect of the existence of those charges. These are supposed to be matters of national significance, with the purpose being to provide a major disincentive to all traffic permanently and for ever. But here, a local transport authority may revoke a scheme because it does not like it. Therefore, that impact will immediately be lost.
It seems to me that that is an inconsistency in the Government's position as between one amendment and another, although it is not relevant to this amendment. I shall study what the Minister said and, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 167 agreed to.
Clause 168 agreed to.
Clause 169 [Charging schemes: consultation and inquiries:]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 101, line 23, leave out ("may at any time") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 207 is grouped with a large number of other amendments. Paradoxically, the Minister has already spoken to this amendment which makes mandatory consultation on the introduction of a charging scheme.
We have had this debate on many occasions. I am sure that we shall continue to have it. In his reply, the Minister will no doubt say, as he has done before, that in legislation, the word "may" is normally used and for "may" read "shall". But if one were to refer to the dictionary, "may" does not mean "shall". It is as simple as that.
When these schemes are being introduced, it is important that the obligation to consult is of the widest and, indeed, that obligation should be spelt out on the face of the Bill.
Other amendments in this group seek to ensure that the people who are consulted are "interested" people. The Bill provides something about consulting such other people as the local transport authority considers desirable. It should be "such other interested people" who are desirable. It should not be those whom the local transport authority considers desirable but rather those who are interested or their representatives. Likewise, there will always be affected organisations; for example, those interested in the transport organisations or representatives of business and commerce. They should be consulted. Such matters should be on the face of the Bill.
Wrapped up within this group of amendments is another amendment which is highly desirable. The amendment requires the local transport authority, when it is undertaking consultation on the introduction of a charging scheme, to introduce a cost-benefit analysis; in other words, to show to the local community that it will receive something back for the money which it is being forced to contribute. That is not at all unreasonable. It will be an extremely useful discipline for the local transport authority to have to stop and think with care and in detail what it will do with the funds which it is extracting from its community or, indeed, from visitors or people simply passing through who will be likely to be caught.
These amendments are repeated in relation to the workplace parking levy. The same arguments hold good in relation to that. If we are to have these schemes, it seems to me that they must be very well thought through in the first instance and then very well explained and acceptable to the community. If they are not, all that will happen is that there will be a political revolution come the next local elections and somebody will be brought in who will do something different. That is the nature of politics. The comparison between these charges and levies and the poll tax has been made.
It may well be that when those charges and levies are in place at some point in the future, they will have a similar impact. I should not go so far as to say that that is certain, but it is certain that there will be extremely negative reactions to the introduction of those charges if the consultation process is weak—under the Bill, there is potential for that—and if, more importantly, the community cannot see that it will gain, rather than lose, as a consequence. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My noble friend makes an extremely good point. It is far from my intention to suggest that the whole of officialdom is high-handed, arrogant and rude. I really do not make that suggestion. However, undoubtedly parts of it suffer from certain defects. That being the case, I think it unwise to use the words "may at any time". In the unlikely event that the charging authority is not naturally good mannered or considerate of the rights of others, it should be obliged to consult. My noble friend is right. He has done a good service to the Committee in making the point by moving the amendment. I hope that the Government will at least

615
give it serious thought, if they do not decide to accept it. I can see no reason why they should not do the latter.
Lord Lea of Crondall: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 263A in this grouping. The measures in Part III will need all the support they can get when they come to fruition. Much still has to be done to integrate transport policy with the workplace. Both limbs of the measures in Part III have much to do with the workplace, which is the main cause of peak period congestion, and we now have the proposal for a parking charge.
I would go only some of the way with noble Lords opposite in predicting revolution as a result of the Bill coming on to the statute book, either for national government or local government. There will certainly be much debate in the workplace when the Bill comes to fruition. Amendment No. 263A is connected to Amendment No. 263B, which has been moved to a different part of the grouping and to which I shall speak later. It is important that we have reassurance on the face of the Bill that employers will be consulted. That, in turn, will act as a stimulus to employers to draft their own green transport plans, which I shall come to later.
Lord Berkeley: I rise briefly to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Lea on Amendment No. 263A. I support everything he said. Perhaps I may add that I am pleased to have received a briefing from the Confederation of British Industry which states that, in principle, it supports the scheme. That is significant.
The CBI has attached to its support a number of conditions. The main one in connection with this amendment is that it would prefer to see the need for consultation to be a statutory requirement. If it is not, it would like to see the Bill accompanied by statutory guidance as to how consultation can be achieved. We spend a great deal of time on this and other Bills talking about consultation, and the discussion can sometimes become ethereal. However, all noble Lords who have spoken so far in Committee have stated that it is a practical necessity to get ownership of this scheme for those who will be affected by it. I am not so frightened. I believe that if it is explained properly, many people will support it and see the benefits which will come to them. However, I believe that, at the very least, statutory guidance should be issued so that there is consistency of consultation where such schemes are proposed.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may say, at the outset, that we believe that effective consultation will be central to the charging or levy scheme at local level. The Government attach considerable importance to that. Indeed, as we said in our response to Breaking the Logjam, consultation with local people and businesses will be one of the core elements of any local scheme before it is approved by the Secretary of State. It is clear that consultation is a major part of that process.
616
Moreover, we have emphasised that charging schemes should support the objectives of a local authority's local transport plan, which is subject to extensive consultation. Every road user or workplace parking scheme will contain much detail and have a direct impact on the interests of many sections of the community. It must, therefore, be subject to a separate and detailed process of public scrutiny and consultation.
Furthermore, Clause 169 provides a power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly to direct a charging or licensing authority to undertake further consultation if the appropriate national authority deems that the original consultation was insufficient.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, anticipated, in providing for such consultation we have used the normal terminology "may". I see no good reason to change that. To ensure that that is turned into full and effective consultation we shall issue guidance. In due course, regulations will be issued using the powers in Clause 167(3). We shall list a number of consultees, the core of which will be similar to those for traffic orders. It will include additions, such as chief police officers, district councils in two-tier authorities, RDAs, national parks authorities and so forth, where appropriate.
For workplace parking schemes, which do not affect such a wide group of people, a simpler list of statutory consultees will be more appropriate. It will include, for example, neighbouring authorities likely to be affected and a requirement to consult and actively involve local people, local employers, local trade unions, transport operators, transport users, representative groups—for example those for the disabled—and such organisations as are appropriate in the locality. In some cases that would require consultation with other public bodies. The guidance will clearly spell out the need to consult widely and meet the objectives set out by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others.
Amendment No. 263A was spoken to by my noble friends Lord Lea and Lord Berkeley. The amendment would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to draw up model guidelines on consultation with employers, along the lines the CBI would want. I assure my noble friends that we fully intend to issue such guidance. At present, through our Charging Development Partnership, we are working closely with those local authorities which have it in mind to introduce such schemes. We shall need to learn from that partnership and build on the experience it has encountered in issuing and developing guidance.
In the mean time, every charging scheme will need the approval of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly and will therefore be subject to careful scrutiny before it starts. I assure the Committee that we do not intend to approve schemes unless there has been appropriate consultation with people and businesses.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, also drew attention to Amendments Nos. 210 and 242 on cost-benefit analysis. Again, we shall issue guidance to authorities on the way in which they should assess the

617
likely impact of the scheme. That will be slightly wider than traditional cost-benefit analysis. They will need to look at the benefits to the community as a whole and the impact on the environment. However, it must be a robust assessment of the impact of that scheme.
On that front and on the consultation front I hope that my assurances have convinced Members of the Committee that the Bill as it stands and the regulations which will follow meet all their objectives in this regard. I hope, therefore, that they do not see the need to move their amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not wish to detain the Committee. However, it seems odd to give an authority permission to consult. Surely authorities do not need permission to consult. They should be put under a duty to consult. In replying to the amendment, the Minister voiced unexceptionable sentiments. I agree with almost every word he said. I would have thought that almost the whole tenor of his argument would have led to an acceptance of this sensible and modest amendment, which is not even lengthy; it is short and inserts one single word: "shall" consult instead of "may" consult. It is perfectly sensible.
I hope that the Minister will not think that we, on this side of the Committee, are being obstinate. I hope that he will concede that there may be a point here. Merely to permit an authority to consult is meaningless. I do not understand its value. The Minister said that consultation is a major part of the process. So why not make it obligatory? I fail to understand that. I do not know how many times the noble Lord used the word "guidance", but he must understand—he is a modest and reasonable man—that government guidance is not always what the Opposition look for or are content with.
I hope that the Minister will look at this matter again and not simply accept the advice of his officials that the Bill is immaculate and does not need any change.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My noble friend Lord Peyton kindly argued in support of what I too felt was a perfectly reasonable proposition. Paradoxically, the Minister agreed with us. But he said that he would not do anything about it; he would deal with it in other ways. The Minister says that "may" means "must", that authorities will have to consult, and that there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. I find that difficult to understand.
My noble friend Lord Peyton also raised the question of the status of guidance. We have already debated in the course of this Bill the status of statutory guidance, particularly guidance which others are obliged to take note of. The fact is that statutory guidance is about 10 steps away from regulation. At least regulation receives the merest margin of parliamentary supervision; statutory guidance receives none.
There is always consultation as to the content of guidance. That consultation takes into account lots of views. But the guidance then produces what the
618
Minister first thought of. It may occasionally be adjusted, but only because the Government originally intended to adjust it.
A constitutional issue arises here. I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, for his support in an amendment which runs parallel to mine, and to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There is wide agreement as to the principles of these amendments. The Minister says that he agrees with the principles but does not intend to do anything. I shall study with care exactly how he managed to justify that paradox. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 208 to 210 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 101, line 27, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments seeks to make compulsory the setting up of an inquiry before a charging scheme is introduced, with a parallel series of amendments in relation to workplace parking. More importantly, in some ways, they seek to appoint an independent person as the chairman of such an inquiry.
In a sense, these amendments follow on naturally from the previous group so I need not take up too much time on them. Once again, the wording of the Bill is "may", and I have no doubt that the Minister will say it means "must". So although those affected by the clause "must", the Bill will say "may". I find that extremely odd.
Again, it is important for the question of acceptance that there should be an inquiry in relation to those schemes. So "may" should be "must" and undoubtedly will be when the Minister concludes his remarks. Even more importantly, another amendment in this group seeks to ensure that the person appointed to chair the inquiry is independent. Unfortunately, if that were not the case, the integrity of the inquiry would be called into question and that would not be in anybody's interest. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Amendments Nos. 214 and 254 are included in this group. In both cases the amendments substitute a requirement on appropriate national authorities to give directions to local authorities to re-examine, vary or revoke a scheme rather than themselves carrying out an inquiry.
Although I do not always take seriously this quibbling about words, nevertheless when the Minister says "may" means "must" it gives greater weight to my remarks. Apparently, the provision now means that the appropriate national authority "must" cause an inquiry to be held in relation to a charging scheme; and that must be nonsense. After all, the way in which these schemes are set up is extremely detailed in terms of their prescription. Regulations for both kinds of levy to cover exemptions and enforcements are enabled by the Bill; the content of each scheme is described in some detail on the face of the Bill; and the

619
appropriate national authority can, by regulation, prescribe the nature and content of the orders under which the schemes can be produced.
Altogether it is a pretty prescriptive control for a locally determined scheme. My question therefore is: why might the appropriate national authority feel that it should step in and hold an inquiry at a time when a scheme is being brought into effect? Why cannot the local authority simply be instructed to think again about its scheme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Within this group it will be generally recognised that the authors of Amendments Nos. 211, 212, 251 and 252 on the one hand and 214 and 254 on the other cannot both be right; they both argue strongly in opposite directions.
There is no question here that "may" equals "shall". It is intended that the requirement to hold a public inquiry should be only in appropriate cases. Holding a public inquiry before a charging or licensing scheme is introduced may well be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to hold an inquiry if there is a significant variation to a scheme. It may even be appropriate to hold an inquiry into the revocation of a scheme. But it cannot be sensible to make public inquiries compulsory in all circumstances for all schemes and for any change to each and every scheme, which is what the Conservative amendments seek.
In addition, the amendments would remove the ability of charging and licensing authorities to fine tune schemes—in other words, to make minor changes —or to revoke schemes quickly. So although I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tabled his amendments, they would not be helpful or beneficial.
However, I would not want the Committee to feel that we do not attach considerable importance to proper and effective scrutiny of the details of individual schemes. We have just debated our commitment to full and effective consultation. That is why we have parallel provisions in the Bill dealing with inquiries. Clause 169(2)(a) gives charging authorities the power to hold an inquiry when they deem it necessary, and we will issue guidance on that matter. Clause 169(4)(a) provides the appropriate national authority with the power to direct a charging authority to hold a public inquiry if it feels that this is appropriate. There are identical provisions in Chapter II dealing with the workplace parking levy.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will be pleased to hear that we are in agreement about Amendments Nos. 213 and 253. But while we agree with what he is seeking to achieve, I advise the noble Lord not to smile too soon. We do not believe that it is necessary to write such a provision on the face of the Bill because the consequence of any inquiry that failed to meet this criterion would be vulnerable to a successful challenge in the courts. Nevertheless, I reiterate our belief and intention that inquiries should be run by suitably qualified people who are independent.
620
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 214 and 254 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I agree with the noble Baroness that we do not want to see unnecessary delays in the introduction of schemes. But the power to require an inquiry to be held into the establishment or variation of a scheme is an important reserve power that may be needed if local consultations have not been adequate to safeguard the interests of the local community. The power proposed by the amendments to require the re-examination of specific aspects of a charging scheme is already available to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales through the process of scheme approval.
If we made the amendments, they would also have the unintended effect of giving the appropriate national authority the power to prevent a local authority revoking its charging scheme. As drafted, the power to direct that an inquiry should be held applies only to the introduction and variation of a scheme, not to its revocation. I hope the noble Baroness will agree that authorities should not be tied into schemes without the option to revoke them immediately if they wish to do so. We should not want to see a national authority preventing a local authority terminating a scheme by continuously questioning the revocation order. On that basis, I hope that Members of the Committee, coming at us from both sides, will feel that it is unnecessary to press these amendments.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his reply, but I should like gently to point out that I am not under any obligation whatever to agree with my colleagues who sit further along on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, we speak for ourselves and not for anyone else.
I have learnt something today; namely, that the word "may" means "shall" in Clause 169(2), but that "may" means "may" in Clause 169(4). So we have at least got further down the road as regards the drafting of Bills. I shall not chop logic any more with the Minister because he is probably rather better at it than I am. I await with interest to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says about his amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I cannot recall the appropriate quote from the Queen of Hearts in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, but I have the feeling that there is one there somewhere, if only I could remember it! However, I wish to focus on a point made by the Minister. He said that, if an inquiry were established without an independent chairman, it might be open to successful challenge in court. The noble Lord is perfectly right. If we do not stipulate that the chairman should be independent and a local authority makes such a mistake, that would be the inevitable result. It is precisely because I thought that we should avoid the waste of time and money that would be involved in such a case that it seemed to me desirable to put such a provision on the face of the Bill.

621
Anyone who stops and thinks for only a short while will realise that there have been a number of occasions when local authorities have managed to get themselves into a procedural muddle. They have been taken to court and it has caused a great deal of vexation. Part of the purpose of legislation is undoubtedly to try to avoid such situations arising. If we achieve that aim by the simple addition of a few words that actually cost nothing—except, perhaps, a minor deflation of the Government's ego—I really do not see why we should not do so.
We find ourselves in a rather strange situation. I shall study the Minister's response because we are dealing here with quite a few amendments. However, it seems to me that this may well be a issue to which we shall return at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 212 to 219 not moved.]
Clause 169 agreed to.
Clause 170 [Matters to be dealt with in charging schemes]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 220:
Page 102, line 25, at end insert ("and for the purpose of this section the class of vehicle should be defined as a powered vehicle with three or more wheels").
The noble Baroness said: Among other things, Clause 170 deals with the classes of motor vehicles in respect of which charges are imposed, as part of the matters to be considered in charging schemes. Our amendment provides that such vehicles must have more than three wheels. That sounds rather curious, but the object of the exercise is to tease out the Government's feelings about motorcycles.
Obviously, the object of road congestion charging schemes is to reduce congestion, but motorcycles contribute to reducing road congestion. The man, or commuter, on a motorcycle takes up far less room than someone driving a car. Therefore, it seems reasonable to hope and expect that motorcycles are either excluded altogether from the category of vehicles that should be charged or, alternatively, if they are included, they should be charged at a lower level. I beg to move.
Viscount Falkland: As a practising motorcyclist, and one of long standing, perhaps I may amplify what my noble friend has just said. From my personal experience of riding my motorcycle in various countries, there is no charging system that does not distinguish between four-wheeled vehicles and those with two or three wheels. Anyone who travels on a tolling autoroute in France, along an autobahn or on to an autostrada will find that there are reduced charges for motorcycles. That indicates the difference in terms of the wear and tear, pollution or anything else that is taken into account in order to assess the kind of charges that should be levied. It is an indication
622
that the differences between the four-wheeled vehicle—whether it be a van, a lorry or a car—and two or three-wheeled vehicles are recognised.
This country has a long history of motorcycle manufacture and use. After all, the motorcycle was almost, but not quite, pioneered in this country. We made a significant industrial contribution to the design and manufacture of motorcycles to the extent that, pre-1960, we were probably the major manufacturer of machines for pleasure, for commuting and for motor sport. With that background, it is rather curious that there is now an equivocal attitude at local authority level to motorcycles. The way in which motorcycles are treated for the purpose of parking, which was discussed under another part of the Bill, is extremely uneven. That applies not only within the London area but generally throughout the United Kingdom.
In the transport plans of various local authorities no distinction is made between motorcycles and other forms of vehicle in terms of the pollution that they are alleged to produce or, indeed, as regards the wear and tear, the costs to taxpayers and the causes of congestion. Motorcycles cause far less pollution and congestion than other vehicles. The Bill as drafted will not encourage local authorities to take a more rational view of that problem.
I am sure noble Lords will remember that the Budget of March 1999 provided tax relief for motorcycles used for commuting as they were regarded as a green form of commuting. Therefore, there is a clear recognition that motorcycles and scooters comprise a different class of vehicle in terms of assessing charging schemes.
As my noble friend said, this is a probing amendment on which it would be useful to hear the Government's views. Thus far the Government have made some encouraging comments about motorcycles. The number of motorcycles and scooters on our roads has grown immeasurably over the past three years. My noble friend talked of a man on a motorcycle. However, current registrations show that more women are applying for motorcycle licences.
Noble Lords may not have used the facility themselves, but there are good motorcycle taxi facilities available. I am told by fellow motorcyclists with whom I chat when waiting at a red light that it is largely women who use those taxi services. They recognise that they are the best way to get to airports or to meetings. Women now form an important part of the motorcycling community. They complain most vociferously about the uneven and unreasonable—as it is perceived—view of some local authorities which bracket together the larger, more polluting vehicles and motorcycles.
As I say, it would be helpful if the Minister would say whether the Government distinguish between motorcycles, scooters and other vehicles in this regard. That would enormously encourage those who have tabled the amendment and the expanding group of people of all ages who use motorcycles. I do not say that they use them for pleasure because in this Anglo-Saxon environment in which we live I notice that

623
pleasure is not heavily featured in the Transport Bill when we talk about cars. I can well understand that, as there is not much pleasure in driving a car. However, motorcycles are also ridden for pleasure. That is recognised in most countries. However, in this country, people who do not enjoy driving cars and becoming caught up in congestion take a rather dim view of people who get through the traffic and enjoy themselves. However, that should not distract one from taking a reasonable and fair-minded view of the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know which cruel person allocated this amendment to me for a response. On a previous occasion in Committee I made it clear that I am frightened of bikers. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, mentioned scooters. Forty years ago I used to ride a scooter. I was frightened as much of myself as of anyone else, particularly when I fell off, as I frequently did.
Motor vehicles, as defined in Clause 197(1), already exclude electrically assisted pedal cycles and other forms of unpowered modes of transport. This leaves us with the question of whether it is right, as the amendment suggests, that the Bill should automatically exclude all powered two wheelers—that is, motorbikes and scooters—from charges in all circumstances. I am not convinced that this would be the right way to proceed.
We addressed this matter in our consultation paper Breaking the Logjam. We sought people's views on the merits of a national exemption for motorcycles from road user charges. Over 60 per cent of respondents thought that there should not be a national exemption. Many suggested that the matter should be left to local discretion. We recognise the merits of an exemption from charges for motorcycles. It could overcome a number of practical problems that might be encountered if they were subject to road user charges.
However, I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that we are discussing congestion charging. There are issues of pollution and also of noise pollution. I do not think motorcycles would be regarded favourably in terms of noise pollution. However, we are principally discussing congestion. It is undoubtedly the case that a two-wheeled vehicle takes up less horizontal road space than a four-wheeled vehicle, or even a three-wheeled vehicle such as a Reliant Robin or a motorcycle with a sidecar. A charging authority might decide that it is appropriate to charge motorcycles if they contribute to local congestion problems.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to motorways in other countries. However, in the centre of Rome or Bologna the congestion is caused almost entirely by two-wheeled vehicles and pedestrians. The fact that it will be open to charging authorities to charge motorcycles at a reduced rate on the basis that two wheels cause less of a congestion problem than four wheels is a perfectly rational solution. If that is what the noble Viscount seeks, we seek the same thing.
624
We believe that it is right to leave local authorities with the discretion to include powered two wheelers within a charging scheme. However, we shall ensure that local authorities carefully consider the case for and against including motorcycles in any charging scheme.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that full and, I think, largely satisfactory reply. I shall read what the Minister has said but, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 102, line 27, at end insert ("for ten years or").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 221 and 222 are grouped together. They seek to change the psychology of this part of the Bill. Clause 170 is concerned with the contents of charging schemes. Clause 170(1)(e) states that a charging scheme must,
"state whether or not the charging scheme is to remain in force indefinitely and, if it is not to remain in force indefinitely, the period for which it is to remain in force".
I leave aside the earlier argument proposed; namely, that the purpose of the charges is to provide a permanent disincentive for people to drive. Clearly, this part of the Bill at any rate, is not consistent with that.
Amendment No. 220 seeks to amend Clause 170(1)(e) to read,
"state whether or not the charging scheme is to remain in Force for ten years or indefinitely".
The hypothecation period presently provided in the Bill is 10 years. I do not see why a local transport authority should have to bear the responsibility for introducing a tax which may subsequently become a national tax. In my view, that does not accord with the principles of open and honest taxation.
The psychology of the Bill at this point would be improved if the tax—and it is a tax—was to run initially for the period of its hypothecation to the benefit of the local community. If subsequent events necessitated a change—or if a government legislated to bring it about, which would be the open way of doing it—it could perhaps become a permanent charge. The principle of permanence is already eroded by the wording of the Bill—I am delighted about that—but we should say that these are local taxes for local use at the very least. It is important to get the psychology right.
I am a great admirer of everyone involved in local government but, at the moment, local transport authorities may not think sufficiently carefully about this matter. They may not think sufficiently carefully about it in any event, but they would be more likely to think about it if the emphasis of this small part of the Bill were to be altered. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I should first say a word about hypothecation, which is a little more complicated than the noble Lord implied. Each scheme starting in the 10 years following the commencement of these powers will be guaranteed at

625
least 10 years of hypothecation. So, if a scheme started nine years from now, hypothecation would continue until 19 years from now. We would then have a general review after 10 years. The Secretary of State may, if he wishes, agree a longer period of hypothecation for an individual scheme at the outset. Every scheme will have established at the outset the exact period of hypothecation that it is guaranteed, and an authority could, of course, decide to link the length of the scheme to that.
As far as I can see, there is no risk whatever of what the noble Lord suggested—that is, that a scheme might run out of hypothecation and could not be brought to an end if the authority so wished. The Bill allows that orders of indefinite length may be revoked at any time if the charging authority so wishes.
Having got that out of the way, perhaps I may turn to the amendments themselves. The amendments seek to require that scheme orders must be either indefinite or of 10 years' duration. Schemes can be indefinite or of 10 years duration now; the amendments would stop them being for any finite period other than 10 years. That could be too restrictive. An authority may decide to introduce an order initially for a year, with the continuation of the scheme being subject to review and the remaking of the order; or it might decide that an order of five years would be right to tie it into the timetable of a local transport plan.
Having removed the fear of a scheme which may run out of hypothecation, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will feel that the flexibility provided in the Bill is better than the position proposed in his amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are constantly dealing with what lies behind the Bill rather than what lies in the Bill. None the less, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response, which gives me considerable cause for hope. I shall study his words with care. It may be that there are particular aspects of what he said that I shall wish to explore further at a later stage but, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 102, line 29, at end insert (", and
(f) state whether the charging scheme will cease in the event that the monies provided annually by government to local government for highways and transport purposes (as exemplified in the annual Revenue Support Grant negotiations) are reduced year on year for more than one year").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 223—which I am sure is hopelessly inadequately worded—seeks to give us the opportunity to explore a different aspect of what is now happening in relation to funding as a result of the introduction of these additional taxes—that is, the question of additionality.
Many people think that hypothecation is the essential building block to making this work. But if we were to have a hypothecated source of revenue which
626
allowed the Government to withdraw other available funding—so that one was almost in a position of a drug addict having his addiction forced on him by the possibility of the withdrawal of treatment—we would not be in a very happy situation.
I thought quite hard about how I could table an amendment to bring about that which I wish to ensure—that is, that normal funding will carry on as one would normally expect it to do. I am quite prepared to admit that my wording is not adequate to achieve that purpose—as no doubt the Minister will agree, whatever else he says when he responds to the amendment. In any event, it is far too risky; inevitably as between one transport authority and another, over years their needs will go up and down, as will funding, and my amendment does not permit funding to go down. I admit therefore that we could have a little difficulty.
However, I want to get the principle of additionality to local government generally at the very least debated; indeed, if I could, I should like to get it acknowledged on the face of the Bill. The Minister may say that I am a very untrusting kind of bloke and that I have a suspicious nature. I accept the charge. Those of us who have spent our lives in local government, very regrettably, end up with that as a part of our character. It gives me no pleasure whatever to say that, but it is a fact of life. The important point is that we need somehow to assure those who will be responsible for introducing these charges that they will mean an additional gain to their communities. Without that, we will be in some difficulty.
We have spoken about the question of the guidance. I mention en passant that the psychology of the guidance could also mean that the Government could use its base funding as a tool—heaven help us—to persuade authorities to introduce charges. It has happened before from central government to local government by the simple device of central government saying "You are not introducing these charges; you are not doing what we want; therefore we shall reduce your funds". It has happened to local government from central government as bluntly as that. That is not a proper way to carry on.
It was with all these thoughts in mind that I tabled the amendment. If the Minister can give me concrete assurances on the principle I am trying to get across, it may be that I shall be happier. It is an extremely difficult area, as I am the first to acknowledge. I look forward to the noble Lord's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like to add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has said. Undoubtedly there is a danger—we have seen it in local government, as the noble Lord said, and in art funding following the creation of the lottery fund—that when there is specific support for a particular item of expenditure governments, no matter what they say, sometimes fall down in maintaining their original programmes of support for that item of expenditure. There is a rather disagreeable reality behind the noble Lord's amendment. We should like whatever reassurance the Minister can give us that the

627
Government will not go down that road. It would be dangerous for local government to depend on congestion charging for funding everything it wants to do in the field of transport.
6 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that we all have a shared and understandable apprehension about this matter. In the circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, need not confess to more suspicion in these matters. I entirely agree that the revenues from new charges must be additional to existing funding and that this must be clear for all to see. We also have to recognise that that will be crucial to the success and public acceptability of any charging scheme. For the record, I repeat the Government's promise that the net proceeds from charging schemes will be additional moneys for improving local transport.
It was with the issue of additionality in mind that Schedule 12 was drafted to require charging and licensing authorities to establish a separate account for the income and expenditure from charging schemes. That account must be published annually. That will guarantee transparency by making it clear to local people and businesses how much money is being raised through charging and how that money is being spent. That will, we hope, help to demonstrate that the revenues raised through the new charges are indeed additional to a local authority's revenue support grant and other grants paid by central government to local government.
Returning to the noble Lord's amendment, I would emphasise that we have been careful to put as few obstacles as possible in the way of an authority that wishes to discontinue a scheme. If it wishes to halt a scheme, on whatever grounds seem appropriate and relevant, then that is a matter for the charging authority to decide. A statement on the lines required by the amendment would not make any difference to that.
We are committed to the principle of additionality but the amendment does not help in any way to fulfil our commitment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and particularly his assurance that the products of these revenue streams must be additional. I am bound to say, however, that, whatever Schedule 12 may say, it does nothing to reinforce the point of additionality, or, at least, it does infinitely less than his assurance does. His assurance is quite clear.
Schedule 12 requires the keeping of separate accounts and the annual publication of them. That will deal very neatly and properly with the issue of revenue raised and revenue spent. But it does not actually deal with the issue of what happens to the other revenue streams that local government has. Although that may help to make what is happening more obvious, it does nothing to guarantee the continuity of those other revenue streams. That is what I would call a
628
"peccadillo" in what was a helpful reply, and one for which I am grateful. I will study with care what the Minister has said, as is my wont. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 223A:
Page 102, line 29, at end insert (", and
( ) specify an alternative route for through traffic that can be followed if a vehicle is unable or unequipped to pay the charges required").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 223A deals with the question of producing an alternative route for through traffic if a scheme is introduced. The purpose of the amendment is to tease out something about the administration of these systems. As my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who is no longer in his place, said, we always need to remember that the purpose of roads is to help movement. The difficulty we shall have at some point in the future is that some towns will go for automated systems of charging. That will be good and fine, provided that there is a national standard and nationally agreed equipment. We may well be coming to that, but we are certainly not there yet. The alternative would be to put at the border of a district something such as one sees at the end of the Dartford crossing. I happen to have the border of a district on my land. It would be a marginal joy to me if the local transport authority came along and said that it required three or four acres of land in order to put in a tolling station for the benefit of the local community. It would also benefit me somewhat. So I declare an interest in this question.
There is a serious issue, because we will have to provide systems which will permit the charging a through traffic. If we are to have these schemes, one cannot afford to let the issue get away, not for the monetary reason but for the reason of principle. Therefore, I brought the debate on to the Floor of the Committee so we could see what was going on.
Amendment No. 224, which is grouped with Amendment No. 223A, would permit different charges for different classes of road user. At present, the Bill provides for different charges for various circumstances but it does not refer to different classes of road user. When we were having a debate on motorcycles, it occurred to me that it was a perfect example of what I mean with this particular amendment. I believe that different levels of charging for different classes of road users is entirely appropriate. I thought that that should be added. There is an amendment to that effect in the group.
Amendment No. 225, which is also in the group, deals with the question of the publication—we are in the business of informing the public—of the reason for imposing different charges for different cases. I have no doubt that I shall be told that that will be part of the pre-consultation and that these details will be gone into. In my experience, a good many people will riot wake up until after the scheme is in place. They will suddenly say, "I have heard nothing about this; I know nothing about it". The public would be disadvantaged

629
if the reasons for differential charging are not a part of the scheme so that they can be read about at that stage. I hope that at the very least the Minister will be sympathetic to that point, although I have no doubt that his sympathy will be much as it has been so often this afternoon. The noble Lord is so charming. It is very difficult to argue with him. He agrees with you but says that there is no need to do anything about the point that you are raising. These are important little amendments.
To go back to where I began, the problem of dealing with through traffic for long distance journeys will be a considerable one, particularly initially. It would be a trifle unfortunate if we were to step back to the 18th century and have tollgates as one crosses from one local transport authority to another. That is almost implicit in the situation that we are creating. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this group of amendments. I feel that I must almost apologise for finding myself yet again in general agreement with the intentions behind his amendments, if not the exact proposals.
The purpose of Amendment No. 223A is to require that a charging scheme must specify an alternative route for through traffic that can be followed by vehicles unable or unequipped to pay the charges. I am sympathetic to the practical point about giving people the option either to pay a charge or take an alternative route. We would expect that schemes will be designed to give information to motorists so they can choose whether or not to enter a charged area or structure. If they do decide to enter the area, they should be prepared to pay the charge. That is the same for currently tolled bridges.
However, while I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve, I think it is undesirable to have such a requirement for a number of reasons. It would prevent a charging scheme proceeding if an alternative route was not available, as is the case in the schemes being developed in the Peak District National Park and by Durham County Council in its attempts to protect the unique world heritage site of Durham city.
Furthermore, the alternative route would have to be suitable for the class of through traffic which the noble Lord is considering. However, one purpose of a charging scheme could be to encourage a shift between modes to protect the environment which would be rendered pointless if diversion of traffic was encouraged. I remind the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that he does not envisage approving schemes unless some public transport alternative is available. It is not clear exactly what the noble Lord means by "unable"— unable because the driver has forgotten his or her money? We could be moving into a legal minefield with this amendment. Therefore, I cannot support it for the reasons I have outlined.
630
Subsection (5) of Clause 170 provides examples of some of the factors under which charges may vary. Those include different charges on different days and different charges at different times of day. The list is not, however, exclusive or exhaustive. Other possibilities are not ruled out and to add,
"different classes of road-user",
as Amendment No. 224 seeks to do, is not necessary. Furthermore, Clause 171 specifically provides for exemptions and reduced rates of charges. Using these provisions, charging authorities could also, if they wished, charge lower rates for local residents or other classes of road user.
Amendment No. 225 would require that a charging authority must specify the reasons for charging different amounts in different cases. I agree with the principle, but my preference would be for local authorities to include a justification for different charges when they consult locally on their proposals. That could also be one of the factors we consider in scheme approvals. I would add that local authorities, if challenged on the issue by an application for judicial review in the High Court, would in any case have to be ready to justify different charges.
I hope that with those reassurances the noble Lord will agree that his amendments are unnecessary and will agree to withdraw Amendment No. 223A.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I shall certainly agree to study with great care what the Minister has said. As always, he argues his case persuasively and sympathises with my intentions. I find that quite charming and indeed—dare I say it?—disarming. But one needs to be certain that even with what he has said—again, he must forgive my scepticism—we have dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. Although I am infinitely more happy than I was before we had this short debate, I cannot be entirely satisfied. I shall have to give the Minister's reply more thought than is possible immediately on the Floor of the Committee. I shall study the noble Lord's remarks very carefully when they appear in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 224 and 225 not moved.]
Clause 170 agreed to.
Clause 171 [Charging schemes: exemptions etc.]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 103, line 14, at end insert ("which shall include exemption for recognised emergency services, people undertaking repairs to public utilities, and doctors, nurses and mid-wives visiting patients").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 243 to 247 and Amendment No. 261. This group of amendments deals with the question of exemptions. I have tabled them in part to tease out, if that is possible, what the Government are thinking in this regard. These are very important issues.
The Government have apparently accepted that the concept of universal charging is inappropriate. They have done so because they have recognised that,

631
particularly with regard to people working for the health service who have to travel to and from work for duty at all hours of the day, it would not be appropriate that they should be included in these charging schemes. That is fine. But many other classes of user will also come within that category one way or another. As the principle is the same, this group of amendments crosses over into workplace parking levies.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Why did the noble Lord choose this specific case? Why did he not choose five, 10 or 15 other cases? Could not all such cases be mentioned in regulations which can be considered later? All the Government are doing is making room for the provision later on of certain circumstances. The noble Lord has chosen one circumstance. Why did he not choose another, or five others?
Lord Dixon-Smith: If one considers just Amendment No. 226, I agree that it mentions only emergency services. However, Amendment No. 243 deals with businesses in a rural area; Amendment No. 244 deals with a business providing fewer than 10 workplace parking spaces; and Amendment No. 245 deals with a business which has introduced a "green transport programme" in relation to its employees. Another amendment deals with a business for which it is necessary to work shifts and one is dealing with the absolute obligation on the employer to introduce double the number of parking places. All those are perfectly reasonable exceptions to argue for if one accepts that exceptions are valid in the first place; and the Government have accepted that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not take exception to the idea put forward by the noble Lord. What I take exception to is the fact that he has taken the opportunity now rather than when the regulations come to be debated by the House.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may make two points about regulations which may arrive before the House in the future. First, at this stage we do not know what the regulations will contain. Secondly—I debated this point with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as recently as last Friday—with regulations one can only approve them or reject them. One cannot amend them.
Furthermore, we should bear in mind the principle I mentioned earlier this afternoon; namely, the question of when and whether it is appropriate to put detailed provisions on the face of the Bill or whether they would be better dealt with in regulations. The fact of the matter is—and as a matter of principle—I would argue that we would be wise to place as much as possible on the face of the Bill. I accept that complications can arise in so doing, because unless we are careful, the Bill may become more rigid than is intended. However, at least if a matter is placed on the face of the Bill, we can debate it thoroughly, consider the detail and possibly divide on it.
632
As regards regulations—I have forgotten the exact number of pages of regulations we debated on Friday last, but it was around 40 to 50—we are faced with Hobson's choice: take it or leave it. One can vote either for or against regulations. That is not a good way to proceed.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Does the noble Lord accept that the making of lists is always fraught with difficulty? It is extremely easy to leave out groups of people who should be on the list. For example, in the list provided by the noble Lord's amendment, while he has included,
"doctors, nurses and mid-wives visiting patients".
I should remind him that health visitors need to visit patients and clients. They are not included in the list.
As I have said, it is difficult to avoid the problem of leaving out those who have an equal claim.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I absolutely agree with that comment, but that is part of the purpose for which we debate these matters in detail. We can then ensure that such lists are absolutely right.
I do not claim for one moment any degree of infallibility in this area. However, the same argument applies in the case of regulations. It can apply even—heaven help us—in the case of statutory guidance. We can only do our best.
I do not wish to argue that the list provided in my amendment is by any means the last word on the subject. However, I believe that it is worth arguing on behalf of these particular cases. For example, businesses in rural areas generally should be exempted from workplace parking levies. Such businesses do not cause congestion. Almost invariably, the only way of reaching the business is by car. Occasionally, an employee will live close enough to use a bicycle, but generally speaking, the car is the only realistic means of transport. I believe that we all wish to encourage the establishment of small businesses. Many schemes have been set up so to do. It seems to me that workplace parking levies could well provide a disincentive. They may discourage some people from doing something which otherwise they would do.
As regards businesses that introduce a green transport policy, I should remind noble Lords that some businesses have already done so. Indeed, we debated this a little while ago because one business found that its employees were being taxed because a taxable benefit had been provided for them. However, what that company had done was in fact in everyone's best interests. I find that to be an interesting point.
I have already mentioned the case on behalf of those who work in shifts and, of course, those who work in the recognised emergency services. Their case goes without saying.
I believe that the main point to stress is that, once it is admitted that the principle of universality is not appropriate here, all the other issues will become open to debate. Furthermore, as I have said already, as a matter of principle, I prefer to see all that can possibly be put on the face of the Bill being put on the face of

633
the Bill—inconvenient, difficult and awkward though that may be. The issues can then be debated fully to decide whether to include or reject them. However, in regulations the opportunity for detailed supervision does not arise. All that can be done is to accept what has been put before one in toto or reject it in toto. Very often, for other reasons, rejection is not practicable. In that case, one is forced to accept matters which otherwise would not be acceptable.
I believe that these amendments are entirely reasonable. No doubt I shall receive the usual helpful, sympathetic and spirited negative response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: Before the Minister replies, I should say that I am almost moved to sing to him the hymn,
"Courage, brother, do not stumble",
after having looked at the list of possible exceptions. We on these Benches broadly support the intentions of the Government here. Exceptions are a great trial.
When we began to put in the traffic management scheme in Oxford, we received pleas for exceptions from almost every conceivable quarter. Had we given in to those requests, we would not have achieved clear streets. Almost everyone can make a case for exception. It was notable that when the London red routes were set up and parking was restricted on those routes, huge protests were lodged by small businesses. However, it turned out that most of the parking spaces were being occupied by cars and vans that belonged to the proprietors of the small businesses themselves. The vehicles were parked on those main roads all day, thus preventing shoppers and others from using the premises. Objective and independent research into the effects of the red routes has revealed that the number of visits to such premises has in fact increased enormously now that the proprietors' own vehicles are no longer parked in front of their shops.
As regards concessions, I was disappointed when the Deputy Prime Minister conferred an almost blanket exemption to the employees of National Health Service trusts. As regards hospital sites, with which I am familiar, I would estimate that perhaps 20 to 30 per cent of those using the parking spaces are those engaged in shift work, who could not reasonably use public transport. However, the usual collection of administrators and people in the finance department (they seem to outnumber everyone else) work from nine to five. They, too, are to be covered by that exemption, but there is no reason whatever why those people should be exempted from the rules.
I ask the Government, in considering their response to the amendments, to trust in the judgment of local authorities. Local government is best placed to draw a reasonable balance as regards requests for exemptions. Indeed, we pay an immediate penalty—usually the following May by being turned out of office—if the job is not done properly.
Perhaps I may make a specific comment as regards the exemption requested for those,
"undertaking repairs to public utilities".
634
The phrase "public utilities" used to embrace a small well-defined group of undertakers. It is regrettable that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, is not in his place. He would confirm that those undertakers comprised the gas board, the electricity board, water and telephones. Nowadays, I believe that 80 or 90 different groups appear to have the right to set up roadworks, use skips, dig holes and generally obstruct the flow of traffic. Indeed, we have also seen the rise of the phenomenon of "white van man". He usually parks on the pavement and proceeds to use his van as a mobile workshop, leaving the van in place all day. In all honesty, such people have got to be brought under control, otherwise our streets and pavements will no longer be available to those who have legitimate business.
My plea to the Government is this: be robust on this matter and put some trust in local authorities. Do not try, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has suggested, to put everything on the face of the Bill. It is not possible to cover all the detail. The Bill will simply become longer and the process of consultation will be even more tortuous than it is now.
Viscount Simon: Amendment No. 227 in this group, standing in my name, is very simple. It is well recognised that registered disabled people are limited by their individual and specific form of disability and therefore need to have special arrangements in respect of use of their vehicles. It is hoped that they will have the new blue disabled persons parking badge, which has replaced the old orange badge. It will enable them to avoid certain parking fines and to park in places not available to other motorists.
Some years ago, I was told the definition of a disabled person. It is very short: it is someone who is unable to travel by public transport. There are numerous people who have chronic illness which prevents them from using public transport. I am one, and I understand that my difficulty is not unusual. I have a nasty problem with my immune system whereby if I inhale certain chemicals which are now worn by men and women, or tobacco smoke, I can have what my GP describes as akin to an anaphylactic attack in that it is almost instantaneous and vicious. So, in order to avoid the problem, I am allowed to travel only by car. This restricts my life considerably. But to all intents and purposes I am fit and healthy. I can drive without any problem, park normally and comply with every rule, regulation and Act of Parliament. This will illustrate the problem faced not only by me but by other motorists who have chronic diseases that restrict their travelling to only one mode—their own private vehicle.
If it is accepted that disabled people should be exempted from road user charging because of their disability, it follows that those who have chronic illness should also be exempted from such charges. My noble friend will doubtless ask how this can be managed so as to avoid any abuse of the system. That is easy. It does not form part of this amendment, but

635
it could be covered by regulation. I should be happy to discuss the mechanics further with my noble friend should he so wish.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 227A standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall, which is in this group of amendments concerned with exemptions, although it could apply equally well to workplace parking.
I support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that there should be minimal exemptions. I am sure that that is the right answer. Shiftworkers could be considered; and my noble friend Lord Simon has made a powerful case for another group.
My concern is that, human nature being what it is, those who create parking schemes will face a terrible temptation to make sure that they are all right first. That could apply to a local authority; it could apply equally to this House and another place; it could apply to workplace parking and to traffic charging schemes. As I have said previously in Committee, setting an example and getting ownership of all those who will be involved is vital. If the charging authority does not set an example by making its own employees, consultants, advisers and members pay the same amount as everyone else, under the same conditions, the scheme will have failed. That applies to Members, officials and everyone else in this House and in another place.
This is a probing amendment to see what my noble friend the Minister thinks about the matter and whether he can give some robust suggestion that everyone must be treated equally.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not usually oppose my noble friend, because he served me well when I held the transport portfolio when my party was in opposition. However, I believe that the right thing for my noble friend to do is to make representations at the proper time to my noble friend the Minister. What I have said about the noble Lord applies equally to him. Both have made out good cases individually. But it is wrong at this stage of the Bill, which is lengthy enough in any event, to make representations on behalf of individuals or organisations—unless my noble friend has reasons that are not apparent to me. My experience indicates that he has an open mind on the matter, that he has representations in mind concerning individuals and organisations, and that he does not need the help that either my noble friend or the noble Lord opposite is prepared to give.
Lord Swinfen: On the question of road user charging and workplace levies, I have great sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. But as regards road user charging, it is likely that automated schemes will be introduced to check moving traffic. People will either have to buy in advance the right to take their vehicles into certain areas, or be billed afterwards. Therefore, are the Government proposing increased allowances for
636
people who are registered disabled so as to take account of road user charging and to reimburse them for it? In the long term, that is probably the most practical method of dealing with the matter in order that there will not be delays at checkpoints while the validity of a driver, or indeed the passenger if that person is so disabled that he or she is unable to drive, is checked to verify that the vehicle is exempt. In relation to disabled people who must use a private vehicle, there should be a proper exemption from the workplace parking levy.
It would be helpful if at this stage the Government would indicate what they have in mind in the way of exemptions, or compensation for lack of exemptions, in regard to both road user charging schemes and the workplace levy. That could help us at later stages in the Bill and might well mean that we need not table quite so many amendments in future. I am sure that the Government have given themselves plenty of time to think about this matter.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I should like to thank noble Lords for raising the important matter of exemption from road user charges and workplace parking levies. I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for lending me his considerable weight in matters of procedure. Some of the suggestions by Members of the Committee for possible exemptions or concessions make good sense, but again we differ on the approach.
The Government's response to the consultation paper, Breaking the Logjam, sought views on possible exemptions or concessions. We invited views on what exemptions from charges or other concessions should be specified nationally, and what exemptions or concessions would be best left to local discretion. A copy of the response was placed in the Library in February.
In England, we are proposing that there will be a national exemption from both road user charges and workplace parking charges for emergency vehicles. We are proposing that there will also be some form of exemption from both charges for disabled persons. In addition, we are proposing some form of exemption or concession from the workplace parking levy for National Health Service hospitals.
However, we are firmly of the view that these national exemptions from charges should be specified in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. This regulation-making power is provided by virtue of Clause 171 for road user charging and Clause 186 for workplace parking levy. This will ensure that we can work with appropriate interest groups, such as organisations that represent disabled people, to ensure that our proposed exemptions or concessions are workable and equitable. That could not be guaranteed if we sought to specify exemptions now on the face of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Simon proposes an exemption for registered disabled people and those with chronic illnesses that prevent them from using public transport. I was sorry to hear of my noble

637
friend's inhibiting disability, which does not allow him to travel by public transport. The work done by the Commission for Integrated Transport shows that of all European countries, the UK is foremost in provision for travel by disabled people on public transport.
I am grateful for the opportunity to restate our commitment, in our response to Breaking the Logjam, to some form of exemption in England for disabled motorists from road user charges and the workplace parking levy. We are undertaking further work, so it is too early to say what the best approach to an exemption will be. We are working with experts and representative groups to develop our proposals, on which we will consult in due course. Key issues will be who should be included in the scope of an exemption and how an exemption can be enforced fairly and effectively. We are firmly of the view that the best way is to use the power in Clause 171 to make regulations—rather than put something prescriptive in the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will therefore agree not to press his amendment.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for raising the important question of how public sector organisations and charging authorities themselves should be treated. His amendment would prevent regulations made by the Secretary of State from exempting charging authorities or other public sector bodies from road user charges—but it would not prevent a charging authority from exempting itself from road user charges or from offering local exemptions to other public sector bodies.
We said in response to Breaking the Logjam that we do not envisage approving a workplace parking levy scheme if exemptions are proposed simply on the basis that buildings are council owned. The same logic applies to a charging authority's liability for road charges. Nor do we propose widespread exemptions from road user charges for public sector organisations. The public sector bears part of the responsibility for causing congestion and would reap the benefits of reduced congestion. It must therefore bear its part of the responsibility for tackling congestion. Widespread public sector exemptions would be impossible to justify to other sectors of the economy and would undermine the effectiveness of schemes to tackle congestion.
We propose, however, national exemption from road charges for emergency vehicles—which have no discretion over the time, destination or means by which they travel, and whose work is often a matter of life or death. We propose that regulations under Clause 171 should provide for national exemption. As the police, fire and ambulance services are public-sector bodies, Amendment No. 227A would prevent that happening. I hope that my noble friend will accept my reassurance on the treatment of charging authorities and that they will not duck their liability for charges, and that my noble friend will understand that a national exemption for emergency services is essential.
638
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, proposes a number of exemptions additional to those we intend to specify in regulations. I have made it clear that we are committed to giving local authorities responsibility for devising charging and licensing schemes that reflect local circumstances, priorities and needs. On that basis, we have kept national exemptions to a minimum. Local authorities may want to add other locally decided exemptions but we are firmly of the view that decisions about others and concessions—other than the small number that will apply nationally—should be taken locally in the design of an individual charging or licensing scheme.
Local authorities may want to set a threshold that exempts the first few parking places at a building from the workplace levy—and there are good arguments in favour. A threshold could help small businesses and reduce the administrative effort of managing and enforcing a scheme. However, in advance of working with the first levy scheme proposals and giving further consideration to the impact of thresholds, we are not in a position to consider whether a national threshold is appropriate or the level at which it should be pitched. The threshold of 10 parking spaces proposed by Amendment No. 244 might work in one town but another level might be more appropriate elsewhere.
Amendment No. 243 suggests that any business in a rural area should be exempted. These are enabling powers, so it is for each local traffic authority to decide whether and where to use them. Each is subject to our approval and we have said that in approving schemes, we envisage and expect that every scheme will have a direct bearing on local congestion problems—rather than simply being a means of raising revenue. If a rural area has no congestion problems, our expectation is that there will be a presumption against our approving a scheme—although the Secretary of State would have to give fair consideration to the merits of any put forward.
As to Amendment No. 245, I accept that there may be merit in giving exemptions or concessions to businesses that have agreed green travel plans that minimise their employees' reliance on car travel. I hope the Committee accepts that it would be best to tackle the matter locally, perhaps with guidance or regulations—not least because of the problems of definitions exemplified in the amendment's wording. A "green transport programme" is not defined in statute and there could be endless arguments in the courts over what constituted a significant reduction in the need for travel by car.
Amendment No. 246 suggests that all parking by any shift workers should be exempted from the workplace parking levy. Workers driving to a shift that began at 9 a.m. would be adding to peak-hour congestion in the same way as any other workers. There would be no logic to their exemption. I accept that there is a concern about people working during the night, when there may be little alternative to driving. Local authorities will be able to limit the hours when a parking licence is required, to exclude evenings and nights if that makes sense locally. It is worth noting that a licence to park a maximum of 50 vehicles,

639
for example, will cover 50 vehicles during the day shift and an entirely different 50 vehicles during the night shift at no additional cost.
I accept also that there is then an issue about how shift handovers are managed. For a limited period, as one shift departs and another arrives, there may be an unavoidable need for excess parking. We intend to give guidance to local authorities to ensure that such situations are dealt with flexibly. We envisage that an employer would be allowed additional parking during a defined shift handover period at no extra cost.
We propose a national exemption for emergency vehicles from the workplace parking levy and road user charges but not for parking by employees at, say, an ambulance station. The public sector must take its share of the responsibility for congestion, and there would be the same value in public sector employees switching from car commuting as any others. Having spelt out at some length and in detail the Government's position on exemptions from new charges, I hope that noble Lords will agree to withdraw or not move their amendments.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: The Minister did not answer my question about moving vehicle charging, where it may not be possible to identify whether the driver or passenger of a vehicle is disabled. Will there be some form of compensation for disabled people who might otherwise be exempt when they pass through a charging point?
While the Minister was speaking another thought came into my mind. A number of people work from home and often have assistants or secretaries who visit them. Will a workplace charge be levied on a person who works from home or his secretary or assistant? At some stage that may be a contentious point.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I apologise for not having addressed that question directly. I assumed that I had, at least indirectly, given comfort to the noble Lord. In regulation we shall provide for the disabled, but the exact form of that provision is subject to further consultation. We believe that some of the issues raised by the noble Lord are better defined during that consultation period.
Lord Swinfen: Will the Minister answer my question about the treatment of those who work from home and their assistants or secretaries?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: That is exactly the kind of detailed question that is perhaps best addressed in consultation. Therefore, at this stage I do not want to respond to the noble Lord's question definitively.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a very constructive, useful debate. If all of us have come to the subject from slightly different perspectives at least we are agreed on the principle, even if the detail is not accepted. The problems of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, in
640
relation to white van man are, all too often, almost the opposite of mine, but perhaps that is inevitable given that his experience is urban and mine is rural. However, if white van man is not permitted to park on the pavement because somebody has a gas leak we shall experience real problems. It may be that that is a fairly rare occurrence, but we must be able to deal with white van man in both contexts.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen in relation to the registered disabled. I deliberately did not table amendments to deal with it because I was absolutely confident that others would do so, as they have. There is a very persuasive case in that situation. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may not agree that he supported me, but he did. In seeking to tackle a fundamental aspect of the problem in this particular field the noble Lord spoke to what I might call a negative exemption.
The Minister has given a very detailed exposition of the flaws in our drafting, among other things, and the difficulty of dealing with such matters on the face of the Bill. I am the first to accept that they are difficult to deal with in legislation. However, they are no less difficult to deal with in regulation and certainly in guidance. They remain problems. The only difference is that, to a greater or lesser degree, by being dealt with in that way they escape our supervision. As to that there is a fundamental difference.
That said, the appropriate national authority, be it the Assembly for Wales or the Minister in England, will be charged with making these regulations. He will make national exemptions. Further, because he has power to approve local schemes in effect he will make regulations which local people wish to apply. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If one is a wild optimist it will work beautifully; if, like me, one is a sceptical old pessimist it will not work quite so well. The whole purpose of this process is to ensure that it works as well as possible. Nothing in this world is perfect.
In the previous clause we accepted wide differences in principle and differentiation in charges at different times. I do not see why more of the considerations that the Minister dealt with in his detailed response cannot be put into the Bill. They must be put onto paper and spelt out in detail in due course. Somebody must account for it, even in this Chamber. Therefore, in part this debate seeks to prevent future trouble.
The debate has been helpful. The Minister has dealt with the matter as helpfully as possible, for which I respect him. I believe that in this instance the Minister has helped all Members of the Committee. I shall study the response of the Minister with great care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 227 and 227A not moved.]
Clause 171 agreed to.
Clause 172 [Penalty charges]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 104, line 10, after ("if") insert (", with intent to avoid payment of a charge imposed by a charging scheme under this Part,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 228 is another simple amendment. The Bill provides that the removal of a penalty charge notice from a vehicle is a criminal offence. I entirely accept that in appropriate circumstances it should be a criminal offence. However, the Bill is drafted in such a way that if the notice is removed inadvertently, or whatever, somebody may be charged with a criminal offence when he has no such intention; indeed, the removal may have been done by somebody else. It appears that the mere fact of its removal makes the owner of the vehicle automatically liable to the charge.
It may be that the Minister will tell me that this matter is to be dealt with subsequently by regulation. Here we go round the mulberry bush again. None the less, this particular group of amendments is designed to produce consistency and to introduce intent in relation to criminality. It would be unfortunate if inadvertence became a cause of criminality. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this group of amendments. Perhaps I may take a few moments to explain our thinking behind the enforcement of charging schemes. In so doing I hope to convince the noble Lord that his amendments are unnecessary as the Bill already provides for what he seeks to achieve. We amended the Bill in another place in response to concerns raised by his honourable friends on this very subject. The criminal offences described in Clauses 172 to 174 deal with both wilfully defrauding a charging authority and the effective enforcement of schemes.
If an enforcement agent has reason to believe that an individual has the intent to avoid payment, or has been identified as having failed to pay, he must be able to undertake certain actions. Those actions, for example entering a vehicle, need to have the same sanction as the original misdemeanour in order to be effective. If that was not the case it would make schemes particularly difficult to enforce. Thus, in this instance what the noble Lord seeks is already catered for within the Bill.
However, to require proof of intent for each criminal offence would make some charging schemes unenforceable. For example, schemes that rely on manual enforcement need effective sanctions. If there were no effective sanction to prevent a person from removing a penalty charge notice from a windscreen, or tampering with an immobilisation device, regardless of whether or not he had a financial interest, a scheme that depended on that type of enforcement could be unenforceable.
If with that scenario the noble Lord's amendment were carried, the enforcement agent would have to demonstrate that whoever interfered with the penalty charge notice of the immobilisation device did so
642
intending to avoid paying a charge. If the person concerned was, for example, a passenger in the vehicle and therefore not liable for the charge, he would also be able to act without risk of prosecution. I do not imagine that that is what the noble Lord intends.
I hope that the noble Lord can see the logic behind the balance which we have sought to achieve, taking into account the arguments of his noble friends in another place, and that he will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Once again, the Minister explained the difficulties involved in trying to put into words the concepts with which we are dealing. He has given assurances which are most helpful and which I shall study with care. I hope that I shall have no need to return to the subject and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 172 agreed to.
Clause 173 [Examination, entry, search and seizure]:
7 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 104, line 41, leave out ("or requiring").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments is aimed at giving to local authorities, rather than to the "appropriate national authority", power to decide how they want to enforce the schemes. I dislike the term "appropriate national authority" because it sounds as though it is connected to a science fiction society. However, now that we have various forms of national authority we must use the term.
If local authorities want to devise a scheme they should have the power to decide how to enforce it. Subsection (5) enables the national authority to insist that a charging authority must take a power to seize and detain anything as evidence of the commission of an offence. I do not see how one can bring a charge connected with the commission of an offence unless one collects the evidence. It struck me that the provision almost authorised local authorities to employ one of the local car thieves to enter a vehicle in order to remove evidence.
I well remember after a garden party being stuck in The Mall with a car which had locked itself. Its locking system completely floored the AA, the RAC and all the local police. Eventually, a Flying Squad car came along. The officer got out and said, "I see you have a little difficulty". The driver confessed that that was the case. He said, "Well, don't look", and in three seconds the car was open. There is no need for that because we can deal with the matter by other means.
However, I am back in the business of arguing for local discretion. If we are to have local schemes, we should leave them to the locals, particularly when dealing with powers which relate to property. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the reasoning behind the amendments and

643
his personal experience. It needs to be clear that the provisions under which any charging scheme is introduced are enabling powers only. That remains the case. It is therefore not a requirement that local authorities adopt any particular arrangements for those schemes.
However, as regards enforcement, where local authorities adopt charging schemes there must be some prescription on the method of enforcement. The noble Lord will recognise that it would not be sensible for different local authorities and their agents to have different powers in enforcing schemes they have chosen to introduce.
If we were to do so, it would mean that arrangements and procedures for entering vehicles, collecting evidence, immobilising vehicles and so forth would he different from one authority to another and entirely at the discretion of the charging authorities. In many case, such discretion would not be appropriate and would not reflect the current practice under road traffic law; for example, wheelclamping or immobilisation.
We already have prescriptions on such issues in road traffic law. That does not necessarily mean that all local authorities adopt the same schemes, but where they are enforcing charges they must be subject to national regulation. We are dealing with entering property, with restraining property and with the enforcement of fines.
The regulations will be fair, effective and equitable. If it were left entirely to local authorities, some strange anomalies could arise. The noble Lord's amendment would allow that to happen and I hope that he will not press it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I had always understood that one of the reasons for having local government was to permit the creation of diversity. I do not believe that diversity in these matters would be a problem. None the less, I shall study the Minister's reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 229A to 231 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 105, line 19, at end insert—
("(7) In exercising its powers pursuant to regulations made under this section, a charging authority shall exercise reasonable care and use the minimum force necessary, and shall be liable to compensate the registered owner of the relevant motor vehicle and any other person for any loss suffered by him as a result of its failure to do so.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to protect property rights. It ensures that if an authority in its pursuit of evidence is unreasonably violent with someone else's property and does unnecessary damage, there is a right of compensation to the owner as a result. I hope that we can all agree with that principle and that we do not need to argue about it.
There should never be a need to damage a vehicle if one requires evidence. As the Minister pointed out, there are other ways of solving the problem; for instance, clamping the vehicle and waiting until the appropriate person arrives. You can then get anything you want, voluntarily or compulsorily as the case may be.
I believe that the issue of compensation is worth writing into the Bill and with that in mind I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Would the noble Lord care to indicate why his amendment is different from the present law?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I do not know whether it is different from the present law. The Bill creates new powers and I believe that in doing so we should have some regard to their possible abuse. That is all the amendment is directed at; it is a limited point.
Lord Whitty: We all agree that it is necessary for citizens to have safeguards against enforcement agencies overstepping the mark or going about their business in the wrong way, and that some form of redress is necessary. I also agree with the implication behind the question asked by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis—that the common law already provides for that redress. Our judicial system allows those who believe that they have been wrongly treated by enforcement agencies to gain redress. That is no different from any other area where enforcement agencies of the local authority or, indeed, the police are subject to the common law in that respect.
Therefore, although I agree with the noble Lord in principle—indeed, if I may revert to the previous amendment, some of his arguments provided a good reason for having regulations—I believe that the issue of redress is dealt with adequately in existing common law remedies.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance because it is precisely what I sought. Our difficulty is in ascertaining precisely whether what we do impinges on the common law. I am glad that this does not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 173 agreed to.
Clause 174 [Immobilisation etc]:
[Amendments Nos. 233 to 236A not moved.]
Clause 174 agreed to.
Clause 175 [Equipment etc]:
[Amendment No. 236B not moved.]
Clause 175 agreed to.
Clause 176 [Traffic signs]:
[Amendment No. 236C not moved.]
Clause 176 agreed to.
Clause 177 [Preliminary]:
[Amendment No. 237 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 107, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for taking so much of its time but it seems that no one else wishes to discuss these particular points; therefore, perforce, I must.
The amendment deals with the workplace charging levy. Clause 177(2) provides for the occupier of the premises in question, or any person specified in regulations by the national authority, to be liable for the workplace charging levy. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the right of the appropriate national authority to specify the person liable in regulations. The payment of the charges is a matter of taxation. I believe that the matter of who pays the taxes should be on the face of the Bill and not simply a subject of regulation.
In a way, this is a matter of principle. This issue comes under the same principle as we argued earlier—the question of whether taxation should be by regulation or by legislation. We considered that this was a matter for taxation by legislation and that the question of liability should not be decided subsequently by regulation.
I accept that there is a potential problem with regard to the workplace parking levy in that the levy is intended to target the employee in order to dissuade him from using his car. Therefore, ideally he will be the person who pays. However, if that is the case, that should be referred to on the face of the Bill and I do not believe that we should leave the differentiation to simple regulation. Of course, if the Minister says that it is a matter for local determination, then we should say so and I should be happy with that. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: There is no great conspiracy behind this issue. We envisage that in the vast majority of cases the occupier of a premises will be responsible for paying the workplace parking charge. However, in a small number of cases it may be more appropriate to make someone else liable. That is why we included the regulation-making power, which we shall need to consider as schemes are developed. For example, regulations may be required in order to cater for liability at premises which are shared by more than one occupier, or where a car park at a premises is used but not owned by the building occupier—in other words, perhaps a neighbouring employer and not the occupier of the premises uses the car parking space.
The provision allows the covering of such loopholes by regulation. The range of potential loopholes on which we need to base the regulations will become apparent only as and when schemes are developed. However, in general this is not a "coach and horses" matter, and in the overwhelming number of cases the occupier will be liable.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister. He is his usual charming self and very persuasive. I shall
646
study what he has said and may well need to return to the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 107, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) No licensing authority shall introduce the workplace parking levy before 1st January 2004 and then only if they can produce evidence that expenditure on transport infrastructure in the relevant area has already increased by at least 20 per cent above the level of such expenditure in 1999–2000 and as a result congestion has reduced by 20 per cent.").
The noble Lord said: If I interpreted correctly what I read in the press, the Government said that they do not wish to see workplace parking charges or, indeed, other charges introduced until local transport authorities have improved the traffic environment within their areas. That, of course, is wholly laudable. It may be what I would call politically necessary. However, the amendment sets out simply to quantify that statement. It probes precisely what the Government mean by "improving" the local traffic environment before the charges are introduced and what level of improvement they might consider desirable or necessary.
In part, the amendment seeks also to discover whether the Government are serious about achieving improvement or whether they are merely in the business of politics (with a small "p") and trying to make the unpalatable more palatable. I believe that we would all prefer improvement to palatability. Therefore, this is an important matter and I believe that we should try to clarify what the Government said. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, makes an unusual distinction between politics and life. Palatability is one of the tests that the national authorities must meet in relation to the scheme. Therefore, it is important that with the introduction of a workplace parking scheme those who have been consulted—businesses and local people—can see a benefit for their area in terms of congestion and traffic flows. That is part of the total assessment and an authority will be judged on it, as it will be on the technicalities of the scheme itself.
The amendment specifies two further restrictions. The first is the date. The noble Lord is correct to say that we envisage that schemes will take some time to introduce, partly to give time to assess public opinion. We believe that it will be four or five years before there are major schemes in operation, although some may come before that. However, there is no point in specifying an artificial date for the start of schemes at 1st January 2004. If authorities are able to introduce schemes before that, which are supported, we shall encourage them in doing so.
The other obstacles are hopelessly mechanistic. The amendment says that before a scheme starts, spending on transport infrastructure must have increased by 20 per cent on current levels and

647
congestion must have been reduced by 20 per cent—again on current levels, I assume. If I were to make a party political point, I could argue that the money available has already increased by 20 per cent, and no doubt we shall receive further good news from the Chancellor and from my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston later this week. That may meet the spending criterion, but it may be inappropriate to put a 20 per cent hurdle on congestion benefits, particularly given the timescale. Some may take longer to reach such benefits. Local people, local businesses and the community at large might think it ridiculous to reject a scheme that has given a 19 per cent improvement in congestion.
The Secretary of State will have to make a judgment on whether a scheme is robust and has sufficient public support and whether it will lead to reductions in congestion and produce other environmental benefits, but it is not sensible to specify figures in the Bill.
Another problem with the amendment, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, is that the requirement will be ineffective unless the legislation includes a definition of congestion. I know to my cost that that is not easy, and no definition is included in the amendment. I hope that he will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I was well aware, when I tabled my amendment, of the arguments that it was mechanistic and too detailed. However, it seemed important to try to tease out what the Government meant by the statements that had been made. With all deference to the Minister, I cannot say that I feel any great confidence arising from his reply. Nor was there the precision I was seeking. But perhaps that was too much to hope for. I do not want to get into statistical arguments about past, present or future levels of expenditure. We all know that we can prove almost anything if we are selective with our use of statistics. I am as guilty of that as anyone else. The public become confused when we have such debates.
I think that the Minister intended his reply to be helpful and I found it so. I shall study it with care. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 107, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) A licensing scheme shall be agreed at a regional level between local transport executives and charges shall be consistent across that region.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise for not having been here to move Amendment No. 237. There are a number of reasons for that. One is the swiftness with which we went through the amendments immediately before it. Another is that I could not work out what I had meant by it when I tabled it.
However, I know what I mean by Amendment No. 240, to which I shall speak briefly. It deals with a problem that we all know can arise when particular freedoms are devolved to certain areas. When a scheme is set up, however good it is for that area, some
648
industries may decide to move to the next-door area and take away the benefits that their presence brings to free themselves from the restrictions of being in that area. My suggestion—it is only a suggestion at this stage—is that licensing schemes should be agreed at regional level so that conditions are consistent over a large area. That would make it harder to evade the schemes and reduce the likelihood of patchwork provision. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Regardless of the detail of the amendment, I support the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, makes about the need for schemes to have more than just a local and parochial basis. If we had regional authorities, they would be considering exactly these issues. I do not know whether we would support consistent charging, but vie would certainly like a regional element to the decision-making.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think that both the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, support the idea of the workplace parking levy. I am afraid that the amendment would hinder the concept. I recognise the merits of consistency, but we think that it should be for individual local authorities to decide whether to introduce a scheme in their area as part of their local transport plan.
The Bill already provides that local authorities can work together to bring forward joint schemes, which, if they could be organised, could well cover a whole region. However, some authorities may prefer to wait to see the effects of a scheme in a neighbouring authority. One authority may have such an urgent need that it will want to go ahead without waiting for anybody else. The amendment would rule out both possibilities.
We also believe that local authorities should have the flexibility to apply different charges, not just between one authority and another, but in different parts of their area, and to decide when the charges would apply. I know that the word "consistent" does not mean the same as "uniform", but the search for consistency might be a drag on the establishment of workplace parking levies, rather than helping. Congestion problems vary between and within authority areas. Our approach enables local authorities to design and bring forward the schemes that will best help to tackle traffic congestion, which they know about, and promote local transport objectives, which they set.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support of the idea behind the amendment. I still think there is much to be said for it, but I accept what the Minister said. There is a finely balanced argument to be had about how much power to give at what level. I take the Minister's points and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 177 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: In opposing this Motion, we are seeking to excise Chapter II of this part of the Bill. We thought that we should have this discussion because, as this is proposed, it is a straightforward increase in corporate taxation.
The occupier of the premises is to be the person who pays the bill. We have heard that in the vast generality of cases that is what is intended. We need to know that that is what is intended. One must then ask: what will happen? This provision is supposed to reduce congestion and pollution. There is a question as to whether the employer can pass the charge on to his employees. If this Bill is supposed to act as a disincentive to employees to travel, it might have been more honest for the Bill to require those employees to pay the charge; but it does not. And so it is an increase in corporate taxation.
Ultimately, who will pay for that? Again, we should be quite clear about that. In effect, this will become a cost on business. It will have an inflationary effect because businesses will seek to defend their financial position. Therefore, there will be a little price rise here or a little price rise there or even, heaven help us, a big price rise somewhere else. That is what will happen. The impact of that on the economy, particularly in those sectors which are not immediately highly competitive, may be extremely damaging and may have an adverse effect on the economy as a whole.
We do not believe that the workplace parking levy as proposed will have the desired effect on travel and transport which the Government envisage because of the way it is put on the face of the Bill. So we thought that we really should argue the case against this clause and it is patently obvious that that is what I am now doing. I do not expect to receive a great deal of sympathy—why should I?—from Ministers on the Bench opposite. But I do not apologise to the Committee for raising the issue. I commend the Motion to the Committee.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It is not possible for us on these Benches to support the Motion that this clause should not stand part of the Bill. That is for various very simple reasons. It may be argued that workplace levies will not be imposed very often. It is assumed that it will not be a popular method of attempting to reduce congestion and pollution in towns and cities.
Other methods are available which are used elsewhere; for example, prohibiting entry into towns between certain hours. There is a whole range of other options. But this Bill does not oblige local authorities to go down this route; it enables them to do so if it is a suitable adjunct to their general purpose of reducing traffic, traffic congestion and the damage that that causes in the context of their local transport plans. As such, it is a useful tool which local authorities can use if they wish to do so. No doubt if pilot studies are
650
carried out of this tool and how it operates in practice we shall all learn a great deal more about it and its potential usefulness. Therefore, I am not prepared to support the Motion.
Lord Whitty: I am gratified that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is not expecting a great deal of sympathy from our Benches on this matter. While most of his amendments are either probing or designed genuinely to improve the Bill, this Motion comes close to being a wrecking Motion because it would take out a major part of the Bill.
This clause introduces the whole concept of the workplace parking levy which we regard as a major new tool for the control of urban traffic in particular. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we make those new powers available to local authorities but we do not oblige them to use them. We shall certainly not force them to do so. Therefore, the powers are discretionary. But the authorities which adopt them must go through an extremely rigorous process of making clear that a workplace parking scheme fits in within their traffic objectives in their local transport plans.
We all know that the availability of convenient and free or cheap parking at work is a major encouragement to travel to work in the car during the most congested part of the day, even when there is available good, appropriate, clean, fast and safe public transport. Because it involves finance, the levy will focus the minds of business on the provision of parking and they may then assess how their employees get to work and encourage them to adopt patterns of travelling to work, and perhaps patterns of operating the business, which reduce car reliance.
It is important also from the point of view of local business that the recycling of all the revenue obtained from the scheme will be to the benefit of transport within that locality, which will, of itself, be of benefit to business.
Prior to the approval of any plans, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that they will help to tackle congestion; that they will be accompanied or preceded by improvements in public transport; that there has been adequate consultation; that there is an appropriate assessment of the impact; and that 100 per cent of the funds obtained will be spent on improving local transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked: who will pay? I ask: who will benefit? Many of our cities are clogged up with traffic, particularly at certain times of day. A huge contribution to that is people who are driving into the centre of those cities for work because there is the provision of free or cheap parking.
It is greatly to the benefit of business that that clogging up of traffic and gridlocks within our cities are removed. The removal of such traffic by this disincentive would greatly improve access to those business premises; improve ability to deliver through those difficult times; and improve the journeys and reliability of journey times for all sales persons, delivery persons and clients of those businesses.

651
The noble Lord sees this matter through one end of the telescope and says that business will pay. I look at it through the other and I see that business can achieve a major benefit from this measure. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this wrecking Motion. That would not be to the advantage of those local businesses for which the local authorities see advantage in providing such a scheme and, of course, local authorities will be obliged to consult local business before introducing it. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the Motion.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I had difficulty in appreciating his reference to good, appropriate, clean, fast and safe public transport. In my experience, most people use public transport out of sheer necessity. It is a matter of bitter experience that those adjectives do not apply.
It may be that there would be some benefit to business if congestion were reduced. But if one looks at the relevant transport system, the idea that it is ever going to be an alternative to the mobility which a car provides is unbelievable.
We need to pause for a moment and wonder why people use their cars. It is easy to say that they do so because public transport is not available and that there is a chicken and egg situation. However, the fact of the matter is that public transport is appropriate where a lot of people want to make the same journey. The reality is that the diversity of employment and movement is such that the majority of people, rather like a blob of mercury hit with a hammer, every morning fly in a vast number of different directions. In those circumstances it is not easy, except in the metropolitan areas, to see how a public transport system will help to a great degree.
There is also the fact that as the economy grows, the demand for movement grows. There is precious little evidence at present that we have managed to get the growth in public transport to run faster than the growth in the economy. Growth is talked about in rail and bus use. There may be a picking up in growth but so far it is not faster than the growth in the economy. Therefore, there is a real difficulty. None the less, I shall study carefully what the Minister has said. The Committee will be relieved to hear that at this hour and this stage I shall not oppose the Motion that Clause 177 stands part of the Bill.
Clause 177 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion perhaps I may suggest that the Committee Stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Patents Regulations 2000
7.41 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The draft legislation concerns the implementation of Articles 1 to 11 of European Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions into United Kingdom patent law. Biotechnology is a relatively new science and offers huge potential. For example, treatments for asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes, hepatitis B and some forms of cancer are already being improved through biotechnological solutions. Biotechnological changes to crops, so that they are able to withstand extremes of climate while reducing reliance on pesticides and herbicides, are highly significant developments and these may be merely the tip of an iceberg. If this sector is to develop its potential benefits for enhancing quality of life, the legal framework within which decisions are made to invest in research and to bring new products to market must encourage innovation and the taking of commercial risks. The patents system is an integral part of that framework.
While those examples and other developments of themselves must be good things, I am very much aware of the social and ethical concerns that surround this new technology and the need for a full understanding of the relationship between scientific research, ethics and the law. Scientific developments must be life enhancing and not dehumanising. The directive sought to address those issues as far as patent law can, and sought to get the balance right.
The directive has a long history. As far back as 1985, the Commission's White Paper on the completion of the internal market foreshadowed action on biotechnological patents. A first proposal for the harmonisation of patent laws in this field emerged in 1988 and the Council of Ministers was able to adopt a common position on a directive in 1994. However, the European Parliament voted against that text in 1995 and the proposal was not adopted.
The Commission produced a second proposal later that year. Following scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament, the UK Government joined a qualified majority in adopting the directive in December 1997. The directive entered into European law in July 1998 and member states have until 30th July to implement.
The texts of European national patents law are already closely aligned as all EU member states are party to the European Patent Convention, an intergovernmental agreement dating from 1973. However, differences in interpretation of these laws in respect of biotechnological inventions encouraged the European Commission to bring forward a proposal to reduce or eliminate variations which were cited by industry as causing uncertainties, and so reducing incentives to invest in costly research. Such a deterrent is unwelcome and the directive sought to address that.
Of course, patent rights are without prejudice to other bodies of law. Patents provide what might be called a negative right; that is, a right to prevent others from using a protected invention. They do not give rights to use an invention or to market products or services embodying a protected invention. Such use is determined, for instance, by regulations safeguarding human dignity, the environment, animal welfare and competition. Those are not affected.
The regulations create little change in United Kingdom law, which is the Patents Act 1977. They do not lead to anything becoming patentable which is not currently patentable under existing legislation, but introduce changes to limit access to patent rights in certain sensitive areas of technology. For example, patents will not be granted for reproductive cloning of human beings, for processes where the germ line genetic identity of human beings is modified and for certain processes in which human embryos are used.
In particular, it should be noted that under UK law at present, human genes as they exist in the cells in our bodies cannot be patented. The directive establishes that basic principle across Europe, rightly making clear that patents will be obtainable only for inventions for new technical solutions. The simple discovery that a gene sequence exists in nature, or the information contained in such a sequence, will not be able to be patented as it is not of itself an invention.
That is fully consistent with the joint statement made by the Prime Minister and President Clinton on the human genome. That stated that raw, fundamental information about the genetic make-up of the body should be freely available. The United Kingdom has very clear rules, reinforced by the directive and the draft legislation before us to ensure that basic gene sequence information will not be patented.
I should add that a regulatory impact assessment was signed by the Minister on 3rd July and has been placed in the Library of both Houses. It gives evidence of extensive public consultation earlier this year. A summary of the views expressed in the consultation and the information available from the consultation will be published in due course. The consultees will be advised of the debate in this House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had little to say about this regulation until earlier this evening. I was simply going to make the point, not just in respect of this regulation but the others too, that, frankly, the Explanatory Notes are a misnomer. They are explanatory only if one understands the whole issue sufficiently to be able to follow the original statutory instrument. I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that it has always been thus. Maybe it is time we thought about changing things and making the Explanatory Notes more of an explanatory note and less of a repeat of small parts of the statutory instrument.
654
However, the real point I want to make came to me in a fax I received from Mr Anthony Keeling of Elsoms Seeds. It is particularly about plants, not animals. I accept that much of the Minister's speech was about animals, especially, indeed, the human animal and the genes we all have.
If I may, I am going to do a version of what I might describe as a "Tam Dalyell"; that is, I am going to read out the letter. It is not a subject with which I am familiar. But the person who sent the letter has a point. Perhaps the principal point is this. The Minister mentioned that this statutory instrument was in adherence to a European directive. Have we gone any further than that European directive? In other words, have we gold-plated it in any way? Is there anything in this instrument which is a step further than the European directive? The reason I ask that will become clear in a minute.
Mr Keeling writes thus:
"I am writing to you urgently as I understand [that this] will be debated tonight in the House of Lords and because representations made by me and our trade society, The British Society of Plant Breeders, have been ignored in this draft Statutory Instrument. In particular, completely contrary to the intention of European legislators, the current draft specifically disadvantages smaller breeders who do not have a major in-house gene bank and do not have direct access to biotechnology patents.
"To be quite specific in section 7 of the draft SI 'patented biotechnological inventions: patent licences' it is now required that the applicant is the holder of Plant Breeders Rights in a plant variety and has another plant variety which is/was bred from that first variety but which cannot be exploited without infringing the patent concerned.
"For consumers, a strength of Plant Breeders Rights legislation is that competitors are completely free to use a breeder's protected variety to create new varieties. In fact small breeders, without a large historic background of their own varieties, use competitors varieties as the main source of their parent material. (This is amply proven by the declared parents in National List applications.) The draft SI, therefore, effectively disenfranchises smaller breeders from being able to use the compulsory licence provisions! The British Society of Plant Breeders has made the point to the government's civil servants that the vital aspect which should be covered by this Statutory Instrument is that the applicant ('the breeder') should be a potential holder of Plant Breeders Rights. To encourage competition and smaller breeding enterprises it is crucial that this change is incorporated into this legislation in line with the letter and the intent of the European Directive concerned. The whole point of the compulsory licence provisions was to enable breeders, such as us, to have some equity in this area. As this draft stands, quite the contrary, patent holders will readily be able to obtain a compulsory licence to enable them to register 'our' variety incorporating their patented construct whereas, as I have indicated above, the converse is almost impossible for us".
I understand that when it comes to, say, winter wheat, the major player in this field is now Monsanto and that company owns around 80 per cent of the parents. Previously a small breeder could actually use those parents to breed their own variety. But under this statutory instrument they will not be able to do so. Mr Keeling's point is that that goes a lot further than the directive asks us to go. He suggests to me that this simply looks like protection for the market leader in any particular field.
I know that this is a complicated issue. As I do not pretend to understand it deeply, I do not expect the Minister to give me chapter and verse. If he is able to do so, I shall be extremely grateful and, as always,

655
impressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. But if he is not, I understand that he will write to me afterwards.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in his description of the documents given to us as being an explanatory memorandum. They use "explanatory" in the same way as we call fee-paying schools "public" when they are not.
However, a number of points have been raised by those who have concerns about this statutory instrument. I would welcome the Minister either answering tonight or writing to me through his officials. First, are we correct in assuming that under these regulations farmers are entirely safe using their own home-grown seed or can they do that only when it is clear that the sellers—that is, seed merchants or other sellers—agree to their using their harvest for seed? Or will farmers in future have to make entirely sure that they read the small print on the seed sacks in order to be safe in using their own home-grown seed?
Secondly, people have certain anxieties in relation to the human genome project and this statutory instrument. The great thing about the recent announcement on the successful completion of the human genome project was the fact that the information would be put into the public domain and not be associated particularly with private intellectual property rights. Are the regulations saying that, provided we can clearly identify the function of a sequence and that it has some industrial or medical application—for example, a breast cancer gene or a gene for muscular dystrophy—it can be patented? And does that mean that the consequence of these regulations is that private industry will run away with the profits from what has been widely advertised as being publicly-funded research?
Thirdly, touching again on a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—whether or not the regulations gold-plate the European position—how do the regulations fit in with the European patent position? I had understood that the European Parliament overturned the Commission's proposals to allow patenting of genome sequences. How do the regulations impact on that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall do my best to respond to the points being made, though some of them become a little bit recherché.
The most important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was as to whether or not, as alleged by his correspondent, the regulations go further than the European directive. I can give him a categorical assurance that the regulations in fact copy precisely the terms of the directive. There is no gold-plating and no deviation from the directive's test.
I can confirm also that the British Society of Plant Breeders was consulted and expressed its views. As I have already said, in due course those views will be made public. But the fundamental point I have to make to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is that his point
656
does not apply to Articles 1 to 11 of the directive, which is all that is being implemented by this order; it applies to Article 12, which is to be dealt with in the future by negative resolution rather than by this affirmative resolution. It will be dealt with under the Patents and Plant Variety Rights Compulsory Licensing Provisions 2000, which have not yet been laid, and discussions with plant breeders are ongoing. There is still an opportunity therefore for the correspondent of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to make his views known to officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Patent Office, to make sure that his point is fully considered. So nothing is lost by these regulations.
In relation to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, the European Parliament turned down an earlier version of the directive, but this version was approved by all the authorities from whom it needed approval. The regulations do not change the position of farmers and their home-grown seeds. There is a derogation from patent rights in any case for small farmers, and I guess that that will apply also to horticulturists.
As I believe I said in my opening remarks, the patenting of the genome sequence is not changed by this regulation; it is only an invention, not a discovery, which can be patented under patent law. As I understand it, what the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, was describing would fall into the category of a discovery rather than an invention. There is no proposal from the Commission for patenting the genome sequence. I hope that I have answered the points raised. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Product Liability) (Modification) Order 2000
8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order extends the system of strict liability to include primary agricultural products. It is made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and is a product liability modification order. It extends the system of strict liability to include primary agricultural products and game—that is, food in its raw state. Food that has undergone some form of processing is already included.
The change means that under the strict liability system, as for other products, anyone injured by food sold in its raw state will now be able to sue the producer for damages without having to prove the producer negligent. However, the injured party must be able to prove that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury. Producers in this context include farmers, food and vegetable growers and fisheries. The provision also includes importers of these products from non-EU countries. Other

657
suppliers, such as wholesalers and retailers, would be liable only if they failed to identify the producer or their own supplier to an injured person.
The purpose of the order is to implement Directive 1999/34/EC, which amends the 1985 Product Liability Directive. This will be achieved by amending Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which transposes the 1985 directive in UK law. This order is made under Section 8 of the 1987 Act which provides for modification of the Act following any modification of the 1985 directive. The order will apply to England and Wales only. Under devolution, separate arrangements will be made in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. The new measure will come into force on 4th December 2000 and, therefore, the change will apply only to primary agricultural products put on the market on or after that date.
I believe that this is a further small but important step towards improving consumer protection in the all-important area of food safety. An added benefit of the amendment is that it sweeps away any confusion over which food products are covered by strict liability, as all food is now covered.
The original 1985 Product Liability Directive allowed member states to decide whether or not to include food sold in its raw state. At the time of the directive, concern was expressed that food in its raw state might be more prone to have hidden defects caused by environmental factors beyond the control of the producer. Moreover, due to bulk mixing of food products in their raw state—for example, in cereals—it was felt that there might be a particular problem in tracing the source of the product fault. In practice, these difficulties could happen to other products that are already covered by the original directive, so this brings into question why producers of food in its raw state should be given special treatment.
Experience of the directive has shown that few problems have arisen in this area. Four countries—namely, Finland, Sweden, Luxembourg and Greece—chose to include food in its raw state at the time of implementing the original directive and have reported no apparent problems. Further, the concerns that the directive would lead to excessively high insurance costs have proved to be unfounded. The only significant costs that arise are those of insurance. During our consultation exercise, we discovered that at least 75 per cent of farmers and growers—the vast majority—already have product liability insurance, as do most fish and shellfish producers. Therefore, I am convinced that this is a small price to pay for helping to restore further public confidence in food safety, which, in turn, will be to the ultimate benefit of producers as well as consumers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall be a good deal briefer in my remarks on this order. However, I shall, first, reiterate my point about the
658
Explanatory Note. It is a bit more of an explanation in this case, but that is only because of the brevity of the order. Secondly, can the Minister confirm that there has been no gold plating in respect of this order? Thirdly, as I read the Explanatory Note, I see that "game" is included. Therefore, this coming winter, after the 4th December, if I buy a pheasant and break one of my teeth on a bit of shot remaining in it, will I be able to sue the poultryman who sold it to me?
Lord Razzall: My Lords, as noble Lords may anticipate, I shall inevitably take a slightly different approach to that adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Clearly the Minister will share my view that consumer protection is a natural field of authority for the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. While the Minister is answering the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as to whether this order gold plates the directive, and bearing in mind the importance of this issue for consumers, could he confirm that he is satisfied that the order fully implements Directive 1999/34/EC?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by answering the easy questions. There is no gold plating. The order strictly reflects the requirements of the directive. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, acknowledged, the order is so short that it would be rather difficult to employ any gold plating.
On the issue of shot in game, I should remind the noble Lord that it has always been reasonable to expect that shot game will contain fragments of shot. Therefore, it is unlikely that such products would be deemed to be defective on that account. In any case, when one is buying from butchers—I buy from a registered game dealer in my suburb of London—it is always declared that there is a risk that game may include lead shot. That would remove, or discharge, any difficulty as regards a defect.
I said at the beginning of my introduction that nothing before 4th December, the implementation date, would be included under these provisions. However, I should like to reconsider the position because I believe the situation to be slightly more complicated. I know that I was not asked about it, but I should like to think about it and write to both noble Lords on that point. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 Statutory Sum Order 2000
8.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when we discussed vaccine damage payments on 28th June, I said that we hoped that the new £100,000 payments would be in place before the Summer Recess. We have acted quickly in bringing this order before your Lordships' House tonight, and it will be debated in another place tomorrow. There will, therefore, be the minimum of delay before the new rate becomes effective.
The draft order increases the amount of payment under Section 1 of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act to £100,000 for claims made on or after the date that it comes into force. The intention to make this increase was announced on 27th June by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Social Security in a Statement made in another place.
The change introduced by the order, and the other proposed changes that were announced, do not represent any change of judgment about the safety of vaccination. They simply reflect our view that it is right and proper that a more generous regime be introduced in this area. The Government will have effectively increased the rate of payment that we inherited by £70,000. This is a significant increase and is far removed from the previous increases made to the payment which broadly only reflected changes in the retail prices index.
We have also listened to the concerns of those parents who received £10,000 in the early 1980s. They have struggled daily under difficult circumstances, devoting their lives to the care and support of their often grievously disabled children. Were we to do nothing, they would have been treated far less generously than anyone claiming after this order comes into force. That would be not only unfair, but also unjust. We have therefore decided that it would be only right in this unusual circumstance to make top-up payments to bring past recipients up to a real terms equivalent of the new £100,000 rate.
The coming into force of this order is a necessary prerequisite to the making of these payments. The order does not directly provide for the top-up payments which will be made under the Appropriation Act, but clearly until a new higher rate is in force there is no benchmark against which revalued previous payments can be topped-up. Parents are eagerly anticipating these additional payments and we want to start making them as soon as possible. We aim to make the first payments in August.
In our debate on 28th June my noble friend Lord Brennan asked if a nominated office would have the task of dealing with queries that parents might have. The vaccine damage payments unit of the Benefits Agency in Preston will deal with all these cases. It is a small unit, although we are providing it with additional resources for the efficient discharge of this exercise, and it can be contacted by phone, fax or e-mail. The numbers are known to the various parents' groups and we shall be making them generally known. I shall be happy to provide them to noble Lords.
Once Parliament has approved this order, those recipients who received £10,000 in the past will receive an additional lump sum payment of £67,000. Those
660
who received £20,000 will receive £62,500. Those who received £30,000 will receive £61,500 and those who received £40,000 will receive a further £58,000. This represents an additional £60 million for the most severely disabled, a very significant sum. These payments will be treated like the original payments for the purposes of income related benefits. They are placed in trusts and as such will not disentitle recipients of those benefits.
We have also thought about those families whose vaccine damaged children have sadly died since the original payment was made. They, too, devoted time and effort to the care of their children prior to the child's death, and they too have made sacrifices, financial and otherwise, along the way. We believe that it would be unfair to exclude them from these arrangements, and therefore top-up payments will also be made to those families.
We also intend to amend the Vaccine Damage Payments Act to bring about changes to the time limits for claiming and to the disability threshold. However, as I explained on 28th June, this requires primary legislation and will necessarily be on a longer time-scale. But it is not an issue that we are prepared to let lie and we shall take action to bring about these changes at the earliest available opportunity.
The main provisions of new legislation would be to introduce new, more generous time limits for claiming which will allow affected children to submit a claim at any time up to their 21st birthday; to reduce the disability threshold from 80 per cent to 60 per cent; and to introduce an element of retrospection so that those people who previously claimed and were rejected under the old provisions—for example, they had between 60 and 80 per cent disability—but would have succeeded had the new rules then been in force are given the opportunity to reclaim and have that claim considered afresh.
The latter point applies to both the time limits and the disability threshold. In response to questions following his Statement in another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that he wanted to avoid the situation in which someone who would qualify now is barred because of the old rules. I believe that this is a welcome proposal and equitable to those who have been previously disallowed. I am sure that it will also be welcomed by noble Lords who will appreciate how unusual it is for retrospection to be introduced in such matters.
Government have also been looking at improving provision for all people with severe disabilities. We have had regard to the range of benefits and support available to severely disabled people however their condition was caused, and from 2001 we shall introduce a disability income guarantee and make changes to the mobility component of disability living allowance and to incapacity benefit. These changes can equally benefit vaccine damaged children and adults.
On 28th June noble Lords on all sides of this House, welcomed the changes to vaccine damage payments. There were some questions of detail that I hope

661
I addressed. No doubt others may arise when we bring forward primary legislation. But for the moment we are concerned with the first brick in the wall, introducing the new £100,000 payment with which this order is exclusively concerned. From this the other changes will flow.
I am sure your Lordships would wish to join with me in paying tribute to the campaigning groups which have been active in keeping the issue of vaccine damage in the public eye. These include the British Polio Fellowship and JABS. In particular I pay tribute to Rosemary Fox, of the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children, and to Olivier Price, of the Vaccine Victims Support Group. They, with the help of their members, have been rightly tireless in their determination to seek enhancements to the scheme. As parents of children in difficult circumstances, they have none the less campaigned selflessly on behalf of others. As I say, I hope and expect that we shall return as soon as we can with appropriate legislation to complete the package. In the meantime, I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order which I warmly welcome. I also welcome the promptness with which the Government have brought the order forward. The substantive issues which stem from it were debated on 28th June when we considered the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I shall not therefore take up the time of the House with unnecessary repetition.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, she mentioned that one of the elements of the Government's announcement last month was that those people who have in the past received lump sum payments will now be entitled to top-up payments to put them on an equal footing with new claimants. Will the Minister say when that retrospective part of the package will be put in place? Will she confirm my understanding that further regulations will be needed to achieve that?
Secondly, I refer to the other two improvements to the scheme; that is to say, the reduction in the disability threshold and the lifting of the six-year limit for making claims. As the Minister has just confirmed, both those changes will require primary legislation. Will the Minister be more forthcoming about that legislation? Of course I understand that she cannot pre-empt the Gracious Speech. However, it would be reassuring to hear her say that it represents a high priority for her department.
662
I reiterate my welcome for the order which will undoubtedly bring with it considerable relief for victims of vaccine damage, for whom we all have the utmost sympathy, as well as for the families who look after them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome what the Minister said. I associate myself strongly with her acknowledgement of the role played by the parents' groups in a long campaign. Despite the length of the campaign and the slowness of the review, I welcome the fact that the regulations have been brought before both Houses with such speed.
As the Minister pointed out, we had an extensive debate—I describe it as extensive and robust—which aired a number of points. I welcome the additional detail the Minister has provided today. I understand rather better how the Appropriation Act operates in these circumstances. I did not understand how this measure would achieve retrospection, but now I think I do. That is helpful.
The Minister responded to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, with regard to a nominated office. I believe that the families concerned will be reassured to know that they can get in touch with the vaccine damage payments unit in Preston if they need to. That is a helpful measure. Is the office in Preston—I assume that the staff there have this responsibility—making good progress in identifying those to whom top-up payments should be made? I hope that as soon as the measures under the Appropriation Act are implemented, those who are eligible will be written to quickly. The Minister made the point in our debate on 28th June that all their names and addresses were not known. I hope that that matter can be rectified with some speed.
I second what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said about the primary legislation. I hope that the Minister will say that this is a priority for her department. Whether or not her department wishes to introduce the matter during the spill-over or after the Queen's Speech, we on these Benches will give every possible co-operation in terms of making sure that it speeds its way through this House. The issues raised by the primary legislation in terms of the threshold and the time limits are extremely important and we very much want to see them on the statute book.
I shall not repeat what I said on 28th June. However, I wish to raise one issue as I do not feel that the Minister quite answered my question about whether the Government are working to secure more substantial compensation—I use the word "compensation" and not "payment" advisedly—for those damaged by vaccines. Is this change in the VDP scheme—as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, hoped—a first step? Do the Government feel that they have now discharged their duty to the unfortunate victims? Or will they now consider introducing strict liability for vaccine damage as recommended by Pearson so

663
long ago in 1978? Further to that, will the Government engage in further discussions with the pharmaceutical industry?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am obviously delighted that both Opposition Benches welcome the order and the speed with which the Government have approached the matter. I am sure that, like everyone else, they will be cheering when the parents get their first cheques, probably in August, but as soon as possible.
As to the question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, retrospection relates to the threshold and the time limit changes. That is why primary legislation is needed. The top-up payments to current and former holders of payments can be made without the need for legislation. So the question does not arise and further regulations are not an issue.
The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether I could give a date for primary legislation. I am sure they will understand the difficulty I am in; we shall not see primary legislation this side of the Queen's Speech. But it is important to the Government that we complete the rest of the programme. Subject to any other decisions, I hope that we will see legislation as soon as possible in the not too distant future.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke about the difficulties of locating people who do not necessarily know that they are entitled to these payments. He is absolutely right. That is why we want the unit at Preston identified and why we want to achieve as much publicity as possible through the organisations. I hope also that we shall be able to call on the press—particularly the campaign led by the Daily Express—to encourage parents who may not be aware of their rights to come forward. One of the difficulties obviously is that some vaccine damaged children are 30 years old; their parents may have moved home several times and we may have lost track of their records. Anything the media can do to help publicise their right to claim would be very welcome.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, picked up on the issue that, to some extent, he ran with when we discussed the matter on 28th June. He asked whether there will be more substantial compensation to individuals. We regard this legislation as producing a just recognition of the difficulties that families face in meeting some of the additional costs that arise with a vaccine damaged child. It is not strictly compensation. Compensation suggests some admission of liability, and I certainly do not wish to suggest that. It is some contribution to the recognised financial and emotional costs that these families and children incur.
We, as a Government, are not proposing to go beyond that and to engage in litigation with companies or any such further proposals. Indeed, we do not share the view held by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the companies are in any sense negligent in terms of their behaviour; nor does the research suggest in any way— for example, with the MMR vaccine, which I think is the one that particularly concerns the noble
664
Lord—that there is any cause or connection between those inoculations and any of the illnesses (autism or bowel disease) that have been suggested as being correlated with it.
For those reasons—the fact that we do not believe that the vaccine (in the MMR cases in particular) was at fault, and the fact that there is no evidence that there is any physical connection between the illnesses subsequently (and, in some cases, almost before the jabs took place) being experienced by the children and the vaccination itself—we do not feel that it is appropriate to talk the language of negligence, liability or suing companies for compensation. That will not be the Government's route.
Obviously, both the limits and any other areas in which it is appropriate to help vaccine damaged children will, as always, be kept under review. I am not trying to shut the door on this matter, but we believe that by going for an increase from £30,000 in 1997 to £100,000 now the Government are honourably meeting some of the costs that families have. It should not be forgotten that families with vaccine damaged children continue to have access to a full range of benefits, which, were they to be amortised into capital, would be effectively a quite substantial sum.
That is the Government's position. We shall be coming forward to your Lordships' House with legislation to complete the picture as soon as we appropriately can to ensure that children who have received vaccine damage, particularly through the polio jab, get the compensation and the help they are entitled to. We hope that this will make a useful and decent difference to their families' lives. With that, I ask your Lordships to accept the draft order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2000
8.26 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is an order which will be made under Section 105 of the Scotland Act 1998. It is the third of its kind. Two extensive orders were made under this power last year ahead of devolution.
Section 105 enables existing enactments or instruments to be amended as necessary in consequence of the Scotland Act. Given the wide implications of devolution, it was impractical to make provision at the time for every modification of every enactment necessary as a result of that Act. Section 105 enables further modifications to be made as the need arises.
This order deals with all the examples identified over the past year where a consequential modification is necessary. In some cases this has simply been a matter of realising that a power which may have to be

665
exercised at some point in the future has not been adapted to work properly where it has been devolved to Scottish Ministers. In one or two cases the need to exercise a power has been identified and the provisions in this order are intended to enable devolved powers to be exercised or exercised more effectively. There are also examples where the purpose is to include statutory bodies set up by Acts of the Scottish Parliament within the effects of UK legislation on, for example, disability discrimination.
A number of the entries relate to the procedure in the Scottish Parliament for devolved secondary legislation subject to affirmative resolution procedure, particularly where the statute requires the approval to be obtained within a certain number of days. As matters stand before the current order, largely as a result of different terminology between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster, there are cases where the period allowed for parliamentary scrutiny continues to run during the parliamentary Recess. This means that an order can fall because the Scottish Parliament has not been sitting to pass the required affirmative resolutions. The current order puts the Scottish Parliament procedure on a similar basis to that obtaining here in that the clock marking the period within which affirmative resolutions are required will stop ticking during recess.
Another entry relating to subordinate legislation procedure is that for the Human Rights Act 1998. Section 10 of that Act provides for Ministers to make remedial orders where statutory provisions are found to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It will be possible for these orders to be made in relation to devolved matters by the Scottish Ministers. Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act regulates the parliamentary procedure for these orders. That procedure is more complex than the usual statutory instrument procedures. Section 118 of the Scotland Act does not do all that is necessary to translate the parliamentary procedure for these orders so that it operates correctly in the Scottish Parliament. A similar procedure for deregulation orders in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 was amended by an earlier order under Section 105.
Another group of entries in the order extend references to the term "enactment" so that they include references to Acts of the Scottish Parliament where that is necessary. The general rule is that references to "enactment" in Acts of the UK Parliament do not include Acts of the Scottish Parliament or instruments made under Acts of the Scottish Parliament. But in some cases it is desirable that references to "enactment" should include Acts of the Scottish Parliament so that this Parliament's Act operates properly. Amendments of that type have been made to the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act and the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act.
Noble Lords will perhaps be relieved that I do not intend to go into the detail of each entry in the order. There are some 23 modifications. However, if noble Lords have questions on any specific entries I will be
666
happy to assist. I hope noble Lords will have no difficulty in supporting the order, which is aimed at the effective operation of this Parliament's pre-existing legislation in Scotland following devolution. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th July be approved [25th report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.)
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for what I am sure, when I read it, will be a very clear explanation of what the order does. I am bound to say that until she spoke I found it extremely difficult to follow. As I listened, some points were cleared up and probably more will be cleared in my mind when I have read what she said. But I should like to put in a plea—it follows from what my noble friend said earlier—about the Explanatory Note. It is very difficult to know from the Explanatory Note what is happening. The Explanatory Note simply repeats what the order itself says. In fact it is very difficult from that to know what to do, because I think I am right in saying that the order amends 21 Acts of Parliament. Am I supposed, as a humble, simple Back-Bench Peer, to look up 21 Acts and see precisely what happens in each case in so far as concerns the law affecting Scotland? If there is a common thread running through all the changes in those 21 Acts, it would have been helpful to have a paragraph explaining precisely what that change was. I trust the noble Baroness and assume that that is precisely what is happening. But next time an order similar to this is before the House I hope that she will ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to provide a rather fuller explanation. That would be enormously helpful.
Paragraph 21 of the order relates to the Human Rights Act, to which the noble Baroness referred. Do I understand that that Act, which was passed only in 1998, is being altered simply to meet the existing situation, or will the Scots Parliament alter Acts relating to Scotland once those Acts have been found to be outwith the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act? Is the procedure actually changing? I rather suspect that it is. That it is not going to happen in the House of Commons and the House of Lords any more but in the Scots Parliament. It would be helpful to know whether that is true. I may be misreading that. I am not a lawyer. It is quite difficult for me to follow. That is my main point.
My other point is whether for years ahead we will go on noticing in the statute book things which require to be changed? What will happen if we notice them after we are required to make the change? Will that not be a problem? What will happen if we come across something in some Act that was passed by Westminster and we find that it simply is not valid because of the existence of the Scots Parliament? There will have to be an immediate order, I suppose, to put that right. I have two questions. First, has the procedure under the Human Rights Act actually changed when legislation which affects Scotland is

667
found to clash with the Human Rights Act? Second, are we going to go on having to change Acts of Parliament and what will happen if we find quite suddenly we have to do that and that the Act is not valid when we come upon the problem?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I echo the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour about the Explanatory Note. I think the Minister was in her place when I made the point earlier. This one is markedly worse because it does not explain the bulk of the text. That relates, I think my noble friend said, to 21 Acts of Parliament and makes amendments to them. Frankly, choosing at random paragraph 10, without going to the Fisheries Act 1981 one would not have a clue as to what was being done. That is what ought to be explained. The Explanatory Note tells us why things have to be changed. My noble friend and I understand and appreciate that. But what we should have explained to us is what the changes are in each individual paragraph. I wonder if the next time—and there will he a next time—the Minister comes forward with an order under the precommencement powers we will have an Explanatory Note which actually explains what has been changed and why it needs to be changed. I can understand one or two items. Clearly, the prorogation and dissolution of Parliament had to be dealt with by putting in the Scottish Parliament. I can understand that. The recess point I can understand. But the Fisheries Act item, I am afraid, would be quite beyond me unless I went to the Library and looked up the Act of Parliament. That is perhaps asking people to go a bridge too far. I hope the Minister appreciates that. I am not necessarily expecting an answer about the Fisheries Act 1981, but I hope the Minister will take the point away and next time perhaps her officials can actually explain the changes made to the legislation. That is a major point. I hope that the Minister will take it on board.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy referred to paragraph 21. As my noble friend was speaking it occurred to me to question the Minister on the concept of a remedial order. I do not know if the Minister recalls—if she does not, I am happy to have a letter about it—the case recently where a lady was charged with being drunk in charge of a car and had not actually been in a car. She had been walking with an unsteady gait around a supermarket car park. She admitted to having driven the car to the car park. She was charged. However, the case was thrown out because the Road Traffic Act under which she was obliged to admit that she had been the driver of the car was incompatible with the ECHR. The Minister clearly remembers the case. I am a little unsighted about it from thereon in.
All I remember is that when I asked the question here I was assured that the Lord Advocate was still considering whether to appeal. I am not sure whether he has appealed. Perhaps the Minister can tell me. I think there was some doubt when I asserted that the problem would become larger and might affect speeding cases. Last week I read in the papers that indeed it did affect speeding cases, but south of the Border. It is becoming a very large problem. Will the Scottish Parliament be able to bring forward a
668
remedial order to sort out the Road Traffic Act so that this problem did not occur in Scotland and people who were caught speeding by speed cameras could not get away with it by pleading the ECHR and saying, "I am not going to incriminate myself"?
I appreciate that that is rather a fast ball to bowl on the basis of the order. But I have known the Minister over many years and I am absolutely confident that she will be able to give me an answer. If my confidence is misplaced, I should be happy to accept some information about these matters in writing.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the former Secretary of State for Wales, Mr Ron Davies, in a telling phrase, said that devolution is a process and not an event. Here today we are seeing another example of that process continuing.
As a frequent visitor to Scotland, I am heartened to see how the Scottish Parliament is beginning to forge its own character and its own culture in a way that is entirely distinct from Westminster. However, I appreciate the difficulties that it must have when it is faced with the maze of primary and subordinate legislation that already exists. I join in the expressions that have passed from other noble Lords in a desire for clarity. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether there is any proposal to produce in a loose-leaf form the legislation as it has been amended which affects Scotland. It will take a great deal of time for these Acts of Parliament to be amended and published. Many other amendments will need to be made by further consequential orders. As each comes to this House for approval, so it would be helpful if there were some means of bringing it before the legislators who are carrying our their duties in Scotland.
On the Human Rights Act, it is entirely appropriate that if a breach of the convention is found in Scotland which affects legislation within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, it should be for the Scottish Parliament to put it right. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, if legislation is to be passed by the Scottish Parliament, it will have to comply with the convention. Where a breach of the convention has been found, it will be interesting to see whether the Scottish Parliament will attempt to revert to the previous position, as the noble Lord suggested it might.
From these Benches, we wholly welcome the production of this order. In the nature of the process, there will be more to come; and we shall welcome them when they arrive.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the order by all three noble Lords who have spoken. I shall try to deal with specific points that were raised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked about the Explanatory Note and the noble Lord. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, echoed her points. There is no reason why Explanatory Notes cannot be longer. The note is intended to be a short, concise statement of the substance and purport of the instrument and

669
one accessible to the layman—that is the very point made by the noble Baroness. The kind of note that is attached to such orders appears to be based on convention. If Parliament were to ask for a different style of note or for fuller notes, there is no obvious reason why that could not be provided. If noble Lords feel that we could learn from the example to which the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who, unfortunately, is not in his place today, often refers—that the Explanatory Notes attached to papers in the Scottish Parliament are a great deal fuller—I am sure that the relevant authorities in both Houses could take the matter forward rather than it being a matter for the Government or being left to individual Secretaries of State.
The noble Baroness asked whether there will be a need for further similar orders. In a way, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, almost answered her question by saying that there is almost bound to be such a need. We do not anticipate any orders at the moment, although one can never say never. The wide implications of the devolution settlement mean that we cannot rule out the possibility of further orders. That is why Section 105 of the Scotland Act enables further modifications as the need arises. That is why that section was included in the Scotland Act. However, as I said in my opening remarks, the order is a culmination of a whole year of looking at various examples that came up where legislation was needed. We have now achieved a significant harvest of all the likely necessary actions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked about the Human Rights Act. The Scottish Parliament will be able to amend its own Acts to make them comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, asked whether the Scottish Parliament could amend the Road Traffic Acts. The answer is no. The Scottish Parliament does not have devolved competence on the subject matter of the Road Traffic Acts. The noble Lord referred to a specific case. In lawyers' jargon it is known as Margaret Anderson Brown v. Stott (procurator fiscal). Petitions of appeal have now been lodged with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the Advocate General has intervened to represent the United Kingdom interest. I am advised that further discussion of the case could be prejudicial to further legal proceedings. Therefore, I should not take the matter any further.
I hope that I have dealt with all of the points raised by noble Lords.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that under the Human Rights Act the Scots Parliament will be able to amend its own Acts. I thought that that was the case all along—ever since we legislated two years ago. I wonder whether the Scots Parliament will now be able to amend Acts of the Westminster Parliament which apply to Scotland. That would mean that the provisions of Acts passed by the Scots Parliament would diverge from those which
670
remained at Westminster. Is the Scots Parliament still amending only its own legislation, or is it amending that which applies to Scotland but has been made at Westminster?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as I understand the position, the Scottish Parliament can only amend Acts of its own. It cannot amend Acts passed at Westminster. It is Westminster which will amend Westminster Acts. That is why we have Section 105. It is only with regard to devolved issues that the Scottish Parliament can amend legislation to make it fit the European Convention on Human Rights.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to pursue this point because we need to be clear. I have the Human Rights Act in my hand. I am trying to see what precisely paragraph 21 does. The noble Baroness referred to devolved matters, but a good deal of Westminster legislation applies to devolved matters which are now the responsibility of the Scots Parliament. Can those pieces of legislation be amended by the Scots Parliament? If not, I cannot see why this provision is there.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I believe that an answer to the noble Baroness's question may lie in the fact that this particular consequential modification order is precisely the kind of order that would be brought forward if there was found to be a breach of the Human Rights Act. The primary legislation of this Parliament would be amended by means of an order of this kind. That seems to me to be the sensible way of approaching this. It would not be necessary to return to the original Act of Parliament which has been said to be in breach in order to make the changes.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, that is the case. I do not know whether I have made matters worse or better for the noble Baroness, but Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides for the making of remedial orders where statutory provisions are found to be incompatible with the ECHR. It would be possible for these orders to be made in relation to devolved matters by Scottish Ministers or Her Majesty in Council by Order in Council on the recommendation of the First Minister.
Schedule 2 regulates the parliamentary procedure for these orders. It regulates the parliamentary procedure for the orders in relation to the 21 Acts. Section 118 of the Scotland Act does not do all that is necessary to translate the parliamentary procedure for these orders so that it operates correctly in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that that has helped to clarify matters.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is most helpful and I hope that my noble friend is satisfied. However, one point has occurred to me. I understand that any legislation passed by this Parliament in the past affecting a devolved matter which is found to be in breach must be changed by the Scottish Parliament. My question is rather difficult,

671
and I do not believe that I received a full answer from the Government when we debated the devolution legislation. I shall try again, having been reminded of the matter.
What happens if the Scottish Parliament declines? I understand that the United Kingdom is a party to the European Convention and it would be the UK that would be in breach. If the Scottish Parliament declined, would the UK Parliament take the matter into its own hands and proceed to amend the legislation?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the noble Lord has suggested an extremely hypothetical situation and I do not intend to answer it. However, should the noble Lord wish to take expert opinion on it, I shall do so on his behalf and write to him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Transport Bill
8.52 p.m.
House again in Committee (on Recommitment).
Clause 178 [Local licensing schemes]:
[Amendments Nos. 240A to 242 not moved.]
Clause 178 agreed to.
Clauses 179 and 180 agreed to.
Clause 181 [Workplace parking places]:
[Amendments Nos. 243 to 247 not moved.]
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 247A:
Page 108, line 44, at end insert (", or
( ) a member of the public").
The noble Lord said: I should like to move Amendment No. 247A, which by nature is a probing amendment. It continues with a theme established in earlier amendments that there should be a minimum number of exceptions to any rules covering workplace parking
On reading the clause, there appears to be some difficulty in achieving a simple solution as regards which workplace parking locations are to be covered and who will be "relevant persons". Can my noble friend tell me whether city centre car parks—multistorey or otherwise—owned by local authorities or private car park companies would be covered? Similarly, will out-of-town supermarket car parks be so covered? Those are only two examples. It is clear that both of these forms of parking facilities contribute significantly to traffic generation in the same way as office car parking.
Can my noble friend explain whether public car parks and supermarket car parks are covered? If not, why not? As I have said, this is a probing amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am relieved to hear that my noble friend has tabled this as a probing amendment. However, it concerns an important issue; namely, the scope of the workplace parking levy.
672
Our response to the consultation paper, Breaking the Logjam, made it clear that we intend that the levy will apply to workplace parking only. That is because our most serious congestion problems are associated with peak period commuting to work.
I accept what my noble friend Lord Berkeley has said; namely, that customer parking provided for the public at retail and leisure facilities or in public car parks can contribute to local congestion, both in town centres and in other areas. However, the effects are not usually concentrated in peak periods, unlike the effect of people driving to work. The Government are not persuaded that a levy on non-workplace parking is the most effective way of changing customer travel patterns.
We have said that we shall be looking to major retail and leisure operators to work with local authorities to build on the initiatives that some major retailers have already taken to tackle over-dependency on the car. These could include providing bus shelters, funding bus priority measures on the surrounding road network and providing secure cycle parking. Retail outlets could extend or introduce easy and affordable home delivery services.
I can assure my noble friend that we expect real progress to be made in this area. We have asked the Commission for Integrated Transport to consider the case for changing the scope of the levy; I think that it would be best to wait for the commission's recommendations before taking a final decision on extending the scope of the parking levy. This approach will also provide greater flexibility in deciding how any legislation for a levy on customer parking might be drafted.
The amendment would extend the definition of "relevant person" to include members of the public. This would mean that parking at a premises by a member of the public would fall within the scope of the levy, but only if it still passed the test at the end of Clause 181(1), which the amendment would not change, of,
"for attending a place at which the relevant person [or member of the public] carries on business".
Changing the definition of "relevant person" as provided by the amendment will not extend the scope of the levy to include customer parking.
I do not believe that the levy should apply to members of the public for the reasons that. I have outlined. I therefore hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend has quite rightly pointed out the deficiencies of drafting in my amendment. I am sorry that the Government are not taking this opportunity to put in place powers to extend levies to supermarket and other parking facilities, perhaps to be implemented only later. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 247B and 247C not moved.]
Clause 181 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 247D:
After Clause 181, insert the following new clause—

Transport Bill

  LICENSING SCHEME: COMPENSATION FOR COSTS
  (" .—(1) A licensing scheme under this Part shall make provision for compensation to cover costs in implementing such a scheme.
  (2) Where levies are imposed under section 177(2)(a) and (b) the occupier of the premises or specified person shall be entitled to appeal to the licensing authority for compensation for the cost of implementing and managing any such scheme.
  (3) Compensation shall include—

  (a) the cost of advertising the scheme on the premises or in the vicinity;

  (b) the cost of any equipment installed to manage or implement the scheme; and

  (c) the cost of implementing any changes to a licensing scheme.

  (4) Any consultation carried out under section 184 shall include information about any proposed compensation, or not, which forms part of a proposed scheme or varying of a scheme under this Part.").
  The noble Lord said: Not among the least of the joys of sitting on this side of the Committee—with which noble Lords sitting opposite will be all too familiar and to which we shall render them once again in due course—is the freedom to exercise a certain intellectual anarchy. That is a real bonus, although I miss the discipline of constructive thought.
  The point behind making those introductory remarks was to enable me to approach a subject from a number of different angles. Occasionally, as is the case with the amendment before the Committee, I seek to try to help the Government.
  The purpose of the amendment is to make it easier for a local transport authority to introduce a workplace parking scheme. Generally speaking, the target of such a scheme is not the occupier of the premises who will have to pay the charge but the person who drives to work. We have the wonderful concept of a new tax that will be imposed on one person in order to affect someone else. I find that slightly interesting.
  The amendment would make it possible for a local transport authority to say to an employer in its district that, because it is intended that the charge should fall on those who drive to work, it will provide at the entrance to the firm's car park either credit card operated gates or cash operated gates, or that employees can purchase a monthly licence, or whatever. It would enable an authority to pay for the installations and subsequently take the money and do the accounting.
  It is not my business to make the charges more palatable or acceptable. It is my belief that they will prove to be pretty unpalatable and that the government may reap the benefit of their being unacceptable. This amendment might help that process, which I should welcome.
  It is a serious point. If the target of the workplace parking levy is the person who drives to work and not the person who occupies the premises and runs the business, it may be worthwhile considering a concession on the face of the Bill under which a local transport authority is enabled to put in the necessary
  674
  infrastructure so that the actual target, rather than the legislative target, is the person affected by the introduction of the charges. That would probably help the Government forward greatly. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is an interesting interpretation. As it was the noble Lord who brought the amendments forward, he is entitled to his own interpretation. It is not quite what the amendments say. As I read them, they are about compensation to the owner of the premises. There is reference to a specified person, but no reference to the circumstances in which such a person would be specified; there is no regulatory power to specify a person in terms of the cost of implementing and managing any such scheme. That could apply, whether or not the charge was made on the occupier of the premises or the individual car driver occupying a car parking space. Read literally, the amendment is neutral as to whether the charge is paid by the car driver or the employer. Be that as it may, it is an interesting argument in either case.
  It is also the case, I am afraid, that the amendment as drafted would mean that there would be nothing to stop the person responsible for paying the workplace parking levy seeking compensation for the actual cost of paying the workplace parking charges. In other words, you pay the charge and you get it back in compensation, which would rather nullify the whole procedure. I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, thinks that that is a very good idea. Noble Lords might well have pressed on with opposing the Question that Clause 177 shall stand part.
  There is a serious point behind the amendment that I want to address, whoever will ultimately pay the charge. It is the question of keeping the burden of administrative costs to business to a minimum. We are seized of that; we do want to minimise the administrative burden.
  The levy will simply require the occupier of a premises or any other person who may be prescribed to apply to the licensing authority for a licence to cover workplace parking needs. The cost involved in handling licence applications, issuing licences and enforcement schemes will be met by the licensing authorities from the gross revenues raised by the workplace parking levy. That means that the only administrative burden placed on businesses will be the requirement to estimate the workplace parking needs and to submit the licence application. In most cases that will be fairly obvious and it should be a straightforward task. But at larger premises, as may be imagined, the number of parking spaces is not the right measure—because parking spaces can be laid out tightly or loosely. Occasional inspections may be necessary in order to see how many people were there at the peak, which is the test used in the Bill; and in certain circumstances there might be an electronic gantry at the car park entrance to count workplace vehicles in and out. It might be to the advantage of the employer to do that.

  675
  I should emphasise that licensing authorities have no powers to insist that businesses install and pay for any equipment that is used for counting vehicles. So compliance costs in all these matters are, by definition, met by businesses. Local authorities do not meet the cost imposed on businesses when businesses satisfy demands for the payment of rates. We do not believe that businesses should be able to claim compensation from licensing authorities for complying with workplace parking levy schemes.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: As so often, the Minister has been extremely helpful in responding to the amendment. One of the reasons for tabling it is that discussions have taken place about this kind of issue. In one or two places, people considering whether or not to introduce a scheme have held discussions with employers to see whether things can be done to make the imposition of the charges more acceptable or more administratively possible.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: None of that is ruled out by anything in the Bill. I merely made clear that nothing is imposed.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: We have to be careful about what is imposed, compelled, left out or not permitted.
  I am grateful to the Minister because I suspect that when I read his reply I will find that he has enabled me to devise a better amendment. It would be surprising if that were not the case because he has done precisely that himself in the past. I will need to consider carefully all that has been said but beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 182 agreed to.
  Clause 183 agreed to.
  Clause 184 [Licensing schemes: consultation and inquiries]:
  [Amendments Nos. 248 to 259 not moved.]
  Clause 184 agreed to.
  Clause 185 [Matters to be dealt with in licensing schemes]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 260:
  Page 112, line 10, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: Clause 185 deals with the contents of licensing schemes and licences. Subsection(4) states:
  "In setting the charges imposed by a licensing scheme under this Part, regard may be had to the purposes for which any of the net proceeds of the licensing scheme may be applied".
  Regard "may" be had? Everything the Government have said reinforces that regard to the purposes shall be had if not must be had. We are back to the wretched business of the meaning of words. The Minister who replies will doubtless say that this is one of those wonderful occasions when "may" means "must". The problem for us ordinary mortals is that we have difficulty understanding when "may" means "must" and when it means "may". That may be pedantic but it is an important point. If regard is not paid to the
  676
  purposes to which the money will be applied, the public will rightly be angry. I am sure that is not what the Government intend and it would not be helpful. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: The issue is not the word "may", "must", "shall" or "should" but whether we should highlight this aspect of a plan from others. Of course schemes will raise revenue but that is probably less than half the story. The introduction of charges will also have an effect on traffic levels, congestion, pollution and delays.
  Under the amendment, local authorities would be required to have regard to the purposes for which the net proceeds were to be spent. That provision is, at best, unnecessary. Schedule 12 already provides that local authorities will be required to prepare plans setting out how net revenues from charges will be spent. If that provision is highlighted elsewhere, it could be interpreted as meaning that the emphasis when setting charge levels must be on funding local transport improvements rather than tackling congestion. We do not want to risk giving the impression that we are precluding local authorities from setting charges geared primarily to tackle traffic congestion that have as a side benefit the funding of transport improvements.
  Clause 185(4) was drafted to make it possible for local authorities to set charges and so raise revenue to fund local transport improvement, and that is why "may" is used in this context. Charges should not be set only on that basis. I remind the noble Lord that as a condition for the approval of individual schemes by the Secretary of State there must be full consultation on the detail. No doubt that will also focus on those matters on which the money is to he spent. The amendment would reduce the flexibility of local authorities. We want to give them the right to design and implement schemes which can best deliver transport objectives which suit their local circumstances. I hope the noble Lord recognises that to pick out this item when the requirement is already available elsewhere along with other requirements is not helpful and may give the wrong signals.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I almost regret the Minister's response. I suspect that he has set me a dreadfully large amount of homework to verify the facts of the case. The difficulty is that we are dealing with the meaning of words in the English language. As to the relative importance of particular bits of this Bill and unheard of and unseen regulations—even worse, guidance—the position may well be as the Minister says. I shall do my best to check it. If I have a cold towel round my head and appear wan, as the Minister is wont to do on occasions, people will understand how that comes about. I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 185 agreed to.
  9.15 p.m.
  Clause 186 [Licensing schemes: exemptions etc.]:
  [Amendments Nos. 261 and 261A not moved.]
  Clause 186 agreed to.
  Clause 187 [Licences]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 262:
  Page 113, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Lord said: If I have read it correctly, as drafted the Bill provides that workplace parking levy licences should last for not more than 12 months. I am open to correction, but I believe that that is how the provision is drafted. That is slightly strange. I see no reason why it should not last for two years, five years or 10 years. My driving licence, which I have held for a number of years, does not expire until I am 70. I am immensely grateful to DVLA, or whoever was responsible for the regulation, for making it possible for me to avoid the need to reapply for my driving licence every year. I suspect that if I had to do so I would lose it. There are licences and licences. To put the opposite case, I am aware that a television licence lasts for only 12 months.
  In this case we are considering, among other things, the confidence of those who have to pay this levy. It may well be that in particular circumstances they prefer the licence to last for longer than 12 months. After all, if it lasts for only 12 months there is nothing to prevent the local transport authority at the end of the period saying that it intends to raise the levy by 10 per cent. Some may regard that as an unreasonable proposition; others may believe that it is acceptable. I do not think that that is reasonable. If in arriving at a scheme an authority wishes to create licences which last for a period longer than 12 months I believe that it should have the ability to do so, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
  Amendment No. 263 deals with variations of a licence. While it is a very small point, it is a matter of good business practice. The amendment requires applications for a variation in a licence to be heard within 30 days. I do not know whether that is an achievable target, but it should be. The reality is that across the country there may well be many businesses whose car parks have a capacity much greater than will ever be required under normal circumstances. Unless one has a very brutal system in which the licence is calculated on the basis of the maximum capacity, it may well be that there will be spare capacity. A car park with a capacity of, say, 1,000 spaces may have a licence for only 900.
  Business circumstances change and it may be that an employer will want to increase his capacity because of expansion. It is not then unreasonable that the application should be heard within a reasonable timescale. I am not adamant that 30 is the appropriate number of days but if the Minister would accept the principle of what is intended to be a helpful
  678
  amendment and return with another figure or an adjusted amendment, I should be delighted. I beg to move.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have sympathy with Amendment No. 262. It would be helpful if in reply the Minister could tell us why any limit has been introduced and why it is one year.
  Lord Whitty: There appears to be some confusion. We are dealing with a licensing system, which means that some people are charged for their parking places. It is not a direct or indirect form of parking control in the sense the noble Lord implies.
  The effect of Amendment No. 262 would be to remove the condition that a licence cannot be granted for more than a year. Our intention is to safeguard business by ensuring that the licensing authority cannot require a business to take out and pay for a licence for several years at once. Amendment No. 262 would remove that protection.
  Amendment No. 263—and here the confusion arises—proposes,
  "within 30 days or will be deemed to be granted".
  I shall explain what I mean by the provision not being a parking control. The Bill does not allow authorities discretion over the number of vehicles covered by a licence, or whether a licence will be given. If an employer asks for and pays for a licence for 100 people, 100 vehicles will be covered by the licence. If the employer subsequently expands, as the noble Lord suggests, and asks for a further 50 that, too, must be granted. There is no discretion on local authorities as to whether they should grant or not, or whether when the year is ended they should renew or not.
  We are seeking a price effect, not a rationing effect, and therefore there is a misunderstanding behind the amendments. The first would remove the safeguard for business and the second is unnecessary.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Will the Minister deal with the point suggested by my suspicious nature. A licence which lasts only for one year can be renewed the next year for the same number of vehicles but at a different charge.
  Lord Whitty: That is always possible. It is also open to the employer to reduce the number of cars if the new charge is not acceptable to him. That, in a sense, is the point.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: We are entering interesting territory. My noble friend points out that it is also possible for a business to decide to move to a different location. That might be an unforeseen consequence. The law of unforeseen consequence is universal and arises with monotonous regularity. Businesses do not have to relocate in this country, so the unforeseen consequences could have a degree of unpleasantness that none of us would want.

  679
  I shall study what the Minister said. There ought to be a position somewhere between the shaky quicksand on which he is standing and the more solid quicksand on which I am standing. They are both quicksands, but there ought to be a point at which there is an acceptable solution to the dilemma. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 263 not moved.]
  Clause 187 agreed to.
  Clauses 188 and 189 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 263A not moved.]
  Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall moved Amendment No. 263B:
  Before Clause 190, insert the following new clause—

  GREEN TRANSPORT PLANS
  (" . Local authorities shall promote the drawing up by employers of Green Transport Plans and stipulate that these are discussed at an early stage with employees and their representatives.").
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 263A and 263B were originally written together and I believe that they hang together in a certain way. However, Amendment No. 263B adds a highly practical dimension in saying that, in the context of introducing either of the charges, local authorities should,
  "promote the drawing up by employers of Green Transport Plans and stipulate that these are discussed at an early stage with employees and their representatives".
  In other words, the congestion charge and the workplace levy would be brought forward by firms in the context of green transport plans.
  I do not believe that the right reverend Prelate who spoke earlier was totally wrong when he said that the effect of the new charges will be not only to provide a means of paying for public transport; they will change people's behaviour. It is obvious that that is what we are doing: through the price mechanism, we are changing people's behaviour. When, for example, one puts up the price of strawberries, the result is that fewer people eat strawberries. I do not believe that I need to tell anyone that that is how price mechanisms work. That was the contention in the preliminary discussion which led up to the White Paper.
  Be that as it may, it is employees who are being called upon to change their behaviour. It is they who in many cases will pay the congestion charges and I suspect that, in one way or another, in many cases they will pay for the workplace levy as well.
  I part company with the dire predictions of the Official Opposition but I believe that these two measures will come as a shock to many firms. I believe that trade union support for them, which we have been developing, will be a vital part of their reception. This type of issue is on the agenda of a trade union and sustainable development advisory committee, chaired jointly by Michael Meacher and John Edmonds.
  I believe that it is fair to say that very little has happened so far with regard to green transport plans. There have been some notable exceptions; for example, the round of discussions in government
  680
  departments and in the Civil Service, and all credit to them. However, a new stimulus is needed and a clause such as this could act as a vital catalyst if the issues are to be developed in a serious way. After all, the repercussions could involve the staggering of hours of work and the pooling of travel for some firms, and so on.
  Terms and conditions of employment will be affected both directly and indirectly through the extra charges. Although the amendment does not attempt to prescribe in detail how the consultations in a firm should be carried out with employee representatives, I have no doubt that in many workplaces that will be the make or break factor as to whether the scheme is a success—as I very much hope that it will be—or a failure.
  Finally, although in many respects the national line of the TUC and the CBI is largely supported, bolt sides need a push to find a better way of ensuring that these matters are discussed in the workplace. It cannot be left to people's common sense in the hope that they will work it out for themselves. Experience shows that that does not happen. People will not march down Whitehall demanding that the charges are introduced; nor do I expect the converse. We do not wish to be wise after the event. That is why I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic response. Perhaps this particular form of words can be improved upon, but I hope that the amendment's essential ingredients will be incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: My noble friend has given an excellent and comprehensive summary of the aims of the amendment to which I have put my name. I do not need to repeat what he has said, but I have one other point to make on individual taxation, which is very important in selling the concept to employees.
  The issue is a matter for the Treasury, but it comes up in your Lordships' House quite often. I still believe that the tax system encourages people to use their cars. Many people are given company cars and, regardless of whether they are given free petrol, the perception is that it is more advantageous for most of them to drive to work than to buy a season ticket for the train or bus., for which they have to pay out of fully taxed income.
  I hope that, as part of the new 10-year plan for transport, the Government will have the courage to look at this continuing anomaly in the tax situation relating to transport for individuals.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like briefly to support the amendment. It has many merits, not least the interesting light that the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, in the trade union movement threw on his argument. When I was a member of Surrey County Council, we began a sort of green transport process, particularly in connection with a large development site. Heathrow airport has got rid of a good deal of its employee parking and introduced a number of bus services for employees. Those are two straws in the wind. Employers or

  681
  managers of large companies are interested in the idea, because it can benefit them and enable them to get what they want, as well as bringing benefits to the local community. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment a fair wind.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I have a feeling that I should not speak in support of the principle of the amendment, but it follows on from amendments that we have discussed earlier in the Bill. It is a good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, mentioned discussions within government departments about the issue. Many thoroughly commercial enterprises already have such schemes. They should be encouraged in any way possible. I shall be amused and interested to see whether the Minister is as encouraging to his noble friends as he has been to us when we have advocated good schemes. I do not intend to launch a torpedo into the amendments by saying that, because I hope that the Minister will take them seriously and will do what he can to support them.
  Lord Whitty: Without showing undue favouritism to my noble friend, I have some sympathy with the amendment. It is important for local authorities to encourage green transport plans among employers in their area and for employers to consult properly with their staff and unions in developing such plans. Local authorities are well placed to do that, so we support the underlying aim of the amendment. However—the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will recognise these words—I have yet to be convinced that it is appropriate to include the amendment in primary legislation.
  Local authorities are already being asked to promote travel plans through the local transport plan process. Existing LTP guidance asks local authorities to set out how they will encourage the widespread adoption of travel plans by employers, who will need to consult their work forces, and to consider setting targets for take-up and for modal shift. The extent to which local authorities include those aspects within their local plans will have clear implications for the bids which they put in under those plans.
  In addition, our draft planning policy guidance, PPG13, on transport includes a system of transport assessment to encourage travel by sustainable modes to and from new developments. That means that developers may also be required to produce travel plans with their applications for planning permission. In turn, they will be encouraged to consult widely not only with local authorities but also with those who represent the staff.
  I am less pessimistic than is my noble friend Lord Lea. I go round the country seeing some of those green transport plans and there is a lot of innovation and enthusiasm for them among employers and employees alike. We have highlighted that by producing several guides on travel plans which underline the importance of consulting employees and unions at the outset of the plan development. We have distributed those plans and the earlier guidance to local authorities and there was quite a good take-up to encourage good practice.
  682
  Therefore, I am at one with the aim of the amendment but I remain unconvinced that it should be on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that with those assurances my noble friend will not press the amendment.
  Lord Lea of Crondall: I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. The key point about the amendment is not so much the promotion of green transport plans per se but is in the context of the introduction of either a congestion charge or a workplace levy.
  I suggest that when those two measures are brought forward priority must be given to discussion with the workforce. That is best done in the context of green transport plans. I hope that the Minister will consider what I have said and I shall obviously want to read carefully what the Minister said. I hope it means that we may be able to produce an appropriate form of words for Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 190 agreed to.
  Schedule 12 [Road user charging and workplace parking levy: financial provisions]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 264:
  Page 219, line 10, at end insert—
  ("and includes the amount of any VAT charged on road user charges or workplace parking levies").
  The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will recognise immediately why this question was asked. He answered a question from the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, as to whether the Government have any plans to introduce VAT on toll charges. The first purpose of tabling this amendment is to find out whether the workplace parking levy or congestion charges are tolls within the meaning of the Bill. But I suspect that when he replies the Minister will tell us that under the definitions in Euroland they must be so. I shall be interested in that point.
  If that is so, when we introduce those charges we are not simply introducing a local charge or levy in order to support local schemes and produce local benefits. They are also producing a nice little 17.5 per cent supplement on behalf of the Treasury. Most people do not think initially that that is what is happening. It is extremely important that we should be quite clear that that is what the situation is.
  A congestion charge of £1 per day, or whatever it may be, is not a congestion charge of £1 per day because you happen to be in that town and that is what the charge is. It is £1.17½ and the 17½p will go to the Treasury, although we say that the benefit should remain a local one.
  I suspect that in his response the Minister will say that the amendment is not practical politics because VAT is VAT and belongs to Customs and Excise. That may well be the reality. However, if by a freak of good fortune the Minister can tell me that I am completely wrong in my presumptions, those charges will not be subject to VAT, and that therefore I need not concern

  683
  myself, or that VAT will be payable, the Government will make arrangements to see that the effect on the local chargepayers of the VAT will be returned to the local transport authority, in both instances I shall be delighted. Dare I say that the public will be rather less concerned at what is going on? I shall not say that we would all go on our way rejoicing. I do not think we are in that situation. However, at least we would be in a better situation than the one in which I suspect we are. I suspect we are in one of those lovely situations where the taxpayer pays and nothing can be done about it. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not sure that I am necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, puts up his case and demolishes it straightaway. I do not think I need to intervene. Perhaps I shall.
  Let us make clear the position on VAT. At present we have the advice of the Advocate General; that is, that VAT should be charged on tolls. The European Court will make its judgment on 12th September. As the noble Lord, Lord-Dixon Smith knows, because it was raised in this House, with four other countries concerned we have been strongly arguing the case against imposing VAT on road tolls.
  We do not yet know the judgment of the court. However, it is the case that normally it is in line with the advice of the Advocate General. We will not know the position about road tolls and congestion charges until we hear the terms of the judgment. I refer not just to the effect of the judgment on road tolls but the way in which it is expressed and whether anything is said which guides us as to whether congestion charges will come under the same judgment. We shall have to consider carefully the text of the judgment of the European Court before we decide what has to be done in this country to implement it.
  However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that we agree that the revenue from charging schemes should be hypothecated to transport projects. The imposition of VAT, if it were to happen, should not reduce the funds available to authorities. We shall be working on the exact mechanism for that as schemes are developed. In other words, the Treasury will not take the 17.5 per cent; it will go back to local transport schemes. Bearing that in mind, the local authorities will make decisions about charging levels in the knowledge that if that is to be the case, VAT will have to be part of the charge.
  The amendment also covers VAT charged on workplace parking. We do not expect workplace parking levies to be subject to VAT. If the noble Lord, Lord-Dixon Smith, wants to go away rejoicing, I am happy for him to do so.
  Lord Swinfen: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether the local authorities will get
  684
  back the whole of the amount or will the Treasury make an administration charge and keep some for themselves?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They will get back the whole amount.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am genuinely grateful to the Minister. He has given a most helpful reply which, for once, sends me on my way rejoicing. If we had not tabled the amendment and I had not pressed the question, we would not have received his well-defined answer. That helps us all forward. Perhaps the Minister would like to have a word with me afterwards. I wonder whether we will have the benefit of the judgment of the European Court before we meet to consider the Report stage of the Bill, which I take it will be in early October, or might just be in the last day or two of September.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My understanding is that the court will deliver its judgment on 12th September.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Then when we have the benefit of the judgment, the Minister will understand if we find some way of persuading him to reveal what its consequences might be in relation to this Bill.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was cautious to say that we will have to consider the judgment carefully. I cannot promise that we will have reached a firm conclusion as to what the judgment means and how we interpret it before we come to Report stage.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister. I do not want to spoil what I can only regard as a happy occasion. But he will understand if we are anxious to receive the answer.
  This has been a useful discussion, for which I am extremely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 265:
  Page 221, line 34, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
  ("9. The appropriate national authority may by regulation make provision for paragraph 8 to apply with the substitution for the number for the time being mentioned in sub-paragraph (5) of that paragraph of a number of years greater than ten.").
  The noble Lord said: This is simply another of my consistent moves to try to increase the time for which money is available to local authorities when they have taken the initiative in raising it. The amendment provides that the number of years should be greater than 10, which is what the Bill states. I believe that is perfectly reasonable. But I suspect that the Minister, in his response, will tell me that, though the Government will produce a 10-year plan, 10 years is longer than they foresee it being needed. It will therefore all need to be reviewed before that time is up.
  This is an important amendment. It is consistent with what we have been arguing elsewhere. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those words of explanation in support of his amendment. While I am not able to accept the amendment, it is clear that we are agreed that the hypothecation arrangements set out in Schedule 12 to the Bill are important.
  Amendment No. 265 would provide that regulations under paragraph 9 of Schedule 12 could only provide for the extension of the guaranteed period of hypothecation beyond the 10-year period if the revenues raised were spent on improving local transport. The effect of the amendment would therefore be the indefinite hypothecation of the revenues raised for new charges for local transport spending.
  The arrangements that we included in our Greater London Authority Act and have extended to this Bill, represent a breakthrough by guaranteeing hypothecation. We recognise that that is a crucial factor in the success and acceptability of each and every scheme. The Bill therefore provides that every penny of the net revenues raised from local authority charging or licensing schemes brought forward within 10 years of the commencement of this schedule will be retained locally and ring-fenced for transport spending for each scheme's initial period.
  The expectation is that the initial period will be 10 years from the implementation of a scheme. But Schedule 12 also enables the appropriate national authority to guarantee the hypothecation of charging revenues for more than 10 years for individual schemes. That flexibility could be particularly valuable if the local authority wants to undertake a PFI deal and the private sector required a guarantee that a revenue stream would be available for more than 10 years.
  The Bill allows for the arrangements for the retention and use of charging revenues to be reviewed in 10 years' time. That is for the simple reason that spending charging revenues on transport in perpetuity might not deliver value for money improvements in the medium to longer term once substantial improvements to local transport have been put in place. It may well be that the review recommends that 100 per cent hypothecation of charging revenues for transport spending should continue for all schemes for a further period. I can assure Members of the Committee that the Bill explicitly allows for hypothecation for transport spending to continue after the review, though clearly I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the review.
  I hope therefore that the noble Lord will reconsider and agree not to press his amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister, who has once again given a helpful reply. He will be aware that I know from too much past experience that
  686
  the funding of large-scale highway improvements often runs for 20 to 25 years, and sometimes even longer. So this is a very important consideration. As I said, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response, which I shall study in Hansard with care. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 12 agreed to.
  Clauses 191 and 192 agreed to.
  Clause 193 [Information]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 266:
  Page 115, line 21, after ("subsection") insert ("(1), (2) or").
  The noble Lord said: If I have interpreted it correctly, the Bill as drafted provides that information that has been obtained from another authority—or, indeed, the Government—in the course of performing functions is only protected from disclosure by the contractor to whom it has been disclosed by the charging or licensing authority in order to set up the scheme and enable it to work. We believe that there is a gap in that provision because there is always a problem with what one might call "commercially protected legislation". Its inadvertent release can have unforeseen and sometimes very damaging consequences for the business that willingly supplied such information in order to help matters move forward.
  The purpose of this amendment is to expand the protection that presently exists against its release by a contractor to cover the Government, the local transport authority or anyone else who has the information and who might inadvertently release it. That is not an unreasonable request. Amendments Nos. 267, 273 and 274 are also included in this group. They are all more or less identical and bring us back to what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, would call the common law provision. However, I do not apologise for advancing it. If information is released inadvertently and proves to be damaging, these amendments provide that compensation will be available to the person or business so damaged.
  These are old-fashioned principles with which none of us has any difficulty and which I believe we all accept. I thought that we should table such amendments in order to be absolutely certain that in passing this legislation the situation is adequately protected. If it is not, the possibility of obtaining information which may well be essential to the creation of some of these schemes will be endangered. I know that the Minister would not wish such a situation to arise; indeed, I can see the look in his eyes. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Once again, I am pleased to be in agreement with the noble Lord and his intentions, although I hope to persuade him that his concerns are already met. We envisage that the disclosure of information by public bodies may be essential for the fair and effective enforcement of a charging or licensing scheme; for example, the name

  687
  and address of the registered keeper of a vehicle may need to be passed on to a charging authority by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.
  If the charging or licensing authority contracts with a private company to carry out the enforcement of a scheme, the authority will need to be able to pass on such information to its contractor. Subsection (4) of Clause 193 makes clear the caveat that any information passed on in this way under subsection (3) may only be used for, or in connection with, the charging or licensing scheme.
  Amendment No. 266 would extend the caveat in subsection (4) to subsections (1) and (2) also. However, the wording of those two subsections already makes clear that disclosure of information by public bodies or internally within a charging authority may only take place for, or in connection with, a charging or licensing scheme. I can therefore assure the noble Lord that his concern is already specifically catered for.
  I also agree that where information is wrongly disclosed people should be able to claim compensation for any damage caused. However, this is already catered for under the common law through our existing judicial system to which anyone who feels that they have been caused damage in this way could resort. Proceedings under common law provide appropriate remedies for claimants against persons who have wrongly disclosed information.
  I believe therefore that it is not necessary to add this safeguard to the primary legislation through these amendments. I hope that with that reassurance the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful for the Minister's helpful reply. I do not think that there is a great deal between us. I shall need to study carefully the Minister's comments. In these amendments, as in earlier amendments, one is dealing with a common law situation. However, resorting to the law can be expensive. That is an unfortunate fact of life. It may be necessary to resort to the law to decide what compensation should be paid. Once again we are creating a situation where the lawyers may have a ball. However, I am grateful for the Minister's helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 267 not moved.]
  Clause 193 agreed to.
  Clauses 194 to 198 agreed to.
  Schedule 13 [Amendments of Schedules 23 and 24 to Greater London Authority Act]:
  [Amendments Nos. 268 to 274 not moved.]
  Schedule 13 agreed to.
  Clause 201 [Membership and chairing]:
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 275:
  Page 119, line 14, at end insert (", and
  (c) at least one person representative of disabled people").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 275, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 284, which stands in my name and with which it is grouped. Amendment No. 276 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is also in the same group.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 275 is to require that at least one authority member represents the needs of disabled people. Amendment No. 284 requires that disabled people be consulted by the authority in drawing up its strategies.
  With such an important and new authoritative body as the Strategic Rail Authority promises to be, it is essential that it reflects the interests of all existing and potential passengers. Few would disagree that it must therefore cover the needs of those with disabilities. It is therefore excellent that included in the functions of the authority is the task of having regard to the needs of disabled people, as mentioned in Clause 206(3).
  It might, however, be argued that, by chance, someone with a particular interest in disability will be among those appointed to the authority and that this particular function can be informed and overseen by that person. This may be the case but the idea has three serious drawbacks. First, I argue that the interests and needs of people with disabilities are complex and are not always well understood by those with only a casual knowledge of disability. For that reason we need an expert in the authority to whom everyone—other members of the authority and the public at large—can refer.
  Secondly, where meeting the needs of disabled people is left to chance, where no one has a specific responsibility to attend to those needs, it is often the sad case that those needs are overlooked. Correcting the omission later, which the Disability Discrimination Act will in due course require, will then involve a higher cost than would otherwise have been the case.
  Thirdly, in so many organisations we frequently see progress for disabled people made by a particular individual and that progress stop—or even go into reverse—when the individual moves on to another appointment. Such stop/go progress can only be avoided by appointing a specific individual to the authority with the responsibility of having regard to the interests of people with disabilities. Such an appointment has the overwhelming benefit of institutionalising those interests.
  I would also argue that the number of disabled people is such—some estimates suggest that 6 million people in this country have impaired mobility—that this important function needs to be the specific responsibility of a particular member of the authority. If that were to be the case, as the amendment proposes, we would ensure that the functions spelt out in Clause 206(3) are effectively, efficiently and economically performed. I beg to move.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: In speaking to my Amendment No. 276 I shall refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 275 and 284, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has

  689
  spoken. I believe that my noble friend has already beaten us to it because on 13th April he appointed seven members to the board of the Strategic Rail Authority, one of whom has great experience of dealing with travel for the disabled and one of whom "will represent passenger interests". This is greatly welcome. My amendment and the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, seek to put this on a statutory footing. I certainly welcome what my noble friend has done and I hope that it is bearing fruit.
  In the interests of equity—and here I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and, to repeat what I have said previously in Committee, an adviser to Adtran; perhaps I should add that my wife works for the Strategic Rail Authority which, I think, technically is the British Railways Board—it would be reasonable to seek one person to be appointed to the Strategic Rail Authority who has experience of the needs of rail freight. In my view, if it is good for passengers, it is good for freight.
  It is very important that there should be someone on the authority who has experience of working in a local transport authority. We are aiming to produce a Bill for integrated transport policies and, as the Committee discussed several days ago, local transport plans are very important. I think they have some way to go before they reach a standard which will be uniformly acceptable and it would be very useful to have someone on the board with experience of local transport planning, local government transport policy development and so on.
  I do not feel strongly about whether my noble friend considers it appropriate to place this requirement on the face of the Bill. But if has he appointed someone to represent the interests of rail passengers and someone to represent the interests of the disabled, it would be equitable if he appointed someone to represent the interests of rail freight and another person from a local transport authority.
  Lord Addington: Perhaps I may speak briefly. My name appears alongside the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on Amendments Nos. 274 and 275. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, put the matter clearly when he said that the amendment would institutionalise responsibility for the disabled. We know that if one takes one's eye off the ball for any amount of time one can easily make a mistake. The classic example is where escalators are put in which suit certain types of disabled people but do not suit others. We go on from there. One has to keep constantly vigilant to make sure that this does not happen.
  The noble Lord was right when he said that because one has someone initially in place who knows about these matters and he is not there, it is assumed that the matters are dealt with and checked. People make mistakes like that. I know there will be an argument against the idea of listing any one particular person. But unless we get strong reassurances that people will
  690
  constantly keep vigilant there is a grave danger that certain areas of good practice may ultimately be eroded by time.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I can make an even briefer speech in support of the amendments. My name never did get on the amendment because I was too slow off the mark. I should like to support what both noble Lords have said on Amendments Nos. 275 and 284, particularly the part reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
  Earl Attlee: I congratulate my noble friend Lord Swinfen on introducing his self-evidently desirable amendment. We have heard many helpful comments, particularly about the need for constant pressure for good practice. I hope that the Minister will be helpful to us on the amendment.
  Lord Whitty: We entirely sympathise with the objectives of the amendment. My problem is that we do not wish to see the Strategic Rail Authority, or other authorities within the transport areas, being represented in the sense that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and of my noble friend Lord Berkeley would imply. We expect to see members with experience of exactly the kind of areas that have been referred to—disabled people, rail freight, local government and so on. But in practice members of the board will often wear several hats and not, as the amendment would imply, represent any one particular organisation or group. To put these requirements in the amendments on the face of the Bill would cut across the aim of having an overall representative body. We are concerned at the under-representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in relation to public appointments as a whole and to transport appointments in particular. Those considerations will be taken into account when choosing members.
  Amendment No. 284 would require the SRA to consult representatives of disabled people before formulating a strategy and from time to time as part of keeping a strategy under review. Clearly, it would be sensible for the SRA to consult and to do so taking into account the views of those organisations representing disabled people. But, as we have argued before, it is not necessary, or indeed desirable, to put on the face of the Bill long lists of organisations to be consulted. The list would grow and some organisations will always be omitted in error.
  However, I can meet the noble Lord to some extent. The SRA will need to consult many organisations about many matters. I am happy to give an assurance that in the directions that we give to the SRA under Clause 206 and the guidance we give to the SRA we include general guidance on consultation with the Disabled Persons' Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC. That will be clear in the guidance. It will achieve the objectives intended by Amendment No. 284. With those reassurances to both the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord

  691
  Addington, that these procedures will be followed, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the various Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendments tell us what they are going to do with them, as it were, I wonder whether the noble Lord could come back to the part of Amendment No. 276 which refers to the need to have someone on the SRA with experience of local government. I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was a very good one. Elsewhere in the Bill we are encouraging local government to co-operate in various ways—ticketing is just one—with the rail services.
  My experience is that it is quite difficult for local government to talk to the railway industry. The two bodies are so different, their approach to life is so different and the way they are constituted is so different that misunderstandings can be caused. The suggestions that there should be someone with experience, or that in appointing people the Government might give weight to the fact that one of the candidates had experience, in local government are sensible.
  Lord Whitty: I said that we would expect membership of the board to include, among the other areas covered by the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and those covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, members who have experience of local government. What I was objecting to was the representative nature implied by the amendments. Certainly, we would want people who had experience of that kind and indeed experience of disabled people and their needs.
  Lord Swinfen: It is not my intention to press the amendment today. I shall read with care what the Minister has said. However, I am not sure that I agree with him. The fact that a member of the board may be representative of a particular group does not mean to say that he cannot take an intelligent and wise interest in other matters that come before the board. The noble Lord has only to look at himself and bear in mind the wide range of matters with which he himself deals in this House. The same could be said of nearly every Member of this House. They have their strong points, but that does not mean to say that they do not take an interest in everything else that goes on, or at any rate in a wide range of what goes on, and deal with those matters intelligently and sensibly. I hope that the noble Lord will take on board what I have said and that he will consider this matter further before we reach the next stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 276 not moved.]
  Clause 201 agreed to.
  Clauses 202 and 203 agreed to.
  Schedule 14 [Strategic Rail Authority]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 277:
  Page 232, line 3, at end insert—
  ("( ) Full details of staff numbers shall be published in an annual return.").
  The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 278, 279, 280, 281 and 281A. We are concerned that both the SRA and the office of rail regulator are planning considerable increases in staffing and resources. Those increases need proper scrutiny to ensure that the costs of regulation do not increase to a point where they divert resources away from running the railway system. Clearly, the more staff the SRA employs the more it suggests that it intends to take a role in the day-to-day running of the railway industry rather than follow a more strategic remit.
  According to the DETR annual report, the SRA plans to increase its staff from 126 to 237. While it is taking on some more responsibilities, an increase of almost 100 per cent since 1998 needs close examination and continued scrutiny to ensure that this rise is not intended to continue inexorably. The rail regulator is also planning an increase in staff from 130 to 180. We would be concerned if that increase were to continue in the same way.
  I turn to Amendment No. 278. Examination of the schedule provides an opportunity to explore the funding of the SRA. The precise nature of the funding provision of the SRA remains vague. As Keith Hill said at the Committee stage in another place:
  "The fine details of the SRA's financing structure are still being developed".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee E, 28/3/00; col. 1144.]
  It is now time that these fine details were resolved.
  One of the key advantages of privatising the railway industry was that it was taken out of the uncertainties of the public sector spending round and it was allowed to plan for the long term. The SRA, and therefore the railway industry, will not have that certainty unless a long-term commitment is made by the Government to provide adequate funding. The Government are now planning public finances on a three-year rolling basis. It is therefore not unreasonable that the SRA should have the same certainty. A stable framework for long-term future funding is vital for the railways when most projects last for several years.
  On privatisation, a long-term programme of subsidy to the railways was established and written into the franchise agreements. This is now under threat. It is clear that the Treasury is going to take a close interest in the funding of the SRA and, as currently drafted, the SRA will have to go to the Treasury for every separate project, having to make the case for extra borrowing approval. That cannot be satisfactory. It will go against the interests of the train operators, Railtrack and passengers if the SRA ends up as a new version of British Rail, dominated by short-term planning and dependent on the vagaries of the public sector spending round. This was the disease that was cured by the 1993 Act.
  Perhaps I may turn to Amendments Nos. 279 and 280. These follow on from our general concerns about SRA funding, but focus on its borrowing limits. The amendment is designed to allow Ministers to explain more clearly the funding arrangements for the SRA. The SRA appears to have four methods of funding: grants from the Government; loans from the Government; borrowing; and income from franchises. Ministers have set a borrowing limit of £3 billion, but it is unclear whether that includes the £1 billion inherited from BR. Furthermore, it is unclear what limits will be put on spending and in what circumstances the SRA will be able to borrow instead of using its grant funding. It is important that the Government clarify exactly what will be the balance between different sources of funding and the role of the Secretary of State in determining that balance.
  During his replies in Committee in another place, the Minister, at col. 1158, was unable to give further details of how this would work, saying that the Government could not,
  "anticipate those decisions [of the SRA] in any further detail."—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 28/3/00; col. 1158.]
  At that point we said that we would return to this issue. Considerable sums of taxpayers' money are involved here. It is entirely appropriate that the travelling public should know how the SRA is to operate and spend its money. We hope that the Minister will now be able to give the Committee further details of the operation of the SRA.
  Paragraph 16 of Schedule 14 obliges the Secretary of State to specify rules and principles according to which the Strategic Rail Authority must exercise its functions in relation to financial and employment matters. Amendment No. 281 would remove that obligation. The authority ought to be able to make its own financial and employment rules. It is an unwarranted interference on the part of the Secretary of State to dictate to the authority on such issues. It is another example of the Government's urge to control everything in sight.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 281A. Part III of Schedule 14 provides that the Secretary of State shall prepare a financial framework for the SRA. My amendment would reduce his role to that of merely approving it. I beg to move.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: I should like to comment briefly on the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in respect of the staff numbers of the rail regulator. I shall not comment on the SRA. If the rail regulator believes that he needs extra staff, as was suggested by the noble Earl, I believe that that is more than justified. The regulator is now faced with making periodic reviews of Railtrack's access charges. Railtrack is alleged to be £4 billion over budget on the West Coast main line on a £2 billion base cost. Furthermore, the regulator is still trying to secure from Railtrack the production of a register of assets. It seems not to know what it owns, how big are the tunnels and how heavy
  694
  are the bridges. The regulator has a great deal to do to catch up which, in my view, should have been done many years ago, at the start of privatisation.
  I would certainly support any extra staff or funding that the regulator felt that he needed. I also think that the industry needs this.
  Lord Whiny: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is slightly inconsistent in his approach. On the one hand he wishes us to specify absolute control over the number of staff for the SRA and in another breath he says that the Secretary of State should not interfere with the financing of the SRA and its decisions.
  Perhaps I may look at the staffing issue first. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley has said, we are giving the SRA a significant additional role and we expect it to be able to assess with the rail regulator the requirements for the staffing of those bodies. That means that the authority will need to assess how many staff it needs to carry out its duties. We have given it the power under the Bill to do so, and we should not disturb that.
  So far as concerns Amendment No. 278, the noble Earl suggests that he is trying give some civility of framework for the SRA. In fact, the time horizon for the authority will be considerably longer than the three years suggested by the noble Earl. My noble friend Lord Macdonald will soon be publishing the 10-year plan for transport which will provide the overall planning framework for the railways and other transport modes. Within this broad structure, the authority's three-year budgets will be set, along with three-year budgets for other DETR spending programmes in future spending rounds. Plans for replacement of the franchises, for example, will look to a 20-year time-scale. Each franchise will include commitments by the SRA to pay subsidy or by the franchisee to make premium payments to the SRA over the whole lifetime of the franchise. Each franchise will be signed off by Ministers and, as part of that signing off, will need to give the authority appropriate assurances about funding to cover franchise commitments. Therefore, the long term is clearly catered for and Amendment No. 278 is unnecessary.
  The effect of Amendments Nos. 279 and 280 would be to remove the borrowing limits for the authority. The main way in which the authority will receive its funds is through grant-in-aid from the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, the authority may need to borrow and that is why we have given the limit to such borrowing. There is no magic about the £3 billion figure, there are no secret calculations to show that that is what the authority will be borrowing. Quite simply, the £3 billion relates to the existing borrowing limit for the British Rail Board, one of the bodies that will be wound up into the authority. It seems sensible for that limit, which as the noble Earl implied is not currently exercised to its full degree but remains on the statute book, to be retained and carried forward into the SRA. We want the authority to have the flexibility to borrow if necessary.
  Amendment No. 281 would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare a financial framework and Amendment No. 281A would make

  695
  the Secretary of State's role simply one of approval rather than engagement in the preparing of it. Neither amendment would be helpful. Some sort of financial framework is needed to achieve this, and it is not sufficient assurance in terms of responsibilities to Parliament and probity of public finance for the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the SRA, simply to approve the framework by a rubber stamp. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendments are helpful, and in some cases the objective of stability of funding would not be better achieved by the noble Earl's amendments as distinct from what is already on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not pursue them.
  Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his reply. He mentioned the 10-year transport spending plan. Will that be set in stone? What will happen if the economy suffers a setback, tax revenues are reduced and savings then have to be found?
  Lord Whitty: The noble Earl echoes questions that have been put to his leader in another place about tax guarantees and other unwise commitments previously made by the Tory leadership.
  So far as concerns the 10-year plan, the resources will be committed. Clearly, there will be some flexibility in the application of those resources as transport modes and priorities change. But the resources will be announced by my noble friend and they will be committed. The SRA will have its appropriate share of those resources.
  Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 278 to 281A not moved.]
  Schedule 14 agreed to.
  Clause 204 [Purposes]:
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley moved Amendment No. 282:
  Page 120, line 10, at end insert (", and
  (d) to oversee the specification of rail services in metropolitan areas, responsibility for which it shall delegate to the appropriate Passenger Transport Executive, or in the case of Greater London, Transport for London").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment would add to the purposes of the appropriate authority. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have argued sometimes and agreed often about the necessary level of devolution. My previous amendment today sought to lift that from local to regional level. The amendment gives specific responsibility to the metropolitan areas, so that they may have their own say at a lower level of democratic responsibility than the rest of the clause covers. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: Under Clause 244(2), the directions and guidance given by the Secretary of State will override the requirements of passenger transport executives in relation to franchises. The Government should not
  696
  interfere with the legitimate requirements of PTEs, which have the local knowledge necessary to ensure that franchises are properly specified. It is no business of the Government to give directions or guidance that conflict with the local expression of needs.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The amendments relate to the rights, powers and duties of passenger transport executives, which have wide powers under Section 34 of the Railways Act 1993. In respect of each passenger service in their area, they will be able to give notice to the SRA specifying the level and quality of services needed to meet public requirements in their areas.
  Section 34 provides that the SRA will need to ensure that the level and quality of services—including fares—specified by the PTE are included in the specification. PTEs can be a co-signatory with the SRA to any franchise agreement in respect of such services, which gives them a unique and prominent role in franchising.
  We do not need to modify the executives' powers to specify services in their areas and the Bill does not do so. However, local transport needs may have, from time to time, to be balanced against the broader national picture. I hope the Committee accepts our general view, which is entirely consistent with the policy to create a new strategic framework, that if there is a conflict between local and strategic considerations, the latter should prevail.
  That brings me to the detail of these amendments. Amendment No. 282 provides for the SRA to delegate responsibility for specifying rail services in metropolitan areas to the appropriate PTE or, in the case of London, to Transport for London. However, the SRA would continue to oversee the process. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will forgive my saying that the words "oversee" and "delegate" are somewhat ambiguous. They might be taken to describe the current arrangement: the PTEs specify what is required but the SRA oversees the process in terms of its wider implications.
  However, I suspect that the noble Lord has something a little more radical in mind; namely, a reduction in the ability of the SRA to intervene in the specifications made by the PTEs. Amendment No. 361 would have a similar effect and remove the requirement for the SRA to disregard PTE specifications which were contrary to directions and guidance given by the Secretary of State or (for Scotland) Scottish Ministers. As I hope I have explained, I do not believe that we should go that far. The SRA would be able to set aside the PTE's specification if, but only if, to accept it would be contrary to the guidance given by the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers, or it would have an adverse effect on passenger or goods services, or it would cost the SRA money. The SRA might still accept the PTE specification even if it would have an adverse effect on passenger or goods services or add to SRA costs. In this respect the SRA will have discretion.

  697
  In the event of a conflict between local and national demands there is an opportunity under the dispute resolution provisions in the 1993 Act for the Secretary of State, who is ultimately accountable to Parliament for local and national railway services, to determine where the balance lies. We believe that that makes the balance between local and national interests just right.
  The noble Lord's amendment also contains provisions in respect of London where the position is somewhat different. Transport for London will not have powers equivalent to the PTEs to specify services to be provided under franchises. On the other hand, the Mayor has power to issue directions and guidance to the SRA in relation to rail services in London which the PTEs do not have.
  Without going into unnecessary detail, train services within London are so interwoven with regional and national services that a separate power for TfL to specify local services would be inappropriate. On the other hand, the Mayor will have a much broader influence through his directions and guidance in which he will be able to reflect the contribution that railways can make to his broader responsibilities for the economic and social well-being of London. That careful distinction would be undermined by the amendment, which would give the Mayor detailed powers to specify services alongside his broader powers of direction and guidance. We believe that that would tip the balance too far in the direction of local over national interests in respect of what is the heart of the national rail network.
  I turn to Amendment No. 362, which affects the dispute resolution provisions that I mentioned earlier. If any dispute arises between the SRA and PTE in relation to a franchise agreement, or a proposal for such an agreement, either party may refer the dispute to the Secretary of State for determination under Section 34(17). The Secretary of State will be able to consider the arguments and give to the PTE or the authority such directions as he considers fit. That may include a requirement under Section 34(19) for the authority or PTE to enter into a franchise agreement on such terms as the Secretary of State decides.
  Amendment No. 362 is not desirable because it would remove a helpful new provision which was added in Committee in another place. This provision clarifies that any disagreement between the PTEs and the SRA as to what should be specified in a franchise agreement will be a dispute for the purposes of Section 34(17) and that the Secretary of State will be able to resolve it as he sees fit. The clarification was inserted in the Bill following representations made by the PTEs that Section 34 of the Railways Act does not make sufficiently clear that the Secretary of State can direct the SRA regarding what should go in the franchise agreement.
  I have no doubt that the authority and PTEs will continue to work together in the current franchise replacement negotiations to achieve a franchise settlement which reflects both local and national needs. The directions and guidance to the SRA by both
  698
  the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers will be published and the PTEs will be able to take account of them in drawing up their statements. Therefore I do not expect that in practice conflict will arise between those statements and the directions and guidance. But Clause 244 ensures that in the unlikely event of an irreconcilable dispute between the authority and a PTE regarding a franchise specification, the Secretary of State can intervene.
  I hope that in the light of those explanations the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: The burden of that answer appears to be that mother knows best, but I am not sure that mother always does know best. Nor am I sure that I agree with the main idea put forward— that in a clash between the overall strategic national plan and the local plan the strategic national plan should prevail.
  I take account of what the Minister said about the wording of my amendment and I shall re-examine the London situation. I understand that it is more complex than I had presumed when I tabled the amendment. However, unlike the other amendments standing in my name today, I shall probably bring this one back at a later stage. 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. 283:
  Page 120, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(d) to identify unmet needs for railway services; and
  (e) to expand the railway network where appropriate").
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment adds two more purposes to those of the SRA: first, that of identifying the unmet needs for railway services and, secondly, the expansion of the network appropriately. It does that by adding two paragraphs to Clause 204(3).
  Merely satisfying the existing need will not be sufficient for the railway to play its part in an integrated transport system which is designed to be sustainable and to reduce traffic on the roads. But nor is the simple determination to grow the service any good unless there is a similar determination to expand the network to match the services. Arguably, some of the railway's greatest problems, from delays to overcrowding, since privatisation stem from that simplistic approach.
  These are modest proposals. The network is to be expanded appropriately; that is, in the light of measured need. I am not suggesting expansion for the sake of expansion. Furthermore, we are talking about the need for all railway services, not merely passenger services. Therefore, the requirement from the freight industry must also be addressed and responded to appropriately. I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment. The purpose of the integrated transport policy is to encourage people to use public transport. There is

  699
  much evidence that a large proportion of the population has never been on a train. I had a horrible experience when I worked for Eurotunnel and ran a tourist attraction. I had to encourage people to come to look at it and we used to have about 300,000 visitors a year, including many school groups. We had a couple of old passenger coaches in which we had education work. Day after day, people turned up and asked, "What's that?". We said, "It's a railway train". Many people in this country do not know what a railway train is or how to use it. To the uninitiated, it is pretty frightening.
  I shall be moving amendments later so I shall not bore the Committee now by speaking about them twice. However, we must make the railway system simple and attractive for people. I believe that the intention,
  "to identify unmet needs for railway services",
  alongside, it is hoped, a provision relating to buses, is very important if we are to attract large numbers of the population who have cars and intend to use them. We must try to wean them off their cars and on to public transport.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The amendment seeks to add two more to the fundamental purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority; that is, that the authority should identify unmet needs for railway services and that it should be able to expand the network where appropriate. The Committee will not be surprised to learn that we consider the amendment to be unnecessary. One of the three high-level purposes of the SRA is already,
  "to secure the development of the railway network".
  For the record, I can assure the Committee categorically that that includes examining the possible expansion of the railway network and the need for new network to meet demand where appropriate.
  I can also assure the Committee that we have carried through that high-level purpose to the basic level of giving the authority the powers that it needs to do the job. As can be seen in Clause 210, it will have very wide funding powers to encourage, promote and, where necessary, fund the development of the network. Where necessary, the authority can even go so far as to promote a Bill in Parliament to facilitate growth. Therefore, if a private Act is needed, it can help or co-ordinate that. The authority can also go to the rail regulator and request that he directs facility owners to enhance facilities or provide new facilities. Therefore, it could be well within this power to request a new station or a new stretch of track.
  Therefore, the Committee can rest assured on the legal framework. However, I suspect that, as usual, the noble Baronesses in whose names the amendment stands are being more subtle than simply considering the legal framework. These reassurances were given in another place and they want to know more of the Government's and the SRA's intention.
  Some cogent and relevant points were made in another place. With regard to the balance between rural and urban needs, concern was expressed that the
  700
  congested urban centres should not receive all the investment. It was pointed out that there was a need to look at transport in the round to see whether re-openings of lines would make sense. There was the possible need for new stations and the needs of commuters, as well as those of long-distance travellers.
  We accept that those are all strategic issues relating to what we want from a railway network, how best it can meet the needs of the community, of changing demand and of settlement patterns, and how the network should be structured and taken forward. Local problems were also brought forward in another place. However, a much wider point was made: we must get right the quality of service in order to encourage people to move from their cars and on to the network.
  All that requires a strategic examination of the network, which the SRA will bring. It needs a champion who can look at the needs of local areas and relate them to the overall network and to the overall problems and start to address them with solutions. Some solutions are already in place; for example, the franchise replacement process, which I hope will deliver substantial new investment.
  The SRA's strategic plan produced under Clause 205 will address network priorities to enable growth, although clearly it will be for local authorities to consider more local schemes. The shadow SRA has already commissioned studies to consider the need for new infrastructure. The South Trans Pennine Integrated Transport Study, which involves the shadow SRA, Railtrack and the local authorities, will consider the case for restoring the Matlock to Buxton line as part of a core east to west route from Derby to Manchester.
  The shadow SRA is also encouraging rail passenger partnership fund bids for the funding of new facilities or re-openings where they meet the published planning criteria. One example is an Edinburgh cross-rail scheme, which involves the reinstatement of a short section of the former Waverley route to serve two new park-and-ride stations.
  I assure the Committee that these possibilities and any concrete proposals will be considered seriously. Where they are justified, we shall ensure that the mechanisms are in place to ensure that they can take place. I hope that with those reassurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his detailed and reassuring response. I shall read it with great interest. The next stage in the progress of the Bill is so far distant that it is impossible to think about what anybody will do then, but it is unlikely that I shall bring the amendment back. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 204 agreed to.
  Clause 205 [Strategies]:
  [Amendment No. 284 not moved.]
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 285:
  Page 120, line 26, leave out from beginning to first ("by") in line 28 and insert—
  ("The Authority shall formulate a strategy for securing the provision of services in various parts of Great Britain for the carriage of passengers and freight").
  The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 427. I thank my noble friend the Minister for responding today to a question that he was, quite reasonably, unable to answer on the final amendment in Grand Committee. He has confirmed that if Eurostar or EWS cease to operate cross-Channel services, the assets will be ring-fenced. I am most grateful to him for that helpful information.
  The amendment would add a regional dimension to the duties of the SRA. It is a consequence of the intention in the Bill to withdraw Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. My Amendment No. 427 was designed to keep that section in, but I was just trying to have my chicken and eggs in the same thing—or whatever the right expression is.
  Noble Lords: Have your cake and eat it.
  Lord Berkeley: To have my cake and eat it. Thank you very much.
  The history of regional services to the Channel Tunnel is rather sad. Some 15 years ago, both Houses had to fight very hard for the Government to accept any obligation to consider the regional aspects and encourage passenger train services from the regions. That is how Section 40 of the Act came in.
  Regional interests have pressed the Government to update that. I was disappointed by the latest study, which came from the consultants, Arthur D. Little. It said that there were not enough passengers to justify a regional service, even from Birmingham or Manchester, because the service was too infrequent. It did not look at the original idea of splitting the trains in two, so that we could have double the number of trains but still maintain safety through the Channel Tunnel. It did not look at running domestic passengers on international trains, which many people, even in the security service, say would be possible. It then said that there was no economic case. I do not find that surprising, given what I have just said, together with a load of other items with which I shall not bore the Committee.
  It is true that the Channel Tunnel trains are expensive. Maybe there is not an economic case, but there is no economic case for many of the passenger franchises in this country today. They would not survive without subsidy. The inter-city routes tend to make money, but many of the others do not. If it is acceptable to subsidise most passenger services in this country, we should at least consider making a similar arrangement for regional Eurostar services.
  My aim in the amendment was to get the SRA to pick up an idea that successive governments have failed to take forward, to the detriment of the regions.
  702
  I hope that the SRA will pick up the idea and see what can be done to try to make the services work, at least in the medium term. I beg to move.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I certainly support the objectives of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Would it not be wonderful to board a train, as one used to be able to do on the north coast of France, and get into a carriage marked "Dover, Paris, Rome" and just be moved around the system so that you started the journey in Manchester and ended it in Rome? Such long journeys, particularly for tourism purposes, would bring quite different categories of passengers back onto the railways.
  That is a rather frivolous response to a serious amendment but nevertheless, it has an extremely attractive and important aspect to it.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I have some sympathy with the amendment's intention in relation to Channel Tunnel services, even if I do not accept that the provision should be added to the Bill. It is right that the SRA should have a strategy which would best serve rail travellers and freight operators seeking to get to the Channel Tunnel from beyond London. We have recognised that by explicitly providing for the authority to be under a duty to prepare such a strategy.
  Considerable thought is being given to the best resolution of the regional Eurostar question. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions commissioned the Arthur D Little report, which was released in February. The British Railways Board is currently exercising its functions under Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to prepare a plan stating the measures which should be taken for Eurostar services serving various parts of the UK and it may take account of the ADL report in its considerations. The SRA will then have a duty to prepare a strategy under Clause 205(4).
  We want to give the authority the flexibility to consider appropriate ways of meeting changing demands for cross-Channel travel. It may be that it will conclude in accordance with its Clause 205(4) duty as currently formulated that direct regional Eurostar services or an additional freight link should be provided. But it may also include considering how regional passengers and freight operators could benefit from better integration of domestic and international services. Indeed, we are encouraging domestic train operators and Eurostar (UK) Limited to ensure that convenient through-ticketing is developed for passengers travelling to the Continent from outside the South-East. In addition, by 2007 regional rail users will be able to travel on high-speed trains into Euston and King's Cross for easy connections to international services departing from St. Pancras.
  The SRA will also want to be able to consider the best use of the available capacity on the national network, and whether economic, social or environmental benefits would justify a subsidy to certain international through services. It will also have

  703
  to recognise that certain parts of the country cannot be served by direct through services, as the ADL report confirmed.
  The original clause here provides for a strategy that will address actual passenger and freight needs and certainly does not preclude the operation of regional services through the Channel Tunnel.
  On freight, there is already an established international freight market through the Channel Tunnel which originates from throughout Great Britain. The recent decision by the Transport Council to liberalise access for international freight operators across member states' networks should strengthen the growth in that market. What is needed is a strategy which can help augment growth in this market. The original clause provides for such a strategy and would accompany the strategies developed under Clause 205(1), which would include reference to the promotion of freight traffic on the network.
  We want the SRA to be looking widely at all options for encouraging international traffic and not tie it to securing international services if it does not consider that to be an appropriate option. I hope, then, that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for that very full explanation. I believe that he has satisfied me on nearly every count. I shall certainly read Hansard carefully. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 205 agreed to.
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 286:
  After Clause 205, insert the following new clause—

  PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND MINIMUM STANDARD LEVELS
  (" .—(1) The Authority shall publish regular performance measures on all scheduled passenger services.
  (2) For franchised services, the Authority shall maintain a public performance measure covering all scheduled services.
  (3) For services not subject to franchising agreements, the Authority shall procure from operators and their employing authority equivalent information and publish it alongside those of franchised services.
  (4) For international services, performance information applies to the UK part only.
  (5) Exemptions from performance measures may be granted to heritage railways.
  (6) The Authority shall publish minimum standard levels for each franchise operator together with levels of performance at which penalties apply and at which a franchise holder may be—

  (a) deprived of his franchise, or

  (b) prevented from applying for other franchises for specific periods.").

  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 286 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 286A. My concern in tabling the amendment is that in the past I have perceived a great gulf between what the previous government and the franchising directors have said about what a wonderful passenger service they were creating and what it is like to travel on such a service.
  We are getting better now at measuring delays, cancellations and overcrowding. However, one still reads pretty horrendous stories. I am a little concerned at the response from my noble friend to a Written Question I tabled which asked what levels of poor service to passengers would exclude franchise operators from being awarded new or extended franchises. My noble friend responded, stating that past performance is one of many criteria that will be taken into account. Is that enough?
  The SRA has recently put on its website a rather better and more comprehensive performance measurement, certainly of cancellations and delays. I thought that it would be useful to try to structure an amendment to put that on the face of the Bill. I refer to paragraphs (1) and (2) of Amendment No. 286. I hope that it will also include overcrowding, which can be solved simply by building more trains. That may sound trite, but I think that is so.
  I also think the provision should be extended to services which are not subject to franchise agreements. I refer, for example, to Heathrow Express. I expect it is very reliable but there is no reason why the SRA should not report on it. It should be required to provide reports. I refer also to Eurostar. I suppose I tabled the amendment having got up early one morning to catch the 6.15 train from Waterloo only to find that it had been cancelled. I wondered who measures and publishes performances of the Eurostar trains.
  I felt that heritage railways should probably be exempt. Then I thought that, possibly in paragraph (6) of the amendment, there must be a standard below which the franchisee should not, under any circumstances, be awarded another franchise. I do not know what that standard would be. However, if we are to attract more people on to the railways, we should give them information, comfort and the knowledge that they will get from A to B with as much reliability that we can achieve.
  I turn briefly to Amendment No. 286A. This idea goes back to Amendment No. 283, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, concerning unmet needs for railway services. The Railway Reform Group produced an interesting document suggesting that many more people would be attracted to using the railways if there was a clockface departure timetable throughout the day, including the rush hours.
  That happens in the Netherlands and Switzerland. It has proved extremely successful in attracting more people to rail on the basis that they do not need to consult a timetable. For people who are not used to them, timetables can be difficult to read. If trains to London, Manchester or Derby depart at a certain time past the hour or half hour throughout t he day, that would provide a useful means of attracting more people to use the trains. This adds to the matters which the Strategic Rail Authority should be considering to encourage more people to use rail. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 287, tabled in my name, in this grouping. Clause 206(2) sets

  705
  out the objectives of the authority in exercising its functions. It includes the promotion of through ticketing between passenger service operators. However, it does not appear to cover through ticketing across different forms of transport. The amendment makes explicit the need to promote such through multi-mode ticketing schemes. It also provides for the promotion of integrated information and ticket booking facilities.
  The integration of information and booking facilities is a vital element in a modern, integrated transport system. With the sophisticated technology now available, it should be possible for passengers to obtain from one outlet information as to the scheduled times of trains, up-to-date information on their running, the range of fares and the cheapest fare for the particular journey, similar information on the bus and other connections and the ticket itself. It should be a major task of the authority to encourage such systems.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: These amendments all have the laudable aim of making journeys easier and standards more transparent. For various reasons though we consider them unnecessary or undesirable.
  I shall start with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. He is totally right that good information about the standards that the railway service providers are delivering is worth while, even though I do not agree that the amendment itself would be helpful. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority publishes regular bulletins of performance information, including the standards set and outputs against them. It has set a public performance measure for franchised services which includes the performance of all trains, on all days, with no exceptions. That is a clearer, more meaningful measure than the previous Passenger's Charter.
  Franchise agreements include a threshold level of operational performance below which the franchising director has the power to terminate the agreement automatically. And franchise operators' current performance is a key factor that is being taken into account by the shadow SRA when considering bids under the franchise replacement process. Obligations to publish performance information for franchised services, and to take current performance into account when re-negotiating existing franchises, are included in our instructions and guidance to the franchising director. We expect to publish similar requirements for the SRA.
  The existing level of standard setting, monitoring and reporting in respect of franchised operators therefore already covers what my noble friend wishes to put in the Bill. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Moreover, to add this level of detail to the Bill would be restrictive. The details of publication of information is properly a matter for the SRA to manage, with any directions and guidance from the Secretary of State as he may deem necessary.
  706
  The amendment also covers non-franchised services and for those a different set of circumstances applies. There will not be the same public interest, in a regulatory sense, to put a requirement on the authority to publish performance information on a statutory basis. That is consistent with the position in other transport industries such as aviation.
  Amendment No. 286A is rather different in nature and would mean that, when promoting through journeys by rail, the SRA would also have to promote what are known as "clockface timetables"; that is to say, timetables and connections on the basis of regular patterns of service. The SRA will be a strategic body. Because of its responsibility for franchising, the SRA will have a major influence on the timetable. Franchisees must deliver a timetable that incorporates the agreed passenger service requirements (PSRs), including connections where those are franchise conditions. However, it would not be appropriate for the SRA to have the specific duties in respect of the timetable contained in Amendment No. 286A. That level of detail is for the industry to undertake within the regulatory and contractual framework.
  At a more practical level, services should relate to demand rather than a specified regular pattern. Co-ordination of a regular timetable on a national basis would be an onerous task, with no guarantee of success. Regular patterns may disadvantage customers on less well used services. Where a regular pattern of service is desirable, the industry's timetable planning process should be sufficient to achieve the benefits for the passenger. The National Timetabling Conference, set up by the industry after the first Rail Summit, is providing a mechanism for balancing the previously fragmented process for timetable planning. The important thing is to maximise capacity through good "slot management".
  Amendment No. 287 would mean that when promoting through journeys by rail, including through ticketing, the SRA would also have to promote inter-modal ticketing and the integration of the railway information and ticket booking facilities. I welcome the approach to integrated transport of Members opposite. Under Clause 204(c) it is a primary purpose of the SRA to contribute to the development of an integrated transport system. There is therefore no need to specify on the face of the Bill all the aspects of integration to which the SRA is to have regard.
  I can assure noble Lords opposite and my noble friends that integrated ticketing and integrated information are a vital part of integrated transport. The SRA will promote such schemes, which are growing in number. For example, we have asked the franchising director, when he examines franchise replacement bids, to give due weight to the extent to which integrated transport measures both within the rail network and between rail and other transport modes can be achieved, including integrated public transport information.
  As regards integrated ticketing, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey referred in Grand Committee to examples of multi-modal ticketing

  707
  schemes in over 130 towns and cities, so such schemes are already quite commonplace. We should like to see them extended. As for integrated information, later this year we shall be launching a single telephone service to give people timetable information on all forms of public transport. That will meet another of the commitments in our transport White Paper.
  I fully understand the points made by noble Lords opposite that, having moved towards integrated ticketing and integrated information, the next step is to bring the two elements together to provide passengers with a one-stop shop.
  Commercial factors are already encouraging train operators to address the problem that rail information and ticketing is not readily available from a single source. A number of train companies' Internet sites already provide a combined information and booking facility. Examples of online booking services offering discounted tickets and information include those offered by First Great Western, First North Western and Virgin.
  As far as concerns government action, a single telephone service for public transport timetable information is a good start. We shall build on this in the future, continuing to work with operators and local authorities to exploit the Internet. The Government's objective is a comprehensive travel information and retailing service. In the light of my response, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
  Lord Berkeley: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive reply. However, I was surprised when he said—I believe I recall his words correctly—that he did not think there was a public interest issue in knowing about how many cancellations or delays there were for Eurostar or the Heathrow Express. It seems to me that members of the public are very interested in knowing whether or not such trains run on time. It is perhaps something that will have to be done through persuasion, if there is no legal means of doing so. I believe that that could be a big hole in a totally integrated transport service. But having said that, I am grateful to my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 206 [Manner of exercise of functions]:
  [Amendments Nos. 286A and 287 not moved.]
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 288:
  Page 121, line 4, at end insert—
  ("( ) to promote measures designed to facilitate the transport of goods by rail and its integration with other transport modes,").
  The noble Lord said: There are four amendments tabled in my name in this grouping. Amendment No. 288 is designed to provide the same information requirement of the SRA—namely,
  "to promote measures designed to facilitate the transport of goods by rail"—
  as set out in the previous paragraph of the clause in respect of passengers. I tabled this amendment as a matter of completeness.
  I turn next to Amendment No. 289. I felt that experience in the industry during the past five years has shown that, if and when growth occurs, there is a distinct danger that there will not be enough people, equipment or trained staff to enable such growth to take place. The best example is probably in signalling. Two years ago, Railtrack announced such a shortage of signalling staff that it had to have its signal systems designed in Australia. However, a year later the signalling industry in this country was laying off staff for lack of work. Indeed, we are not quite sure where we are at present.
  It would be nice to think that the SRA could try to encourage—I put it no stronger—a reasonable level of development of businesses by gently increasing orders, if that is appropriate, be it in signalling or in anything else. It would be of great benefit to the industry and is something that would fit in very nicely with the strategic role of the SRA.
  Amendment No. 292 is another attempt to ensure that the SRA and the local authorities work together in the local transport plans and that they consult widely and try to achieve consensus. It also seeks to ensure that the SRA is given a clear duty to acknowledge the close relationship of its policies with those of local transport plan producing authorities, and to co-operate with them.
  Amendment No. 293 puts the same argument in respect of regional transport strategies. It is terribly important that everyone works together. The SRA is on top, so to speak, but it is important that it works together with the regional and local authorities. I beg to move.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I support the amendments. They give an indication of what one hopes to see, not so much in the strategy itself but in the way in which the SRA conducts its business on a day-to-day basis. They represent patterns of behaviour, attitudes and approach which would enormously help in reducing the boom/bust syndrome which has bedevilled rail development in the past few years.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: These amendments seek to add to the areas that the authority must consider when exercising its functions with a view to furthering its purposes.
  Amendment No. 288 would require the authority to facilitate the transport of goods by rail and the integration of goods with other transport. As I have said, we have already given the SRA specific purposes to promote the use of the railway network for the

  709
  carriage of passengers and goods and to contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport. It will then have to develop particular strategies to carry out those purposes and everything which it does will need to be with a view to furthering those purposes. An obligation to promote measures designed to facilitate the transport of goods by rail and its integration with other transport modes seems somewhat superfluous. It would not add to the existing obligations on the authority to have proper regard to freight.
  Amendment No. 289 would require the authority to enable persons providing services and equipment to the railways to plan their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance. I have sympathy with the needs of the supply industry, even if I do not believe that we should add the amendment to the Bill. Clearly we want healthy businesses to supply service providers, to keep our railway running and to help it grow. The authority will give strategic direction to the industry, which has been lacking since the industry was privatised. This will provide certainty to business and enable both operators and suppliers to plan their businesses with more confidence.
  I do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the authority's remit in the Bill specifically to include railway suppliers. Suppliers are commercial businesses which are not subject to the regulatory framework that applies to the operators. Their success depends upon the general health of the railway industry and the ability of railway operators to develop and maintain effective business with suppliers. The Bill gives the authority a wide remit to develop and promote the railway, and gives it specific obligations in relation to how it regulates operators. Provided operators' businesses can be planned with a reasonable degree of assurance—and with the longer franchises that the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority is seeking, they will be able to plan their businesses over a more credible timescale—the operators should be able to plan effective business with suppliers, and give some degree of the assurance to the suppliers which my noble friend seeks.
  Amendments Nos. 289A and 292 require the authority to facilitate the implementation of, and to have regard to, local transport plans. Amendment No. 293 requires the authority to have regard to the regional transport strategies. Of course, we expect the SRA to formulate its strategies and to exercise its functions in the light of local transport plans and regional strategies. However, the process needs to be a two-way one, so that local plans and strategies are consistent with the national framework. This is a task for local authorities as well as the SRA. This is why it is preferable to deal with the relationship in our guidance on local transport plans, and in directions and guidance to the SRA, rather than on the face of the Bill as the amendments seek to do. There are, of course, a lot of plans to which the SRA should have regard and it would be inflexible and unwieldy to try to specify them all in the Bill. Moreover, it would cast doubt on the status of any which were not so specified.
  710
  The authority's role will be to promote rail use within an integrated transport system. This is a national role. Consistent with this national framework the SRA will take account of the views of local and regional bodies. This will involve extensive consultation to identify the opportunities for rail.
  I can assure noble Lords that this process of consultation is already under way and the shadow SRA is devoting considerable effort to developing relationships with local authorities. The shadow authority is starting to receive local transport plans and to assess them, and will continue to consider all local transport plans now that the new regime is in place. On franchise replacement, the Franchising Director has an extensive programme of consultation. Local authorities' aspirations are being cross-checked against franchise owners' bids. The shadow SRA is also involved in giving written and oral evidence on regional planning guidance and in developing a dialogue with regional development agencies. I hope that, given those considerations, my noble friend will withdraw the amendments.
  Lord Berkeley: As ever, I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 289 and 289A not moved.]
  11.15 p.m.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 290:
  Page 121, line 19, after first ("it") insert ("and").
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 290 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 291 and 296 to 299.
  Clause 206 gives the Strategic Rail Authority power to invest in bodies corporate. Amendment No. 290 seeks to remove this power. The authority is supposed to be a strategic planning body. What on earth is it doing taking shares in companies? There is no discernible need for such investment in order for the authority to be able to perform its duties. Worse, to acquire shares in this way could give rise to serious conflicts of interest.
  Turning to Amendment No. 296, Clause 210 is a crucial clause in the Bill. It provides wide-ranging powers for the SRA to give financial assistance and secure improvements to the railway. Through this amendment, we aim to find out from the Government what exactly this role involves. Our concern is that the clause has a potential to undermine the commercial judgments of Railtrack and the train operators. The Strategic Rail Authority must take a strategic role, and we are concerned that this clause allows it to interfere in the day-to-day operation of the railway.
  We are also concerned that the Secretary of State will have considerable powers to give directions to the SRA. The clause is so broadly drawn that we need Ministers to clarify exactly when they would give such directions and we seek assurances that the Secretary of State's involvement would be only in limited circumstances. Perhaps it would be helpful if the Minister could give some examples.
  Amendment No. 296 would ensure that any involvement by the SRA would be on the basis of competitive tendering, ensuring that it does not step in at any opportunity but only when there genuinely is no alternative or when necessary to deal with a possible market abuse situation.
  Amendment No. 297 follows on from the previous amendments and seeks to limit the wide powers of both the Secretary of State and the SRA and to ensure that the railway industry retains the commercial freedom to run and develop the railway. We are seeking a reassurance that the Government are not intending to use this clause to intervene in the day-to-day running of the railway. We believe that privatisation has brought considerable improvements to the running of the railway and levels of investment have doubled since British Rail days. That can continue only if there is stability and the railway industry is left to make its own judgments on the interests of passengers, to whom it is closest. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: These amendments challenge the SRA's powers to give financial assistance to the railway industry. Perhaps I may deal first with some specifics and then turn to the wider issues.
  Amendment No. 297 would remove the power of the authority to give grants, make loans, give guarantees and invest in bodies corporate. Bluntly, this would emasculate the SRA. We intend the authority to be the main conduit for franchise payments, for freight grants and for the rail passenger partnership scheme, all of which are inherited functions that involve paying grants. In addition, it must be able to support the industry, should this be necessary, when there is no other viable source of strategic investment.
  Amendment No. 296 would require the authority to run a tendering exercise for any financial assistance which it gives. But this is unnecessary and to some degree inappropriate. The authority already has a duty to exercise its functions in the most economic and effective manner. That may often involve a process of competitive tendering; sometimes it will not—for instance when the SRA pays freight grants in accordance with a published grant scheme.
  Amendment No. 299 is a requirement that any agreements made by the SRA must be consistent with its strategies. This also is unnecessary because Clause 206(1) requires the authority to exercise its Clause 206 powers in accordance with the strategies it has formulated.
  Amendments Nos. 290, 291 and 298 would remove the power for the authority to enter into agreements, or other arrangements, to invest in bodies corporate as a means of financial assistance. That restriction would be undesirable because it would limit the flexibility available to the SRA and reduce its ability to invest in the railway itself, or to get others to do so.
  712
  Amendment No. 298A would insert a provision that the authority may only put terms on its financial assistance provided that these,
  "do not interfere with commercial practices which are essential to industrial investment".
  That is unnecessary as Clause 206(2)(f), which determines the manner in which the authority must exercise its functions, states that it must,
  "enable persons providing railway services to plan the future of their businesses with a reasonable degree of assurance".
  That incorporates the concept behind the amendment and would protect commercial practices.
  Flexibility is at the heart of the clause. We want to ensure that public sector financial support is available from the SRA when it is needed in whatever form is most appropriate to the particular case. That is why the powers in the clause are wide and extend to grants, loans, guarantees and direct investment.
  I should make it clear that we do not envisage any change in the existing system of franchise payments to passenger train operators. That is how the core of all public funding reaches the railway network and it will remain so. But the franchising system was originally designed to support a "steady state" railway. It is not necessarily the only way, or perhaps in some cases even the best way, to promote investment in, and development of, the network. We want the SRA to be able to develop new approaches to investment where they seem worthwhile and we want the Bill to enable it to do so.
  I am reluctant to offer specific examples. But there is nothing unique about the idea that investment by the public sector in projects may help to lever in private funding. In principle, it provides some degree of assurance to investors and can help to bridge any gap between the scale of investment required and the likely returns on that investment. That may be particularly relevant in the railway industry where major capital projects require all the investment up front and pay back literally over decades. I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that response. I shall read carefully what he has said. I may return to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 291 to 293 not moved.]
  Clause 206 agreed to.
  Clause 207 [Directions, guidance and advice by Scottish Ministers]:
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 294:
  Page 121, line 45, leave out ("or with the Authority's financial framework").
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 294, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 295. Clause 207 allows Scottish Ministers to give directions and guidance to the authority in relation to passenger rail services which start and end in Scotland and for passenger rail services which either start or end in

  713
  Scotland, and advice to the authority in relation to services which either start or end in Scotland and are provided under a franchise agreement. The authority can decide not to comply with these directions. Amendment No. 295 adds at the end of Clause 207,
  "Where the Authority propose not to comply with the directions or guidance of Scottish Ministers they shall notify the Scottish Ministers of this and their reason for so doing",
  and,
  "Where Scottish Ministers do not agree with the reasons given by the Authority for not complying with their directions they may refer the matter to the Secretary of State".
  There has been correspondence between the Minister's colleague in another place, Mr Keith Hill, and the passenger transport authority most closely associated with the amendments. I understand that that passenger transport authority is satisfied that the amendments have gone as far as they can go. But for the benefit of those who may want to know more, and to know more from the public record, about what has happened in relation to the amendments, I should be most grateful if the Minister could, as it were, read into the record some of the reasons that his colleague gave to that passenger authority for not accepting the amendments and the assurances that he was able to give on that matter. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: As requested, it may be helpful to explain why the devolution provisions in the Bill are constructed as they are. We have given considerable thought to the issues raised, which, as has been said, were also raised in another place, but we and the Scottish Ministers remain assured that the present construction is both the most workable and the most effective in terms of devolution.
  The Committee will be aware that railways remain largely a reserved matter. The reason for that is to ensure that there is a Great Britain strategic policy framework for railways. That is a very real concern. The fragmentation brought about by privatisation left the industry with no direction and no ability to develop the network as a whole to respond to increasing demand, still less to encourage demand. The problems which that structural weakness has created are one of the main reasons that we need Part IV of the Bill. Where devolution is appropriate—for example, for roads—we have provided for it, so it should not be thought that the reservation for railways is due to any lack of confidence in devolution; far from it. In the case of railways, even within the reserved framework we have agreed an appropriate level of devolution, but we must not lose sight of the overarching need for a national infrastructure in order to ensure that we meet the needs of the whole nation.
  It was against that background that, during the passage of the Scotland Act, the "McLeish settlement" was agreed. That settlement, among other matters, provided for the Scottish Ministers to have power to issue directions and guidance to the SRA about passenger services which start and end in Scotland—essentially the services currently provided by Scotrail. The settlement also promised that the Scottish
  714
  Ministers would have the power to give directions and guidance on Scottish sleeper services, provided that there was no impact on other passenger or freight services or on the non-Scottish budget. Furthermore, it was agreed that the Scottish Ministers should be able to give what was then called "non-binding guidance" on other cross-Border services. In the Bill that is called "advice". I am happy to say that the Bill delivers on those promises.
  In all cases it was agreed that the powers of the Scottish Ministers should be exercised "within the GB policy framework". It was agreed between ourselves and the Scottish Ministers that the best way to preserve the GB policy framework was to ensure that directions and guidance from the Scottish Ministers were not inconsistent with directions and guidance from the Secretary of State. That is not a watering down of the McLeish settlement. Scottish Ministers will be addressing Scottish specific issues and they are content that we have delivered on the McLeish settlement.
  I turn to the specific concerns addressed by the amendments. Amendment No. 294 would remove the requirement that the SRA may not comply with the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance when those conflict with the authority's financial framework. Amendment No. 295 would set up a new structure so that where the SRA decides there is a conflict between the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance and those of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State is brought in to arbitrate.
  I should like to address Amendment No. 295 first. The concern, I understand, is that it is felt that the unelected authority should not be able to judge between two conflicting sets of directions and guidance from elected Ministers and act, thereby, as "judge and jury". However, I consider that this is a misapprehension. The SRA can in no way act as judge and jury. The Bill is crystal clear: the SRA must carry out the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance unless they are inconsistent with those of the Secretary of State, in which case they must not carry them out. There is no discretion here; no power of an unelected body over an elected one. The SRA simply looks at the facts and takes a view of what it must do on the facts and only on those facts.
  In reality, I expect that this position will never arise because the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers are not likely to be giving directions, guidance, or advice without first talking to one another. If, however, there is any doubt about a matter, the SRA will always be able to ask the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers for clarification. However, should the SRA interpret its directions, guidance or advice in a way in which no reasonable body could, anyone adversely affected may seek a remedy in the courts. This is far more effective devolution than giving additional arbitration powers to the Secretary of State. I can imagine how that suggestion would play in the Scottish Parliament.
  Moreover, as I have already suggested, the case of conflict between two sets of directions and guidance is hypothetical and all parties will be able to ensure that it does not happen.

  715
  Amendment No. 294 looks to the financial framework and takes away the provision that the authority may not carry out the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance where they conflict with the SRA's financial framework. Perhaps it may help noble Lords if I explain that the financial framework is another form of direction from the Secretary of State. It has been separately mentioned in the Bill because it does not deal with strategies and only indirectly with the manner in which the SRA is to carry out its functions and the other directions and guidance powers are linked to the SRA's strategies and functions.
  The financial framework will be a type of direction which specifies the rules and principles which the authority is to observe when exercising its functions in relation to financial and employee matters. It will incorporate such housekeeping matters as salaries, pensions and budgetary management. It will be an essential document in order to ensure the proper working and accountability of the authority as a non-departmental public body, and, frankly, it is normal good management practice for these matters to be directed by one person. As the SRA remains a reserved body, it is proper that the Secretary of State be the person to give directions about these issues. This is entirely consistent with the McLeish settlement and the Scottish Ministers are content with this approach. As the matters covered are housekeeping, I can reassure noble Lords that the possibility of any inconsistency with the Scottish Ministers' directions and guidance, which are about railway services, is very remote.
  1 apologise for the length of my reply, but I was invited to respond so that these matters could be placed on the record. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  11.30 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his wide and precise response to my question and for the fact that he was willing to read it into the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Lyell: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may ask for clarification. As one who uses sleeper and other rail services which begin and end in Scotland, can he enlighten me on whether there is any possibility of a clash taking place between Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State as regards aspects such as financing, particular services and timing?
  The Minister will remember that I served on a committee that looked into the redevelopment of Waverley station in Edinburgh. We were told that, over the coming four to five years, Great North Eastern Railways were hoping to double the number of trains departing from Waverley for King's Cross.
  716
  Can the Minister tell me whether it would be possible for clashes to occur as regards departures and so forth between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I do not think that at this late hour it would be prudent to speculate on where future clashes might occur. The noble Lord has already pointed out that the areas where that form of guidance will be most appropriate will be on which days and times services will run, stopping places and so forth. Those are the normal operational functions of a train service and would be subject to discussion, consultation and resolution.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 295 not moved.]
  Clause 207 agreed to.
  Clauses 208 and 209 agreed to.
  Clause 210 [Financial assistance etc.]:
  [Amendments Nos. 296 to 299 not moved.]
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 300:
  Page 123, line 16, at end insert—
  ("( ) The repeal of sections 137 and 139 of the Railways Act 1993 (as set out in Schedule 30) shall not come into effect until similar or wider schemes have been brought into operation; and the Authority shall consult the industry on the content of such schemes.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 340 and 341.
  Amendment No. 300 is a probing amendment. Sections 139 and 141 of the Railways Act 1993 provide the framework for giving freight facilities and track access grants for rail freight. Schedule 30 to the Bill repeals those sections. The amendment seeks confirmation from my noble friend the Minister that they will not be repealed until similar provision—it is to be hoped bigger and better—is put in their place and that consultation will take place first. I understand that the SRA is about to begin consulting on such provision. Nevertheless, it would be sad if there were a one or two-year gap between the repeal of Sections 139 and 141 of the Railways Act and the introduction of replacement provision.
  Amendment No. 340 is of more substance. It proposes a rail freight council alongside the rail passenger council although much smaller. The amendment states that the council should be statutory and that it should provide representation for the industry.
  The reason behind the amendment is that, whereas the passenger councils are statutory consultees and can find out about things, in the rail freight industry the only people who find out what is going on are the train operators, and not all train operators. There is a particular piece of information about terminals which is available only to members of the so-called "10 per cent club"—those who have 10 per cent or more of the business. In other words, the customers, the hauliers, the logistic service providers and others have no right

  717
  to consultation on matters affecting the provision of the services. They must rely on their own efforts or the pressure of trade organisations such as the Rail Freight Group or the Freight Transport Association. But neither of those organisations has a locus.
  The approach is not working. I shall not bore the Committee with too many examples; perhaps I may give just two. The last site which might have been suitable for a railroad interchange at Holyhead was a passenger siding. The local authority wanted to close the siding under a compulsory purchase order and build a new road to the port, which we thought odd as the Welsh authority's policy was to encourage rail freight. We only heard about it through some friends on the passenger consultative committee and we are still pursuing the matter. There is no locus for anyone in the freight industry to protest against that proposal, any more than there is in relation to the sale of infrastructure.
  A network change proposal may again seem somewhat abstruse to Members of the Committee, but there is a proposal to close a rail freight terminal in Aberdeen and build two more in its place. The one that is being closed is directly next to the port, and the port says that it wishes to start rail freight. Again, the only two organisations that are consulted on that proposal are Railtrack and EWS railway, both of which, I believe, have a commercial interest in the new development.
  That is not good enough if the wish of the Government is to get more freight onto the railways. It will mean more operators and more customers. It is a wide-ranging and a disparate industry—in the nice sense of the word. Therefore, I tabled the amendment with a view to trying to create something along the lines of the passenger council but very much smaller with a small secretariat and the members of the council not being paid, which I thought was appropriate.
  Amendment No. 341 is an attempt to put into words a duty on Railtrack and others who may wish to close lines, services or anything else to consult with the rail freight council, assuming it exists, before the closure. That sad experience is all too common at present. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: I support the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his Amendment No. 340 and wish that I had thought of it myself. He has made some powerful arguments and I look forward to the Minister's response.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I share the envy expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Attlee, of the excellent scheme thought up by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
  Baroness Wilcox: I tabled Amendment No. 357A on behalf of private consumers, to deal with concerns raised recently that current legislation is inadequate for ensuring that passengers are properly informed and consulted about service alterations. There was a reluctance recently to display notices at railway
  718
  stations in relation to Thameslink 2000 closures—as had previously been the custom and practice. Although the authorities were eventually persuaded, some notices were in less than satisfactory locations. That episode highlights the lack of a statutory requirement to ensure notification of service changes.
  Although changes may be advertised in local newspapers, the posting of notices at stations is optional. How many people read their local newspapers to learn of changes to their rail services? Such information should be available at the point at which the public regularly use the service. Passengers ought to be fully informed about changes to publicly funded services and have the opportunity to comment.
  11.45 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 300 relates to payments and grants for freight and seeks to keep the 1993 Act regime, which is to be repealed by this Bill, in place until the authority has set up a new scheme—which it will have the powers to do under Clause 210. It is the intention of the Government and the authority that there should be no hiatus in the provision of grants for freight, so I am happy to give my noble friend the reassurance he seeks.
  I have greater difficulty with Amendment No. 340, for the establishment of a rail freight council more or less along the lines of the rail passengers council. Rail freight is not in the same position as rail passenger services, yet the amendments would give the proposed freight council much wider powers than those in the Bill for the rail passengers council.
  The nature of freight services and the relationship between the customer and the service provider is different from that of passenger services. Freight operators already have a strong incentive to listen to their customers and resolve any problems they may encounter. The role of the rail passengers council and committees will be to speak up for passengers. Freight services tend to be used by private companies that are better placed to represent themselves and to take up complaints directly with the freight operator concerned. My noble friend is a good example of vocal advocacy for the industry. I do not see an equivalence between freight and passenger services in the way that my noble friend suggests.
  My noble friend's amendment would also give the rail freight council power to specify that it must be consulted on any matter which it considered relevant to its duty. That is a very wide remit, which goes beyond any equivalent powers in relation to passenger services that are enjoyed by the rail passengers' council or its committees. To make such a council a statutory consultee on all matters relating to rail freight—major and minor closures, infrastructure sales, network changes and so on—goes rather further than the equivalent on the passenger side and may place an inappropriate and onerous burden on the authority. Therefore, I cannot accept my noble friend's amendments as drafted.
  Amendment No. 341 goes on to require the authority to consult the rail freight council on proposed closures. It would give the authority a

  719
  statutory power to require Railtrack to retain infrastructure, or take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the infrastructure can be reopened. The authority is charged with supporting freight interests. It will be able to take freight interests into account when considering passenger-related closure proposals. The authority will be able to define its own reasonable requirements of Railtrack in respect of the strategic capability of the network. The setting up of controls on freight assets and their disposal can be pursued through existing routes: the track access conditions and the existing conditions of Railtrack's network licence.
  In addition, the rail regulator is currently considering a new licence condition which would impose on Railtrack controls for the disposal of relevant assets, including the disposal of land. Therefore, I believe that the objectives of my noble friend's proposed new clause are already met through the Rail Regulator.
  Amendment No. 357A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, would require the authority to publish notices of proposed railway closures at all the stations. We have some sympathy with this amendment, but there is a problem. The Bill makes the authority responsible for publishing proposed major closures. However, the difficulty in requiring the authority to publish notices is that it does not have power to do so without the station operators' consent. There are mechanisms within the existing framework to require operators to co-operate. Perhaps they should be examined further. However, the amendment makes me a little uneasy in that it places a statutory burden on the SRA to do something which it will be able to do only subject to a franchising provision, or licensing mechanism, which does not appear on the statute book. I prefer the arrangement to be symmetrical, whether it is done within or without the legislation. However, the noble Baroness makes an important point and, with her agreement, I should like to take the amendment away for further consideration.
  With those reassurances, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and that we may return to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for his usual comprehensive response, particularly his observations on Amendment No. 300. As to Amendment No. 340, I am sorry that I went over the top and tried to propose stronger measures than those possessed by the body concerned with passengers. My noble friend said that there was a strong incentive for operators to listen to their customers. That is true of passenger operators. Some Members of the Committee have said that that does not always happen. I believe that that is why there is a rail passengers' council. The same applies to freight. As we have heard in other debates, there are a large number of small operators out there. There are some large and small train operators. However, the small customers need a voice.
  720
  I shall read my noble friend's response carefully. I may well return to this matter at a later stage with a slightly different amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 210 agreed to.
  Schedule 15 agreed to.
  Clause 211 [Securing of services by franchising]:
  The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 301, I should point out that, if Amendment No. 303 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 304.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 301:
  Page 123, line 36, at end insert—
  ("(2C) The Authority shall not exercise its powers under subsections (2A) and (2B) unless necessary for the purpose of its existing powers under section 30."").
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 301, it may be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 302 to 306. We are concerned that Clause 211 gives the SRA stronger powers to run trains. It goes further than the provisions of the Railways Act 1993 and appears to provide for more state interference in the running of the railway. The amendment would ensure that the SRA would have such powers only as a truly last resort.
  Amendment No. 302 deals with subsection (2), which enables the authority to vary or revoke the designation of services as eligible for franchises. It provides that such power may be used only for the purposes of enabling the authority to provide or secure the provision of services in the circumstances set out in subsection (5). The authority should not have carte blanche to remove sectors of the railways system from the franchising process. Such power should be used only in circumstances where the authority is permitted by the Bill to provide services direct or to secure provision of them.
  I turn to Amendment No. 303. Section 26(1) of the Railways Act 1993 allows the Secretary of State, when the authority selects the franchise, to direct otherwise. The amendment removes that power. The Secretary of State should not be able to substitute his choice of franchisee for that of the authority. That would expose him to all kinds of difficulty, especially as under subsection (3) he also takes power to direct how the appointment is to be made so that the proper tendering process can be bypassed. This provision has not proved to be necessary and, given that it is open to abuse, it should be removed.
  If the amendment is not agreed, perhaps my Amendment No. 304 may be helpful to the Committee. New subsection (3) gives the Secretary of State wide powers not only to substitute his choice of franchisee for that of the authority but also to detect the method of selection of the franchisee. Amendment No. 304 limits the powers of the Secretary of State to prohibit the authority's choice of franchisee to where he has evidence that the person selected is not suitable to be a franchisee. In that case, the authority must give the franchise to another tenderer or retender.
  If the Government insist on keeping the right to direct the authority not to grant a franchise to the person of its choice, the right should be exercisable only where there is firm evidence that the person chosen is not suitable to be a franchisee. Nor should the Government then set about selecting a franchisee themselves or dictating how one should be selected. It should be left to the authority to appoint one from the other tenderers or to retender.
  My final amendments in the group are Amendments Nos. 305 and 306. New Clause 26(1)(b) allows the authority to provide services direct where a franchise comes to an end and no new franchise agreement has been entered into. This gives the authority the power to provide all services direct by not renewing franchise agreements when they expire. The amendment limits these powers to an interim period before a new franchise is granted.
  Assurances from the Minister that there is no intention to renationalise the rail network ring hollow when such wide powers are included in the Bill. The circumstances in which they can be exercised should be spelt out. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I detect a serious note of paranoia behind the noble Earl's intervention in the debate. He believes that the powers in the clauses are designed for renationalisation of the network. As he has already cast suspicion on previous assurances, I do not suppose that any further assurance from me would convince him.
  However, if he reads the clause he will see that we are genuinely talking about the SRA operating services of last resort when all else has failed. We are not talking about backdoor renationalisation.
  Apart from the noble Earl's general concern, Amendments Nos. 301 and 302 reflect a misunderstanding. They seek to tie the provisions for the designation of services eligible for franchising to the process through which the authority must travel before it becomes the operator of last resort. In fact, the two issues are rather separate.
  It is a prerequisite of eligibility for franchising that a service is designated for franchising. We want designation to go further than the requirement so as to indicate not only that a service is eligible for franchising but that it should be performed as a franchised service. That is because of the benefits of franchising over open access as a mechanism for consistent service delivery. Therefore, we are amending Section 23(1) to provide that a designated service should be performed as a franchised service.
  However, the current franchising map should not be set in stone. That is why the SRA needs the powers in Clause 211(2) to de-designate and re-designate services. It is that developing situation that the SRA must operate. There is no connection with the SRA's powers to operate those services under Section 30 as a matter of last resort. That section can come into play only when a designated service goes through the franchise process and that process fails to throw up an
  722
  acceptable proposal or when an existing franchise operation fails. Therefore, the connection that the noble Earl makes does not really exist.
  Amendments Nos. 303 and 304 would revoke the existing power of the Secretary of State to relax the strict requirement that franchisees must be selected from those who submit tenders. Alternatively, Amendment No. 304 restricts the Secretary of State's power to make such direction to circumstances where a franchisee is not suitable for the job.
  This is a complex process. Before letting a replacement franchise, the franchise director proposes to obtain a direction from the Secretary of State which will allow him to award the replacement franchise without being at risk that an unsuccessful tenderer will argue that the process is not compliant with Section 26. Amendments Nos. 303 and 304 would remove the flexibility which Parliament considered necessary in 1993 and would be a significant hindrance on the SRA's ability to continue the franchising replacement programme. I do not believe that that is what the noble Earl intended but that is the effect of his amendments.
  Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 seek to qualify the duty of the authority to provide services in the absence of a franchise where a franchise process is under way or proposed.
  The authority's Section 30 duties, which are adapted more or less directly from the Railways Act, are there so that, should the private sector fail in its ability to provide services or fail to deliver value for money, the public sector may step in. After all, we must ensure that the trains continue to run and that there is good value for public money. It must be right that the SRA can refuse tenders where they represent poor value for money. In any negotiation it must be possible to walk away and simply say no. Without that possibility, in effect the train operating companies could make any demands that they saw fit. However, it is only possible to say no if there is an alternative public sector capacity.
  The previous government accepted that in 1993 by continuing to allow the British Railways Board not only to pick up failed services but to submit a public sector bid to perform a franchised service. We intend to wind up the BRB. Therefore, there must be an alternative structure for last resort operations. That is what we provide in Clause 212(4) and (5).
  With regard to Amendment No. 306, the duty in the amended Section 30(1)(b) of the Railways Act is the same as the franchise director's current duty to secure a failed service until it can be performed again under franchise. It is not necessary to spell out that the SRA has a mind to re-tender because that is implied. Unless there is a direction from the Secretary of State that the SRA must not seek to re-franchise the service, the SRA will need to look continuously to the opportunity to re-tender because the designation that the service should be performed by franchise will remain. If the SRA were to exercise its duties under this section in a manner which suggests that it rules out a re-franchising process, it would be acting unlawfully.

  723
  The duty in the amended Section 30(1)(a) will apply where a franchise competition has taken place but has proved unsuccessful, either because there were no tenders or because the tenders represented poor value. In the latter case, there will already have been two franchise competitions, because the Secretary of State cannot intervene to reject tenders at the first attempt.
  The market would have been tested exhaustively and failed. At that point, the Secretary of State can be asked to revoke an SRA direction. It would be unlawful for him to be motivated by any prospect other than the fact that the franchising situation had failed. He could not be motivated simply by an overriding desire to place or keep the service in the public sector.
  I hope that I have met the noble Earl's underlying suspicions. They are not appropriate. The clauses provide the SRA and the Secretary of State with a way of delivering a service when the tendering process has failed to produce an effective service.
  Earl Attlee: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said about the amendment. I shall read Hansard even more carefully. He will not be surprised to hear that I shall probably return to the issue in due course, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 302 to 306 not moved.]
  Clause 211 agreed to.
  Midnight
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 307:
  After Clause 211, insert the following new clause—

  TENDERS AND FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS: RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
  (" . After section 26 of the Railways Act 1993 there shall he inserted—
  TENDERS AND FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS: RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

    Tenders and franchise agreements: relevant considerations.
    26A. In preparing and issuing an invitation to tender under section 26 and entering into a franchise agreement the matters to which the Authority may have regard to, and make provision for in the invitation to tender and the franchise agreement, include the following—

    (a) what arrangements the prospective franchisee has or will make with bus and other transport operators in respect of bus and other transport services that connect with the franchisee's services;

    (b) what facilities the prospective franchisee will provide, and at what times, for carriage of cycles on trains and on any substitute bus service provided by the franchisee when a train service is not operating;

    (c) whether a reservation facility is made available in respect of cycles;

    (d) whether any fee is payable for carriage of a cycle and, if so, whether such fee includes carriage on any other train (including a train not operated by the franchisee) as part of the same journey;

    (e) what facilities are available for the disabled;

    (f) what arrangements the prospective franchisee has made or proposes as regards the matters set out in section 17(9)"").

    The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 316 and 357. The new clause would enable the authority to use the franchising process more proactively to promote and secure a truly integrated transport system. Too often, rail passengers find themselves stranded on arrival at the station, because there are no connecting services. Train operators should be encouraged through the franchising process to explore with bus and other transport providers the possibility of connecting services. Train operators should also make proper provision for disabled people.
    Cycling as a means of transport is environmentally friendly and healthy and should be encouraged. The Government's downgrading of the previous government's targets for increasing cycle journeys was a retrograde step. It is difficult for cyclists to use trains, because there is not enough space and spaces cannot be reserved. Bus services laid on when track maintenance interrupts a journey do not allow for cycles. Cyclists often find themselves paying a fee for their cycle every time that they change trains.
    Train operators should also be encouraged to make appropriate arrangements with Railtrack for the provision at the station of the facilities referred to in our proposed new Section 17(9) of the 1993 Act. As the authority dictates the terms on which the train companies operate, it should be encouraged to use the franchise system to address those issues.
    Amendment No. 316 addresses operators' concerns about Schedule 17 and the uncertainties caused by giving the regulator more powers to change licences. It is a key to the financial viability of the train companies that the franchise agreements are fixed and cannot be changed unilaterally for the duration of the franchise. That gives operators and investors certainty, which is critical for making the significant long-term commitments that are necessary for ordering rolling stock. The amendment would provide that certainty and ensure that licences are not changed arbitrarily.
    The Minister in the other place said that he had much sympathy with the amendment, but was unable to meet the concerns expressed. We committed ourselves to return to the issue. We hope that Ministers have reconsidered how they might address the concerns.
    On Amendment No. 357, Section 17 of the Railways Act 1993 enables the regulator to secure access for an applicant to a railway facility, such as a station, and such facilities as ancillary services, whether provided or procured by the facility owner. The proposed new subsection provides that such ancillary services can include those listed.
    If a transport system is to be truly integrated, people arriving at stations need information not only as to the train services but also connecting bus and other services. They need to be able to buy tickets which cover their entire journey, preferably by means of new technology which combines fare and travel information with the provision of a ticket. They need somewhere to wait in comfort and safety, especially at night. If disabled, they need good access and facilities.
    Those matters are relevant to the arrangements between train operators and Railtrack and it should be made explicit that they fall within the ambit of the regulator's powers in relation to access contracts. I beg to move.
    Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 307, Amendment No. 307A:
    Line 27, at end insert—
    ("(g) what facilities are available for selling network rail tickets;").
    The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 321 and the other amendments in the group.
    I rather think that Amendment No. 307 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has a lot to commend it. But it is rather sad that he had to include all that information about cycles, mainly because the system for carrying cycles, as he said, is chaotic at the moment because there is no overall policy. My amendment was one way of trying to resolve the problem and his is another way. I expect that my noble friend will say that they are both unnecessary.
    Perhaps I may just talk a little bit about cycles. As the noble Earl knows, reservations for cycles are necessary on some trains. On Virgin trains, it is £3 for a compulsory reservation. If you miss that train and want to catch the next one, you must pay another £3.
    Thames Trains has some very good cycle luggage spaces. You do not have either to reserve or to pay for them. You just cannot use them in the rush hour. That is probably reasonable, given the crowds.
    I am tempted to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and read out a long list. I have a lovely leaflet produced by the National Rail Guide called Cycling by Train which tells you all about every train operator, including those who are not franchised, like Eurostar and Heathrow Express. It tells you what you can and cannot do. I shall not do that at this time of night. But it is a very good guide. I do not know how you obtain those leaflets if you are not a parliamentarian. I believe that the laissez-faire attitude of the past five or six years on cycles must be changed so that there is a policy. The SRA should be under a duty to enforce a policy which is consistent and intelligible to those who might wish to take bicycles on the train.
    Amendment No. 307A deals with facilities available for selling network rail tickets. Again, it is back to the same old question of the ease with which one can buy a ticket. If you go to Oxford, like I do, there are two options: Thames Trains or Great Western. Thames Trains fines you if you do not have a ticket before you board the train. It is a £10 fine if you get caught before Reading and nothing afterwards. Great Western welcomes the purchasing of tickets on the train. Who, apart from aficionados like me, would know that?
    It is even better because, after five years, Thames Trains has brought in a slot machine which enables you to use a credit card to buy a ticket, which is quite useful. The French have had that network-wide for at
    726
    least 10 years. But, of course, you cannot buy senior citizen railcard tickets from the machine so you have to queue for those tickets. I could go on about this for a long time.
    Half the trouble, and it applies to buses as well, is that those who make the rules do not buy the tickets. I have a very interesting Written Answer from the Minister dated 29th June when I asked him how many employees of the rail regulator and the SRA in shadow form receive free or discounted rail travel tickets from train operators, because it goes without saying that those people will not need to buy their own tickets. The answer was four from the rail regulator and 39 from the Strategic Rail Authority.
    Perhaps I have an odd way of looking at life, but I wondered how keen they would be to ensure that easy selling of tickets would be a number one priority for the new franchises. I ask the question but believe that noble Lords included should know how to buy their own tickets. They should not always go down to the House of Commons travel office. It is good practice to buy tickets. We should buy second-class and queue. We can then make a fuss about it when it does not work. I beg to move.
    Lord Addington: I have listened to the debate and am convinced that important points have been raised. I find myself in considerable sympathy, particularly with the first amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
    Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 307 would give a list of relevant considerations when the authority tenders for, or enters into, a franchise agreement. Many of the issues raised are clearly relevant to what the authority will have to take into account. However, here we are concerned with structures and powers. Those structures and powers already exist.
    The first part of the appropriate structure is the directions and guidance from the Secretary of State, which already exist. They address franchise renegotiation and cover issues such as multi-modal travel, bicycles and disabled passengers. The second part of the structure is how the authority then translates both the directions and guidance of its duties under the legislation. Duties under the legislation consist of both the primary purpose under Clause 204 and the manner in which the authority exercises its function. Those are wide-ranging and incorporate the interests of all users, including, for example, disabled persons and bicycle users.
    Members of the Committee may be unhappy about the way in which in the past the authorities have carried out their duties to take these matters into account. However, the powers and structures are there and augmented in the Bill. I should, perhaps, mention the amendment to the amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred, which relates to ticketing. I think that we all recognise some of the problems with ticketing to which he and others have referred. However, the arrangements for selling network tickets are licence matters which already

    727
    apply to train operators. They are required to provide impartial and comprehensive information and ticketing systems. That includes giving passengers details of the cheapest, as well as the most direct and quickest, journeys available to them. Again, therefore, the structure and powers already exist.
    I turn to Amendment No. 321 which concerns bicycles. The amendment provides for by-laws to be made. However, the powers already exist for the authority to regulate the conduct of those who wish to take their bicycles on the train. Again, therefore, the amendment provides for structures and powers which already exist.
    Amendment No. 357 in this grouping is a comprehensive new clause which wraps together many of the issues raised. We are not convinced that the access contract would be the most appropriate place for this type of benefit. The access agreement is a bilateral contract between two parties. When a particular ancillary service is tailored to a particular contract, in those circumstances it may well be an appropriate medium for delivery.
    However, many matters which have been identified in the amendment and discussed in the debate, for example ticket facilities, are more in the nature of general public interest rather than individual interest by the parties to the bilateral agreement. That suggests that the more appropriate way to deal with them would be either by the licensing system or a franchise. Such a provision would then be able to be applied across the network and enforced by the regulator. In other words, there are a number of different arrangements for securing the benefits described in the amendment. It would not be appropriate for the legislation to prescribe that they should all go into an access agreement as opposed, for example, to a licence.
    Finally, Amendment No. 316, which is rather different from the rest of the group, would prohibit the SRA from seeking consent from the rail regulator for a reference to be made to the Competition Commission to seek modification of consumer protection conditions if the modifications related to matters already contained in a franchise. We have looked carefully at the operating companies' concerns that the SRA should not be able to reopen in a proposed licence modification consumer protection matters agreed or not agreed as part of the franchise replacement process.
    Following representations we provided that only the regulator can modify a licence where the licence holder agrees. Where the licence holder does not agree, the SRA would need to obtain the regulator's consent for referral to the Competition Commission. The practical effect of the Bill therefore is that the position in reality will not be very different from that which applied under the Railways Act 1993. The rail regulator can already seek to modify licence conditions.
    We therefore understand the train operators' concerns but consider that they are exaggerated. Licence changes relating to consumer protection are already in franchise agreements. The issues have rarely been raised so far and we see no reason why they
    728
    should be more frequently raised in the future. Nor do we see a case for ruling out the ability to seek licence changes in the public interest. The SRA should be able to act where the regulator may act at present under the 1993 Act, with all the safeguards in place that this Bill provides.
    I hope that on this rather disparate group of amendments Members of the Committee will accept my reassurances that, by and large, the Bill already covers such issues.
    Lord Berkeley: On the amendments on cycling and ticketing I was pleased to hear my noble friend say that the powers already exist. My only question is: why is nothing happening? Could not there be a little bit of enforcement after five or six years? Perhaps my noble friend could helpfully send a copy of the debate tonight to those whose duty it is to enforce the various issues. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment No. 307A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 307, by leave, withdrawn.
    Earl Attlee: The Minister found that a difficult point to respond to. The Minister described ticketing as "a problem". The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, perhaps has a better appreciation of the situation. I have certainly seen passengers become almost incandescent trying to buy tickets, particularly at Victoria station. Even at Westminster station the machines that are supposed to take notes are, frankly, pathetic.
    Again, I shall read carefully what the Minister said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 212 agreed to.
    Clause 213 [Securing provision of substitute bus and taxi services]:
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 308:
    Page 128, line 4, after ("may") insert ("by means of competitive tendering").
    The noble Earl said: Clause 213 gives the authority the power to secure road transport where railway services are temporarily disrupted or discontinued. Amendment No. 208 imposes a requirement to tender out such services, not only where the service is discontinued as provided in subsection (4), but also where services are temporarily disrupted.
    Competitive tendering is the most appropriate way of securing efficient and cost-effective services. It is a transparent process which is not only fair, but is also seen to be fair. In those circumstances it should be adopted; otherwise over-cosy arrangements may develop.
    There should be no objection as regards urgency. The authority should, as a matter of planning, ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place in advance of any disruption and that quotations can, in any case, be obtained from the various potential providers quickly. Clearly, if arrangements have not been made in advance, the contracts would be made "in distress".

    729
    It is unlikely that they would be robust, fair or even economic. They would frequently be made under the "old pals' act", with all that that implies. I beg to move.
    Lord Swinfen: Amendment No. 309 has been grouped with my noble friend's amendment, and I shall not be moving it. However, Amendment No. 330, which seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 222, has also been included in the group. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, has asked me to say that had he been present in the Chamber at this hour he would have supported the amendment. Indeed, he is sorry not to be able to be here because he has attached his name to the amendment. Moreover, the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, who has also attached her name to the amendment, has had to go home because her new electric wheelchair is giving her some problems.
    Amendment No. 330 requires that train station operators provide facilities for licensed taxis at their stations. The licensed taxi has a vital role to play in an integrated transport policy. It provides the link between termini and the passenger's final destination, be it work or home. For elderly and disabled people the licensed taxi is often a real necessity for it can provide wheelchair accessibility and lots of space. It also provides the customer with the security of a regulated fare and a driver who has local knowledge, so customers are guaranteed that they will not get lost.
    At the moment, there is nothing to stop train operating companies offering exclusive contracts to mini-cab firms for the use of railway forecourts. In this situation, licensed taxis are able to drop off passengers at stations but are prevented from picking up passengers or, as I understand they say in the trade, "ply for hire". There are already examples of such an arrangement at Cambridge and Eastbourne where taxi ranks are forced to be some considerable distance from the station. Unless this amendment is accepted, there is a real danger that this trend could develop countrywide.
    To understand why this would be damaging to the disabled community, we need only to look at the Disability Discrimination Act. When regulations are brought forward under that Act, all licensed taxis will have to be accessible to wheelchair users. Indeed, this has been the case in London since 1st January. However, as the Committee will know, mini-cabs are not covered by the Act and are subsequently free from any obligation to be wheelchair accessible. This is the central point. If licensed taxis are not guaranteed access to forecourts, what is a disabled passenger to do when he or she arrives at a station and no accessible vehicle is available?
    Why should elderly and disabled passengers not be guaranteed, as able-bodied passengers are, a suitable vehicle? Surely, this goes completely against both the spirit and many provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act and of this Bill, aimed at ensuring
    730
    that disabled passengers are guaranteed the same level of service as able-bodied people in a truly integrated transport service.
    There is an even more damaging knock-on impact for the taxi service in local communities. In many small towns, station forecourt work represents the main source of income for the licensed taxi driver. If the station operator or Railtrack enters into one of these exclusive contracts with mini-cab firms, why would a local taxi driver go to the expense of adapting his vehicle to be wheelchair accessible, or go to the expense of buying a completely new taxi?
    The net result would be fewer and fewer accessible taxis to serve disabled and elderly members of the travelling public. It is not, of course, acceptable to take the view that as station forecourts are private property, the property owner has the right to deny or restrict access to taxis. The Disability Discrimination Act imposes conditions on other private property; that is, retail premises and places of employment, and taxis have the special qualification of themselves being subject to regulation under that Act.
    This amendment has widespread support. I understand that the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation has written to the Minister pressing for the amendment to be àccepted. The chief executive of the Disability Alliance has written to the London Taxi Board supporting the new clause and stating,
    "We have disabled people amongst our staff and on our Board of Trustees and they often encounter problems with inaccessible minicabs on railway forecourts, resulting in them having to go some distance in a wheelchair, often with luggage, to reach an accessible cab which is not allowed into the forecourt".
    I think that I have probably said enough to emphasise my point. I hope that when the Minister replies I shall, for once, have something acceptable to listen to.
    Lord Burnham: As my noble friend has suggested, the proposed new clause relates to the problems of taxis and parking. Can the Minister help us in any way by giving an assurance that railway stations will be required to produce adequate car parking for all those who wish to use railway station facilities? The right honourable gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister asks us not to use our cars, but unless car parking facilities are provided for those who wish to travel to their destinations by train, that will be difficult.
    Lord Addington: My name is also added to Amendment No. 330. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has done an excellent job of explaining it. We place upon licensed taxi operators the responsibility to ensure that their vehicles are accessible to those with disability problems. However, we do not place such a responsibility upon minicabs. I take the liberty of reminding the Minister of a discussion we had some nine and a half hours ago—yesterday now—at Question Time. It became clear that minicabs are not covered by much of the legislation which has been introduced to make taxis more accessible to the disabled, to wheelchairs, guide dogs and hearing dogs. Surely if we are to place an extra responsibility on a group, they should benefit from that.

    731
    In my city of Norwich the forecourt of the station is the main point from which taxis operate. They are the traditional hackney cabs. That forecourt seems to be the main thrust of all activity. If they were not allowed to work there, the whole basis of the local economy for taxi drivers would be removed.
    I hope that we shall be given a positive response. Once you have told a group such as taxi drivers that they must help the disabled, they must be allowed to do so; otherwise, we make a nonsense of part of the legislation.
    12.30 a.m.
    Lord Whitty: There is a danger in this argument of mixing up the question of accessible transport for the disabled with access for the taxi trade to particular venues. There are arguments on both issues but they should not be confused.
    We are concerned here with the responsibility within the railway system for the station operators to provide accessible transport. In this instance it is the responsibility not of the taxi firms or the minicab firms but of the station operators—as indeed it is in terms of parking provisions, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, although local authorities can have some influence on that.
    So far as concerns access for the disabled, since October 1999 Section 21 has required all service providers to adjust any practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of the service. So if, for example, a station operator's policy on access for taxis prevented disabled people from getting access to or from the station, there would be already the potential for a claim under the DDA.
    Lord Swinfen: Surely when the rail operator has delivered the disabled person by rail to the station, and that disabled person is ready to leave the station, the rail operator is then discharged of his responsibility. There is a difficulty if the station operator has a contract with a local car hire firm or minicab firm that only its vehicles can wait at the station forecourt. This is why I want this new clause in the Bill so that taxis can be there specifically for disabled and elderly people. It will also help people with large amounts of luggage, which very often do not fit easily into small minicabs.
    Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is again mixing up the two issues. The responsibility is on the station operator to provide access to and from the service he provides. If his contracting arrangements with a local minicab firm cut across that, it is his responsibility; there is a potential claim against him and he must put it right.
    Moreover, as the DDA comes into play from 2004, station operators will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter or provide reasonable means of avoiding any physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a facility. That means that station operators should start looking now at their infrastructure to make sure that it is reasonably accessible to disabled people, however
    732
    they may arrive at the station. It is not only a matter of arriving at the station but being taken from the station, and therefore the noble Lord's point about the end of the operator's responsibility is not the case.
    It may be the case for other reasons that the station operator has made an exclusive contract, but if that contract cuts across that duty then the DDA makes provision for that circumstance. Section 33 of the Act will allow the Secretary of State to designate transport facilities where an operator has entered into such a contract. The result of that designation would be that any provisions relating to accessibility requirements for taxis would have to apply equally to the private hire vehicles which fulfil that contract. In that way, passengers arriving at a station can be sure that they can call on an accessible vehicle to take them on their way.
    I have sought to explain that the DDA ensures the accessibility of taxis, as we discussed earlier; it also makes a provision for disabled passengers to move between taxis and trains. Where the station operator is failing in his duty to provide either an accessible taxi or an alternative, the responsibility is on the station operator, and the Secretary of State has reserved powers in this respect. I do not think it would be appropriate to tackle the issue the other way round, as the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do—that is, to define what is and is not in the appropriate contract for the station operator.
    I return to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Amendment No. 308 would require the SRA to seek competitive tenders before securing the provision of substitute services by road. Such services will normally be procured by train operators. Procurement in these cases is a commercial matter for train operators. The SRA will procure substitute road services only if it is acting as an "operator of last resort". Frequently, the provision of substitute services will have to be done at very short notice as a result of an emergency. Circumstances could arise where substitute rail services need to be secured by the SRA in an emergency if it is operating as an "operator of last resort" and there is an accident or emergency engineering work. In such cases, there clearly would not be time to seek tenders.
    We debated the issue in Grand Committee when my noble friend Lord Macdonald tabled Clause 246. He said then that Clause 246 was an attempt to find a happy medium between the practical concerns of the train operators and the need to ensure that in emergency circumstances a suitable vehicle is there to transport disabled passengers in an appropriate manner. That statement was correct. I hope that the clause we inserted in Grand Committee—Clause 246—is an honourable and acceptable advance. I hope that the noble Earl can accept those explanations and withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Burnham: Will the noble Lord, under the terms of the clause, require the rail operator to provide adequate—I mean adequate—car parking facilities for those using that rail network?
    Lord Whitty: No, not in the terms the noble Lord requests. The provision of car parking is primarily a

    733
    matter for the station operator. That can be influenced by the local transport plan because the number of cars affects traffic movements throughout the town or wherever. In some cases it would not be appropriate to attract further car movements—for example, to a city centre station—even if the transport operator was prepared to do so. In other circumstances—for example, in parkway stations—it may be appropriate to try and encourage the operator, either through the LTP or through the franchising arrangement, to provide more parking space. But there is not a blanket answer to the noble Lord's question.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am at a loss to understand why the Minister is so emphatic in his rejection of the idea of providing accessible taxi services away from stations. There is no confusion in the minds of noble Lords who have put forward the amendment as to what is being talked about. The amendment is about having available in the station forecourt, for hire, a vehicle which is accessible to people with mobility problems. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, added a few other subjects which arose in the course of Question Time recently.
    I do not understand the accusation of confusion. We are not confusing means with ends or ends with means. The end is to have accessible transport. The means is to make it possible for accessible taxis, which in most cases means black cabs, to pick up passengers at stations. These exclusive deals between station owners and mini-cab services make that impossible. It is the exclusivity of the deal which makes it impossible. Anyone who has been to Cambridge knows exactly what I am talking about. Anyone who has arrived at Gatwick also knows what I am talking about. If you arrive at Gatwick on an aeroplane and are wheeled, you had better have a huge bus-type minicab, which I am sure costs twice as much as an ordinary minicab, to meet you, because one will not be there waiting. I do not think that this is such a difficult issue. I wish the Government would give some ground on it.
    Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may say that, because it is so late, I shall not press my Amendment No. 330 when we come to it later on. However, I did get the impression that the Minister's reply was somewhat muddled. I am not sure that he did not contradict himself while he was replying to my amendment. I shall read with considerable care what he said. I warn the noble Lord that I will be returning to this matter at the next stage of the Bill. In my view, it is an extremely important matter. There are stations—I suspect that it is an increasing number of stations—which have come to exclusive contracts with minicab firms to the detriment not only of disabled people but people who have mobility problems of all kinds, including people travelling with large numbers of children and a great deal of luggage.
    Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate. I refer in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington, who spoke to their Amendment No. 330, which raises important points about station forecourts. The groupings on this issue seem to be rather peculiar. I blame myself. I did not check them carefully enough this morning. Perhaps it is a smokescreen to cover my Amendment No. 308. However, I am sure that we will return at a later stage to Amendment No. 330.
    I was rather disappointed with the Minister's response. I thought that he was converted to the market. I was thinking in terms of model contracts negotiated by the SRA which could then be drawn on by the train operating companies. It is important that we have these contracts in place so that the necessary contractual arrangements are made, especially for the disabled. We need to ensure that the right kind of transport equipment is available. There is no point in contracting for a coach that is too big to enter a station forecourt. Does the Minister not want to move at all? He does not. I beg to move.
    12.42 a.m.
    On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 308) shall be agreed to?
    Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 39.

    Division No. 2

    CONTENTS

    Attlee, E.

    Henley, L. [Teller]

    Blatch, B.

    Moynihan, L.

    Burnham, L. [Teller]

    Northbrook, L.

    Dixon-Smith, L.

    Northesk, E.

    Elton, L.

    Swinfen, L.

    Hanham, B.

    Wilcox, B.

    NOT-CONTENTS

    Acton, L.

    Grabiner, L.

    Addington, L.

    Hamwee. B.

    Amos, B.

    Howells of St. Davids, B.

    Bach, L.

    Hunt of Chesterton, L.

    Berkeley, L.

    Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

    Brett, L.

    Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

    Burlison, L.

    Carter, L. [Teller]

    Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

    Chandos, V.

    McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

    Currie of Marylebone, L.

    Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

    Maddock. B.

    Elder, L.

    Mallalieu, B.

    Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

    Morns of Castle Morns, L.

    Pitkeathley, B.

    Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

    Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

    Faulkner of Worcester, L.

    Sawyer. L.

    Gale, B.

    Thomas of Walliswood, B.

    Gavron, L.

    Tordoff, L.

    Gordon of Strathblane, L.

    Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

    Goudie, B.

    Whitty, L.

    Gould of Potternewton, B.

    Winston, L.

    Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
    12.52 a.m.
    [Amendment No. 309 not moved.]
    Clause 213 agreed to.
    Clause 214 agreed to.
    Scheclule 16 [Transfer to SRA of Franchising Director's functions]:
    [Amendments Nos. 310 to 315 not moved.]
    Schedule 16 agreed to.
    Clause 215 agreed to.
    Schedule 17 [Transfers to SRA from Rail Regulator]:
    [Amendment No. 316 not moved.]
    Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 316A:
    Page 261, line 16, leave out (""Strategic Rail Authority (in this Act referred to as "the Authority")"") and insert (""Secretary of State"").
    The noble Baroness said: I confess to being slightly confused by the grouping. I can only hope that it is because somewhere among the different amendments to which I shall speak is a prize for me. I hope that the Committee will bear with me. Amendments Nos. 316A to 316G relate to independence for the rail passenger councils from the strategic rail authority. Amendments Nos. 337A and 338B refer to disadvantaged passengers. Amendment No. 338A refers to duties to provide information and access.
    Amendments Nos. 316A to 316G to Schedule 17 are among a number of amendments standing in my name relating to the powers of the body that speaks for passengers of rail services. My amendments have the support of the recently relaunched rail passengers council and have been promoted by the National Consumer Council. As I indicated on Second Reading, I seek to measure the rail passenger council against the government-funded National Consumer Council blueprint, which sets out the key characteristics of a consumer body.
    Rail follows a pattern seen in other sectors where a competitive market does not operate fully and there are regulatory and consumer advocate bodies. Consumer organisations—whether for energy, postal services or rail—need a range of powers to keep the companies and regulators on their toes. That is particularly true of rail, where the long-suffering passenger usually has no alternative when things go wrong.
    The Utilities Bill and Postal Services Bill this Session have enhanced the role of consumer bodies for those sectors by making them independent; giving them a remit for disadvantaged consumers; and imparting powers to access and publish information. While that legislation may not be ideal, it is significantly better than the provisions in the Bill.
    The amendments to Schedule 17 may appear technical but are aimed at enshrining the independence of the rail passenger council from the SRA—transferring all responsibility for establishing, appointing, administering and funding the council and committees to the Government. Regulatory and
    736
    consumer representative bodies have distinct roles, so it is important that they are—and are seen to be—independent of each other. The rail passenger council network must have the freedom to take and advance its own position, which may at times be critical of the regulatory body and incompatible with sponsorship by the SRA—with its regulatory powers and ability to be a service provider in its own right. The relationship between the authority and the council should be constructive and professional.
    At some point in future, when the personnel and atmosphere have changed, the council may find its activities compromised by a lack of independence. The council's first responsibility and accountability should always be to the passenger. It is difficult to reconcile that objective with the fact that the council's staff will be employed by the SRA, which will also determine the council's budget.
    The Bill improves the powers of the passenger body but nowhere near far enough. On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated:
    "It is important that the rail passenger council has an independent view".—[Official Report, 5/6/2000; col. 1035.]
    I hope that the Government will build on that position. If wider powers and enshrined independence are considered necessary in other sectors, they should be necessary in rail. I beg to move.
    Earl Attlee: My amendments in the group build on the amendments in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Wilcox. Subsections (7B), (7C), (9B) and (9C) allow the Secretary of State to limit the scope of the activities of the rail passenger council and committees. Amendments Nos. 338 and 339 remove that power. The council and committees have been entrusted with various general duties and should be allowed to get on with their work without the Secretary of State telling them those parts of the service in which they can or cannot become involved. If the council and committees are not allowed to deal with the overall picture, their effectiveness could be severely impaired.
    I turn to Amendments Nos. 342 and 343. Subsections (6) and (7) allow the public to be excluded from sections of meetings not only where the items to be discussed are genuinely confidential but also if the rail passengers' council or committee so decides in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State. In the interests of open government, neither the. Secretary of State nor the rail passengers' council or committee should have power to make meetings of a public body closed. Any grounds in addition to those already specified in legislation on which they can be closed should be spelt out in the Bill so that they can be subjected to proper parliamentary scrutiny.
    1 a.m.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, told the Committee, these amendments are based on similar provisions in other regulatory Bills this Session. Having taken part in the Financial Services and Markets and Utilities Bills I recognise a

    737
    good number of the arguments. However, the regulatory structure of the rail industry is not the same as for the utilities. Therefore, I should perhaps say a word about the structure of the rail industry.
    Under the 1993 Act OPRAF and the rail regulator share consumer protection functions. That has not worked very well. Therefore, we are consolidating the consumer protection functions in the strategic rail authority. That clearly distinguishes the position here from that in other regulated utilities. I accept that the roles of consumer protection and economic regulation need to be kept separate. That principle was in the earlier legislation, and under these new arrangements they will be. The rail regulator is the economic regulator. The SRA is the strategic body for the industry, with a specific remit under Clause 206(2)(a) to protect the interests of users of rail services. In its armoury it has strong levers to influence the performance of the passenger companies through the franchising process. That is not an undesirable conflict; it is a valuable opportunity for the passenger voice to be registered at first hand.
    I turn to the specific amendments. Amendments Nos. 316A to 316G would transfer a number of the rail regulator's existing duties in respect of the rail passengers' council and committees to the Secretary of State rather than the SRA. They would make the chairman of the rail passengers' council responsible for appointing the chairmen of the rail passengers' committees, which is currently the responsibility of the Secretary of State. In the light of what I have said, it is clear why I do not believe it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to be given these duties. The authority is the regulatory body with statutory responsibility for the protection of railway passengers' interests. It is only right that it should also be the sponsoring body of the rail passengers' council and committees.
    The statutory independence of the RPCs is clear. They have clearly defined statutory duties which the SRA will have to take into account in its dealing with them, and they will be free to express their independent views under the sponsorship of the SRA, as they are at present under the sponsorship of the rail regulator. But they will have an integral role within the SRA. They will be close to the decision-makers and well placed to ensure that the SRA's decisions take into account the real issues affecting passengers.
    The amendments also propose that the chairman of the rail passengers' council should become responsible for appointing the chairmen of the committees. This is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and we believe that that should remain the position. The committee chairmen also serve as ex-officio members of the rail passengers' council. I accept that the council chairman has an interest in new appointments. I am aware that currently he is given an opportunity by the regulator to comment on prospective candidates. All of these committee chairmen posts are advertised
    738
    locally and are open to interested rail users. The appointments are made on merit in accordance with the guidelines of the Nolan Committee.
    Amendments Nos. 337A and 338B would add to the duties of the rail passengers' council and committees by specifically requiring them to take into account the interests of groups of passengers who are disadvantaged or who have special needs. I recognise those categories from the Utilities Bill, but I do not believe that it is necessary to put them on the face of this Bill. After all, gas and electricity utilities are used by everybody, but rail passengers, while a significant body of people, are not the same as the general population. The rail passengers' council and committees have a duty to represent all passengers and to deal with genuine problems. They will have the freedom to reflect these special needs as appropriate.
    Amendments Nos. 338 and 339 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to exclude from the remit of the rail passengers' council and the rail passengers' committee specified services or to restrict their remit in respect of specified services. We intend those to be used only in the marginal cases of heritage lines, such as the Bluebell Line, which are not part of the national network and where the powers of the rail passengers' committee would not be appropriate, particularly as regards the lines run by voluntary enthusiasts. That is the only purpose of the exclusion.
    Amendments Nos. 342 and 343 take away from the Secretary of State the power which this Bill gives him to make an order defining circumstances when the public may be excluded from meetings of the rail passengers' committee and the rail passengers' council. Those bodies have asked us to include the exclusion provision for those items on the agenda needed to preserve confidentiality and to discuss issues relating to their management; for instance, individual pay or disciplinary matters. There is no intention of using them in any wider sense.
    Amendment No. 338A sets out a set of duties on the council to make proposals, provide advice and information and represent the views of passengers. That is already covered in Clause 227(4). The wording of the amendment would have some odd results with which I shall not weary Members of the Committee.
    Amendment No. 338A also relates specifically to the rail passengers' council's access to information. It would empower the Secretary of State to make regulations limiting the type of information to be provided and to establish a body to arbitrate in cases of dispute. The council needs access to information about individual complaints, but that is provided by the passenger licence which requires licenceholders to provide the rail passengers' committee with reasonable information for the proper performance of its functions. I expect the SRA and the regulator to cooperate with requests from the council for information. We will be issuing instructions and guidance to the SRA on this matter under provisions elsewhere in the Bill.

    739
    I respect the origin and motivation of the noble Baroness's amendment, but I believe that the regime for passenger representation, which is set out in the Bill, is consistent with other legislation and the needs of rail passengers.
    Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for his response, particularly in relation to something I had not even read! It related to the information and I apologise that I did not outline the point.
    I have had a response but not the response I would have liked. The Bill's weakness as regards information suggests that the Government do not really intend the rail passengers' council to be an independent voice in the same way as the GECC should become. I am sorry about that.
    I listened to the Minister's response to my amendment, but at this late hour I shall withdraw it and reserve the right to return.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 316B to 316G not moved.]
    Schedule 17 agreed to.
    Clause 216 agreed to.
    Schedule 18 agreed to.
    Clause 217 [Functions relating to Board's property]:
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 317:
    Page 130, line 2, at end insert—
    ("provided that before disposing of any land the Authority shall, in consultation with the local transport authority and other interested persons, consider what potential for rail or other transport related use such land might offer, and protect the land accordingly").
    The noble Baroness said: Clause 217 relates to the transfer of property and other rights and liabilities from the board to the Strategic Rail Authority. Before I go further, perhaps I may say that I welcome that transfer because it is possible that the land and other rights will he used in a way which is related to the purposes of the SRA rather than purely to property portfolio purposes.
    Nevertheless, in recent years we have seen large-scale and continuing disposal of such property. If we want to expand the rail network, as we discussed earlier, it is important to ensure that nothing is disposed of which could be used at a later date. That is the purpose of the amendments, which, I confess, are rather infelicitously drafted. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose almost identical amendment is grouped with mine, has the right end of the stick, drafting-wise.
    However, I believe that we should consider these issues seriously. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that my hopes for the role of the SRA, as the holder of the property portfolio, are not misplaced. I beg to move.
    Lord Berkeley: I support Amendments Nos. 317 and 318 and speak to my Amendment No. 319. As the noble Baroness says, there is a remarkable similarity between them.
    740
    As many Members of the Committee will he aware, there is a long history of problems with regard to British Rail land. Even if we ignore the fact that a great deal of the land that was of any use probably has now been sold, I believe that as a result of activities in the past two or three years the situation has improved. However, of the land that remains in the ownership of the British Rail Property Board, probably only 10 per cent is of use for passengers or freight. It is to that that I address my remarks.
    First, my amendment suggests that Clause 217(4) should be removed because I am not happy that the terms of Clause 217 should not apply to Clause 206, which relates to the manner in which the authority exercises its function. I believe that land which is of use for rail should be used in furtherance of the authority's objectives and functions, and so on.
    I was heartened by comments made by my honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for railways in the other place, Keith Hill, who indicated that he believed it right that the SRA should be able to hold land if it was likely to he required for use withal approximately a 20-year horizon. That seems to me to be strategic, and I hope that the Minister here will confirm the strategic view that was expressed at that time. Therefore, the first part of my amendment refers to the need for consultation and a little strategy before land is sold.
    The second part relates to an issue which I believe can be described in one or two examples. If a piece of land is retained by the SRA and an organisation wishes to acquire it for transport use, be it a car park, a station, a rail freight terminal, a branch line or whatever, the suspicion remains that the SRA, while allowing the organisation to buy it, will require the land to be sold at the highest price that could have been obtained if it had been sold for office or commercial development.
    I do not believe that that is confined to transport. I believe that it is a Treasury rule covering all departments that the highest price must be obtained for a piece of land, regardless of its use. Only 100 or so sites may fall within that category, but they are important sites. It would be nice to think that the SRA could agree with the industry and others and get a commitment from Ministers that they would be free to deal with the issue without having to get the highest price relating to commercial development.
    I hope that that was a helpful comment. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say.
    1.15 a.m.
    Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I understand noble Lords' concerns to ensure that surplus land is not lost by default. The aim of the amendments is to give some statutory protection to land that will pass from the British Railways Board to the SRA. Amendment No. 319 would have the further effect of permitting the SRA to dispose of land and property required in furtherance of its purposes at prices reflecting its transport use.

    741
    Clause 217 deals with property, rights and liabilities of the British Railways Board that are not needed by the SRA for the exercise of its other functions. In other words, the disposal arrangements under Clause 217 apply only where the SRA considers that land does not have a railway potential. There is therefore no statutory impediment to the SRA retaining land that has a reasonably foreseeable railways use. Clause 217 enables the Secretary of State to give the SRA a direction about how land that could serve a transport use other than railways is to be disposed of or otherwise dealt with by the SRA. That could include a direction to consider alternative transport use before disposal.
    There would need to be a strong case for supporting the industry by disposing of land at less than open market value rather than by the more transparent way of using the SRA's broad financial powers under Clause 210. Cases in which there is a conflict between transport use and land value will be considered by the SRA on an individual basis.
    I recognise that the sales programme of the British Railways Board caused alarm in some quarters. That is why we suspended sales of remaining BR land in July 1998 and asked BR to undertake a review of its land holdings, which was completed last September.
    The review showed 1,400 sites, of which only 200 had physical characteristics that would make them suitable for transport use. Transport groups and local authorities subsequently registered an interest in more than that number of sites. Many of the remainder are small, disparate sites, or ones with development problems such as poor access. A large number are remote from operational railways and have no conceivable transport use.
    Following the review, we put in place new procedures that ensure that possible transport uses are identified, give priority to transport use and enable essential transport needs to be safeguarded. BR's Rail Property Limited acts as agent for sales and the shadow SRA scrutinises sites for strategic purposes.
    Since we lifted the suspension of land sales, Rail Property Limited has initiated the first phase of sales by issuing formal notification of its intention to market 600 sites. Registrations of interest were invited from transport organisations and local authorities. They are now being considered by the shadow SRA.
    Some land sales are going ahead where no transport interest is registered in the land, where the land is being sold for transport use or where the British Railways Board is legally committed to a sale.
    The shadow SRA is currently reviewing sites where a potential transport interest has been identified and is consulting, particularly with freight interests. The SRA will consider very carefully any potential freight sites and will not seek to sell them ahead of others in the portfolio, except where there is clear demand from transport operators for freight use.
    Land decisions will be taken in the context of the SRA's emerging strategy. The shadow SRA is developing procedures for the rigorous evaluation of
    742
    the potential of sites. I am pleased to announce that the shadow SRA intends to appoint a new advisory board to review sites and advise on potential transport use. The advisory board will have an external chairman and members reflecting freight, passenger and local authority interests. I hope your Lordships will welcome that robust, independent source of advice.
    The SRA will withhold sites from the sales process where potential strategic transport use can be established that is consistent with local transport plans. That will allow time for detailed consideration of future ownership and use and for obtaining any necessary planning consents. I hope that those assurances answer the concerns expressed about whether the sales process has identified all relevant sites, and the fear that it could pre-empt this year's local transport plans.
    My noble friend Lord Berkeley said on Second Reading that he was not sure that the Minister's message had got through to the shadow SRA. I assure him that it has. That is demonstrated by the careful way in which any disposals are being considered.
    I quote a few illustrations. Sites such as Menstrie and the Abbeyhill Loop are being offered for sale to Railtrack, and sales of all sites on the proposed Oxford to Cambridge route have been suspended until a decision is taken on this important proposed new rail scheme. I can assure the Committee that the shadow SRA is taking a strategic approach. The proposed property advisory board will assist this task.
    Those arrangements strike the right balance between disposing of surplus land and ensuring that key sites for future transport use are identified and safeguarded. I hope that, in the light of these explanations and assurances, the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: That was an extremely full and interesting response. I am delighted to hear in particular of the possibility that the old Oxford-Cambridge line may be reinstated in all its glory. I remember it well.
    What the Minister said deserves careful study. It makes me regret all the more that the idea of a Strategic Rail Authority was not brought into legislation some years ago because we might then have avoided some of the nonsenses which arose out of a purely commercial attitude to land, which was exhibited by the BRB. But we cannot look behind us; we must look ahead. For the moment, and probably for good, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment Nos. 318 and 319 not moved.]
    Clause 217 agreed to.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 320:
    After Clause 217. insert the following new clause—

  REVIEW OF BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE FUNCTIONS

    REVIEW OF BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE FUNCTIONS
    —(1) The Authority shall review and, within a period of two years from the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report on the discharge of police functions on railways and on the London Underground.
    (2) In carrying out a review under this section the Authority shall consult Transport for London and any other body which appears to the Authority to have an interest in the provision and use of railway services and the London Underground.").
    The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to seek a review of policing on the mainline railways and the London Underground and to determine how the needs of policing may be met most efficiently in future.
    In a way, this is a left-over from the rail privatisation process when the matter of policing of the rail system was left in limbo. In the future, one might, for example, consider the continuation of a national force, such as the British Transport Police is today, or the transfer of responsibilities to local forces with the present funding of £93 million being used to meet the cost. Alternatively, some rail services may prefer to use private security officers for the tasks of monitoring such matters as bad behaviour at railway stations or painting on railway property and so on.
    There will also be a need to take into account the recommendation of Professor Uff following the inquiry into the Southall rail accident because he said that it was unacceptable that a technical accident investigation should be directed or controlled by the British Transport Police because there was a lack of expertise and depended on outside advice. Most of the deficiencies which he found in parts of that investigation were caused by those inadequacies.
    The matter of the future of the British Transport Police should not he allowed just to drift along. It should be addressed now so that when a suitable legislative opportunity arises—perhaps associated with other police legislation—some properly thought-out proposals for the railway and Underground policing are ready to be put into action. I beg to move.
    Lord Berkeley: I support this amendment. I was not expecting to but in the past week I have been deluged with information from freight train operators saying that a large number of incidents have taken place in which their drivers were bricked; that is, having bricks thrown at the cab through the open window.
    There have been incidents in Merseyside, Tyneside and many other parts of the country. Like everybody else, train drivers have a right to be able to go about their work without risk of injury. The latest incident was an attack by 20 youths with bricks in Tyneside. Luckily, the driver was not hurt. When he reached his destination he reported the incident to the British Transport Police and asked for an escort on the way
    744
    back. The alleged reply was, "You haven't been hurt so you won't get an escort". I cannot believe that was true.
    It is indicative that whereas before the police had to deal with contained areas of this potential problem, it is almost as if the complete route network will be affected in future by vandalism. We all know that as train speeds increase, the consequences of vandalism could be very serious. The review is important. In the mean time I would support anything we can do to ensure that the police have enough resources to carry out these duties.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I recognise the problems which have given rise to the amendment. I have three basic answers. First, the British Transport Police Committee already produces a report every year on BTP policing of the railways and London Underground. Although it is produced by the committee rather than the SRA, it follows the format that Home Office police forces use. It includes details of BTP's main activities and developments, and statistics on the force, including crime figures for the area. The Committee will continue to produce the report when the British Transport Police move to the SRA from the British Railways Board.
    Secondly, the police committee invites Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to undertake a primary inspection of the force every three years with a detailed assessment of the police's operational and organisational performance by an independent expert body. That report is published. A copy is sent to railway businesses and other interested parties. That is in line with Home Office forces and will continue under the SRA.
    Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred to the need for an independent national police authority. I can confirm that we have announced our intention to create an independent national police authority when a legislative opportunity arises. It is likely to be given many of the duties now required of a Home Office police authority, including consulting the community regarding policing and preparing an annual report on how that policing has been carried out. We shall consider again at that time the position on inspections of the force.
    It is probable that those requirements will be placed on the BTP authority in the legislation to bring them into line with Home Office forces. That is the correct place for such statutory requirements. I hope that that convinces the noble Baroness that we are very much concerned with the issues to which she referred in moving the amendment.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his support and, more particularly, the Minister for an interesting response. I am sure that my noble friend will read it and consider what to do. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 19 agreed to.
    Clause 218 [Power to make bye-laws.]:
    [Amendment No. 321 not moved.]
    Clause 218 agreed to.
    Schedule 20 agreed to.
    Clause 219 agreed to.
    Schedule 21 agreed to.
    Clauses 220 and 221 agreed to.
    1.30 a.m.
    Clause 222 [Regulator's power to require provision etc. of railway facilities]:
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 322:
    Page 133, line I, leave out ("a period") and insert ("such reasonable period as is").
    The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 322, with the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 323 to 329.
    New Section 16D leaves it to the regulator to specify the period within which representations under Clause 222 are to be made. Amendments Nos. 322 and 323 introduce an objective rather than a subjective test. It is extremely important that any person at risk of receiving a direction should have adequate time to make representations. There should be some protection against the regulator imposing an unrealistic timetable.
    Subsection (7) gives the regulator a wide-ranging power in connection with an application for a direction to provide, improve or develop railway facilities to require,
    "the person specified in the application, the applicant, or any other person",
    to provide information. Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 remove that power in relation to "any other person". The power given to the regulator is far too wide. It is appropriate that the applicant and any person the target of the direction should be open to such a requirement, but not the whole wide world.
    Amendment No. 326 requires the regulator to use the information obtained under subsection (7) only in connection with the proposed direction and to compensate any person providing information for its wrongful disclosure. As the Bill is drafted there is no restriction on the purpose for which information obtained can be used, and no penalty for improper disclosure. Information may be commercially and price sensitive and should be properly protected. As with unlawful disclosures of information that must be provided under other sections of the Act, compensation should be available for any person suffering loss as a result of such disclosure.
    Subsection (2) enables the regulator to require the applicant for a direction to reward or make payment to the recipient of the direction. Amendment No. 327 limits such power to cases where the regulator is satisfied that the recipient will not otherwise be adequately rewarded, as set out in new Section 16E.
    It is right that no one who is forced by a direction to provide, improve or develop a railway facility should lose as a result. The Bill however requires the consent
    746
    of the authority to any application for a direction and runs a serious risk of creating an investment bottleneck as a result. An applicant should only have the burden of reward or payment to the recipient of a direction imposed on him if the person directed is not otherwise going to receive adequate reward. Otherwise applications will not be made and the investment bottleneck will worsen.
    Finally, subsection (5) gives the regulator complete discretion to determine the amount of compensation paid to the recipient of a direction on its variation or revocation. Amendments Nos. 328 and 329 specify that the amount of compensation represents the actual loss to the recipient. Any other basis for compensation would be unfair, either to the recipient of the direction or the applicant. In those circumstances there is no case whatever for leaving the amount to the discretion of the regulator. I beg to move.
    Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am aware that Members opposite wish to oppose the whole of this clause and that that will be the most appropriate opportunity for me to address any concerns on the fundamental principles of what the clause does and why we consider it necessary. With the indulgence of the Committee I should therefore like to confine my remarks to the amendments before us.
    We recognise that a direction is a powerful tool, possibly requiring a lot of work from a facility owner to carry out and possibly requiring him to change his business and investment plans for a period. That is why the safeguards of procedure exist in the Bill, so that the regulator can be assured that he is requiring action from the right person and that those affected have been consulted.
    Amendments Nos. 322 and 323 change the periods for written representation from a period specified by the regulator to a "reasonable" period specified by the regulator. These amendments are really not necessary. I can assure the Committee that the regulator, as a matter of public law, must always act reasonably and this general rule would apply to the period for a written representation. If he gave an unreasonable period to respond to a notice, then he would be open to legal challenge.
    Amendments Nos. 324 and 325 add the authority to those persons from whom the regulator can request information to help him determine an application. This seems to us not only unnecessary but also, I fear, inappropriate. The Rail Regulator and the SRA are both regulators, and both have an equally important role to play. This is a relationship of equals, distinct and complementary. It would, I feel, be wholly wrong for the regulator to be able to direct the SRA. If this were truly necessary, then it would be for the Secretary of State to direct. However, noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that we do not, in fact, consider these provisions necessary. This process is not initiated by the regulator, but either by the SRA or with the support of the SRA. It will, therefore, be the SRA that is keen to promote a scheme as part of its strategic plan

    747
    for the network. This power will only ever be used when the improvements cannot be obtained by other means and the SRA will have to be fully behind them.
    Amendment No. 326 is also unnecessary. It states that the regulator may not use information given to him for the purposes of the direction; that he may not disclose such information; and that he would he liable for compensation should he disclose information. The issue here is of course commercial confidentiality and the need to protect sensitive information. We are aware of the importance of such confidentiality and it would be improper for any public body to misuse information. But, in common with other regulated utilities, the matter is already dealt with: in this case in the Railways Act 1993 into which the provisions in Clause 222 will be inserted. Section 145 of the Railways Act provides that information obtained under that Act shall not be disclosed without consent. It also makes such disclosure a criminal offence. There are exceptions to the prohibition on disclosure, such as disclosure of information to other regulators for the purposes of their functions, but that is wholly appropriate and the same as for other utilities.
    Amendments Nos. 327, 328 and 329 look at variation or revocation of a direction. In another place, the Opposition raised the case in variation or revocation where the facility owner had already carried out work, which, because of the variation or revocation, proves abortive. They argued that, in such a case, compensation should be payable. We agreed and amendments to provide compensation were put forward and accepted on Report in another place. However, I welcome the opportunity to be able to assure the Committee that the Bill now provides compensation if work proves abortive. The regulator will be able to determine the appropriate level of such compensation.
    I shall now deal briefly with the effect of new Section 16G(4) and (5) to the Railways Act 1993, to which these amendments relate. Where the regulator gives a direction under new Section 16A of the Railways Act to develop a facility he must be satisfied that the facility owner will be adequately rewarded for it through a combination of payments by the applicant, future receipts, and so on. There may be circumstances where the applicant seeks to vary a direction, either wishing to extend or to cut back on the facility. This does not change the presumption that the varied facility must be the subject of an adequate reward—hence new Section 16G(4).
    Sometimes, however, the facility owner may have put a large amount of work and resources into a facility in pursuance of a direction which will be wasted work if the direction is varied or revoked. In the case of a variation, the adequacy of the reward under Section 16G(4) relates to the new facility and not what was originally planned. Therefore, it is difficult to apply Section 16G(4) to liabilities that may have been incurred in connection with the original facility but are of no relevance for the new facility. Where a direction is revoked, Section 16G(4) may be of no use at all.
    748
    It is because of this that we amended Section 16G to give the regulator an additional power to determine liabilities, incurred in accordance with the old direction, which have been wasted. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that the principle of this is right. I can assure noble Lords that these amendments are unnecessary, as a result of the changes that we have already made.
    Amendment No. 327 provides that the regulator cannot order compensation under Section 16F(5) if t he facility owner is to be adequately rewarded under Section 16G(4). I agree with this. It is why Section 16G is expressed in terms of a discretion for the regulator. He will only exercise the power where he needs to, such as where something is not caught through the adequate reward mechanism of Section 16G(4). It would be unreasonable to exercise the power if it amounted to double compensation and it is not necessary to express this.
    Amendments Nos. 328 and 329 require that compensation should determine what loss has been, or is likely to be, suffered and set off any sums received against this net from this benefit. I assure the Committee that the regulator will be in the business of assessing the appropriate level of compensation and this will constitute the wasted works less any receipts. Again, these amendments are unnecessary. It would be unhelpful to limit the regulator's discretion by specifying a formula. The regulator will look at all the circumstances of a variation or revocation and act in the most appropriate way. With those explanations, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.
    Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's informative response to my amendments. With the usual caveat, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 323 to 329 not moved.]
    On Question, Whether Clause 222 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Earl Attlee: This key clause goes to the heart of the new powers which the Government are taking in this Bill. It gives the regulator powers to direct investment. This seems to be unwarranted interference in the operation of a private company and is of considerable concern to Railtrack. Ministers have said that this power will be used only as a last resort, but we do not see why it is necessary at all.
    There are some limits on the power, which is some comfort, but it remains the case that the regulator has only to ensure that "adequate return" is provided for this compulsory investment. Nowhere is it set out how the regulator is to determine what an adequate return is, or even where the capital is to come from.
    This clause seems unnecessary and gives powers to the regulator and the SRA which have the potential to be used unwisely. The current incumbents may proceed with caution but their successors would not be bound to take a similar approach. We remain uneasy at the extent of these powers to direct a private

    749
    company where it must make its investment. We therefore oppose the Question that Clause 222 stand part of the Bill.
    Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Clause 222 is a new power for the rail regulator to give a direction to a person in a position to do so to improve an existing facility or to provide a new facility. This power can be exercised only on an application from the authority or a third party with the consent of the authority. This power will ensure that improvements can be made to the network where the authority considers that they are in the public interest.
    The clause is not designed to replace the normal commercial judgments and investments of facility owners such as Railtrack or EWS. Nor does the new section preclude voluntary arrangements between a facility owner and someone wishing to agree terms for an enhancement. The clause will enable a facility to be built which is in the public interest. In such a case the SRA can invest in the facility and the clause provides the element of compulsion necessary to ensure that an investment takes place.
    The clause does not replace Condition 7 of Railtrack's licence which requires Railtrack to make reasonable enhancements. However, Condition 7 applies only to Railtrack and not to other facility owners. In the case of Condition 7 only the regulator can enforce a direction and third party rights arise only in the event of a breach of a final or provisional order. Under this clause, in contrast, the applicant will be able to take action to enforce the direction and third parties may also be able to take action if they are prejudiced by non-compliance with the directions.
    There may well be cases where the SRA considers that there is a strategic need for a new or improved facility and the person in control of the facility may have a short-term view not wishing to make the investment or may have other priorities. It is in these cases that this clause will provide the balance between the interests of facility owners and the long-term strategic needs of the railway.
    An improvement may be sought by a third party applying direct to the rail regulator, but they must have the consent of the SRA. This will ensure that there is a genuine interest wider than the commercial interest of one part and that it fits with the wider aims of the authority. In all cases the rail regulator must be satisfied that there will be adequate reward for the improvements or new facilities. This will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. It means that the regulator will take a view that the facility owner will not be out of pocket. This does not mean that the facility owner must be remunerated for the facility in advance. We have made it clear that the regulator is able to take into account indirect receipts and other benefits that are likely to accrue to the facility owner. Where the rail regulator agrees to revoke or vary a direction to provide facilities, he must ensure that there is adequate compensation, as appropriate, for the work that has already been carried out.
    750
    The person who is to be directed must be consulted. While he will have to do everything reasonably practical to carry out the direction, a person will not remain liable if he does not have the necessary powers or rights. For example, it may be reasonable for a person directed to use all reasonable endeavours to apply for planning permission, or even to promote a Transport and Works Act order, but it may not be reasonable to say that he has failed to comply with the direction if planning permission is refused.
    There are some cases where it would be disproportionate to apply this power—for example, in the case of heritage railways, which are not part of the strategic network. We have therefore given the Secretary of State the power to exempt certain railway facilities from the power.
    This is a power that we would only expect the SRA to request as a last resort. As a check, the final decision belongs to the rail regulator. He will be operating under his duties in Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993, including the duty to act in a way which he considers will not make it unduly difficult for the holders of network licences to finance their activities.
    We agree that it is normally the duty of the railway industry, facility owners, franchise holders and others to invest sensibly for the development of the railway, but there may be cases where investment which should occur does not. It is reasonable in those cases for the regulator to have the power to ensure that vital improvements are carried out where there is no voluntary means of securing them.
    1.45 a.m.
    Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend sits down, does he agree that although condition 7 of Railtrack's licence requires it to provide for the reasonable requirements of its customers, there is a let-out which states that it does not need to do anything that would put its finances in jeopardy. There have been an awful lot of requests for investment to Railtrack, which has not happened. I believe that it is essential that the clause remains in the Bill for that very reason. If the SRA, in trying to be strategic, says to Railtrack "Will you invest?"—and it says "No"— there is nothing the SRA can do about it without this clause.
    Secondly, if the industry is lucky enough to get a few crumbs from the announcements tomorrow and later this week—which I hope it does—that investment has to be invested where the Government want it to be, presumably through the SRA. I certainly believe that this clause must stand part of the Bill.
    Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Perhaps I can just tempt him to give me an example of where the power would be used. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, appears to have got closer, but I cannot picture a situation where the power would be necessary.
    Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Again I do not want at this time of night to indulge in trying to invent

    751
    speculative cases. I rest on the assurances that I have given to the noble Earl. I ask him to withdraw his objection to Clause 222 standing part of the Bill.
    Clause 222 agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 330 not moved.]
    Clause 223 [Amendment of objectives]:
    [Amendments Nos. 331 and 332 not moved.]
    Clause 223 agreed to.
    Clause 224 [Penalties]:
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 333:
    Page 138, line 22, at end insert ("; and
    (d) the desirability of providing a financial incentive for the owners of the railway network to run more trains and for a fair division of responsibility for train delays,
    but no policies may be adopted that will have the effect of imposing disproportionate penalties or materially altering the parameters within which an existing franchise was granted").
    The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 333 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 334 to 337 and 371.
    This amendment is designed to allow us to explore the new provisions for the imposition of fines and penalties. We all accept that as a last resort there needs to be a penalty regime to punish breaches of obligations. However, these powers are wide-ranging and it is in the interests of both the railway operators and the travelling public that policies on enforcement are clear and issued in advance.
    In particular, there needs to be guidance on the proportionality of any such fines. There has been concern about the provision for unlimited fines contained in the Utilities Bill. It appears that similar powers are contained in the Bill and there is no indication of the scale of any such penalties. We seek the assurance of the Minister that any fines and penalties will be reasonable, proportionate and based on clarity over the breach of obligations.
    There is a clear risk that, if such clarity is not forthcoming, the provisions in the Bill would allow a maverick regulator to pursue an unreasonable course, which would then be challenged in the courts, wasting the resources of the railway company and that of the regulator, to the detriment of the travelling public.
    It is important that there is sufficient time for representations in relation to penalties to be made. The timescales in the Bill are short and Amendments Nos. 334, 335 and 336 bring the timescale into line with the time for representations in relation to orders under Section 56 of the Railways Act 1993.
    Subsection (1) gives the appropriate authority two years in which to serve a penalty notice. Amendment No. 337 reduces this period to one year. One year should give the appropriate authority time enough to impose a penalty notice. Any authority that takes longer than one year, which is in any event more than adequate, to deal with a contravention is not doing its job properly and the Bill should not encourage such slacking by allowing such an over-generous time for imposition of penalties.
    Under new Section 57B the authority and the regulator are to publish policies in relation to penalties. That paragraph stipulates that failure to publish such policies does not invalidate any penalty imposed. Amendment No. 371 allows for adjustment of any penalty imposed before publication if it is excessive by reference to such policy.
    If a penalty is imposed before the relevant policy has been formulated, it may turn out in the light of any such policy to be wildly excessive. That could lead to vastly differing penalties imposed for the same default. It is rightly Parliament's intention that penalties should be governed by published policies and that anyone who suffers as a result of a delay in publication of those policies should have a remedy. I beg to move.
    Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: These amendments all impact on the enforcement regime which the Bill enhances from the provisions in the Railways Act 1993, specifically because past regulators have complained that they did not have sufficient tools to ensure that problems are put right both effectively and speedily. I agree that it must be fair to train operating companies and facility owners, but it must also be fair to the users of the railway.
    Noble Lords will also have in mind that enforcement is the end of the process. It means that an operator or facility owner has already failed to meet its contractual or licence obligations. The regulator and the SRA propose to improve the positive incentives to drive performance, whether by replacement franchises or as a result of the periodic review of the access charges for Railtrack. The enforcement regime is the other side of the equation.
    Amendments Nos. 334, 335 and 336 all impact upon the timetables laid down for various parts of the enforcement regime and extend the timescales. There is a balance to be struck here. Yes, we must allow for reasonable periods but, equally, the enforcement regime must have the teeth to be effective. Our intention has been to speed up the enforcement in appropriate cases. We consider that the timescale for notice requirements for any modification of a proposal to impose a penalty is open to expedition because a modification could be more than trivial, but nevertheless easily and quickly dealt with. For example, the regulator or the SRA may wish to draw attention to some additional facts which justify the imposition of a penalty which they consider to be beyond dispute.
    But we are not casting the framework in stone. The periods which we have specified are minima which the authority or the regulator would need to extend where this would be appropriate. It would normally be appropriate to extend the timetable if the operator were being required to respond to a substantial series of new proposals to impose a penalty. If the regulator or the SRA imposes an unreasonable timetable on the facts of the case it will be open to challenge. But we want the process to be flexible. As regards the 14 days for paying penalties, of course operators will

    753
    have the opportunity to apply for an extension under Section 55(8) and an unreasonable refusal can be challenged. That benefit was not in the Railways Act.
    These arguments hold true for all these amendments. I repeat, the periods are minima. But if there is a serious ongoing breach, for example, we want the regulator and the SRA to be able to drive enforcement action at the most appropriate speed with regard to the nature of the breach, the complexity of the facts and the nature of any modifications.
    Amendment No. 337 would reduce the time limitation period beyond which a breach of a franchise or licence may not be penalised from two years to one year. On the face of it that seems perfectly reasonable as it would bring the limitation period into line with that provided for other utilities in the Utilities Bill. However, this is one of those occasions when we have had to look at the different circumstances of the railways industry. We consider that in this case the longer two-year period is more appropriate.
    Railway projects are different because they can be very large infrastructure projects which can have very long lead in times. For example, capacity improvements on the east coast main line which are currently under discussion will be a long-term project. It could be a year before it becomes apparent that a breach has even occurred. Once the rail regulator or the SRA is aware of a breach it needs to investigate it so that it is content that a contravention truly has occurred. That will take time. On balance, we think that a two-year limitation period is fair. It will mean that companies cannot be penalised for actions long in the past and it will therefore allow them to plan their business with certainty. But it will also allow time for a breach to become apparent and be investigated, so that even the big projects have an effective means of enforcement.
    Amendment No. 371 addresses the transitional provisions in the Bill and would require that, where a penalty is imposed before the SRA or the rail regulator has published its statement of policy towards penalties, any penalty should be repaid, if, and to the extent that, it would have been materially lower under the policy. While I can understand the concern behind the amendment, I do think that it is unnecessary. The firm intention is that both the SRA and the regulator will have policies in place from the time of commencement, and the rail regulator is preparing such a draft policy in concert with his review of access charges. But policies will be illustrative and not determinative of the amount of the penalty. What determines the penalty is that it must be of a reasonable amount and that will be the case whether or not a penalty policy has been published. When our provisions are commenced the regulator and the authority will be under a duty to prepare a policy statement within a reasonable time. What this transitional provision says is that if, while a penalty policy is being prepared, an incident occurs which must be penalised, and that penalty is in every respect
    754
    reasonable, it cannot be impugned on the technicality that the regulator's or the authority's policies have not been formally published.
    Both the requirement for a penalty to be reasonable, which includes the idea of proportionality, and the requirement for a policy to be formulated are additional protections for railway operators in the Bill. There are no such requirements under the Railways Act.
    Amendment No. 371 also misunderstands the nature of the policies. These will not comprise a firm tariff of penalties but rather constitute guidelines, at a fairly high level, of what the regulator and the authority will take into account in deciding whether to impose a penalty and what will go into the calculation of that penalty. The policies will not be so specific that a penalty imposed before publication could be reopened immediately after publication in the manner suggested by the amendment.
    Amendment No. 333 would affect the statement of policy made by the rail regulator and SRA towards penalties and require them to include the need for a financial incentive for owners to run more trains and for a fair division of responsibility for train delays. It would also require that policies must not impose disproportionate penalties or materially alter the parameters within which a franchise was granted. Setting aside that train operating companies are not owners—and so this would bite only on Railtrack and other facility owners and therefore be ineffective—I think that the Committee will agree that the general aims are perfectly good ones for a penalty policy. However, we consider that the amendments are unnecessary and do not address the issue in the most helpful form to achieve the aims of a better and more efficient railway. As I have said, we are increasing positive incentives to improve the railway through such things as franchise replacement, which must be the most appropriate way to tackle these aims.
    Before I complete my remarks, I should like to take this opportunity to inform noble Lords of two related matters on which we propose to table amendments on Report. They both arise from developments on the Utilities Bill which we propose to follow. First, we propose to amend the Bill to provide that no penalty imposed by the regulator or the SRA may exceed 10 per cent of turnover of the licence holder, licensee or franchise operator. Turnover will be determined in accordance with an order made by the Secretary of State, subject to an affirmative instrument.
    Secondly, we propose to amend the Bill to ensure that the regulator or the SRA does not impose a licence penalty on the licence holder until it is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is by the regulator under the Competition Act. This will deal with the issue of double jeopardy.
    I hope that noble Lords will welcome this announcement and that, with my earlier explanations and reassurances, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    2 a.m.
    Earl Attlee: I am a little disappointed that the Minister thinks that my amendments are unhelpful. All of my amendments are designed to be helpful. I thank the Minister for his explanation of why my amendments appear not to be perfectly drafted and I thank him also for giving advance warning of the amendments that he intends to table at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, subject to the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 334 to 337 not moved.]
    Clause 224 agreed to.
    Clauses 225 and 226 agreed to.
    Schedule 22 agreed to.
    Clause 227 [Freight assistance by Scottish Ministers and Welsh Assembly]:
    [Amendments Nos. 337 to 339 not moved.]
    Clause 227 agreed to.
    Clause 228 agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 340 and 341 not moved.]
    Schedule 23 [Finances and procedures of rail users' consultative committees]:
    [Amendments Nos. 342 and 343 not moved.]
    Schedule 23 agreed to.
    Clauses 229 and 230 agreed to.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 344:
    After Clause 230, insert the following new clause—

  DIRECTIONS REQUIRING GRANT OF LEASE
  (". In the Railways Act 1993, omit section 17(5).").
  The noble Baroness said: I wish to move the amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends. Amendment No. 344 would insert a new clause after Clause 230 which comprises only a simple phrase, seeking to delete Section 17(5) of the Railways Act 1993. Section 17 states that:
  "Nothing in this section authorises the Regulator to give directions to any person requiring him to grant a lease of the whole or any part of a railway facility".
  The amendment addresses the use and running of railway stations. It would provide that the regulator may intervene to ensure that adequate space is made available in railway stations for the provision of facilities for passengers, rather than being allocated by Railtrack for commercial trading.
  Railtrack currently manages 16 major stations and seeks to take over many more when the current franchises expire. This is a matter of concern to the train operating companies and to ATOC. The amendment would enable an appeal to be made to the regulator if a proposal to redevelop a station is disadvantageous to passengers or to franchise train operators.
  An example of the way in which the redevelopment of a station can be disadvantageous is where non-money-making functions, such as the provision of
  756
  lavatories, rest places for staff, or other facilities, are removed to the furthest corners of the railway station, while places to eat or sell things which provide a good commercial return and for which rental can therefore be charged, to the benefit of Railtrack, are situated in the more prominent parts of the station. The disadvantages to passengers are perfectly clear. I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: In supporting the amendment, perhaps I may make a couple of points. The important thing is that the train operators believe that they are closest to their customers and have a better knowledge of what customers want at a station. The amendment would also bring some competition into the operation of stations rather than giving them all to Railtrack. It would mean that they could appeal to the rail regulator, as the noble Baroness has said.
  Concerns may arise in regard to Railtrack's financial position, but that would be protected by the rail regulator's obligation to ensure that Railtrack is able to finance its activities. We do not feel that there is a problem. I understand that some negotiation is going on between Railtrack and ATOC at the moment. It may well be that by the time the Bill reaches its Report stage the matter will have been resolved. At present, there is a strong feeling among the train operators, which I support, that the amendment is highly desirable.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Amendment No. 344 repeals a prohibition on the regulator directing a person to grant a lease of a railway facility or part of one. The aim is to bring leases within the regulatory umbrella, but we think that a more complicated amendment would be necessary to achieve this effect. However, I shall concentrate on the underlying principle rather than any technical omissions.
  The current regulatory regime is based on the concept of permission to use railway facilities. It is not directly concerned with "ownership". The amendment therefore seeks to add a new regulatory regime on top of the existing public interest controls through licensing and access arrangements.
  We gave careful consideration to the representations that we received from the Association of Train Operators. On balance, we have concluded that the regulatory controls under the Railways Act, as amended by this Bill, are sufficient to protect the public interest.
  Even if there is no lease, train operators can secure the rights they need to operate their business through access agreements with Railtrack. The terms of such agreements have to be approved by the regulator, who also has powers of direction under the Railways Act.
  The current station access conditions require Railtrack and other station facility owners to reach agreement with or consult various parties before changing arrangements at stations. The regulator can also control the operation of stations through the granting of licences.

  757
  The Bill clarifies that the regulator has the flexibility to determine that matters in access agreements might better be dealt with alternatively, or as well as, in a licence. This would have the effect of moving enforcement for the matter from the parties to the regulator, subject to the consent of the licence holder or following a referral to the Competition Commission. The regulator is considering changes to the station access regime and the enhanced powers in this Bill may be of assistance.
  I understand that the train operators' concerns surfaced after reported statements by Railtrack. I shall therefore move on to this aspect of the train operators' case for legislative change.
  Following representations from train operators, Railtrack has moved to reassure them, the shadow SRA and the Government of its intentions. I am pleased to inform the Committee that, after extensive discussions with ATOC, Railtrack has made a commitment to the shadow SRA that it will offer leases on broadly comparable terms to such operators as the franchising director—in future the SRA—nominates during the franchise replacement process. The agreement will provide a mechanism to resolve the terms, in the event that the parties cannot agree. It will cover all of Railtrack's franchised stations and leased areas on major stations for the replacement of every franchise in the country. Railtrack's commitment will be made effective through either a memorandum of understanding or a legally binding agreement between Railtrack and the franchising director.
  The creation of a new power for the regulator to direct the granting of a lease would be a fundamental shift in railway regulation. It should not be undertaken lightly. The existing matrix provides a high degree of regulatory influence and control. We believe that the controls under the amended Railways Act, supplemented by the new assurances given by Railtrack, are sufficient to protect the public interest in stations.
  I hope that, in the light of that information, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: That was a full response—so full, I did not follow every word. I will carefully read the Minister's comments, then consider what to do next. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 24 [Review of access charges by Regulator]:
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 345:
  Page 283, line 24, after ("agreement") insert ("in respect of such access").
  The noble Baroness said: This schedule is an addition and allows an appeal to the Competition Commission against the decision of the rail regulator on a periodic review of access charging. Amendment No. 345 confines an appeal to the access charge and does not allow the commission to probe issues such as
  758
  performance regimes. Amendment No. 349 adds other beneficiaries to those allowed to appeal against the determination of an access charge. At present, the right of appeal is confined to the facility owner, Railtrack. Beneficiaries would be added, among which would be Freightliner. I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: I support both amendments. There is wide interest in this abstruse but important matter of clarification. Also, it seems extraordinary that a beneficiary cannot appeal when the facility owner and other parties can do so.
  Earl Attlee: Several of my amendments are in this group but, although I am bright eyed and bushy tailed, we ought to make progress.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know whether that means I should respond only to Amendments Nos. 345 and 349. The group concerns access charges and the Competition Commission's right to veto proposed licence or access charges. The Bill brings the railways regulatory regime closer into line with equivalent utilities regimes. I do not recognise Amendment No. 345 from the speeches made in favour of it, because it would restrict the scope of the access review mechanism to charges for access, which would be too restrictive. Access contracts cover charges for access but also a number of ancillary services such as signalling and timetabling—without which access would be meaningless. Payment for those services should be capable of review.
  Amendments Nos. 347, 349, 351 and 352 would give train operating companies the right to object to the regulator's proposed decision on the access charge review. The companies' rights are effectively preserved by the new arrangements. They do not currently have a right to object to the findings of a review because that is principally a matter between the regulator and Railtrack. TOCs are customers of Railtrack and, in determining the access charge, the regulator effectively supplants what would otherwise be a commercially unequal negotiation between a monopoly supplier and its dependent customers. We have put in place arrangements which prevail in other utilities. We do not believe that it is right to extend to train operating companies the right to a review notice.
  Without referring to any other Conservative amendments, I should like to deal with Amendment No. 348 which corrects a cross-referencing error. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for noticing that error. I am pleased to accept the noble Earl's amendment, even though he has not spoken to it.
  2.15 a.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We should congratulate the noble Earl for his victory. Perhaps if none of us said anything about our amendments they would all be accepted. That would be a very novel way to conduct the Committee stage. I cannot be quite as bright-eyed and bushy-tailed as the noble Earl because obviously I did not make clear the purpose of Amendment No. 345. Its purpose is not to confine the

  759
  review of access charging simply to access charges but to the appeal against the review. However, at this late hour I shall not press the amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 346 and 347 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 348:
  Page 284, line 39, leave out ("17(6)") and insert ("17(7)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 349 to 356 not moved.]
  Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 231 and 232 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 357 not moved.]
  Clause 233 [Transfer of Regulator's functions to Secretary of State]:
  [Amendment No. 357A not moved.]
  Clause 233 agreed to.
  Clauses 234 to 238 agreed to.
  Schedule 25 agreed to.
  Clause 239 agreed to.
  Clause 240 [Licence modifications following Competition Commission report]:
  [Amendments Nos. 358 to 360 not moved.]
  Clause 240 agreed to.
  Clause 241 [Competition functions of Regulator]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 360A:
  Page 155, leave out line 32.
  The noble Earl said: Clause 241 threatens market uncertainty in the business of raising finance for new railway rolling stock and thus jeopardises future investment in new trains. The Government introduced Clause 241 into the Bill in another place. There was little, if any, debate on it and this is the first opportunity for Parliament properly to consider it.
  Clause 241 is said to "clarify" the powers of the rail regulator under the Competition Act 1998. It deals with powers over railway competition issues not explicitly covered by the Railways Act 1993. They are the areas in which the rail regulator exercises concurrent functions with the Director General of Fair Trading. The Competition Act 1998 gave the rail regulator concurrent functions with the DGFT over "railway services".
  Clause 241(3) replaces "railway services" with the term "services relating to railways" and specifically defines them in paragraphs (a) to (d) as railway services; most importantly, the provision or maintenance of rolling stock; the development, maintenance or renewal of a network; and the development, provision or maintenance of information systems. There is no need for the clause, in particular paragraph (b). That clearly applies to the rolling stock companies (ROSCOs) which own the existing rail rolling stock and lease it to the operators. The ROSCOs are the source of investment in the trains.
  The regulator already believes that he has the powers contained in paragraph (b). He has said that he is going to question the train operating companies later this year to check that the rolling stock suppliers are not acting uncompetitively. The ROSCOs accept that they are covered by the Competition Act term "railway services". Any anti-competitive practice would be covered by that Act and the rail regulator would exercise concurrent functions in any OFT inquiry into their market.
  The ROSCOs have published codes of conduct agreed with the regulator. The codes set out how they will behave towards new and existing customers, particularly if rolling stock moves from one operator to another in the event of a franchise changing hands. If Clause 241 does not represent an extension of the powers of the regulator, there is no need for it. If Clause 241 does represent an extension of the powers of the regulator, the additional regulatory risk will affect the international sources of funding which the ROSCOs use to raise new capital for the trains. It would drive up the cost of capital, make capital harder to obtain and make financing new trains more difficult. And no one has been consulted about it.
  ROSCOs have already raised £2.4 billion for investment in new rolling stock. Over the next 10 years, £10 billion will have to be found to replace ageing trains and provide new trains to meet the 50 per cent growth in the number of rail passengers, which everyone, including the Government, want.
  All that will have to come from private investors, who need a stable regulatory environment. At the least, Ministers should state explicitly that Clause 241 does not conceal a hidden agenda for greater interference in the rolling stock market. It must guarantee that a regulator will not use this clarification to extend his powers into detailed interference in the operation of the rolling stock market. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I listened carefully to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I can assure him that there is no hidden agenda. The amendment would remove the provision and maintenance of rolling stock from the list of services where the rail regulator has concurrent powers with the Director of Fair Trading under the Competition Act. Since 1st April, the rail regulator has had powers under the Competition Act 1998 in relation to anti-competitive agreements and so forth, which relate to the supply of railway services. It is widely assumed that agreements for the maintenance and provision of rolling stock by the rolling stock leasing companies relate to the supply of railway services and in our view that is the correct interpretation.
  However, as the Railways Act 1993 de fined "railway services" narrowly as "passenger goods, light maintenance, station and network services", and rolling stock services are none of those, it would not be beyond the wit of the law to argue that agreements relating to railway services should be narrowly construed to mean agreements for railway services and therefore exclude rolling stock services.

  761
  We want to put the position beyond doubt, with clarification that services provided by the rolling stock leasing companies, and also railway engineering and information services, fall within the orbit of the regulator's jurisdiction under the Competition Act 1998. I hope that that is the assurance for which the noble Earl was looking.
  Earl Attlee: I shall study carefully what the Minister said. With the usual caveats, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 241 agreed to.
  Clauses 242 and 243 agreed to.
  Clause 244 [Passenger Transport Executives]:
  [Amendments Nos. 361 and 362 not moved.]
  Clause 244 agreed to.
  Clause 245 agreed to.
  Clauses 246 to 248 agreed to.
  Schedule 26 agreed to.
  Clause 249 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 363 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 364:
  After Clause 249, insert the following new clause—

  INFORMATION ABOUT CAPACITY AND REGIONAL FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
  (". The Authority shall exercise its powers under section 80 of the Railways Act 1993 to obtain information (and publish the same in such manner as is calculated to bring it to the attention of those with an interest in such information) at such intervals as it may consider appropriate regarding—

  (a) spare capacity in respect of railway facilities and network installations, and

  (b) assets, revenue and profits by reference to such regions as the Authority may consider appropriate.").

  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 364, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 365. If the railway service is to improve and expand, new operators should be encouraged to come onto the scene. In order to encourage them, information about where spare capacity and commercial opportunities exist should be made available. It has been suggested that Railtrack's monopoly over track and signalling could be open to tender on certain stretches of the existing network. This new clause will oblige Railtrack to split its figures in order to reveal the assets and make clear the revenues and profits on a regional basis. That better accounting will help in negotiations for the upgrading of lines.
  Amendment No. 365 is designed to ensure that Railtrack's maintenance of track and other facilities is monitored closely and that it is named and shamed for failings in that respect. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I contend that these amendments are not necessary. These matters are already within the jurisdiction of the Rail Regulator and he is dealing with them. He has a consultation
  762
  process under way in relation to a set of licence modifications under Sections 12 to 15 of the Railways Act 1993. Those relate to the setting of access charges by Railtrack, the information that it provides annually to the regulator about its activities in relation to the network management statement, and matters concerning the condition, capacity and capability of Railtrack's assets.
  The six separate regional supplements to the network management statement focus on regional investment expenditure and on the role of the rail network in the economic and social development of each region. They reflect the development of regional transport strategies and local transport plans. In November last year the regulator announced that he also intended to consult about a further licence condition requiring Railtrack to establish and maintain a comprehensive and reliable register of its assets.
  Those actions cover the elements that the amendments would require. Therefore, the amendments duplicate existing work of the Rail Regulator. I hope that the noble Earl is reassured by that and that he will withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his response. I shall read it in Hansard and, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 365 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 366:
  After Clause 249, insert the following new clause—

  PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT OR OPERATE NEW RAILWAY FACILITIES ETC
  (".—(1) Any person may apply to the Authority for permission to construct or operate new railway facilities or new network installations and the Authority may grant such permission on such terms as it may consider appropriate.
  (2) A permission granted under subsection (1) shall not obviate the need for the applicant to obtain the appropriate licence from the Regulator and such other permissions and consents that may be necessary for the purpose of constructing or operating such railway facility or network installation or to enter into any access contract that may be required in connection therewith.
  (3) In the event of a dispute between the applicant and any relevant facility owner or installation owner as to the charges payable to such facility owner or installation owner under any access contract required, either person may refer the matter to the Regulator whose ruling as to such charges shall be binding on the applicant and the relevant facility owner or installation owner.").
  The noble Earl said: This amendment is designed to allow any company that wishes to build new lines not provided by Railtrack to apply for permission to the Strategic Rail Authority or to the Secretary of State. That could allow micro-franchises to be set up to run local trains in rural or urban areas. It would also allow companies to build cheap rail lines for the transit of freight. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: This proposed new clause is—a splendid word for this time of night!—otiose. The authority does not have the standing to give permission to any person to construct or operate

  763
  facilities. Depending on who the applicant is and what permitted development rights already exist, a person may have no need to gain permission from a public authority. If existing powers and rights are not sufficient, then procedures to gain those are already in place under the Transport and Works Act. Applications for orders under that Act are made to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The authority can make its view known to the Secretary of State and may appear at any public inquiry.
  The other provisions in the amendment are already incorporated in the Railways Act 1993. Section 6 of that Act requires the operator of a railway asset to have a licence or an exemption. Sections 17 and 18 cover the need for regulatory approval of contracts for access. The ruling of the regulator over access charges is already covered by Section 17 of the 1993 Act.
  The new clause could not serve a useful purpose. There is already a well used procedure to allow persons to construct and use railway facilities. I hope that with that explanation the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his response. It is disappointing when the Minister does not support an amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 250 agreed to.
  Schedule 27 [Minor and consequential amendments about railways]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 367:
  Page 312, line 13, leave out paragraph 19.
  The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 368 to 370. Paragraph 19 appears innocuous but it gives the Secretary of State the power to grant exemptions from licences at any time, whereas under the 1993 Act such exemptions could be granted only when the Act came into force and were a tool in setting the system up. An ongoing power as proposed in the clause could be abused. The amendment would remove it.
  Amendment No. 368 would delete sub-paragraph (3), which removes the obligation on the Secretary of State to publicise any exemption granted from Sections 17 and 18 of the 1993 Act to those persons to whom it applies. It is difficult to see the point of removing that requirement.
  On Amendment No. 369, if a rail operator has been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with the procedural requirements on making a penalty order, Section 57(2) allows a court to impose a lesser monetary penalty rather than quash the order. A schedule defect should not always lead to the voiding of the substantive action. The court should be able to decide when the operator has been so severely prejudiced by the procedural defects that the penalty should not be allowed to stand and when the prejudice is not so severe and a reduction in the penalty is more appropriate.
  Amendment No. 370 would restore the provisions in Section 80(6) of the 1993 Act that anyone failing to provide information as required under that section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine. The Bill would weaken the regulatory system by deleting that provision. Why should it not be an offence to fail to provide information to the authority? We would support protection against improper disclosure by the authority for the person being required to provide information and compensation if it is improperly disclosed. However, we see no point in having a requirement to provide information if there is no sanction for anyone refusing to provide it. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: By revoking Section 7(10) of the Railways Act 1993 we are restoring to the Secretary of State the power to grant licence exemptions. That power originally ceased on the coming into force of Section 6 of the Railways Act. Under that power the Secretary of State made the Railways (Class and Miscellaneous Exemptions) Order 1994 which gave a broad range of licence exemptions.
  While the rail regulator has the power to make exemptions, he does not have the power to make whole classes of exemptions. There may well be cases in the future in which class exemptions are appropriate. An important feature of the Secretary of State's power—as opposed to the regulator's—is that he must grant exemptions by way of an order made by statutory instrument subject to parliamentary scrutiny and a negative resolution procedure under the Railways Act 1993.
  Amendment No. 368 would reinstate a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish facility exemptions. The publication requirement in Section 20 is being revoked because it is considered to be otiose.
  When the Secretary of State makes an exemption, he does so by way of a statutory instrument. All public general statutory instruments must be published and sold under Section 2 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. That contrasts with the position when the regulator produces an exemption other than by way of a statutory instrument and where a specific duty to publish is necessary. So the removal of a Railways Act provision does not relieve the Secretary of State of the obligation to publish any exemptions which he makes. I hope that the Committee will be reassured by that.
  Amendment No. 369 is unnecessary. Provisions relating to financial penalties are now wholly consolidated in new Sections 57A to 57F as introduced under Clause 224 of the Bill. The power of the court on appeal to substitute a lesser amount for a penalty imposed by the regulator or the SRA has been moved to Section 57F(4)(b) and the old power in Section 57(2)(b) is a necessary consequential repeal.
  Amendment No. 370 would remove criminal liability for a failure to provide information to the SRA in response to a request. In the interests of better regulation we always look closely at whether it is

  765
  appropriate to criminalise actions where there are other more appropriate sanctions. If a person fails to respond to a request by the SRA to provide it with information, the SRA can under Section 80(8) of the Railways Act ask a court to order the delivery of that information and if the person concerned refuses he could be penalised for being in contempt of court.
  We consider this to be a more appropriate sanction than criminalisation. That should be kept (as it will be under Section 87(7)) to cases where the person may have deliberately falsified the information which is provided to the SRA. This is a gentle deregulatory measure, therefore, and does nothing to weaken the ability of the SRA to seek information that it needs under Section 80.
  I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Attlee: The word "deregulation" was magic to me. I look forward to reading the details of the Minister's reply in Hansard. With the usual caveat, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  766
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 368 to 370 not moved.]
  Schedule 27 agreed to.
  Clause 251 agreed to.
  Schedule 28 [Transitionals and savings about railways]:
  [Amendment No. 371 not moved.]
  Schedule 28 agreed to.
  Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before three o'clock.

  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Third World Debt
  Third World Debt
  Pound and Euro Exchange Rate
  Pound and Euro Exchange Rate
  Taxpayers: Privacy
  Taxpayers: Privacy
  European Investment Bank: Nominations for Vice-President
  European Investment Bank: Nominations for Vice-President
  Trident
  Trident
  Higher Education: Contribution to Economy
  Higher Education: Contribution to Economy
  Higher Education: Funding
  Higher Education: Funding
  Renewable Energy
  Renewable Energy
  Disabled People: Help with Motoring Costs
  Disabled People: Help with Motoring Costs
  Tributylin Anti-fouling paint
  Tributylin Anti-fouling paint
  M25/Al3 Junction
  M25/Al3 Junction
  Railway Vandalism
  Railway Vandalism
  House Prices
  House Prices
  NHS Device Decontamination Practices
  NHS Device Decontamination Practices
  Patient Information and Data Protection Act
  Patient Information and Data Protection Act
  The Monarchy: Ministers' Responsibilities in Media Interviews
  The Monarchy: Ministers' Responsibilities in Media Interviews
  Millennium Dome: End-of-year Celebration
  Millennium Dome: End-of-year Celebration
  NMEC: Solvency
  NMEC: Solvency
  Dome: Opening Hours
  Dome: Opening Hours
  Early-Day Motion Procedure
  Early-Day Motion Procedure
  Osborne House: Convalescent Home
  Osborne House: Convalescent Home
  World Cup 2006: Cost of FA Bid
  World Cup 2006: Cost of FA Bid