Sitting of 26 July 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN MOTHER'S 100TH BIRTHDAY
  The VICE CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address concerning the one hundredth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
  It gives me great pleasure to hear of the loyal affection of the House and the nation on this special occasion, and to ensure that your message is conveyed to Queen Elizabeth.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Wednesday 25 October.

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

    Spending Review (Local Government)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When he last met the First Secretary to discuss the impact of the 2000 spending review on local government. [130876]
    Sir Raymond Powell: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on local government in Wales. [130886].
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): Madam Speaker, as this is the last occasion on which you will preside over Welsh questions, may I, on behalf of all Welsh Members of Parliament, wish you well in your retirement?
    I have met the First Secretary on a regular basis in the run-up to the 2000 spending review. I welcome the excellent settlement that we have secured for Wales, which includes amounts consequential on allocations to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the
    1094
    Regions for local government. It will, of course, be for the National Assembly to decide how the consequential amounts will be allocated in Wales.
    Mr. Griffiths: Given that the National Assembly has that flexibility in allocating spending in Wales, will my right hon. Friend confirm that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent statement on spending has the direct consequence that an extra £338 million could be available for local government in Wales over three years, and that additional sums could also be available for education, housing and social services? Will he also confirm that those welcome additional resources will be badly needed by local government as it takes up new duties and challenges in the provision of services, especially for children and elderly people?
    Mr. Murphy: I can confirm that, if the National Assembly were to spend the consequential amounts on the services to which my hon. Friend referred, the figure that he gave would be correct. As I said earlier, it is entirely for the National Assembly to decide how to spend its money. However, I am sure that the Assembly and the House will agree that the settlement that Wales received last week from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which amounts to £2,000 million over and above the normal increases over the past three years, is the best settlement that Wales has received for many years.
    Sir Raymond Powell: Will my right hon. Friend get the message across to all the people in Wales that this is the best settlement that local government has ever had? Should not local government be satisfied with what it has got and begin to ensure the proper provision of housing, education and other services? Should not the £101 million that has been given for housing in Wales be used to tackle the backlog of repairs and shortages that the Tories left in Wales when they left government?
    Mr. Murphy: My ministerial colleagues and I will do everything that we can to get that message across. My hon. Friend is right to say that, after nearly two decades of neglect, there is much to be done in Wales, especially in the valley communities that he and I represent. That is why objective 1 status was given to west Wales and the valleys, and why we are extremely pleased at today's news that the European Commission has finally given its approval to the plan for objective 1 status.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) quoted figures for local government and education, and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) quoted a figure for housing. However, would not the total be £80 million a year higher if that same amount did not have to be taken out of the Welsh block to provide match funding for the European projects? We welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of the decision in Brussels, but local government in Wales is very worried at the news from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that it expects an increase in council tax of as much as 10 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that enough money will be provided to prevent that?
    Mr. Murphy: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that last week's settlement with regard to structural funds means that £421 million extra is going to Wales, over and above the Barnett formula. We have never had that money—nearly £0.5 billion extra—in the past. It releases money in the block for match funding, and is therefore excellent news for Wales. I believe that local government will be very glad to receive the settlement, and I only wish that Plaid Cymru was glad too.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The question asks when the Secretary of State last met the First Secretary. We have the honour of having the First Secretary with us today. May I take the opportunity of congratulating him on his recent appointment as a Privy Councillor?
    The question relates to local government. Is it not a fact that the people of Wales have had enough spin from the Government and that it simply will not wash with them any more? The recent local council tax rises of five times the rate of inflation are quite incredible. In all but two counties, the council tax increase has more than eaten away the 75p increase in pensioner incomes in Wales. Is it not the case that the Government give with one hand but grab back with two hands? What reassurances can the Secretary of State give to the people of Wales that, given the settlement, next year's council tax rises will be within the rate of inflation?
    Mr. Murphy: First, the National Assembly is looking very carefully at the way in which it distributes its grant. There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a consultation process taking place which will be completed in September, to which he and others can make representations.
    After two decades of neglect of local government in Wales, to tell us what should happen with public spending is very rich coming from the hon. Gentleman and his party. I repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley)—local government in Wales is extremely happy with the overall settlement given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the spending review last week. Local government and all the people of Wales will benefit from what has occurred during the past seven days in this House of Commons.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Although I think that most people would accept that this settlement is the best that Wales has had, at any time and from any Government, my local authority is concerned that the formula for the distribution of local authority moneys by the National Assembly still does not take deprivation into account. As the poorest authority in Wales, we expect that formula to reflect poverty and to begin to rectify some of the injustices of many a long year.
    Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. He has raised the matter with me on a number of occasions. Again, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The National Assembly is reviewing the way in which the grant is distributed in Wales, and there is a consultation period that ends in September. I hope that both my hon. Friend and his local authority of Blaenau Gwent will be making representations to the Assembly. I hope that that review will take into account the deprivation to which he quite rightly refers.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Nicolas Winterton: if he will make a statement on trends in farm incomes in Wales. [130877]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): The Government and the National Assembly for Wales have taken all appropriate steps to assist Welsh farmers to achieve a sustainable agricultural industry. I am hopeful that the Agenda 2000 common agricultural policy reforms, coupled with the rural development plan for Wales and the industry's own resilience and coherent approach to rural development in Wales, will result in an improved level of farm incomes in Wales.
    Mr. Winterton: We have been told by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) that the First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly is present today, for which we are very grateful. Will the Minister give his view on why the Welsh Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary, Christine Gwyther, has been dismissed? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that is important, because the farming crisis in Wales is particularly acute? Average hill farming incomes have fallen this year to just over £2,700. What will the hon. Gentleman do about this crisis, which affects much of rural wales?
    Mr. Hanson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that decisions on the Assembly Cabinet are rightly and properly a matter for the First Secretary, and that it is not for me to comment. However, jointly, the Assembly—with Christine Gwyther in position—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I secured at the No. 10 Downing street summit an extra £14.7 million in Wales for less favoured areas, an extra £10.6 million agrimonetary compensation in Wales and an additional £2 million to be spent on business advice to farmers. That is in stark contrast to the BSE party.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker. We send our very best wishes for your retirement from these Benches.
    I was very pleased that the Secretary of State was at the Royal Welsh show yesterday, presenting my constituent, Mr. John Davies, with a farmer of the year award. However, will the Minister note that there are appallingly low incomes in farming in Wales at present, which are below the national minimum wage? Will he do everything possible, in co-operation with the First Secretary of the Assembly, to ensure that farming incomes increase? In particular, will he note that the agricultural budget for hill livestock compensatory allowances has been cut for next year?
    Will the hon. Gentleman also note that the Welsh Development Agency has abolished rural business grants? That is a very serious matter—we suspect that those rural grants are being used for match funding for objective 1 areas. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is scandalous for the areas that are affected?
    Mr. Hanson: There is certainly a partnership between the National Assembly and the British Government to help to support and develop farm incomes. My right

    1097
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the Royal Welsh show yesterday; my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is there today; and I am going tomorrow. We shall listen to farmers and work in conjunction with the devolved administration to ensure that we support farmers and help them to develop and improve their incomes. The Government have given more than £19,000 of direct subsidy, on average, to each farm in Wales. That is a positive step by the Government. We shall do what we can to help to support farmers.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that Welsh farmers will benefit from the Government's success in securing objective 1 funding, that Wales is benefiting from the success in agrimonetary compensation that has been achieved following the Downing street summit and that, under the previous Government, not a penny of objective 1 funding or agrimonetary compensation was secured from Europe?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: objective 1 was secured by the Labour Government, and it will benefit rural areas. The nationalists said that they could not do that; the Tories would not do it; but Labour did it.

    EU Structural Funds
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What recent discussions he has had regarding the matching of European regional funds. [130878]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): The excellent spending review settlement for Wales announced last week included an additional £421 million for the structural funds programmes in Wales. That settlement unlocks funding within the block to meet match funding requirements.
    I have talked with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the Assembly Finance Secretary, who agree that, as a result of the settlement, no worthwhile objective 1 project will be held back by a lack of resources.
    Mr. Bruce: In the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman has had with the First Secretary, did the First Secretary query whether all the funding is additional and fully matches the European funds? After all, the previous First Secretary had to resign because he could not get that from the Government. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the match funding represents additional funds over and above the Barnett formula and all the normal streams of funds that go to Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: As I explained moments ago, the £421 million, which amounts to £1.2 billion or £1.3 billion over nine years, that will come from Brussels is wholly additional to the block and to Barnett. The hon. Gentleman should remind himself that, for the 21 years that structural funding came to this country, not one penny was extra to the block, and it has taken a Labour Government to change that. It comes very rich from the Conservative party to tell us in Wales how to deal with
    1098
    public finances, given that the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor would put public services in peril because they intend to cut public finances.
    Mr. Chris Ruane: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to give the Conservatives some credit for achieving objective 1 for Wales because, in 1979, the economy of Wales was mid-table of the 13 regions of the United Kingdom but, in 1997, when the Conservatives left office, we were bottom of the table?
    Mr. Murphy: I agree with my hon. Friend. As he has said in the past couple of days about objective 1, we must get on with the schemes and projects with the people of Wales. The more we squabble, and the more people whinge about the excellent settlement, the less easy it will be to begin those schemes and projects. It is an excellent settlement for Wales, and we all know it.
    Mr. Robert Walter: It is clear from the statements made last week that the European Commission's share of funds for objective 1 will be transferred to the National Assembly for Wales. It is also clear that the social fund will be taken from the Department for Education and Employment and given to the National Assembly. As the Secretary of State has said, that provides £421 million over three years, and we do not dispute that figure.
    What is not clear is where the additional funding for objective 1 will come from. Where are the match funds that the Prime Minister promised Wales? The Secretary of State has said that they will be met from within the block grant, which exists for health, education, roads and local government. Which programme does he expect the National Assembly to cut to make the match funds available?
    Mr. Murphy: I explained to the hon. Gentleman at some length in the Welsh Grand Committee how we would deal with the funds needed for programme match. They need not necessarily come from the block, but might come, for example, from lottery money, from money from the Department for Education and Employment or from the private sector. Where the match funds come from can vary. The hon. Gentleman seems not to understand—or does not want to understand—that this is a huge and significant breakthrough in how we deal with public finances in Wales. The overall settlement of an extra £2 billion is an enormous improvement on anything that Conservative Governments dreamt of, let alone gave us.
    Mr. Barry Jones: My constituency would like access to the funds under discussion, but, in their absence, would be happy to accept a regional grant of £25 million for 1,400 aerospace jobs. Does my right hon. Friend know that a far-away, secretive quango is proving an obstacle to our getting those jobs? How can he help'? Will he talk to the First Secretary and deliver the £25 million grant?
    Mr. Murphy: My right hon. Friend has rightly raised that matter several times, as he represents Broughton. He is aware that the Government are committed to ensuring the success of the project and have given a loan of more than £500 million. Discussions are still under way in the

    1099
    National Assembly, and my right hon. Friend can rest assured that I shall take the matter up with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan).

    New Deal
    Mr. John Bercow: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the new deal for young people. [130880]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales regularly meets the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues. I also hold regular meetings with the Assembly Secretary for Education and Training. One of the Government's chief aims is to get young people into work so that they can play a full and productive part in society. At the end of April, almost 14,900 young people in Wales had entered employment through the new deal programme.
    Mr. Bercow: Given the facts that only 13 per cent. of new deal participants in Wales leave the scheme for unsubsidised employment, that only 10 per cent. of those on the training and education option end up with a qualification when they finish it, and that those participants are twice as likely not to get a job as they are to get one, why does the Minister not give up the unequal struggle, admit that his scheme is an expensive flop and offer an unqualified apology to the people of Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: At almost every Welsh questions since I was appointed a Minister, the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. At almost every Welsh question, we have proved that he is wrong. Some 14,900 people are in work in Wales because of the new deal. The Chancellor has extended the programme and made it permanent. One thing is clear: the Conservative party would scrap it. Perhaps on your retirement, Madam Speaker, given the hon. Gentleman's persistence, you might take him with you.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will my hon. Friend ignore the sneering nonsense of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and recognise, as many of us do, the tremendous importance of the new deal in giving hope to young people in our communities? Will he ensure that new deal money and the programme's success are linked to objective 1 to multiply the benefits of both schemes?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The new deal is a Labour initiative, which has created great employment prospects in the valleys and throughout Wales, and will be maximised when it is linked to objective 1. A key fact is that the Conservative party opposed the new deal and would not support additional funds for objective 1.

    Spending Review (Home Office)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What discussions he has had with the
    1100
    First Secretary on the subject of the comprehensive spending review in relation to Home Office matters in Wales. [130881]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues.
    Last Wednesday's announcement by the Home Secretary of an extra £1.6 billion for police funding in England and Wales for the next three years is very good news. It represents an average annual increase in police funding of 7 per cent. and a further 4,000 recruits for England and Wales, bringing the total to 9,000 extra recruits over the next three years. The fire services too will receive a substantial increase.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Secretary of State seen the report in today's Western Mail that, of almost £7 million allocated by the Home Office to deal with domestic violence in England and Wales, this month Wales was allocated only £31,000, even though there were 15,000 reported incidents of domestic violence in Wales last year? Has the Secretary of State taken that up with the Home Secretary, and are those figures correct? If they are, and if the Secretary of State has not made representations, will he talk to the Home Secretary urgently so that resources that the community clearly feels are needed can be provided to deal with domestic violence in Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and the importance of these matters, especially given the news in the past few days about the terrible events in Barry. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I shall, of course, raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: May I welcome the extra money that was given to Wales last week for rural policing, especially the £1.3 million that is being given to Dyfed-Powys police in my area? Does the Secretary of State welcome, as I do, the fact that that will enable the new chief constable, Terry Grange, to carry out plans to increase police numbers and open new police stations in the Dyfed-Powys area? Does that not contrast clearly with the position of the previous Government, who flatly refused to allow Dyfed police to take on a further 72 officers?
    Mr. Murphy: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Dyfed-Powys received a considerable increase, as did north Wales, which received £770,000 extra, and my own county of Gwent, which received £103,000, which effectively means that there will be an extra 5,000 recruits in addition to the usual 11,000. Wales will get extra 223 police officers, distributed throughout Dyfed-Powys, Gwent, north Wales and south Wales. On top of that, last week's announcement means that we shall have even more police recruits.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Does the Secretary of State predict a rise or fall in crime in Wales next year?
    Mr. Murphy: It is not for me to predict anything. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the latest statistics show that recorded crime in Wales fell by 2.5 per cent last year, against a 3.8 per cent. rise in England and Wales as a whole. The largest fall in crime was in south Wales, where there was a reduction of 5.8 per cent.

    Spending Review (Health and Social Services)
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on health and social services in Wales. [130882]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the First Secretary on a regular basis in the run-up to the 2000 spending review. The excellent settlement secured for Wales includes amounts consequential on allocations to the Department of Health which can be allocated by the National Assembly to improve health care throughout Wales.
    Mr. Jones: When my hon. Friend next meets the Assembly's Health and Social Services Secretary, will he encourage her to use the unique opportunity of £750 million over the next three years to rise above vested interests and parochial concerns, and to invest and build a health service in Wales fit for the 21st century? Will he encourage her to find a fair funding formula based on people's health needs, and establish that throughout Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend is right in saying that additional resources are now available to the National Assembly to secure support and improve investment in the national health service in Wales. This year, the Budget gave £1,300 million extra to the NHS in Wales, and consequentials from the Department of Health will allow Assembly Secretary Jane Hutt an opportunity to ensure greater development of health services in Wales. It is clear that the Conservative party would not be able to meet those commitments, and health care would be poorer in Wales as a result.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it not true that people in Wales are being kept off the in-patient waiting list by being kept on the out-patient waiting list longer than ever before? When the Government came to power, the number of people waiting over three months for a first outpatient appointment was 28,401; today, that figure is 84,684. If anybody feels unwell in Wales, they should look not for an ambulance, but for a train so that they can get better health treatment outside Wales. When will the Minister ensure that the people of Wales get a better health service—indeed, the health service that they were promised at the last general election?
    Mr. Hanson: Where would the Conservative party find the £1.3 billion extra this year if their tax guarantee were in place? Waiting lists and waiting times are important to the Welsh Assembly and to this Government. We have put the money in place to deal with them, and the hon. Gentleman's party would cut it.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    I have written to Chancellor Schröder, President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin on behalf of the people of Great Britain to convey our shock and heartfelt sympathies over the tragic air accident that occurred in France yesterday, which has led to the loss of so many lives. I know that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the deceased.
    Mr. Donohoe: I am sure that the whole House endorses the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister.
    Last week we heard the splendid news, for both England and Scotland, of the spending review. However, could one small change be made? My right hon. Friend will be aware that the floodgates have opened in terms of the illicit trade of alcohol into the UK. In my constituency, in particular, it has become a new profession at the cost of the retail trade. Given your retiral this week, Madam Speaker, and knowing that you like a wee dram, may I ask my right hon. Friend to have a word with the Chancellor about reducing the price of the duty on a bottle of whisky?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this matter as chairman of the all-party Scotch whisky group. I accept entirely that the problem of smuggling exists, which is why we are taking action on it, but this is not a matter of small change. We need to maintain the real value of Government revenue, and the cost simply of freezing all alcohol duties on an indexed basis this year would be £165 million. I am afraid that that is money that we desperately need for the very public service changes that I know my hon. Friend wants.
    Mr. William Hague: May I join the Prime Minister in expressing our sadness at yesterday's terrible air crash in Paris, with the loss of 113 lives? We join him in passing on our deepest condolences to the families in Germany and France—and now, we understand, one in Britain—who have lost their loved ones. As one of the partners in the Concorde enterprise, and given that our own air accidents investigation branch has unrivalled expertise, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be involved in the

    1103
    inquiry into the crash and will he assure the French Government that we stand ready to help in any way that we can?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that we stand ready to help in any way that we can. I understand that our people are co-operating with the French authorities.
    Mr. Hague: I am grateful for that reply. May I now turn to a domestic political issue?
    On Monday night, the House of Lords voted in accordance with the wishes of the people of this country to defeat the Prime Minister's campaign to repeal section 28. Does he agree that, on this issue, the House of Lords has more accurately reflected public feeling than the House of Commons?
    The Prime Minister: No, I believe that clause 28 is a piece of prejudice. It is right to remove it and I remain committed to removing it. The objection to its repeal—that somehow we would allow schools to have homosexual sex education lessons—and all the rest of the propaganda that was put forward during the course of the campaign has now been comprehensively put down and rubbished by the amendments that we have put forward, so, no I do not agree with him. It is the right thing to do and I believe that we should do it.
    Mr. Hague: If the Prime Minister does not recognise that the Lords are more in touch with the country on this issue, it shows how out of touch he has become. He could at least listen to his own supporters in his own party on the issue: the Labour peer Lord Stoddart who said
    there has been an outcry…throughout the country
    and Lord Mishcon who said that the Government
    misunderstand the mood of our people.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 February 2000; Vol. 609, c. 444–76.]
    He could listen to more than a million people in Scotland who voted to keep section 28—more than voted for any party in the Scottish parliamentary elections. Is it not an undeniable fact that the Lords have more genuinely reflected public opinion on this issue?
    The Prime Minister: A lot of the public concern on this was based on the belief that somehow, as a result of repealing clause 28, schools would be forced or allowed to teach gay sex education in schools. That is simply not true. As a result of the amendments tabled to the Learning and Skills Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows now, it is made absolutely clear that sex education is for schools, parents and teachers, and, what is more, that any parent has the right absolutely to withdraw their children from sex education.
    I think we know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. It is exactly the same as he did over the asylum issue—it is pandering to prejudice and it is not a pretty sight.
    Mr. Hague: That was a nice lecture from Mr. Eye-catching Initiative himself, wasn't it? Has not the right hon. Gentleman's crusade for political correctness gone far enough? He has been told by Church leaders to scrap his campaign; he has been told by Parliament to scrap it; he has been told by the public at every
    1104
    opportunity to scrap it; he has packed the other House full of his cronies and he still cannot get it through the other House. Will he now scrap the repeal of section 28 from the next Session and from his next election manifesto?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat that the reason I believe it is right to repeal the clause is that, having taken account of the one serious objection put forward by people—their worry about sex education in schools—it is now a piece of prejudice pure and simple. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, I know that and so do Members of the House.
    As for packing the other place with my cronies, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party still has more life peers than we do. I hear what the House of Lords says, but I believe that we took the right position on this issue and I shall continue to hold to it.
    Mr. Hague: Is it not a hallmark of recent months that the Prime Minister is more and more adrift from the people of this country? He presses on today with section 28; he has let out thousands of violent criminals ahead of their parole date; he is spending millions of pounds on preparing to join a currency opposed by the British people; he has raised taxes on the poorest households in the country; and then he sends round a pathetic memo asking if anyone knows why he is out of touch. Does he agree that the Government—and this even applies to him—are out of touch with "gut British instincts"?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman is not raising today the economy or public services. Why is he not doing so? It is because he has nothing to say about the real issues. I will tell him what concerns the British people: jobs—a million extra of them; the lowest inflation in Europe; interest rates at half the level that they were under the Tories; and extra spending on schools, hospitals, law and order and transport. The right hon. Gentleman's jokes are all very well, but he should get to the Dispatch Box now and debate the real policies.
    Hague: We shall debate the real policies. There are 2,500 fewer police than there were three years ago; 150,000 more people are waiting to see a hospital consultant now than three years ago; and 98,000 more violent crimes were committed in this country last year than in the previous year. That has happened under the Prime Minister's stewardship. It is a pity that he cannot agree that the Government are out of touch with "gut British instincts" because he wrote that. He is out of touch not only with the people but with himself.
    The Government have lived by spin and they are now dying by spin; they have lived by gimmicks and are now known for nothing but gimmicks; they have orchestrated leaks and are now drowning in them. The Prime Minister's sole purpose was to follow public opinion; he is now utterly out of touch with the majority in this country.
    The Prime Minister: We finally got the right hon. Gentleman down to policy. He wants more police on the beat; that means more spending. He wants fewer people on waiting lists; that means more spending. He wants extra money for schools; that means more spending. We are committed to spending more money on such programmes. However, the right hon. Gentleman has a

    1105
    policy of £16 billion worth of cuts. Perhaps when he next gets to his feet, he can explain last week's Conservative party research department note. It is very interesting, and tells us where the spending cuts will be made.
    On health, the note states:
    We will match the spending on health that Labour announced in the Budget.
    However, on education, the notes states:
    We will match what we can afford.
    On crime, it states:
    We will match what we can afford.
    On transport, it states:
    We will match what we can afford.
    On defence, again it states:
    We will match what we can afford.
    If the right hon. Gentleman can give a commitment to match us on health, let us have commitments on the other programmes.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Eddie O'Hara.
    Hon. Members: Where is the last question from the Leader of the Opposition?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I can count. I call Mr. O'Hara.
    Mr. Eddie O'Hara: As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, may I take the opportunity to thank you publicly, Madam Speaker, for your distinguished service to the House, and wish you all you wish for yourself in your retirement?
    Let me put on my battered very old Labour hat. It is a matter of record that the Tories in government reduced millions of pensioners to poverty, and that the Liberal Democrats promised a rise in pensions in line with prices, not earnings, funded by an infinitely flexible penny on income tax. Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that the eyes of pensioners are on his Government, and that their view is refracted through the prism of 75p? Will he assure me that the summer message to my pensioners in Knowsley, South is that £6 billion is just for starters and that they ain't seen nothing yet?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, my hon. Friend is right about the Conservatives' record. They scrapped the earnings link, they put 1.5 million pensioners in poverty and they increased VAT on fuel. It was right for us to make pensioner poverty a priority. Consequently, 1 million pensioners are up to £20 a week better off through the minimum income guarantee, and 3 million pensioners will benefit from free television licences for the over-75s. On top of that, the winter fuel allowance is now £150. We know for certain that the Tories would take every one of those benefits from pensioners.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I entirely associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the perfectly correct condolences expressed by the Prime Minister and the Conservative party leader following yesterday's tragedy? Moving back to the
    1106
    domestic political agenda and, indeed, the earlier exchanges, may I ask the Prime Minister when the Government propose to repeal section 28?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that we will declare our position at some later time. We are obviously considering the best way to do so, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we remain committed to repealing clause 28 because that is the right thing to do
    Mr. Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree, however, that even though the pose that the leader of the Tory party is yet again adopting on this matter is an affront, an equal but different constitutional affront is the fact that if a deal had not been done with Lord Cranborne, the hereditary peers still in the House of Lords would not have been in a position to thwart the clear, overwhelming view of the democratically elected House of Commons? I encourage him to continue and to stick to his convictions over the repeal of section 28, but will he go further and commit himself to establishing—sooner rather than later—a completely and thoroughly democratically elected House of Lords?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's last remarks, but on his opening comment it is important that we repeal section 28 for the reasons that I gave earlier. We have dealt with the one justifiable objection that people had. We have even made sure that the very objection made to one particular piece of propaganda, which is the only piece that could ever be pointed to by opponents of the repeal—namely, something issued by Avon health authority—can be made no longer. There is absolute protection for parents and teachers and children in school.
    I say this to Conservative Members: they may think that they will gain support in certain quarters, but I genuinely believe that this country is a tolerant country. We are sufficiently mature, in the 21st century, to say that people who are gay are entitled to the same treatment and rights as other people in our society.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent settlement for Wales in last week's comprehensive spending review? He will know that during the past year the Welsh nationalists have mounted a virulent and corrosive campaign over match funding. However, the settlement gives a 5.4 per cent. real-terms increase across all public spending and an extra £421 million for objective 1 funding. Does he agree that the priority is to develop imaginative schemes that will provide long-term jobs and growth in the gross domestic product, and help to repair the 18 years of damage under Conservative government?
    The Prime Minister: Of course the objective 1 additional funding that has been made available for the next three years—some £420 million over and above the Barnett formula—will do a great deal for regeneration in Wales. Also, as a result of the new deal and, indeed, the strength of the economy, unemployment in Wales has fallen considerably. Once again, my hon. Friend will note

    1107
    that the additional objective 1 money in Wales is precisely what would fall under the cosh of the Tories' £16 billion spending cuts
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What would the Prime Minister say to my constituent Mr. Alistair Scott of Wanlockhead whose 30-year-old haulage business has just closed, largely because he cannot compete and return loads from England because he is up against hauliers who have many vehicles based in France, where they can buy DERV at 54p a litre as against 84p a litre in this country? What would he tell Mr. Scott—that things can only get better?
    The Prime Minister: First, the hon. Gentleman's political party has not merely made no commitment whatever on petrol duty, but is committed to putting taxes up for business in Scotland. Secondly, it is of course correct to say that petrol prices have been higher here. I have explained on many occasions the reasons for that. It was important that we removed the deficit that we inherited when we came to office. The very best thing for business as a whole in Scotland and the rest of the UK is a strong, well-run economy. Under this Government, it has got that.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: My constituency has some of the worst health statistics in the country, which is why the extra money for the NHS is most welcome. However, do we not have to ensure that those resources are targeted where they are most needed, and efficiently delivered? That is why the NHS national plan is most important. We do not need what the Leader of the Opposition talked about in his speech yesterday—the privatisation of the NHS.
    The Prime Minister: The Opposition are committed to taking £1 billion for their private medical insurance plans, and that money will come straight out of the national health service. The benefit of the spending review is that it allows us to make an investment in our hospitals and in our primary care facilities, and to increase the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS. Taken together with the other spending—investment in education, skills and transport infrastructure—it offers the genuine chance of opportunity and security for all in our society.
    Mr. Edward Davey:The Prime Minister will be aware of a recent report commissioned by Britain's top universities, which recommended charging students top-up fees of up to £4,500 a year. Will he give the House a categorical assurance that the Government will not introduce top-up fees for students, and would not introduce them if they were re-elected?
    The Prime Minister: We have no plans to introduce top-up fees. It is important that we get additional funds into our universities. Therefore, under the spending review we are putting extra money into the university system, which is vastly in excess of anything that he, as a Liberal Democrat, promised his electorate at the last election.
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that politics is essentially
    1108
    about choices? People gloat at memo leaks while the Government get on with the job of repairing leaking school roofs that have disfigured our education system for too long; they concentrate on spin doctors while the Government get on with the job of recruiting new doctors to rebuild our national health service; and they launch bogus campaigns to save the pound while the Government deliver an economy of 1 million new jobs. My right hon. Friend's initials may be "TB", but "not to be" is the destiny of the Conservative party.
    The Prime Minister: I certainly agree that there are clear choices. There is the choice between stability and boom and bust, and between lower unemployment under this Government and higher unemployment under the Conservative party. It is difficult to know exactly what choice to make when one reads interviews such as that with the shadow Chancellor in The Spectator a day or two ago. He was asked by the interviewer whether his plans meant that he would announce lower spending. He replied:
    We reject the language of cuts.
    The interviewer asked:
    You mean you won't be cutting?
    Answer:
    We may or may not be spending less.
    [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have a lot of questions to answer between now and the election.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Prime Minister believe that focus groups are the stuff of leadership?
    The Prime Minister: No. That is why, when we announce our additional expenditure plans or even when we take positions that are put to me by the leader of his party as unpopular, we do what is right.
    Mr. Harry Cohen: As this is the last Prime Minister's questions that you will preside over, Madam Speaker, may I congratulate you on controlling this near riot every week? If the Prime Minister offers you a law and order job, please accept it.
    Will my right hon. Friend comment on the Commission for Racial Equality's report "Inspecting schools for race equality", which says that the Office for Standards in Education has failed to fulfil its lead responsibility to ensure racial equality and to challenge racism in schools? Many inspectors were unaware of that responsibility and considered it unimportant, like Christmas tree baubles. One of them said that Ofsted's priority was "under-achieving white boys". Ofsted's chiefs have whinged at the report's findings, which is pretty rich for an organisation that is used to dishing out criticism. When other organisations have been criticised, they have made changes and improvements. Will my right hon. Friend require Ofsted to do the same?
    The Prime Minister: To be fair, Ofsted has indeed replied. It points out that the findings rely on analysis of only about 30 reports out of a total of more than 30,000.

    1109
    It also says, however, that the CRE report contains criticisms that it will take on board, which I think is the right and responsible thing for it to do.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: Millions of people take their main holiday abroad nowadays, but many also take a second holiday in a United Kingdom seaside resort. Will the Prime Minister give a lead to his hon. Friends and the country, and take a second holiday in one of those UK seaside resorts which have so much to offer the holiday visitor?
    The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that carefully, but at present I am concentrating on my first holiday.
    Helen Jones: Is the Prime Minister aware that extra education spending in my constituency has halved the number of infants in classes of more than 30 and financed 48 projects under the new deal for schools, many in the most deprived areas? Which of those investments in our young people does he think could be described as "reckless"—the extra teachers, the new classrooms, or the newly announced sure start programme for Warrington? Will he tell my constituents how many of those projects he thinks could survive £24 million worth of Tory cuts?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that many of the things that have been done in schools in her constituency, and constituencies up and down the country, are a result of the new deal. The Conservative party is opposed to the new deal, and committed to scrapping it.
    As for the additional spending announced last week, we now know that the Conservatives are opposed to it, and would reduce it by £16 billion. We also know, from what I have read out today, that whatever the Conservatives may say about health spending—and I do not think they are credible on that either—they now accept that in each and every other area they will make substantial cuts.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Can the Prime Minister explain why, if state-owned British Nuclear Fuels can find £40 million from public funds to compensate the Japanese for nuclear fuel problems, we cannot find some public funds to compensate Britain's former Japanese prisoners of war?
    The Prime Minister: As I have said before, we will make our decision on the issue of Japanese prisoners of war in due course; but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Conservative Member can come to the House and start asking us to increase public spending. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say that he wants more spending when his party is committed to cutting spending.
    Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members what exercise they will be engaged in over the coming months and years. They will have to explain why, in every constituency in the country, £24 million worth of spending is to be cut. If they think
    1110
    that will be easy, let me read them what one of their shadow Finance Ministers said a few days ago. He said:
    The economies we have to find, I admit, will not be easy.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we head for the recess, the overwhelming majority of the British people are satisfied that we have focused not just on the needs of the moment, but on the needs of the next three years? We are not spending money on diversions, but are focusing on health, education and dealing with crime, as people want us to. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that our direction is the direction of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: That money is going directly into the services that people need. As the Chancellor pointed out last week, the big difference is that whereas under the last Government 42p in every pound of additional spending went on social security and interest payments on debt, under this Government 83p in the pound goes to the very public services that the country wants. Not only will we create a more just society through our spending, but we will create the economic prosperity of the future.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Just three weeks ago, the Prime Minister gave three reasons for refusing to drop his Bill to take away the right of every individual citizen to choose trial by jury. Is he aware that every one of those reasons has been demonstrated to be incorrect? First, he said that the Bill was supported by the Lord Chief Justice, but we now know that the Lord Chief Justice had written to the Home Secretary expressing strong misgivings. Secondly, he said that it was supported by the Runciman royal commission. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and hear the question.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Secondly, the Prime Minister said that it was supported by the Runciman royal commission, but Professor Zander of that commission has expressly disavowed the Bill. Thirdly, he said that it would save money, and we now know that two thirds of that money comes from the fact that it is supposed that old lags with many previous convictions who now get 11 months' imprisonment will get just three and a half months from the magistrates. Does the Prime Minister accept that all his reasons were wrong?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that any of them are wrong. I will send the right hon. and learned Gentleman the comments of the Lord Chief Justice supporting what we are doing. I will send him the comments of the royal commission supporting such a change. I will also send him the evidence from Scotland, where they have had such a change for many years without any of the problems that he claims for it here. As for the spending gains, yes the Bill will free up extra resources for the criminal justice system, although I have to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, as a result of his shadow Chancellor, even if it were the right thing to do, he could not afford to do it.
    Madam Speaker: Thank you. Time's up.

National Lottery (Community Chest)
3.31 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the National Lottery Act 1998 to require lottery terminals to double as internet access points and a proportion of revenue from ticket sales to be kept in a community chest.
There are so many people in the Chamber; I did not appreciate how much interest there was in the Bill.
The Bill is in two parts. The first is a measure to ensure that there is a network of terminals for the lottery in every community throughout the United Kingdom. Local post offices will often be the most appropriate sites for that access, particularly in remote and rural areas, but we should also consider shops, petrol stations and village halls.
Under the original legislation there were supposed to be 35,000 lottery terminals, but there are now only 24,300 terminals in the UK. Highly populated urban centres are much better served than our more isolated rural communities. The Bill will ensure universal access to the national lottery.
In addition, all post office branches, local shops and petrol stations should have lottery terminals to access the internet for e-mail and e-commerce. Those terminals would quickly create nationwide network access for people who do not have information technology facilities at home. The Bill will help to resolve some of the digital divide—a key subject in last week's G8 talks. We should create 100,000 new terminals.
The measures outlined in my Bill provide a much-needed boost for local post offices, which already provide an array of services to the community in addition to postal services. They are crucial for the dissemination of information, and they are a focus for local people to meet. We must find more creative new roles for them, and I suggest that this is one of those.
The second part of the Bill seeks to introduce an additional cause: the community awards cause. Currently, there are six good causes: arts, charities, sport, millennium, heritage and the New Opportunities Fund. At the end of the year, the millennium cause will cease and
1112
the six will become five. The Bill seeks to create a new cause: the community chest. I know that the Sports Council for Wales already has that cause.
Research by the House of Commons Library—I commend the report to the House and urge Members to read and digest its findings—demonstrates some interesting statistics. I have taken four constituencies at random: Sedgefield; Richmond, Yorks; Ross, Skye and Inverness, West; and Sittingbourne and Sheppey.
Since 1994, Sedgefield constituents have spent £537 per head on lottery tickets, or nearly £41 million. However, they have won only £5.3 million in lottery awards. Richmond has spent £334 per head of adult population, or £36 million, but has received just under £7 million in lottery awards. Ross, Skye and Inverness, West clearly knows something. It has spent £502 per head of adult population, which means expenditure of £30 million on tickets, and has received almost £10.5 million in return. Sittingbourne and Sheppey has spent £672 per head, or expenditure of £43.5 million, but has won only £1.2 million.
My Bill seeks to change the nature of the lottery good causes. It proposes introducing a new cause, the community chest, which will receive 20 per cent. of the revenue from ticket sales after prize money and costs have been allocated in each constituency.
The community chest good cause would still be able to spend revenues only on the five existing causes. The difference would be that it would be quicker than the current bureaucratic system, more effective and—dare I say it—more popular.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Derek Wyatt, Mrs. Diana Organ, Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Lawrie Quinn.

NATIONAL LOTTERY (COMMUNITY CHEST)
Mr. Derek Wyattaccordingly presented a Bill to amend the National Lottery Act 1998 to require lottery terminals to double as internet access points and a proportion of revenue from ticket sales to be kept in a community chest: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 November, and to be printed [Bill 171].

Speaker's Statement
3.37 pm
Madam Speaker: In 1992, when the House elected me to be Speaker, I pledged two things: to do my best to justify its confidence, and to do all in my powers to preserve and to cherish its traditions. Now, as I prepare to lay down this great office, it is for you to judge my performance against those promises. Be assured that on this occasion, I shall not rule you out of order.
For my part, being Speaker has afforded me a unique opportunity to serve Parliament, for which I am immensely grateful. However, before I go further, I wish to thank those who have given me such loyal service throughout the years. Although—thank goodness for me, and for you too—I have not come anywhere near Speaker Onslow's record of 31 years in this Chair, I have nevertheless seen three Clerks of the House, each giving invaluable service—Sir Clifford Boulton, Sir Donald Limon and the current occupant, Bill McKay. To each of them I owe a very great deal.
I also wish to pay tribute to my two secretaries. Sir Peter Kitcatt steered me through the first very strange and very demanding days of my new job and gave me absolutely splendid support. I was very fortunate, too, in his successor, Nicolas Bevan, who came new to the House, but swiftly acquired an encyclopaedic knowledge not only of Members' names and interests, but of the ways of Westminster. Since 1993 he has been constantly at my side, whether in this House or on visits abroad—never tiring, never ruffled, but showing great patience, great loyalty and personal commitment. My very best thanks go to Nicolas.
I owe a debt of thanks also to all the others who have served on my office and constituency staff, and on my personal staff in Speaker's House—and, of course, to the Deputy Speakers who throughout the years have supported me so well.
When I first entered the House, the Speaker was Selwyn Lloyd, and I recall his leaving speech. He paid very generous tribute to the Members of those days, but he went out of his way to mention what he described as their "collective faults". He summed those up as long-windedness, sedentary interruptions, points of order that are not points of order, and an inability to scrutinise Bills and statutory instruments as they should be scrutinised. Things don't change much, do they?
One of the privileges of the Speaker is to be able to represent this House abroad, both at Speakers' Conferences and on bilateral visits. I am glad to have been able to accept invitations to represent Westminster in every continent, and to have visited many countries, both large and small, on your behalf. What has always come across clearly to me is the respect felt abroad for the British system of parliamentary democracy. It comes across especially between the emerging democracies of central and eastern Europe, where there is a very keen desire to learn from our experience as they develop their own systems of government. I know that the advice and assistance that we are able to give at both parliamentary and staff level are enormously appreciated.
Sadly, however, I have to say that the high reputation of Westminster abroad is not entirely reflected at home. I know from my postbag how much disillusion about the
1114
political process there is among the general public. The level of cynicism about Parliament, and the accompanying alienation of many of the young from the democratic process, is troubling. It is an issue on which every Member of the House should wish to reflect. It is our responsibility, each and every one of us, to do what we can to develop and build public trust and confidence.
Let us make a start by remembering that the function of Parliament is to hold the Executive to account. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is the role for which history has cast the Commons. It is the core task of Members not merely to act as representatives of their constituents, important though that certainly is. It is in Parliament in the first instance that Ministers must explain and justify their policies. Since becoming Speaker in 1992, I have made my views known about that, both publicly and behind the scenes, to both Governments. I have taken action to ensure that those who advise Ministers should never overlook the primacy of Parliament. This is the chief forum of the nation—today, tomorrow and, I hope, for ever.
Question Time offers a prime opportunity to hold Ministers to account, and I share the disappointment at the slow progress that is made. Too many Back-Bench Members are being deprived, by the long-windedness of colleagues, of their chance to question Ministers. We are not moving down the Order Paper as we should. There is also an issue of quality as well as quantity. There is, from time to time, a risk that engagement with the real issues is seen to be overshadowed by political point scoring simply for its own sake.
Parliament's other prime function is the scrutiny of Government legislation. There is, I believe, throughout the House a general recognition that that is an area ripe for improvement. Committees of the House, as well as outside bodies, are making a substantial contribution to the debate. The issues are serious and complex, and there is no simple solution. The debate should not be conducted on party lines—nor on the simplistic basis of the Executive versus the rest of us. The objective, to my mind, must be improved scrutiny leading to better legislation—perhaps through the greater use of pre-legislative arrangements; I think that they might be useful to us. Again, the issue is as much one of quality of scrutiny as of quantity.
Futhermore, the House must be prepared to put in the hours necessary to carry out effective examination of the Government's legislative programme. If that means long days, or rearrangement of the parliamentary year, so be it. Of course, I have been here long enough to recognise the importance of enabling parliamentarians to enjoy a domestic life; it should not be impossible to meet both objectives—but where there is a clash, the requirements of effective scrutiny and the democratic process must take priority over the convenience of Members.
Those of you who were here when I submitted myself to the will of the House in 1992 will recall that I said, in all honesty, that for me the Commons had never been just a career; it had been my life. Now, after eight and a half years as Speaker, that is more true than ever. Quite apart from the honour of being Speaker and the many fascinations of the work, I have enjoyed the job. I was going to say that I have enjoyed every minute of it. Let me say that I have enjoyed almost every minute of it. That has been helped by the fact that I have presided over a House containing so many characters and so many

1115
stalwart Members, on whom it depends so much. I have not had a boring day in my working life, and for all that, I am grateful to all of you.
When I came to the conclusion that it was right for me to go, my thoughts went to that famous passage in the book of Ecclesiastes, about there being
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
Well, my dancing days are long past—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and I promise the House that I shall not weep, but I shall certainly mourn the fact that an all-important phase in my life has come to a natural end. However, it is time for laughter as well, as we remember all the lighter moments that we have enjoyed together—
Mr. Chris Ruane: Name them.
Madam Speaker: There's an old sourpuss over there!
I say to you, rejoice in your inheritance, defend your rights and remember always that the privileges the House enjoys were dearly won and must never be squandered. You elected me in the springtime, and I shall retire in the autumn, which marks a fitting seasonal conclusion to my period in office. Therefore I say to you all, in a phrase that you all know so well, but which has never been more true than now: "Time's up." [Applause.]

Retirement of Madam Speaker
3.48 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): I beg to move,
That this House records its appreciation of the great distinction with which the Right Honourable Betty Boothroyd has occupied the office of Speaker; congratulates her on the skilful manner in which she has upheld the authority and dignity of this House; appreciates the wisdom, good humour and skill with which she has presided over its affairs, which are universally admired both in this country and abroad; and accordingly expresses its warmest thanks to the Right Honourable Member for her many services to this House; and unites in wishing her a long and happy retirement.
Madam Speaker, it is pleasure to be the first to speak to the motion and to address my remarks to you, confident that I am speaking for everyone in the Chamber. You have been a truly outstanding Speaker and you have greatly enhanced the reputation of your office. You have presided over the House with authority and impartiality and, not least, with warmth and humour. Your tenure of the speakership has been characterised above all by your transparent love of this place and all that it stands for. As you said on your election:
I have been a Member for nearly 20 years. For me, the Commons has never been just a career: it is my life.
You repeated that to us this afternoon.
Madam Speaker, you first came to the Commons more than 40 years ago as a secretary to a Member. In 1973, you were elected Member of Parliament for West Bromwich, West, and for more than a quarter of a century you have given exceptional service as a constituency Member also. Among those who will miss you most as you retire are your numerous friends in the black country.
When elected Speaker, quite characteristically you said at the time:
I realise the weight of responsibility. It is something more massive, more demanding than anything that I have known before.
It is, indeed, one of the toughest jobs in politics, and historically one not without risk. You, Madam Speaker, are the 155th occupant of the Chair. Some of your predecessors faced severe problems. During the reign of Henry VI, four Speakers were lost in the 10 years between 1461 and 1471. Two were beheaded, one was imprisoned and one was killed at the battle of Tewkesbury. That puts the problems of handling my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) into proper perspective.
Your judgments, made as they so often have to be, instantaneously—I believe that I speak for everyone—have been unerringly sound and fair. You can calm the House when it is angry and defuse it when it is tense. We all fear your knack of the legendary stifled yawn, which has been one of the most effective ways of bringing Members to a close.
Above all, however, you are a passionate parliamentarian. You are also—this has been another key to your success—a passionate Back Bencher. I know that there was one short aberration. For a few months between 1974 and 1975 you were an assistant Government Whip. I understand that, greatly to your credit, you were never entirely comfortable in that role.
In your acceptance speech on 27 April 1992, you summed up your feelings like this:
I have been a Deputy Speaker, but always at heart I have been a Back Bencher, and…I have never sought, and I have never expected, to occupy one of the great offices of Government.—[Official Report, 27 April 1992; Vol. 207, c. 15.]

1117
You may never have held one of the great offices of Government, but you have held and enriched the greatest office in Parliament.
Your decision to step down, Madam Speaker, was one of the best-kept secrets in politics. The clapping at that time and today may have been out of order, and there will have been part of you, with your strong sense of the traditions of this place, that perhaps felt disapproval. However, you will know, then and today, that it was a spontaneous expression of the House's deep affection for you.
It is not only people in this country who are going to miss you. You will be missed by people in many countries of the world. You have been a great ambassador for this Parliament and a passionate supporter of the Commonwealth. As we know, Prime Minister's Question Time is broadcast in many other countries, and while the performance of individual Members is not always greeted with acclamation, you receive rave reviews and, I am told, sackfuls of fan mail. You must let me into the secret.
You have spoken for the House on many historic occasions. I think for many of us the most memorable and moving was seeing you walk down the steps of Westminster Hall hand in hand with Nelson Mandela on his first official visit here as South Africa's President.
The role of Speaker, as you know better than us, can be a lonely one. You were always, by nature, a gregarious Back Bencher, enjoying the companionship of the Commons. But while maintaining the dignity of your office, you have never seemed remote, either to Members or to members of the public.
The House will miss you greatly. We would have liked you to continue. It is your decision, not ours that "time's up." But I am very mindful of your strict instruction to us a fortnight ago that we must be happy for you. Well, we are. Have a long and happy retirement. And do so in the certain knowledge that your great affection and respect for the House is reciprocated in the great affection and respect that the House feels for you.
3.54 pm
Mr. William Hague: It is an enormous pleasure on this occasion to support every word that the Prime Minister said and wholeheartedly to endorse the motion in his name.
For all of us, Madam Speaker, your retirement will mark the end of an era. Ever since I was elected to the House in 1989, you have occupied the Chair, first as Deputy Speaker, then as Speaker since 1992. For me and many other hon. Members, it is hard to imagine the Chamber without you sitting in that Chair.
Your election to the speakership was, of course, historic. After 700 years and 154 Speakers, the House finally elected a woman to take the Chair. I trust that the House will not take it as anything more than a general comment when I express my hope that you will be the first in a long line of distinguished Madam Speakers.
One of the reasons for that is that your speakership has been an outstanding success, as the Prime Minister said. That is true of the way in which you have conducted the day-to-day business of the House, and of the standing in which Parliament is held throughout the world. You have been a truly magnificent ambassador for the House in international gatherings and in welcoming distinguished visitors here.
1118
In your eight years as Speaker, you have become a national and international figure, with your inimitable call to order instantly recognisable around the world—augmented in pitch by a packet of cigarettes every day. While the televising of our proceedings has no doubt been a major factor in your worldwide profile—coverage of Prime Minister's questions has turned you into a cult figure in the United States—it is also in no small part due to the authority and unique personality that you have stamped on the Chamber.
You have governed the House with exemplary courtesy, charm and, when necessary, a little firmness, on one occasion even turning off the microphone of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in full flow—not something that many of us would ever dare to do. Ministers prone to long-winded replies and even long-winded questioners have been subjected to a well executed and exaggerated yawn, which it turns out even the Prime Minister has noticed.
Much of the success of your job depends not just on knowledge of procedure and close attention to the minute details of Commons rules, but to the wise interpretation of those rules. As one of your distinguished predecessors, Mr. Speaker Lowther, said:
The office of Speaker does not demand rare qualities. It demands common qualities in rare degree.
In carrying out your duties in the House, you have more than lived up to that criterion, and you have always been a source of wise counsel for a young Back Bencher or a seasoned Minister.
Defending the best traditions of the House is rightly one of the characteristics of your speakership for which you will be most remembered. You reaffirmed that in your statement today. You have been a redoubtable champion of the rights of Back Benchers of whatever party to hold Ministers to account, and in an age of spin doctors and soundbites, you have been insistent in calling on Ministers to make their policy announcements in the House. At a time when, to many, Parliament has appeared increasingly marginalised, you have done more than anyone to try to reassert its central role in our democracy and to resist its downgrading.
It has been said before that the position of Speaker in the House can be a lonely one. You are by tradition cut off from your previous party affiliations and the occasional refuge of the Tea Room, the Smoking Room and even the Bar, but you have been anything but cut off from the House and its Members. That has been true in your dealings with Members conducting parliamentary business, and it has also been evident in the magnificent hospitality that you have shown to Members and the innumerable charities and outside organisations which have been entertained in Speaker's House over the past eight years.
You said again today that for you the Commons had never been just a career—it was your life. After nearly 20 years as a Back Bencher and nearly eight years as our Speaker, nobody can doubt that. However, even that should not obscure the work that you have done outside the House with charities, your constituents in West Bromwich, West and in your position as chancellor of the Open university, which I know means so much to you.
Now you have an opportunity to have a life once more outside the Chamber, some of it, we hope, not too far away, but you will also be able to concentrate more time

1119
on one or two of your other great loves—visiting exotic places, and even hang-gliding when you get there. As we wish you a successful, long and happy retirement, you leave us in the sure knowledge that you have made an historic contribution to the House of Commons, and with our profoundest admiration and respect.
4 pm
Mr. Charles Kennedy: It is sometimes remarked about the cockpit that is the House of Commons that instinctive all-party agreement usually means that the wrong decision will be reached. However, I think that the instinctive all-party agreement with which the House of Commons happily subscribes to the motion moved by the Prime Minister is a rare and telling example of hon. Members being collectively sincere and correct. I am very happy to associate myself and my party with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party.
As has been said, Madam Speaker, you are the 155th Speaker of the House of Commons, but the first woman to occupy that historic post. All of us in politics who want there to be more women in this Chamber, either in the Chair or elsewhere, can look to you as a source of inspiration when it comes to the success of women in politics. However, there is a need for further success for women in politics in general.
Unlike some of your predecessors, you have never lost your head, either physically or metaphorically. You have presided over our daily dealings in this Chamber with charm and dignity, and also with the authority that all hon. Members require. I have acquired new responsibilities this Session, and I know that I speak for my predecessor as leader of the Liberal Democrat party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Paddy Ashdown), when I say that you have been a constant source of private advice and encouragement. I address you as Madam Speaker, and you call me "love"—which is a lot more affectionate than what I sometimes get called by my hon. Friends. You and I have even been known to share a fag together, and such memories are very welcome.
You were determined to become a Member of Parliament, Madam Speaker. You had to try five times to get elected to this place, but you made a sensational success of your parliamentary career when you got here. That tenacity is something that hon. Members of all parties can readily acknowledge.
The distinguished parliamentary commentator Norman Shrapnel once observed that too much silence in the Chamber was probably more ominous in a parliamentary democracy than too much noise. Sometimes we are too noisy, but let us never be silent. A good House of Commons should do its job, and that is what you have done, Madam Speaker. Many salutes—we wish you well
4.03 pm
Mr. David Trimble: It is a great pleasure, Madam Speaker, to endorse the motion moved by the Prime Minister, to which the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West
1120
(Mr. Kennedy), have spoken. I entirely endorse everything that they have said, as do all my Ulster Unionist colleagues.
My party is one of the smallest in the House. My hon. Friends and I depend on the Chair to help us to contribute to the workings of the House. I want to extend to you, Madam Speaker, our appreciation of what you, and the Deputy Speakers, have done during your speakership to defend the traditions of the House and the position of the smaller parties.
In your comments, Madam Speaker, you invited us to pass judgment on the way in which you have discharged your role. The best judgment that I can make—and I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members in the House—is that I know that we did the right thing when we elected you in 1992. The statement that you made earlier confirms me in that knowledge. You reasserted the core functions of the House, which are to hold the Executive to account and to scrutinise legislation.
I would like to express in particular my appreciation of what you have said this afternoon, Madam Speaker. It is a very timely reminder to all of us of what we are primarily here for. You are quite right to say that, in some sections of public opinion, there is a degree of scepticism or cynicism about politics in general and the operations of this House. If anything, that cynicism has increased in recent years—perhaps inevitably, in a House with such a huge Government majority.
It is very important to reassert, as you have done, our primary function in terms of holding the Government to account and scrutinising legislation, and also to emphasise our need of the time to do that on the Floor of the House. It has been, I think, a retrograde step in recent years—indeed, in recent weeks—that time for debate and consideration has been curtailed so often. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will reflect on the very wise words that you have uttered this afternoon.
Madam Speaker, you are, of course, the servant of the House, and you have been a magnificent servant of the House. You have also enhanced the standing of the House in the eyes of the public, not just here in the United Kingdom but elsewhere. We owe you a very great debt of gratitude, which I wish to express to you. I also wish you all the best on your retirement—I am sure that you will find many useful things to do in its service in various forms in the future.
4.06 pm
Sir Edward Heath: Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of occupying the Chair for the first time when you were elected Speaker. This provided me with certain problems, because I felt that it would quite wrong of me to exercise any judgment or express any views whatever on the election, lest all my colleagues here might think that I was trying to influence the outcome.
I find myself in a rather similar position once again in regard to the election of your successor in some three months' time. I propose to adopt the same attitude. It is not for me, in any way, to try to influence opinion. However, last night I signed a letter, which covers all the basics of the election of the Speaker and is being circulated to all Members of the House. They can form their own judgments on it and decide how they will react to it. I shall only add that, to any who wish to make

1121
inquiries about it, I shall be available over the next three months—in some part of the world or other—[Laughter.] I will gladly answer inquiries—provided, of course, that hon. Members pay the telephone charges.
You, Madam Speaker, have occupied the Chair during two quite distinct periods of British politics. First, you were Speaker for a Government on the decline who had been in office for 18 years. Secondly, you were in office for a new Government of a different party, with one of the largest majorities in history. Looking back over it, I cannot recall any incident in which your conduct or comments aroused any real differences within this Chamber. That is probably the most remarkable thing of all in the years I have been in the House—now more than 50—and on that, I congratulate you most sincerely.
It was all summed up in the last words of your introductory speech, when you said:
I now have to offer myself as the voice of the House—sensitive to the concerns of every Member, aware of the supreme duty of the Speaker to safeguard the rights of this House…—[Official Report, 27 April 1992; Vol. 207, c. 16.]
If I may say so, Madam Speaker, you have lived up to that standard to the greatest possible degree. I would like to express my personal admiration for you and for all you have done, and to thank you from the depths of my heart.
4.9 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: Madam Speaker, the respect and affection in which you are held by all hon. Members is reflected in the shock that we felt when we heard your first announcement two weeks ago. There was genuine sorrow on both sides of the House that you should make, inevitably, the decision that you did, but that shock and sorrow are reflected in the constituency that you have represented with such distinction for so many years, and equally in my constituency, in the black country and in the west midlands generally.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded the House that, Madam Speaker, you were first elected at a by-election in 1973. For eight months or so, you represented constituents, who, in that short period, came into the new West Bromwich, East constituency—others went into the constituency of the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It says something for the impression that you made in those nine short months that, 26 and a half years later, many of my constituents still think that you represent them—
Madam Speaker: And still write to me.
Mr. Snape: I suspect that at least half of them wish you still did represent them.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I shall detain the House for a few moments with a couple of stories about the many years that you and I have served together, representing the borough of West Bromwich. We were elected in February 1974, and the old stagers among us will remember that it was pretty grim winter, but I shall avoid the political reasons behind that; I speak purely of the weather. You may remember, Madam Speaker, that when the results were declared, the then town clerk—that is what they were called in those days, with a salary to match—marched us through the back door of the Gala baths, past the empty dustbins and the stray cats in the town hall
1122
yard, through the back door of the town hall and down the empty corridors at 1.40 in the morning, and then proceeded to read out the results to an empty and snow-swept high street. I remember that, when we at last found some licensed premises, within the hour, you said, "Snapey, there will be some changes around here." [Laughter.] Sure enough, there have been some changes.
On another occasion, we decided, perhaps unwisely, to attend the West Bromwich carnival, sharing a pony and trap. It was a very small trap and a rather small pony, and in those politically incorrect days, Madam Speaker, you and I had not achieved the slim and sylph-like figures that we possess today. Half way down the high street, the shafts broke; the pony departed; and we were left with our legs in the air, facing the sky. "Now then, Snapey", you said, "you reckon to be a transport expert—get us out of this one." I am afraid, Madam Speaker, that I failed as miserably then as I have in other matters since.
The way in which you have represented the boroughs of West Bromwich and Sandwell and the Black Country as a whole has endeared you enormously to the people there, Madam Speaker. Their views were perhaps best reflected in the article written following your original statement by our good friend, Ken Tudor, in our local paper, the Express and Star. He said:
Over the years I have watched her battle for constituents, reminding officials they worked for the people and that everyone deserved respect.
In those moods she is a formidable woman, her manicured and expertly varnished fingers fencing in front of her as she puts her points over. Betty in that mood is the match for anyone, and always has the last word.
Well, I can say, with the benefit of having worked alongside you for 27 and a half years, that we have never had a cross word, largely because, like most males in such circumstances, I have never dared answer you back.
It has been an enormous privilege for me to work alongside you during these years, and on behalf of your colleagues in the west midlands group of Labour Members, dating from your time when you were a member of that group, and your constituents—and mine, too—in West Bromwich, Wednesbury, Oldbury, Tividale, Tipton and Blackheath, I would wish you to know how much you are loved and respected by all of them. No matter what honours are rightly heaped upon you in the years to come, among your parliamentary colleagues and your constituents across the Black Country, you will always be known as "Our Betty."
4.15 pm
Mr. Tony Senn: One of the things of which I am proudest is that, way back in the 1960s, I came to support you, Madam Speaker, when you stood for Parliament. Forty years ago, of course, I did not realise that you would be the Speaker of the House.
I shall take up one point that you made in your statement: you have brought happiness to the House, and that has been reflected in how the House responded to your statement and among the many of us who have enjoyed your hospitality. I do not know whether this is true, but the story goes that the Father of the House made it possible for you to have a piano in the Speaker's House. If that is so, he brought his musical talents to bear in such a way as to make your evening parties more enjoyable.
You are the eighth Speaker under whom I have sat, and I can think of none who has had to cope with such massive changes. The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh

1123
Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Mayor of London are all represented in the House, and we have also had to deal with Members of the European Parliament and the growth of the media. You have turned your mind to the constitutional changes that we need. As we move more and more towards a presidential system of government, you have asserted yourself as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. There is a difference, as you have said, between an executive and a representative body.
In addition, Madam Speaker, you have interpreted democracy not in terms of directives from above and discipline, but in terms of the debate, diversity, disagreement and decision that are the mainspring of a democratic Parliament. You have also represented us brilliantly abroad.
You said, Madam Speaker, that you would not call us to order during this debate, so I shall break all the rules of "Erskine May" and the House by saying what I know we all want to say—"Goodbye, Betty, and thank you for all that you have done."
4.17 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: Madam Speaker, as a former Leader of the House and as the Member who seconded your nomination for the speakership, I want to add just a few words of my own. I can do so briefly because I agree with all the sentiments expressed so far.
We all had high expectations of you when you became Speaker, and you have far more than fulfilled them. You have shown a great mastery over the House, with appropriate firmness and with your sense of humour, tact and a twinkle in your eye whenever appropriate. I should like to comment on two of the points that you made earlier, which are important to you and to us.
First, the supremacy of Parliament is not just about statements being made here rather than on the "Today" programme. The issue goes much deeper than that. As a Minister in various Departments, I constantly found myself reminding officials that every policy had to be tested in Parliament, and that Parliament came first. I had also to remind them that I had a constituency responsibility that was also a high priority. You, Madam Speaker, have constantly reasserted the supremacy of Parliament.
Secondly, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said, you have maintained our traditions superbly at a time of great change. Above all, you have recognised the realities of this place. We are not good at scrutinising various aspects of the Executive, particularly when it comes to secondary legislation. We must recognise that that means long hours and a heavy responsibility. I am grateful for the way in which you have always stressed those points.
Finally, reference has been made to the hospitality that you have shown to many of us and our spouses and families. We are all deeply grateful for it. On the many occasions on which my wife and I have hugely enjoyed that hospitality, you have demonstrated that you are a superb impresario, a great controller of events and a magnificent mistress of ceremonies. Bearing in mind the period when you trod the boards, I can also say that you
1124
are still a pretty impressive performer when you go before an audience. You have shown those qualities both in your hospitality and in this Chamber.
I thank you personally for all that you have done and I wish you well in what I am sure will be not a retirement but a long, happy and fulfilling life to come.
4.19 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: When you took the Chair in this great democratic Chamber, Madam Speaker, you made history, but I know better than most that you would not have been content to make it simply by being the first woman Speaker, important though that is. You wanted to—and did—stamp your authority and personality on this Chamber and you have done so in a way to which many hon. Members have referred in this short debate. I echo all their comments.
I must also say something about time and chance in political careers. Much has been said about your earlier life, of which I know little and will therefore say less, but one aspect of it was drawn to my attention today by a rather sad event. I heard of the funeral of Ken Lornas, who was the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield, West. I think that he beat you by a fairly small margin to be selected as the Labour candidate for that seat in 1962. But for time and chance, which affect what happens in our lives, we might never have had Madam Speaker and we would all have been the losers.
Recently, we have not always seen eye to eye on some aspects of the modernisation of the House—I have heard comments this afternoon about its importance. Throughout, you have held firm about the importance of defending Back Benchers' rights and of remembering that we are all here to represent the people who put us here. That is important.
I think that we all came to this House to make history, not merely to relive it. In doing so, we need to change. This House and some of its greatest Speakers have produced change and there has always been anxiety, stress and concern about whether the change is going in the right direction. My view is that the modernisation is, and that we need to improve the quality of the way in which we use time here, rather than focus on the quantity of that time. I think that we will do that.
What you have left me with in that debate, Madam Speaker, is the idea that we must ensure that we do not lose sight of the importance of the Back Bencher. You and all those who have gone before you have kept that firmly in their thoughts and I hope that all those who come after you will also do so. If we modernise the House with that thought in mind, we will succeed. We will look back and see areas where we have got it right and somewhere we have got it wrong, but we will know that we have continued to develop the proud traditions of democracy in this House. For all of that, thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I also wish you a very happy retirement.
4.23 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Madam Speaker, when I was offered the opportunity to propose you—not once, I am happy to say, but twice—as the occupant of the Chair, I realised that it was a most exciting and wonderful day. Today shows that everyone not only acknowledges that you have been a unique

1125
Speaker, but that you have been a very special one. I do not mean that that is because you were the first woman Speaker; it is because you have brought to the office a quality of great humanity. You understand that this mixed body of men and women—who are all different and who all, on occasions, have pointed interests—are bound together by their commitment to the democratic system and their desire to represent what is good, what is best and what is important for their constituents.
We have heard of the many virtues that you have displayed and we all know about those. For me, the most important things have been your intelligence, your ability to listen to everyone from every part of the House and to bind us all together on that occasion when that was tremendously important, and above all, the fact that you have increasingly created a special role for the United Kingdom. You have done that.
I do not know whether you understand quite how unique you are within our politics. The voters see you as the representative of all that is good. Sometimes, they love it when you shout at Members, or when you represent with jokes the important aspects of our work. Above all, what they like about you is that they identify with you and feel that you are, indeed, "Our Betty".
I shall highlight one or two personal memories that are important to me. You and I have had some good old battles on various matters. However, when you leave the Speaker's House, for me there will not merely be sadness at your leaving official office, because of all the work that you have done in that capacity, but at the loss of certain very personal qualities. I think of the person who had worked here for 35 years but had not set foot in the Speaker's House, who stood alongside me at one of your parties and said, "This is the proudest day of my life." That kind of commitment and the understanding that we all have a piece of you is tremendously important.
Madam Speaker, if I were to be honest, the great state occasions when your natural dignity has incredibly enhanced the role of Speaker, have been significant. Certainly, seeing you walk down the stairs with Nelson Mandela is a memory that will stick in my mind for ever—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. I also have personal memories, and I hope that you will forgive me if I highlight them. One is of you hanging out of a window at Speaker's House on the eve of the millennium, shouting "Happy new year" to everyone and getting a roar of recognition such as I have never heard in my life. For me, that was marvellous.
I do not need to tell you that you will be missed, Madam Speaker. You have presided over very real changes and, because you care about Back Benchers, you have been prepared to encourage experiments such as the extension of debate to Westminster Hall, changes in our hours and differences in the ways in which we operate. However, you were prepared to talk to everybody about what that would mean and how it should be carried forward.
I know that you will have a wonderful time, Madam Speaker. If I have one slight disagreement with you today, it is this. Many things will happen to you, you have a lot to do and many places to go to, but I simply do not believe that your dancing days are over.
4.26pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: Madam Speaker, there are myriad reasons why the memories of your speakership will live on in the minds of those of us who have been lucky enough to serve in this House during your remarkable tenure of office.
Madam Speaker, events outside the Chamber, such as your doing the Lambeth Walk in your apartments will be remembered for ever by those of us who were there. Of course, the mainsprings of memory are events in the Chamber, membership of which confers on you the authority that you exercise so notably on our behalf and much to our, and Parliament's, advantage. One afternoon in April 1992, I congratulated you and said that I would seek to remain within the bounds of order. You have richly rewarded me wholly beyond my desserts, however poor my self-discipline.
All of us view you from subjective perspectives but, on everyone's behalf, your speakership has been distinguished, robust, warm, direct, colourful, candid and kind. I have particular reason to know how fortunate I have been to serve in the Chamber in the last eight and a half years, and I am delighted that you have clearly enjoyed that time every bit as much. Thank you, Madam Speaker; I support the Prime Minister's motion.
4.27 pm
Mr. David Marshall: Madam Speaker, for more than eight years, since April 1992, you have been the honorary president of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has over 1,200 members from both Houses of Parliament, including associate members.
In the past six years, as vice-chairman and then chairman, I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with you on IPU matters, Madam Speaker. You have supported strongly the aims and values of the IPU and you have given a great deal of your time to our work, as well as taking great interest in it. You have presided over our annual general meetings, taken an active role in the selection of delegations to other countries and entertained many of the numerous parliamentarians from other IPU member countries who visit this country. You have done all of that with tremendous enthusiasm and great good humour.
Madam Speaker, you are the best known Speaker in the world, and at all of the IPU international conferences—which you, of course, cannot attend—many parliamentarians from the 139 member nations ask after you kindly and express their admiration for you. It is therefore appropriate that one of your last acts as Speaker of the House will be to represent the mother of Parliaments at the special IPU millennium conference of Presiding Officers of national Parliaments which will be held in the United Nations building in New York at the end of August and in which you will play a major role.
Madam Speaker, I very much regret the fact that you will not now preside over our AGM in the autumn, when I will stand down as chairman, having completed my three years in office. I therefore wish to take this opportunity to say a big thank you from all the members of the IPU for all your unstinting efforts on our behalf.

1127
Two weeks ago, when you announced your intention to relinquish the position of Speaker, you said to the House, "Be happy for me". I, for one, am very happy for you and I wish you most sincerely a long, happy and healthy retirement.
4.29 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As one who has also been bitten by the retirement bug, may I associate myself and my colleagues in Plaid Cymru with today's motion and the comments that have been made? I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the way in which you have handled the House with fairness to all parties, and acknowledge the way in which you have perhaps protected me from myself. During your time in the Chair, I have not been the recipient of a red card or been led to break the Speaker's Chair, which, regrettably, I cannot say for earlier periods.
You have presided over a period of significant constitutional change. You have had to deal with new institutions—the National Assembly for Wales; the Scottish Parliament; and changes in Northern Ireland—and the consequential effects that those have had on our procedures. "Erskine May" will rely heavily on the rulings that you made during that period.
When you were elected, you quoted Mr. Speaker Weatherill, who said that a Speaker has no friends. You will know by now that that just is not true. You will leave with the friendship of the whole House, and we wish you iechyd, hir oes a hapusrwydd—health, a long life and happiness—and many joyous memories of a job well done.
4.31 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: The privilege and honour of speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party falls to me. May I convey to you, Madam Speaker, the apologies for the absence of my leader, who is not well?
Those of us in the minor parties in the House owe you a great debt of gratitude for your tolerance, understanding and help, both personal and on a party basis. The years in which you have held office have been difficult for parliamentary representatives from Northern Ireland, because we have had a great distraction from the affairs of this House as a result of the events occurring in our constituencies. You, in particular, took great cognisance of, and interest in, those difficulties and made allowances for us when, over that period, we failed to appear in the House at appropriate times. For that, we are individually and collectively extremely grateful.
Other speakers this evening have eloquently expressed, on behalf of the minor parties, the great care that you always took to ensure that minority opinions were heard on both sides of the House. You added that essential dimension to the debates in this Chamber. We shall always remember that and we hope that it will be continued by your successor. The example that you have set will be difficult to follow, but the atmosphere that you have created in the House will no doubt continue in your absence.
On a personal basis, most of us have appreciated the entertainment in your chambers. Perhaps I should rephrase that: we have appreciated the delights of cultural
1128
activity and the gatherings for music, wining and dining. By that mechanism, you put each of us at ease when we came to the Floor of the House.
We are grateful for your end-of-term report, which you gave the House this evening and which we must all take on board, ponder and act upon in the coming years. You will have been pleased that, at what was perhaps your last performance in the House, you played to a full House. I had great difficulty in getting a seat, as there was standing room only. That is the ultimate tribute to any office or performance. Thank you very much for all that you have done for us. We wish you many happy years of retirement ad multos annos.
4.35 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: In the 30 years and more that I have been in the House, Madam Speaker, I have sat under various Speakers—that is, when I was permitted to sit under them, because some of them had me removed, as you did yourself.
I understand that when you fought your last election, you wore a green rosette. It was not the green of my friend, if I might call him that, the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady); it was the green of this House of Commons. Nevertheless, although you wore that green rosette for your election, you have dealt fairly with those who would rather have the orange.
At the beginning of my parliamentary career, I listened intently to the various Speakers of the House. Speaker King was a man of very distinguished character. Speaker Lloyd was a different character altogether. Perhaps he was distinguished in the Chair as being not distinguished at all. He was not a very distinguished Chairman, probably because he had been in the Cabinet too long, and I do not think that Cabinet Ministers make good Speakers.
Speakers Thomas and Weatherill were very distinguished, although different. People always asked who would follow the acts of Speakers Thomas and Weatherill, but you, Madam Speaker, have more than followed them, and you have today seen the unanimity that is in the House. It is not often that I can say a loud "Amen" to what the Prime Minister says, or even to what the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the official Unionist party says—[Interruption.] We did walk together at one time.
You, Madam Speaker, gave the House at a difficult time in the politics of this United Kingdom a salutary example of what can be done by one parliamentarian, determined and dedicated to the task that was given to you. When you were elected I said that I could not have gone home if I had not voted for you, because I would have had to face the wrath of four Paisley ladies. I did not say that I was more afraid of the dog, who was also a female, because I might have been bitten on the calf, but I will say it today, and I am glad that my wife is present in the House for the occasion of your farewell.
Your unyielding determination to control the House and yet, as we would say in Ulster, give it its head, was amazing, and everyone here today admits that. I remember the day when I had a real tangle with you, Madam Speaker, and I was removed from the Chamber. At the end of the day. I actually walked out—I have been carried out from other places at various times—but out of respect to you I left the Chamber. The House did divide

1129
and some colleagues supported me. Their number went into two figures, which was a record, I am told, for those who are thrown out of the House.
You, Madam Speaker, have shown stamina of which all of us are jealous. You have kept up with the work load, presided in the House and carried out the many duties attached to your office while always looking well. You were always in tremendous form and you brought a sparkle to the audiences that you addressed. That put back into our public life the fact that Parliament can be interesting. It is a good thing that we all have a sense of humour and that we can all laugh at ourselves. It is a good thing that, in the basics of our calling, we have a dedication to democracy.
I, for one, would like to say that your stand was deeply appreciated in Northern Ireland when an attempt was made to alter the rules of membership of the House so that others should have certain offices. Those who follow my way of life in Northern Ireland admired your stand in defending the ancient rules of the House, saying that the House could not be bullied even by appeals to European courts, but stood on its own as the sovereign Parliament of this United Kingdom.
We salute you, Madam Speaker, today. We wish you well and we believe that there is much ahead of you which will bring much credit to the House, of which you were Speaker, and also to the country that we all love.
4.40 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Madam Speaker, you and I have one thing in common: we entered this splendid House, the mother of all Parliaments, at by-elections in the early 1970s. I remain firmly ensconced on the Back Benches; you have achieved the highest office that the House has to offer.
One or two hon. Members have reminisced about experiences in your company. I remember an occasion not so long ago when you were entertaining people in your wonderful apartments and you were let down by the pianist. You turned to several colleagues and asked, "Can you find me a pianist?" I fortunately knew of the proficiency on the piano of Sir Ivan Lawrence, who was then Member of Parliament for Burton. He fulfilled the role that was available that night. From then on, he became your in-House pianist.
I rise as the longest serving member of your Chairmen's Panel and as the current Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I salute you for the service that you have given the House in standing up for the authority and integrity of the Chamber of the House of Commons. Time and again, as Speaker, you have expressed your belief in the vital role of the Back Bencher. That is most valuable. It is too easy in a modern Parliament for the role of the Back Bencher to be underestimated and rendered irrelevant. Time and again, through your words and actions, you have shown the political parties and the Government of the day, of whatever party, that the House is about the role of the Back Bencher.
I salute you for the service that you have given as Speaker; it has been truly magnificent. I wish you the very best and happiest of retirements; it is well earned.
4.42 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: We have now reached the stage in our tributes when almost everything that can be said has been said, but not everyone has said it. Politicians will always find an opportunity for saying a few more golden words.
I rise on behalf of the members of the United Kingdom branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to say thank you, Madam Speaker, for all that you have done for us, and to tell the House about the esteem in which you are held throughout the Commonwealth and by all the many parliamentarians to whom you have given hospitality in what was described as your chambers. In every way, you have shown yourself to be a wonderful Commonwealth figure.
Even before the eight years of your speakership, you were a member of our executive and a joint honorary chairman of our group. During your speakership, you have always gone the extra mile in welcoming Commonwealth parliamentarians to our two main events—the March parliamentary seminar and the May visit. For many, the joyful welcome that you gave them was the highlight of their visit.
One of your last official functions—if not the last—will take place when we hold the millennium conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association here, in the mother of Parliaments, in September. The conference will be held in London and subsequently in Edinburgh. When you made your announcement on 12 July, I was a little afraid that you might not be with us. We were relieved and delighted that you will, as President of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, preside at our functions, doubtless in the same happy way in which you have presided over the House.
On behalf of all Commonwealth parliamentarians, I repeat my thanks and wish you a very long and grand retirement.
4.45 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I happily associate myself and my hon. Friends from the Scottish National party with the motion and, indeed, all the words of praise that have been heaped on you, Madam Speaker, this afternoon. I sincerely thank you for your courtesy, which has meant that you have made yourself available to us when we wished to discuss matters directly with you; for your discipline, which was sometimes directed severely towards these Benches; and for your humour, which has earned you the laughter and love of friends throughout the House.
When you were elected you had the support of all the parties in the House, which in itself was no mean achievement. It is a matter of courtesy to record that you have retained that support during your eight and a half year tenure of office. All those candidates who aspire to be your successor might bear that seriously in mind. From these Benches, we wish you everything that you would wish yourself in your retirement and hope that that retirement will not be too private. We do not see you taking up embroidery and knitting and hope that you will be very much in the public eye and very much involved in public life.
4.46 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I feel that I should say a few words on your retirement, Madam Speaker. It will cause great sadness among television viewers, and the viewing figures for parliamentary programmes will fall. With all respect to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I know that people such as my neighbour Mike Turnbull and millions of others in the country think that you are the No. 1 attraction in the House. They believe that you perform your role from the Chair with humour, dignity and a character that has endeared you to people way beyond the House, throughout the country and throughout the world who have watched our Parliament on television.
You will recall that I first met you at the Nelson and Colne by-election following the death of Sidney Silverman. I was a full-time party organiser running Bradley ward, one of the key wards in Nelson. It was evident from day one that we would not win because the tide was against us, but Paul Carmody, your agent, had us at the bus station delivering leaflets to shift workers at 5 o'clock in the morning and pushing leaflets through doors, making sure that your face was on the topside. We were not allowed to deliver the leaflets in any other way. In fact, we were given lessons.
Although the result was inevitable, your character and hard work kept the spirit of the workers alive throughout the campaign and they were willing to work right up to the last minute. On polling day, we had so many workers that I was not sure how we would be able to feed them all. Suddenly, a massive van arrived and four people carried out a potato pie. One of the Nelson party members was a master baker and we had the biggest potato pie that I have ever seen in my life.
At the West Bromwich by-election, you took the seat of Maurice Foley, who is perhaps best remembered for his role in the bombing of the wreck of the Torrey Canyon to try to get rid of its oil. In a quirk of fate, I took his council seat in Merton and Morden in 1962 when he resigned to try to get a parliamentary seat. Ultimately, he preceded you in West Bromwich.
You took the Chair as Deputy Speaker on 9 July 1987. On 10 July, when I was in the middle of a speech on industry, I looked up to see that you were in the Chair and, to this day, I remember asking what we should call you. You said, "Call me Madam." I am sure that you remember that that was not accepted for several weeks in the softback edition of Hansard, which continued to print "Mr. Deputy Speaker". However, the bound volumes are correct and you are called what you wanted to be called.
1132
From the moment you said "Call me Madam", you set your seal, and a few years later you became the Speaker of the House.
I thank you for the way in which you have performed your duties during the whole of that period, Madam Speaker. You have been a credit to the House and a credit to all of us. I wish you well on your retirement, and I hope that you enjoy the many years ahead of you.
4.50 pm
Mr. Dennis Turner: Madam Speaker, it would be appropriate for the black country to have the last word. As a black country man and a man of few words, all I want to say to you is "yo've been a bosting good spayker." We love you. We think the world of you in the Black Country, as you know. We shall still be together, because you will not be far away from us. On behalf of the Catering Committee, we have bought you a lovely bunch of flowers, and they are outside the Chamber. Thank you for all the work that you have done. We hope that you continue to enjoy your fish, chips and mushy peas. God bless you.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House records its appreciation of the great distinction with which the Right Honourable Betty Boothroyd has occupied the office of Speaker; congratulates her on the skilful manner in which she has upheld the authority and dignity of this House; appreciates the wisdom, good humour and skill with which she has presided over its affairs, which are universally admired both in this country and abroad; and accordingly expresses its warmest thanks to the Right Honourable Member for her many services to this House; and unites in wishing her a long and happy retirement.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): May I say to the House on behalf of the three Deputy Speakers, who would otherwise be silent and who have worked closely with Madam Speaker during the past three years, that they wish to be associated with the sentiments that have been encapsulated in the motion passed by the House.

TRUSTEE BILL [LORDS]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
Census (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Clause 1

    PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF RELIGION MAY BE REQUIRED
    4.52 pm
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, after "religion", insert—
    'or for giving a false answer to that question'.
    The Bill seeks to amend the Census Act 1920, and it is anticipated that the census will take place in April next year. The Bill would permit a question on religion in the next census, and we have said that we would support it if answering the question was voluntary. The 1920 Act does not give the Minister the power to ask such a question, hence the private Member's Bill that is being introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and adopted in Government time.
    Having said that we would support the Bill if answering the question were voluntary, we have our doubts about whether it will be voluntary. The long title of the Bill is to
    Amend the Census Act 1920 to enable particulars to be required in respect of religion.
    In my opinion, the particulars sought are still required in respect of religion. Despite the Minister's assurances, which I accept she has given in good faith, we have our doubts about whether that will be done on a voluntary basis.
    I have taken the liberty of seeking a legal opinion from Mr. Leolin Price QC, the head of chambers at 10 Old square. He has considered the Bill, this amendment, and the amendment tabled in Committee, and has said:
    Not doing something which statute requires you to do is unlawful.
    Clause 1(2) of the new Bill has the effect of excluding liability for any penalty for refusing or neglecting to state any particulars in respect of religion. It does not undo the requirement to provide the particulars. Failure to comply with that requirement is not made lawful; that remains unlawful, and an offence. Only the liability, or the penalty, is excluded. It is an offence not to provide the necessary information; all that has happened is that there is no penalty.
    In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) ably argued that the question should be voluntary. For one reason or another, however, the Government chose to reject what I considered to be a well drafted amendment. We disagree with their decision.
    The Minister may say that the question is voluntary. Perhaps removing the penalty gives the impression that it is. However, she will encounter a difficulty, in that the inclusion of a statement on the census paper that the question is voluntary is probably not in her gift, and would mean that she was acting ultra vires. The rejection of the amendment in Committee may well expose the Government to the possibility of a judicial review in the courts.
    There will be people out there who, for some reason, will not want the question to be asked. Opinion is far from unanimous; indeed, there is a wide variety of opinion.
    1134
    Many groups have expressed their support for the question, but some consider it inappropriate, and I think it likely that it will be challenged in the courts.
    The Bill amends section 8 of the Census Act 1920. Section 8(1)(d) states that it is an offence attracting a penalty of £10 to refuse to answer a question. The Bill removes that £10 penalty. However, section 8(1)(d) also states that it is an offence for any person to give a false answer to a question. The Bill does not remove the penalty for giving a false answer. If I, a member of the Church of England, write "None" in answer to the question on the paper, under the words "This question is voluntary", I am liable. I am committing an offence, because I have given a false answer to the question.
    Mr. John Bercow: I note what my hon. Friend says about the answer "None", but if an individual answered "Not applicable", how would that be interpreted?
    Mr. Ottaway: I must answer that on my feet, as it were, but I think that that would constitute a refusal to answer the question, and would therefore not attract a penalty. If, however, a Sikh wrote "Church of England", that would attract a penalty.
    This is the difficulty in which the Government fined them. Let us leave aside our argument that the question is not voluntary, although the Minister believes that it is. The fact is that those who answer it inaccurately will incur a penalty. I cannot understand the logic of a Bill that, while purporting to make a question voluntary, imposes a fine for giving an inaccurate answer to that question. Is that really what the Minister intended? I shall be more than happy to give way if she wants to elaborate on that—but it appears that she does not.
    That is a legitimate question for me to ask. I hope that the Minister will address it when she responds. Is that what is intended? If it is what is intended, in something important such as a national census, it is opening a can of worms and a Pandora's box of litigation.
    5 pm
    The Minister may say that I am nit picking, and ask who in their right mind would prosecute someone for putting an inaccurate answer down. Indeed, who would know whether someone had answered inaccurately? That is not the point. What is the point of deeming something an offence if there is unlikely to be a prosecution?
    There is a second point. The question again gives strength to someone who seeks to challenge the Bill—or, more to the point, the order—by way of judicial review. I return to the opinion of Mr. Leolin Price QC. In his legal opinion to me, he says:
    The Bill in its present form is in my view unconstitutional. Parliament cannot, without flouting constitutional principle, adopt the Bill in its present form.
    But if it does, and if the Courts…have to recognise it as an Act of Parliament, that will not be the end of the matter. Apart from any possible effect of the Human Rights Act from October onwards, the draft Census Order, when available (prescribing the Census questions, including the religious questions) will be challengeable by judicial review—preferably by challenge to the decision to prescribe the questions, and preferably before any approving resolution of either House of Parliament.
    The amendment is not based on any wish of the Conservative party to be difficult over the matter. We want the law to be put in satisfactory order before we give

    1135
    it our full support, and eminent banisters did not, in truth, have to spend a significant amount of time researching the background to the amendment, because it was so plainly obvious that the Bill was defective. We cannot say that a question is voluntary if giving an inaccurate answer to it attracts a fine. That is the thrust of the amendment, which I urge the House to support.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: I have some sympathy with the amendment. The description that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has given, and the opinion that he has quoted, seem to reveal a fairly fatal flaw in the Bill. What we will have under the proposed statute is an event for which no penalty applies, but which in itself remains unlawful. That does not seem at first sight to be good legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister reassured us that that is not the interpretation that should be made of clause 1(2), because it seems unsatisfactory.
    I have two questions for my hon. Friend about the amendment. First, the amendment might in some sense be said to encourage people to give a false answer. I know that that was in the original statute, but I am not so sure that we should write in further encouragement to people to supply false answers with impunity as they move down the census form.
    Secondly, I am not wholly persuaded that the amendment cures the flaw at the heart of the Bill. We are dealing with something that remains unlawful by removing only the penalty. The amendment does not seem to tackle that. What we should be doing, surely, is dealing with the unlawful nature of the offence itself.
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that amendment No. 1 does not fully cure the Bill's inadequacies. An amendment that I tabled in Committee, which was rejected by the Government, would have made the question genuinely voluntary. Unfortunately, however, hon. Members cannot table the same amendment twice. In amendment No. 1, therefore, we are trying as best we can to highlight the Bill's flaws, while acknowledging that it is the second-best route to remedying weaknesses that will be put on the statute book if the Bill is passed.
    Mr. Fallon: The House will be indebted to my hon. Friend not only for the information that he has just supplied but for his efforts to improve the Bill's drafting in Committee. I am only sorry that I myself was not selected to share in that work.
    It seems that we are in danger of enacting highly unsatisfactory legislation. Parliament either imposes a requirement or it does not, in which case the matter should be voluntary. I do not know how we can say that although it is unlawful to give false particulars or to answer a question improperly, no penalty can apply to those who do so. I do not see the point of passing such a provision.
    My hon. Friends are right to highlight the problem and to tackle it. If amendment No. 1 is the only way of tackling it, so be it, and I shall have to bow to my hon. Friends and to their overqualified legal advisers. However, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—much later this evening,
    1136
    when he sums up the debate—will tell me how one deals with the point that the proposal may encourage the practice of supplying false information, and whether there is any other way of dealing with the problem that lies at the heart of clause 1.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: The census procedure must be accurate, and it must be wrong to provide inaccurate answers to the questions asked. I see no inconsistency in providing for a question that is wholly voluntary, giving the form-filler the option of answering it, and imposing no penalty on those who do not answer it. A person in that category is entirely distinguishable from one who provides bizarre or inaccurate information whose effect would be to defeat the object of the census itself, which is to provide accurate information that can be used for planning and other purposes.
    Those who are particularly keen to provide information about their religion have said that they wish to do so, perhaps because they are proud of their religion or faith and wish to make it known. For them, there would seem to be very little purpose in inaccurately filling in the form.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Religion is a very personal matter, and it is quite possible for people to be unsure whether they are one thing or the other. Some people may be in the midst of a conversion, for example, perhaps thinking that they are religious when they are not. Such people may be worried about providing inaccurate information, particularly if the information that they provide is to be checked. I think that that issue goes to the heart of the problems with the Bill.
    Mr. Foster: I am not entirely sure that most people are confused about their religious convictions. However, even if they were, the census is only a snapshot, recording the particular religion that people profess when completing the form. I believe that no one is likely to be prosecuted if he or she has a change of view after completing the form.
    Mr. Bercow: I listened intently and with interest to the intervention of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). In relation to the scenario that he described, in reflecting on the percentage of those who may fall into that category, may I ask the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) how many noughts he thinks there would be after the decimal point before a figure appeared?
    Mr. Foster: I suspect that the percentage would be very small indeed, and that very few people change their religion. Although I do not think that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon was asking an irrelevant question, I think that the number of such people would not be important statistically. What is important is that the information given is accurate to the best of the form-filler's ability. I believe that the Bill provides for that, and I believe that it will happen. What is most important is accuracy, and the Government's ability to analyse the information.
    Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman has laid great stress on the need for accurate responses. The Government spokesman in the Lords pointed out that if the question

    1137
    were voluntary, the information collected, not only on that question but on others, would be rendered valueless. He said:
    it has been shown that making a question voluntary seriously affects the response not only to the question itself where response bias could devalue the information obtained, but also as regards other questions because people are confused about some questions being voluntary and others being compulsory.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1717.]
    Is not the hon. Gentleman's point eroding the Government's idea of a part voluntary, part compulsory census?
    Mr. Foster: I do not believe that that is so. All that the proposal will do is affect the sample. Obviously, the larger the sample, the more accurate the outcome. The only thing that will have an effect on its level of inaccuracy is people giving inaccurate responses. As in any opinion poll or survey there is wide variance, and the more people complete it, the more accurate it is. If fewer people choose not to complete the census because of its voluntary nature, it will not be as accurate.
    My perception is that those to whom, owing to religious conviction, the matter is important will complete the form. Indeed, religious faiths are keen for their followers to be able to do so. For those reasons, although it is right that there should be the opportunity to say no to the question, it is also right that the people who are asked a question should answer truthfully.
    Mr. Eric Forth: This is all becoming ludicrously confusing. What started as a fairly straightforward, if unacceptable, proposition that the state should pry into some of the most private aspects of people's lives through the vehicle of the census—I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not want us to debate that at this stage, although I hope that we shall have an opportunity to do so at some length on Third Reading—has become a matter of important detail.
    Even from the speeches so far, it has become obvious—I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee—that this is a very confused and muddled little Bill. Not only is it unacceptable in principle, it is becoming unworkable in practice. In other words, it is the ideal Bill for this Government to try to slip through the House as quietly and surreptitiously as possible. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not have quiet and surreptitious Bills at this stage of the Session, as all Bills receive equal and proper scrutiny.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman speculate on how the Government might want to check the accuracy of answers that people give to the question?
    Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted something that I wanted to come to later. He will not want to deflect me from my introductory remarks—will he? He will recognise that we are at the throat-clearing stage, and that we shall come to the substance in due course. I am sure that, with his generosity of spirit, he would not want to hurry me through that process.
    These are important matters and no one should be under any illusion that there is any levity in our approach to dealing with them. They touch on some of the most important aspects of the relationship between the
    1138
    Government and the authorities on the one hand, and the Government and the citizen on the other. Although the Government seem to treat such matters with the greatest levity, I hope that we on the Opposition Benches will never do so. In that I include Liberal Democrat Members, who I know take these issues seriously, as we have seen in the context of other legislation.
    A series of questions must be addressed. I shall not dwell on the question of principle; that is a Third Reading matter. We are faced, under the amendment, with the question of practicability. What on earth will be the value of a census if it is to result from questions that are either voluntary, and therefore variable in the response that they elicit, and/or false—the matter of the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)?
    I should have thought that, up to now, the general assumption has been that the value of conducting a census is that the authorities gain proper knowledge of matters that are relevant to policy making, which allows them more effectively to discharge the responsibilities and duties of Government. I would question whether religion is one of those matters, but that is a subject to which I shall return later.
    5.15 pm
    Dr. Harris: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are many things one can learn about people that will make the job of Government easier. How people vote would be an extremely useful thing for Governments to know, but putting such a question on a form, even if answering it were voluntary, and saying that people will have committed an offence if the question is answered inaccurately, would make us pause for serious thought. Those who oppose the amendment have to answer the question: where will it all end?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing up that theme—I might want to pick it up later, albeit not in the current debate—because it does indeed give rise to serious thoughts. If we can start by probing people's religious beliefs, where will we finish? However, as I said, that is a matter for another debate, probably on Third Reading.
    Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend should not be surprised—the current Government might well want to count up the number of people who have lost faith.
    Mr. Forth: I suspect that they would not want to count the membership of a group that is growing so alarmingly, as other sources of information have told us.
    We must directly face the question of the extent to which the answering of the questions is voluntary, rather than compulsory, and hence what value can be placed on those answers. We must also examine the dimension embodied in the amendment, which is the result of people giving false information in reply to the question. Even having heard the eloquent introduction provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, I am torn about how to vote on the amendment. I can perceive its attraction, but I am bothered by the perversity of not having a penalty for providing false information in the context of something as important as the census. We shall have to think our way through the problem, and I shall

    1139
    probably do my thinking aloud, as is my custom; not only will doing so help me, but it might help other hon. Members.
    My difficulty arises from the fact that, even if we do not dwell excessively on the extent to which reliable information is required in a census, which is linked to the question of whether or not answering the question is compulsory and penalties are attached, a new dimension altogether is brought to the fore when we consider the possibility of false information being provided. If people are going to be given the idea that they need not bother to answer the question, we have to judge the probability of a large number of people exercising their option not to answer the question and thereby entirely invalidating the data it provides.
    In addition, the problem of differing answers has bothered me right from the start. I have heard it suggested that certain religious faiths are keen on the question being included. The implication of that is there is confidence that people of some faiths will be more eager to answer the question than those of other faiths. If answering the question is voluntary, not compulsory, that differential effect is likely to be exaggerated and will threaten to undermine the validity of the census itself.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his argument in respect of such practices applies to differential weighting not only between people of different religious faiths, but between people of religious faith and those of no religious faith?
    Mr. Forth: I shall not be tempted by my hon. Friend's question, because I think that the matter is one for Third Reading. However, it is an issue to which I shall return, because we have not yet heard a satisfactory explanation of what the Government think will be the effects on their policy determination of the answers that they believe will flow from the exercise. To be blunt—I do not want to be delayed on this point now—what policies will be directed at people who have no religious faith as a result of the exercise? I shall return to that question. I flag it up and move on rapidly.
    Mr. Steve Webb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to lead me astray.
    Mr. Webb: I would not dream of it.
    The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the quality of the data collected from the question that can be answered voluntarily, and how that might be biased. It is well known that poor data collected from any scientific survey are worse than none at all. Biased data are positively misleading. It might be better not to have such data and not to make policy on that basis than to proceed on the basis of biased and loaded answers that will be obtained in the way the right hon. Gentleman has outlined.
    Mr. Forth: That must be the danger. I hope that the Minister will spend a little time to see whether she can
    1140
    satisfy the doubts in the hon. Gentleman's mind and in mine about the multilayering of inaccuracy that is starting to enter the process.
    First, we have the doubts about the voluntary nature of the question and the differential effect that we are suggesting that that might have. Those doubts are increased by the question raised by the amendment; that is, that we might have people who, for whatever reason, start to give false information. We have people who will not bother to answer, because we are told that the process is voluntary. We have people who will answer correctly because they want to have a differential effect on the policy outcome of their answer. A third category has entered the equation—people who for reasons I cannot quite guess at now might want to give false information on the form for a different effect altogether.
    The question that the amendment raises is whether we believe that the provision of false information will be sufficiently serious that it should warrant a penalty, or whether the provision of false information should be penalty free. This is where I find myself in a dilemma. I do not criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South for raising the question by means of the amendment, but I am left in a difficulty. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me. Does she judge that false information should be penalty free in this context? Perhaps she will say that, as the exercise is flawed anyway, some false information will not make very much difference.
    If we have people withholding information by not answering the question, the Minister may ask, "What difference would positively false information make?" We are now beginning to see a subtle distinction appearing between non-information and completely false information. We are being told, apparently, that this will be penalty free. Surely it is a challenge to the concept of this part of the census, if not the census as a whole, if we are not careful. There is a real question about what is claimed to be the beneficial outcome of the exercise. That is, the extent to which the answering of the question is now voluntary, not compulsory, and the extent to which there will be no penalty attached either to the withholding of information or the provision of false information.
    We must ask whether the exercise can be worth implementing. That may be the position only if the Minister will come clean and tell us—in more detail than hitherto—what she claims to be the beneficial policy outcome of the exercise. It has a flimsy basis because a multiplicity of weaknesses is appearing in the process. What is alleged to be the beneficial outcome of what is being proposed?
    Mr. Bercow: I agree that it is difficult to fathom why individuals should want to vouchsafe false information. However, does my right hon. Friend agree with me—I think that it is relevant in terms of the purport of the amendment—that personal advantage is unlikely to be a motivating factor, given the many people who are expected to respond to the census and among whom any increased resources would over a period be spread?
    Mr. Forth: I am not sure whether that is so. There may be no individual personal advantage to be gained, but there could be group or community advantage. That is one of the more worrying aspects of the measure. We must

    1141
    try to flush out from the Government whether it is conceivable that a group of people could seek not only to identify themselves through the process, but to magnify—perhaps it would be more accurate to say maximise—their numbers in order to gain the policy advantages that we must assume underlie the entire exercise.
    It worries me considerably how many people will claim to be Church of England because they think that Church of England adherents will benefit in some way from the exercise. I doubt very much whether that is the case, but perhaps the Minister will tell us otherwise. Going back to the question raised earlier, people with no religion or no religious belief, or who belong to no organised Church or faith, are most unlikely to gain any advantage from the exercise, so why should they give the answer?
    It may be important for other reasons, which I cannot immediately think of, that we should know how many people in the totality of our society are adherents of one or other faith, Christian or otherwise, and how many people describe themselves as atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular or any number of other labels.
    What would be the result? Is the question mere flim-flam? Is it all just for amusement? Is it purposeless, or is there some underlying reason that we have not yet been told?
    Mr. Fallon: Is it not more likely that those seeking to maximise their numbers may be the smaller religions that sought to pass some threshold requirement for a particular policy or for a programme of national expenditure?
    Mr. Forth: That disturbing possibility exists, and it brings me to my next point. How on earth will the accuracy of the information be verified or verifiable, making it useful as data? One can self-evidently verify whether someone has answered a question. The response is either there on the form or it is not. However, when we come to my hon. Friend's amendment and his introduction of the concept of false information, matters become much more complicated.
    This may be a point that I should address to my hon. Friend rather than to the Minister, but I cannot imagine for the life of me what mechanism is likely to exist for the authorities to establish whether the information given on the census form in reply to the question on religion is accurate and correct, or whether it is misleading. If a Christian claims to be a Muslim, or a Jew claims to be an atheist, how on earth will we know? If we cannot know, that must call into question the extent to which my hon. Friend's amendment is meaningful. In that context, what is a false answer? Only the respondent can possibly know, in a matter of such intimacy as personal faith, whether the reply is accurate or not.
    What at first blush appears to be simple and straightforward quickly tends to become complex and difficult to fathom.
    Dr. Harris: In case hon. Members consider the case to be purely theoretical, may I give a personal example? I was born Jewish, of a Jewish mother, and there are many people born of Jewish fathers who may be considered Jewish or may consider themselves Jewish. I consider myself Jewish culturally, but I do not have religious belief. I would be worried, as would others,
    1142
    about giving an inaccurate answer whichever way I filled in the form, especially if an inaccurate answer would leave me liable to some sort of penalty.
    Mr. Forth: That, of course, is true. Perhaps the Minister will be able to help us as she takes us through the process—in some detail, I hope—and tells us how she envisages the mechanism will work, how the policing or verification of it will be carried out and how, in the absence of penalties, any of it will be at all meaningful.
    The question from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raises another, perhaps unlikely, possibility—that some people may be persuaded to provide false information on the forms that would artificially boost the number of members that a faith appeared to have. I am not certain about the mechanism involved, but the motivation is clear enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) mentioned thresholds, and I hope that the Minister will say whether any such concept is involved in this matter. What are the policy implications? What number of adherents to a particular faith would be likely to spark a policy response?
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a good and challenging point. I do not want to be too introspective, but I too am Jewish, although my parentage is different from that of the hon. Gentleman. I identify passionately with the Jewish people and the state of Israel, but I confess that these days I go to synagogue only for funerals.
    Mr. Forth: I hope that this does not get out of hand, but the Jewish faith is losing adherents at an alarming rate even in this brief debate. Perhaps I should sit down before the process goes much further.
    The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon should be noted, however. From the start, I have considered the measure dubious and rather offensive. I think that I know why the Government wants to introduce it, but I hope that the Minister will give the House the reason yet again. I hope too that she will tell us what will be the outcome in policy terms, and that she will give more detail about the mechanism by which the question will be posed, and answered without penalty.
    How reliable does the Minister expect the information to be that will emerge from the penalty-free process? The amendment introduces for the first time the alarming prospect that the forms could be falsified for purposes that might be sinister. What is the link between the information that will be gained and policy formation? What might be the potential flow of resources into different communities, sects, cults or other groups?
    A lot of important policy issues hang on this apparently straightforward amendment. I hope that we can go into more detail on Third Reading about the principle behind the Bill. I have not made my mind up about the amendment. I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, and will do so again if he succeeds in catching your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly want to listen to what the Minister has to say. I hope that she will be on good form.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: Yet again, I follow the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst

    1143
    (Mr. Forth). It is becoming a habit. Last Friday, the right hon. Gentleman blocked the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Bill. He was within his rights to do so, but the Bill was extremely important to the Jewish community in my constituency. This Bill is important to them also, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not repeat his efforts to delay or block this Bill. That would inflict a double whammy on the Jewish community throughout the country.
    I can only assume that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has not bothered to read the guidance notes to the Bill, which set out clearly how the matter can be resolved. They make it clear that people will not have to give information if they do not want to, and that an atheist can answer the question under discussion with the word "none".
    Finally, the guidance notes state that people who belong to a religion that is not specified on the form can write the name of that religion in the space provided when they answer the question. For example, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) could take that opportunity to write his little essay about how he used to be an adherent of the Jewish faith but is no longer. People can use the space available to write what they like, and thus make the position clear.
    Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dismore: No. I do not want to block the Bill. I want to make progress.
    We are seeing a mountain being made out of a molehill. There are plenty of options for people who do not want to say what their religion is, or for those whose position is rather more complicated, because they can write in the box.
    Mr. Ottaway rose—
    Mr. Dismore: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to people wanting to boost the Church of England somehow. They could either put "Church of England" or tick the Christian box, which embraces all the various denominations of the Christian Church.
    Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dismore: No, I will not give way.
    We are seeing an attempt by the Conservative party, yet again, to block a Bill that is of fundamental importance to many people in this country, particularly the Jewish constituents whom I represent. I hope that Conservative Members will stop this nonsense and let the Bill go through so that we can make some progress. Let us not repeat what happened last Friday.
    Mr. Tyrie: I shall have to begin my speech by addressing some of the points made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). [Interruption.] The Government Whip has suggested, from a sedentary position, that I stick to the amendment, which the hon. Member for Hendon was certainly not doing.
    1144
    The hon. Gentleman made a series of points describing a Bill that we are content to support—at least I would be—in the Lobby. The problem is, that is not the Bill before us.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the House. I allowed the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) considerable leeway in putting his arguments, many of which appeared to me to be more appropriate to a Third Reading debate than to this amendment. I fear that other right hon. and hon. Members may have been led astray by the right hon. Gentleman. I know that he would not want that to happen, and I certainly do not.
    Mr. Tyrie: I just wanted to clarify that I shall not be dealing with the principle of a voluntary Bill which, as I said, I would be prepared to support, or the usefulness of the information when it has been collected, although I have my doubts about that. Nor shall I be discussing the cost-effectiveness of the measure, even though there are good arguments that survey data might provide such information more effectively and cheaply.
    I shall, however, report on where we are—this is, after all, the Report stage of the Bill. I have to report that the Bill is in a mess. It is a bad piece of draft legislation, and I want to explain briefly how we have arrived at this point. Only by doing so will I be able to explain why the amendment in my name has been tabled.
    The measure was introduced in the House of Lords. Their lordships thought that religion was a private matter and that answering the question should be voluntary. They therefore removed the financial penalty. On Second Reading, I asked how people would know, when they filled in the form, whether answering the question was voluntary. In Committee, the Minister gave me the answer. She assured me that the question that was proposed would be dealt with through the regulations, and said that the wording would be "What is your religion?" She went on:
    Underneath the question will appear the statement "This question is voluntary".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 July 2000; c. 13.]
    I pointed out, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), that that would conflict with the long title of the Bill, which makes it clear that the Bill amends the Census Act 1920 to enable particulars to be required—not requested—in respect of religion. Therefore, there is a clear conflict between the Minister's desire to add the word voluntary to the census form and the long title of the Bill which makes it clear that completing the form is a requirement.
    When I raised that point in Committee, the Minister said not to worry, and that
    these matters have been checked.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 July 2000; c. 16.]
    I assume that legal advice was taken on this point. However, I have taken the trouble to obtain some legal advice of my own in the meantime. The legal opinions that I have received on this issue are clear. I should like to read out a small part of the legal opinion that I received

    1145
    from the Vice-Chancellor of London university, Professor Graham Zellick, which I shall make available to the Minister after the debate. He says:
    It would not be lawful to state on the form that the question was voluntary as the Minister proposes (in Standing Committee). As there is no power under the Act, as amended by the Bill in its present form, to include voluntary questions, to provide for such a statement in regulations would be ultra vires, the statement itself on the form would be unlawful and both would therefore be open to challenge by way of judicial review.
    I received a similar response from the National Secular Society. It said:
    Were the Government to persist in describing the questions as voluntary, which we are confident would be ultra vires, it would be laying itself open to an adverse judicial review decision at any time before the census.
    That is how the Bill now stands, given that the Government rejected the amendment that I tabled in Committee and without the amendment.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who said that the amendment would only partly address the Bill's defectiveness. Therefore, it could be described as a probing amendment, but it is the only means whereby we can draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Government wants to put a bad law on to the statute book. I make it absolutely clear that I cannot support the Bill in its current form.
    The Government wants to put shoddy legislation on to the statute book. Eminent lawyers agree that the Government's action would be unlawful if they were to describe the question on religion on the census form as "voluntary". The same eminent lawyers have told us that the Bill would be subject to judicial review and, therefore, that anyone or any pressure group could wreck the census by going to judicial review.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is beginning to stray into arguments that he might wish to put on Third Reading if he were to catch the eye of the Chair. He must speak to the amendment, to which I thought he had finally returned a moment ago.
    Mr. Tyrie: The amendment is intended to show the weakness of the Bill. I shall draw my remarks to a close by saying that it seems incomprehensible to me that the Government are not prepared either to accept the amendment or to table an alternative. The only reason that I can provide as to why they are not prepared to do so is that they have a huge legislative logjam in the Lords. If the amendment were accepted, the Bill would have to return to the Lords and that logjam would become significantly worse.
    I am not prepared to vote for a Bill that is fundamentally defective just to help the Government out of the logjam in their legislative programme. That is not the way to run a country. I will not dispute the principle of whether the question should be added to the census form—the Bill has had its Second Reading—but I cannot understand how any reasonable person can expect independent-minded Members of Parliament to put such poor legislation on to the statute book.
    Dr. Harris: I associate myself with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), although I would have made similar points on Third Reading if I had caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also associate
    1146
    myself with the dilemma faced by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) because the amendment is difficult to support if one believes that accurate information should be given in censuses. However, the Bill is so flawed that I am minded to support it at the moment because it removes what would be a great injustice.
    I did not intend to speak to the amendment, but I should tell the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) that someone with his constituency should be more careful before traducing another hon. Member's private religious or cultural opinions; doing so by name, and then refusing to take an intervention that would have put the matter right. The trivial way in which he dealt with my dilemma about the difference between cultural and religious Judaism was insulting. His refusal to allow me to ask him to reconsider by taking an intervention during his rambling rant was even more unfortunate. When he reads the record tomorrow, I hope that he will reflect on what he has said.
    5.45 pm
    People feel strongly about religion and cultural matters. That is one reason why the promoters of the Bill want it to be enacted. The amendment displays the heart of the problem in the Bill, however, in that it is neither one thing nor the other.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I have enjoyed some of the tortuous argument that I have heard so far. The purpose of the Bill is actually simple and clear. It seeks only to change the Census Act 1920 to permit a voluntary question on religion to be included in the census of England and Wales. Subject to secondary legislation, that question could be included in the next census in 2001. That would bring census legislation in England and Wales in line with that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, where legislation already permits a voluntary question on religion.
    Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that anything is desirable simply because it happens in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Surely the point of devolution—and of English devolution, should we ever have it—is that if we think that something in Scotland and Northern Ireland is daft, we will not do it.
    Mr. Sayeed: I quite agree. I am not suggesting that we should have this provision in England and Wales simply because it exists in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I would point out, however, that this has been the law in Northern Ireland since 1969, and it has worked very well.
    Before I discuss the amendment, I should like to make one point. I am indebted to the Minister and the Government for providing the parliamentary time necessary to enact—I hope—the Bill. Without that, it clearly would not have progressed.
    Clause 1 makes it clear that particulars in respect of religion may be included in a census without any liability to penalty for anyone who refuses or neglects to state them. That is clear. The question on religion is in effect voluntary, subject to an Order in Council providing for such particulars to be stated in the census return and to subsequent regulations setting out the wording. That is where the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) was

    1147
    wrong: the precise wording is not in the Bill, but will be given in later regulations, probably subject to the negative procedure.
    In response to requests by me and other hon. Members, the Minister gave clear assurances in Committee that the wording of the census question on religion would make it clear to the person completing the form—the most important person—that the question was voluntary. The wording will be set out in the regulations that will be laid before the House once the Order in Council has been made.
    The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) aims to remove the penalty for giving deliberately false answers to the question on religion. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) that that is neither necessary nor desirable.
    Clearly, removing the penalty for anyone who fails to provide the particulars with respect to religion, makes any question on religion in the census voluntary. Only the criminal sanction in section 8 of the 1920 Act makes the census compulsory in the first place. However one wraps it up, removal of the sanction makes the response to the question on religion voluntary. As the Bill stands, therefore, an individual may decide to answer the question on the form or may freely decide not to do so, without any fear of a penalty. It is entirely up to the individual.
    However, it is reasonable to expect that anyone who freely chooses to answer the question should do so accurately. False information is worse than no information. I remind the House that the person who fills in the form is required to sign a declaration that it has been completed to the best of his or her knowledge and belief.
    Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend is enlightening the House as to the reasoning behind the clause. Is he saying, therefore, that to supply inaccurate information when answering the question is still unlawful?
    Mr. Sayeed: I am saying what it says on the form—on past and, I presume, future forms. The form must be completed to the best of a person's knowledge and belief. A person may make a genuine mistake, but it would be foolish and unnecessary deliberately to permit falsified information.
    Mr. Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend explain how one could make a mistake about one's religion?
    Mr. Sayeed: I think that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) demonstrated how a person might be confused. I cannot say whether he would be confused when completing the form.
    There is a sanction against supplying false information. It would run completely counter to the ethos and purpose of the census if we suggested in any way that it was permissible to give inaccurate information deliberately.
    Mr. Fallon: Therefore, it is my hon. Friend's proposition that giving any inaccurate information deliberately must remain unlawful.
    Mr. Sayeed: The simple answer is yes.
    Dr. Harris: It is important that the hon. Gentleman recognises that there is a difference between being
    1148
    confused and being in a dilemma. I am not confused about either my cultural background, my birth background or my religious beliefs. It is merely that, because of my birth I was considered Jewish by my school and offered exemption from Christian religious education, but if I were asked whether I was a Jew by religion and followed those tenets, the answer would be no. Either way, knowing exactly what I am doing and making a conscious decision, I am liable to give the wrong information. It depends on the basis of the question—whether it refers to my birth religion or my religious faith.
    Mr. Sayeed: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has it wrong. All that he has to do is not answer that question, which the Bill at present permits.
    Mr. Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should address the Chair.
    Mr. Tyrie: If the person completing the form has a strong religious belief but leaves the answer to that question blank, would that be unlawful?
    Mr. Sayeed: No. The Bill specifically permits someone not to complete that part of the form.
    The amendment is not necessary. A person's freedom of choice about whether to answer the question on religion is established under the Bill as it stands. The amendment would not enhance that right in any way.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how he expects the Government to check whether people have filled in the form honestly and accurately? Is he expecting a Government agency to ask people their religion anonymously, face to face?
    Mr. Sayeed: I was about to deal with some of the other comments made on Report. My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) have disputed the use of "require" and prefer "request". The demand is not new; it was made in Committee. Professor Zellick expressed a similar view.
    Professor Zellick is well known as someone who is strongly against the Bill. In a letter in the Jewish Chronicle of 16 July 1999—when the question was mandatory—the professor said:
    The Institute for Jewish Policy Research, in a recent paper on the issue, recommends that Britain should adopt the practice, as in the few other countries where such a question is asked, of making it voluntary. That would certainly remove the main objection to the Bill.
    Mr. Tyrie: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Sayeed: No, I will make a little progress first, but then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South suggested that the use of the word "required" in the title of the Bill, in section 8(1)(d) of the 1920 Act and the schedule to it implies the notion of compulsion. Thus, while the Bill provides for the lifting of the financial penalty for non-compliance under section 8(1) of the 1920 Act, it does not make the question voluntary. In other

    1149
    words, it would still be a legal duty to furnish the particulars, but it would not be a criminal offence to neglect or refuse to do so. I trust that that is an accurate reflection of his argument.
    I too have discussed the matter with those who understand the legal arguments. I understand that the position of the Treasury solicitors is that the use of the word "required" in this context does not imply a statutory duty—[Interruption.] may I explain why—any more than the use of the word in the question, "What size of shoe do you require?" implies anything more than a request.
    Mr. Tyrie: Does that not mean, therefore, that the 1920 Act was voluntary because that was the word used in the long title to require people to fill in census forms?
    Mr. Sayeed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question because I was about to deal with it. The use of the word "required" in the schedule to the 1920 Act makes the census compulsory. It is the removal of that sanction specifically in respect of religion that makes the question voluntary.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I think that the House is perturbed by what the hon. Gentleman said about the advice of the Treasury. Subsections 3(b)(c)(d) and (e) of the Census Act 1920 use the word "requiring". Indeed, that is the way that people are required to give information. Therefore, the advice from the Treasury would seem completely to go against what is in the Act.
    6 pm
    Mr. Sayeed: As I have already said, the use of the word "required" relates to the schedule of the 1920 Act. It is not relevant to the Act's provisions because it removes the penalty.
    Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Sayeed: No, I want to make progress.
    I was a little surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South say that the Economic Secretary was acting beyond her competence in giving certain assurances to the Committee. I believe that a Minister who gives assurances to the House or a Committee acts in good faith, and I expect a Minister who gives such assurances to follow those assurances through. Certainly, given the size of the Government's majority, there is little doubt that they can effect most legislative changes that they wish to make. The Economic Secretary's assurances were that, subject to the Bill becoming law and subject to an amending Order in Council, the 2001 census form would include a clear note setting out the voluntary nature of the question about religion. An Economic Secretary has the authority to give those assurances, as he or she—in this case she—is responsible on behalf of the Chancellor for making the appropriate regulations that would provide for the wording of the revised census form. I cannot see that the Economic Secretary is acting ultra vires, as was suggested.
    Finally, I come to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I always enjoy listening to him as he is an extremely polished speaker. However, he sometimes reminds me of
    1150
    the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—against whom I stood in an election way back in 1983—as he always sounds so very plausible until one starts to analyse exactly what he says. My right hon. Friend started by asking whether we might get inaccurate figures, and then went on to state that we were likely to get inaccurate figures. He ended by asserting that the figures will definitely be inaccurate. As I said, my right hon. Friend reminds me of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield because what is a possibility at the beginning of a speech is a certainty by the end. I have asked about the reliability of figures coming from a voluntary question, and was told that census officials expect that introducing such a question on a voluntary basis may affect the level of response to a certain degree, but that evidence suggests that that would not be to an extent that would compromise the integrity and value of the information obtained. I believe that that answers the points raised by my right hon. Friend.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I have seldom listened to a debate in which so much of what several contributors said amounted to so little. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) that something that may perhaps happen rapidly can become a flood of something that definitely will happen. That is exactly what we have witnessed this afternoon in several Members' discussions of the amendment.
    I shall try to confine myself to the amendment. When the Bill becomes law, and subsequent to Parliament approving a draft order adding religion to other particulars already approved for inclusion in the 2001 census, the Government will make regulations under section 3(1) of the Census Act 1920, amending the provisions that came into force on 27 June, which set out the census forms to be used in England and Wales, including the question on religion and the statement that that question is voluntary.
    It has been suggested that there would be no power under the 1920 Act, even if it was amended by the Bill, to include a voluntary question in the census, and that to provide for such a statement in the regulations would be ultra vires. I can assure the House that the legal opinion that my officials have taken on this matter confirms the view of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire that the removal of the penalty for anyone failing to provide particulars on religion makes the census question on religion voluntary, as only the criminal sanction in section 8 of the 1920 Act makes it statutory to comply with the census in the first place. Removal of the sanction in relation to religion can only have the effect of making the response to that question voluntary.
    If the optimum value is to be obtained from the considerable investment in the census, it is important that the response to each question should yield the most accurate information possible. Several Opposition Members are concerned about that.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Before the Minister addresses that point, will she confirm that the statutory cover for making regulations to enable the words, "This question is voluntary" to be added after the question, "What is your religion?" comes under section 3(1)(f) of the 1920 Act, which gives the Minister powers to make regulations
    with respect to the forms to be used in the taking of a census.

    1151
    Are those the correct legal powers that the Minister will use to make those regulations? This important point was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).
    Miss Johnson: I do not have the reference to that specific part of the Act before me at the moment. However, I shall go on to deal with some important issues.
    It is important that people are clear that two matters are involved. The form is required to have the question, but the question is voluntary. For the most part, Opposition Members have failed to grasp that distinction.
    Mr. Fallon: I am grateful to the Minister for helping to clarify that.
    Does the obligation on a citizen to provide accurate information, with the possibility that a penalty may otherwise be imposed, still apply to section 8 of the 1920 Act?
    Miss Johnson: As the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said a few minutes ago, people will sign at the bottom of the form to say that the information that they supplied—which, obviously, they do not have to supply, as the question is voluntary—is accurate, whatever formula is used on the form. One has to sign for the veracity of the information on the form.
    There is a failure to understand what is going on.
    Mr. Tyrie: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Miss Johnson: No, I should like to make this point, which Opposition Members need to hear. Before I do so, however, may I confirm that the power to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred comes under section 3(1)(f) of the 1920 Act, which states that regulations may be made
    with respect to the forms to be used in the taking of a census.
    May I explain the nature of what goes on the form? Obviously, the census forms will be different in different parts of the country. Various geographic variations are accounted for by the fact that the particulars that are to be stated in the returns are recorded in the regulations, rather than the Bill or the Act. Several particulars relating to other matters in the census already have to be stated under the census order made on 15 March this year. Typically, differences between Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are demonstrated in various aspects of the form. It is under that provision that the exception will be made to make the religion question voluntary in the Bill. In that way, this can be a voluntary question that sits outside the requirement for the form to contain the question. I hope that I have made that completely clear, because Opposition Members have had difficulty in getting to grips with the notion over a considerable time. It is, however, fairly straightforward.
    Form fillers are not only under a general statutory requirement to complete the form, but are expected not to provide false answers to questions—that is, they should not deliberately attempt to degrade the value of the census by supplying information which they know to be untrue. Indeed, they are required to sign a declaration. No one
    1152
    will question the sense of including that in order to ensure that responses to any other questions to be included in the census form are accurate.
    The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was right to say that there would be no sense in including a question on religion, even on a voluntary basis, if no similar sanction was available for those who gave false information in answer to that question. Therefore, if a person freely chooses to answer the religion question in the 2001 census, it is important that the information should be accurate, even if the person says that he or she has no religion. It would be poor practice, legally and statistically, to work within a legislative framework that went out of its way to provide a loophole for the deliberate provision of false information, and I am sure that the House would not expect me to argue the case for that.
    Dr. Harris: There are people in this country whose mother is Jewish as a result of having converted under a reformed or liberal rabbinate in this country or the United States. For religious political reasons, they consider themselves Jewish, but are not considered Jewish by the orthodoxy. The orthodoxy is the main Jewish religion here, and people are simply not considered to be Jewish if they are descended from a woman who was not converted by the orthodoxy. Some of those people will want to state that they are Jewish, but will know that, in the strict sense, that is false. They will therefore be subject to sanction, because the penalty for knowingly giving inaccurate information applies in this case. What does the Minister have to say to those people, of whom there are plenty?
    Miss Johnson: People will give information that accords with the best of their knowledge and belief. That is a matter for them.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): It is common sense.
    Miss Johnson: Too right; it is common sense. It would be difficult, if not impossible in many cases, to ascertain whether someone had provided false information. Responses are subjective and it is for the form filler, and possibly his or her deity or god, to know whether the answer to a particular question is true. I am not sure whether census officials intend to scrutinise forms to see whether responses are likely to be false. There could be no easy way of checking. The evidence from a quality check of answers to census questions, which was undertaken as part of the census rehearsal in 1999, indicates that few, if any, deliberate attempts were made to answer questions falsely. People genuinely try to complete census forms; they understand where the information goes and the purpose for which it is used. They also understand that it is confidential for 100 years. That means that the vast majority do their best to answer the questions honestly.
    In the interests of maintaining statistical credibility for the whole census, it is important that the responses to all questions should have the same statutory sanction: that they should be as true, or as accurate, as possible. Making the answering of a question voluntary does not change that.

    1153
    6.15 pm
    It may be worth dealing with the statistical validity of information. It is nonsense to say that the data will be tainted, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) suggested. The most recent experience in Northern Ireland, where a question is traditionally included in the census—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) would do well to listen, as this is his amendment. I was telling him about arrangements that exactly parallel those that we are making. In Northern Ireland, where a question is traditionally included on a similarly voluntary basis, only some 7.3 per cent. did not respond. In the view of the Office for National Statistics, with that level of response, the data would still be very useful for the purposes for which they are required. I made a similar point on Second Reading or in Committee.
    I am advised that removing the penalty for anyone failing to provide particulars with respect to the religion question effectively makes the question on religion voluntary. I am further advised that the power to make those regulations enables the religion question to be described in the census form as voluntary. The long title of the Bill refers to the amendment to
    the Census Act 1920 to enable particulars to be required.
    The word "required" is used because of a reference in the schedule to the Act. The effect of the Bill is to remove explicitly the penalty for failing to provide particulars on religion. That is what makes it a voluntary question.
    Opposition Members seemed to assume that the religion question was not voluntary, and a number of the difficulties that they raised were entirely apposite. I join my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), in wondering why yet another Bill is being blocked or questioned in this way by some Opposition Members.
    Mr. Forth: It is called scrutiny.
    Miss Johnson: Yes, scrutiny is a very good thing and I am all in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman claims that the Bill is about boosting the numbers in certain faiths. We have been lobbied widely by religious groups of all faiths around the country, including the Christian faith and the Church of England, to ensure that we provide for such a question in the Bill.
    The amendment is unnecessary. The question is voluntary and the dangers that Opposition Members foresee do not exist. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Ottaway: The argument was encapsulated by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) when he said that the Opposition were making a mountain out of a molehill. To one extent, he is right. If, as a member of the Church of England, I put the word "none" on my census form, does it make a difference? The point that the hon. Gentleman misses is that when the census order is challenged in the courts under the judicial review procedures, that will be a very serious mountain. It is a case not of what individuals do and say, but of whether the census takes place next April. We suggest that it will not, because the matter will go to court.
    What is absolutely ludicrous is that one simple amendment, which was moved in Committee and has been moved again today, would remove all possible
    1154
    doubt. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr.Forth) said that he needed to be persuaded and wanted to make up his mind. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) was also concerned and wanted to be persuaded. I hope that he will join us in the Lobby. The reason for that was encapsulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who has taken a fair amount of flak on this matter, but he is doing a noble job. He was asked whether, if the question was not answered, that would be lawful, to which he replied that it would be lawful, but that a false answer would be unlawful.
    The situation was summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). When I said that if I put down the word "none" that would be to give a false answer which would attract a penalty, he asked what would happen if "not applicable" was put down, to which the answer was that if one is refusing to answer, that will not attract a penalty. Therefore, if a member of the Church of England writes "none" on the form, that will attract a fine, whereas if "not applicable" is written, that will not attract a fine.
    I hope that I have persuaded the House that the measure is, in truth, a mess. It is a dog's dinner. It will end up in the courts and the Conservative party will have nothing to do with it. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 331.

    Division No. 293]

    [6.20 Pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Allan, Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Amess, David

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Cotter, Brian

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Cran, James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Baldry, Tony

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Beggs, Roy

    Day, Stephen

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bercow, John

    Duncan, Alan

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Blunt, Crispin

    Evans, Nigel

    Boswell, Tim

    Faber, David

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Fallon, Michael

    Brady, Graham

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Brake, Tom

    Flight, Howard

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Brazier, Julian

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Breed, Colin

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Fraser, Christopher

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Gale, Roger

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Garnier, Edward

    Burnett, John

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Burstow, Paul

    Gibb, Nick

    Butterfill, John

    Gidley, Sandra

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Gill, Christopher

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Cash, William

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Gorrie, Donald

    Gray, James

    Chope, Christopher

    Green, Damian

    Clappison, James

    Greenway, John

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Grieve, Dominic

    1155

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Paice, James

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Paterson, Owen

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Pickles, Eric

    Hammond, Philip

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hancock, Mike

    Prior, David

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Randall, John

    Harvey, Nick

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Rendel, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Robathan, Andrew

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Robertson, Laurence

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Horam, John

    Ruffley, David

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Hunter, Andrew

    Sanders, Adrian

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Shepherd, Richard

    Jenkin, Bernard

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

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Soames, Nicholas

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Spring, Richard

    Keetch, Paul

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

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

    Streeter, Gary

    Stunell, Andrew

    Key, Robert

    Swayne, Desmond

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Syms, Robert

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Leigh, Edward

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Letwin, Oliver

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Thompson, William

    Lidington, David

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Townend, John

    Livsey, Richard

    Trend, Michael

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Tyler, Paul

    Loughton, Tim

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Luff, Peter

    Viggers, Peter

    Walter, Robert

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Waterson, Nigel

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Webb, Steve

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Wells, Bowen

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Whittingdale, John

    MaLouglin, Patrick

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Madel, Sir David

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Malins, Humfrey

    Wilkinson, John

    Maples, John

    Willetts, David

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Willis, Phil

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Wilshire, David

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Moore, Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Yeo, Tim

    Norman, Archie

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Oaten, Mark

    Öpik, Lembit

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Ottaway, Richard

    Mr. Keith Simpson and

    Page, Richard

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Ainger, Nick

    Beard, Nigel

    Alexander, Douglas

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Allen, Graham

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Ashton, Joe

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Berry, Roger

    Austin, John

    Best, Harold

    Banks, Tony

    Betts, Clive

    Barnes, Harry

    Blackman, Liz

    Barron, Kevin

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    1156

    Blizzard, Bob

    Follett Barbara

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Borrow, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Foulkes, George

    Bradshaw, Ben

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Burden, Richard

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Burgon, Colin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Goggins, Paul

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Griffths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Griffths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Griffths, Win (Bridgend)

    Cann, Jamie

    Grogan, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Gunnell, John

    Casale, Roger

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chaytor, David

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Healey, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hill, Keith

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hope, Phil

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Clelland, David

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cohen, Harry

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Coleman, Iain

    Hurst, Alan

    Colman, Tony

    Hutton, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cooper, Yvette

    Illsley, Eric

    Corbett, Robin

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Corston, Jean

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cox, Tom

    Jamieson, David

    Cranston, Ross

    Jenkins, Brian

    Crausby, David

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Denham, John

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Dismore, Andrew

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Dobbin, Jim

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Doran, Frank

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dowd, Jim

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Drew, David

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kidney, David

    Edwards, Huw

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Efford, Clive

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Ennis, Jeff

    Laxton, Bob

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Lepper, David

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Leslie, Christopher

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Levitt, Tom

    Flint, Caroline

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Flynn, Paul

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    1157

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Raynsford, Nick

    Linton, Martin

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Lock, David

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Love, Andrew

    Rogers, Allan

    McAllion, John

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Rooney, Terry

    McCabe, Steve

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Rowlands, Ted

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Roy, Frank

    Macdonald, Calum

    Ruane, Chris

    McDonnell, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Salter, Martin

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McNamara, Kevin

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McNulty, Tony

    Sawford, Phil

    MacShane, Denis

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McWalter, Tony

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McWilliam, John

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Maxton, John

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Soley, Clive

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Miller, Andrew

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mitchell, Austin

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Stevenson, George

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Morley, Elliot

    Stinchcombe, Paul

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

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Stringer, Graham

    Mountford, Kali

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mudie, George

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Norris, Dan

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Olner, Bill

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Timms, Stephen

    Pearson, Ian

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pendry, Tom

    Todd, Mark

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Touhig, Don

    Pickthall, Colin

    Trickett, Jon

    Pike, Peter L

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Plaskitt, James

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Pond, Chris

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pope, Greg

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Pound, Stephen

    Tynan, Bill

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Watts, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Purchase, Ken

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Rammell, Bill

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rapson, Syd

    Wilson, Brian

    1158

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wood, Mike

    Wyatt, Derek

    Woodward, Shaun

    Woolas, Phil

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. Kevin Hughes and

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    6.33 pm
    Mr. Sayeed: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The next census is only nine months away. The Bill will amend the Census Act 1920 to enable a question on religion to be included in the 2001 census. The question will be voluntary.
    I thank hon. Members from all parties for their valuable contributions to all stages of our proceedings. I especially thank my right hon. and hon. Friends, who sought, quite properly, to ask questions about the validity of the framing of the Bill, its purpose, and whether it would achieve its aim. They are right to ask such questions; it is part of the function of the House to question all legislation. I also thank the Government for providing time to ensure that the Bill makes progress.
    The Bill offers an opportunity to gather valuable information. Along with information gleaned from the census question on ethnic groups, the question for which the Bill provides will help to produce baseline figures from which central Government may monitor policies on racial disadvantage and social exclusion. Local authorities and health authorities will be better able to plan the services for their areas using those figures.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is revealing more than we have managed to winkle out of the Government so far. That is proper, because we are considering my hon. Friend's Bill. However, does my hon. Friend anticipate that policy may be determined and money may be directed to specific religious groups and affiliations on the basis of information yielded by the question on religion in the census?
    Mr. Sayeed: On answers to the religious question alone, the answer is probably no. However, combined with the information from other questions, the answer is probably yes. That is proper. It is the function of local government and central Government to reduce disadvantage. If the information, which answers to the religious question would provide, combined with other information, demonstrates disadvantage, it is right and proper that the House should consider voting for, and the Government should consider proposing, extra funds for those who need more support.
    Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that it is likely or probable that what he describes as disadvantage—we may need to consider that in more detail—can be reasonably, properly or accurately allied to religious affiliation in such a way that will make policy direction practical and feasible?
    Mr. Sayeed: I believe that I clearly stated that, by itself, the question on religion probably would not provide

    1159
    the answers that demonstrate disadvantage, but that, combined with other questions, it may do so. If it does, Governments should take note.
    Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of the way in which that might work? The next step is obviously to ascertain whether it is worth doing, but it would be helpful to hear a specific example.
    Mr. Sayeed: I am happy to assist the hon. Gentleman. We believe that there are approximately 2 million Muslims in this country. As far as I know, there are only two Muslim state-funded schools. A Muslim state-funded school must follow the national curriculum, just as a Church of England school, a Catholic school or a Jewish school has to follow the national curriculum. The information that the census reveals is not individualised, but covers groups of about 150 people at a time. If it shows a high concentration of Muslims in a specific area, and they want a state-funded Muslim school, a local authority may decide that it would be right to provide it, just as in the past, local authorities have decided that it was right to provide state funding for Jewish, Church of England or Catholic schools.
    Mr. Forth: Our debate is proving to be the most productive of all the discussions so far, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. However, on what basis does my hon. Friend believe that Roman Catholic, Jewish and other religious schools have already been successfully established throughout the country, without the benefit of the information that the new question on the census form would provide? How will the new information suddenly transform the educational and social landscape in the way in which my hon. Friend describes?
    Mr. Sayeed: I do not suggest that that will happen suddenly. However, over a period of time, it could happen. I remind my right hon. Friend that many Jewish schools were initially set up on a private basis and given state funding later.
    Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Sayeed: I should like to make a little progress on that point. I believe that it is important to improve race relations in this country. Sometimes groups believe that there is prejudice against them when that is not the case. However, we cannot know whether there is prejudice without the facts. I also believe that prejudice and discrimination take place—sometimes for historical reasons, but sometimes because we do not know the facts and therefore cannot give support where it is necessary.
    The Bill represents a modest step to improve race relations, which is one reason why I was happy to support it and introduce it to the House once it had been agreed that answering the question on religion would be voluntary. The wording of the proposed census question has been subject to detailed consultation with not only the users of census statistics, but a wide range of religious organisations including the Christian Churches, the Board
    1160
    of Deputies of British Jews, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Network of Sikh Organisations, the Buddhist Society and the National Council of Hindu Temples.
    Dr. Harris: What about the National Secular Society?
    Mr. Sayeed: I am not aware that the National Secular Society is promoting the inclusion of a question on religion in the census form. Indeed, I would find that somewhat quixotic.
    Dr. Harris: It is proposed that the form should include a box that people could tick to show that they take no religious view. Many of those who describe themselves as secular, humanist or atheist would wish to tick such a box. They are categories of people, as are those who subscribe to religions, so one would have thought that their representative groups would have been consulted. Perhaps they have.
    Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman should read the Committee debates and get a copy of the proposed census form, which was amended according to the assurances given by the Minister in Committee. If he does so, he will see that a series of religions have been specified and that a box may be ticked. People may tick the "none" box or write in their own religion or, as the Bill allows, not answer the question at all. Provided that the measure makes progress, the form will make it clear that people do not have to tick the religion box if they do not wish to do so.
    Not only were the detailed cases for the information that such a question could provide carefully assessed, but the public concerns and sensitivities to such a question were considered by the Office for National Statistics in the light of the criteria set out for the selection of census questions. In particular, public reaction to a question on religion was assessed in two major tests of census questions: the 1997 census test and the 1999 census rehearsal. Both exercises showed that the public are generally prepared to answer such a question, at least to a level comparable with that achieved by most other census questions, and that the quality of the responses is sufficient to provide the information that would meet users' express needs. If those two criteria cannot be fulfilled, amending the 1920 Act will be pointless.
    To reflect the sensitivity with which some people regard religion, the Bill deliberately provides for the question on religion to be voluntary. However, as I said on Report, although census officials think that making the question voluntary may affect the response, I understand that evidence suggests that the integrity and value of the information obtained will not be compromised. Such a question is necessary now as opposed to 30, 20 or perhaps even 10 years ago because we have a pluralistic, multi-faith, multicultural society. Many people in today's society choose to identify themselves in terms of their religion or culture, and the 2001 census provides a once-in-a-decade opportunity to collect information from groups that increasingly prefer primarily to identify themselves in such a way.
    I return to why the Bill is sensible and why I was happy to take it up in the Commons. There are tensions in all multicultural, multiracial, multi-faith societies. Discrimination fuels those tensions. If we know the facts,

    1161
    we can better plan what we are to do. This modest change to the 1920 Act will help us to gather the facts and, if we wish to do so, make a fairer society. I commend the Bill to the House.
    6.46 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I support the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and the Government on taking a lead on the issue. It was said on Report that Scotland had introduced such a measure before England, but I have to tell the House that the Scottish Executive opposed including a religion question in the census a few months ago while the Government in Whitehall and people such as the hon. Gentleman were arguing the case for it. The fact that England was in a sense ahead had some influence on the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament and, in particular, the Equal Opportunities Committee looked at what was happening in England, but, more important, listened to what many groups in Scotland were saying.
    Initially, the Scottish Executive said that there was no religion question on the census because nobody had asked for one, but when the Equal Opportunities Committee listened to ethnic minority groups and the Commission for Racial Equality in particular, it became absolutely clear that there was a big demand for such a question to be included. There is an important lesson here about how we listen to society and, in particular, to minorities in society, although numerically larger religious groups also support the inclusion of such a question for two important reasons: monitoring factors, to which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred, and its importance in terms of delivery of services.
    It is significant that such a question is to be included for the first time, although there were concerns about compulsion. The Government have achieved the right solution by making the question, in effect, voluntary. I commend my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for her clear explanation of the legalities.
    Mr. Forth: Were you here?
    Mr. Chisholm: I was present throughout the debate on Report, apart from about five minutes, and I was very impressed by my hon. Friend's explanation. However, I was not impressed by the pedantic points that were made. The correct solution has been found and I commend the Government and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire for what they have done.
    6.48 pm
    Mr. Forth: I have not yet heard anything to persuade me of the Bill's value—quite the opposite, in fact—and I was obviously sitting in a different Chamber in a different House of Commons from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm). The muddle that emerged from our interesting and useful debate on Report simply convinced me that the Bill is not only unnecessary, but undesirable and almost certainly unworkable and useless. There is plenty of scope, therefore, for further debate on Third Reading before the House plunges ahead and accepts a Bill that could be mistaken.
    We have had from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) the clearest and most honest explanation yet of what the Bill is all about. There
    1162
    was a lot of obfuscation and mistiness in the early stages, but the mist is clearing and we can see the measure for what it is. My hon. Friend made play of the fact that many religious groups have been consulted and are all keen for the Bill to make progress. That may or may not be so, and we may or may not in our different ways be impressed by those organisations so as to drive legislation through the parliamentary process and on to the statute book. Whether the Muslims, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Christians—Catholic or Protestant—all want the Bill is relevant but not conclusive. Simply to say that lots of people up and down the country want something does not necessarily make it good or desirable—nor does it give us sufficient reason to legislate on the matter.
    The latest figures that I saw suggested that about 7 or 8 per cent. of the population in England regularly attend church. Perhaps we should apply a reasonable test when people claim a religious affiliation to show whether or not that is realistic. That would patently not be possible within the mechanisms available in the census.
    However, that raises a relevant issue. The ludicrous way in which the Government decided to measure unemployment was to ask people whether they feel unemployed and whether they think they are looking for another job, and if so to put them down. The traditional claimant count method was much more reliable. It is too late to put such a provision in the Bill. The fact that a number of people—we do not know how many, because the question is not yet on the census form—of the Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Christian faiths think that this would be a jolly good idea is not enough to persuade me that it should be ushered on to the statute book. It is a relevant factor, but that is all.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire went on usefully to deal with the semi-hidden part of the Bill, which is all this business about disadvantage. He suggested that if we find out where people of different claimed faiths live, we will be able better to direct our policies and our money. That is probably the real reason for the Bill. That worries me considerably. If we are to direct taxpayers' money on the basis of religious faiths—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael J.Martin): Order. That matter is not in the Bill. Perhaps I should have brought the right hon. Member to order. The House will forgive me for not doing so, but I am not going to let him get away with it now that I have my wits about me.
    Mr. Forth: There I was, Mr. Deputy Speaker, following up the points so admirably made by the promoter of the Bill. Of course, I accept your ruling. That goes without saying.
    We are left with the mechanisms that flow from the provisions of the Bill and the proposed question. Running through all our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and through the Bill, narrow though it may be, is the issue of the value that the responses to the question are likely to have if they are voluntary. Having arrived at Third Reading, the question that we must ask ourselves is, if the Bill is to have the benefits to which my hon. Friend alluded, and if it is up to people whether they answer the question, what reliability can we place on the data that will flow from the answer? That is an important question. If people answer the question only if they feel like it, depending on the extent of their

    1163
    motivation, we may get a bias in the results that could give rise to unintended or undesirable policy effects, given what my hon. Friend described as the ultimate objective.
    Many people have said that the voluntary nature of the question in the Bill has saved its bacon. Funnily enough—I admit it is a paradox—if the question had been mandatory and subject to penalties for non-answer or false answer, I might have been more persuaded that the answer to the question would have value. The Government have conceded the point and said that they are a bit nervous about this aspect, so are prepared for the question to be voluntary or without penalty. That threatens to undermine the whole thrust and validity of the Bill.
    However, it is not that simple, and we are left with a paradox. Can the question be voluntary if it is merely without penalty, so that people do not have to answer the question and no penalty is attached? I was almost persuaded of that until my hon. Friend pointed out that at the end of the census form, even with this question included in it and without penalty, people have to sign a declaration, under penalty, saying that everything that they have said in the form is true.
    That raises the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) raised in his excellent amendment, on which we have just voted. If people were minded to mis-state, falsify or mislead in their answer to the question, would they be subject to a penalty under the terms of the declaration—although not under the amendment, which was lost? If so, how would we ever know? I suppose we have reached the ultimate irony. How can we ever know whether the question has any meaning given that it touches on a matter of faith, which is the most personal and individual aspect of a person's existence, and how do we know whether it has been answered properly? Will inspectors lurk outside people's houses and see where they go to worship? Will they match that behaviour with the form, or will we accept that everyone who bothers to answer the question is bound to answer it correctly? I do not know the answer to that. Even on Third Reading, there remain many questions that have not yet been satisfactorily answered.
    We were taken through the logic which says that there remains a legal duty to comply with the census form but that it is not an offence not to comply and there is no penalty if people do not comply. However, as I understand it, there is a penalty when it comes to the declaration. People can apparently meander through the census form, come to this question, scratch their head, decide whether they are interested or want to bother replying, give an answer that may or may not be true, and when they come to the declaration say, "Oh dear, I thought I was going to get away with this, but perhaps I'll get caught under the declaration." Presumably, the declaration applies to the totality of the form, even as amended by the Bill. We may end up with a circularity that will put individuals in a difficult position.
    All in all, one is left wondering whether this measure has the value that people ascribe to it. In the end, we will all have to strike a balance and decide whether we believe that it is proper for the state to intrude in people's private lives through the vehicle of the census form as amended by the Bill. What puzzles me about Labour Members is that I thought that most of them were wedded to idea of civil liberties and individual rights but, now when it suits
    1164
    them—or probably when they are told to—they conveniently abandon those views. That issue came up in the Football (Disorder) Bill and now in this Bill. In fairness—I do not often say this, so I shall say it very quietly and hope that no one notices—on this occasion the Liberal Democrats are taking a much more principled view than Labour Members. Judging by what the Liberal Democrats said about the football Bill, and what they have said about this Bill, I conclude that their views are much more in line with what I always understood to be their traditional attitude to individual and civil liberties. Labour Members, meanwhile, seem much more prepared to abandon such attitudes, almost casually.
    Some of us Conservatives are not prepared to do that, and I have not yet heard anything—even from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, and certainly not from the Minister—to persuade me that the Bill justifies support from the House and should be enacted. It is simply not good enough for anyone, not even my hon. Friend, to say, "Because lots of religious people and organisations think the Bill is a good idea, that's it".
    Mr. Sayeed: I did not say that.
    Mr. Forth: If I have misquoted my hon. Friend, I will give way to him.
    Mr. Sayeed: I know that my right hon. Friend does not wish to traduce me. I specified those who were in favour of the Bill, but I did not say that, because they were in favour of it, it should become law.
    Mr. Forth: I apologise to my hon. Friend if I misinterpreted what he said. If he meant that if organisations such as those he cited expressed support for the Bill we should take that into account, of course I agree with him. After all, our job is always to take into account the widest possible range of views. We must ask, however, how many of those living in the United Kingdom—the number is now approaching 60 million—can be said to be represented even by the eminent organisations mentioned by my hon. Friend. I would hazard a guess that that applies to only a certain proportion.
    I accept that it is difficult to strike the right balance, but we must ask ourselves how comfortable people will feel about being asked to tell the Government and other authorities about their religious beliefs—and whether, having been asked that question, they will be prepared to answer it comfortably, openly and honestly. Many may well not want to answer it, which leads us to question the validity of the outcome of the exercise.
    I am worried by a more serious possibility: that people who have no religious view, or are not prepared to express a view that they have, will be disadvantaged. That may apply to individuals, groups or communities. If moneys were indeed directed in some serious way, yet to be fully revealed, to those with certain religious affiliations, by implication those moneys would be withheld from other groups. One wonders whether, once such a process was fully under way and better understood, a reverse process might enable people to be persuaded in future to give certain information on the form in order to gain advantage.
    I have not yet heard enough to convince me that the Bill will be of benefit. I understand why some may want it, and why others may feel nervous about it; I certainly

    1165
    do. Unless I hear a much more compelling argument for the Bill between now and the vote, I am inclined to oppose it.
    7.3 pm
    Dr. Harris: Let me say at the outset that—according to its letterhead—I am an honorary associate of the National Secular Society. Speaking as a Back Bencher, I think many of my views are in line with those of the society.
    The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made a number of good points, not least in admitting that—in this as in so much else—the Liberal Democrats are both principled and consistent. In fact, Conservative Members are not consistent in their descriptions of my party, but we will accept that last description.
    I wish to make four general points. I shall make them briefly, because I do not wish to detain the House. The first relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) during the debate on the amendment. As I said then, I intended to make the same point on Third Reading. It is a legal point relating to the opinion given by the vice-chancellor of London university. I shall not repeat what the hon. Gentleman said, but I agree with him: there is clearly a difference of legal opinion, and it would have been nice if we had had more time to establish which opinion was more likely to be right. The possibility of a judicial review, causing delay, may threaten more than just a religious question in the census.
    My second point is this. The Bill leaves us with a question that is "intrusive", according to a letter to the Minister from the National Secular Society dated 24 July. The society says that the question is also
    much too simplistic to ascertain accurately people's religious beliefs
    —I agree with that—
    or affiliations—or lack of them.
    Like me, the society is
    concerned that the results would be inaccurate and misleading, and…would be used by religious bodies to obtain further unjustified privileges.
    That, I think, goes to the heart of the matter.
    The Minister did not reassure me when she spoke about the amendment. Retaining a penalty for knowingly giving false information will not remove the worry that is felt. The Minister defended the penalty by saying that it would not be enforced. That is an interesting approach to dealing with failure to fulfil a legal duty, and, I suspect, not one that the Minister would wish to advertise as being part of Government policy in other areas of the law. The danger is that people who have no strong religious belief but who may have been baptised or born into a certain religion will be much more tempted not to answer the question than to tick the box marked "No religious belief'.
    Such people—especially if they are not as deeply involved with these matters as some of us who care passionately about the right to religious freedom, or the freedom not to be religious—may worry about having claimed to have no religious belief, although they have been baptised, when they are asked to state that they have filled up the form accurately. I do not think adequate assurances have been given, and that is one of the main reasons why I will vote against Third Reading if the House divides.
    1166
    I am also worried about the principle of a "voluntary" question. The existence of such a question, when a penalty can be imposed for the deliberate giving of incorrect information, surely threatens the validity of the question itself. People like me fear that the information provided by the census will be heavily biased in favour of presuming a greater tendency towards religious belief than currently exists.
    There must be data on church attendance, and it must be possible to obtain them. There are also data on synagogue attendance, which are collected and, indeed, worried about—for understandable reasons, from the perspective of those involved. If people feel strongly that they require information about religious belief—which, as a principle, I question—it should be up to such people and organisations to collect the data. The state should not be expected to subsidise the provision of services for the expression of a particular opinion.
    Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. In fact, research is available: I have some here. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, for example, that 10 per cent. of the nation is Roman Catholic and 27.1 per cent. agnostic.
    Dr. Harris: I suspect that 10 per cent. of people describe themselves as Roman Catholic when the question is posed in a certain way. There are various ways of describing religion: it may be defined in terms of birth, baptism, upbringing, church attendance or, dare I say, theological belief.
    I must end my speech soon, but I want to say something about the reason given by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire for the fact that this information is required. On Third Reading, we are left with a Bill that is liable for the provision of information allowing the state to collect data that suggest that it should fund, for instance, more religious schools. That was the example given by the hon. Gentleman. This is my view rather than that of my party, but I question whether the state's role includes the funding of Jewish, Muslim, Church of England or Roman Catholic schools. I favour disestablishment of the Church of England—in this instance, I agree with my party—and I certainly see no need for the state to have such a role.
    I will come back to the issue of the Bill on Third Reading because I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are restless and perhaps rightly so. If by dint of the Bill it becomes the Government's duty and funding necessity to collect those data, we are going far too far, with the state seeking religious grounds to interfere in our daily lives. It should be up to religious organisations to make the case, as they have had to with great difficulty for the Muslims. One might say that there is an imbalance there.
    Therefore, I do not accept the principle of the motives behind the Bill that we are left with on Third Reading. I do not believe that the census will give accurate information even for the purpose that the supporters of the Bill wish it to achieve. I believe that it is an unjustified intrusion into personal beliefs, made worse by the fact that there is an implied penalty for people who are not sure whether they have answered the question correctly, which will not only bias the answers, but cause concern to many people. That is why, from a personal perspective and because of the principles that I have set out, I shall seek to oppose the Bill on Third Reading.
    7.11 pm
    Mr. Edward Davey: Despite the strong arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and the compliments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I will support the Bill on Third Reading. On Second Reading I made my concerns clear about the questions and about whether the Government should ask for such information from the individual citizen, but I also made it clear that the fact that the question was voluntary was important. That improvement, which was made in the other place before the Bill came to the House, was a major step forward.
    On Second Reading, however, I asked the Minister whether it would be made clear on the form that the question was voluntary. We did not have a reply then, but I was delighted to read in the Committee Hansard that she made that pledge, and she has reiterated it tonight. It has been made clear tonight that she has statutory cover to ensure that on the census form, by that question—[Interruption.] Conservative Members shake their heads, meaning that she has not, but I remind them that we had an exchange about that provision earlier. My hon. Friend confirmed that under section 3(1)(f) of the Census Act, Ministers are allowed to put forward regulations that stipulate how the form will be designed, and other aspects of the form.
    Therefore the Minister has confirmed that she does have a power. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) wish to intervene?
    Mr. Tyrie: When the hon. Gentleman is ready.
    Mr. Davey: I am ready.
    Mr. Tyrie: The 1920 Act makes it clear that answering questions is a requirement. The Bill makes it clear that answering the question is a requirement. That is the fundamental inconsistency.
    Mr. Davey: That is a different point from the one that I was trying to make, which was whether it would be possible for the Minister to put a regulation before the House that enabled the words, "This is a voluntary question" to be added to the form after the question asking the individual what his religious belief was. That was the simple question that I tried to ask: whether the Government can pass that regulation about the form of the question, and the words on the census form. It seems from reading the Census Act that the Government have that power. That was the reassurance that I sought on Second Reading, and I am delighted that the Minister has been able to confirm it tonight.
    Mr. Tyrie: I shall have just one more go. It is clear from the Bill that completing the question is a requirement. It is not something that is requested of recipients of the form; it is a requirement. Several of us have received detailed legal opinions suggesting that the Government do not, therefore, have the power to describe the question on the form as voluntary, and that to do so may be subject to judicial review and is almost certainly ultra vires. We have had no reassurance from the Minister on that point.
    Mr. Davey: I fear that we are back to an exchange that the hon. Gentleman and I had on Second Reading, when
    1168
    we debated whether the fact that the Bill takes away the penalty changes the nature of the question from compulsory to voluntary. I disagreed with him on Second Reading, and I am afraid that I will have to disagree with him now.
    Taking away the penalty is important in making it clear in law that the question is voluntary. If failing to answer a question does not result in a penalty, I cannot see how it can be seen to be compulsory. On Second Reading the hon. Gentleman had a different interpretation; I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
    Because the Minister has given the assurance that the regulations that will be forthcoming will ensure that those words are on the census form next to that particular question—indeed, directly after the words—I feel much more able to support the Bill. I should say that I have agreed with my right hon. and hon. Friends that my party will have a free vote. I understand that there are colleagues who, because religious issues are involved, wish to express a different opinion. That is how things should be on such a Bill.
    I would not want to end by saying that I welcomed the Bill because, as the debates throughout our proceedings on it have shown, it has not been the most effectively drafted Bill. In an ideal world, I would have liked a number of other amendments. Indeed, we voted for the amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).
    The Bill is not perfect. The benefits are not huge, but on balance, given the support for the measure within the ethnic minority groupings and various religious groups, I—and, I know, many of my colleagues—will support the Bill in the Lobby.
    7.16 pm
    Mr. Tyrie: I will not detain the House for very long. I have already made many of the points that I wanted to make in the debate and on earlier occasions.
    I like the idea that every time there is a difference of view in a party, there should be a free vote. I can imagine that if that idea were to spread like an infection to other parts of the House, we would soon conduct our business very differently, and it would become very exciting.
    Mr. Forth: This is a private Member's Bill.
    Mr. Tyrie: As my right hon. Friend points out, it is technically a private Member's Bill, although it has the support of the Government, who are whipping their party through to support it.
    I shall not go through all the arguments again, but I shall touch briefly on a few of them. The first is whether religious groups want the legislation. The plain fact is that they are divided on it. They are not united. The Jewish community in particular is divided. It is wrong to suggest that there is overwhelming pressure for the measure from all people who hold deep religious convictions. That is not correct.
    The second issue is the purpose to which the information will be put. I have not heard a convincing argument from anyone about what exactly the information will be used for. I have certainly not heard a convincing argument from the Government.

    1169
    The third issue is the cost. It costs, I think, £250 million, or something very close to that, to run the census. I do not see the Minister nodding or shaking her head. I can only assume that she does not know what the figure is at this minute, but it sounds like a lot of money to run a census. It strikes me that there might be cheaper and more effective ways of obtaining the information—for example, through survey data.
    In any case, the three points that I have just made are largely water under the bridge. What we are debating now is whether we should have a voluntary question on religion in the next census. The Government initially wanted a compulsory question, and they blundered when they amended the Bill in the Lords to reflect concern that it should be voluntary. As is well known to the House, they removed the financial penalty, but did not make the question voluntary.
    We tried to clear that up in Committee, but the Government refused. That has left us with two clear bits of nonsense in the Bill. The first is that the Government are adding a statement on the voluntary nature of the question on census forms, although the Bill requires recipients to fill it in. The Bill's long title is very clear on that point, which we have made on numerous occasions.
    I think that it is worth pausing for a moment to ask what the word "require" means. Can it mean anything other than that there is a requirement? I note Professor Zellick's legal advice on that point. He writes that the word "require" in all its forms and uses imports the notion of compulsion. When I read that, I thought that that was so blindingly obvious that it really was not necessary to put it in a legal opinion. Unfortunately, today's debate has suggested that Professor Zellick was right on the button in making that point.
    The second piece of nonsense is that although making a false statement is still an offence, refusing to answer the question at all is not. Clearly that cannot have been the Government's intention when they first drafted the Bill. The Bill is defective in that sense also.
    Mr. Forth: Before my hon. Friend leaves that issue, he will not forget, will he, the declaration that has entered the lists quite late in our proceedings as another factor to be taken into account? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) was very helpful in pointing out that there still exists the overriding element of the declaration at the end of the form, which creates an overriding, compulsory, mandatory and penalty-bearing element that may well feed back into all the other questions.
    Mr. Tyrie: My right hon. Friend raises various issues, but I shall briefly address only two of them. The first is that people filling in the form might quite reasonably be confused by the fact that a statement at the side of one question states that it is voluntary, whereas, at the bottom of the form, there is a statement that it is not voluntary but compulsory.
    The second point is that that is precisely the type of issue that could generate many problems if there were a judicial review. I would not be at all surprised to hear that there will be a judicial review of the legislation. If there is, the debate that we are having now will at least clarify where responsibility for the mess lies. The mess is not due to the fact that the legislation is a private Member's
    1170
    Bill, and it does not lie with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire, who has done a noble service in supporting it. He sincerely believes in the arguments that he has advanced.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I request that the hon. Gentleman address the occupant of the Chair?
    Mr. Tyrie: The mess lies in the fact that the Government, who have backed the Bill, are prepared to put defective legislation on to the statute book.
    Why have the Government not simply made a minor, straightforward amendment to make it clear that the question is voluntary? They could do that and send the Bill back to the other place, which would almost certainly agree to such an amendment. That process would not take very long. I still do not fully grasp why the Government have set their face against doing that. However, I have two possible related explanations for the Government's attitude, one of which I have mentioned already.
    The first explantation is that there is a huge logjam of legislation in the other place, and the Government do not want to add to it. We are being asked to pass defective legislation to ease the Government's problem with their legislative programme. I do not think that that is a good reason for not trying to amend the Bill.
    The second explanation—it is related—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not concern himself with trying to amend the Bill. We are on Third Reading, which means that we are beyond amending it.
    Mr. Tyrie: It is a great pity that—as you have rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker—we have arrived at the point at which we cannot improve the Bill. As you have correctly observed, we are in the position of "take it or leave it." I am moving towards the position of wanting to leave it.
    I suspect that the second reason why the Government decided to choose the "take it" option, rather than the option of amendment—if I dare mention that word one last time—is that they encouraged support for the Bill too late. Consequently, Ministers are on a very tight schedule to ensure that everything is in place for the 2001 census. They will have only themselves to blame if they discover that the next census—which will be the first for many decades—is obstructed in the courts. If that happens, we know who will be responsible. If Britain's long, steady series of censuses is interrupted, we will know that that happened because the Government introduced defective legislation. We know where the responsibility will lie—on the Treasury Bench, where Ministers are giggling about it even now.
    7.25 pm
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: I first express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) for the way in which he has introduced the Bill. Although the Opposition want to support the Bill, there are quite a few hurdles in the way, and the Government have not done much to assist us in getting over them.
    Although the Bill is called the Census (Amendment) Bill, I think that it would be better known as the Census (Amendment) (House of Lords Logjam) Bill. The reason

    1171
    why the Government have not accepted perfectly reasonable amendments to sort out the matter once and for all is that they do not want the Bill to go back to the other place, thereby adding to the logjam. The most honest thing that the Minister could do in her reply is to admit that. That, however, is unlikely.
    The Opposition have two fundamental difficulties with the legislation, the first of which could be dealt with even at this late stage—and I am not referring to amendments. In dealing with the question "What is your religion?" in the questionnaire, it would be quite possible to distinguish between people's religious belief and their religious practice. There is quite a large difference between someone who is a regular attender at a place of worship and someone who has a belief but may not worship. If the census results are to be at all accurate, that is quite an important distinction.
    Another point on that question—which I made on Second Reading, and the Minister, probably erroneously, overlooked—deals with the proposed fourth line of the question. The question begins, "What is your religion?", followed by, "Tick one box only." The first choice is "none", and the second is
    Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations).
    If the Minister is still in her position next March or April, she will no doubt notice many angry letters to The Times from people pointing out that the words "Church of England" and "Protestant" are not mutually exclusive. "Protestant" encompasses "Church of England", although it does not include "Catholic". It is a bit like—to put it in Labour-party language—asking someone, "Are you Campaign group or Labour?" The Campaign group is allegedly a part of the Labour party. The Church of England is a part of the Protestant Church, and to present the two as alternatives is unfortunate. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board and think about them before finally signing off on subject of the questionnaire.
    The second difficulty with the legislation has been the stuff of debate both in Committee and in our earlier debate on the amendment. The Opposition believe that the Minister's advice that the question is voluntary is not good advice. She says that she believes in good faith that the question is voluntary, and I accept that she is speaking in good faith. However, we have heard two entirely unrelated legal opinions in today's debates, and although neither of those who gave an opinion knew that the other was giving an opinion, both said that it would remain unlawful not to answer the question. Therefore, the question is involuntary.
    As I said in our earlier debate, that may seem to be a nit-picking point. The significant point is that those who might be opposed to the Bill will challenge it in the courts, and there may well be a judicial review. As I said, the question could have been voluntary if the Minister had accepted what I thought were perfectly reasonable amendments.
    It is the Opposition's opinion that the Bill will make bad law; it is being passed in an unsatisfactory form. The Conservative party is not in the business of supporting bad law. As I said at the outset, we want to be able to support the Bill, but while we do not oppose the question, we cannot support it either. Under the circumstances, therefore, I shall be urging my hon. Friends to abstain if there is a Division.
    7.30 pm
    Miss Melanie Johnson: I can be brief because on Third Reading we have heard arguments similar to those that we heard at earlier stages. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) for introducing the Bill and guiding it through the House. The Government welcome the opportunity that it will provide to enable a question on religion to be included in the 2001 census. We recognise the importance of a clear picture of the diversity of faith communities in the United Kingdom to our ability to address the concerns and needs of all sections of the community, as the hon. Gentleman said. The census is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to do so for local areas on a reliable and consistent basis across the country.
    I made such points in response to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) when the Bill was last discussed in this place on 20 June. As I pointed out to him, he speaks with a strong hint of, "Why bother with a census at all?" He may have been joined by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) in such remarks. That is extraordinary given that the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in a previous Government who relied on and drew in census data on a wide range of issues, in order to inform the policies and processes of government, just as we are proposing to do.
    The ethnic and faith communities regard the 2001 census as an important opportunity for them to identify themselves in terms of their religion in addition to the broader ethnic group classification that is used in the census. Perhaps it is worth making a point about the form of the question. Some Opposition Members—such as the hon. Members for Chichester and for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway)—spoke about that. The form of the question is the form that was most clearly understood in the road testing and rehearsals that the Office for National Statistics carries out in preparation for the large logistical exercise which a census inevitably is.
    We have of course been mindful of the particular sensitivities of such a question. The Government took special note of the concerns expressed in the other place. We listened carefully to the views not only of members of that House, but of members of the general public who would be required to supply information. Consequently, the Government supported the amendment that removed the statutory penalty for anyone who refuses or neglects to state in their census return the particulars in respect of religion—in effect making any such question on religion in the census voluntary.
    Mr. Forth: Will the Minister give way?
    Miss Johnson: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman once.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for entering into the spirit of debate. Will she explain, in response to what will apparently be the only intervention, what "required" means? What advice has she had on the meaning of the word in the title of the Bill? Will she please spell that out for us?
    Miss Johnson: Perhaps I can best help the right hon. Gentleman by reference to dictionaries or common sense. I am not sure what his question relates to. I have already

    1173
    explained what "required" means in this context—and on more than one occasion this evening. The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately not listening to what I have to say.
    In approving the Bill, Parliament will bring census legislation in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland and Northern Ireland—
    Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
    Miss Johnson: No, I will not give way; I am wrapping up the debate.
    Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
    Miss Johnson: No, I am sorry but I am not giving way.
    Subject to the passing of the necessary secondary legislation, such alignment will enable information on religion from the 2001 census to be available throughout the United Kingdom.
    We attach importance to the Bill. The question will be voluntary, the information will be useful and I commend the Bill to the House.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 355, Noes 4.

    Division No. 294]

    [7.35 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Burstow, Paul

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Ainger, Nick

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Alexander, Douglas

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Ashton, Joe

    Cann, Jamie

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Caplin, Ivor

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Casale, Roger

    Austin, John

    Caton, Martin

    Ballard, Jackie

    Chaytor, David

    Barnes, Harry

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Barron, Kevin

    Clapham, Michael

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clelland, David

    Berry, Roger

    Clwyd, Ann

    Best, Harold

    Coaker, Vernon

    Betts, Clive

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blackman, Liz

    Cohen, Harry

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Coleman, Iain

    Blizzard, Bob

    Colman, Tony

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Corbett, Robin

    Brake, Tom

    Corston, Jean

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Cotter, Brian

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Cousins, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon(Dunfermline E)

    Cox, Tom

    Cranston, Ross

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Burden, Richard

    Darvill, Keith

    Burgon, Colin

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Burnett, John

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    1174

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

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

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Rt, Hon Berry (Alyn)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Denham, John

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Drew, David

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Jones Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Edwards, Huw

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Efford, Clive

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

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Khabra, Piara S

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Kidney, David

    Fisher, Mark

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Flint, Caroline

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Flynn, Paul

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Follett, Barbara

    Lepper David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Leslie, Chirstopher

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Levitt, Tom

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lewis Terry (Worsley)

    Foulkes, George

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Linton, Martin

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Livsey, Richard

    Gerard, Neil

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Lock David

    Gidley, Sandra

    Love, Andrew

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McAllion, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Godsiff, Roger

    McCabe, Steve

    Goggins, Paul

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Macdonald, Calum

    Gorrie, Donald

    McDonnell, John

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Grocott, Bruce

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Grogan, John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Gunnell, John

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    MacShane, Denis

    Hancock, Mike

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    McWalter, Tony

    Healey, John

    McWilliam, John

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Mallaber, Judy

    Heppell, John

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hesford, Stephen

    Marshall, David(Shettleston)

    Hill, Keith

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Martlew, Eric

    Hope, Phil

    Maxton, John

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Angyll & Bute)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hurst, Alan

    Moore, Michael

    Hutton, John

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Illsley, Eric

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

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

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Jamieson, David

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Jenkins, Brian

    1175

    Mountford, Kali

    Salter, Martin

    Mudie, George

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mullin, Chris

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Sawford, Phil

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Norris, Dan

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Oaten, Mark

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Olner, Bill

    Skinner, Dennis

    Öpik, Lembit

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Pearson, Ian

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Pike, Peter L

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Plaskitt, James

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

    Pollard, Kerry

    Soley, Clive

    Pond, Chris

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Pope, Greg

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Pound, Stephen

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Stevenson, George

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Purchase, Ken

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Rammell, Bill

    Stringer, Graham

    Rapson, Syd

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Raynsford, Nick

    Stunell, Andrew

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Rendel, David

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Rooney, Terry

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rowlands, Ted

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Roy, Frank

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Ruane, Chris

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Timms, Stephen

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Todd, Mark

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    1176

    Touhig, Don

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

    Trickett, Jon

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Willis, Phil

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Wilson, Brian

    Tyler, Paul

    Winnick, David

    Tynan, Bill

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Wood, Mike

    Wallace, James

    Woodward, Shaun

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Woolas, Phil

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Worthington, Tony

    Wareing, Robert N

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Watts, David

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Webb, Steve

    Welsh, Andrew

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mr. Kevin Hughes.

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Mr. Eric Forth and

    Leigh, Edward

    Dr. Evan Harris.

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

  REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(b),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenditure attributable to arrangements under the Act for the making of contributions towards costs incurred by persons for purposes connected with, or with the provision of assistance in relation to, interception warrants; and

  (b) any allowances payable under the Act to the Intelligence Services Commissioner.—[Mr. Charles Clarke.]

  Question agreed to.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
Lords amendments considered.
7.49 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 19, 86, 88 and 97. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you enlighten me as to the first set of amendments? I tabled an amendment relating to communications data and I would like to speak on the subject, but I seem to have lost track of the process. Have we gone past the debate on communications data?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, it is just about to start. However, I understand that the hon. Gentleman's amendment has not been selected.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask your guidance on how to draw a certain matter to the attention of the House. About a week ago, when we debated the Care Standards Bill, I raised with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), the fact that provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill conflict with that Bill. Afterwards, the Minister kindly told me that the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), would write to me on the issue. The Home Office Minister is now present and I spoke to him earlier today, but I have yet to receive his letter. I therefore wish to draw the House's attention to the fact that, this evening, it might pass a piece of legislation that will make another one illegal. Will you rule on how to deal with that issue?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sometimes, one has to pester Ministers—and be very persistent.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Clause 2

    MEANING AND LOCATION OF "INTERCEPTION" ETC
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 32, leave out ("address or other") and insert ("traffic").
    7.50 pm
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 5, 23 to 32, and 126 and 127.
    Mr. Clarke: First, I shall respond to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce). He has pestered me most energetically, starting about 11 minutes ago. I told him that I was prepared to write to him. He raised the issue when we were considering the Care Standards Bill. The Minister of State, Department of Health discussed the matter with me. I told him that there was no conflict between the Bill and the Care Standards Bill. On that
    1178
    basis, my hon. Friend gave that assurance to the House. The hon. Member for South Dorset is right, in that I told my hon. Friend the Minister that I would write to the hon. Gentleman to explain precisely why there was no conflict. I will do that. I have not been pestered and pestering should not have been needed, until a few moments ago. Being pestered as I am now, I will respond in the appropriate way.
    The definition of communications data to which the amendments refer has been the subject of a great deal of important attention. We discussed it first in Committee. Principally, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) raised important points about whether communications data were more or less intrusive, as a concept of intruding on people's freedom and knowledge, than other forms of surveillance, which were involved in the Bill. It has been a positive and helpful debate.
    In supporting the amendments and in working with both Opposition parties in the other place, we wished to secure the maximum possible agreement and to go forward with a Bill that we can all agree represents the right way of proceeding. I shall not repeat the point, certainly not this evening. I place on record the fact that we appreciate the efforts of Lord Cope of Berkeley, Lord McNally and Opposition Members in this place in seeking to reach an agreement on where we should go. I appreciate the efforts made by many organisations, in business and elsewhere, which were keen to try to improve the Bill in a variety of ways. The amendments on these clauses and those in other groups that we shall discuss this evening are the product of a positive process of trying to seek agreement and improve the Bill in a generally constructive way. It is appropriate to pay tribute to those who have been involved in that process.
    The purpose of this group of amendments is to draw the definition of communications data in the Bill tightly enough to exclude the possibility that the contents of the communication could be assessed. We all understand that when reading telephone bills it is possible to find where the calls go. Everybody was concerned to ensure that the content of, for example, a webpage or whatever should not be caught by the Bill.
    We were ready to deal with that, so the new definitions set out in the amendments satisfy, we believe, three areas of concern. They include in what manner and by what method a person communicates with another person or machine. They exclude what they say or what data they pass on once the connection has been established—for example, the content of communications. Importantly, they still allow for dial-through fraud to be properly investigated.
    Redrafting the definition has been a complicated process, and so it may assist the House if I explain briefly what each part of the new definition as set out in amendments Nos. 3 and 24 is designed to achieve. First, paragraph (a) covers subscriber information. Paragraph (b) covers routing information. Paragraph (c) is designed to address dial-through fraud. Paragraph (d) catches the data which are found at the beginning of each packet in a packet-switched network, which indicates which communications data attach to which communication. The tailpiece to the new definition puts it beyond any doubt that, in relation to internet communications, traffic data stop at the apparatus within which files or programmes are stored, so that traffic data may identify a server but not a website or page.

    1179
    Amendment No. 31 adds the Inland Revenue as a public authority that may be allowed to seek access to communications data under clause 24. We decided, with the agreement of others, to put that in the Bill in response to the recommendations of Lord Grabiner, to deal with the black economy in a way which I think most people consider positive and effective.
    The Bill makes provision for orders that may add to the purposes for which communication data can be accessed, and similarly add to the list of those public authorities that may access such data. Amendments Nos. 27 and 32 ensure that these order-making powers are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
    We need these order-making powers to take account of changing circumstances. We think it important to understand that the process is changing. We need order-making powers, and we accept that they should be affirmative subject to the resolution procedure.
    We discussed this complicated and difficult area of the Bill in great detail in Committee—I put on record the efforts of the hon. Member for Hallam in trying to clarify these matters and develop them—and we believe that the definition of communications data is drawn tightly enough to exclude the possibility of accessing content. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: We have come a long way since Third Reading in this place. I thank all those organisations and individuals that have been involved in helping the Opposition in the House of Lords and in this place. I refer to bodies such as the Federation of the Electronics Industry, the Alliance for Electronic Business, the Internet Service Providers Association, the London Internet Exchange, the London Investment Banking Association, Justice, Liberty, the Conservative technology forum, Mr. Steven Brine, and the European Informatics Market.
    I make no apology for listing those organisations and including Mr. Brine. They all have important interests in these matters. They have said from the outset that they support the principle that crimefighters should have the powers that they need and that there should be a proper framework for surveillance and the use of informants.
    We reached the point on Third Reading in this place where the Government seemed unwilling to move further. The Opposition felt that the Government had not moved far enough. I join the tribute that has been paid to the work done by those in the House of Lords. I refer especially to Lord Cope of Berkeley and Lord Astor, with their team of Lord Goschen, Lord Northesk and Lord Lucas of Crudwell. The Liberal Democrats were ably led by Lord McNally. I even pay some tribute to Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Labour spokesman, who was forced to listen.
    When we came to the end of Third Reading, I tabled a written question to the Minister to ascertain what amendments he intended to table in the Lords. He replied to the effect that he expected a very small number of minor and technical amendments. It is a tribute to the way in which matters have changed since the Bill was last in this place that we now have 29 pages of complete rewriting of the sections that most concerned the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.
    1180
    I join in the welcome for these amendments, which deal with the important issue of communications data.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Heald: Before I do so, I should say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said at the outset, on Second Reading, that she was concerned at the wide range of information which was covered by the power dealing with communications data. She expressed those difficulties fully. In Committee, we tabled amendments, which dealt with the issue. We tried to limit the power to cases where it was absolutely necessary to provide information and to deal with definitional problems.
    We failed to make the progress that we should have done on that issue. However, it has been possible in the Lords, as a result of the new co-operation, to tighten the definitions of traffic data and address the issue of dial-through fraud, which had not been fully noted in this place. We therefore welcome the changes.
    8 pm
    At the end of the proceedings in the House of Lords, my noble Friend Lord Cope observed that the Bill had been much improved. Earlier today we heard from Madam Speaker how important it is to scrutinise legislation properly. This is a case in which the two Houses together have achieved a great deal. I have joshed the Minister slightly so far, but I agree with him that, as regards the first groups of amendments, the position is much improved.
    It is right that the Bill should have passed through the House of Lords, and we accept the burden of the amendments, although we will want to see how the Bill works in practice, we will want to study the codes of practice in detail when they come before the House, and we will want to be sure that any order-making powers are exercised sensitively.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend kindly read a list of organisations that had helped with the Bill. Will he put it on record that the group from the European Informatics Market group, EURIM, of which I am chairman, was headed by Chris Sundt, who had previously worked for ICL and was brought out of retirement to help? He worked constructively with that group, with the Confederation of British Industry group and with Government officials. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that Chris Sundt was particularly helpful.
    Mr. Heald: I am happy to do that. I did not list all the names of all the people who helped, but perhaps I should have done. I did not think that the House would want me to do so. Certainly, Chris Sundt of EURIM made a substantial and detailed contribution, as did Philip Virgo, who is with EURIM as well. I could also mention Tom Wills Sandford of the Federation of the Electronics Industry, Caspar Bowden of the Foundation for Information Policy Research, and Tim Baker of the London Investment Bankers Association. I could go on all night, but I shall not.
    Mr. Cohen: I make no apology for speaking again on communications data, as I did at various stages in the

    1181
    passage of the Bill through the House. As the Minister knows, I think that the provisions dealing with communications data are born of complacency, are unsatisfactory, and have little regard for the protection of privacy and commercial confidences. Despite the Lords amendments, I believe that the situation remains unsatisfactory.
    I have no intention of going over issues previously debated, and if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you would rule me out of order. However, I seek a simple answer to a simple question, to which the Minister can say yes or no. The question is: can communications data obtained by one body under a notice given to a telecommunications operator be disclosed at a later time to another body for use for another purpose?
    That should be easy to answer, one way or the other. If the Minister says, "No, communications data cannot ever subsequently be used for purposes other than those originally specified in the notice given to the telecommunications operator," I can stop speaking now.
    My view is that communications data can be obtained legitimately under the Bill and, at a later stage, the data can be disclosed to another body for another purpose. For example, if such data were obtained by the police, it is possible to see how the data could subsequently be disclosed to the Inland Revenue or Customs and Excise, if powers described in some other legislation were exercised by those bodies.
    Mr. Clarke: I hope that I can help my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in pressing this important point. The Data Protection Act 1998 already places restrictions on the use that can be made of personal data. In particular, the second data protection principle states:
    Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
    I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Bill does not remove or subtract from that principle.
    There is a national security exemption in the 1998 Act, but the existing law also provides safeguards against the dissemination of information by the intelligence service in relation to the form of special arrangements that must be in place under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Bill covers the point that he raises.
    Mr. Cohen: I am grateful that the Minister has put that on the record. It is an interesting assurance, which I want to explore. I am not challenging the national security exemption, but let us consider the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, which offer another route for a large number of subsequent disclosures for other purposes.
    For example, on Second Reading, I raised the matter of communications data being available for council tax purposes. The Minister denied that that would happen. Indeed, I was told in a parliamentary written answer on 10 July that the Data Protection Act places restrictions on the degree to which information may be shared by organisations—the point that the Minister has just made—but that shows that information can, indeed, be shared.
    My understanding of section 29 of the 1998 Act is that its broad provisions permit a local authority to collect personal data for council tax purposes from any data controller, and that such disclosure of communications
    1182
    data would therefore be consistent with the non-disclosure provisions outlined in section 29(3) of that Act—for instance, if the police decided to disclose communications data to local authorities, where those authorities had shown that failure to disclose would prejudice the collection of council tax.
    The non-disclosure provisions in clause 27(4)(b), in the circumstances that I described, have the effect of negating the impact of the second principle, contrary to what the Minister said, and most of the other principles as well. I cite again the parliamentary answer that I received recently, in particular the reference to restrictions found in the Data Protection Act 1998.
    I am at a loss to understand what those restrictions are, if the effect of the principles is negated by section 29 of that Act. I do not see what protection the Act offers in these circumstances.
    Furthermore, I note that on the Home Office's website with respect to the Bill, Customs and Excise confirms that it obtains communications data 18, 000 times per quarter under the current arrangements. That represents 72, 000 notices a year under the Bill. I am not sure of the final number for all the self-authorising officials, but if we take into account the fact that communications data will be obtained by the Inland Revenue, more than 50 police forces, 400 local authorities and their benefits inspectors, the Department of Social Security, MI5, MI6, Government communications headquarters operations and possibly staff of the worthy egg inspectorate, among others, it is clear that we are dealing with half a million authorisation notices a year issued by hundreds of self-authorising officials.
    Mr. Clarke: Does my hon. Friend accept that Customs and Excise is involved in that because one of its principal responsibilities is fighting organised crime, particularly organised drug crime? The relationships between the organised criminal networks are a key source of data in that fight. That is why, for Customs and Excise, that level of data collection is extremely important.
    Mr. Cohen: I hear that point, but I am not sure that the—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I tell the hon. Gentleman that we must relate our remarks to the Lords amendments before us and not go wide of those amendments?
    Mr. Cohen: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am explaining why I am not satisfied that the Lords amendments go far enough in respect of communications data
    I return to the point about the notices from hundreds of self-authorising officials. How on earth will such a rate of communications data obtaining be supervised by an overworked interception commissioner, presumably with just a handful of staff? Is he going to say, "Hey, Bob, can you look at this batch of 100,000 self-authorisations before lunch?" How can we expect the commissioner to supervise the hundreds of self-authorising officials, and hundreds of thousands of different acts of obtaining information?
    Mr. David Maclean: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the egg inspectorate as an

    1183
    example. Is he not worried about the new schedule, which does more than name a few other specific sub-departments in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of Health? Under the schedule, the relevant authority would be the whole Ministry or Department involved, and all its officials, who would then have a power that they did not have before.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we went into that question, we would not be dealing with the amendment.
    Mr. Cohen: I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman, who may want to expand on it later.
    The problem is especially acute if self-authorising officials are later able to pass communications data to another body without anyone's knowledge. I have described how the later disclosures are not expressed in the notice given to a telecommunications operator.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: The officials cannot do that.
    Mr. Cohen: But they can pray in aid other legislation to get data from those who collected it originally. It follows that the interception commissioner examining the authorisation process would not know about such subsequent disclosures either, for the simple reason that they would not appear on the notice in the first place. To put it bluntly, the authorisation mechanism and other protections under chapter II of the Bill could be reduced to a meaningless sham if no record of subsequent disclosures is kept as part of the authorisation process.
    I am not satisfied with the concessions made in the Lords. My hon. Friend said that the Data Protection Act 1988 was a protection. He repeats that as a mantra, but detailed examination reveals that the protection offered is not very strong. I suspect that it could be overridden easily: information could then be transferred and data used for purposes other than those specified when collected. The interception of communications commissioner would have little power to prevent that transfer of information; in fact he would have little knowledge of it.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister about the need to tackle organised crime, but at the beginning of our deliberations on the Bill he said that it was about striking a balance between what is public and what is private. That has not been properly achieved in respect of communications data. It is sad that the Bill does not contain the necessary safeguards in respect of the subsequent disclosure of communications data to a body not described on the original notice.
    I am disappointed by the Lords amendments. My hon. Friend the Minister does not seem to have been fully advised about what the Data Protection Act 1988 would protect.
    Mr. Richard Allan: Liberal Democrat Members are pleased with the Lords amendments, which are precisely what we hoped would be agreed in the other place. I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said on Third Reading that we anticipated further amendments.
    1184
    The Minister was kind enough to say that I raised in Committee the key point covered by the amendments. The Hansard record shows that the Minister did his best to defend the Bill, but at the time I felt that he was listening to our arguments. I had every confidence that he would think about them and perhaps that he would seek to amend the Bill. We are pleased that that is what happened.
    The amendments deal with the problem that communications data in the historical sense were not appropriate to be covered by the Bill. An example of such data might be the records on a telephone bill of calls made. The amendments' adoption of the term "traffic data" is welcome, but the change is more than cosmetic. It extends the definition to include matters appropriate to the internet, and it goes beyond the older forms of telecommunication, which merely involve voice calls between specific numbers.
    The phrase "big browser is watching you" has been used to encapsulate the concerns that have been raised about the Bill's effect on browsing among internet websites, and the extent to which communications data could bleed into that activity. We are pleased with Lord Bassam's specific assurance on the matter, when he said that the amendments
    ensure that the definition cannot be interpreted to include any content of communication or interaction with websites.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 257.]
    That is a very important and welcome change. We will need to see the codes of practice, and more work will have to be done to verify Lord Bassam's statement, but Ministers in both Houses have made clear the intention behind the amendments, and that is reassuring.
    8.15 pm
    My noble Friend Lord McNally said in another place that the new amendments offered a definition that we could live with. We do not intend to reduce our scrutiny of the application of the new definition of "traffic data", or of any codes of practice or regulations that are introduced, but we consider that we can live with the new definition. The Internet and e-commerce communities had been worried that the Bill would be so intrusive that it would damage this country's business interests, as well as the right to personal privacy that everyone expects to enjoy. We accept that that enjoyment must recognise the reasonable limits imposed by the need to deal with serious crime and national security.
    We are pleased with the amendments. I am grateful for the Minister's kind words about the work that has been done by Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members in this House, and by Members of the House of Lords. My noble Friends Lords McNally and Phillips of Sudbury have been especially active, as have the Conservative peers with whom they have worked and to whom I also pay tribute. That was a good example of how to work together on complex and detailed matters.
    There is no need to go into detail about the amendments. We will look at the codes of practice when they are published, but we now have a definition of "traffic data" that we can live with. The previous definition, of "communications data", would have been too intrusive, and not proportional to the safeguards covering matters of lesser security. It is quite proper that the interception of communications should require more stringent safeguards in terms of authorisation, and of those who can take out warrants for that purpose.

    1185
    The amendments have general cross-party support. We welcome them, and hope that the House agrees to them.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I shall be brief. Conservative Members are pleased that the Government eventually listened to criticism of the Bill and introduced these amendments. We are also pleased with the level of co-operation extended by the Home Office. We warned at the outset of our proceedings about the effect of the Bill's provisions in respect of telecommunications. The Department of Trade and Industry washed its hands of the Bill, as did Oftel when it was confronted with the provisions relating to interception of communications.
    The Home Office was left to rescue the Bill on its own, and Ministers and their officials have done their best. However, although I do not want to seem mealy mouthed, the latest briefing that I have received from FIPR describes the Bill as being
    technically inept: ineffective against criminals while undermining the privacy, safety and security interests of honest citizens and businesses.
    I will not go through that briefing. It is very long, but it does reveal the holes in the Bill. I will not even be tempted to read out some of the examples of possible complications that have been sent to me.
    I understand that the Government are attempting to deal with difficult issues. The Human Rights Act 1998 precludes authorities from looking at various matters, while complicated regulations allow the Government, according to certain criteria set down in law, to overturn what is supposedly a basic human right. That difficulty is a result of human rights legislation overturning quite sensible regulations that the Government would want to introduce for the safety of individuals while ensuring that we find out about crimes that are being committed.
    I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that we must look at the way in which the regulations will be introduced. As for the amendments on the cost of introducing the legislation, I do not want Her Majesty's Government to spend my taxpayers' money in dealing with matters that can be bypassed so simply. We want a simple set of regulations. We need to ensure that when a criminal is investigated, there are no loopholes—which the Bill and the amendments could well provide—that could allow a clever lawyer to say that under subsection so and so, somebody did not put the right tick in the right box at the right time. In that way, although everyone can see that someone is guilty of a crime, all the evidence that had been collected would be thrown out.
    The Minister has clearly tried to do a workmanlike job. I do not blame him for being left with this mess to sort out, but unless the measure provides a simplified, cost-effective way of dealing with this issue that will make it easier for the police services and others that have a role in such investigations, I am afraid that we will be coming back in a year or so to try and untie this Gordian knot.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: First, I think that there is a misunderstanding between my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) and me. I believe that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficient to cover the
    1186
    points that he makes. I am happy to continue discussing this point with him, but I think that it is dealt with in the Bill.
    Secondly, I do not accept that the comments quoted by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) that the Bill is technically inept, ineffective against criminals, and so on. We have made it clear from the outset that law enforcement faces a number of serious technical challenges as a result of technological innovation. It is also a simple and important fact that criminals need to communicate. That is particularly true in the case of organised crime involved in trafficking drugs and people. This power is therefore very important in contesting those criminal organisations.
    Thirdly, and very importantly, interception powers are carefully targeted—that is what the Bill is all about. We are very keen, and have been throughout the Bill's passage, to work not only with the Opposition but also with industry. We do not want a breakdown of trust or confidence. However, I do not accept the comments of the Foundation for Information Policy Research quoted by the hon. Member for South Dorset. I would not have responded to this debate except to say that, but I cannot let his remarks stand on the record unchallenged. I accept the genuine feeling with which he said that we had tried to address the point, but not the views of the Foundation for Information Policy Research. We also do not accept that we can do nothing in the face of criminal organisations which work in this way—we must try and deal with the problem. I hope that the House will agree with the Lords amendments.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with Special Entry.

  Clause 12

    MAINTENANCE OF INTERCEPTION CAPABILITY
    Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 14, line 15, at end insert
    ("(3A) A person shall not be liable to have an obligation imposed on him in accordance with an order under this section by reason only that he provides, or is proposing to provide, to members of the public a telecommunications service the provision of which is or, as the case may be, will be no more than—

    (a) the means by which he provides a service which is not a telecommunications service; or

    (b) necessarily incidental to the provision by him of a service which is not a telecommunications service.")

    Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 19 and 125.
    Mr. Clarke: I am afraid that I need to give slightly more time to this debate, as it reflected a very serious discussion in the other place. I need to explain why these amendments are before the House.
    The purpose of amendment No. 12 is to clarify those commercial and other organisations that provide a telecommunications service as a means of accessing a further service of theirs will not be subject to any order under clause 12. For example, a bank may decide that it

    1187
    will offer a telecommunications service to its customers as a means of providing access to its banking service. As a result, customers can communicate with that bank. Where such a service is provided, the amendment will exclude its provider from any obligations that might otherwise be imposed under clause 12 to develop or maintain an interception capability. That measure was in response to the submissions made to us as we considered the issue. The amendment also puts outside the scope of clause 12 a telecommunications service that is necessarily incidental to a different service.
    Amendment No. 15 is the outcome of our consideration of how best to ensure that the interception commissioner and his staff are able effectively to scrutinise any interception equipment designed and maintained in obedience to a notice served under clause 12. Amendment No. 15 will mean that notices served on an Internet service provider will specify what should be done to provide the commissioner with reliable and verifiable technical means of fulfilling his duties. It also applies to any orders made under clause 12.
    Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 16 and consequential amendment No. 125 deal with a technical advisory hoard. Whether to set up a statutory body such as a technical advisory or approvals board has been much discussed not only in both Houses of Parliament but within Government and between Government and industry. Opinions have differed as to whether such a body was necessary, whether it should be a statutory body, whether it should have an advisory role or be an approvals board as originally suggested, what its composition should be and what its remit should cover.
    We consider that the amendments, which have been accepted in another place and are before us for consideration are a sensible and reasoned compromise as a result of all the discussions and debates that this issue has engendered. I hope and believe that they will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly as they were jointly tabled by all parties in the other place.
    The amendments achieve the following: first, they set up in statute a technical advisory board. Secondly, they introduce an element of flexibility as to the constitution and membership of that board. That is important, as we live in a rapidly changing environment. Thirdly, they clarify the function of the board when considering a notice that has been referred to it. Fourthly, they provide that a notice is effectively suspended pending consideration by the board. Finally, they make it clear what may happen when a reference is made.
    I know that the membership of the board is an important issue. The current intention is that it will consist of representatives from industry and the agencies. There have been suggestions that membership of the board should extend beyond those of the communications industry and law enforcement. I am not entirely convinced that that would be appropriate. However, the order-making power proposed in amendment No. 16 allows for some flexibility in this area and thus allows us to look at the situation as it proceeds.
    On costs and clause 13, which are dealt with by amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 relating to the drafting of clause 13, prior to these amendments, the obligation on
    1188
    the Secretary of State under subsection (3) was stronger than the discretion under subsection (1). The effect of those amendments will be to introduce an obligation under subsection (1). Since both subsections now impose an obligation to pay contributions or to ensure that contributions are paid, it is right that they should now be wrapped up into a single duty.
    8.30 pm
    Amendment No. 18 describes the "arrangements" to ensure that contributions will be paid, since that will allow other means of payment than direct payment from the Home Office. For example, contributions to the marginal costs for telephone interception may well come from the National Criminal Intelligence Service. However, the issues for which payments can be made, which are listed in subsection (2), remain unchanged. Amendment No. 19 removes subsection (3) to make way for amendment No. 18.
    Amendment No. 17 specifies that considerations of "fairness", rather than "appropriateness" as previously drafted, should be taken into account when considering the particular circumstances of the case in question. In other words, particular notice should be taken of the circumstances of the service provider on whom the obligation is being imposed. I emphasise that point given that every service provider will have to deal with different circumstances. I would expect the particular notice to be taken of those circumstances to include consideration of a wide variety of factors, such as comparisons with international practice, the nature of any additional burden and the size of the company in so far as that may be related to the ability of the company to absorb the burden.
    I should like to conclude by recognising the legitimacy of the debate during the past few months about the issue of costs, even if at times the figures bandied about in the press by opponents of the Bill bore little resemblance to reality. There were silly and seriously misleading and damaging figures in the media. That was not the Opposition's responsibility, nor even that of those who commissioned the reports that were published if one judges by what they say, but the fact is that those figures distorted the debate in a seriously damaging way, whereas the debate about costs is genuine, and we tried to take it seriously at every juncture in considering the Bill, in the Chamber, in Committee and in bilateral meetings and so on.
    We have endeavoured to assuage the concerns of industry at every opportunity. It is not now, and has never been, our intention to impose unnecessary burdens on industry in particular or the economy in general. We have absolutely no motive whatever to do that. We believe that the worry that the Bill will cause financial crises for particular companies is unfounded. The Government have not only no intention, but no ability under the Bill, to create such burdens.
    I am confident that the assurances that we have given in Parliament, together with those amendments, should provide sufficient reassurance that we wish to work with industry at all times—not just in considering the Bill, but during its implementation—to ensure that the regime that we implement enjoys the confidence of all parties concerned. I hope that the House will agree to these Lords amendments.
    Mr. Heald: I shall start with amendment No. 12, as the Minister did. Amendment No. 12 is the result of concerns

    1189
    that commercial organisation have raised about telecommunications services provided to their customers that are incidental to their business, rather than being telecommunications businesses themselves. The Government rightly tabled that necessary amendment in the other place, which supported it, and we support it now.
    The Minister will recall—as you may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the debates on Report—that there has been something of a battle royal about whether a technical board should exist. We thought it important to reassure business partly because of the procedures that have been adopted in the Bill, which pre-date the current Minister, but which have not been entirely satisfactory. For example, no technical specification of the equipment that could be used for interceptions was obtained at an early stage. It was only in January this year, when the Minister took the matter seriously in hand, that such a request was made to the Smith group.
    I believe that many fears have been generated by the fact that business has not known what is expected of it. Therefore, we have tried to include confidence-building measures in the intercept capability provisions to make it clear to industry that it is negotiating with the authorities not from a position of entire weakness, but from one where it can have recourse to an independent body if it is dissatisfied with the measures it is asked to take. We are happy with the technical body that is proposed, although it is slightly different from the original proposal.
    Internet service providers may be served with a notice that requires them to take detailed technical measures to provide an intercept capability. If they think that those measures are disproportionate or that the matter can be dealt with more easily, they can ask for the technical board's view on the matter and have an independent view taken. The Minister was very dismissive when we discussed that matter in Committee. He described such a board as an expensive
    quango to give technically sensitive information to competitors.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 28 March 2000; c. 206.]
    Mr. Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman may correct me if I am wrong, but I think that, at that time in Committee, he was talking about a technical approvals board. That matter exercised us strongly for the reasons stated in Committee. We are now talking about a technical advisory board, which will have much more power and effect in what he perfectly reasonably seeks to achieve.
    Mr. Heald: Yes, the essential ingredient of both systems is that there should be an independent body to which such cases can be taken. As the Minister will recall, I tabled several amendments, all of which provided different solutions to that problem. One possibility was that people could go to court. Another route was a review by the technical approvals board. I had two or three other ideas, although I have forgotten them.
    Mr. Clarke: They were creative.
    Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the Minister for describing them as creative. It is welcome that, in the other place, it has been possible to find a solution that provides business with that extra reassurance. That reassurance is in the Government's interests, as much as it is in those of the industry. It will not now just be a case of the Secretary of
    1190
    State introducing an order and a whole series of black boxes springing up in appropriate parts of the economy; there will be an element of independent advice and the ability to put such cases to the board to find out whether it agrees that what is proposed is right.
    It has been said that no one in the industry supported the idea of having a technical board. On Report, I read out a list of bodies that supported that idea—they are shown in Hansard. It was made clear to my noble Friend Lord Cope that various bodies supported that idea, including the Internet Service Providers Association, the London Internet Exchange, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of the Electronics Industries and the Alliance of Electronic Business, and others. That shows that there are sometimes misunderstandings about such issues. However, I welcome the fact that there will be a technical board, but it is a pity that it was necessary to defeat the Government in the other place to achieve that. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, but that is true.
    In Committee and on Report, we said that it should be a requirement that the Government shall make a contribution to the costs of Internet service providers who have to provide such facilities. That was strongly resisted until a defeat in the other place. Again, it is good that the Minister now accepts the decision taken in the House of Lords that he shall make a fair contribution. That will build confidence in the industry, which the Government need if they are to implement the legislation effectively. It is good to talk, as the saying goes—[Interruption.] It is good to talk, and we appear to have an amendment with which we may all be content.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: My declaration of interest will probably last longer than my speech, in that I advise the Telecommunications Managers Association and a company, Trevor Gilbert and Associates, which, at the periphery of its business, runs telephone exchanges. Both organisations were concerned that the Bill was originally too widely drawn and that people who work in the field peripherally or those who have large telephone exchanges as part of their normal business might be dragged in. Therefore, I welcome amendment No. 12, which sets that aside.
    I rose simply to ask the Minister what he expects the Bill to cost. He was right to say that many of the figures bandied about were extraordinarily high. That does not let him off the hook, however, of how much he thinks the Bill will cost and how much he has asked the Chancellor to provide. Out of the £43 billion, has he asked for £500 million, £250 million or £5 billion? How much will the Government have to pay? We should not agree with the Lords amendment until that figure is on the record in Hansard so that we may later measure whether the Minister was correct.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I feared that I would left stranded without my cavalry when we reached the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who knows most about these matters, has had to depart, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who also served on the Committee, had not quite arrived when we began. I have been rescued by his arrival: more than one of us will now deal with the amendments and we have the benefit of some of the expertise that went into the Committee stage.

    1191
    I shall make one preliminary point so that I will not have to make it later. It reflects the words of the Minister and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). The Bill's process in the Lords was a model of intelligent co-operation, and I pay tribute to the Conservative spokesman, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and his colleagues, to the ministerial team, and to my colleagues, Lord McNally and his team. The huge amount of co-operation that occurred is evident in the fact that the technical advisory board proposal came originally from Lord Cope. We worked happily with him to support it as a positive improvement and the Minister has been glad to accept it.
    When the Bill left the House of Lords, I asked my colleagues what remained for us to do to make the Bill even better. I was told that there were three outstanding matters—overlapping warrants, tipping off and authorisation when the key was converted into plain text. My senior researcher, Steve Bradford, my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam, Lord McNally and I talked to the Clerks, but found, by one of the paradoxes of this place, that those are the very matters on which we were technically unable to table amendments—we can amend only what has been sent to us as Lords amendments.
    That is why there are no amendments to the Lords amendments, and I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire and his team have been through the same process. I make no complaint, but we are limited to considering only what has been sent back from the Lords, all of which improves the Bill.
    Amendment No. 12 improves the Bill for the reasons given by the Minister, and amendments Nos. 9, 14 and others will produce a board sufficiently flexible and encouraging to give the industry the confidence that it did not have when the Bill went to the Lords. Even though there may have been some hype from industry—certainly, we all had an avalanche of correspondence from people who saw the Bill as the most draconian and awful piece of legislation—matters have been reappraised and industry has been reassured that the process can be called in so that it may give its expert opinion. The amendments are welcome and make the Bill more satisfactory to industry and commerce. We welcome it.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Maclean: All that talk about the cavalry arriving and Lord Cope reminded me of the words of a Jacobite song following the battle of Prestonpans. It seems on this occasion that the English general, Johnny Cope, was wide awake in the morning, got his drums a-beating and got down his amendments on the technical advisory board. Lord Cope seems to have been more successful than his predecessor of more than 200 years ago. One naturally supports the technical advisory board. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members, of Scottish ilk, will appreciate the importance of the battle of Prestonpans.
    I recall that the technical advisory board was raised in Committee, and I am pleased that, following the normal parliamentary processes, the Government are willing to accept it. It is a good idea and everyone agrees. I make no criticism of the Government for being slightly nervous of the concept in Committee. If a Government accepted every suggestion made in Committee, goodness knows
    1192
    what would be in a Bill by the time we reached the final stages of the parliamentary negotiations. All is as it should be, and the Minister has wisely accepted the amendment.
    My only small quibble with the technical advisory board is with the view that it should be precisely balanced. It will not be so: the Minister is bound to ensure, using amendment No. 16—"that such other persons"—that he includes a couple of people so that the Government side and the agencies that want warrants will always have a small inbuilt majority in case the industry people become a little troublesome.
    There should be no need for that. The Government are not making policy, and as the board is merely advisory the Government should not have to ensure that it is stuffed with their people in case other members come up with some crazy idea that the Government do not like. The Government can draw up terms of reference to ensure that the board does not have draconian powers that the Government will not like. They could then pick the best people to serve on the committee, and if nine out of 10, 11 or 12 turn out to work in private industry, so be it.
    Of course, the Government must have an input to the board via those who seek the warrants, but the bulk of expertise lies beyond Government circles. The Government should not feel that they must have a majority on the technical advisory board, which will not stitch up the Government on a policy that they wish to avoid.
    My other point relates to clause 13 and the amendments proposed to it. It concerns the cost. I accept that adding the words
    a fair contribution towards the costs
    is an improvement on "an appropriate contribution" but what is a fair contribution? Let us say that the Government get cast-iron audited accounts from an internet service provider to prove that it has incurred a total extra cost of £5,000 in the course of the year providing the interception service. That may not be much in the overall scheme of things, but it has been an additional cost and there is no quibble about it.
    In those circumstances, if a business has had to pay out £5, 000 purely to do something that it would not normally do but that the Government have asked it to, what would be a fair contribution towards the cost? I believe that it would be £5, 000, and if a company had to spend £10, 000 doing what the Government want, the fair contribution would be £10, 000.
    I appreciate that the Government have not wanted to pick a form of words that would amount to, "We will pay whatever it costs". That would create a difficulty. Some companies would do the gold-plated version and ensure that the Government picked up a heavier tab than necessary. Of course, the Government must reserve the right to say, "No, we are not going to pay every penny in case you try to rip us off. It will be a fair contribution and in most circumstances we anticipate that it may be 100 per cent."
    I would like to hear a statement from the Minister tonight. No Minister wants to comment on a hypothetical scenario, such as, if I give him a bill for £5, 000, how much of it will he pay—[Interruption.] If I were an internet service provider, I would give him a bill for £5, 000.

    1193
    We need to find out the Government's thinking as to what is a fair contribution in the case of a small provider who proves legitimately that the bill is not a rip off or fiddled, but that his costs were £5, 000. Roughly what percentage would the Government anticipate paying?
    My final quibble or criticism is that while the amendment deals with a fair contribution towards the running costs, we are still stuck with the old wording in clause 13(3) for the capital costs. Those who are forced to put in equipment or machinery under clause 12—what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) referred to as the "black box"—will be under an obligation to install some equipment that may make interception easier, and will receive only such contributions as the Minister thinks appropriate towards the cost involved.
    I confess that I did not read the debate on this matter in the other place. I do not know why their lordships did not table a similar amendment there. For the running costs of operating an interception system there will be a fair contribution, but the company will get only what the Minister thinks appropriate for the capital costs incurred. I want to hear the reason for that distinction from the Minister. For example, if a company proves beyond any doubt that the equipment that it has installed cost £50, 000—the bill is not fiddled, the auditors have gone through it and everyone agrees that the additional equipment that the Government have demanded cost X—what amount does he think it would be appropriate to pay?
    Given those few words, I generally welcome the amendments.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I will try to deal with the questions directly in responding to an interesting discussion, which has been the subject of substantial debate in the media and elsewhere.
    First, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made an important point when he said that one of the problems was that business was not clear what was expected of it throughout the process. In saying that, I do not think that he was criticising business, Government or anyone else. This is an evolving process and it is difficult to get the expectations right.
    There is no doubt in my mind that a lack of clarity in that discussion has led, not unreasonably, to fears and concerns being abroad that, although not justified, are understandable. That has certainly been a major influence in persuading the Government to make the changes that we are considering, to ensure that fears and concerns about those aspects could not be inflated wrongly or unreasonably.
    Perhaps I ought to place it on record that, through the codes-of-practice process and so forth—the subsequent process of implementing the Bill—we are committed to precisely what the hon. Gentleman focused on, which is giving everyone involved absolute clarity about what is expected of them and how to deal with the situation. He was correct in making that point, which was insightful. That problem has been the cause of much of the discussion around the Bill. We have worked extremely hard to deal with it in dialogue and in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, there is still a distance to go.
    That is the context in which I wish to deal with the arguments about the technical board. As the hon. Gentleman said, we were sceptical about the necessity for
    1194
    setting up a statutory body at the outset, but that was because there was also initial scepticism in industry about the virtue of the consultation process taking place through a statutory body. Many people said at the time that they favoured a non-statutory advisory group rather than a statutory body. We were also seriously sceptical about having technical approvals rather than a technical advisory board, owing to the different functions of the board.
    Once we were clear that we were talking about an advisory process, there was a lot of discussion on the best form of that process, which was mentioned, quite reasonably, by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire. We are content with the arrangement that we are agreeing this evening, but, to be frank, there are alternative formulae that might have been appropriate and with which we would also have been content. The key matter is to establish a flexible structure that can deal with the situation.
    I take issue with what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said. I accept his point about the inbuilt majority, but I do not think that it will come to that in this body or any other body, for exactly the reason that he gave. The Government will rely profoundly on the private sector's knowledge of the issues. We will do that, as we will need to know. Equally, the private sector will need to know from the Government what we have in mind. The purpose of the structure that we are setting up is to establish a body of dialogue through which we shall reach clarity about such matters and take them forward. A situation in which voting takes place will not arise, and would be a disaster if it did. It would be a poor state of affairs if the Government voted one way and business, whether through a committee, board or any other structure, voted another, so we would work very hard to try to avoid that.
    Mr. Heald: As the Minister will know, we insisted that there should be a balance between agencies and the involvement of the private sector in the body so that there is not an imbalance that makes it impossible for them to work together effectively as a team. Certainly, our hope is that, over a period, they will work together and understand each other's concerns, which is the key to making the arrangement work. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is important to have a fairly close balance at least.
    Mr. Clarke: I completely agree, and was taking issue only with the idea that a couple of votes either way were important. We need the kind of co-operation described by the hon. Gentleman, and are committed to it. As I have said in Committee and on the Floor of the House, a general criticism that I would make of Government, both Conservative and Labour—although we are working to improve the situation, given the appalling inheritance that we had to deal with—concerns the difficulty of getting proper partnership in these areas. In many areas, I still feel that we do not have a proper dialogue between the Government and industry. We welcome the new structure, as it will help that process, and I believe that it will work positively and effectively
    I come to the issue of money and costs, and shall deal first with the points made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. Clause 14(2)(b), which deals with running costs, and clause 14(2)(c), which deals with

    1195
    capital, set out the fact that the Bill's requirement for fairness applies to both capital and running costs. The right hon. Gentleman would be right in what he said if the fairness did not apply to both, but the intention behind the provision's wording is that it does.
    The right hon. Gentleman made an important point about criteria. I hope that we can offer him some reassurance, as the same criteria will be applied to all service providers, regardless of the position, in considering what costs should be paid. The first criterion is the question of whether a new requirement is being imposed on the service provider and the second is the significance of the cost in relation to the overall size and turnover of the company. Those are both serious considerations. For example, many people have said a requirement of some kind could be extremely damaging for a small Internet service provider that is in the process of starting up. We would not impose such burdens on them, so it is important to look at the costs in relation to the company's overall size and turnover. The code of practice that sets out the way in which we will do that will provide the reassurance sought by the right hon. Gentleman.
    The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made a financial point and put forward some figures. Throughout, we have estimated that costs to those communication service providers who are not covered at present, but who will be covered under the Bill will not exceed £20 million over three years. That estimate was published in the regulatory impact statement when the Bill was first introduced in the House. We stand by that estimate, and none of the research since has caused us to alter our view. We are of course aware that alternative estimates have been made and we certainly do not claim a monopoly of wisdom on this complicated and different area. When the United States implemented such measures, albeit of a different character, great claims were made about the amount of money that would be needed. In practice, however, much less was needed to deal with the situation.
    Our best estimate, therefore, is the one that we made in the regulatory impact assessment. As with all these things, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been positive in dealing with this matter because he shares our concern to ensure that nothing that we do will damage our position.
    I now realise that I made a mistake in responding to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). I was referring to what will be clause 14 once the Bill is amended; it is clause 13 in the Bill before the House. I apologise for misleading him through my lack of numeracy. Thirteen may be unlucky for some.
    Mr. Maclean: I apologise to the Minister for being obtuse earlier by not studying the amendment properly. If subsection (3) of the clause—whatever its number—is deleted, I assume that subsection 2(c) deals with the capital costs. I see nodding coming from those seated to the Minister's left. My point was wrong: the word "fair" applies to capital and to running costs, in which case I am content.
    Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. As he said, subsection (2)(c) deals with capital. I do not
    1196
    criticise him for being wrong on this matter, as this is one of the most complicated pieces of legislation that I have seen. Moreover, he does not have the advantage that I have of a dedicated Bill team, who have tried throughout the Bill to serve all parts of Parliament in a positive way.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 19 agreed to, some with special entry.

  Clause 14

    GENERAL SAFEGUARDS
    Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 16, line 15, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part").
    9 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22, 156, 157 and 162.
    Jane Kennedy: I am conscious that we are making good progress, and I hope that hon. Members welcome these amendments.
    Amendment No. 20 recognises that the commissioner is responsible for the oversight of communications data as well as interception material. Amendment No. 21 deals with the question of intercept material that is lost or stolen. It is fairly straightforward. Amendment No. 156 is a technical amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
    I should like to say one or two words about amendments Nos. 22, 157 and 162, which deal with some of the exceptions to the prohibition in clause 16 and—
    Mr. Heald: I apologise to the hon. Lady for interrupting her flow. Surely amendment No. 21 deals with the secure storage of intercepted material, not theft. It says that the
    arrangements for the time being in force…for securing that the requirements of subsection (2) are satisfied…must include such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers necessary for securing that every copy of the material or data that is made is stored…in a secure manner.
    Jane Kennedy: That is right. I said that amendment No. 21 deals with the question of intercept material that is lost or stolen, and the risk that such material may be outside the scope of clause 14(2). Although the storage and handling of intercepted material already involves the highest levels of physical, technical and personnel security, I hope that an explicit requirement to store intercepted material and data securely will reassure those who have been concerned that it might otherwise not be so stored. I am sorry if, by trying to make progress too swiftly, I obscured that.
    Mr. Beith: The amendment was tabled in response to representations made by my noble Friends in the other place, who will be pleased that it meets that requirement.
    Jane Kennedy: Let me move swiftly on while we are all in agreement.

    1197
    Amendments Nos. 22, 157 and 162 deal with some of the exceptions to the prohibition in clause 16 and enable intercept material to be considered by the court in cases before the proscribed organisations appeal commission and the special immigration appeals commission, and in any proceedings arising out of proceedings before those commissions.
    In order to ensure that, in those special circumstances, the commission can in each case consider any intercept material which may be relevant, the rules governing their procedure have been devised in such a way as to ensure that sensitive material is protected. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of amendment No. 22 reflect that aim, ensuring that intercept material is not disclosed to the appellant himself, or to anyone who represents him. However, there is provision for a special advocate—we have discussed these—to represent the interests of the appellant in any parts of a hearing from which he is excluded.
    I hope that the amendments will find favour with the House.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 32 agreed to.

  Clause 25

    CONDUCT TO WHICH PART II APPLIES
    Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 27, line 11, leave out ("For the purposes of this Part surveillance is directed") and insert
    ("Subject to subsection (5A), surveillance is directed for the purposes of this Part")
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 34 to 37 and 50.
    Mr. Clarke: Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 37 and 50 remove from the intrusive surveillance provisions covert surveillance carried out by television licence evasion detector equipment. One of the benefits of the legislation is that, as we have gradually sought to apply the human rights requirements to every act of surveillance undertaken by public authorities in Britain, we have established more clarity about what has been happening and about what, therefore, needs to be reported and regulated in a proper way. That is reflected in the Lords amendments that we will come to later when we consider the schedule that we have published in response to the suasions of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). One such activity is the BBC's television licence evasion detector equipment, and we have thought it right to amend the Bill to deal with that.
    A police officer carrying out covert surveillance from an observation post sited on residential premises of a third party of a target outside those premises would be caught by the intrusive surveillance provision. That was not intended, so amendments Nos. 35 and 36 limit the category of intrusive surveillance to where a surveillance device is on residential premises or in a private vehicle and is providing information on what is taking place in those premises or in that vehicle, or, where a device is not on the premises, but is providing, in relation to anything taking place on the premises or in the vehicle, information of the same quality
    1198
    or detail as might be expected from a device on the premises or in the vehicle, or where an individual is present on the premises or in the vehicle under surveillance. That is the meaning of and reason for the amendments and I hope that the House will support them.
    Mr. Heald: We support the amendments. I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Lucas, who brought to the attention of the Minister in the other place the unintended consequence of the Bill as it relates to intrusive surveillance, where a police officer using residential premises as an observation post to carry out covert surveillance would have been caught by the definition of intrusive surveillance. The fact that amendments Nos. 35 and 36 deal with that is welcome.
    Mr. Maclean: It makes sense to have the amendments and remove the BBC detector vans from the provisions for the time being. So long as we have, in the new millennium, a grubby system whereby people crawl around the countryside in vans trying to find out whether criminals are using a television without a licence, it is probably sensible that we should have these amendments to remove that unnecessary work from this important Bill. I look forward to the time when a Minister from whatever party will be able to come to the Dispatch Box and say that we no longer need the provision because we have a different way in which to fund media organisations, other than requiring people to crawl around in detector vans to see if we are misbehaving by illegally watching a television.
    Mr. Clarke: Out of interest, what is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal? Does it involve a spending commitment for the Opposition?
    Mr. Maclean: I could not go down that route without incurring your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The proposal would not cost the Government money; it would save them money. However, that is another debate for another time. I would trust the free market to provide all the television services that we need.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments 34 to 39 agreed to.

  Clause 29

    PERSONS ENTITLED TO GRANT AUTHORISATIONS UNDER SCHEDULES 27 AND 28
    Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 31, line 43, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
    ("(4) A public authority is a relevant public authority for the purposes of this section—

    (a) in relation to section 27 if it is specified in Part I or II of Schedule (Relevant public authorities); and

    (b) in relation to section 28 if it is specified in Part I of that Schedule.

    (4A) An order under this section may amend Schedule (Relevant public authorities) by—

    (a) adding a public authority to Part I or II of that Schedule;

    (b) removing a public authority from that Schedule;

    (c) moving a public authority from one Part of that Schedule to the other;

    (d) making any change consequential on any change in the name of a public authority specified in that Schedule.

    (4B) Without prejudice to section (Orders under s. 29 for Northern Ireland), the power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by the Secretary of State.
    (4C) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (4A) containing any provision for—

    (a) adding any public authority to Part I or II of that Schedule, or

    (b) moving any public authority from Part II to Part I of that Schedule,

    unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.")
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 41, 42, 130 and 142.
    Mr. Clarke: I shall comment on the amendments briefly. The serious matter with which they deal was debated at length in Committee, on Report and in the other place. I was sympathetic to the view expressed in this House during our earlier discussions on the Bill: the public authorities empowered to authorise the use of directed surveillance and the use or conduct of covert sources should be set out in a schedule to the Bill. I believed that it was important for public debate that we had as much information as possible. A central record had never been drawn up or held of Departments and other public bodies that used those covert techniques, and it has taken us some time to devise a definitive list. The provision of such information is an important development in government in Britain.
    I make no criticism of previous Governments, Conservative or Labour. However, the fact that we did not know properly about those matters is a serious reflection on the state of affairs. On behalf of my officials, I emphasise it has not been easy to establish the precise circumstances across government. They have done a good, professional job. However, as they would be the first to say, even now we may not yet understand everything that has taken place. The schedule that we are considering has changed considerably from the list that I circulated in Committee. When considering that list, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) entertained us with his comments on ice cream salespeople and various other issues of great substance. Since then, we have discovered that a greater number of public authorities than we had first thought use part II powers, and that a much greater number of public authorities use covert sources.
    We are still learning about public authorities whose activities have not previously come to our attention. That learning process is likely to continue for some time in future. I have no doubt that it will be necessary to introduce orders that add further public authorities to the schedule as a result of case law developed from judgments on the definition of a public authority once the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force in October. Any additions to the schedule or moves of authorities from part II to part I of the schedule will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The House will therefore be able to discuss ice cream salespeople in great detail, as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border would like.
    Mr. Heald: When the matter was discussed in the other place on 28 June, my noble Friend Lord Lucas asked
    1200
    whether the Department for Education and Employment should be on the list because of university grant fraud which had apparently occurred. It was suggested that surveillance was useful in tackling that.
    Mr. Clarke: I shall respond to that point when I wind up. I want to check so that I can give the hon. Gentleman an accurate reply. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 tidy up the provisions that relate to specific activities in Northern Ireland. They have now become sufficiently substantial to merit a separate clause. We are considering important issues, which graphically illustrate the development of law as we move forward. I commend the amendments to the House.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Heald: To me, these will always be the Maclean amendments because my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) discovered that rather than two or three authorities being involved, the list ran to a page and a half. It is right that they should be in the Bill and I welcome the fact that Departments are considering whether all relevant public authorities are listed. It is better to have a proper list. I understand that that issue has also been raised by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the other place, which also thought that the measure should be set out as it now is. We welcome that initiative. I could make a number of other minor points, but the Minister covered them. However, I should be grateful to know the position on grant fraud. Apparently, people overseas have undertaken enterprising frauds involving university grants and funding for education in this country. Clearly the types of surveillance that we are discussing might be useful.
    Mr. Beith: I was one of those who raised the issue in Committee. My favourite example is the Government Whips' Office, which I strongly suspect of using directed surveillance—for example, to discover whether Labour Members used their constituency weeks or disappeared to some other place. Perhaps we should put these measures in context. We must recognise that they will draw into regulation large areas of activity that were not previously the subject of regulation and accountability. The Bill has received a bad press as being fundamentally oppressive and extending the power of the Government, but on both sides of the Committee it was felt that the initial stab at these measures was unsatisfactory and that we ought to declare, so far as is known, what bodies use directed surveillance. Those bodies ought to be covered.
    In Committee, the Minister gave an assurance that he would seek to achieve that. It has been achieved and we are grateful to him and his officials. However, I accept that other bodies may need to be added to the list, using the affirmative resolution procedure. Unlike other provisions, these measures will not create the legitimate fear that bodies will take up such activities in a cavalier fashion. Surveillance to check that fraud is not taking place is a commonplace in all sorts of organisations—private business, for example—as it is sometimes necessary to check that taxpayers' money or customers' money is not being abused. We must realise that there is a wider area to regulate and I welcome the fact that previous amendments have ensured that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used to add bodies to the list. Taking those two together, a welcome improvement has been

    1201
    made to the scope of the Bill. I appreciate that the Government have listened to representations from all sides.
    Mr. Maclean: I am pleased to speak for a few moments to the Maclean new schedule. I am not proud, but, for the relevant fee and after making an appropriate declaration in the Register of Members' Interests—just as we are happy to save private Members' Bills on various Fridays despite vicious Government attempts to vote them down—I should be happy to assist the Government should they wish to privatise some aspect of parliamentary drafting. The new schedule—amendment No. 142—is remarkable in many ways because the need for it came to light on a Thursday morning. You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Committee business starts at a ridiculously early hour on Thursday mornings—indeed, before most Members have breakfasted and are fully alert as to a Bill's consequences. Fortuitously, we spotted a possibility in clause 27.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: Is the right hon. Gentleman converted to the merits of Thursday morning sittings?
    Mr. Maclean: Absolutely not. That was the only Thursday morning on which I was alert. I do not know on how many Thursdays I, and perhaps Labour Back Benchers and other colleagues, were not fully alert at 10.30 am. Had we considered the Bill in Committee at a proper time, another dozen new schedules could have been before the House tonight.
    We had some fun over the ice cream salesmen, but the matter came to light—I am not being unkind—when the Minister, following his brief, quickly discussed clause 27, referring to those who may need intercepting on grounds of national security, detecting serious crime or the economic well-being of the nation. There was also a curious reference to protecting public health. It seems odd to include that in a clause that refers to NCIS, MI5 and MI6.
    I asked the Minister to give an assurance that the sandwich gestapo of the NHS would not be involved. His answer alerted the whole Committee to the fact that other bodies could be involved as well as NCIS. The Minister produced a helpful although frightening list of organisations that have these powers. He is right and is to be congratulated on being the first to draw up such a comprehensive list. I am not suggesting that the Government are granting new powers to all those funny bodies to direct covert surveillance, because they had such powers in the past, and the Minister is trying to pull them together.
    I have one little concern, however. The Minister's list broke down the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the other organisations with those powers into their different parts. We found it slightly amusing that MAFF' s egg inspectorate had those powers but not the banana directorate. If I may mix my fruit metaphors, the banana directorate is the plum posting in MAFF, because its officials have to go to exciting parts of the world to decide on the quota of bananas that Britain receives each year from those countries. I suspect that there are quite a few rackets, not among officials of course, but in the operation of the banana industry throughout the world. That directorate may need those powers of surveillance, but it is not on the list.
    1202
    The regulations merely stipulate the Government Department: for instance, they just refer to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and do not say which bits will have those powers. The egg inspectorate, the intervention board for agricultural produce and the sheep inspectorate, which checks on sheep numbers for the European Union, will presumably have those powers. I suspect that the wine intervention board will also need such powers. That is the second best job in MAFF. It is a burden that officials carry with equanimity, but a certain number of them are sent each year on a master of wine course and have the difficult task at certain times of the year of going round wine shops and confiscating two bottles of wine to ensure that it is labelled correctly in accordance with EU regulations. They discharge that duty every December. One bottle is sent for inspection, and the other is kept a few days for evidence. It would be wasteful to destroy it, so it comes in handy for other purposes, such as Christmas parties. We presume that that organisation would also have these powers.
    I do not want to labour the point and try the House's patience, but I should like the Minister to tell us whether, if it is not appropriate to put in the schedule the different subsections of each Department—the various bits of MAFF and the Department of Health that will have these powers, such as the sandwich gestapo unit, so as to ensure that the egg in the sandwiches is not more than five degrees centigrade—he will publish the list annually or give an undertaking that, if asked a parliamentary question, he will list the units of each Department.
    We do not want to know details about NCIS, the National Crime Squad and the Serious Fraud Office, but if MAFF, the Home Office and the Department of Social Security are listed as bodies that can direct surveillance, the Minister must answer parliamentary questions on the issue or publish each year a list of the separate divisions in each of those Departments that are using the powers. He cannot put that in the regulations, because the information may change weekly or monthly. I accept his word that the list in the schedule will have to change as more bodies come to light or as Departments change their names. I hope that the Minister will assure me that the Maclean schedule is not the end of the matter, and that he will publish annually a list of the subsections within Departments.
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I can pretend to none of the expertise demonstrated by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) in the consumption of wine, whisky, bananas, eggs and various other commodities about which he clearly understands far more than I ever could. I am grateful for what he has said, however, because it allows me to clarify the position. The Department for Education and Employment was asked whether it wished to be listed in the schedule, but it did not, as it does not use covert techniques, even for the services that are mentioned. If the Department wanted lawful cover for such covert techniques, they would have to be specified in the Bill: that would be a policy matter that the Department would have to address directly. I hope that one of the benefits of the discussion will be the need for Departments and agencies to consider whether they really need the techniques involved. It will be an interesting discussion. I think that people have drifted into the sphere of techniques which, although they may be critically important in some contexts, may be less important in others.

    1203
    The intervention board is listed separately in the schedule. We listed only the public authority in the schedule because it, rather than its constituent parts, is the statutory body. However, we intend to narrow the range of agencies within a public authority that can authorise activity under part II. That will be achieved through the order for which clause 29 provides. The order will specify precisely the individuals holding certain offices, ranks or positions in the relevant public authority who can authorise such activity. For example, it might say that a senior immigration officer in the Home Office could authorise the conduct or use of a covert source. I think that that power to authorise covert activity will be of the greatest public interest.
    We have no interest in hiding these matters. Indeed, we have worked to bring them into the open. I jib rather at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion in Committee that I was trying to skip over the point, for that was certainly not my intention. I felt, and still feel, that not just the Committee and the House but the country should have a chance to see the matter in the round. We will, of course, be ready to answer parliamentary questions as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but we intend to identify the individuals concerned directly. I hope that that gives him some reassurance.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 51 agreed to.

  Clause 46

    NOTICES REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF KEY
    Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 50, line 10, leave out ("requirement to disclose the key") and insert
    ("disclosure requirement in respect of the protected information")
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 76, 79 to 85, 102, 105, 107, 109, 110 and 154.
    Mr. Clarke: As hon. Members know, part III has continued to be a subject of great debate both in another place and more generally. We have proposed a number of significant changes, in response to representations from and discussions with industry and other interested parties. We have also had constructive discussions with the Opposition in the other place.
    I do not want to go into all the details of this substantial issue. The thrust of what we seek to do is this: we want to reassure all concerned that, in cases in which appropriate authorisation has been established under the Bill for reasons given in it, we seek to obtain a copy of the plain text—that is, the actual message that is exchanged, rather than the key. The amendment is designed to provide in the Bill the reassurance that I have given orally, in Committee and here, that we do not seek keys for a general purpose, that we do not seek a back-door route for mandatory key escrow, and that what we want is the plain text.
    I am aware that Members on both sides of the House—in Committee, here, in the other place—and those outside it—have been worried about that, and have wanted
    1204
    reassurance in the Bill that we seek plain text. That is the main point of the amendments. We believe that the requirement is proportionate to what is sought. The amendments propose to recast part III in terms of our preference for plain text rather than keys, and to leave it to the recipient of a notice to decide how to comply with a disclosure requirement.
    9.30 pm
    As I say, the specific amendments are complicated and detailed. I shall not go through the detail further now, although I will be happy to respond as appropriate to points that are made in the debate, but the reassurance that I offer to the House and to all who are watching our proceedings in the industry is that it is our desire lawfully to get access to communications as appropriately authorised. It is not our desire to behave in a way that could make the communication systems of corporations vulnerable, or to give a power to demand a key that could be used irresponsibly to damage the security of organisations.
    Contrary to what may have been thought—not in the House, where people have understood the issue but more generally—the representations that we have received have not come only from that industry, the internet service providers and so on. They have been from investment bankers and the financial community, on which the economic health of the nation depends. They have been concerned that inadvertently, by clumsiness or some other means, the Government might undermine their confidentiality requirements, which are a precondition for the operation of their businesses.
    We are keen to reassure. We have done so verbally, and we think that, through the amendments, we have done so in the Bill. For those reasons, I commend the string of amendments to the House.
    Mr. Heald: Before turning to the issue of keys in general terms, may I deal with Lords amendments Nos. 58 and 59? One of the points that I and others made regularly in Committee was that there was a danger, which had been highlighted by some in industry, that criminals would serve completely bogus notices on financial institutions and other companies seeking keys, or intelligible information on communications that they had obtained—protected information—and that the companies would find it difficult to verify the genuineness of the documents.
    Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 are important because they require that the office, rank or position of the person who granted permission for the giving of a notice under schedule 1 be on the face of the notice. That gives extra reassurance to those who have received notices that they are genuine. Such measures are welcome. I know that the codes of practice, when they are before the House, will deal with those issues to a considerable extent, but I am glad that that theme, which has run throughout our deliberations, has been recognised in that way.
    I turn to the general proposition about keys and the obligation to provide plain text. The original drafting of the Bill carries some of the blame. It was drafted on the basis that the notice would be to provide a key—that the requirement was for the key—so I do not think that we can blame those outside this place for thinking, "Look. It is all about the Government or authorities obtaining keys."

    1205
    Of course, the Minister has given assurances at various times during our proceedings that that is not the case, but the way in which the measure was originally drafted was rather odd—I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees. I welcome the fact that that whole section of the Bill has been turned the right way round, so that the requirement is for the plain text and the key is provided only in special circumstances. Those changes are welcome.
    We still have a certain concern that the provision of the key is on the say-so of the chief constable. As the Minister will know, in the other place we fought hard for that approval to be given by the Home Secretary. We feel that it should be the person who is giving the assurances—the Home Secretary—who makes those decisions, rather than the chief constable.
    Giving up the key is seen as quite a high security risk by financial institutions, companies, banks and the like. After all, many of them have international agreements not to disclose the key in any circumstances. They have sophisticated computer equipment that tries to avoid the same key existing for long. One can understand their reticence. We therefore proposed in the other place—where we lost the vote by one—that the Home Secretary should make those decisions.
    I accept that since that defeat, the Government have held further discussions with all the parties and come up with the solution that the commissioner will immediately be notified that the chief constable has given approval, and that the commissioner will be able to make special reports to the Prime Minister about such instances at any time rather than only annually. However, although we are pleased about the extra protections, we shall be watching how the provision operates in practice. We still have that slight reservation about whether there should not be approval at a higher level.
    As for the offence itself, the Minister will recall that one of the points made in the Opposition's reasoned amendment on Third Reading was that the offence created in clause 49 was repugnant to justice. Creating an offence in which a person must prove his or her innocence is not in line with what is often called the golden thread of British justice. We were strongly opposed to the creation of such an offence. We said that the offence should contain an intent element, and that it was not satisfactory to establish defences whereby people had to prove their innocence.
    We very much welcome the fact that in the other place, it has been possible to add a mental element to the offence—the word "knowingly"—and that the defence has been amended so that it is no longer necessary to prove one's innocence on a balance of probability. It will be enough to raise the issue, which the prosecution will have to disprove.
    Therefore, looking at the issue in the round, we accept that the original bad drafting caused considerable concern to industry, and not—as the Minister said—only to internet service providers. We think that recasting and rewriting part III has moved the Bill very much in the right direction, and that it is much improved. Nevertheless, I think that it is also possible to lay the charge of, "new Labour, new clause". The first 22 pages of amendments have certainly transformed the Bill from a rather ugly beast into something that may eventually even attain beauty. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Beith: I shall keep off the subject of beauty, in the light of the Minister's sotto voce comments about his own
    1206
    appearance. There is no doubt that their lordships have rewritten part III—it is a substantial, almost total rewrite—or that it was necessary to do so not least to allay the considerable fears that had arisen in industry. I think that sometimes, in some of the press reports, those fears were not accompanied by any recognition of the purpose of the provisions. In an age in which electronic communications will be the norm, it would be a very serious omission to have no means of intercepting and reading encrypted communications between dangerous criminals embarking on a very serious crime, or between people attempting to threaten the lives of the people of this country.
    Such powers are of course very dangerous, and therefore have to be the subject of very strict regulation. Liberal Democrat Members have said at various points in the Bill's passage that we would prefer a judicial basis for that type of approval in the various spheres in which it will operate, rather than the basis provided in part III and elsewhere in the Bill. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are circumstances in which such powers have to be used. It was wrong that the Government were sometimes characterised as engaged in a wholly unjustified snooping exercise, intent on destroying all electronic commerce in the process.
    The evolution from our original consideration of the Electronic Communications Act 2000, in which these provisions were first encapsulated, to the closing stages of our consideration of the rewritten version of this Bill, has been long and remarkable. As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, the overall cast of the Bill's provisions has been reversed, so that the intention is much clearer. I welcome those changes. I also welcome the Government's willingness to accept the advice that they received about how those changes could be made and the way in which that process was conducted.
    It would be foolish to imagine that even now, we have got it all right. Clearly, lawyers will find scope to explore the provision pretty intensively, and we may have to return to some aspects of it. Some people might make quite a bit of money out of doing so, but we must ensure that serious threats to the physical safety of the people of this country, whether from criminals, hostile powers or terrorists, can be countered by the judicious and regulated use of such powers. We must do so in a way that does not disrupt an industry that has great earning power for the country and potential for the future. I hope that that has been achieved. If it has not been achieved fully, we might have to return to some of the details another time.
    Mr. Maclean: There is no doubt that, with this Bill as with others, there will be lawyers who will try to find loopholes. We must hope that there are sufficient men and women of principle left to plug those loopholes.
    The Government's mistaken drafting perhaps made it inevitable that some in industry and financial institutions would overstate their case and panic at the thought of having to release their keys. The Government's mistake was probably inevitable because of the amount of legislation being pushed through in such a short time, and the burdens on parliamentary draftsmen. Part III was drafted the wrong way round. The Government had a fetish with and concentration on getting the keys—why? They wanted the keys to get the information. Sensibly,

    1207
    the provisions have been redrafted to emphasise getting the information, which is what the Government always wanted. That will satisfy many in the industry.
    Concern was inevitable because all movement in the industry has been towards encryption and keys. All those concerned with developing the internet, internet banking and so on, are excited by secure systems into which no one can hack. Encryption and double encryption is the trend in America, then along came the British Government to say, "Ah, but we want you to hand over the keys." I grant that such a perception was unfair. The Minister did his best in Committee to explain that the Government were really after plain text, for which they needed such powers.
    Now, late in the day, but properly in accordance with our parliamentary procedures, we have the right drafting. That will help the Minister to reassure industry about the Government's intentions. He can embark on a propaganda drive with our financial institutions and the computer-internet world, with all its whiz-kids, peeks and other things—whatever they are called—who run the industry. More and more they are the driving force behind our economy. They are not just anoraks; they are incredibly sensible and powerful, and a good driving force.
    The Minister now needs to take to such people the message that we have struck the right balance and that their keys are safe. The Government are no longer giving the impression that they want the encrypted keys to everyone's e-mail and internet systems. Instead, the emphasis is on plain text. I congratulate the Minister on achieving that, with the help of the Lords, and producing a better Bill.
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Charles Clarke: I genuinely thank the right hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) for emphasising in this brief debate the points about drafting. I accept that the drafting has been fundamentally and positively changed, for the reasons stated by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, in order to make it clear that it is the information, rather than the key, that we are after. That is important in reassuring people.
    I am grateful to all three right hon. and hon. Members—particularly the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—for emphasising the purposes of the Bill as well. We need the information in the areas described for very good and important public interest reasons. We are contesting very highly effective crime, which may now be organised worldwide. That is part of globalisation. We see the impact of such crime—trafficking in drugs and in people, paedophilia and so on—in so many areas of our lives, and we must maximise our defences against it. It is a requirement in defending the liberties of our citizens that we do so.
    We know that, as technology develops, we will take a hit and find it difficult to be as effective in tackling such crime. We have a duty to do what we can to protect our citizens from such an organised international threat.
    I sense that some of the debate—not today's, but generally—has missed that key purpose of the Bill, so I am genuinely grateful to the three right hon. and hon. Gentlemen for re-emphasising that. No one who has
    1208
    participated in the debate outside has cavilled at the need for law enforcement, or the need to address the issues with which the Bill deals. There have been arguments about how that should be done, but it is fair to say that the whole industry acknowledges its importance to the welfare both of society and of the industry itself.
    If financial institutions are penetrated by money launderers of various descriptions, that will undermine those institutions. If internet companies are undermined by paedophiles using their organisation to get material to others who use it, that undermines the future prospects of the industry. That is the fundamental argument that should, to a greater extent than it has, inform the debate on the future relationship between the industry and the Government. We have a strong mutual interest in ensuring that the Bill works properly. The Government recognise that, and I am grateful for the acknowledgement that the redrafting of the first part of part III, with its emphasis on plain text and information rather than keys, provides the required assurance.
    The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is the one who raised the issue of plain text and keys. The changes in amendments Nos. 52, 54 to 57, 64, 66 to 68 and 76 are positive and all relate to the redrafting on which speakers have, rightly, focused. He was right also to focus on amendments Nos. 58 to 62, which provide further stipulations, in addition to those set out in clause 46(4), about the form that a disclosure notice must take. They stipulate, for example, that a notice must contain details of the person who gave permission for it to be served, and that the time set for complying with the notice must be reasonable in the circumstances.
    The initial draft code of practice that we have published for part III sets out our first stab at drawing up a disclosure notice. The main purpose of the notice is to provide certainty about what everyone is being asked to do, and I shall be interested in the industry's response to our draft. It is possible that we shall be able to improve it, so that it better achieves that purpose, although the amendments have already moved us closer to that goal.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned authorisation, which is covered in amendments Nos. 69 and 71. Amendment No. 69 raises the authorisation level for access to keys to chief officer or its equivalent, which represents a significant increase. Amendment No. 71 provides additional safeguards by requiring that any directions for the disclosure of keys be notified to either the intelligence services commissioner or the chief surveillance commissioner, as appropriate, with the possibility of onward referral remaining open. Taken together, the two amendments should provide all the assurance needed.
    I am grateful for the positive remarks made in the debate. I take seriously the points made about propaganda by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, who is a past master of propaganda, as evidenced by his promotion of Scotland and the drinks industry. After the Bill receives Royal Assent, we shall work with the industry—and the Opposition, if they are willing—to promote it both in this country and internationally. Given the comments made in the overseas media, we must explain clearly what the Bill is and is not, and why we do not believe it poses a threat to e-commerce in Britain; on the contrary, it will help to achieve the Government's aim of a strong and secure e-commerce economy, to which we are all committed.

    1209
    Propaganda is needed, and I hope that the whole House will help to promote the interests of this country's businesses when the time comes. In the meantime, I have no hesitation in commending the Lords amendments to the House.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 76 agreed to.

  Clause 50

    TIPPING-OFF
    Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 54, line 19, leave out from first ("the") to ("or") in line 20 and insert ("Intelligence Services Commissioner").
    Jane Kennedy: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 78, 86 to 97, 99 to 101, 112 to 114, 116 to 119, 134, 135, 137, 146, 147, 150, 151, 153, 160, 161 and 163.
    Jane Kennedy: It is appropriate that I give due credit to Opposition Members, who raised the issue of the number of commissioners on Second Reading and pursued it in Committee. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 and related amendments respond directly to those concerns.
    The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will remember that in Committee we discovered that the security service commissioner and the intelligence services commissioner were in practice roles performed by the same person. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 formalise that arrangement by having one commissioner carrying out both functions, together with the additional functions required of him under the Bill. The streamlining of the number of commissioners has required a slight change to the title of the Bill, and I refer the House to amendment No. 163.
    Amendments Nos. 78, 97, 101, 114, 117, 134 and 153 result from the earlier decision to remove from the Bill, when the provision was last before the House, the post of a covert investigations commissioner. The role of that commissioner was amalgamated with that of the chief surveillance commissioner under the Police Act 1997. However, in making these changes, we set the chief surveillance commissioner a wide-ranging and onerous task. We must therefore provide the commissioner with further assistance to ensure that he is able to be effective. We believe that he cannot act alone and we anticipate that he will need some form of inspectorate to assist him.
    We think also that it is important that he should be provided with some judicial support for this function. The amendments will achieve that by allowing the Prime Minister, after consultation with the chief surveillance commissioner, to appoint serving or former circuit or Crown court judges to assist in the monitoring process. By this means, we will ensure independent judicial scrutiny of authorisations by all public authorities.
    Amendment No. 86 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to provide the interception of communications commissioner with such technical facilities and staffs as are sufficient to enable him properly to carry out his functions. Amendment No. 87 is designed to remove any
    1210
    doubt that there may previously have been that the interception of communications commissioner may report at any time to the Prime Minister on any matter relating to his functions, as he thinks fit.
    Having made such good progress in streamlining the numbers of commissioners, it is somewhat ruefully that I turn to amendments Nos. 90, 93, 100, 113 and 119, where we introduce a new commissioner. I seek to reassure the House that the new commissioner has a role that is clearly circumscribed in three different ways. First, it is limited to Northern Ireland. Secondly, it is limited to actions under part II of the Bill—to directed surveillance and covert sources. Finally, the role of this commissioner is limited to the actions of public authorities, the responsibility for which is transferred to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    I commend the amendments to the House. I am sure that they will be welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
    Mr. Heald: I thank the Minister for her generous comments. It is true that the amendments relate to a theme that we have pursued throughout our consideration of the Bill. That began with, in effect, its first outing, which was Second Reading in this place. We are pleased with the progress that has been made. We had hoped originally for a uniform commissioner, but we are satisfied with the Minister's explanations. We are getting what amounts to a unified secretariat. There has been much streamlining, and that is most welcome.
    We always imagined that there would have to be separate arrangements for Northern Ireland. We do not really count that commissioner, if the hon. Lady will accept that. We think that good progress has been made and we are pleased with the amendments.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Education Funding (Cambridgeshire)
  9.55 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of 1, 300 constituents in Cambridgeshire. The petition was organised by the Fair Funding group, which has supported the campaign to get a fairer settlement for education funding for Cambridgeshire.
  The petition states:
  The petition of residents of Cambridge and the county of Cambridgeshire opposes the current Standard Spending Assessment scheme as a method for allocating the funding to our nation's schools.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement an interim arrangement with immediate effect, which will provide for a fairer allocation to those counties at the bottom of the league for SSA per pupil.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Broadcasting Licences (Religious Bodies)
9.56 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 2, 000 people, the great majority of whom are constituents of mine in Aylesbury and the surrounding area. The petition calls on the Government to introduce legislation to amend the law, which at present discriminates against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies.
The petition states:
That radio and television are now the most important means of communicating ideas and that religious bodies are substantially disadvantaged in access to and involvement in radio and television broadcasting by legislation and by rules and codes of guidance issued by the broadcasting regulatory authorities.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their rules and codes of guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.
I simply add that the petitioners have my full support.
To lie upon the Table.

BAE (Redundancies)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
9.58 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am pleased that we have time to discuss the important matter of people being made redundant at British Aerospace sites throughout the country. We also have the opportunity to consider what is going on in BAE, as we hear many rumours. The title of the debate is slightly misleading. The purpose of the debate is to discuss the future of employees at BAE Systems in the light of recent redundancies.
I warmly welcome the Government's announcement this week of support for BAE with the launch aid for the A3XX, the choice of A400M heavy lift aircraft and the accompanying contracts. Air France and Emirates Airlines have also supported the A3XX, and we know that there are another nine orders on the books. There are now 17 firm orders for A3XX. We can thank the Government for that. I am sorry that no Opposition Members are present for the debate. The Opposition seems to have been using the press to suggest that the Government is at fault and that the Labour party takes no interest in the industry. I want to put the record straight. The Labour party is interested in these matters, and the Government is fully committed to aerospace and will continue to support it in the future. I am grateful for the Meteor and Eurofighter projects, which are very important.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
Mr. Hoyle: The Government deserve congratulation for their support of the contracts given for the A3XX, the A400M heavy-lift aircraft, and the Eurofighter. The Meteor project safeguarded 1,200 jobs. When it is up and running, the A400M project will involve 10,000 jobs, 3,400 of them at BAE Systems. A total of 22,000 jobs are involved in the A3XX project, 8,000 of them at BAE Systems. These are firm orders and firm contracts for the future. More orders are expected, and that is good news. The A3XX will be a super aircraft, and everyone involved deserves our congratulations.
I want to discuss aerospace manufacturing sites in the Northwest. The plant at Broughton will make the wings for the A3XX. The Lostock facility will have the Meteor project. The sites at Warton and Salmesbury will also benefit from the orders, as will the Royal Ordnance facility at Chorley.
It is therefore disappointing to learn that 3, 800 people—or 3.5 per cent. of the work force—will be made redundant. A total of 750 jobs will go at Warton and Salmesbury. Redundancies will also occur in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister. That is not good news. Many people in Chorley and South Ribble will suffer from the shake-out that is happening in the aerospace industry, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and I will be involved with them.
A strong rumour among those in the industry who lobbied Parliament recently was that work would be contracted out abroad, to firms in Poland and elsewhere.

1213
Is that true? I understand that the amount of work involved would be about 1.5 per cent. of the total, but I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that. Orders arising out of the work sent to Poland could benefit the Northwest, but the transfer of work could be a problem, and it needs to be addressed. Contracting out work abroad is an attempt to reduce production costs. I understand the need for that, but British jobs are important to the House and should not be put at risk.
Government announcements earlier this year were regarded as a boost for British manufacturing, and as an investment in the future of high-quality, well paid jobs. They were welcomed for those reasons. However, those announcements are undermined by the decision taken by BAE Systems, which establishes the worry that more work may be sent out of the UK.
It is clear from my meetings with BAE employees from Salmesbury and Warton that there are growing anxieties among workers about the future of their jobs and of aerospace manufacturing in the Northwest. Hundreds of companies in the area contribute to the supply chain, so it is important to consider the future of the jobs provided by the industry.
I am worried about second and third-tier work being contracted overseas, which ought to go to UK companies. There is a danger that other parts of Europe will benefit from the money that the Government have made available for launch aid. The problem is not so great with first-tier contracts, but British companies are not getting their fair share of second and third-tier work. The money being used comes from British taxpayers, and British companies should be given the best opportunity to supply work for the industry. Thousands of jobs are at risk in second, third and even fourth-tier industries.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument about the impact of possible redundancies on the North-west. Does he accept that Members representing constituencies across the Fylde, including myself, my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) have constituents who must have thought that their jobs were secure and that things would go very well, given the amount of support given to the industry by the Government? They are consequently in a state of shock about what BAE Systems is presenting to them.
Mr. Hoyle: Absolutely. There is great shock and concern about British Aerospace and BAE Systems, which we want to highlight tonight. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has made that point, because there is not a constituency in the North-west that will not be touched by what is happening.
We want to call on the Government to seek assurances from BAE Systems that the investment that has been put in the United Kingdom aerospace industry will benefit the entire United Kingdom. We must look after UK manufacturing. Small and medium-sized enterprises are at risk. We must ensure that launch aid money from British taxpayers will support small and medium-sized businesses as well as BAE Systems. We must get that message across loud and clear. We are concerned about the supply chain as well as BAE Systems.
1214
Although I appreciate that we have to compete and keep costs to a minimum, work should not be subcontracted out to the extent claimed. The mass redundancies that have taken place threaten the future of UK aerospace plants. There are no two ways about that—there is a great danger of huge numbers of people disappearing overnight because of redundancies.
I would like the Department for Education and Employment, the trade unions and BAE Systems to help redundant workers find alternative employment. Although redundancies are taking place within BAE Systems, there are also many vacancies. We must match the skills to the vacancies. The skills of the people who have been made redundant should be honed. Those people should be retrained so that they can fill the vacancies. That makes a lot of sense. It will cost money, but it is money that should be spent, and we should look forward to spending it. I believe that the Government, as well as BAE Systems, can match those vacancies by working with the people who have been made redundant. It is not impossible. In that way, rather than our seeing large numbers of redundancies, people could move into different jobs in this huge company. It is important to get them round the table.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I did not indicate beforehand that I wanted to intervene. I should like to take him back to what he said about the A3XX. I agree with him wholeheartedly about the support that the Government have given to the programme, and remind him that it was the previous Government who supported the A320 programme, which has probably been the most successful civil aircraft, programme since the war. My discussions this morning with the chairman of the company indicate that it is halfway towards getting the orders that it needs to launch the A3XX.
Mr. Hoyle: Of course. I know of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in aerospace matters. It goes without the saying that the previous Government used launch aid. It has been very successful and rewarding. Let us not kid ourselves—it is not some kind of grant. There is a mystique about it in that people outside think that we are giving the company money. We are not—far from it. We are investing in the company which repays the money when the aero planes that are manufactured become profitable.
It is important to get the message across that launch aid is successful not just for the company, but for the Government. To be fair, it was the previous Government who took the risk, and we are now seeing the benefits—so much so that this Government are not only replicating what was done but have gone way beyond it. With the contracts that have been awarded, we believed that we might get only 50 per cent. of what we wanted at the beginning, instead of which we have got everything that we asked for on behalf of British aerospace companies. We must get that message across loud and clear.
Training is important, but so is matching the skills to the vacancies. That will be difficult and BAE Systems will need Government support; it will cost a lot of money. However, it is important that the highly skilled people whose skills are not needed by the company are retrained within BAE System's family of companies. That is important because we cannot afford a massive shake-out,

1215
whether in the North-west or on the east coast at Hull. We must ensure that those people are valued in future because they are important to the family of BAE Systems, and the company must realise that.
BAE Systems is a huge company, and part of it may go down while another is booming, so people could be moved around successfully. It is lucky that the company is still at the forefront of the aerospace industry. We are lucky that aerospace is one of the few industries in which we in the United Kingdom are still world leaders. I never want to lose sight of that fact, and I want to ensure that we all support the industry.
The Government have gone way beyond our expectations—and may they continue to do so. I am pleased with the Government, and I shall continue to say how proud I am to be a Government Member because they have given so much financial support. It is important to recognise that fact. We must also recognise that BAE Systems must compete in the world, but I still believe that its first moral obligation is to the work force in the United Kingdom. Airbus Industrie, whether in the military sector or the commercial sector, must continue to be successful and we must keep the technology in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Howarth: I wonder wether the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the themes of the Farnborough air show is encouraging young people to enter aerospace engineering, and that BAE Systems has led the way by inviting young people to marvellous exhibitions so that they can see what an exciting career it is. That is especially important given what the hon. Gentleman has said about redundancies and vacancies.
Mr. Hoyle: That is absolutely right; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. The danger is that engineering is not trendy in the United Kingdom. It is trendy in Germany and Japan. If we are to compete in the world market, we must show young people that engineering has a future. BAE Systems must also show that it has a future; it does not do much for people's morale when they hear about such redundancies. BAE Systems has a part to play in showing that engineering is important and trendy, and that it is the future.
We must show people that engineering represents the way forward through the new millennium. If we do not keep the people or the skills in the United Kingdom, they will go to Germany, which is desperate to get its hands on the wing technology. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton), who is here tonight, knows that only too well. He has lobbied Rolls-Royce, saying, "Don't miss the boat with the A400M." The clear message to Rolls-Royce is that they must get a move on otherwise they will lose the race, and we cannot afford to do that.
We are world leaders in aero engines. The Government have supported that aircraft, and Europe has followed us because we have pushed ahead with the project. I would hate to think that Rolls-Royce could miss the boat because it is not taking seriously what will happen in the European aerospace industry. The French would love to put their engines on it, which would be a disaster for most of the United Kingdom, because many companies supply Rolls-Royce.
We should send Rolls-Royce a clear message not to miss the boat. We must also tell the trade unions what a good job they have done in lobbying Parliament. Workers
1216
from different aerospace companies lobbied both major political parties last week about their worries. We must listen and take on board what is said without losing sight of what they want. They want to be reassured that work will not go to countries in which labour costs are much lower than ours. We must tell them not to worry and that we will stand by them and by BAE Systems. We must talk, retrain and put people into vacancies.
10.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for giving the House an opportunity to discuss a sector of the economy in which British industry, from its prime contractors and right up the supply chain, is among the world's leaders. It is particularly welcome to be debating the matter while the Farnborough air show is displaying what a great industry we have, by showing our talents and abilities alongside those of our global competitors.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I can share with the Minister the latest information that I have from the show. So far, orders worth £18 billion have been taken on the first two days, eclipsing the amount taken during the whole of the last show, two years ago. That is very good news for the air show and for Britain.
Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman articulates a message that has come back to us from the show. It is a great success for the British aerospace industry, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is a great champion. I shall move on shortly to his specific points, but should like first to dwell on the industry's success.
Mr. Hoyle: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware of the many rumours around tonight about good news on the A400M. That would be good for the United Kingdom and good for the military airbus in Europe.
Mr. Johnson: I am sure that there is very good news, but tonight's debate is not the right place for me to announce it. The whispers are certainly coming loud and clear.
My hon. Friend made several important points, rightly mentioning recent Government announcements in support of BAE Systems and the wider industrial supply chain. I am grateful for the warm support that he and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) have given the Government's actions. We were delighted to announce launch investment support for the Airbus A3XX programme, which is being offered precisely to ensure that the UK receives the many economic benefits that flow from projects of that scale and complexity.
There will be direct financial benefits to the Government because, as my hon. Friend said, launch investment is not a grant but a risk-sharing partnership in which the Government's investment is repaid at a rate of return as real as that for product sales in the marketplace. The hon. Member for Aldershot mentioned the success of

1217
earlier endeavours from which we are still reaping the rewards. That was an enormously important investment for the Government.
Mr. Howarth: The Minister is absolutely right. Does he have a figure to show just how much the Government are reaping in return on the A320 investment?
Mr. Johnson: I regret that I do not have a figure, but the project is the most successful aircraft venture that we have ever known. Its success is absolutely astounding.
The A3XX will be the largest civil aircraft project ever undertaken, representing a major step change in aircraft capability. It means the development of new techniques and technologies and a myriad of opportunities for UK industry at the cutting edge of the knowledge-driven economy.
Such programmes are rare. The Boeing 747 has enjoyed a life of more than 30 years. We hope that the A3XX will now set the standard for many years to come, providing long-term sustainable benefits to the United Kingdom economy.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the A3XX launch investment in March, he said that the project was expected to create 22,000 new jobs—that is, 8,000 in BAE Systems and UK supply companies and 14,000 more widely in the economy through induced employment.
In addition, the project is expected to safeguard a further 62,000 jobs—20,000 on current Airbus programmes and 42,000 in induced employment. However, it will take some time for those full benefits to flow to the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley is probably aware of the present position on A3XX—it is changing from day to day as the Farnborough air show continues, incidentally. Airbus has been offering the aircraft formally to airlines since 23 June and a full launch is expected when a reasonable number of firm orders have been received. This week, as has been mentioned, we saw the first order for five passenger versions and two freighters from the Emirates.
In addition, Air France has signed a letter of intent with Airbus for 10 A3XXs. A number of other airlines have expressed interest on that very positive basis. The hon. Member for Aldershot has said that it has received orders to half the level that it is expecting, which is extremely good news.
Airbus hopes to launch the aircraft fully at the end of this year, or early next year, with entry into service taking place as early as 2005. If, as we hope and expect, the aircraft continues to be successful, production would ramp up after that.
The first benefits are already being felt in the integrated wing design team at Filton in Bristol, where BAE is working alongside key UK equipment and aerostructure supply companies. In addition, BAE Systems has begun a large-scale recruitment drive for design engineers on the A3XX—about 300 this year and a further 300 next year.
My hon. Friend is doubtless also aware that, as well as the commercial launch of the A3XX, the Airbus partners also announced their agreement to create the Airbus integrated company. Indeed, that was an essential element of our agreement to give launch investment to the A3XX. That company is expected to begin operations formally
1218
on 1 January 2001 and will represent a major change in the way in which Airbus runs itself, with BAE having a 20 per cent. stake in the European Aeronautic Defence and Space company.
Airbus management will therefore be basing its procurement decisions very much on commercial grounds and UK companies must ensure that they are as competitive as possible to secure work on the A3XX. My Department has a number of initiatives with the aerospace industry to help them in that respect. It may help if I mention a couple.
On manufacturing, the Government is keen to see the highest possible participation of UK supply companies. My Department is working actively with the industry to ensure that that happens. The Department of Trade and Industry has been working with the Society of British Aerospace Companies and BAE Systems with a view to holding a conference in the autumn for potential suppliers to the A3XX project. The purpose of the conference will be to make all potential UK suppliers aware of the opportunities that the A3XX offers and to encourage the maximum involvement on the project from UK sources.
The conference will also enable BAE to explain to potential suppliers what they will need to do to get on to the project, including the need for financial investment where appropriate and the necessity for competitive value-for-money solutions.
There will not be any handouts on the A3XX project. British companies will have to win the contracts in a very competitive market, but I am extremely hopeful that the competitiveness improvement work that the DTI has sponsored will help to put UK suppliers in a good position to do just that.
In addition, my Department has worked with the industry to enable improved links between UK suppliers and Airbus procurement managers in Toulouse. The result has been the creation of an office there, run by the Society of British Aerospace Companies, supported for the first year by my Department. Reference has been made to the decision by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to select the A400M military transport aircraft and Meteor missile for Eurofighter, which was good news for British industry.
However, the topic of our debate, and the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, is his regret at the announcement of job losses at BAE sites throughout the UK. My hon. Friend mentioned my concern, given that the Brough site is close to west Hull, and referred to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), with whom I am working closely on these matters as a constituency Member of Parliament and who knows the very real, dramatic effects that job losses can have on local communities. It is important to recognise that the majority of jobs affected are affected as a result of the consolidation and rationalisation following the BAE merger with Marconi Electronic Systems. The objectives are to reduce product overlap and the duplication of facilities and resources, to improve efficiency and consolidate activities to maintain competitiveness in the global marketplace. In that way, BAE will be in the best possible position to compete for and win more business for Britain.

1219
BAE has confirmed that it is committed to several measures to mitigate the effects of the announcement on its employees and will use every measure available to avoid compulsory redundancy. My hon. Friend made an important point about matching skills to vacancies, on which all Members of Parliament for affected constituencies—including myself—are working hard with management, the unions and BAE Systems. I understand that the company is in discussion with the unions and has opened a selective voluntary redundancy agreement across the affected areas. In addition, BAE has a good reputation on retraining and reskilling. The company also aims to maximise redeployment and give assistance with relocation.
Furthermore, to protect core competencies and the UK's manufacturing capability, BAE plans to recruit about 2, 000 engineers over the next 18 months and about 1,000 young people over the next two years, as has been mentioned. Officials in the Employment Service have kept in close contact with BAE and are offering appropriate support. Jobcentres in Blackburn and St. Anne's that deal with Salmesbury and Warton have been in touch with BAE since 9 June.
Once the picture on possible compulsory redundancies becomes clearer, it will be possible to draw up a detailed strategy. For example, the Employment Service has the option to designate redundancies as large scale, enabling early access to its job search programmes. Warton and Salmesbury TEC has also offered a tailored package of support. My hon. Friend drew attention to a trend in BAE to give increasing quantities of subcontract work to countries with lower labour costs. However, I am sure that he appreciates from talking with the people involved, not least the unions, that they take an extremely constructive
1220
approach to these issues and recognise the realities of globalisation and fighting for orders in a fiercely competitive market.
BAE is under increasing commercial pressure to keep costs down to remain competitive. Importantly, however, when subcontract work is placed abroad, it is sometimes part of a marketing campaign to win overseas contracts and bring more work to the UK. Some of those orders could not be achieved unless an element was placed abroad. I know that my hon. Friend accepts those points, but it is as well to put them on the record.
In conclusion, my hon. Friend made three points. There are usually good commercial reasons for decisions on where to place subcontract work. As my hon. Friend suggested, placing contracts overseas may be a result of lower production and is sometimes done because equipment cannot be procured locally. Sometimes, as I said, it forms part of a marketing strategy or offset requirement to win foreign contracts and bring even more work to Britain. In any event, BAE needs to keep the pressure on costs if it is to remain competitive in the global market.
As I have highlighted, BAE is working with the trade unions to keep the number of compulsory redundancies to a minimum. Through the work that BAE is undertaking with its suppliers, as well as the A3XX conference on the Airbus in the autumn, which I mentioned, the approved suppliers list for A400M and BAE's support for various competitive improvement programmes, the company is demonstrating the seriousness with which it approaches its responsibilities. The responsible approach of the trade unions that have lobbied the House has played an important part in keeping aerospace companies at the forefront of the world economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Yorkshire and Humberside
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.30 am
Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to our debate on transport strategy and economic development in the Yorkshire and Humberside region—a wide-ranging subject for what I hope will be a wide-ranging debate. I kept the subject of our debate deliberately wide to enable hon. Members to raise various aspects of transport strategy as it relates to their constituencies. I congratulate everyone who is in the Chamber on being wide awake and willing to take part in the debate this morning, bearing in mind that the House did not adjourn until 3.50 am.
The area stretches from north Yorkshire, with its rural communities and resulting transport problems, to south Yorkshire, with its industrial heritage and regeneration problems, to west Yorkshire and its commercial and financial centre of Leeds, to Humberside and the port regions. It is a wide area, which suffers diverse transport and economic problems. My colleagues from the region are here today to speak about their areas. I am no exception to that and I shall speak about Barnsley and south Yorkshire, but first it is appropriate to give an overview of the region and to explain some of the transport and economic aspects that are crucial to the area.
At present, Yorkshire and Humberside regional development agency operates under the title of Yorkshire Forward. The initial page of its website states:
Yorkshire and Humber is one of the fastest growing economic areas in the UK. A vibrant business centre, generating industries, jobs and expertise that attract some of the best brains and skills from all over the world.
It refers to
the rapid growth of Leeds to become the UK's largest financial and legal centre outside London…Industries range from engineering to information technology, biotechnology to chemicals, healthcare to tourism.
At the beginning of this year, however, south Yorkshire qualified for objective 1 status. An area does not achieve such a status with relish. It is not a badge of honour, but a sign of how poorly an area is performing compared with the rest of the European Union. One of the criteria for European Union objective 1 status is that the gross domestic product of a certain area has fallen to below 75 per cent. of the European Union average, and that has clearly happened in south Yorkshire. In fact, the GDP in my constituency has fallen to 66 per cent. Doncaster, Rotherham and Barnsley, in particular, have dragged the area to below the 75 per cent. level. Some people may say that 66 per cent. GDP does not
194WH
mean a lot, but when one realises that it is less than the figure for Poland and for southern Portugal, one soon begins to realise just how poor south Yorkshire is. I hope that the objective 1 money will help drag us back above those figures and bring back some of the prosperity that has been drained away.
The full utilisation of the objective 1 money is therefore one of the key issues for our area. We must ensure that there are adequate sources of match funding, as I will discuss in regard to transport, so that we draw down every penny that is available. We must also ensure that the programme is on time. We are already six months into the first year of the six-year programme of objective 1 status and we are still waiting for projects to be approved and for approval of the single programming document from the European Union. Some projects must be committed before the end of the year so that we keep to the timetables; we can wait for the money to follow.
Mr. John Healey: On match funding and the speed with which projects can be brought into being, does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor's confirmation in the spending review last week that match funding is guaranteed for not just objective 1 but objective 2 and 3 programmes was helpful, but that we need to simplify the system so that areas such as south Yorkshire can draw down match funding from national Departments? The second stage of the work is to make sure that match funding is accessible and that projects can come on stream quickly in the way that my hon. Friend has described.
Mr. Illsley: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Chancellor's statements are welcome and it is reassuring that the Government have promised match funding. We look forward to that filtering through. My hon. Friend is right that we have to move to stage two and keep to our timetables so that our projects are ready.
I shall make one further point on objective 1. I said that Barnsley's GDP European average was 66 per cent. and Sheffield's was around 75 per cent. so it was Barnsley, and to some extent Rotherham, that brought the whole of the region below the magic figure. Sheffield must not take a huge share of that objective 1 money, compared with Rotherham, Doncaster and Barnsley. It is pleasing that one of the Sheffield Members, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), is present.
Mr. Healey: And he is nodding.
Mr. Illsley: Yes. We have to ensure that Sheffield does not ride on the back of the rest of south Yorkshire. It was brought into an objective 1 area not because of its own economic performance but because of that of other areas, and it must not then walk away with the lion's share of the money. I hope that that does not arise, but I wish to flag up the possibility.
Mr. Healey: Uncharacteristically, I would like to speak up for Sheffield. What my hon. Friend says is right, but does he recognise that the future success of south Yorkshire depends critically on the future success of Sheffield at the heart of that economic restructuring?
Mr. Illsley: I am not sure how to answer that. It has caught me a little off guard. Perhaps it does, but I do not

195WH
agree fully with my hon. Friend that the rest of south Yorkshire has relied on Sheffield, although it is the major city in the grouping. Barnsley is, of course, the capital of south Yorkshire and has been since 1974, which might have some bearing on my thinking. My hon. Friend makes the point well that the area needs to progress in a united way, without rifts and arguments, to make sure that we take advantage of objective 1 money.
I shall deal later with the climate change levy, which is one of the problems of economic development in my area, but I turn now to transport. The Yorkshire and Humberside region has a diverse transport sector, much of which needs greater development and improvement in order to increase economic development. Accompanying the 10-year plan for transport funding that resulted from the comprehensive spending review was a Government statement that gives some idea of the diversity of our transport:
The Yorkshire and Humber region is at the centre of key north-south and east-west road and rail corridors including the MI, Al and M62, the East Coast Main Line and the Trans-Pennine rail lines. These routes are of vital importance to the competitiveness of the region and growing congestion problems need to be tackled to facilitate economic development. The Humber ports represent an important regional asset and improved road and rail links are a priority. Increasing congestion in the main towns and cities must be addressed to foster regeneration, improve the environment and encourage urban renaissance. In rural areas, improved public transport is needed to tackle problems of car dependency and social exclusion.
That sets the scene of transport problems in our area.
As that brief introduction stated, some of our motorways are congested, especially the M1 near Sheffield—junctions 30 to 34—and the M62.
Mr. Harold Best: Does my hon. Friend agree that long-established rail links will be vital to the future of the entire county of West Yorkshire and the wider region? I have in mind the rail link that passes within half a mile of the airport at Leeds-Bradford. If it were linked to the airport, an integrated air, rail and road system could be introduced. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to do that?
Mr. Illsley: Absolutely. It is an essential part of our economic development and transport strategy that we integrate all aspects of transport, including our rail transport and our airports. I shall discuss in a moment the need for better access to our airports and railways from different parts of the area. My constituency of Barnsley is not even linked to the east coast main line by rail, so we cannot access that line from Barnsley. My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I entirely agree.
As I said, the east coast main line is developing bottlenecks. We still do not have direct services to the channel tunnel, and they are a long way off. When Members representing the region were involved in debates on the channel tunnel rail link, we pressed hard for direct rail services through our area to the channel tunnel, but we still await them.
Our rural services need improvement. Historically, south Yorkshire has high levels of bus usage; indeed, in the 1970s, south Yorkshire, Sheffield and Barnsley were the highest users of bus transport in western Europe. Also, until 1986, we had a cheap fares policy.
196WH
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best) said, we have airports—Leeds-Bradford and Humberside. The debate continues on Finningley, but the development is a concrete proposal. I do not want to take up time debating the case of one airport against another. That would be wrong, because we want more air services and airports in the region as a whole. However, I point to it as a matter for the future, and I am sure that it will feature in today's debate.
Whatever the arguments about Finningley and Leeds-Bradford or about Manchester airport taking passengers from Yorkshire, for example, the essential point is that Yorkshire and Humberside need better air services. Our air transport facilities need improvement, and we need more airlines and services.
I turn now to some of the relevant issues for my constituency and south Yorkshire. Part of the research into objective 1 status identified some of the key transport constraints on economic development in south Yorkshire. I read only yesterday an article in the 18 July edition of the local newspaper for Barnsley, The Star. Its headline was "£215m needed to bring 20, 000 jobs—Massive investment in transport vital, says study". The study, commissioned for south Yorkshire, states that £215 million of investment is needed to bring jobs to Sheffield in south Yorkshire. The report, which is from the Babtie group of consultants, has been published recently, and again emphasises the fact that we need to deal with our transport limitations.
I shall quickly skim through the key problems. They include the Midland Mainline capacity restrictions between Sheffield and Doncaster. There are long journey times south of our region, which simply are not competitive when compared to journey times on the M I. It is simpler to drive to the south of the country than to take the Midland Mainline train. The east coast main line also has capacity restrictions, which are now being tackled. I understand that a new means of access close to the M18 is proposed for it, but there is no direct rail link between Barnsley and that railway. We do not have direct trans-Pennine rail services to Manchester international airport from Barnsley. We hope that proposals to reopen the Woodhead line will be supported.
South Yorkshire's rail network is characterised by low-speed services, poor reliability due to limitations of track and signalling infrastructure, poor service integration, old rolling stock and low-frequency timetables. The poor rail services between Sheffield, Barnsley and Leeds mean that is easier simply to drive on the M1. The availability of parking at the Meadowhall shopping centre does not help. As a consequence, commuters and others opt to travel by car, which adds to congestion. The direct links from south Yorkshire into the Humber ports are somewhat poorly developed.
The M1 corridor between junctions 31 and 37 is a problem, and there is severe congestion at junction 34 because of the Meadowhall interchange outside Sheffield. The M18 corridor has capacity limitations between junctions 2 and 3. The east-west corridors from Barnsley and south Yorkshire over the Pennines to Manchester are restricted. The A628 is limited by its tortuous nature and the fact that it passes through a national park, so it is difficult to improve the road. There are many journeys from Barnsley to Manchester

197WH
international airport, but the transport links are not good enough. The development of Finningley airport at Doncaster could give us an alternative to Manchester international airport.
There are three priorities in what is known as the single programming document for objective 1 that relate directly to transport. Priority 4 focuses on the role of community transport services in supporting the development of economic opportunities in targeted communities. That sounds a bit waffley, but I shall give an example. Grimethorpe colliery was one of the most profitable collieries in the country until it was closed. Now that it is no longer there, the village has no visible employment. Anyone who lives there who wants to travel to the other side of Barnsley for employment does not have a bus service. There is no public transport available to get someone from the village to his or her job for a shift starting at 6 o'clock in the morning.
Priority 5 is to support business investment through strategic spatial development in the three strategic economic zones located near to the motorway. We must improve transport for those strategic sites so that we can move goods and people. Priority 6 is to remove transport constraints on economic growth. We are required to select the three key transport bottlenecks that adversely affect the delivery of world-class rail passenger and rail freight links, the efficient operation of the strategic road network and strategic airlines.
I turn to the south Yorkshire transport plan, which is a five-year bid for transport capital resources within south Yorkshire. The first bid is for £20 million a year in each of the next five years for integrated transport measures. The second is for £13.8 million for structural maintenance funds, and the third is for seven new transportation schemes, three of which are within my constituency.
Given the announcement of the 10-year plan of extra funding from Government, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will respond by saying that the money will be readily available in the amounts required and that all those projects will go ahead. Some important local projects also depend on the south Yorkshire transport plan, including the Great North road quality bus corridor in Doncaster, the Cudworth bypass in Barnsley and the Barnsley busway, the Sheffield inner ring road and the West Bawtry road.
My final point relates to economic development and the climate change levy, although that is somewhat outside the terms of the debate. However, it is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to set up the rebate schemes that compensate for the effect of the tax on jobs. I have objected to the levy since its inception because I do not believe that it is necessary. It is a tax on manufacturing jobs and is costing jobs in my constituency, particularly in the glass industry. There is a company called Potters Ballotini, which manufactures glass, that is not within the integrated pollution prevention and control directive so cannot qualify for the 80 per cent., just as Pilkington Glass or Automotive Windscreens cannot, although they are major users of energy in producing glass products. They will fall outside the rebate and the costs that will come to them will be extensive.
198WH
I would also like to know whether those proposed 80 per cent. rebates have been found to be uncompetitive within the European Union, or whether they will go ahead. Will we be taxed on delivered energy or primary energy? Will the 90:10 rule, which applies to processes outside the IPPC on single-site factories, be extended or left as it is? How much leeway will there be for other processes on same-site factories? How sure is the Minister that all the proposals will be covered, given that they are due to be published in January 2001, for a tax that will affect my constituents in the April that year?
In conclusion, there are diverse issues in relation to transport and economic development in Yorkshire and Humberside, covering rural and industrial areas. We need to improve transport industries to allow south Yorkshire—Yorkshire and Humberside—to develop to their full potential. I referred specifically to south Yorkshire, because transport needs to develop more quickly in that area, so that we may catch up with the more affluent areas. My key message is that we need that transport development to enable our area to develop to its full potential.
9.54 am
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: It is with great personal pleasure that I contribute to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on his success in securing this timely debate, and for the excellent way in which he linked wider regional matters to the publication last week of the 10-year transport plan.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall focus on my part of the region—north Yorkshire, and especially the north Yorkshire coast. I shall speak about the challenges and opportunities that face the communities of Whitby and Scarborough, and my belief that the economic regeneration of that part of Yorkshire rests totally on the continuing success of the policies that have been introduced by the Labour Government, with specific emphasis on the transport policies—an excellent route map—laid before Parliament last week by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
Before I continue, it would be remiss of me not to place on record my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I hope that my past professional interest in transport management and construction will be regarded as a strong basis for the arguments that I shall attempt to deploy this morning. Working as a civil engineer, particularly in the region's railway industry, managing, developing and improving the country's civil engineering infrastructure over 18 sometimes very long years gave me the opportunity to view transportation from the coal face. Transport policy over those 18 years resulted in a legacy of failure. I estimate that two thirds of my design work for the much—needed renewal, enhancement and maintenance of railway structures now lies in a dusty drawer in the planning room among Railtrack's regional archives.
That personal overview spurred me into action, my personal agenda being to gain election to Parliament. Fundamentally, I am an engineer. I try to solve problems; I do not want to be part of the problem. From that basic philosophy, I regard the work of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister over the past three years as being at the heart of transport and economic regeneration, not only for my region but for the communities there.

199WH
Scarborough and Whitby have seen the start of the delivery of much-needed assistance. European objective 2 status has been granted for 95 per cent. of the community, and last week the match funding for that initiative was announced. We have also seen the Government's acceptance of Scarborough's £17 million integrated transport scheme. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his personal interest in bringing forward that initiative. I commend him for his personal expertise; the many years that he spent working in transportation have undoubtedly added to his reputation as a Minister who solves problems rather than makes them.
I was a member of the Committee that considered the Transport Bill, and I and my hon. Friends amended the Bill to include a much-needed national transport concessionary scheme for pensioners. My constituency, which did not have such a scheme, benefits from that initiative. Again, I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and his team for listening to and acting upon the representations made by the people who live on the north Yorkshire coast.
I turn to the reason why I wanted to make a contribution to this debate. For far too long, and under Governments of both parties, the transport lifeline into Scarborough and Whitby, the A64 trunk road corridor, has been the first road investment scheme to be chopped whenever the nation's finances looked bleak. That was certainly the case in 1995, when the long-awaited proposals were again kicked into the long grass. I should be staggered if any of the hon. Members here who have made the journey along the A64 did not appreciate how strange it was to cut that scheme, as they, too, will have sat in traffic jams for many hours when heading to the coast. Scarborough and Whitby offer visitors a warm welcome, but those trying to get there sometimes need a lot of patience.
The previous Governments' short-term transport policies, which were linked to their failed economic policies of boom and bust, were wrong in 1995. The failure to redress the mistake in the light of the forward-looking agenda of the new Government's transport policies for a new century would condemn my community to economic starvation and a bleak future. We could become the south Yorkshire at the northern end of our region unless action is taken. We are here to help prepare for success and not for the isolation and failure that would be induced by more than a million traffic jams and a million frustrated vehicle journeys into the constituency.
Last week's foresighted statement concerning the nation's trunk roads as part of the 10-year plan gives the people of Whitby and Scarborough hope such as they have not experienced for more than a generation. The prospect of a multi-modal study of the A64 corridor was also the focus of representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who was able to visit my constituency last week. He had discussions with the senior management of McCains Foods, a world-class food manufacturer based in Eastfield in my constituency. Hon. Members will be familiar with the firm's products if they choose French fries in the restaurants of the House. The company is considering future investment plans. The Minister of
200WH
Agriculture was given a clear message in no uncertain terms, from that important manufacturer with which to return to Government. Future investment for McCains will depend totally on the logistics and the future of the A64 corridor. The firm speaks up for the industrial businesses in Scarborough and Whitby. I expect next week, when the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), visits my constituency, that the hard-pressed tourism sector will strongly reinforce that message.
The multi-modal studies will allow a real investigation into the most serious problems on the region's trunk road network, including the lifeline into my constituency. We will be able to focus on the issues that were not addressed in the targeted programme of improvements laid out in the 10-year plan. The studies will allow an examination of the role of every type of transport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central suggested, we need a total integrated solution in my community and our region generally. We need to make the best use of the resources and the facilities that we have now and to place investment where it will have most impact.
I commend the work done for many years by North Yorkshire county council and by Scarborough borough council, which have dusted off previous arguments deployed to earlier Transport Ministers regarding the future of the A64 corridor and which have allowed me to present some perspective on what is happening at the moment.
The A64 is the only trunk road to serve the Scarborough and Whitby area. As such, its strategic importance cannot be over-emphasised. That has been recognised by the Department, with proposals for a dual carriageway between Malton and Staxton on the outskirts of my constituency. The A64 links the important regional centre of Leeds with the A 1, Tadcaster, York, Malton and Seamer. It is especially important because it provides an access route to the North Yorkshire Moors national park, about 60 per cent. of which is in my constituency, the Yorkshire wolds and all the east coast resorts. The road is an important lifeline and its national status has been recognised by its being retained as a core trunk route.
Economic regeneration for my community and the nearby coastal areas has been confirmed at European level following designation as a rural priority area and an objective 2 area for European Union structural funds. Nationally, the Government have given support to the town and urban areas of Scarborough with two single regeneration budget programmes. In May 2000, the employment rate for my constituency was more than double that of the rest of the county of North Yorkshire. Everyone recognises that Scarborough and Whitby are wonderful places to go on holiday. They are prime tourist destinations, the birthplace of the British seaside industry, and of national importance, especially when one considers the beauty and historical context of Whitby. There were almost 11 million visitor days in 1999, but the area's potential is not fully met. We can offer the sort of quality experience that people are seeking in their recreation time.
The challenges to tourism in the area hang on the fact that people have moved away from the long-stay holiday to the short break. Weekend breaks and

201WH
additional holidays, which sometimes involve shorter journey times, are influenced by the quality of communication links. Therefore, the poor quality of the links to my constituency is fundamental to the future of tourism in Scarborough and Whitby. Virtually every other major seaside resort and conference centre already has a high-quality dualled connection to motorway networks, and that has an impact on the potential economic development of any area around our coastline.
Linked to the partnership that we have forged in our region for economic development, in particular with Yorkshire Forward, I ask the Minister to consider other aspects of the review for which I am calling. The county council, in partnership with Scarborough borough council, the Highways Agency, Railtrack and English, Welsh, Scottish Railway are investigating ways of encouraging the use of the passenger-only lines from York to Scarborough for the movement of freight. The railway part of the A64 corridor is not currently being used for freight, but its potential is tremendous, especially because of the major industrial companies that are located in Scarborough, such as Pinder Printers. That company is well known to the Minister and is a world leader in transport and travel information systems. In addition, Plaxtons, the bus manufacturers, provide about 45 per cent. of buses for the national and international market. Those companies, which are major players in the local economy, are totally reliant on good logistical links into Scarborough.
The partnership that has been forged with Yorkshire Forward, the possibility of an inter-modal study and investment in the corridor are fundamental to the future of my community. Following the Government's welcome strategy for coastal shipping, there is tremendous potential for Whitby, a coastal port, to fulfil its part in the maritime economics of the country. However, Whitby is restricted by the fact that there are inadequate transportation links into the port. I remind the Minister of the much-heralded proposal to reconnect the railway line from the trans-Pennine corridor—from Malton, up through Pickering—to the current line of the North Yorkshire Moors railway. An estimated cost of £19 million has been forwarded for the consideration of the Strategic Rail Authority. It is essential for Whitby's future that that sum should be provided for a link, not only for recreation but to revitalise the area.
I want to comment briefly on the region's airport strategy. Most people who leave Scarborough and Whitby for international flights would tend to take the trans-Pennine railway route directly to Manchester airport. We desperately need an important integrated link into Leeds-Bradford as soon as possible. That is fundamental to the prosperity of the region and essential to the future of my community. Our area of north Yorkshire is looking to the world. We want to play our part, and transport links are fundamental to that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), I should point out that at least three other Yorkshire Members have shown interest in participating in the debate. I hope that subsequent speakers will take that into account.
10.11 am
Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) for securing the debate. I know that he shares my desire to ensure that south Yorkshire is part of the renaissance of the Yorkshire and Humber region.
There are many aspects of transport on which I could focus. I am pleased to have played a small part in helping to convene a transport conference in the Don valley with my hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) and for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis). I dealt with the links between transport and child care development. The two factors most often cited by people who are asked what prevents them from getting into work are transport and child care. Work is needed to bring about an imaginative connection between providers of the two.
I give notice to my hon. Friend the Minister and to Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment that I intend to seek a debate on school transport after the summer recess. We need safer routes to school for children, and, although there is much talk of the road congestion caused by the school run, no extension of school bus services seems to be taking place. However, today I want to talk about airports in the region.
The Yorkshire and Humber region is punching below its weight in the aviation industry, among others. Perhaps, with the Finningley site in my constituency, I could be accused of parochialism, but I have always said that if there is no business case for that site, and if there are airports in the region that can provide the services that I believe that Finningley alone can provide, those who think so should stand up and speak. However, they cannot do that. We are one of the poorest regions in the country with respect to the aviation industry, which has a contribution to make to the regional economy and jobs. Social benefits would also be derived from such infrastructure.
Finningley should be considered in context. The proposed Doncaster Finningley airport would not be a 60-million-passenger Heathrow or a 20-millionpassenger Manchester. In 15 years it would cater for 2.3 million passengers. It would be half the size of Newcastle airport in 2015 and smaller than Leeds-Bradford airport. However, according to the Transport Research Laboratory, the airport and associated business parks would result in gross regional employment creation of between 7, 130 and 7, 700 jobs. The displacement of aviation business at other regional airports in Yorkshire and Humber would be modest. One reason for that is that air passenger numbers are set to double over the next 15 years. Another is that, as Ed Anderson, the director of Leeds-Bradford airport, said to the Bradford Telegraph and Argus in March,
Hardly any of our customers come from South Yorkshire and that's why we don't see Finningley as a major threat. In fact 80 per cent. of our customers were from the Leeds Bradford area last year…People from South Yorkshire tend to use Manchester or East Midlands.
He is right. Sixty per cent. of south Yorkshire passengers use Manchester, 15 per cent. use London airports and nearly 15 per cent. use East Midlands. That means jobs and spending leaking from the region, wasteful journeys to distant airports and lost opportunities in the Yorkshire and Humber region.

203WH
I agree with Mr. Anderson that Leeds-Bradford and Humberside are crucial to their local populations and play an important role for local business by providing links to Europe. They will continue to do so. However, the limitation on the region's economic development is not that those airports cannot take more planes on their runways and passengers through terminals—"capacity" as those in the industry call it—but that they cannot develop long-haul services. Runway length is a crucial limitation. We are all aware of the tragedy that happened yesterday. Hon. Members may say that Concorde can fly from Leeds and can fly transatlantic. Yes, it can. However, that is not the same as true long-haul potential.
That is not a partisan view that is taken only by me. In the inquiry into Liverpool airport in 1995, the evidence from Manchester Airport plc stated that Liverpool's runway
is too short to provide for a full range of long haul routes.
I agree, as would Liverpool airport. The irony is that Liverpool has a longer runway than Leeds-Bradford, Humberside or Sheffield airports. The real test of a runway is whether an aircraft can take off fully laden at maximum take-off weight. If it cannot, airlines can never gain the full competitive advantage.
A recent study of eight commonly used long-haul aircraft showed that only three could land at Leeds or Humberside. Seven of the eight could land at Finningley, including the Airbus A300 and the Boeing 757. That explains why Bill McGrorty, aviation director of Airtours, stated in Travel Weekly that, if Finningley does not proceed, Airtours would have to locate services abroad. The company operates from more than 20 airports. He remarked:
Finningley is a wonderful airport and it has a fantastic runway. It also has good long-haul opportunities. We only operate long haul from Gatwick and Manchester which is a bit limiting.
Airtours is not the only airline that wants to run long-haul services from Finningley—services that will not be located anywhere else in the region.
Airtours is Britain's fifth largest airfreight operator. Nowadays, 95 per cent. of air cargo goes in the belly of passenger aircraft. That is not a large-scale business at Leeds or Humberside, but imagine the potential of a plane a day landing from Miami, Orlando or New York. Cargo could make a huge contribution to our economic competitiveness. It is an entire aviation sector in which Yorkshire and Humber fail to compete, while Manchester, East Midlands and London take all the prizes. Long haul and airfreight services represent a gap in our air transport services that inhibits our economic competitiveness. It is incumbent on all Yorkshire and Humber Members of Parliament to face our regional shortcomings and to do something about them.
Finningley would be small in terms of any national or international comparisons—but God bless the Ministry of Defence for bequeathing such a fantastic brownfield site to our region. The business park and the airport wouldadd between £100 million and £130 million per year to Yorkshire's domestic product by 2015. That represents investment, spending power, passenger power and business opportunities that have so far bypassed the region.
204WH
I urge all Members of Parliament who represent Yorkshire and Humber to celebrate and promote our ports, our rail port, which serves Humberside, our motorway network, which bisects the country, and our east coast main line, with its long-term potential. With a new airport in south Yorkshire, we could boast a full house in air services—the business link to Europe from Sheffield, to major European cities from Humberside, and to the Caribbean, Chicago or San Francisco from Finningley.
Before I finish, I urge my colleagues to disregard the misleading and alarmist spin that they often receive from the Finningley airport network. As some hon. Members will know, Mr. Kevin McDonald has financed the campaign against Finningley. I should like to know whether Mr. McDonald, as he is an owner of Gamston airport, ever bid to use Finningley for aviation use. It is time that the public was told, and I have written to him about it. Did he ever employ Mr. Bell, his surveyor, who currently organises his campaign against Finningley, to appraise the site, check its condition and estimate its value? Now that Mr. McDonald is not the owner of Finningley, he may be gamekeeper turned poacher—desperately trying to convince anyone who will listen that this extraordinary site, in a low population area with the second longest runway in the north, would be better as something other than an airport.
Tonight, I shall present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Don Valley, the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, and people in the surrounding areas. More than 21, 000 of them have said, "We want this airport. We don't need a public inquiry." It makes the business case for itself, and, in the light of objective 1, gives real hope for the regeneration of south Yorkshire.
10.20 am
Mr. John Grogan: My constituency is currently enjoying the prospect of a double whammy of investment in its transport infrastructure. It is a matter of some local pride that, when the roads review was undertaken in the first year of this Government. well over 5, 000 of the 5, 500 representations received from the entire Yorkshire region originated from my Selby constituency, and related to the Selby bypass. After a 60-year wait, construction of the Selby bypass will begin next July, and the contract will be advertised throughout Europe this summer. The bypass will improve traffic flow in the town and the local environment and much industrial land will be freed, which could provide investment and jobs as the mines decline during the coming decades.
However, there is more than just the bypass. The rail link to London, which was terminated when the coalfield was established 20 years ago and the east coast main line was diverted, has been restored. One train a day from Hull—colloquially known as the Prescott express—stops at Selby on its way to London. Seeing the name of one's town displayed at King's Cross-station as a direct destination is a bit like seeing one's football team get promoted to the second or third division. There is more to come. In a few weeks' time, a new company, Hull Trains, will run three direct trains a day each way that stop at Selby.

205WH
However, I want to concentrate my remarks on the nuts and bolts of public transport in our region, which includes buses as well as trains. In Selby, Scarborough—I enjoyed the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn)—and the whole of north Yorkshire, it is boom time for rural buses. Spending on public transport has increased from about £1.3 million in 1997 to nearly £3 million today. In some villages in my constituency, those who were born in the war years could grow up, get a job, have children and grandchildren, and still be waiting for a bus. Now that my hon. Friend the Minister is responsible for such matters, there are buses in abundance in north Yorkshire. For example, the connexions route, which passes through the villages of Oxton, Bolton Percy and Appleton Roebuck, connects Tadcaster with the Askham Bar park-and-ride link to York. In a good week, 500 people now use that service.
However, for local people such developments sometimes constitute something of a cultural shift. When asked whether they objected to the erection of a bus stop for a new service, the representatives of one parish council said, "We don't have those sorts of things here—it's not that sort of village." In fact, they are now very proud of their bus stop, but a little persuasion was necessary. When travelling on another enhanced bus service, I noticed that there were no bus stops in any of the villages. I asked the driver whether that caused a problem, and he replied, "No, because our regulars know where we go." Perhaps that is not the marketing that we want, but such services are making a difference.
One issue that calls for regional planning—and, ultimately, perhaps regional government—is public transport in Yorkshire and Humberside. Three bodies are involved: South Yorkshire passenger transport authority, West Yorkshire passenger transport authority and North Yorkshire county council. I have referred to the county council's £3 million budget, but in west Yorkshire the passenger transport authority spent £91 million, including a direct grant for rail services of £37 million. No such grant is available for north Yorkshire. Clearly, that has an impact on the fare structure and level of services in north Yorkshire, and I shall consider briefly how pensioners and commuters are affected.
My dad is lucky to be a pensioner in west Yorkshire. He leads a full and active life. He goes to the races, the theatre and the cinema, and watches Bradford City. He can travel anywhere off-peak for 20p, but in south Yorkshire, the off-peak fares for buses and trains are, I believe, 33p and 35p respectively. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, there are no concessions at all. In Selby, one receives £8 worth of bus tokens a year. That affects people's retirement decisions. For example, Tadcaster and Wetherby are two very similar market towns within a few miles of each other, and a similar distance from Leeds. A day return from Tadcaster to Leeds costs £3.50, for a pensioner or anyone else. The journey from Wetherby is 20p each way.
We welcome the half-fare bus passes that are to be introduced next year, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred. Nevertheless, it is important to have reciprocal arrangements between the different transport authorities. South Yorkshire and west Yorkshire have
206WH
just done a deal whereby a pensioner can travel off-peak from one county to the other for 34p. West Yorkshire also recognises the bus passes of pensioners from Lancashire and Greater Manchester, so if my dad goes to Manchester, he can get exactly the same concessions as a Manchester pensioner, but no such reciprocal rights exist with north Yorkshire.
West Yorkshire is, at the moment, recognising Lancastrians but not certain fellow Yorkshire men and women. It is essential that, next year, reciprocal rights should be established across the whole of the county of Yorkshire. That should be our aim, so that west Yorkshire pensioners, for example, can get on a bus and buy a half-fare ticket all the way to Scarborough and the coast. That would be a boon to tourism.
A ridiculous situation can be found within my constituency. In York, half-fare bus passes are already available, but if a pensioner travels by bus across the border from the York council area to the Selby council area, a half fare would be available for only half the journey. Two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Eggleston, from Fulford in the York unitary authority area, regularly travel to Thorganby, a little village in the Selby area, to see their grandson. They are entitled to a half fare part of the way, to Wheldrake, but they have to pay the full fare for the rest of the journey. That is clearly crazy, and we need reciprocal arrangements. I urge the Government to bang a few heads together, if necessary, to encourage that process on its way.
I shall move on to commuters. Thousands of people commute from my area every day, especially into Leeds and other places in west Yorkshire. Although there are seven train stations in my constituency, many of those people get into their cars, go over the border into west Yorkshire and get on exactly the same trains that pass through my constituency, in order to save money. For example, a return ticket from Church Fenton—a village in my constituency—to Leeds costs £5.10 a day, but if one travels a few miles by car to catch the train at Micklefield, the fare goes down to £3.50. A couple commuting into Leeds every working day could save about £60 a month by taking that short car journey, which is obviously environmentally daft.
The matter needs attention, and is likely to become an even bigger issue in relation to the new rail franchise map. As I understand it, the trans-Pennine link is to be a separate franchise, and all the suburban services are to be franchised as a whole across the northern region, but with an insistence that they be managed in line with the boundaries of the passenger transport authority. We would not want to lose out in north Yorkshire because, although we have all those stations, there is no passenger transport authority.
There is a strong feeling in my constituency of Selby that we should benefit from greater links with the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority, which is allowed by law, incidentally, to organise services 25 miles from its boundary. I hope that we can reach the stage where we have one passenger transport authority planning services across the whole Yorkshire region.
I support another comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby: it is extremely important—for my constituents, as well—that we incorporate the rail link with the Leeds

207WH
Bradford airport. That scheme shows how progressive and innovative the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority is. Not only is it applying for the rail link, but also it was the first authority in the country to organise late night buses to get people home from Leeds, which boasts that it is a 24-hour city. Buses run at weekends until 2.30 in the morning. It is, therefore, a very progressive transport authority and we should like to see some of its influence in north Yorkshire.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to call the hon. Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). If they will make very brief contributions, I shall be happy to call them both.
10.29 am
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Last Friday, the headline "Supertrams are go" in the Yorkshire Evening Post was an echo of the old "Thunderbirds" programme. I hope that the supertrams will be better than the old puppet television series.
From 1985 to 1995, 11, 000 new jobs were created in Leeds and 11, 000 new commuters came into the city during that period. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on introducing the debate. He said that Leeds is one of the economic engines of the region and there is no doubt that it is the main employment area and the economic generator of west Yorkshire. However, Leeds is grinding to a halt and I am delighted that, after 10 years of trying to obtain a tram system, we have the go-ahead at last.
It is not just the trams that we must concentrate on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and other hon. Members said, buses are crucial. In the 1970s and 1980s, Sheffield had a wonderful bus system and I remember travelling across the city for 2p in those good old days. Buses are the key to transporting people, but they are not the only method of transport. The guided bus service in my constituency is one method of making buses more efficient and avoiding some of the traffic jams, but we also need a more efficient road system.
I was pleased to hear that the east Leeds radial road will be built under the 10-year transport plan, but I hope that the Minister will support phase 8 of Leeds inner ring road because that will complete the ring. [Interruption.] I thank him for offering me the money already. Phase 8 is the final piece of the jigsaw to complete the ring road.
I was delighted to hear that Delhi is building its own underground and light rail system, but I want Leeds to be ahead of Delhi. Why can we not consider a light rail network, which would serve not only people in Leeds, but those who come to Leeds to work from surrounding districts—Bradford, Harrogate, Scarborough, Whitby, Selby, York and places further south such as Wakefield and Doncaster? Why can we not be adventurous and visionary and have a system that not only echoes what Delhi is doing, but is considerably better and serves the whole population of the area?
208WH
I am a recent convert to cycling and I take my life in my hands whenever I cycle through central London to get here more quickly than the traffic and even the tube. I would like more cycle routes. One of my constituents, Mrs. Hazel Maxwell, is interested in cycling, especially for children, and sent me an e-mail yesterday stating that more safe cycling routes were missing from the 10-year plan, or least the publicity about it. Will the Minister respond to that?
I support the points that have been made about the pressure for a rail link to Leeds-Bradford airport, including many of those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about Finningley, but I do not want to enter that debate now. I want Leeds-Bradford airport to have better access by rail and other public transport from Leeds and Bradford. I should like the Minister to tell us exactly what is happening about that. A rail link from central Leeds would link up with the rail network to south Yorkshire, so it would also improve the links there.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now have two minutes left for the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West.
10.34 am
Mr. Harold Best: Most of the points that I wanted to make have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and I shall not repeat them. I want to emphasise the need to make use of existing wide-gauge rail systems. The engineering skills of our Victorian forefathers survive today. We should take advantage of that amazing infrastructure. Along with other hon. Members, I have referred to one such link: Leeds-Bradford airport, which is just half a mile away from a major rail link. That railway line goes on into east and north-east Yorkshire, passing through stations that were closed by a certain person some 30 or 40 years ago. We want to see one of those stations reopened, providing ease of access to the airport for people who are currently using their cars and clogging up small country lanes. Such a rail link would make a contribution to green transport.
I see from the clock that I have had my two minutes. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak.
10.36 am
Mr. Richard Allan: I shall try to speak at a rapid south Yorkshire pace, in order to get through the points that I want to make. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) secured this debate. We have a chance to show how united we are in south Yorkshire on the issues and, perhaps, to highlight those areas in which we are still groping for agreement.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central was right to raise the issue of match funding for objective 1 programmes in the context of transport. We need to raise that matter on every available occasion. The Government have said that they are willing to find the match funding, but they need to be able to remove the obstacles in the way of that, of which we are all aware. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) did not disappoint: she put the case for Finningley, as I suspected she would. I shall not disappoint either: I want

209WH
to raise local concerns about Sheffield airport. It may be a different beast from the proposed airport at Finningley, but it does create employment in Sheffield. No one disputes that the volume of air traffic is growing, and I do not intend to start a detailed debate about that. None the less, a public inquiry is necessary, because of the wider regional issues involved. That is the only way to get the necessary assurances and bring everyone on board; otherwise, there will be a continuing grumbling dispute in the region. Finningley will develop in that context, but it is important that we start from the right point. The hon. Member for Don Valley explained how long term the proposals for development of the airport are, so we should not be concerned about delays at this stage because of a wider inquiry. I hope that we can have that inquiry now.
Caroline Flint: Is the hon. Gentleman giving the official position of the Liberal Democrats on the issue of a public inquiry?
Mr. Allan: I speak as a Member of Parliament for Sheffield. Since I am the only Liberal Democrat Member in the area—south Yorkshire—my position is as official as we need.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North East (Mr. Hamilton) showed his youthfulness, by saying that he travelled for 2p. I did too; that was the child fare. I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman was eligible for that fare at that time. Bus transport is a key issue. There is disappointment, especially in Sheffield, that it is still so difficult to get to grips with the bus operators and that there are no major powers to do so. Routes in my constituency have been changed and the PTA has been unable to do anything. Fares are still a major issue. Price is the key determinant for an individual in deciding whether to stand at the bus stop or take the car on a rainy day. If there were a cheap fare, as there used to be, people would choose to take the bus; with the fares that they have to pay now, they will not. I hope that there will be some prospect of passenger transport authorities having more direct control over routes and fares. They used to have such control, but it was removed by deregulation, and no adequate new system has yet been devised by the Government.
The hon. Member for Leeds, North East said "Supertrams are go" was a headline in his local paper. Is he going to steal our supertram? We have a functioning supertram, but it does not go to the right places in some areas, and that has been a problem. There will be proposals for extensions. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government will be favourable towards those who wish to extend existing schemes as well as to those who wish to bid for new schemes. Extensions of the tram network on which so much Government money has been invested could be helpful, especially in the university and hospital areas.
I favour moving quarry traffic on to the railway system. Sheffield has no ring road and quarry vehicles, from Derbyshire in particular, drive through it. Indeed, they go past my office, so I am very conscious of the traffic. I hope that the Government agrees that more quarry traffic should use the rail system and that they are willing to invest in EWS infrastructure to enable that to take place. Motorcycles are a good replacement for car traffic, especially for commuters. At present, in order for
210WH
them to use bus lanes, a special request must be submitted to the regional office for dispensation because there are no approved signs for such traffic movement. Such a system seems very bureaucratic and I hope that the Minister can explain his thoughts about using motorcycles as a way in which to combat congestion in the region. Can anything be done to make it easier for local authorities to enable that to happen if they so choose? I could raise plenty of other issues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am conscious of the time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
10.41 am
Mr. Tim Loughton: This morning's debate has been fascinating and I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on introducing it. We have been on a Cook's tour of villages, A roads, trunk roads, railways, those villages that do not want bus stops in the Yorkshire region and ended up in Delhi. That shows the diversity of the Yorkshire and Humberside region. I know it well from my time as a candidate in Sheffield in the early 1990s and as someone whose family comes from the Beverley area.
I agree with many of points made by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central about the general economy. He referred to the energy tax. Now is not the time to go into such matters in detail, but I underline the impact that that is having on large manufacturing industries, especially the glass and chemical industries in south Yorkshire. Having stood as a parliamentary candidate for the constituency of Sheffield, Brightside, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the congestion at junction 34 of the Ml, an area that I know particularly well. I also have experience of the traffic jams on the A64 on the way to Scarborough. I represent a seaside town, and the hon. Gentleman should visit the A27 and experience the difficulties of travelling to seaside resorts in my part of the country.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) expressed a detailed knowledge of aircraft movement and I shall touch on the matter of Finningley later. I congratulate the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on his contribution to the debate or, more particularly, his father who seems to be one of the more mobile senior citizens in the Yorkshire region. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the absurdity of what he described as environmentally daft anomalies in transport policy. As for the hon. Members for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) and for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best), what can I say?
The Yorkshire and Humberside region is a diverse area. It has 5 million people. It is the same size as Scotland or Denmark. Its work force comprises 2.3 million people with an economy of £52 billion. It has nine universities and 40 colleges, and 118 pies have their headquarters in the region. Outside south-east England, it has one of the highest proportions of small and medium companies.
As we have heard, the region has many problems. It is on the wrong side of the north-south divide and, as the recent Cardiff university study showed, the Government's policy is widening regional economic

211WH
disparities in England and Wales rather than narrowing them. Moves to assist business developments are improving the performance of the most competitive regions, not the poorest ones such as Yorkshire and Humberside. The region is near the bottom of the rankings in the United Kingdom for competitiveness. It is on a par with the economies of Hungary, Chile and Israel. The welcome success of securing objective 1 status from the European Union underlines the fact that south Yorkshire is one of the poorest regions of the European Union. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central confirmed that the figure for the region was 74 per cent. below the European Union average.
As we have heard, there are also big disparities in Yorkshire, which has its own north-south divide. The northern end of Yorkshire and parts of west Yorkshire are far ahead of south Yorkshire in the commercial exploitation of IT-based technology. GDP per head in south Yorkshire has fallen substantially over the past 20 years. Conversely, we have problems of overheating in Leeds, one of the most prosperous parts of the north of England. I understand that several bosses of electronics companies in Yorkshire recently approached Yorkshire Forward and said, in effect, "For goodness sake, stop attracting South Korean electronic companies to the region because we simply do not have the skilled work force for our own companies, let alone for employers coming in." There are real problems in that regard.
Transport will undoubtedly aid the resolution of such economic disparities. It is an anomaly that no transport role was given to regional development agencies in the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. It is not part of their remit. RDAs constantly complain that they do not have a direct input into the transport infrastructure, which is such an essential part of the economic regeneration of regions such as Yorkshire and Humberside. I know from my conversations with the people who run the Sheffield development corporation that one of the key elements of the success of the urban development corporations in the 1980s and 1990s was the provision of a good transport infrastructure, such as links to the M1 in the case of Sheffield, that went way beyond some of the accompanying tax advantages. A SWOT—strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats—analysis by Yorkshire Forward of the transport problems in the region, which several hon. Members touched on, highlighted the poor rail links between London and Sheffield, London and Hull, Sheffield and Leeds, Leeds and Manchester, and traffic congestion on the M1 and M62 and in key cities.
Will the Minister give us some detail on what last week's 10-year transport splurge will mean for Yorkshire and Humberside? His wallet is certainly under great pressure, with all the schemes that hon. Members assume have been paid for. Perhaps he can allay their fears and give them the good news that they anticipate. The website of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions identifies the need to upgrade the Al to motorway standard, particularly the key bottlenecks in the south of the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who would have liked to attend our debate but is sitting on the Transport Select Committee, has particular problems with the section of road
212WH
between Bramham and Barton. She is also concerned about the high level of traffic accidents and road fatalities in the region, which the hon. Member for Don Valley mentioned.
There is also the issue of improvement of roads to the Humber ports, particularly Hull. Would the Minister, in the absence of his boss, comment on that? Would he also comment on the potential effect of VAT on river crossings and the bridges across the Humber? What about the Government's commitment to the dualling of the A66? Will any of the 100 promised bypasses be in the Yorkshire and Humberside region? Will my hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) get a bypass for Middleton-on-the-Wolds, to take the pressure of the lorries from Bridlington and Driffield?
The Secretary of State wants to shift movements between car and rail by 5 per cent. and contain car traffic at 1999 levels. That has a serious impact for north Yorkshire, in particular, a large rural area that has already been hit heavily and disproportionately by petrol prices. Can the Minister assure us that improvements will be made to bus services in the rural area of north Yorkshire rather than just concentrating on the towns? The submission of North Yorkshire county council to the Environment Committee report on the urban White Paper made interesting reading in terms of the consultation on rural bus services from market towns and the surrounding communities. Will the Minister allow county councils proper time for consultation with their parishes rather than bringing forward the cut-off date, as previously happened with North Yorkshire?
There is also the question of road repair. The Government have not made money available on necessary funding for local authorities to maintain their road networks. Sheffield, for example, currently has a backlog of repairs well in excess of £20 million. It seems absurd to give money to councils for bus lanes and cycle lanes if the roads are falling apart.
I do not have time to mention in detail the re-franchising of the east coast main line fiasco—no doubt the Minister would like to update us on it—the empty promise of the channel tunnel rail link to Leeds, and the incentives for the improvement of the trans—Pennine rail link. I shall not talk about the Finningley airport at Doncaster either, although the Minister might like to reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central mentioned that the Government 10-year plan, and the extra money from it, would bring great hope to his region. It is up to the Minister today to give proper hope to people that some of the schemes will actually happen. Undoubtedly, the region is in great need of transport infrastructure improvements. I hope that the Minister will deliver for Yorkshire and Humberside, and start to do so by giving details now.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): This has been a lively debate. There have been eight speakers in the brief period of an hour and 20 minutes. We have learned a great deal about the region and the transport needs of some of its constituencies, about which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members

213WH
have shown commendable impartiality. I was also touched by the passion demonstrated for the region by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), whose constituency is on somewhat distant shores from it.
I have been asked a huge number of questions, and I shall try to answer as many as possible. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing the debate. This is a significant and exciting time for transport in this country. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister unveiled the Government's 10-year transport plan, which is known as Transport 2010. Our goal is to transform our transport system over the next 10 years, tackling congestion and pollution, increasing choice and raising standards to make travel safer, more attractive and accessible to all.
Transport 2010 provides an investment of £180 billion, delivered through partnership between the private and public sectors. Before the plan, congestion on our roads was set to grow by 15 per cent. over the next 10 years. Our target set out in the 10-year plan is to reverse that trend by removing traffic bottlenecks and improving public transport, so that people have a real choice to leave their cars at home. The environment is important to us all, and our proposals will produce savings in greenhouse gas emissions, helping to achieve our Kyoto targets and more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central was right to point to the importance that the Government attach to the region in our recently published 10-year transport plan. We recognise that the Yorkshire and Humber region is at the centre of key north-south and east-west road and rail corridors. The Humber ports represent an important regional asset and I am aware that improved road and rail links are a regional priority. We recognise the fact that areas in the region also suffer from a disproportionately high number of worn-out roads, and Transport 2010 will rectify that. The main towns and cities in the region suffer from increasing congestion, which must be tackled to foster regeneration, improve the environment and encourage urban renaissance. There are also many rural areas in the region, and improved public transport is needed to reduce car dependency and tackle social exclusion.
Transport 2010 provides the funding to transform the transport system in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Individual projects will be determined through the funding programmes of the Highways Agency, the Strategic Rail Authority, and as part of the local transport plan settlement later in the year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central mentioned the objective 1 issue and the question of matched funding for European structural funds. The responsibility for the acquisition of match funding falls to the project applicants, and it is for the local partners preparing the single programming documents to assess the likely availability of match funding when establishing their financial plans. We envisage that local transport capital funds could be used as a source of match funding. The spending review statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer means that there is now more funding available to which
214WH
local partners can look for match funding. That is obviously good news for areas with EU structural funds in the Yorkshire and Humber region.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central also referred to the need for improvement in the region's rail networks. Railways are an important part of the transport infrastructure in the Yorkshire and Humber region. Transport 2010 will allow exciting public-private partnerships to implement much needed investment in this area. For example, the east coast main line upgrade will provide increased rail capacity to the region and the potential for half-hourly services to Leeds and York from London. That will build on the £165 million Leeds station scheme currently under way. As my hon. Friend also said, the trans-Pennine rail routes are important to the region, and improvements can be expected to be agreed as part of the new trans-Pennine express franchise. There are proposals to improve the rail capacity and environment of Sheffield station, creating a more integrated transport facility for the city. Once again it is pleasing to see the public-private partnership at work in promoting these schemes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) drew attention to the problems of the A64. I note his call for a multi-modal study of that road but, in the meantime, further consultation is proposed this year to help consider options for improvements to Barton Hill junction, Whitwell on the Hill junction, the Whitwell dual to Malton bypass and Rillington bypass, which are all on the A64. He will be aware that there is already excellent news for Scarborough, in the Scarborough integrated transport scheme, on which local officials and my officials have been working together. Enormous progress has been made on that project in the past six months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made a well-informed and powerful statement in favour of the development of Finningley airport. The proposed new commercial airport at Finningley, near Doncaster, is of considerable interest to people throughout the Yorkshire and Humber region, as is inevitable with such a significant proposal. We expect the local planning authority to refer the application to the Secretary of State in the autumn, which must then decide whether to call in the application for his own determination. It would be quite wrong for me to make any comment that could be perceived as either supporting or opposing the scheme. I can confirm that the current regional air services co-ordination study—RASCO—will not delay the process. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand, therefore, if I say no more about it at this stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley made a general case for all the airports in Yorkshire. For the sake of a similar balance, I should say that I am powerfully aware of the strong campaign for improved surface access to Leeds-Bradford airport. I have received delegations on the subject and know that consideration is being given to how the airport could be accessed from the Leeds-Harrogate line mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Mr. Best). However, any proposals would have to meet the normal requirements of value for money appraisal and planning powers, and satisfactory funding arrangements agreed with the authorities.

215WH
I turn to the good news story about the rural bus boom, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). Our rural bus initiative has been a fantastic success throughout the country in the past three years. In that period, we have generated 1, 845 new and enhanced bus services. The 10-year transport plan will increase funding next year for the rural bus initiative from £60 million to £95 million, from which I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituency will benefit. That represents a commitment to the countryside by this Government, which was never contemplated by the Conservative party, although it so often proclaims itself the defender of rural areas.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby for his positive remarks about the national minimum concessionary fare scheme. The provisions in the Transport Bill will benefit 7 million senior citizens, not least the many deprived of any form of discounted fare by the Tory Scrooge local authorities throughout the country. I take his point about inter-ticketing arrangements, which have been built into the Transport Bill. We have discussed and reached agreement on it with the Office of Fair Trading. It will create a presumption in favour of such inter-ticketing arrangements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North East (Mr. Hamilton) mentioned the Leeds supertram, on which we are making progress. I am pleased to say that Transport 2010 includes billions of pounds for public and private investment for such light rail schemes. As we have said, we envisage up to 25 new light rail schemes in the 10-year period. I am aware of the increasing success—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Rail Services (London)
11 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: Every day last year, more than 460, 000 people commuted by rail to central London during the morning peak—3 per cent. more than the previous year's figure. Rail commuting has increased each year since 1993, and Railtrack predicts that it will grow by more than a third over the next 10 years.
How has the rail industry responded to that growth in demand? The answer is, badly. Public performance measures record a decline in the services provided over the past year by nine of the 10 train operating companies that serve London. Vying for pole position for poorest service are Connex and Thameslink. I have a particular interest in those companies. They both provide services to my constituents, as does South West Trains.
Why is the service so bad? Quite simply, the first round of rail franchising had just one aim—to complete the privatisation before the 1997 general election. There was no wider vision or strategy for the development of services or infrastructure. As a result, it is hardly surprising that no plans were made to meet the huge increase in demand for services on all London lines over the past three years.
To top it all, performance standards for the new train operating companies were set at the lowest possible level. Why? Quite simply, so as not to frighten off potential bidders. What the previous Government called "a passengers charter" was a licence for train operating companies to print money and rip off passengers. Although the train operating companies will probably prove the whipping boys in today's debate, the Conservative party should take responsibility for devising a system in which passengers' interests took, at best, second place.
Mr. Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the first round of franchises the train companies were appointed to manage a winding down of the industry?
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the London regional passenger committee's final annual report almost says as much. It was assumed that the rail industry was in long-term, established and irreversible decline. The previous Government lacked ambition for our railway network. This debate relates to that lack of ambition and its consequences.
As a consequence of the previous Government's lack of ambition for our railway system both in London and more generally, the mailbags of many—indeed, probably all—hon. Members, of the rail user consultative committees and of the London regional passenger committee will bear testament to the outrage and anger that many of our constituents feel about their rail services.
It is worth placing on record that the national passenger survey conducted in March of this year revealed that passenger dissatisfaction levels were highest in and around London and the south-east. That is hardly surprising. By any measure, London has some of the worst-performing train operators in the country.

217WH
Examining the 10 London and south-east franchises, a pattern emerges. For example, in the case of punctuality—trains arriving within five minutes of the published time—in ninth and 10th places are Connex South Central and Connex South Eastern, respectively, closely followed by Thameslink. In the case of overcrowding, all 10 companies are operating beyond capacity, and Thameslink, Connex South Central, South West Trains and Chiltern Railways break the shadow Strategic Rail Authority's threshold of 3 per cent. Indeed, until quite recently, my constituency had the dubious distinction of having the most overcrowded service on the entire network—the 7.51 am Thameslink service from Sutton.
In the case of customer satisfaction, in joint ninth place are the two Connex franchises. Finally, in the case of customer complaints, last year, for the first time since privatisation, complaints from passengers in southern England fell. However, one company bucked the trend—Connex, which had a staggering 31 per cent. increase in complaints. In the league table of poor services in London, Connex stands out.
In its final annual report before handing over to the new body established as part of the Greater London Authority, the London regional passenger committee said:
Without any doubt, the most serious problems have been faced by the users on Connex Rail, who have suffered from what must seem to passengers an unending stream of allegedly unrelated problems. These have included overcrowding that resulted from the introduction of a temporary timetable on Connex South Central because of its continuing industrial relations problems and the rolling stock shortages caused by the problem with the Networker trains.
The report goes on to state:
For some Connex passengers in the LRPC area, the introduction of the summer 2000 timetable has been the last straw.
Too right, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it is nothing short of a disgrace.
The shadow Strategic Rail Authority should never have acquiesced in the introduction of the summer timetable. Connex South Central is now running 120 fewer trains a day. Although most of the trains deleted from the timetable are off-peak services—that is little comfort to off-peak users—some key rush-hour services to Victoria have been lost, including the 7.16 am and the 7.45 am trains. Services to London Bridge now stop at even more stations, which is exacerbating the overcrowding. Where there were four trains an hour, there are now often only two.
That reduction in services has been caused by a long-running dispute between Connex and ASLEF about overtime working. At one point, one in eight Connex drivers who should have been resting were driving trains. In the wake of the Ladbroke Grove disaster and the attention that is rightly paid to signals passed at danger, it is cause for concern that such dependence on overtime working could have been allowed to develop. I understand that Connex is struggling to make good a shortage of 60 drivers, and that it has 200 drivers in training. However, for my constituents that adds up to yet more overcrowding, more cancellations and more misery. Again, it is the poor passenger who pays for the failures of management and unions to reach any form of understanding.
218WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I yesterday met the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss refranchising the South Central franchise. We learned that the authority does not plan to impose a new requirement for the franchise to safeguard services if industrial relations are poor. Intractable disputes such as that at Connex should be put to binding arbitration in the public interest. Will the Minister ask the Strategic Rail Authority to examine that proposal? The London regional passenger committee has made a similar suggestion.
I turn finally to the refranchising of the South Central services. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington secured a debate in this Chamber on 11 April. During that debate, I asked the Minister how the transition from the old franchise to the new one would be handled. Unfortunately, the clock was against us and the Minister did not have the time to answer my question. I am sure, however, that he will recall telling the House that, were the refranchising to be aborted, the prospect of Connex continuing to run the South Central franchise until it expired in 2003 would be a second-best solution. I agree. Indeed, many of my constituents believe that Connex offers them a third-rate service.
The Minister will know that speculation in the industry is that if Connex loses the franchise, it will carry on until 2003 regardless. That led to me table written questions to clarify the powers available to Ministers and the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. I asked what powers the SRA has to ensure the smooth and rapid transition to the new franchise. In reply, the Minister wrote:
This would be a matter for negotiation between the Franchising Director and the existing and potential franchisees. In the event of failure to agree transfer arrangements in advance of expiry of the existing franchise, the existing franchisee would be obliged to continue to honour its contractual commitments.—[Official Report, 7 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 314W.]
I was not entirely satisfied with that reply, so I asked what action could be taken if the commitments were not met. The Minister replied:
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.—[Official Report, 17 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 54W.]
In other words, Connex would be crazy to play games with the South Central franchise when so much else is at stake. I hope that the Minister is right about that. Certainly, since the story appeared in The Observer a couple of weeks ago, Connex has been at pains to reassure everyone of its good intent and willingness to play ball. Nevertheless, will the Minister assure my constituents and all Connex South Central passengers that should Connex decide to sit on the franchise, for whatever reason, all possible steps will be taken to protect the hard—pressed commuter from any further deterioration in services during the unexpired period of the contract? For example, will the Minister examine ways of imposing the new penalty regime on the company before 2003?

219WH
Before I conclude, I wish to raise three other points that range a little wider than concerns about Connex, although that company provides a substantial chunk of the rail services into London. My first concern is about late night services, or rather the lack of them. The results of an investigation into late-night services by the London regional passenger committee—entitled "Who goes home?"—were published earlier this year. The investigation revealed a wide variation in the times of last trains across the network. In particular, the report reveals that services to my constituency finish early.
I did not need to read the report to learn that because, when I leave the House after a late-night sitting, I know only too well that there is no means of travelling back to my constituency except via Croydon or elsewhere. There is a busy night-time economy in my constituency, where there are many restaurants, pubs and other entertainments, and more people want to go to entertainments in London, so it is unacceptable that the last trains run so early. The report produced by the LRPC contains a useful bar chart; it is a pity that it cannot be incorporated in the Official Report.
The chart shows the proportion of stations beyond zone 1 for which a departure from Leicester square after 23.59 hours is possible. The LRPC obviously decided that Leicester square was the Mecca of entertainment in London and the point from which all people would depart. The chart lists places such as Kensington and Chelsea, Redbridge, Westminster, Barnet, Harrow, Bromley and Sutton, but there are some services after 23.59 hours to every one of the destinations except Sutton, which stands out like a sore thumb. The last service to Sutton from Victoria leaves at 23.34, so one would have to leave Leicester square at 23.09 to catch that train, arriving finally in Sutton at 00.15. That is hardly an especially late time to finish a night out, and many people who work late find it equally frustrating that they are unable to get home. Will the Minister ensure that, in the light of the evidence produced by the LRPC and other evidence that I shall put to him today, the Strategic Rail Authority will examine critically the proposals of Connex and GoVia to secure significant improvements in the times of last trains to Sutton?
My second point concerns future infrastructure investment. London has one of the most extensive suburban rail networks of any city in the world. Despite that fact, the overground system fails to match the frequency, flexibility and reliability of the underground north of the river. There is still a need to develop an integrated turn-up-and-go suburban rail service that gets people into and around London. Orbital movement in south London, especially south-west London, needs particular attention.
The road network is choked; the Minister referred to congestion during the previous debate. The only orbital public transport in south-west London is the 726 bus, which battles its way through bottleneck after bottleneck. I am sure that bus priority has a part to play, and there has been substantial investment in bus priority throughout London, but it is limited by the constraints that restricted road space imposes. Targeted infrastructure investment is required to link Bromley and Croydon and, at Wimbledon, to open new rail
220WH
corridors linking Bromley, west Croydon, Sutton, Wimbledon, Kingston, Twickenham and even Heathrow.
Using radial routes to facilitate orbital movements—going up to Clapham junction, only to travel out again—makes less and less sense given the limits on capacity and the increasing overcrowding. The aim should be to create more direct connections around London as well as improving interchanges between services.
My proposal to the Minister has not been dreamt up for the purposes of the debate. It is the result of a detailed examination by a consortium of local authorities in south-west London, which studied orbital rail proposals. Sadly, the plans developed and published in the early 1990s were stillborn because of the previous Government's lack of ambition for our railways. Will the Minister offer the prospect of a fresh examination of those detailed proposals and their costings to consider whether there is a possibility of capital investment to make them a reality now?
My third point concerns the new penalties and incentives regime that flows from the tighter performance measures. Anyone who uses the railways regularly regards the original passengers charter as a joke. It is deeply flawed. For example, the way in which the capacity and overcrowding statistics are collected leaves a lot to be desired. There is one count a year with an option of a second and it is done on a simple calculation. Its coverage is restricted because it is labour intensive. It gives a limited snapshot of the overcrowding on a fraction of the network.
As part of the refranchising process, all new rolling stock is to be fitted with passenger load-weighting equipment; old stock rolling stock is to be similarly retrofitted. By automating the recording of the information, it will be possible to measure accurately overcrowding across the network. I have no doubt that the introduction of the automated weighing equipment on to trains will lead to jokes about speak-your-weight trains but, jokes aside, it offers the prospect of a much tighter overcrowding monitoring regime.
Will the Minister tell the House when the new regime will come in? Must it await the refranchising process, or is the shadow Strategic Rail Authority considering ways of rolling it out sooner under the existing franchises? Further, will the standards for overcrowding and capacity be tightened still further to ensure that people making journeys of less than 20 minutes duration have a greater chance of getting a seat?
The biggest loophole in the old charter was the discretion given to operators to declare void days, on which no effective service was provided for reasons in the control of the railway industry. When reliability was less than 90 per cent. or punctuality fell below 70 per cent., a company could declare a void day and have the failure excluded from the passenger charter's calculations. That is a bit like a football team losing a match 7-0 and then declaring the game void to avoid relegation.
The new incentives and penalties are broadly double the figures under the current regime. Perhaps that will better concentrate the minds of train operators and will help to drive up performance. However, when will the new regime kick in? On Connex South Central, the latest

221WH
date would be 2003. On south-eastern services and on those provided by London Tilbury Southend Rail, the current franchises run until 2011. Will the Minister say how long passengers will have to wait?
In conclusion, rail services in London need to be improved dramatically. The evidence is there for all to see. The first round of franchises has been a bitter disappointment for passengers. I hope that the Minister will respond to three points in particular. How do the Government intend to secure better industrial relations in the rail industry, especially in the Connex case, a serious industrial relations problem which is inflicting great misery on my constituents? How soon will the new incentives and penalties regime be in operation across the whole network? Will it be achieved piecemeal as new franchises are let or will it be rolled out in advance? Will the Government give serious and favourable consideration to investment in the infrastructure needed to facilitate orbital rail services in south-west London?
What my constituents and, I suspect, what all our constituents want above all from their rail service is a safe, reliable and comfortable journey. They want rail operators that always put the customer's interest first and deliver on their promises. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure my constituents on that point.
11.19 am
Mr. Andrew Love: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate and, more importantly, on his comprehensive survey of Connex services and of rail services across London, which has provided me with an opportunity to raise my constituents' concerns about the West Anglia Great Northern service for commuters in north London.
My constituency is very dependent on the railways. It is sandwiched between underground lines—the Piccadilly line to the west and the Victoria line to the east. The bus services travelling in and out of central London do not provide an adequate service because they suffer severely from congestion at peak times, leading to delays for people needing to reach central London in reasonable time. The only practical transport for people travelling to the City and to central London is West Anglia Great Northern.
I travel fairly regularly on the line and am only too well aware of the great frustration and irritation caused to my constituents' daily by the delays there. Perhaps I can give hon. Members a flavour of those concerns, by quoting from a letter from Mrs. Margot Wilson. She wrote:
In short the train service is appalling…I have the impression that I am being treated with contempt. In addition to the lack of reliability and punctuality there is a lack of information.
To deal with some of the complaints, at the end of last year, I invited the managing director of West Anglia Great Northern, Euan Cameron, to travel with me and my Enfield colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), on the commuter service to central London. While we were travelling, and in our subsequent meeting at Liverpool Street station, Mr. Cameron admitted to some of the problems and difficulties affecting commuters on the line and, perhaps more importantly, promised action to deal with them.
222WH
Sadly, most of the problems persist, and so do the complaints, as my mailbag well attests. The complaints have increased in recent months.
Another constituent, Mrs. Norma Price, wrote to me about events on Monday 9 June. She told me:
The 08.50 arrived at Edmonton Green at 08.59. Result: severe overcrowding, late arrival at Seven Sisters—
that is the connection to the underground—
and missed connections.
Mrs. Price added:
There are too few trains in peak travel times and these trains are consistently late.
From all the evidence that I have gathered since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have found that three themes constantly emerge in relation to difficulties with services in north London. The first, which is reminiscent of the complaints about Connex South East, is that of repeated delays and train cancellations. Those seem to follow a pattern. Early in the day, during the peak early morning service, slight delays occur, which build up during the day because of the problems of infrastructure and exhausted rolling stock. If they are not checked, they become significant delays by the time of the evening rush hour. Trains are cancelled during the rush hour because of the backlog that has built up.
West Anglia Great Northern's favourite ploy for meeting punctuality targets is for trains not to stop at every station, so that they can reach their destination within the five-minute tolerance margin. That of course causes considerable disruption to people wanting to alight at the station or to catch the train that whizzes through. That matter was raised earlier, and my hon. Friend the Minister was at pains to reassure us that the situation was being monitored. Can he reassure us that the standards of service provision that the train operating companies are supposed to meet are being monitored effectively? Is action being taken when such abuse occurs?
The second area of concern is overcrowding. Substantial overcrowding occurs on trains at peak hours, in both the morning and the early evening. I shall quote from a letter that I received recently, which relates to events that took place on 6 July this year. My constituent states:
The train was grossly overcrowded and this overcrowding became worse at each stop when more passengers forced their way on board. At Seven Sisters, when passengers emerged from the heat of the train, looking (and feeling) as though they had been in a sauna, an announcement was made stating that due to signal failure at Liverpool Street all passengers were advised to disembark at Seven Sisters.
The source of the problem there appears to be that there is insufficient rolling stock to provide eight carriages on each peak-hour journey. One might say that that should be a fairly simple objective to achieve, but I discovered that this particular type of rolling stock had been out of production for a considerable number of years and cannot, therefore, be replaced. WAGN has to try to keep exhausted rolling stock going, year in, year out, and is unable to provide eight carriages for each train at peak times. That suggests that the only longterm solution to the problem is investment in new rolling stock, to update the railway system to a standard fit for the 21st century.

223WH
The third problem is a growing fear of crime, both on trains and at stations. Many people in my constituency will not travel on trains after dark. Although some stations now have closed-circuit television, and although WAGN has worked with Railtrack to improve the lighting on the stations, many people still have considerable anxiety about travelling on the railways during the evening.
Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that at a rail question time meeting that I organised with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) the issue most frequently raised was security. It was the key concern, even taking precedence over reliability.
Mr. Love: I would certainly echo that. Most of the discussions that I have had with regular commuters involve mention of the time in the evening beyond which they will not use the service. They constantly express a desire for something to be done to address the problem of security, so that they can continue to use the railway as they do during the day.
That problem has been compounded in recent months by a steep increase in muggings in the area, both at stations and on trains. I recently dealt with the case of a constituent whose son had been accosted and threatened on a train. I contacted the British Transport police, and I am pleased to report that an arrest has been made. I welcome that, but there is still a strong feeling in my constituency that we need more preventive action to increase security at stations and on trains.
The most recent debate on WAGN services took place in Westminster Hall on 16 February and was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North. The Minister who responded to the debate said that WAGN passengers
generally enjoy a comparatively punctual and reliable service.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 16 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 250WH.]
He went on to say that survey evidence showed that around three quarters of passengers were satisfied with the service that was provided on WAGN. That is not borne out by my experience or that of any hon. Members through whose constituencies WAGN services run. Local rail users' groups have carried out several surveys that show a significant level of dissatisfaction with the service, which is also evidenced by the letters that we receive about commuter services in Greater London. When I speak to regular commuters on the station or on the train, their comments most frequently concern how bad the service has been during that week and the difficulties with the level of service that they face day in, day out.
Because of that—and the apparent mismatch between the official statistics that are produced and the unofficial statistics with which we, as Members of Parliament, are continually confronted—I commissioned my own survey. I admit that it is not scientific, and I would be the last person to make any great claims for it, but it covered more than 3, 000 commuters in my constituency. I am starting to receive replies, and I shall evaluate the results over the next week or so. There has been great interest
224WH
in the survey and a great desire to contribute to it. From anecdotal evidence, that is because people want to express their concern about the service that is provided. I hope that as a result of the survey we shall be able to set up a local rail users' group, because that is one way in which commuters can have an impact on the service that is provided and can tell Railtrack and the train operating companies about the improvements that people believe to be necessary.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned long-term investment in the railways network. It is fair to say that both the Government and the train operating companies have argued strongly for the need for a longer time frame in which to allow investment decisions to take place. Indeed, when I spoke to Euan Cameron, the managing director of WAGN, he continually returned to the company's need to have a more secure base on which to grow the business and to invest in the infrastructure that will be needed in future.
Last September, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority was given the power to start to renegotiate franchise agreements. I agree with the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that there is great dissatisfaction and unhappiness about what has happened since then. I accept that it is probably appropriate to have a 20-year time frame rather than, as in WAGN's case, a seven-year time frame. However, there are difficulties involved in progressing along that route, and the service continues to deteriorate while we await those changes. Urgent action must be taken to ensure, while the process continues, that the service continues to respond to the needs of local commuters.
Several improvements are required. Trains must run on time and to schedule. The network must be expanded to accommodate increased passenger numbers. The buoyant economy that has been created in Greater London because the Government have got rid of boom and bust—I wanted to get that in—means that a significant number of people travel on the commuter lines. The network must have the capacity for that, and we must respond to the concerns of the passengers on the trains. The rolling stock used on my line dates back to the 1960s, and that is not good enough for the service that we need.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide some reassurance that the new franchises will begin to deliver the investment that is critical to the service, and that they will improve commuter services in north London and across the city. I am aware that other areas have even more intractable difficulties than north London, but we all seek a service that is fit for our constituents in the 21st century.
11.35 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate. He and I have worked closely on commuting issues in the Sutton area. I should say how much I enjoy my Wednesday morning assignments with the Minister, and, yesterday, I was flattered to learn that the Minister does not allow me to intervene during his statements because he is scared that I might ask a difficult question. I hope that he did not tell me that in confidence.
My hon. Friend was right to highlight the role of the previous Conservative Administration in setting such abysmally low standards for the rail industry, in their

225WH
desperation to privatise it. I spoke to a civil servant who was involved in that process, and he told me that he worked until 3 o'clock in the morning, trying to cobble together—he did not use that phrase, but that was my impression of the process—amendments that would be acceptable to hon. Members, so desperate were the Government to get the measure through. My hon. Friend also referred at some length to Connex and the Connex-GoVia franchise negotiations. In addition to those issues, we should consider where responsibility for rail services in London lies and examine the wider franchise negotiation process and the role of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority and the recently announced 10-year transport plan.
Londoners could be forgiven for thinking that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is Mr. Big for rail services. He has taken on a gargantuan transport job and has responsibility for the tube, the buses, Croydon tramlink, the docklands light railway and the roads; in fact, he has responsibility for everything except the railways. The provision of rail services in London remains the responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority, and the hon. Gentleman will have to be satisfied with being consulted on related matters. There must be a question over whether the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with such an arrangement. His response to the Government's 10-year transport plan, which featured prominently on the front page of the Evening Standard, does not augur well for his relationship with the Government and the impact that that could have on attempts to sort out London's rail service problems.
I hope that the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will be up to the job of sorting out London's rail services. In recent years, debates about transport in London have tended to focus on the tube; it has a high profile, and many of the proposals for its development are controversial. However, large swathes of London—my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam—do not have tube services and local commuters, including me, are entirely dependent on suburban rail services to get to and from London.
As hon. Members will know, passenger numbers on London's suburban rail network have increased by 26 per cent. in the period to 1998–99. My own experience in the past 12 months confirms that that figure continues to rise. Rail travel in London accounts for a massive 38 per cent. of rail travel in the country as a whole. According to the Government's own figures, demand will grow by a further 15 per cent. by 2010, which presents an enormous challenge for the shadow Strategic Rail Authority. In London, the immediate task must be to bring to a successful conclusion the round of rail franchise negotiations. They must be transparent, and there must be extensive consultation with passenger groups, unions, individual commuters, train operating companies and Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend and I are also included in the category of individual commuters, in that we both rely on Connex to get us to and from Westminster each day.
Through the rail question time meeting to which I referred, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam and I took what steps we could to inject a degree of public input into the franchise negotiation process. The meeting was well attended, and it was particularly pleasing to discover that Connex and GoVia took it
226WH
seriously. The acting managing director of Connex, Olivier Brousse—he is now the managing director—attended the meeting and gave the presentation. We are doing our bit, and those who attended the meeting felt that it was successful and time well spent.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said, yesterday we met Nick Newton, executive director of the Strategic Rail Authority, and Tony De Burgh. We discussed some issues arising from the rail question time meeting, and those relating to the franchise process. Incidentally, the Conservatives have not challenged our comments on the role of the previous Conservative Government in relation to rail services. During the meeting, the view was expressed that low standards were set and the previous Government made no attempt to ensure that, as part of the franchise process, the performance of the worst lines improved to match that of the best. Instead, franchises were established in such a way that new train operating companies continued to deliver the existing level of service, whether good or bad.
At the meeting, I sought clarification on the way which franchise bids are assessed. Certainly, the travelling public will expect the Strategic Rail Authority to set tough minimum standards when evaluating bids. I was assured that the matter is in hand, and I welcome that. Passengers will also want the franchise renegotiation process to address issues such as security, staffing levels, reliability and frequency of trains. The Strategic Rail Authority will be judged on its ability to deliver improvements in those areas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, Connex South Central has an uphill struggle to meet passenger expectations. The new public performance measure of train operating companies shows that it has a rating of 82.6 per cent. According to the Capital Transport Campaign, that is 4 per cent. less than the previous figure, which makes it the third worst performing train operating company in London. Only Connex South Eastern and South West Trains—which runs a limited service in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend—have worse ratings.
The recent national passenger survey, which was commissioned by the Strategic Rail Authority, showed that London's passengers are far less satisfied with the service provided than passengers in most other parts of Britain.
In London, Connex South Central again fared badly with 33 per cent. of passengers being dissatisfied with the upkeep and repair of trains—the third worst figure in London—and 30 per cent. dissatisfied with the number of seats and the standing room available; that is the second worst figure in London. Passengers need a guarantee that the franchise bidding process will ensure that the situation improves according to a clearly defined, public timetable. That key point was made at our meeting yesterday. Matters could get worse in the short term because the necessary infrastructure projects may have a severe knock-on effect on services. However, if passengers can see clearly that targets have been set and that there is light at the end of the tunnel, I hope that most of them will accept that.
Before the shadow Strategic Rail Authority can award rail franchises, it must put its own house in order. The Capital Transport Campaign recently challenged

227WH
the methodology by which the shadow Strategic Rail Authority assesses overcrowding on London's trains. The criteria used are lenient. On peak services, if the journey is 20 minutes or less, standing is considered acceptable. In broad terms, it is acceptable by shadow Strategic Rail Authority standards to have one passenger standing for every three seats before the train is classed as overcrowded. Will the Minister tell me whether consideration is being given to finding a definition of overcrowding that is more likely to be recognised as valid by those of us who must endure daily overcrowding?
Mr. Burstow: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the hitherto lenient regime. Does he agree that it is best characterised as an operator-centred standard rather than a passenger-centred standard and that, in future, it should be based on the perceptions of passengers rather than the needs of the operator?
Mr. Brake: I agree entirely. The extent to which train operating companies in the Sutton area and elsewhere are willing to involve passengers in consultative forums and to take on board exactly those concerns will be crucial.
The Capital Transport Campaign stated:
The sSRA is letting train operating companies off the hook by requiring action only when overcrowding taken over all the route groups operated by a particular Train Operating Company exceeds the overcrowding thresholds. This means that TOCs are allowed to operate route groups with excessive overcrowding condoned by the sSRA
because there is an averaging process. The SSRA's latest annual report lists four train operating companies which run overcrowded routes, but the Capital Transport Campaign believe that, if averaging were not allowed, six companies would be running overcrowded services. 1 hope that the Minister will say whether he agrees with the view expressed by the Capital Transport Campaign and what efforts he is making to ensure that a better definition of overcrowding is used. As my hon. Friend identified, trains that "speak their weight" are in the pipeline and will be able to weigh their cargo of passengers. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who is no longer in his place, referred to people travelling in sauna-like conditions and with "speak their weight" trains, the weight in the carriage may reduce significantly during a long journey.
A limited amount of good news came out of our meeting yesterday. "Speak their weight" trains was one aspect, another being the requirement to fit sanders to new rolling stock and to retrofit on to old rolling stock. Given that many parts of London are affected by bad weather or are subject to inclines that trains cannot manage when the weather is wet, such proposals will be welcome.
Yesterday's meeting prompted several interesting questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has referred to what will happen if an existing train operator refuses to relinquish the franchise. What will happen if the existing operator seeks such a high price for being bought out by the successful bidder that the successful bidder walks away from the deal because he is not willing to pay the price?
228WH
Given the gross overcrowding on rail services in London, any additional capital or revenue resources available as a result of last week's announcement will be welcome. However, we need significant increases in capacity in the network because of the increased demand that is anticipated. I hope that Crossrail will be built quickly and that Thameslink 2000 can deliver extra capacity. Those schemes must proceed with a degree of care, in that communities might be threatened. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that Southwark is at risk following such proposals and that a public inquiry is taking place at the moment.
Can the Minister guarantee that Crossrail and Thameslink will be delivered and will he outline a timetable for when that will be achieved? The section on transport in London in the 10-year plan suggests that various things might happen given the level of investment that is available and I am sure that hon. Members would want something a little more concrete in respect of what will definitely be delivered. I know that that requires negotiations with the Mayor and the Assembly, but the Minister must know what will be delivered and by what time. The same applies to the upgrade of services into London Victoria, a capacity increase in the Chiltern line and an enhancement of commuter routes from Waterloo.
There are few bigger issues in my mailbag than rail services in London. I am sure that that is the case for all Members of Parliament who represent London consistencies, so I am a little surprised at the attendance at the debate this morning. The 10-year transport plan must generate the extra capacity or it will have failed. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority must ensure that the next generation of franchises delivers consistent improvements in the service or it will have failed, too. It is the Minister's responsibility to reassure us that both the 10-year transport plan and the Strategic Rail Authority will deliver much improved rail services in London.
11.53 am
Mr. Robert Syms: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate. Both he and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) made some interesting points, once they had got over their ideological obsession with the railways and their attacks on my party. However, as a resurgent political party, we are bound to be the focus of attacks.
Rail services are important to the people of London. For the sake of the economy and for people to get around, rail is far more important to the capital than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is therefore necessary to get it right. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, the Library has produced figures to show that 460, 000 people commute to London in the morning peak; that is a lot of people to cope with under the system.
Of the 10 companies providing commuter services to London and operating beyond capacity during peak hours, Thameslink, Connex South Central, South West Trains and Chiltern Railways all exceed the shadow Strategic Rail Authority threshold of 3 per cent. above capacity. There were a total of 610 million journeys on railways in the south-east of England in

229WH
1998–99—1.7 million per day. That number has increased substantially, because of privatisation. The railways were built by the private sector and, for most of their history, were run by the private sector. That is the best way to operate railways.
Until the late 1970s, any investment in British Rail beyond £250,000—which represented, for example, the major refurbishment of a station—had to go to the Secretary of State for Transport. That is no way to run a railway, especially when the resources were, in many instances, competing with hospitals, schools and many other areas that I suspect have a higher priority with the British public. What the previous Government did was a step in the right direction; if there is any argument about it, it is about whether they should have done it earlier. Doing it very late in 18 years of office yielded precious little political dividend for my party. Although it will benefit the country, privatisation did not benefit my party in 1997.
Mr. Burstow: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's thinking about the benefits of the fragmentation of the railway industry. At what point does he believe benefits will arise? Have they started to arise, or will it be some years before they do?
Mr. Syms: I believe that benefits have started to arise, but I think that it will be a slow job. Inevitably, there were some mistakes in the way in which the industry was privatised. One could argue that franchises should have been given for longer. Shorter franchises, certainly in the new round of franchises, give an opportunity to improve the deal that the public are getting and may be a blessing in disguise.
Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that the franchises should have been longer. Could he confirm also that the standards set for the train operating companies to deliver should have been tougher?
Mr. Syms: As with all such matters, it is a question of experience. In any move from the state sector to the private sector, one has to include many methods of measurement of performance targets. The benefits have been coming through; more capital has gone into the industry and more people are travelling by train. As a consequence, much of the increase in complaints has come about because people believe that it is now worth complaining—unlike under British Rail.
Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman says that more people are complaining. Is he aware that, in the past few days, Connex has withdrawn the facility for people to e-mail complaints, thereby restricting the way in which people can raise concerns about its service?
Mr. Syms: I was not aware of that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. I would normally telephone if I had a complaint, rather than e-mail; perhaps that is less common in this modern age.
There are 460, 000 people who come into central London every day; of those, nearly 200, 000 go onto the tube network. As we all know, the tube network suffers greatly from excess capacity and acute overcrowding in many sections, including the Central line between Mile
230WH
End and Holborn, the Waterloo and City line, the Northern line between London Bridge and Bank, the District line between Fulham Broadway and Earls Court and the Victoria line between Victoria and Green Park. A challenge for the future is to increase investment and capacity within the network.
It is interesting to study what will happen. Railtrack projects that rail travel will increase in the south-east by 36 per cent. The Government's 10-year plan projected an increase in London rail traffic by 15 per cent. over 10 years and, on the underground, by 10 to 20 per cent. There will be significant problems ahead, unless investment in capacity increases. The Government's proposals for congestion charging and workplace car-parking charging will also make matters worse.
I have some questions for the Minister on several points relating, to some extent, to the 10-year plan. The first focuses on his relationship with the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), which has been the subject of some comment in the press. The hon. Member for Brent, East wrote an article for the review section of The Independent on 18 July, which was about his negotiations with the Government about capital. He stated:
On this score I am optimistic. Over a series of meetings, Minister for London Keith Hill and I reached broad agreement on the need for a long overdue increase in investment in London's transport system as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.
We all heard that everything was sweet and wonderful and that there would be a joint press conference and a nice little piccy, but suddenly it all fell apart. As I understand the situation, £3.2 billion has been allocated to London over three years. In the first year, 2001–02, there will be £218 million, of which £104 million has been allocated to paying for the Jubilee line. The Minister is amiable—most of us get on well with him—so what went wrong in his relationship with the hon. Member for Brent, East? It is significant if a substantial political figure such as the Mayor of London is upset with what the Government are doing in terms of overall transport investment. That has a knock—on effect on rail, as the underground will come under the mayoral authority at some point.
Will the Minister update us on the public-private partnership? When is it likely to be announced? Many people come into London, so the tube is vital. The matter has gone on for some time, so we would like to hear the implications that the PPP will have for investment. We are reasonable, and if the Minister cannot give us details this morning, I hope that he will write to us. I am sure that all hon. Members would be interested.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made a point about Crossrail. Many points in the 10-year plan use "might" and "possible"—it is somewhat airy-fairy. The cost of Crossrail might be £3.5 billion. On page 71, the document claims that there would be the substantial benefit of a 15 per cent. increase in available seats on rail and underground throughout London. When the Government came into power, they dismantled the team at the then Department of Transport that was considering the matter. They have now earmarked some money for work on it, and we want to know whether they are putting their weight behind it. Is there likely to be a start date? What will happen? These points apply also to Thameslink.

231WH
The document suggests that the investment could cover
the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) City Airport extension and at least two other tram/guided bus schemes.
Will the Minister give us some idea of when those schemes will start? The plan mentions the
elimination of the backlog of maintenance and renewal work on the Underground through a Public—Private Partnership,
which is designed to improve
the quality of the service.
We need more details of what the Government intend to do. The document also mentions the
completion of Thameslink 2000, with additional capacity at London Bridge.
Mr. Brake: Would the hon. Gentleman like to ask the Minister whether he will use the opportunity to guarantee that London's passengers will not have to pick up the difference if the PPP costs are not entirely covered?
Mr. Syms: I am sure that the Minister heard that comment and will be delighted to answer it.
Having had the 10-year plan with its spin and big announcements of billions of pounds, we need details in relation to rail in London and the underground about how the Government intends to undertake their objectives. As page 72 of the 10-year plan states, the Government wants
a reduction in overcrowding on London commuter rail services to meet the sSRA's current standards.
Will the Minister tell us when they expect to achieve that? The key factor, Mr. Winterton, is that rail is important for London.—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. McWilliam; you must have very quiet feet.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not implying that I creep about the place.
Mr. Syms: Certainly not, Mr. McWilliam.
The debate has been useful and it is a pity that more hon. Members have not taken the opportunity to attend because many of them must have mailbags full of complaints on the matter. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) raised an important point about crime and fear. If we want more people to use the public transport network—especially women, children and families—a lot more must be done to give them a feeling of well—being so that they feel comfortable travelling late at night. CCTV is one method by which that can be achieved. However, staffing levels in stations are an important factor. They would be expensive to improve, but we will have to take a view about whether we should invest in more security. In the long term, that investment would pay off.
I am sure that the Minister will be delighted to answer the few questions that I have asked. We need more details from the Government before we can judge whether they will achieve some of their targets.
12.6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): We have had four interesting speeches in this morning's debate, raising several questions to which I will attempt to respond. However, I must first congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate and providing the House with another opportunity to discuss rail services in London.
The scale and complexity of London's transport system, coupled with the high levels of demand, mean that transport problems in London are of a different magnitude from those in other metropolitan areas and constitute a huge challenge to the people who attempt to solve them. London is provided with commuter services by 10 out of the 25 train operating companies: Chiltern. Connex South Eastern, Connex South Central, South West Trains, Thames Trains, Thameslink, Silverlink Trains, West Anglia Great Northern, c2c—formerly known as the London, Tilbury and Southend railway—and First Great Eastern.
Better to assess the performance of those companies and other train operating companies, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has introduced an improved public performance measure, known as PPM. That measure, for the first time, combines figures for punctuality and reliability into a single performance measure, which covers all scheduled services, seven days a week, with no exclusions. That will give a clearer picture of how train operators are performing, and remove the loopholes in the previous system, such as the use of void days. I hope that that provides my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) with the assurances that he was seeking about the proper monitoring of train operators' performance in service delivery.
In his usual assiduous fashion, my hon. Friend raised two other issues on behalf of his constituents. He mentioned the problem of trains missing stops to make up time. Let me assure him that the situation is being monitored and train-operating services are penalised under the timetable incentives regime. The provision exists, and I recommend that he pursues the question of the performance of his local service and asks whether such penalties have been levied.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of security on stations and trains. As one of its commitments at the February 1999 national rail summit, the Association of Train Operating Companies guaranteed to provide closed-circuit television in a significant number of stations and station car parks. That it has done over the past 18 months. It is planning to introduce more this year and it has also recruited additional security staff at stations and provided a more visible staff presence on board trains. Again, I am pleased to be able to assure my hon. Friend about the response from the train operating companies to the issues that he is raising.
The performance figures based on the new public performance measure for the period April-June 2000 were published on 13 July. The House will be aware that the statistics showed that the overall performance of the majority of train operators fell compared with the equivalent period in the previous year. Of the operators providing commuter services to, from and within

233WH
London, only the peak services of Chiltern and South West Trains have improved. The Government have made it clear to operators that their performance must improve and, at the rail summit 2000 in May, the industry committed itself to improve performance over the coming year as monitored by the new performance measure, and we expect it to deliver that commitment.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred to overcrowding. As well as punctuality and the reliability of London services, it is clear that overcrowding is regarded by passengers as a key area of concern. The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about it and I can say that the latest figures produced by the SSRA show that passengers experience excessive overcrowding on routes operated by four out of the 10 train companies that serve the capital. Thameslink, Connex South Central, South West Trains and Chiltern all exceeded their peak loading thresholds.
However, Thameslink has more than halved its overcrowding levels compared with 1998 by leasing additional rolling stock from other operators to meet peak-hour demand. As for other operators, South West Trains is currently introducing new rolling stock; Chiltern has ordered 19 additional coaches, 10 of which are due to be in service later this summer and Connex South Central has ordered 120 coaches. Further improvements are clearly necessary, however, and the provision of adequate capacity to meet customer demand is a fundamental requirement in the franchise replacement process that is currently under way.
Mr. Brake: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish what I was about to say? It might satisfy his voracious appetite for information.
Earlier this year, the franchising director stated in his outline guide to franchise replacement that the current upper and lower capacity limit will be replaced by a single demand limit, which will reflect the capabilities of the trains and infrastructure. There will also be regular surveys to show satisfaction ratings for each company with penalties for those companies that fall behind benchmark levels. I hope that I have gone some way towards anticipating the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but if he still wants to intervene, let me say that, notwithstanding his earlier remarks, my door is always open.
Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister. I am pleased to hear that his door is always open and I shall perhaps make use of it in the future. However, he has not said whether he agrees with the Capital Transport Campaign that a further two operators, to all intents and purposes, have exceeded their overcrowding limits.
Mr. Hill: We are studying the campaign's observations, as we look at any reasonable observation about railway performance. However, I must issue a caution to the hon. Gentleman. I have noticed in these and other matters that he has a slight tendency to act as a conveyer belt for pressure group representations. In all
234WH
candour, I must say that that if he or his party ever have a sniff of power, it will want to look more carefully at what demands are reasonable and deliverable.
Mr. Burstow: One other matter that I raised in my opening remarks related to the introduction of the load weighting equipment on trains as part of the refranchising process. I asked whether that would be introduced ahead of franchising or whether it had to be dealt with as part of the refranchising process.
Mr. Hill: The reason why I have not responded to the hon. Gentleman's point is that I do not know the answer, but I shall pursue the matter and write to him and to other hon. Members.
As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will be aware, following the issuing of instructions and guidance to the franchising director by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister last year, the franchising director is currently seeking to deliver a range of additional improvements by negotiating the replacement of the shorter franchises. A continual increase in performance and in customer satisfaction will be key requirements of any replacement.
The franchises that I mentioned earlier for Connex South Central, Chiltern, GNER and South West Trains have been included by the franchising director in the first two batches to be renegotiated. For Connex South Central, the franchising director is currently assessing the detailed bids submitted by Connex Rail and GoVia. For Chiltern, he is similarly assessing bids from M40 Trains and Go-Ahead. There is no fixed time scale within which decisions on those franchises will be reached.
I thought that I detected a distinct lack of enthusiasm for Connex's claim to the new franchise on the part of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. From the serene smile that I see playing about his lips, I gather that that is the case. That is in contrast to the passionate support for Connex's claim from his colleague the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who I thought was the official Liberal Democrat spokesman on rail. It would be helpful to have some clarification of the official policy of the Liberal Democrats on the matter, or are we to deduce that this is another example of the usual Lib-Dem fence sitting?
Mr. Brake: By way of information, the official Liberal Democrat spokesman on transport is an hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency. I am the official London transport spokesman. Has the Minister not illustrated that the Liberal Democrats are not slaves to the bleeper, as are Labour members?
Mr. Hill: A good attempt, but it did not quite work. I am amused to discover that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is another Liberal Democrat official spokesman. The hon. Gentleman's party prides itself on its independence of spirit, but it has more Front Benchers and Whips than any other party. However, I must not be seduced into parliamentary jousting.
To get back on-message and to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about any possible changeover, as I have already explained to

235WH
him in a written answer, the revised template for franchise agreements produced by the franchising director offers improved provisions for the smooth transfer at the end of the franchise. It goes without saying that the Government and the Strategic Rail Authority will take all possible steps to protect the rail customer in the event of any such changeover.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there would be any penalty regime for Connex before 2003. The Transport Bill will provide enhanced enforcement powers to ensure timely and effective action if franchise commitments are not met. I hope that that further reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Hill: I will give way, but I have much more to say and little time in which to say it, so let us make the exchange brief.
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the Minister. As a champion of my constituents and commuters, rather than as an advocate for GoVia or Connex in the franchise round, does the Minister agree that the important thing is to secure a smooth and speedy transition between the old and new franchises and to go into the new regime of penalties and incentives to get a better performance out of the new company?
Mr. Hill: I certainly agree that any changeover should be as smooth as possible. Clearly, I am not in a position to comment on the issue of speed, but all of us are looking for significant improvements from the franchise replacement renegotiation process in the delivery of rail services, not only in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman but in my constituency of Streatham, both of which are served by Connex South Central.
Four bids for the South West Trains franchise have been received. The franchising director will consider them and provide a shortlist giving detailed proposals, which he hopes to announce shortly. Two counter-parties remain in the on-going bidding process for the Great North Eastern Railway east coast franchise.
The Thameslink franchise will be subject to renegotiation in due course. The negotiations will take into account the proposed plans for a Thameslink 2000 project, currently the subject of a Transport and Works Act 1992 inquiry, and the proposed award of a replacement for the existing Connex South Central franchise. On 26 June, the franchising director announced that he had invited potential operators to submit proposals for a new Thameslink 2000 franchise.
In all cases and in consultation with other bodies such as the British Railways Board, local authorities and regional planning bodies, the franchising director will evaluate the proposals made by the counter-parties and will take into account the various costs and benefits before reaching his decision. I can assure the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that the franchising director will decide entirely objectively.
In the time remaining to me, I would like to bring the Chamber and, via the debate, the residents of Sutton and Cheam, up to date on positive developments with
236WH
regard to stations in that area. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam raised the issue in debate only two months ago. There is good news; I am sure that we would all wish to rejoice together where there is good news. I am happy to inform the Chamber that, after lengthy delays, the extensive redevelopment of Sutton station has started and is expected to be complete by the end of the year, when it will be fully accessible for disabled passengers.
The £2.9 million regeneration programme is a joint partnership between Connex and the London Borough of Sutton. It will include new waiting areas in key locations, spacious new toilet facilities with wheelchair access, glass-fronted lifts for improved personal safety, closed circuit television, and improved lighting and customer information screens. I understand that Connex customers are being kept informed of progress by way of posters and fliers.
Work has now recommenced at Cheam station as part of Railtrack's regeneration programme, which will include reglazing the station canopies and repainting and refurbishing the station subways. Additional closed circuit television has been installed in the past two months. Connex will be carrying out further works, including reopening the waiting rooms and toilets, opening a small refreshment and newspaper outlet, supplying additional staff in the afternoons and evenings and opening a staffed information point on the London-bound platform. The work is due to be completed by November this year. I have asked the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to monitor progress at both stations. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
I could respond in some detail to the speech made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), the official Opposition spokesman and my old jousting partner. I know that he is a reasonable man, but he will surely agree that the privatisation of the railways, masterminded by the Conservative party, led to a fragmented mish-mash of 100 or so companies working in a strategic vacuum with a predominant culture of blame. The customer was clearly not being put first.
To reverse that change in the short term, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister called the first national rail summit in February 1999, when he put the industry on notice that its various parts would either sink or swim together. It is generally accepted that that message got through. For the longer term, the Strategic Rail Authority, under Sir Alastair Morton, was created in shadow form to give the railways the strategic direction that they lacked, to invest in the railway network and to bring together plans for freight traffic. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the Transport Bill, which has just had its Second Reading in the other place, will create the proper Strategic Rail Authority.
We have achieved much in the railway industry during the three years since the general election. I believe that the policy framework is right and that, with the 10-year plan, we have secured the investment necessary for the future growth of the railways, reversing decades of decline. Among our achievements, I would single out a 17 per cent. increase in rail passenger journeys, with 1, 300 more trains running daily to meet demand; more than double the investment in the railway industry; the rescuing of the channel

237WH
tunnel rail link; the improvement of nearly 2,000 stations and the building of 17 new stations; the creation of 50 new freight terminals; a 22 per cent. increase in the movement of freight by rail; and the replacement of the old slam-door stock at latest by 2003, with the requirement that all new rolling stock should be accessible to disabled people. We need no lessons from the Opposition on how to run a railway. We are greeting the new millennium with a real rail renaissance.
I shall speak briefly about London and the 10-year plan—[Interruption.] I do not have time to give way, and I have been reasonably generous in allowing interventions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will be aware of the extra Government investment heralded by the launch of our 10-year plan. The plan is designed to reduce congestion, improve integration and provide a wider choice of quicker, safer and more reliable travel on our railways, roads and other public transport. It is a significant milestone on the way to realising our transport policy, and it is relevant to today's debate.
During the next 10 years, we expect to see capital investment in the railways of about £49 billion, of which £34 billion is expected to be private investment. That will have a significant impact on rail services in London. As well as helping to deliver rail franchise replacements, which will lead to the upgrading of services out of Victoria station, increases in capacity for the Chiltern line and the enhancement of commuter routes out of Waterloo station, that extra money could deliver also the completion of the Thameslink 2000 project, extra capacity at London Bridge and the construction of the east London line extensions.
That investment could also help to deliver a new east-west rail link, such as Crossrail, delivering an increase of up to 15 per cent. in the total number of rail and underground seats into central London during the morning peak hours, as well as new east Thames road and rail crossings. In addition, the plan provides for preparatory work on longer-term projects, such as a possible Wimbledon-Hackney rail link, and improving the surface access to London's airports.
Allied to infrastructure enhancements, about £7 billion of the £49 billion is expected to be invested in new and replacement rolling stock. That forecast takes into account expected growth in the railways over the next 10 years and known orders placed by train companies. It also assumes that replacement of existing rolling stock will continue during the second half of the 10-year plan period.
Everyone acknowledges that not all the challenges that the rail industry faces can be solved overnight. There are large loans to sustain and long-term investment is required to upgrade infrastructure and rolling stock, to cater for the continued growth that is forecast and to ensure that sufficient additional capacity is not only planned but provided in the longer term. That is true for rail services across the board. I am delighted about the continued success of franchise renegotiation—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Council Pension Benefits
12.30 pm
Ms Julia Drown: This may seem to many to be a boring subject, but the impact of the Government's policy on council pension deficits has potentially serious consequences for my constituents, who rely on borough council services. In Swindon there is a £14 million deficit in the pension fund, and that has a twofold impact on the council's revenue funds. The council is obliged to restore the £14 million deficit over a number of years and must also make up for the reduced investment income resulting from it. Both those shortfalls must be covered by revenue funds. That will cost Swindon residents £4.3 million next year. That sum will not be available to provide much-needed services.
The council has done everything to balance budgets and to ensure that reliance on one-off moneys is limited and reserves are reasonable. It has embraced the Government's best value regime and rightly wants to provide the best service possible for the residents of Swindon. However, it is in an increasingly difficult position. It is pushed by central Government into passporting the annual financial settlement into specific services, such as education, without regard to the pressures on it. Those pressures are, principally, the deficit in the pension fund and increasing demands for service from an expanding population, but there are also increasing needs, for example in the fire service. Those are not allowed for fully in the council's standard spending assessment.
Dealing with the pressures that I have outlined is particularly frustrating for a borough council such as Swindon, whose own resources contain the potential to improve things. Government approval is needed for that to happen. To emphasise the importance of what I am explaining, I shall briefly outline the state of affairs in Swindon. The annual financial settlement from central Government continues to underestimate—although by less than the Tories did, so there have been some improvements under a Labour Government—the levels of demand for community care packages for the elderly. There are also pressures from the people of Swindon for developments such as new libraries and concert facilities, which would entail associated revenue costs. Although the Labour Government have given more funds to Swindon than any Tory Government did, that has not saved any of the council's departments from the necessity of making difficult decisions.
Of particular concern to my constituents have been decisions to close, for economic reasons, schools that were much valued by their local communities and provided unique facilities and support for students; the closure of elderly people's day centres; the threatened closure of centres for people with disabilities; and possible changes affecting transport tokens for elderly people. From my surgeries I can identify ways in which more council spending would greatly expand services and opportunities for my constituents. I should like, for example, more education opportunities, an expanded home help service and more services for those with disabilities. For the environment, I should like greater opportunities to tackle graffiti, more recycling and a larger budget for road safety maintenance. The Government has undoubtedly done more than previous Governments in all those respects, but some

239WH
needs are still unmet. Unless the problem of the pension fund deficit can be solved, the borough council will continue to be frustrated in its aim of achieving the best that it can with its resources.
The council is keen to meet the demand for service improvements and has the resources to tackle at least some of the needs that I have identified, but is restrained from doing so by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions rules. Those rules do not apply to the Government. "Prudent for a purpose" is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's expression, and that is right. The Government use money to reduce deficits, to release further money for public services. I ask the Department to allow Swindon borough council to he prudent for a purpose, too.
I know that Ministers are used to Members of Parliament placing special emphasis on the needs in their areas and on the need for more Government support for local government finance. I am asking for the council to be allowed to solve the problem using its own resources. It has rightly reviewed its assets and sold those that are surplus to requirements, and those capital receipts could be used to pay off the deficit on the pension fund and release much-needed revenue funds for the services that my constituents desire and deserve.
That would exactly follow the policy adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in dealing with the deficit left by years of economic mismanagement by the Tories. I know that Ministers are wary about creating a precedent that will threaten their public spending figures, but Ipswich city council has been allowed to tackle its pension deficit in this way, and Swindon's case is equally strong.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions does not normally allow capital resources to be used to pay off deficits on its pension funds, but in 1997, the Department published on its website guidance notes for requests for capitalisation to allow part of pension deficits to be written off, which stated:
Directions are not normally issued unless the expenditure
(a) is substantial in relation to the authority's revenue for the financial year concerned and was unforeseeable when the budget was adopted; or
(b) cannot be met out of financial reserves but will result in revenue account savings in future years.
Swindon borough council's pension deficit fits those criteria exactly, so I hope to persuade the Minister to allow the council to capitalise the deficit, following similar economic policies adopted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Swindon borough council wants to use prudence for a purpose, that purpose being to deliver better services to the people of Swindon.
The request for capitalisation undoubtedly meets the criterion of being substantial in relation to the authority's revenue budget. The council's expenditure towards the pension fund deficit is £3.5 million this year, compared with a net revenue budget of £143.5 million. There is an expectation of a further £800, 000 increase in contributions as part of next year's budget, making a total of £4.3 million.
If the council had had £3.5 million in 2000–01, those funds could have provided an additional £120 for every primary and secondary school pupil in the town. That
240WH
would have enabled Swindon to use its own resources to spend at the level of the average unitary authority—although we would still have had one of the 40 worst funded education authorities. Alternatively, the money could have provided 9, 000 hours of much—needed home help services and allowed 300 patients to be discharged from the local Princess Margaret hospital and given more appropriate care, at the same time allowing more people to be treated at the hospital. Those are high priorities for the town.
Anyone who has been associated with local government will know that 3 per cent. of the borough's revenue budgets represents a substantial sum. Using those revenue funds for the pension deficit is having a serious impact on other services.
The next question concerns whether the scale of the problem that we have in Swindon was foreseeable. Clearly, it was not. The problem did not arise because of any lack of planning or poor management by the council, but was entirely due to factors beyond the council's control. The deficit was far greater than anticipated when Swindon borough council became a unitary authority. The actual deficit was calculated by outside actuaries over whom the council, quite properly, had no control. In its shadow unitary form, the council based all its assumptions on the 1995 valuation, which was the most recent valuation at the time. That carried the expectation that contribution rates would peak at 1998–99 levels before declining.
However, the figures arising from the subsequent 1998 revaluation, after the council had become a unitary authority, were alarmingly worse, and were not formally notified to the council until January 1999. By that time, the budget planning process for 1999–2000 was largely settled. The borough council had no choice but to make reductions in its plans for service budgets. Those included lower expenditure on schools than the council would have wished. Although more was spent on social services, due to an expanding population and increasing needs, there had to be a tightening of the eligibility criteria for community care packages, a reduction in home care support and the closure of residential beds. It is thus clear that the deficit was not foreseen.
One might ask why the deficit was so large. There were several reasons for the worsening contribution rate. When the borough council came into being as a unitary authority, the split of total liabilities on the fund for the former county services, such as social services and libraries, meant that Swindon's share of Wiltshire's deficit rose from £18 million in 1995 to £40 million in 1998. That would have been impossible for the council to predict before the 1998 actuarial revaluation and those massive numbers show the problem that this is creating for Swindon.
Had Swindon remained a district council, the pension fund would have needed to cover fewer staff, and the deficit would have been smaller and—although still a great problem—easier for the council to manage within its own resources. The council also had to deal with the unforeseen abolition of advance corporation tax credits in the 1997 budget. Although I understand the importance of that for the wider economy, I know that the Government recognise that the abolition has an impact on pension funds. However, it is of particular relevance here that the abolition causes additional pressure for those councils struggling from a deficit

241WH
position. The final reason why the deficit was unforeseeable was that the level of early retirements triggered by the local government reorganisation in 1997 was higher than expected.
There were, therefore, many reasons why the level of contributions was not foreseeable: previous actuarial valuations were over-optimistic; new revaluations were not notified until late in the budget cycle; the unforeseen split of liabilities on former county services was way in excess of the council's best estimates at the preparatory stage; advance corporation tax credits were abolished; and the levels of early retirement were higher than expected.
Although the Government might argue that better estimates might have solved one or two of the problems that cannot be said for them all. Many compelling, compounding factors have produced a convincing case that the contributions were not foreseeable by the borough council. I have made it clear that the deficit cannot be met from revenue budgets or reserves alone, without further revenue account savings in future years. The demands are increasing.
It seems entirely reasonable that the council should be allowed to sort out this problem using its own resources. It seems unreasonable that my constituents will be prevented from having access to home helps, better education and adaptations to their homes—for those with disabilities—because the Government refuse to help Swindon in this way. This situation was unforeseen, and it is about local people tackling local problems using their own resources. I ask the Government to reconsider the issue and to help my constituents in this way.
I believe that there is a clear case for the whole £40 million problem to be solved with a capitalisation direction. However, if that is impossible, let no one say that the borough council and I are not prepared to discuss the situation to see whether we can reach a compromise. If the Government really believe that using £40 million of Swindon borough's own funds in this way will challenge public expenditure targets or create too great a precedent, I am willing to take to the council a proposal to phase the capitalisation direction over two or three years. Indeed, the indications are that the council and the director of finance would positively welcome that sort of approach.
Assistance should be provided to help Swindon to help itself. Short of handing over a few million pounds to Swindon borough council every year, this is the biggest contribution that the Government could make to improving local services in Swindon, and I hope that the Minister will tell us today that she is willing to help my constituents in this way.
12.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) for raising the subject of local government pension funds. I agree with her that it is an important subject, and well worth discussing. This debate will give me the opportunity to explain some of the important issues involved—some of which she may not have mentioned in her speech—and to set the record straight on some of her other contentions. It may be helpful if I begin by explaining how the local
242WH
government pension scheme works, and the Government's role. I shall then deal with the specific problem of Swindon and its possible solution.
The local government pension scheme in England and Wales is a single pension scheme providing the same benefit structure for all local government employees, no matter where they work. It is open to anyone employed in local government, and recent changes allow access to the scheme for contractors who win bids to provide outsourced services. That has been a great benefit, and is an important factor in maintaining the stability of a pension scheme. It can help to prevent premature maturing of the scheme, whereby a small number of employees supports a growing number of pensioners. In turn, that can lead to higher employer costs, which is perhaps a significant issue.
The scheme is divided into 89 separate funds that are administered by county councils, London boroughs or, in those parts of the country that were reorganised in the 1980s and 1990s, a lead district council. The funds vary in size from £180 million to £6.5 billion. In total, they are worth about £75 billion and account for about 10 per cent. of all funds held by occupational schemes in the UK, so it is clear that this is a big issue for local government and potential pensioners.
Importantly, administration and management are handled locally, and due regard is given to the requirements in the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1997 and the 1998 regulations on investment and management of funds. The Secretary of State's role respects the right and capacity of local government to manage its finances prudently and securely. The regulations do not prescribe but create a framework whereby, for investment purposes, risk must be spread and properly managed, without reducing the ability to maximise investment returns.
In setting employer contribution rates for councils such as Swindon, there is some flexibility, subject to due regard for long-term reasonableness and the cost implications of decisions. Rates should be set so that wild fluctuations are avoided and what is affordable is contributed. By and large, and despite criticisms from elsewhere, local government has demonstrated proper regard for the cost implications of meeting pension liabilities.
Because it is recognised that the nature of local government is entirely different from private sector companies that run their own occupational pension schemes, the local government pension scheme was, and remains, exempted from the minimum funding requirements in the Pensions Act 1995. The statutory framework, with separate provisions to control management and investment of funds, and a requirement for three-yearly actuarial valuations at which contributions are set, has also been recognised as an important way in which to create the necessary stability. When taken together, and properly managed within the disciplined framework of local government finance regulation, the provisions ensure the on-going solvency of funds. In turn, that covers those areas that gave rise to concerns about impropriety, with which the 1995 Act deals.
In the long term, there has been a high degree of stability in employers' contribution rates, in line with the statutory requirement that, in respect of the

243WH
desirability of maintaining as constant a rate as possible, employers contribute at a rate that secures solvency. In the long term, local government pension funds have performed as well as or better than the pension industry average. That is a success that local government should rightly be proud of, and for which it should be given due credit. By and large, it has performed very well as a pension fund manager.
The level of contributions is a key issue in explaining the situation in Swindon. The 1997 regulations that govern the scheme contain no requirement that funds should have assets covering 100 per cent. of liabilities. That recognises that liability is a constantly moving target that is affected by, among other things, current and future inflation rates, pay inflation, the age profile of the work force, retirement and so on. Similarly, the value of assets can vary. In the short term, variations can be extreme, but prudent management of pension funds with a view to long-term sustainability smoothes out those peaks and troughs.
However, we recognise that some authorities, as a result of their funding position, are none the less paying high employer contributions. In some instances, as in Swindon and elsewhere, they are paying a rate that is perhaps three times more than what we would regard as the normal, averaged-out rate. I appreciate the concerns of that small number of authorities that face the prospect of having to pay almost a fifth of their pay allocation into the pension fund.
I would like to respond to some of the points made by my hon. Friend about the local government revenue support grant. I do not accept the reasoning that she gave, in explaining the position in Swindon. I can assure her that the Government are fully committed to providing local authorities with the money that they need to fund the vital services that they provide. In the past three years, the Government have increased the grant to local authorities by almost £6.5 billion, an increase of 8.8 per cent. in real terms. In the recent spending review, we announced that, in total, local authorities would benefit from further increases up to 2003–04, the last year covered by the review. Swindon has benefited from those increases, and will continue to do so.
Ms Drown: I do not want to give the impression that we have not benefited hugely from the fact that there is now a Labour Government—much more funding has been given to Swindon than was ever given by the Tories—but there are still unmet needs in the town, and I want my hon. Friend to recognise that. As she says, there is a need, in the context of the comprehensive spending review, for more resources for Swindon. However, we could do more from our own resources, and that is what is so frustrating for the council and the town.
Ms Hughes: I shall get to the second point in a moment. On the first point, I would say that there are pressures on every local authority and on central Government. People in government, at whatever level, have to acknowledge that the job involves making choices between competing priorities, managing resources as efficiently as possible and finding new and
244WH
better ways to meet the needs of citizens. Other authorities are doing that, and I hope that Swindon will also be able to do that, as it should, in the context of significant increases in its budget.
My hon. Friend spoke about the need for improved services and the council's responsibility to the people of Swindon. The Government have done as much as was possible in three years to improve resources for Swindon and other authorities. It is up to Swindon to apply those resources in the best possible way, to meet the needs of its citizens.
Ms Drown: The borough council is asking to be allowed to do just that and to use its resources as efficiently as possible to deliver the best for the town. That is why it is seeking a capitalisation direction.
Ms Hughes: It is no surprise that Swindon and other authorities in a similar position want to use their capital receipts to reduce their pension fund contributions. To authorities that have made substantial property sales and are in the fortunate position of having sufficient receipts in the bank, that may appear to be the obvious solution. However, authorities may not normally pay capital receipts into pension funds, for good reasons. Receipts from the disposal of capital assets are an important capital resource. They may be used to buy other capital assets, which is the most prudent and beneficial use of such receipts. Receipts may not normally be used to meet any part of an authority's revenue expenditure, including pension fund contributions. There are good macro-economic reasons for that, and other authorities that have managed their budgets well and have paid their contributions from revenue, as they should, may take a dim view if councils such as Swindon are allowed to use the capital resources that they are fortunate enough to have to offset revenue expenditure that they should have met from their revenue budget. Other authorities have done that with careful management. There is an issue concerning not only the wider aspects of public finance and the limitations on public expenditure, which is a legitimate concern of central Government, but equity with other authorities.
Turning to the criteria for allowing capitalisation, we have discretion to permit exceptions to the general rule. We do that by issuing a capitalisation direction to the individual authorities to allow them to use capital for revenue purposes when certain conditions have been met. One is serious financial pressure and, from Swindon's point of view, the size of its deficit is a serious matter. Another criterion is whether the deficit could be said to have been unforeseen. My hon. Friend argued her case carefully and gave a number of reasons why Swindon's deficit was unforeseen, but I do not share her view, because increases in pension fund contributions are generally foreseeable. Authorities may not know exact figures, but they are usually aware of the sort of sums that will be required before they set their budgets. If they act prudently, they should be able to make good estimates of what will be involved, even if they do not have hard information, and act in accordance with those judgments. I am not convinced that Swindon did so.
However, having set the record straight, I have decided that the capitalisation criteria that affect Swindon and some other authorities and were

245WH
established some time ago should be reviewed to see whether, on a one-off basis—I emphasise that—we can respond in a systematic and defensible way to the situation faced by those authorities, bearing in mind other issues that I have outlined in terms of equity between authorities. That review is now well under way and we are working on a proposal to allow capitalisation of pension fund contributions in a wider range of circumstances than at present. It is important to establish criteria, because we are dealing with public money, and those must take account of the position in local government as a whole rather than responding to one or two difficult cases. It is important to get it right and to consult on the proposals with local government. That is the stage that we have reached.
I must emphasise that we will not allow unrestricted capitalisation of contributions to pension funds. If I change the criteria, I must have a robust model so that that cannot happen, because it would encourage a few imprudent authorities to use that route as a substitute for proper budgeting. I am not prepared to allow that, because it would put at a disadvantage the more responsible authorities that have already made tough decisions to enable them to maintain their pension contributions and to respond to service development.
The criteria must be robust and we must not allow authorities to forget the true cost of using capital resources to meet revenue expenditure. That cost is a reduction in the potential capital investment in their areas. Residents of Swindon will suffer through a direction because that capital will not be available for such uses.
I am sure that my hon. Friend understands my concern. We accept that there is a case for a modest, one-off relaxation of the rules and I hope to be able to announce that shortly after the consultation. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts my argument that we must have a robust model. I am not prepared to allow local authorities to use capital routinely for revenue purposes, even for pension fund contributions.
Ms Drown: I thank my hon. Friend. That step forward will be much appreciated by Swindon borough council. It shows that a Labour Government listen and give more money to and support local government. I look forward to a positive outcome for the borough council, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister.
Ms Hughes: Some of my hon. Friend's earlier remarks almost made me change my mind. However, I am too far down the road, and a serious issue is involved. I hope that we shall deal with the matter satisfactorily and robustly.

Education SSAs
12.59 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable: I raise an issue, in one of the last Adjournment debates of the Session, that is of enormous interest to my borough of Richmond and to many others, especially in big cities such as London and Manchester. The problem arises from a combination of factors. A large volume of cross—border flow of pupils in schools, which has been facilitated by the Greenwich judgment, has been combined with the absence of recoupment of costs arising from big differentials in standard spending assessment allocations. My estimate, which no one has contradicted, is that the way in which the formula operates in my own small borough effectively costs it about £2.2 million.
The matter has been raised before. A few years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate on the Greenwich judgment, which was responded to by the Minister of State, who was subsequently promoted to Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Although he gave no ground on the Greenwich judgment, he understood that the financial implications were difficult, and in subsequent discussions with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) he undertook to ensure that his officials discussed with borough officials how some of the financing aspects might be dealt with. The conversations petered out with his departure, but it was understood that there was a problem.
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), whose borough has a similar problem, suggested that recoupment should be included in the Learning and Skills Bill. Perhaps the Minister present today, who dealt with that matter, accepted that there was an issue, but did not believe that that was the proper way to deal with it. Ministers and officials have been sympathetic, but to date the problem has not been followed through. I shall try to set out the arguments in a little more detail in the hope that we can make some progress on the matter.
The problem is the result of three separate developments in education policy, each of which makes sense on its own, but which create considerable anomalies when they interact. The first is the Greenwich judgment. I do not want to use the debate to repeat arguments about the Greenwich judgment. Many of us have made the case for repeal, but we accept that the Government, like the previous Government, will not move on the matter, and there is no point in banging our heads against a brick wall.
However, it is worth reiterating why the matter causes a problem in a borough such as mine, which genuinely believes in the Government's dictum of education, education, education. It spends more than its SSA and attaches great value to local schools. However, local children were passed over for places in especially favoured—not selective, but none the less especially attractive—schools in favour of pupils from outside the borough. That causes enormous resentment, and much of my casework relates to that matter, including extraordinary cases of parents using long tape measures to calculate exactly how close they are to the school compared with people from outside. The key point is

247WH
authorities' inability to give their own residents preference even when they have paid over the odds in council tax. That anomaly causes resentment. However, I accept that this is not the context in which to pursue that debate.
The second element of policy, which is more directly relevant to today's debate, is the abandonment of recoupment that took place under the previous Government. I am not entirely clear about why that happened—it may have been for administrative as much as political reasons—but it clearly presents a problem when substantial numbers of pupils cross borders. In my case, 40 per cent. of our secondary and 12 per cent. of our primary population come from outside the borough. As 123 per cent. of resident pupils are in local schools, an enormous net receipt of pupils is involved, but that happens mainly as a result of migration from authorities with substantially lower SSAs. Richmond's SSA is £3, 181; Hounslow's is about £500 more than that, at £3, 629; and Wandsworth's is about £1, 000 more, being an inner-city allocation, at £4, 158. That is important, because many of the pupils have substantially greater educational needs than the local population, but they do not bring the money with them to meet those needs.
The evidence is partly anecdotal, but some of it is hard. For example, Wandsworth's primary schools come, I think, 126th out of 150 English authorities in the Government's league table of standard assessment tests at the age of 11. My borough is top, apart from the City of London and the Scilly Isles, which are both small authorities. Primary pupils are coming into our secondary schools far behind in levels of literacy and numeracy. There is nothing wrong with that—pupils as individuals are welcomed into the schools and the teachers accept the challenge of teaching them—but they are not funded appropriately in terms of the SSA formula. The money does not follow the pupils.
In Wandsworth's case, that is compounded by the fact that, for ideological reasons, it has chosen to maximise the use of selection in its system, within the permitted limits. One could argue that authorities such as mine have to pick up some of the problems associated with such a divisive system.
Clearly, migration within boroughs is a common phenomenon. It is a complex, two-way process. My borough exports substantial numbers of Roman Catholic pupils to Catholic schools in the neighbouring borough of Hounslow, and that is welcomed. It does not present a financial problem for Hounslow, as its SSA is higher than ours. The pupils come from primary schools at which they have already achieved, by the age of 11, an exceptional level of attainment. Hounslow has no problem accommodating children from our borough—the problem is entirely a result of migration from low-SSA areas.
There are problems with the Greenwich judgment and the absence of any recoupment. Those two decisions—one legal, one administrative—were made under a previous Government. A third problem arises from decisions made by this Government under what are admirable schemes such as excellence in cities, single regeneration budget schemes and education action
248WH
zones. I welcome such initiatives but, as the Minister will acknowledge, they are administered according to educational need as defined by borough.
In my borough, we have schools with serious educational problems as a result of taking in a substantial number of pupils from inner-city boroughs nearby, but which are not recognised as eligible for special treatment under the schemes. One school in Richmond Park has 44 per cent. of pupils with free school meals. It has many of the characteristics of an inner-city school, but would not be able to apply for the excellent Government initiatives. In my constituency, Hampton community college is ambitious about raising standards, and has a large number of pupils from Hounslow. Many of them have serious educational needs, but the college struggles with a limited budget to provide remedial education to bring 11 and 12-year-olds up to a good standard. It is not funded appropriately. If schools were judged on their merits, rather than on the basis of borough characteristics, such schools would be in receipt of special funding arrangements.
I shall talk about some of the ways in which the anomalies might be rectified. Like other boroughs in the same position, at present the borough simply has to cope. Essentially, it has to redistribute funds within its school budget, which is about 5 per cent. above SSA, to accommodate the extra problems. The borough is also told that it has to try to find savings from the 15 per cent. of the budget that is not passported to schools. I am sure that the Minister is aware that there are anomalies within the formula.
The 15 per cent. non-passported budget includes such non-bureaucratic items as transport used for special educational needs and the purchase of special educational needs services from the independent sector, as often arises for autistic children. Money that could, at least in theory, be used for special purposes and diverted away from what pejoratively might be called the bureaucracy is used for special educational requirements, and is not divertible in such a way. The scope for redistribution within the existing budget is limited.
What could be done to reform the problem? First, one could reopen the Greenwich judgment, but I do not propose to pursue that line of argument. Secondly, I ask the Minister whether there is any scope for a fresh look at recoupment, although I realise that I am provoking the reply that we do not want yet more paper chasing, in a system that the Government are trying to make more streamlined and less bureaucratic. I understand the administrative reasons why they do not want to reintroduce recoupment. There are anomalies in recoupment because it operates for special needs, not mainstream, pupils. Could we not have a limited system of recoupment where there is an exceptionally high level of cross-border movement of pupils, particularly severe disparities in SSAs, or a combination of the two? Could it not be linked to the Greenwich judgment so that boroughs that wish to take advantage of that judgment to gain access to a neighbouring borough's schools accept the need for recoupment within a geographically limited area? Those are all ways of limiting the scope and the bureaucratic complexity of any arrangement. Will the Minister reflect on whether recoupment can be brought back on the agenda?

249WH
The third possibility is whether the Government's new schemes, such as excellence in cities, can be extended to cover specific schools that have problems arising from the arrangements. The criticism is often made of my borough that we are trying to create an enclave of middle-class, professional educational excellence and to keep out underprivileged pupils from other boroughs. That is not the case. The teachers to whom I talk about the issue would welcome a diverse intake and take it as a professional challenge. They are not trying to dodge responsibility for relatively underprivileged pupils but ask only that they should be properly resourced to do that job properly. At present, they are financed entirely on the basis that their intake is indeed a professional, middle-class, largely white population, but that is no longer the case in many schools. It would be enormously helpful if the Government could think of a way of enabling individual schools to access those schemes.
To put that in a wider context, I was shown yesterday the report of a commission that was set up in Islington, which is now ruled by my party. It undertook an imaginative project in collaboration with the Labour opposition, chaired by Professor Tim Brighouse. One of the outcomes of that report is the proposal to adopt a pan-London, rather than just a borough-based, approach to educational under-attainment. I am sure that my own borough would accept that it is truly—not just geographically—part of London and should play a role in raising the standards of London education, providing that it can be integrated within schemes that are rather narrowly focused in financial terms.
My final point—1 hope that I will not exceed my 15 minutes—is whether there is any scope for the Minister to look at SSAs. I know that she has been pressed by low-SSA boroughs such as Gloucestershire and Coventry to examine whether there are grounds for lifting the floor of SSAs. That principle could be applied in London, where there are specific problems. That would not be discriminating in favour of authorities, such as mine, that have to cope with cross-border migration. That may need to be considered. There is a disparity of at least £1, 000 in the SSA between boroughs in outer London, not just in areas such as Richmond but in Hillingdon, Harrow and inner-London boroughs. At the extreme, the disparity can be as much as £2, 000, as between Richmond and Lambeth.
I accept that, on the grounds of social justice, deprived areas must have higher SSAs—that is right in principle and I do not question it—but I question whether it costs £2, 000 more to educate a child at secondary level in Lambeth than in Richmond. Those areas are, after all, in the same pool for recruiting teachers, especially head teachers, and it costs the same amount, for instance, to repair a drainage system in either set of schools. Lambeth and other comparable authorities can access other schemes. Will the Minister consider the disparity between SSAs in outer and inner London? Will she consider raising the SSA for outer London boroughs, bearing in mind the cost problems?
Will the Minister consider the problem that I have described, which I have put in the context of Richmond's needs, but which also applies to other outer boroughs, which have identical problems? Will she give a broad indication of how the Government might ease the problem, and pursue the matter in more detail in her Department?
1.15 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I acknowledge the sincerity of the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has written to my Department on a number of occasions. The matter under discussion is important to him, in terms of the Greenwich judgment and the financing of the London boroughs. Clearly, I accept that it is an important issue for his constituents. Although the end of term has passed, I want to put on record my appreciation of the work of schools in his constituency during this academic year. 1 hope that next year is also successful for those schools.
The hon. Gentleman raised some important issues, and I shall sum up my answers with a few noes and one or two maybes. Underlying all that, I acknowledge that he has raised some issues that we need to grapple with in the future. However, I fear that I shall sit down in 10 minutes' time without having mapped out a way forward or having left him a happier man than when he arrived in the Chamber. Perhaps we will be able to work out an agenda on which progress can be made during the next couple of years.
The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the Greenwich judgment has been discussed before, and he will know our arguments on the matter. My constituency is on the border with Solihull, so in some ways I share his problems. He painted a picture of parents wanting choices for their children and measuring the number of yards from a particular school with a tape measure. My advice bureau on Friday was full of parents who had done exactly that. I suspect that parents simply want a good school, and not necessarily one that is in their borough. If such a school is just outside the borough, they will not choose one in their own borough. Parents choose a school, in their own borough or elsewhere, because they perceive it as a good school.
The argument about the effects on financing for the borough is for politicians and not parents. The Greenwich judgment was introduced because parents want good schools. Of all the criteria in relation to oversubscription, the use of a boundary, which can be elastic, often does not make sense to individuals who live on either side of the road. It is perhaps not the most appropriate option, and 1 am grateful that the hon. Gentleman did not pursue it too energetically.
On recoupment, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that the previous Government changed it for an administrative reason, not a political one. I do not want to hold out much hope of revisiting it, because of its bureaucratic nature. Clearly, there had to be a number of head counts—of children in the relevant local authority and other local authorities—along with billing and chasing up the money. I have been led to believe, on more than anecdotal evidence, that the amount of paperwork that went from LEA to LEA, in the process of trying to get the money back, was a wonder to behold. Some LEAs had still not received the recoupment five years after they had spent the money. For Richmond, it would be more worrying never to get the money than to get less money on time. Both outcomes are unsatisfactory, but I can understand why the previous Government chose simplicity. I recognise the element of

251WH
rough justice. The previous Government decided to fund special educational needs children on statement because that was an element of rough justice too far.
A number of issues need to be explored, and the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers may not be as bad as he thinks. Those children who need the most expensive education—that attached to a statement—will receive the costs of the statement; it is not done through the recoupment process. I am not familiar with Richmond and its boundaries, but it is not always true that children in one part of a borough that neighbours another borough share the characteristics of the borough in which they live. One of the reasons why the next borough might be funded more handsomely than Richmond is that, as a whole, it has more children with needs of the type that we are discussing. One can barely tell when one leaves my constituency and enters Solihull, as the housing is alike in both areas. The environment does not change at the boundary as one crosses from borough to borough, but gradually as one moves through the borough. Although the children in the neighbouring borough may get more money, their level of need for education may not be significantly greater than the children in the borough to which they move. The startling figures may not reflect the extra costs according to the need of the child.
The underlying assumption, which the hon. Gentleman is bound to make—and that is not a criticism—is that the SSA reflects a need. I do not believe that it does. That is the area in which there is an element of rough justice. If I thought that the different SSAs in each of the London boroughs represented genuine need, I would be more worried than I am. As he knows, the Green Paper, which will be published at some time during the summer, deals with ways of funding schools and the formula that we use.
I speak with no prior knowledge, because announcements about the formulae have not been made and I do not know sufficiently well the details of the indices of deprivation in the boroughs that the hon. Gentleman has named. However, it may be that, in a new system of funding, the disparity between neighbouring boroughs is not as great as it might be. He suggested levelling up the funding of the worst funded boroughs. I do not know what the Government will decide to do. I suspect that a disparity of funding between neighbouring boroughs, which is hard to justify in terms of deprivation or need, may solve itself to an extent and that Richmond may end up a net gainer. Work that we are doing on SSAs may, coincidentally, help with the problem.
I also have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on the issue of areas of deprivation within areas of relative affluence. That is caused not only by children who may be imported from other boroughs and bring a change in circumstance with them. Some urban and rural areas are simply like that. I have always had sympathy with hon. Members who raise that point, and I hope that we can deal with the problem. In introducing initiatives such as excellence in cities or education action zones, we focused on boroughs that had high numbers of free school meals. Most boroughs that have been part of excellence in cities, which is a popular and successful initiative, have free school meals for 30 per cent. or
252WH
more. The hon. Gentleman would argue that Richmond's need was greater, and he mentioned that one school had 44 per cent. free school meals. Clearly, if that school was a borough in itself, it would have qualified for excellence in cities in the first round, and not only in the expansion of the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that, when we expanded excellence in cities after the Budget, we extended it to part of a borough in the North West. The borough itself did not qualify for excellence in cities on the basis of free school meals, but part of that borough was hugely disadvantaged. Not only one school, but a collection of six or so secondaries and several primaries—almost a small borough—had a level of need that earned it a place in excellence in cities. In Solihull, which the hon. Gentleman will agree is a fairly affluent borough, there is a pocket in the north called Chelmsley Wood, which has a free school meal rate of more than 30 per cent. in its three secondary schools. Only this week, we were able to work with Solihull to ensure that only that northern part of the borough benefits from some of the initiatives to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The Government were right to focus extra attention on the boroughs that need help most and suffer acute deprivation. We can develop the programme to focus on clusters of schools that need extra support, as we want to direct help where it is most needed, when resources allow.
There will be no return to the Greenwich judgment. I do not think that a return to recoupment would be popular with local authorities. It is not that they are not funded—it is merely the way in which the children are counted. Funding is provided for the children who are educated by an authority, rather than simply for the children who live in the area. I point that out so that nobody who reads the Hansard report of this debate will think that children from outside are not funded. The issue in Richmond is that some are underfunded in respect of the relative amount that is provided under the SSA. That does not provide the solution, although help may be at hand as SSAs are reconsidered, which could knock the unfairness out of the system.
I should like also to offer some hope for the future, although I hope that the approach will not be interpreted incorrectly in relation to a specific school getting help next year. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the way in which the Government has rolled out their policies and strategies to help schools in challenging areas. I hope that we will move in the not-too-distant future from helping whole LEAs to helping clusters of schools that are in need. I think that I have offered some alternative routes that do not directly involve the inequity of funding in connection with the movement of children between boroughs. Other Government policies have been established in order to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve—not to fund children in accordance with a notion of an unreal entitlement or by another system that does not reflect reality. We want to fund children, local authorities and schools on the basis of need. As our policies roll out, we may be able to help clusters of more deprived schools in areas of relative affluence.
I hope also that one of the most important aspects of excellence in cities in areas that border Richmond, and from where children are imported, will be to raise standards in schools. I return to my first point: parents

253WH
want to secure education outside their own borough simply because they perceive that schools are better there. Part of the challenge is to stop that by changing the reality of schools in some of the underperforming areas, and by changing parents' perception—one has to come after the other. When excellence in cities and education action zones are successful, schools in the home boroughs will become higher achieving schools. It is a stated aim of the programme that parents will choose to educate their own children in their own borough because it offers them the standard of education that they want.
This is a genuine issue. Nothing irks parents and local politicians more than feeling that their children get a raw deal from a rough formula—an issue that it is entirely legitimate to raise. During the next few months or years, as our policies roll out and the Green Paper is launched, the hon. Gentleman may want to pursue the matter, either in writing or through other contact. In response, I shall want to ensure that, as far as possible, any new systems that are introduced get rid of the anomalies. However, I hope that he will accept that this is not about revisiting decisions made in the past and building in even more anomalies. It is about rolling out new policies that can address the real need: funding children for what they need, regardless of where they live.

Pension Reforms
1.29 pm
Ms Sally Keeble: I am very pleased to have secured this debate on pension reform and especially to have this opportunity to set out some of the views of pensioners in my constituency. We expect further changes in pensions policy during the coming months. When they come forward, I hope that the views of pensioners in Northampton, North, as set out in the survey that I have conducted, can be taken into account.
As every Member of Parliament knows, pensions policy is one of the most difficult and controversial areas with which we must deal, and the pensioners' lobby is one of the most determined and persistent. Like every other hon. Member, I have received many letters from pensioners about their difficulties and needs, and I have listened on the doorstep to what pensioners have to say. Most pensioners have thought long and hard about their personal circumstances and the changes introduced by the Government. They often want to talk at length about their experiences and views and explain the various financial pressures and family circumstances that, in some cases, have made their lives in retirement difficult.
Because of the depth of concern and the complexity of the issues raised, colleagues in Northampton, North and I organised a questionnaire survey, designed partly for pensioners but also for people of working age, who must prepare for their retirement, because we wanted to know what they thought the Government should be doing about pensions. The results give some insights into pensioners' views of the reforms that have been introduced to date, and I hope that they will have some input into the shape of future reforms. Above all, the results give a clear picture of the depth of concern among pensioners in my constituency.
On Monday and Tuesday, we sent out the questionnaires, and on Wednesday they started to come back. On Thursday, we received a deluge of them. I have never experienced such a fast response. People must have sent the completed questionnaires by return of post. In fact, one person was away on holiday and his children faxed him the questionnaire, which was returned within two weeks from Finland. There was obviously considerable interest in ensuring that people had their say. It was also striking that there was a strong consistency of views. People seem to feel strongly on the same issues, and it was difficult to find divisions according to income or gender.
I am sure that it will not surprise my right hon. Friend the Minister when I tell him that the biggest single change that pensioners said that they wanted was a substantial increase in the state pension, although not specifically linked to earnings. Some people did suggest that, but many said that they wanted their pensions to be linked with prices, as they already are, or the cost of living, which is a formulation that Liberal Democrats in Northampton have chosen to use and is, in effect, the same as a link with prices. Some said that they wanted the link to be with European pensions or, in one particularly ambitious case, MPs' salaries and allowances. For the most part, the need was simply for a substantial rise. That does not mean that all the pensioners were completely hard up. A third described themselves as being very or moderately comfortable.

255WH
The anxieties about poverty in retirement were also apparent from the responses from people in work. Bearing it in mind that Northampton has historically high levels of employment and a thriving economy, the biggest single fear that people of working age have about their retirement is of not having enough money. Almost half said that they would have to make major changes in their life style and 17 per cent. said that they worried about being poor.
A link emerged from the survey between financial well being in retirement and having a second pension. Most of the pensioners who said that they were very or moderately comfortable had some form of second pension. Occupational pensions in particular have provided extremely good value and are a success story of pension provision in the UK. It was also clear that women have more restricted access to second pensions. Many women in my constituency work and always have worked—that is not a new phenomenon in Northampton. The lack of access to second pensions is a measure of their low incomes and a glaring hole in current pension provisions, which have not provided properly for people with interrupted career patterns or who work part-time and therefore have very low incomes.
The figures on financial well being also demonstrate the importance of the Government's drive to get more people to take out second pensions, either through the new stakeholder pension or the second state pension. Unfortunately, the restructuring of pensions comes too late to help the present generation of pensioners. I hope that the message will get over about the need for further self-provision by future generations of pensioners. It was interesting that, of the small group of people of working age who responded to the survey—most of the replies came from pensioners—the stakeholder pension ranked joint third with winter fuel payments as the most important measure that the Government had introduced. I was, frankly, surprised that people had even heard of the stakeholder pension as it is not yet in operation and there has not been much advertising of it by the financial services industry.
Once the stakeholder and second state pensions are in place, there will be a huge job to be done to ensure that people take advantage of the new measures and get proper provision for themselves. I hope that efforts will be made to ensure that women make proper independent provision for their retirement so that they are not left alone and struggling financially, especially not when they are older and frailer. I would not underestimate the needs of women pensioners. Many come to see me, often on their own, because they are widowed and do not have adequate provision for their future financial needs. Many also come with their husbands and are cross because, although they have worked all their lives, they have no independent pension arrangements. Having been financially independent, they suddenly find themselves completely dependent. Understandably, they do not like it.
Another of the Government's big reforms is the introduction of the minimum income guarantee designed to boost the incomes of the poorest pensioners. I did not ask people if they received the guarantee: it is new and the picture that I got might not have been
256WH
relevant. In addition, I wanted to keep detailed questions about finances to a minimum because I found that people tended to respond more readily to surveys if they were not asked for a lot of personal details. The public has clearly latched on to the recent national publicity about the minimum income guarantee. I congratulate the Department on that. The concept is hard to convey, but the publicity seems to have worked.
In the survey, 82.9 per cent. of pensioners said that the guarantee was very important; 11 per cent. said that it was important; and only 6 per cent. were indifferent or said that it was unimportant. Interestingly, those attitudes were virtually the same among more comfortably off pensioners as among those who were struggling. Across the income range, pensioners saw that the policy was relevant to their needs as a group. It was also interesting to see that attitudes were virtually the same among people in work. Whatever the Conservative Opposition's criticisms, the scheme has clearly struck a chord with the public, who see it as meeting the pressing need to provide extra money for the poorest pensioners in society.
I hope that the pensioners tax credit will meet with similar approval. Certainly, it should address the biggest need of so many pensioners in my constituency—the need for more money—and people's biggest fear when they think about retirement: being hard up. The credit should help especially the many pensioners in my constituency who have incomes above the minimum income guarantee level, because they have made personal provision during their working lives, but who do not earn enough to pay tax, and who are struggling and falling into the gaps between the Government's reforms.
The survey also asked about how pensioners wanted to receive their pensions and their attitudes on claiming other benefits. Perhaps not surprisingly, the vast majority said that they still wanted to get their pensions through the post office. That applied both to people on higher incomes and to those who were struggling. However, an increasing number were interested in getting their pensions through the bank. They were also interested in some of the newer ways of claiming benefits, including electronic methods, because those allow greater access and flexibility for people who have difficulty in getting out. I hope that, if the new universal bank proposals are developed, they will meet some of pensioners' needs for dealing with benefits and pensions claims.
The survey asked about the pressures on pensioners, which resulted in quite a big surprise. I had assumed that, since what they wanted most was extra money, the biggest pressure point in their lives would be lack of money. That was not the case; the biggest overall concern was health care, which ranked higher than money pressures. The survey posed separate questions about continuing care and home care. 1 understood the pensioners' concern about health care to relate to the basic NHS primary and acute services.
Two points arise in relation to that part of the survey. First, pensioners who said that they were financially comfortable were more concerned about health care. That perhaps suggests a future increase in demand for health services for pensioners, as the pensioner community becomes more affluent. I am sure that that will happen, in the light of the reforms and new pension

257WH
structures that are being established. Secondly, the kind of services that pensioners use could become an issue. One area of health care that is especially important to pensioners is orthopaedics. I understand that there is a national shortage of skilled medical staff in orthopaedics, with consequent problems with waiting lists. My constituents consistently face delays of more than 50 weeks for orthopaedic appointments—even initial consultations. That is far too long, especially with the extra resources that are being ploughed into the NHS. Recent incidents have also raised questions about the quality of care for two particular constituents.
If we are genuinely to provide for the needs of people in retirement, health care is a key priority. That is especially true for the services that are particularly important to older people, such as orthopaedics and podiatry—an area that is quite often raided. I realise that that is not within my right hon. Friend the Minister's sphere of responsibility, but if there is to be joined-up government, pensioners' health care needs will have to be considered while their financial needs are being met.
The Conservative Opposition have repeatedly criticised Government initiatives to help pensioners, especially the winter fuel allowance, which they derided as a gimmick, and which they said they would roll into a basic increase. However, my survey showed strong support for the key initiatives for pensioners, especially the winter fuel allowance. That allowance, the minimum income guarantee, the free television licences for pensioners over 85 and free eye tests were all seen as important, or very important, by upwards of 75 per cent. of pensioners. That applied both to pensioners who were more comfortably off and to those who were struggling.
There were some marked difference in attitudes towards the measures, but they occurred more between retired people and those still in work. People who were still in work paid lower regard to the measures. For example, 63 per cent. of pensioners thought that free television licences, which have been much derided, were important and 30 per cent. thought them very important. In contrast, only 37 per cent. of people of working age thought that they were very important; 32 per cent. thought that they were important; 19 per cent. were indifferent to them; and 12 per cent. thought them unimportant.
In the survey, 98 per cent. of pensioners thought winter fuel allowances very important or important. Only 0.5 per cent. of pensioners said that they were unimportant. In fact, a substantial number of pensioners said that they wanted more help with winter fuel costs, and placed that high on their list of policy priorities. I was surprised by some of the results, because I had thought that pensioners would say that the measures are not nearly as important as having the basic state pension. The revelation that that is not so proved to be one of the advantages of conducting the survey.
Pensioners clearly value the measures. They did not make derogatory remarks in the space for comments. Whoever the Conservatives think that they are speaking for in dismissing them as gimmicks, it is not pensioners. The derision with which the Conservatives treat the extra help provided by the Government does not square with the reality of the difference that the initiatives have made to pensioners' lives.
258WH
My right hon. Friend the Minister has a copy of the survey, and I hope that he will take those points on board when he considers plans for future pensions policy and reform. I have not explained the whole methodology of the survey, but it was conducted with a reasonable amount of care and gives an accurate picture of the concerns, needs and priorities of pensioners and non-pensioners in my constituency. Pensions policy is vital for the future well-being of my constituents and is a matter that many people overlook until it is too late. In the past, it has served some groups of pensioners well, but it has left many—especially women—in real financial difficulty.
The Government are addressing many of the shortcomings through their reforms. As they do so, I ask them to take note of the needs and concerns of my constituents. The survey provides a snapshot of one community, but I suspect that, if it were repeated elsewhere, the results would be very similar, and that the voices of pensioners in Northampton, North speak for retired people across the country.
1.46 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—first, on securing the debate, secondly, on her speech, and thirdly. and most importantly, on the survey that she has produced. I have had a chance to look at my copy, and I will obviously give it serious consideration.
Ministers are on the receiving end of many pieces of correspondence, some of which say thank you and some of which do not. We see no end of petitions. It is the easiest thing in the world to put a heading on a piece of paper, collect names and addresses and go off to put one's views to the Government. I have done it myself. However, in terms of usefulness, what can a Minister do with a statement with a few hundred or even a few thousand names appended? There is a message, in that people have taken the time to do it, but its impact will be infinitesimal in comparison with a document such as that given to me by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend said that she had not gone into the details of the survey's methodology, but she clearly explained the range of issues that she covered and people's perceptions of them. She did not try to elicit detailed financial information, because people are reluctant to give it—but they do want to explain how they feel about how things are going. On the basis of my brief look at the survey, it is evident that it is excellent in that respect. It addresses not only the policies of the Department of Social Security but other related matters.
We have made many statements and announcements and have put several new policies into operation. Others remain at the planning stage—for example, the pension credit, which was announced in the Budget and on which we will produce proposals before the autumn statement. We will probably not be able to implement it fully before the next Parliament, because it will require substantial legislation. However, early signals of our intended approach will be given this autumn.
My hon. Friend referred to people's perceptions, especially those of people who are just above the minimum income guarantee limit, have saved for a pension—money that they have put aside with their

259WH
employer through deferred earnings and tax relief—and can feel quite bitter about being left out of what they see as extra Government assistance. It is important to acknowledge that that perception exists. My hon. Friend said that, on one of the questions, health rated higher than income, because of people's fears about the future.
I cannot pre-empt any Government statement, and I am always reluctant to say that we expect a statement today or tomorrow. I have learnt over the past three years that one has a statement only when one gets it, because its date of issue can sometimes change the night before it is due. However, I am reliably informed that the Government will respond tomorrow to both the royal commission on long-term care and the proposals for NHS reform. Their response should address some of the points raised by my hon. Friend's constituents regarding health care.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of the minimum income guarantee, which has been welcomed across the board. We have only just started the take-up campaign—it is by no means finished. The Government's target is to write personally to 2.2 million pensioners—the figure has risen slightly since our original plans were drawn up. We have already contacted just over 400, 000, and in the next few weeks we shall contact a second tranche of 800, 000, of whom 30, 000 a day will be contacted by letter. The television advertisement, featuring Thora Hird and Peter Sallis, is planned to coincide with that.
It is too early to give any indication of feedback, but several thousand pensioners have claimed the minimum income guarantee since the take-up campaign started in earnest on 30 May. The average amount of extra money that they are receiving is well over £10 a week—probably nearer £20 than £10. We hope to produce figures as soon as we have some viable results, but it is too early to do so at present. The campaign will continue until October, and we shall obtain an evaluation of it at that time.
My hon. Friend also mentioned that one of the points in her survey was the issue of perceptions and people at work. I was surprised, as I think she was, at the reference to stakeholder pensions, as there are none on the market. No pension company has yet been regulated to sell stakeholder pensions. They will not be able to register to be a regulated stakeholder pension provider until October. Stakeholder pensions will be marketable and available from April 2001. In the meantime, we have a programme to contact companies employing five or more people, because they will have a legal duty to give their employees access to stakeholder pensions, unless they have provisions that exempt them from so doing, such as occupational pension schemes.
It is good that people are already getting the message that they need the comfort of a second pension. Throughout my hon. Friend's survey, the number of people with occupational pensions, with private pensions and in the state earnings-related pension scheme probably represented the generality of the population. Without those extra pensions, those people would be on the means test and would have a poorer quality of life. That is why we want to move more people into funded second pensions.
260WH
To assist with that aim, the Government are planning a large-scale pensions education programme over the winter months, into which my hon. Friend's survey will provide an input. I am not sure of the exact start date, but it will probably be January or February, rather than December. It will be a general pension education programme, and stakeholder pensions will form a small part of it. Companies themselves will market their particular products.
We are in the early stages of planning the pension education programme, in terms of advertisements, key phrases, filming and so on. I shall certainly make sure that my hon. Friend's survey is brought to the attention of our officials and the outside experts who are assisting them. It is crucial to get across to working people in their 20s and 30s the idea that it is important to think about a pension. My hon. Friend has highlighted that point. In that respect, her survey is all the more valuable because it did not concentrate exclusively on today's pensioners. She also thought about tomorrow's pensioners—people of working age—which is excellent, because it gives a more rounded survey.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the position of women. I understand her point. The previous debate in which I took part in Westminster Hall related particularly to women. There is no question but that they have been badly served in the past in terms of pensions. They were badly served by the way in which the national insurance scheme was constructed in 1948, when many women did not go out to work, and by the married women's opt-out. We still hear of women who did not know that paying a shilling meant that they would not receive a pension. I dealt with that during the 1950s and 1960s, when I was a junior manager in industry, and now see the difficulties. I was in the House when the previous Labour Government recognised the problem and decided that everyone in work must pay the full stamp so that they will receive a full pension. That was in the late 1970s, when women who had already opted out could remain opted out and many chose to do so.
Women also suffered with the changes in the state earnings-related pension scheme during the 1980s. It was based initially on the best 20 years of working life, but was later changed to an average throughout working life. Women suffered from the change and we have been unable to right that in our modifications. However, I hope that the legislation on the state second pension will complete its progress through both Houses in about three hours so that it can receive Royal Assent before the end of the week. Benefits will start to accrue in 2002, and it will make a major strike for women, because 2 million carers will start to accrue a pension for the first time. It will take some time, but carers, most of whom are women, will be locked into a system whereby they can accrue a pension in their own right.
My hon. Friend referred to television licences. The provision has been greatly welcomed, by and large, and there will be 100 per cent. take-up by the over-75s. Procedures are in place to ensure that it is as flexible as possible so that all over-75s receive the benefit. The BBC is doing a first-class job in reaching the very people to whom we intend to give the benefit.
My hon. Friend referred to the winter fuel payment. It has been described as a gimmick, but this year it will amount to £150 cash per household, which is a

261WH
substantial sum compared with what it was when she entered Parliament—it was zero. It cannot be derided, because it is tax free and not means-tested, so there is a massive take-up. It is a useful sum for pensioners, and this year it will be paid to men over 60 as well as to men of pensionable age. It has been attacked as a gimmick, but not too many people have sent it back, and the letters that I have read suggest that it is extremely welcome, as my hon. Friend's survey showed.
My hon. Friend referred to the method of payment. She can reassure her constituents on that. The Prime Minister pledged at the Dispatch Box that people would be able to collect their pension in cash at post offices. That is the Government's policy intention and that is what we shall deliver. The Prime Minister said that we want to give people a choice, and 51 per cent. of those who are becoming pensioners this week have chosen to have their pensions paid through a bank instead of a post office. A lot of planning is required for electronic money transfer, but being able to obtain money in cash through the post office network is taken seriously and we shall
262WH
deliver on that with programmes for a universal bank and modernisation of post offices. We take second place to no one in wanting to protect the rural post office network.
Perceptions are important, and different figures can be bandied about. The basic pension is not enough to live on and the minimum income guarantee is only a safety net. We must do better than the present level of the minimum income guarantee and we intend to do so as quickly as possible. When we have signalled our proposals for the pension credit later this year, people will see that we are serious about delivering it.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend and I shall ensure that her report is distributed widely throughout the Department of Social Security so that it can be taken fully on board in planning for the issues that we are about to announce. It is a solid contribution to the delivery of a better quality of life for pensioners in this country and I am grateful to her.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Back Pain
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what(a) number and (b) percentage of employees took early retirement on grounds of ill health related to back pain in the last five years for which figures are available. [129820]

  Mr. Bayley
  This information is not held.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been paid out in Winter Fuel Allowances to people in Northampton, North from 1997–98 to 1999–2000. [131946]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Winter Fuel Payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Ms Sally Keeble, dated 25 July 2000 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much has been paid out in winter fuel allowances to people in Northampton North from 1997–98 to 1999–2000.
  Winter Fuel Payments (WFP) were introduced in the winter of 1997/98. For the winters of 1997/98 and 98/99 eligible people receiving Income Support (IS) or income based Jobseekers' Allowance (JSA (IB)) which included a pensioner premium, who were not living in residential care or a nursing home received payments of £50. All other eligible pensioners received £20 or £10 depending on their household circumstances. Where only one eligible pensioner lived in the household they would receive £20, otherwise they would receive £10 each.
  Last winter, 1999/00 the amount of the payment increased to £100 for eligible households.
  In 1997/98, WFP expenditure for Northampton North constituency was £321,340; in 1998/99, it was £298,540; and in 1999/00, it was £1,163,900.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid out in cold weather payment in the years 1992–93 to 1996–97 in Northampton, North. [131945]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Cold Weather Payments is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.
  602W
  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Ms Sally Keeble, dated 25 July 2000 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much was paid out in cold weather payments in the years 1992–93 to 1996–97 in Northampton North.
  Cold Weather Payments (CWP) are paid to people awarded Income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseekers' Allowance (JSA) (IB) with a pensioner or disability premium or if they have a child under 5, when the temperature criteria is met for their postcode. Payment is issued automatically without the need to claim.
  The information requested on CWPs is not available. CWP information is collected by weather station area rather than by Benefits Agency district or MP constituency areas. There are no details held of CWPs before 1995–96. The weather station at Bedford covers the area which includes the Northampton North constituency.
  In 1995–96, estimated expenditure for the area covered by Bedford weather station was £2,850,000 and in 1996–97, it was £1,509,000. There were four periods of cold weather triggered at Bedford in 1995–96 and three in 1996–97.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many, and what percentage of, children were in households with below half average income in each year from 1990 to 1999, calculated on the basis of the(a) Family Expenditure Survey and (b) Family Resources Survey, for Great Britain only, and on the basis of (i) equivalising and (ii) not equivalising net disposable household income. [131957]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information requested on the basis of equivalised income is published annually in editions of Households Below Average Income, copies of which are in the Library. The latest available information relates to 1998–99.

  Information is not available on the basis of not equivalising household income. Equivalising income is an inherent component of ranking households by income, for income distribution statistics such as those referred to here.

  Community Project Volunteers
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce the barriers posed by the benefit rules to people who wish to volunteer for community projects. [132246]

  Angela Eagle
  People who are in receipt of Social Security benefits may undertake unlimited amounts of voluntary activity including participation in community projects without its affecting their benefit providing other eligibility conditions continue to be met. Any expenses they incur in connection with their voluntary work may also be reimbursed in full without it affecting their benefits.

  We are aware of the concerns expressed in the Policy Action Team report on Community Self Help and the Performance and Innovation Unit's report on Active Ageing (Winning the Generation Game) that, nevertheless, barriers to volunteering still exist and we are considering the issues raised.

  Service Personnel (Pensions Appeals)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) former service personnel and (b) members of their families have made appeals to the Pensions Appeals Tribunal since 1970 for compensation arising out of their participation in experiments at the chemical defence establishment Porton Down; how many have been awarded compensation; and how many are awaiting adjudication. [132775]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many Jobseeker's Allowance cases, resulting from refusals to claims based on regulations 51(2)(c) and 51(2)(b)(i) of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996, are being stayed; and how many of the claimants involved are(a) men and (b) women; [132711]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of (a) men and (b) women affected by (i) regulation 51(2)(c) and (ii) regulation 51(2)(b)(i) of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 for each of the last four years; [132712]

  (3) what representations he has received in relation to the payment of Jobseeker's Allowance to term-time only workers; and if he will make a statement; [132714]

  (4) if he will estimate the cost of restoring the entitlement to Jobseeker's Allowance for term-time only workers. [132715]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received representations about entitlement to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) or Income Support (IS) from ancillary workers and their representatives. The current legal position is that ancillary workers with an ongoing contract of employment, who are not entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) or Income Support (IS) during term-time because of the hours they work, are also not entitled to JSA or IS during the school holidays.

  This position, which reflects the original JSA provisions introduced in 1996, was confirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeal on 14 October 1999. The retrospective effect of the Court of Appeal decision means that there was never any entitlement to JSA during the school holidays for this group of ancillary workers. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords against the Court of Appeal decision was granted on 11 April.

  Claims to JSA or IS by term-time workers are decided on an individual basis. We understand that no claims are being stayed under the formal staying provisions. However, the Appeals Service advise that as at 30 June there were 3,532 appeals involving term-time workers where decisions have been deferred pending the decision of the House of Lords. In addition, on the directions of Commissioners, 114 appeal cases are awaiting the outcome of the House of Lords cases. The gender breakdown is unknown and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information to estimate the number of men and women affected by regulation 51(2)(c) and regulation 51(2)(b)(i) of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 for each of the last four years is not available.
  604W
  When JSA was introduced in 1996 the original intention of the legislation was that ancillary workers who were not entitled to benefit during term-time were also not entitled during school holidays. We have no accurate data on which to base a reliable estimate of the cost of extending entitlement to ancillary workers who are not entitled to JSA or IS during the school holidays because of the hours they work during term-time.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the cost of social security fraud in the Ribble Valley was in each of the years between 1994 and 2000, broken down by type of benefit. [132725]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since 1998, Area Benefit Reviews (ABRs) have provided a continuous measurement of fraud and error in Income Support (IS) and Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). It is currently not possible to provide a breakdown for other benefits.

  Prior to 1998 no attempt was made to measure fraud in the Social Security system on the basis of areas and type of benefit.

  Fraud figures are now available for each of the Benefits Agency's 13 Area Directorates (ADs). It is not possible to provide estimates of levels of fraud for specific towns, cities, counties or constituencies. Ribble Valley is part of AD8, which stretches from Liverpool and Chester in the south up to Workington in the north.

  The ABR results estimate that the level of fraud in AD8 for the year ending September 1998 was £66 million, £47 million for IS and £19 million for JSA.

  For the year ending September 1999, the figure reduced to £53 million, £37 million for IS and £16 million for JSA.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the report of the second inspection by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate of the London borough of Croydon. [133413]

  Mr. Rooker
  The report by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate of the second inspection of the London borough of Croydon has been published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The BFI previously reported on the London borough of Croydon in March 1999. Since then the authority has responded positively to their recommendations, introducing the verification framework, providing more training for benefit staff and investigating items of post returned under the 'Do Not Redirect' mail scheme.

  Inspectors also found that Croydon had improved working practices, verification procedures and how greater assurance that claims it pays are valid. This has contributed to Croydon administering 15 per cent. fewer claims and a fall in benefit expenditure of over £6 million in 1999–2000.

  Although Croydon has made progress the report states it can do more to improve the security of benefit administration. This involves more rigorously applying sanctions, such as prosecutions and administrative penalties to make fraudsters pay for their actions and using all counter fraud measures available under new statutory powers, such as appointing inspectors.
  605W
  The report provides recommendations aimed at helping the council address existing weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for their proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Benefit Overpayments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 447W. on benefit overpayments, if he will estimate, in relation to the overpayments which took place on 17 and 18 January, the total (a) value of the benefits recovered so far, (b) number of customers who have repaid the overpayment in full and (c) number of customers who have paid none of the overpayment; and if he will estimate the total cost in administration and in unreturned benefit of the overpayment. [132360]

  Angela Eagle
  Administration of benefits and recovery of overpayments is matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Alexis Cleveland. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 25 July 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent question asking pursuant to his Answer of 5th April, Official Report, column 447W, on benefit overpayments, if he will estimate, in relation to the overpayments which took place on 17th and 18th January, (a) the total value of the benefits recovered so far, (b) the total number of customers who have repaid the overpayment in full and (c) the total number of customers who have paid none of the overpayment; and if he will estimate the total cost in administration and in unreturned benefit of the overpayment.
  The problem was caused by an incomplete file being erroneously passed to the Bankers Automated Credit Service for payment on 17th January, compounded by the correct file being reprocessed for payment on 18th January.
  On 17th January 112,000 customers correctly received a payment into their bank accounts, while 60.000 customers did not receive the payment which was due. The following day, the same 112,000 customers received a duplicate of the payments into their accounts, while 60,000 received their payment a day late. The value of the duplicate payments amounts to £10.5million.
  £7,311,107 has currently been repaid.
  The information relating to the total number of customers who have repaid the overpayment in full, and the total who have paid nothing can only be obtained at disproportionate cost. It is however, estimated that over 68,000 have repaid in full, with a further 4,500 in the process of repaying. The balance approximately 39,000 have either not been pursued due to the small amount involved, or have refused to repay or have not responded to requests for repayment.
  The estimated cost of administration is approximately £430,000, and the total currently unrecovered is approximately £3.2million.
  I hope this is helpful.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to seek to exclude farm and hunt kennel incinerators 606W
  from the new European directive on waste incinerators; and if he will make a statement. [131477]

  Mr. Hill
  In negotiations on the European Parliament's proposed amendments to the waste incineration Directive proposal, the UK has made clear that it would like the text to exclude animal carcase incinerators provided that they are subject to alternative appropriate environmental regulation. We are now confident that the directive when it is adopted will include text intended specifically to exclude animal carcase incinerators with the proviso that the Commission intends to propose a revision to the animal waste directive providing for high environmental standards for incineration and co-incineration of animal waste.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he is taking to encourage research into contaminated land remediation; [132100]

  (2) how much finance has been made available for research into the remediation of contaminated land, and how many hectares of such land have been remediated, in each of the last 10 years. [132098]

  Mr. Mullin
  Public funding is made available for contaminated land research on a variety of topics, including its remediation. This is undertaken by a number of bodies, including my Department, the Environment Agency, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, English Partnerships, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council, and the Medical Research Council. Further projects are being funded through various European programmes, including Life and the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Development.

  In addition, this type of research is an approved objective under the landfill-tax credit scheme.

  It is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of research specifically related to the remediation of contaminated land since funding programmes and individual projects within these programmes typically relate to wider issues than just remediation.

  My Department has recently let a contract for a contaminated-land research audit. This aims to assess current contaminated-land research programmes and to identify gaps or duplication of effort and suggest ways to improve access to the results.

  Figures for the amount of land that has been remediated in each of the last 10 years are not available. Most of this remediation has taken place as a result of voluntary action by landowners (for example, the redevelopment of brownfield sites). Statistics are not recorded when development takes place.

  Croydon Tramlink
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the net cost is of the Croydon Tramlink project under the Private Finance Initiative; what the value is of public
  607W
  sector comparators in (a) pre-risk and (b) risk adjusted terms and what risks are identified as having been transferred; and if he will make a statement. [132269]

  Mr. Hill
  Croydon Tramlink was designed, built and is being operated by Tramtrack Croydon Ltd. (TCL), a private sector consortium, under a concession agreement with London Regional Transport made in 1996. Under the concession agreement TCL bear the risks associated with the construction and operation of the project. The Government made a fixed contribution of £125 million towards the projected capital cost of £200 million, in recognition of the wider benefits of Tramlink to the local area. TCL raised the remainder of the cost and run the system without public subsidy.

  Best Value
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent the costs to local authorities of implementing the best value regime are allowed for in SSAs. [132440]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government added £24.25 million to the 2000–01 SSA totals to cover the cost of Best Value audit and inspection fees. Our spending plans for local government take into account the costs of implementing Best Value, together with the improvements in cost effectiveness that will flow from it.

  A11
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects funding to be allocated for the upgrading of the All from Barton Mills to The Ford; and when he expects construction work to begin. [132539]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: Funding for the preparation of this scheme was confirmed in March this year.

  The scheme is at an early stage in its development and progress is of course, dependent upon statutory procedures. It is therefore too early to identify a possible date for the start of works.

  Railways (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the additional resources for rail transport, announced in the Spending Review 2000, will be ear-marked for railway services in Wales. [132793]

  Mr. Hill
  None of the additional resources announced in the Spending Review 2000 have been allocated to particular parts of Great Britain.

  Waste Imports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to prohibit the importation of waste for use in energy-from-waste plants. [131663]

  Mr. Mullin
  Existing policies on imports of waste are set out in the legally binding United Kingdom Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste, which came into effect in June 1996.
  608W
  The UK Plan prohibits most waste imports for disposal, including imports of municipal waste for final disposal, in line with longstanding UK policies of encouraging developed countries to become as self-sufficient as possible in waste disposal. Consistent with the EC Waste Shipments Regulation (EEC) No. 259–93, though, the UK Plan cannot prohibit imports of wastes for recovery, which could include incineration with energy recovery. However, individual shipments of municipal wastes for recovery require the prior consent of the UK enforcement authorities. There may be grounds for objecting to proposed shipments if the primary purpose of the importing facility is to treat local wastes and those wastes will be displaced by the proposed imports.

  Available data show that no imports of municipal waste have taken place since the UK Plan took effect.

  Stagecoach
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will arrange for a transcript of the final report of the public inquiry into the operation by Stagecoach of Licence PC3233 to be placed in the Library. [132294]

  Mr. Hill
  In the interests of minimising public expenditure, Public Inquiries conducted by Traffic Commissioners are transcribed only when necessary, such as in the case of an appeal. There is currently no reason to incur the cost of transcribing the Inquiry in question.

  Regional Government (North-west)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many letters he has received in each of the last three years requesting an elected north-west regional Government. [132718]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In the last three years, we have received two letters supporting elected regional government in the north-west, one in 1999 and one in 2000.

  Roads (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of new roads were built in the Ribble Valley constituency in each year from 1994 to 2000. [132719]

  Mr. Hill
  New highway construction (includes realignment and dualling) in the Ribble Valley constituency in each year from 1994 to 2000 is as follows:

  Miles

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  A1

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  3.50

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  B

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  2.14

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  C

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.83

  0.00

  Footway

  0.12

  0.48

  0.53

  0.00

  0.00

  0.09

  0.00

  Motorway

  0.00

  4.62

  0.00

  0.90

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  Trunk road

  0.00

  2.13

  0.00

  0.08

  1.02

  2.31

  0.00

  Unclassified

  0.31

  1.32

  0.63

  0.96

  1.55

  2.15

  0.22

  Unadopted

  1.25

  0.41

  0.69

  0.00

  0.81

  1.56

  1.23

  1 Principal

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to reply to the letter of 11 April, sent by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, concerning Mr. Davey of Deeside, CH5. [133130]

  Ms Armstrong
  I can confirm that a response to my right hon. Friend's letter has been sent, following a delay owing to an administrative error.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to answer the letter sent by right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside of 2 June, regarding Mr. Herbert of Mold, Flintshire, CH7. [133129]

  Ms Armstrong
  I replied to this letter on behalf of the Secretary of State on 21 July.

  M6
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how his Ten Year Transport Plan relates to the work of the West Midlands to North West multi-modal study; [132847]

  (2) what impact the Ten Year Transport Plan will have on the proposal to widen the M6 motorway between junctions 11 and 16. [132846]

  Mr. Hill
  The Ten Year Transport Plan provides the resources to implement the outcomes from multi-modal studies. These studies exemplify our integrated approach to transport policy which we are applying to a series of transport problems around the country.

  The West Midlands to North West multi-modal study is a good example. The aim of this study is to ensure that the M6 motorway retains its vital strategic role supporting the national economy. M6 Junction 11a-16 Widening and M6 Junction 16–19 Widening schemes were remitted for consideration in this study following the 1998 Roads Review. The study is also looking at the role that rail and public transport could play in easing the problems on the M6, and the scope for using new technologies, demand management techniques and giving priority to certain types of traffic to make better use of the existing infrastructure. The study will report in autumn 2001.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take to relieve congestion on the M6 motorway between Junctions 6 and 10. [132848]

  Mr. Hill
  Over the next three years, the Highways Agency will be introducing Calmed Motorways measures on M6 Junctions 10–8 to regulate speed and reduce congestion and delays. The West Midlands Area Multi-Modal Study is looking at further measures to make best use of the M6 between Junctions 6–10 using speed and access control. The Birmingham Northern Relief Road will also provide a less congested alternative to the M6.

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) for what reason one eastbound lane has been removed on the West Cromwell Road A4; [133168]
  610W
  (2) how many new sets of traffic lights have been placed on the A316 from the M3 to the A4 in the last three years; [133165]

  (3) for what reasons a narrow lane on the outside lane of the two lane dual carriageway A316 eastbound east of the junction with the B358 has been painted on, to narrow the two lanes cars can use; [133170]

  (4) what is the hourly change in capacity of the A316 eastbound from the M3 to the A4 as a result of all the traffic management measures taken in the last three years. [133167]

  (5) for what reasons the speed limit has been reduced on the A316 Country Way three lane dual carriageway. [133166]

  (6) for what reasons three lanes have been reduced to two on the A4 at Queens Gate and Exhibition Road junctions. [133169]

  Mr. Hill
  This is a matter for the Mayor of London and Transport for London.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the transfer of responsibility for London's trunk roads to Transport for London. [133246]

  Mr. Hill
  I am pleased to report to the House that the transfer of responsibility has been achieved effectively. Currently, however, Transport for London are developing expertise in key operational areas and the Highways Agency will be providing them with advice and support for a short handover period. This arrangement is the subject of a Service Agreement between the two bodies. Tfl are committed to achieving self-sufficiency as quickly as possible and it is envisaged that the assistance will generally be required until the autumn. The Treasury has agreed that the Agency may score this expenditure as extra-statutory and record it as special payments in their Appropriation Account.

  Amber Rose
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Marine Accident Investigation Branch will publish its report on the sinking of the Portavogie trawler, the `Amber Rose', in October 1998; and if he will make a statement. [132717]

  Mr. Hill
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch's (MAIB) report was sent to those involved in the accident, including the next of kin of the skipper, on Monday 24 July. It was made publicly available on Wednesday 26 July. Copies are available free of charge from the MAIB.

  Tower Hamlets Housing Trust
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the net present cost is of the Tower Hamlets Housing Trust project under the Private Finance Initiative; what the value is of the public sector comparators in(a) pre-risk

  611W
  and (b) risk-adjusted terms; what risks are identified as having been transferred; and if he will make a statement. [132837]

  Mr. Mullin
  Information about the private finance agreement between Tower Hamlets Housing Action Trust (the HAT), Circle Thirty Three Housing Trust and its subsidiary Old Ford Housing Association (OFHA) is available on the DETR website at www.detr.gov.uk/ppp/2.htm#towerhamlets. The HAT's partners have agreed to invest £23 million, alongside the HAT's own investment of £55 million, to enable the HAT's programme for rehousing its tenants to proceed faster and at less cost to the taxpayer than would be possible with public funds alone. The risks transferred include the financial uncertainty arising from HAT tenants' right to choose between the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and OFHA as their future landlord.

  Rail Transport
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will analyse the increase in expenditure on rail transport in each of the next three financial years, arising from the recent comprehensive spending review, between the expenditure he anticipates will be undertaken in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. [133120]

  Mr. Hill
  The expenditure on rail announced in the Spending Review 2000 relates to Great Britain. It is not possible to provide a geographical breakdown at this stage. The distribution of expenditure will depend on progress with franchise replacement and on priorities for investment identified in the shadow Strategic Rail Authority's first strategic plan to be published in November.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what decision he has reached following the consultation on proposals to amend the law after the judgment in the case of Benson v Boyce. [133204]

  Mr. Hill
  After very careful consideration of all the responses received and bearing in mind the weight of all the arguments, I have decided that the only people who should be entitled to drive a licensed private hire vehicle in England and Wales, outside London, without themselves having the appropriate licence, should be people conducting legally necessary tests, either of the vehicle or the driver. I am advised that it is already legal for people without a private hire vehicle driver's licence to conduct such tests. Accordingly, no order is necessary under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide a report on the progress of the Docklands Light Railway. [133205]

  Mr. Hill
  The Railway had an excellent year, the highpoint of which was the completion of the extension 612W
  of the railway to Lewisham which the Deputy Prime Minister opened in November on budget and two months ahead of schedule.

  On the 3 July 2000 ownership of DLR Ltd. passed from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to Transport for London.

  Copies of the Annual Report and Accounts have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on making car fronts safer and controlling bull bars. [133245]

  Mr. Hill
  "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", our road safety strategy, commits the UK to backing proposals for the European Commission to bring forward a Directive to make car fronts safer. The Government believe that a pedestrian protection Directive could ultimately secure a reduction in deaths and serious injuries to pedestrians of up to 20 per cent.

  The Government also said in the road safety strategy that such a Directive would be the best way of preventing particularly dangerous bull bars being fitted to vehicles. As a part of our consideration of how best to tackle bull bars, we asked the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to do some test work comparing a range of typical bull bars and base vehicles. TRL's report on this is being published today and copies have been put in the House Library.

  In summary, TRL recommend that an approval procedure for bull bars should be considered, with a test speed of 40km/h (25mph). They warn against a low speed test, which is the best we could demand in any national approval scheme. We believe this confirms our view that controls on bull bars should be introduced on a Europe-wide basis. TRL's research is a thorough piece of work, and their initial findings have enabled us to submit a technical proposal to the European Commission setting out how bull bars could be dealt with in the anticipated pedestrian protection Directive.

  The Government do, however, recognise that there is a desire for action to be taken as quickly as possible. We have therefore also submitted a comparable technical proposal for amending the 'existing' external projections Directive to include a test for bull bars, as a quick interim measure. This second proposal was well received by other member states when it was initially tabled in early June, and we hope it will make swift progress.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parking Facilities
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the Commission will introduce a workplace parking charge scheme. [131842]
  613W
  Mr. Kirkwood
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) on 12 April 2000,Official Report, column 149W.

  Environmental Performance
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, (1) if the Commission will introduce measures and set targets to ensure the House of Commons improves its environmental performance by(a) conserving (i) energy, (ii) water, (iii) wood, (iv) paper and (v) other resources, (b) reducing waste, (c) phasing out substances damaging to health and the environment, (d) encouraging contractors to develop environmentally-preferable goods and services, (e) purchasing wood from sustainable sources, (f) drawing up emergency procedures for dealing with significant environmental risks, (g) ensuring buildings achieve a good standard of environmental performance, (h) following the Government's Green Claims Code and (i) ensuring staff work in an environmentally responsible manner; [131840]

  (2) if the Commission will establish a target for the House of Commons (a) to buy electricity from renewable sources and (b) to switch from hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorobutane and sulphur hexafluoride to environmentally-preferable substitutes. [131841]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.

HEALTH

  Nurses Pay
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the average rates of pay for nurses employed(a) on NHS Direct and (b) in the rest of the NHS. [106784]

  Mr. Denham
  The recently published results of the Department's August 1999 National Health Service Earning Survey, copies of which are available in the Library, show that the estimated average full-time equivalent salary for all qualified NHS nurses on national payscales was £19,300 after the pay awards for April 2000 are taken into account, and £22,200 if all other payments, e.g. allowances and overtime, are included. Information about the pay for nurses employed by NHS Direct cannot be separately identified from the pay of other qualified nurses.

  Scientists
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) clinical and (b) biomedical scientists there are within each range of the relevant payscales. [108306]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is in the tables.
  614W

  Estimated number of clinical scientists directly employed by NHS Trusts, England

  Spine Point

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalent

  Grade A:

  00

  80

  80

  01

  60

  60

  02

  50

  50

  03

  40

  40

  04

  20

  20

  05

  30

  30

  06

  20

  20

  07

  20

  20

  Other Grade A:

  120

  120

  Grade B:

  08

  90

  80

  09

  70

  70

  10

  180

  170

  11

  70

  70

  12

  90

  90

  13

  150

  140

  14

  100

  90

  15

  90

  80

  16

  190

  170

  17

  120

  110

  18

  80

  80

  19

  150

  150

  20

  80

  80

  21

  60

  60

  22

  90

  90

  23

  30

  30

  24

  180

  180

  Other Grade B:

  480

  450

  Grade C:

  23

  10

  10

  24

  10

  10

  25

  10

  10

  26

  20

  20

  27

  20

  20

  28

  1—

  1—

  29

  20

  20

  30

  20

  20

  31

  120

  110

  32

  40

  40

  33

  40

  40

  34

  40

  40

  35

  30

  30

  36

  50

  50

  Other Grade C:

  90

  80

  Other clinical scientists:

  30

  20

  All clinical scientists:

  3,300

  3,150

  1 Indicates less than 5.

  Note:

  Totals based on unrounded figures.

  Source:

  Department of Health's August 1999 NHS Earnings Survey.

  Estimates number of biomedical scientists directly employed by NHS Trusts, England

  Pre-April 1999

  Post-April 1999

  Spine point

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalent

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalent

  Trainee Grade:

  01

  70

  70

  1—

  1—

  02

  30

  30

  1—

  1—

  03

  30

  30

  1—

  1—

  04

  20

  20

  1—

  1—

  05

  50

  50

  1—

  1—

  06

  60

  60

  1—

  1—

  07

  70

  70

  270

  270

  08

  110

  100

  70

  70

  09

  220

  220

  110

  100

  10

  1—

  1—

  220

  220

  Other Trainee staff

  130

  130

  130

  130

  615W

  Estimates number of biomedical scientists directly employed by NHS Trusts, England

  Pre-April 1999

  Post-April 1999

  Spine point

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalent

  Headcount

  Whole-time equivalent

  Grade 1:

  14

  160

  160

  —

  —

  15

  210

  210

  160

  160

  16

  210

  200

  210

  210

  17

  200

  190

  210

  200

  18

  180

  160

  200

  190

  19

  220

  210

  180

  160

  20

  240

  210

  220

  210

  21

  2,420

  2,040

  240

  210

  22

  880

  800

  2,420

  2,040

  23

  370

  340

  880

  880

  24

  170

  160

  370

  340

  25

  1—

  1—

  170

  160

  Other Grade 1 staff

  650

  600

  650

  600

  Grade 2:

  22

  40

  40

  1—

  1—

  23

  120

  120

  160

  150

  24

  100

  90

  100

  90

  25

  170

  160

  170

  160

  26

  120

  110

  120

  110

  27

  110

  110

  110

  110

  28

  80

  80

  80

  80

  29

  1,100

  1,040

  1,100

  1,040

  30

  410

  390

  410

  390

  31

  330

  320

  330

  320

  32

  220

  220

  220

  220

  Other Grade 2 staff

  410

  400

  410

  400

  Grade 3:

  30

  20

  10

  20

  10

  31

  30

  30

  30

  30

  32

  20

  20

  20

  20

  33

  680

  670

  680

  670

  34

  290

  280

  290

  280

  35

  190

  190

  190

  190

  36

  210

  210

  210

  210

  Other Grade 3 staff

  170

  170

  170

  170

  Grade 4:

  34

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  35

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  36

  10

  10

  10

  10

  37

  210

  210

  210

  210

  38

  50

  50

  50

  50

  39

  50

  50

  50

  50

  40

  90

  90

  90

  90

  Other Grade 4 staff

  50

  50

  50

  50

  Other biomedical scientists

  70

  60

  70

  60

  All biomedical scientists

  12,070

  11,260

  12,070

  11,260

  1 Indicates a redundant spine point.

  2 Indicates less than 5, but greater than zero.

  Note:

  Totals based on unrounded figures.

  Source:

  Department of Health's August 1999 NHS Earnings Survey.

  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average level of pay for medical laboratory scientific officers on grade 1 of the payscale working in hospitals in the United Kingdom. [115488]

  Mr. Denham
  The recently published results of the Department's August 1999 National Health Service Earnings Survey, copies of which are available in the Library, show that the estimated average full-time equivalent salary for all Grade 1 NHS Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers (biomedical scientists) on national 616W
  payscales was £16,800 after the pay awards for April 2000 are taken into account and rises to £22,100 if all other payments e.g. allowances and overtime, are included.

  Health and Social Care (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the benefits of joint health and social care(a) planning and (b) provision in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [127301]

  Mr. Denham
  We are persuaded of the benefits of joint health and social care planning and, where appropriate, provision. We have taken a number of significant steps to promote joint working.

  Joint planning is especially important in rural areas where services are more dispersed and some people face problems of access. The provision of joint services across the spectrum of health and social care has been encouraged through use of the Partnership Grant, and by the flexibilities provided for in the Health Act 1999, and increasingly means that rural areas can be better served.

  The partnership arrangements in the Health Act 1999 came into force in April 2000. The new flexibilities include pooling of funds, delegation of functions and money transfers. To date there have been 22 notifications of partnership arrangements, amounting to over £200 million of resources, of which nine are from local authority areas which would be described as largely rural. These include Devon, Warwickshire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Cumbria and North Yorkshire.

  Infertility Treatment
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to make the provision of infertility treatment on the NHS a decision to be taken by central Government; and if he will make a statement; [128890]

  (2) what measures he plans to introduce to increase the capacity of the NHS to provide infertility treatment. [128747]

  Yvette Cooper
  It is for health authorities to set their own priorities for the delivery of services and to consult locally in deciding on those priorities.

  We will shortly be publishing the results of a survey into infertility provision across the country, which clearly demonstrate variations in the level of service provided. The Department will be examining ways to tackle unacceptable variations in service delivery while continuing to target our priority areas of cancer and heart disease.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees working within the NHS earn(a) the national minimum wage, (b) between the national minimum wage and £3.80 per hour, (c) between £3.80 per hour and £4.00 per hour, (d) between £4.00 per hour and £4.20 per hour, (e) between £4.20 per hour and £4.40 per hour and (f) less than £5.00 per hour; what the number of staff in (a) to (f) represent as a percentage of total NHS staff; and if he will make a statement. [108899]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  617W
  We are committed to eliminating the worst instances of low pay. The new national minimum wage removes the worst excesses of low pay and ensures greater decency and fairness in the workplace. The recent settlements

  Number of directly employed NHS staff by hourly salary—England

  Rates at August 1999

  Estimated rates at April 20001

  All staff

  Staff on national payscales2

  Hourly salary4

  Headcount (thousand)

  As percentage of all staff

  Headcount (thousand)

  As percentage of all staff

  Headcount (thousand)

  As percentage of all staff

  <£3.603

  0.5

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  0.1

  0.0

  £3.60 to <£3.80

  9.5

  1.0

  5.6

  0.8

  5—

  0.0

  £3.80 to <£4.00

  50.4

  5.2

  35.0

  4.9

  5—

  0.0

  £4.00 to <£4.20

  15.4

  1.6

  4.9

  0.7

  35.9

  5.1

  £4.20 to <£4.40

  12.4

  1.3

  3.1

  0.4

  7.6

  1.1

  £4.40 to <£5.00

  82.8

  8.6

  46.5

  6.5

  38.3

  5.4

  All staff below £5

  170.9

  17.7

  95.3

  13.4

  82.0

  11.5

  All staff at or above £4

  796.6

  82.3

  615.8

  86.60

  629.1

  88.46

  All directly employed NHS staff

  967.6

  100.0

  711.1

  100.0

  711.1

  100.0

  1 Figures reflect pay awards up to and including April 2000

  2 Estimates of pay awards for staff on local payscales are not available

  3 Staff earning less tan £3.60 per hour may do so because they are either: aged under 18, apprentices, receiving benefits in kind; or receiving only a proportion of their earnings directly from NHS trusts. No full-time adult payscales are less than £4 per hour

  4 Hourly earnings will be, on average, 13 per cent,higher with allowances and overtime added

  5 Indicates less than 100, but greater than zero

  Source:

  Department of Health's August 1999 NHS Earning Survey

  Healthy Eating
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will(a) make a statement on the Government's proposals to encourage healthy eating among children and (b) ensure that the Government's efforts are co-ordinated across the United Kingdom with the devolved administrations. [129928]

  Yvette Cooper
  As part of the strategy to tackle the issues raised in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey of 4–18 year olds, which we published in June, we have set up a cross-Government working group on improving children's diet and physical activity in England. It involves Health and Education Ministers, the chair of the Food Standards Agency and the chair of the Health Development Agency. Already, through the Healthy Schools Programme, we are encouraging schools to present consistent, informed messages about healthy eating and food on offer from canteens, vending machines and tuck shops. Additionally we have recently announced that we will be spending £2 million this year to promote fruit and vegetable consumption among school aged children. Any further proposals to improve children's diet will be included in the National Plan for the National Health Service which is due to be announced later this month.

  As public health is a devolved topic, any proposals in this area for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the devolved administrations who may develop dietary policy and initiatives which best meet their own particular needs. However, I intend to keep in close contact with my ministerial counterparts in the other UK countries and fully explore the opportunities for co-ordination in this area.
  618W
  reached for National Health Service staff on national payscales will give the lowest paid staff in the NHS proportionately more pay—taking the lowest adult hourly rate to over £4 per hour.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research projects funded by his Department to investigate the chronic toxic effect of fluoride on body enzymes and proteins. [130198]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department and its predecessors have not funded any specific research projects on the effects of fluoride on enzymes or other body proteins.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each(a) health authority in England and Wales and (b) water company supplying artificially fluoridated drinking water the safety tests that are carried out in respect of (i) silicofluorides and (ii) hydrofluosilicic acid. [130204]

  Yvette Cooper
  All substances used in the treatment of water supplies must be approved by the Drinking Water Inspectorate acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Disodium hexafluorosilicate (a silicofluoride) and hexafluorosilicic acid (also called hydrofluorosilicic acid) are approved for use in artificial fluoridation schemes under the Water Industry Act 1991, subject to compliance with a Code of Practice on the Technical Aspects of the Fluoridation of Water Supplies published by the Department of the Environment. This code covers the design, construction, operation and maintenance of fluoridation plant to ensure that the correct level of fluoride is added and there are fail-safe precautions against over dosing. The code includes a detailed specification for the two chemicals together with advice to water companies on how to check the purity of the chemicals against the specification.

  In-vitro Fertilisation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-vitro fertilization treatments have taken
  619W
  place in each of the last five years in the United Kingdom; how many were (a) NHS-funded and (b) privately funded; and if he will make a statement. [130374]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  A recent Departmental survey of infertility provision showed that many health authorities could not distinguish their spending on infertility services from their general gynaecological budget. Many have difficulty identifying some or all of the treatments they purchase.

  The Department has no access to information on the number of infertility treatments being privately funded.

  Allergies
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national framework for the provision of paediatric allergy services. [130996]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: We are taking forward the National Service Framework (NSF) programme with the development of one new NSF per year. We will consider the proposed service area or care group for the next NSF against the criteria set out in "A First Class Service", as well as the priorities and targets identified in the National Plan.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many prostate-specific antigen blood tests were performed in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; [130743]

  (2) how many new biopsy-proven cases of prostate cancer there were in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [130750]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not currently available. The latest available figures of registrations of prostate cancer for 1991–1996. Figures for 1994–1996 are provisional.

  Year

  Number

  1Rate per 100,000

  1991

  14,313

  49.7

  1992,

  15,823

  54.8

  1993,

  17,210

  59.1

  1994

  19,200

  65.6

  1995

  18,400

  62.3

  1996

  18,900

  63.5

  1 Rates are directly age-standardised to the European population

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) radical prostatectomy surgeries, (b) external beam radiation therapy courses and (c) radioactive seed implants (brachytherapy) for prostate cancer were performed in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [130748]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of episodes where either a prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer was performed, in NHS hospitals in England for 1997–98 to 1998–99 are shown in the table. Data for 1999–2000 are not yet available.
  620W

  Number of Finished Consultant Episodes (FCEs1) for selected diagnoses and operations in NHS Trusts in England, 1997–98 and 1998–99

  Diagnosis/operation

  1997–98

  1998–99

  (a) Malignant neoplasm of prostate C61 (ICD10) with open excision of prostate M61 (OPCS 4R), or endorscopic resection of outlet of male bladder M65 (OPCS 4R).

  6.468

  6,366

  (b) Malignant neoplasm of prostate C61 (ICD10) with Radiotherapy session Z51.0 (ICD10)

  5.125

  6,345

  1 An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  Notes:

  Figures for 1997–98 are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, but the figures for 1998–99 are ungrossed (i.e. no adjustments have as yet been made for shortfalls in data).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for(a) a body scan and (b) a bone scan following prostate cancer diagnosis. [132722]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women were treated for coronary heart disease during the last 12 months. [130767]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of admissions for coronary heart disease to National Health Service Trusts in England, by gender, for the financial year 1998–99, is shown in the table.

  Admissions

  Male

  186,585

  Female

  99,918

  Sex not specified

  103

  Total

  286,606

  Meat Inspections
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which other EU countries are supportive of a meat inspection regime based upon risk analysis. [131100]

  Ms Stuart
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that at recent European Commission Working Group meetings on veterinary legislation, all European Union member states have expressed support for the Commission's initiative to fundamentally review ante- and post-mortem inspection procedures in slaughterhouses. All member states were of the view that the current meat inspection system should be re-assessed on the basis of risk. However, there were varying degrees of support for the extent to which it would be possible to move away from the present levels of official supervision and for plant operators to take responsibility for post-mortem inspection. Subsequent bilateral meetings between Food Standards Agency officials and representatives from the veterinary
  621W
  authorities in France and the Netherlands have shown these countries to be very supportive of a risk-based approach to both official controls and meat inspection procedures.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possibility of introducing the hazard analysis and critical control point system into the meat hygiene service. [131810]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 21 July 2000]: Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) is a food safety management system which places responsibility for the production of safe food on food business operators. HACCP is widely regarded as the most effective approach to preventing food safety problems but is not currently a mandatory requirement in the meat slaughtering sector. The European Commission's proposals for new food safety hygiene rules, presented by Commissioner Byrne at the Agriculture Council on 17 July, would extend HACCP-based controls to all food production, including meat slaughtering. We welcome these proposals and the opportunity they give to modernise official controls and meat inspection procedures. The new legislation is expected to take at least two years to negotiate, with a further interim phase needed for full implementation. I am advised that the Food Standards Agency will be consulting widely on the Commission's proposals in developing the United Kingdom's negotiating position.

  In the meantime, the meat industry is being encouraged to adopt HACCP on a voluntary basis. In a survey in 1999 about 54 per cent. of red meat (full throughput) slaughterhouses and 71 per cent. of white meat (full throughput) slaughterhouses in Great Britain claimed to have a full HACCP system in place.

  Hospitals, Shrewsbury
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 3 July 2000,Official Report, column 39W, on the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, how many patients were treated for each of the treatments listed; and if he will make a statement. [131165]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information is not available in the requested format. The table relates to the numbers of operations performed at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000.

  Number

  Hip operations

  80

  Knee replacements

  5

  Hernia operations

  717

  Cataract operations

  1,546

  Action is being taken specifically on both reducing waiting times for patients needing orthopaedic procedures and on improving services to them. We are also improving access to cataract services. In doing so, we will improve the volume of surgery and reduce waiting lists. A capital modernisation fund of £20 million over two years from 2000–01 will allow local services to modernise.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit the Copthorne South hospital buildings in Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement. [131699]
  622W
  Yvette Cooper
  Due to heavy diary commitments, there are no plans at present for the Secretary of State for Health to visit the Copthorne South hospital buildings in Shrewsbury.

  Modernisation Fund
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list each application which he has determined for support from the Modernisation Fund, referred to in Figure 11.5 of the Departmental report, indicating the health authorities to which each application related, the amount of each application, the date of each application, the date of his decision on each application and the amount awarded thereunder, since the establishment of the fund; [129688]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of each application to the Modernisation Fund, referred to in Figure 11.5 of the Departmental report, by a health authority which has been personally determined by ministers, and the reasons cited for such determination, since the establishment of the fund; [129689]

  (3) if he will list each application to the Modernisation Fund, referred to in Figure 11.5 of the Departmental report, by a health authority which was (a) personally determined by ministers and (b) determined by officials, indicating in each case the amount of each application and the amount of each award, since the establishment of the fund. [129690]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: The table listing, by health authorities, the awards for the eighteen 1999–2000 Modernisation Fund budgets that were allocated via a bidding process has been placed in the Library.

  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 17 February relating to his constituent, Mrs. J. Stevens. [130653]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: I replied to the hon. Member on 24 July.

  Abortion
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to promote the uptake of the Royal College of Gynaecologists' guidelines entitled The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion. [131463]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has alerted all independent sector places carrying out termination of pregnancy to this new guideline. One of the conditions for approval is that practice should be guided by authoritative guidelines such as those from the Royal Colleges and we will monitor implementation during inspection visits. We expect the guideline to be used as the basis of local protocols that will promote the development of high quality services and take account of local needs and service provision.

  In addition, the guideline will be considered as part of the national sexual health and HIV strategy currently being developed.

  Health Spending
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the additional spending for health announced in the last Budget has been allocated to achieve specific targets; what the targets are for each health authority; and how much funding has been allocated to each target within each health authority. [131744]

  Table 1:

  Purpose

  £ million

  Additions to health authority any primary care group/trust unified allocations, to achieve financial balance, to improve waiting lists and times, to implement winter plans, including developing intermediate care services and to action recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  600

  To reward performance against indicators for waiting, winter planning and financial balance. The money is allocated in stages throughout the year. The criteria used to assess whether health authorities receive payments are based on national benchmarks and locally agreed plans.

  60

  For further development of services for wheelchair users. Health authorities are able to use this money flexibly to meet local needs and priorities in wheelchair services.

  4

  For further development of smoking cessation clinics. This money supports the National Priorities Guidance targets for smoking, namely 150,000 smokers accessing services and 20,000 quitting long-term; which in turn supports a 1 per cent, fall in prevalence by April 2001.

  4

  Further funding for booked admissions to reduce waiting. By March 2001 booking should be taking place in all acute NHS Trusts, in at least two specialities/high volume procedures. By the same date amount two million patients will have received a booked appointment or admission to hospital.

  10

  To support extended access to primary care and access to extended services in primary care. No specific targets for health authorities yet set.

  54.5

  For nurse leadership initiatives enabling all ward sisters and charge nurses to attend a leadership programme.

  2

  To increase critical care capacity (£5 million for neo-natal services and £145 million for adult intensive care of which £2.5 million goes to support local service redesign). Allocations to individual health authorities will be announced shortly.

  150

  For a flu vaccination programme. This will be offered to all aged 65 and over, as well as the 'risk' population. The main objective is to reduce the number of deaths and serious illness in those groups most likely to be affected.

  60

  For information technology. Allocations to health authorities and targets to be finalised.

  60

  For the development of cancer networks and for a peer review assessment visiting process for cancer services.

  3

  Table 2:

  £000

  Health Authority

  Additions to unified allocations

  Performance fund1

  Wheelchairs2

  Booked admissions2

  Access to primary care

  Smoking cessation2

  Avon

  11,390

  285

  275

  216

  1,035

  267

  Barking and Havering

  4,893

  0

  0

  0

  444

  114

  Barnet

  3,996

  0

  88

  0

  363

  97

  Barnsley

  3,094

  0

  65

  113

  281

  169

  Bedfordshire

  6,288

  167

  158

  0

  571

  220

  Berkshire

  8,779

  219

  222

  61

  797

  204

  Bexley and Greenwich

  5,262

  0

  0

  0

  478

  128

  Birmingham

  13,075

  327

  287

  530

  1,188

  315

  Bradford

  6,090

  152

  138

  0

  553

  346

  Brent and Harrow

  5,869

  0

  131

  199

  533

  259

  Bromley

  3,527

  0

  0

  0

  320

  82

  Buckinghamshire

  7,360

  184

  193

  0

  669

  169

  Bury and Rochdale

  4,858

  0

  112

  0

  441

  277

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  7,079

  177

  166

  96

  643

  170

  Cambridge

  7,948

  0

  248

  94

  722

  182

  Camden and Islington

  6,131

  0

  105

  194

  557

  360

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  5,952

  0

  140

  0

  541

  328

  County Durham

  8,095

  202

  173

  260

  735

  190

  Coventry

  3,998

  100

  86

  0

  363

  92

  Croydon

  3,958

  99

  0

  0

  359

  96

  Doncaster

  3,800

  95

  84

  78

  345

  209

  Dorset

  8,389

  210

  194

  209

  762

  195

  Dudley

  3,571

  0

  89

  0

  324

  84

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  9,204

  230

  186

  219

  836

  221

  East and North Hertfordshire

  5,661

  0

  140

  177

  514

  127

  East Kent

  7,382

  185

  0

  0

  670

  175

  East Lancashire

  6,790

  170

  147

  91

  617

  161

  East London and The City

  9,944

  249

  173

  0

  903

  574

  East Riding

  6,916

  173

  165

  0

  628

  389

  624W
  Mr. Denham
  Table 1 shows the elements of the additional spending for health announced in the last Budget that have been earmarked for health authorities to date, together with targets where appropriate. Table 2 shows the sums that have been allocated to each health authority to date. Other sums have been allocated other than to health authorities or are yet to be allocated.
  625W 626W

  Table 2:

  £000

  Health Authority

  Additions to Unified allocations

  Performance Fund1

  Wheelchairs2

  Booked admissions2

  Access to primary care

  Smoking cessation2

  East Surrey

  4,598

  0

  0

  0

  418

  109

  East Sussex Bright and Hove

  9,443

  236

  0

  0

  858

  224

  Enfield and Haringey

  6,234

  156

  135

  0

  566

  154

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  4,915

  123

  103

  0

  446

  274

  Gloucestershire

  6,205

  155

  158

  106

  564

  145

  Herefordshire

  1,909

  48

  47

  0

  173

  44

  Hillingdon

  2,989

  75

  70

  0

  272

  74

  Isle of Wight

  1,649

  41

  35

  0

  150

  38

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  6,122

  153

  100

  182

  556

  145

  Kingston and Richmond

  4,061

  102

  1,934

  0

  369

  93

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  10,949

  274

  0

  389

  995

  648

  Leeds

  8,981

  0

  207

  0

  816

  503

  Leicestershire

  10,286

  257

  264

  261

  934

  386

  Lincolnshire

  7,603

  190

  175

  99

  691

  173

  Liverpool

  6,521

  163

  135

  75

  592

  368

  Manchester

  6,514

  163

  123

  145

  592

  356

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  7,853

  0

  0

  0

  713

  193

  Morecambe Bay

  3,803

  95

  89

  67

  345

  90

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  6,333

  158

  137

  0

  575

  361

  Norfolk

  8,847

  0

  177

  45

  804

  211

  North and East Devon

  5,689

  0

  135

  139

  517

  131

  North and Mid Hampshire

  5,586

  140

  156

  0

  507

  131

  North Cheshire

  3,779

  94

  89

  42

  343

  91

  North Cumbria

  3,803

  0

  91

  0

  345

  211

  North Derbyshire

  4,393

  110

  107

  0

  399

  103

  North Essex

  9,755

  244

  250

  0

  886

  233

  North Nottinghamshire

  4,669

  117

  112

  0

  424

  110

  North Staffordshire

  5,965

  0

  137

  0

  542

  300

  North West Lancashire

  6,175

  154

  133

  108

  561

  148

  North Yorkshire

  8,368

  209

  210

  0

  760

  196

  Northamptonshire

  6,208

  155

  173

  80

  564

  158

  Northumberland

  3,777

  0

  89

  68

  343

  208

  Nottingham

  7,678

  192

  184

  0

  697

  436

  Oxfordshire

  6,535

  0

  172

  119

  594

  149

  Portsmouth and South East Hants

  6,394

  0

  152

  0

  581

  149

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  5,469

  0

  133

  0

  497

  135

  Rotherham

  3,082

  77

  74

  0

  280

  180

  Salford and Trafford

  5,847

  0

  128

  95

  531

  330

  Sandwell

  3,959

  99

  84

  70

  360

  212

  Sefton

  3,605

  0

  84

  0

  327

  209

  Sheffield

  6,907

  173

  151

  0

  627

  388

  Shropshire

  4,817

  120

  121

  147

  438

  113

  Solihull

  2,337

  58

  58

  0

  212

  51

  Somerset

  5,561

  139

  138

  0

  505

  129

  South and West Devon

  7,250

  0

  170

  88

  659

  276

  South Cheshire

  7,715

  193

  193

  0

  701

  179

  South Essex

  8,255

  206

  200

  75

  750

  192

  South Humber

  3,725

  93

  91

  0

  338

  86

  South Lancashire

  3,543

  89

  89

  90

  322

  82

  South Staffordshire

  6,189

  0

  168

  147

  562

  148

  Southampton and South West Hants

  6,302

  158

  170

  132

  572

  145

  Southern Derbyshire

  6,694

  167

  158

  107

  608

  155

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  4,553

  114

  95

  0

  414

  244

  Stockport

  3,377

  84

  84

  66

  307

  79

  Suffolk

  7,546

  189

  189

  125

  685

  170

  Sunderland

  3,877

  97

  86

  0

  352

  222

  Tees

  7,169

  179

  159

  147

  651

  406

  Wakefield

  4,045

  0

  91

  150

  367

  220

  Walsall

  3,190

  80

  75

  153

  290

  182

  Warwickshire

  5,531

  0

  142

  0

  502

  131

  West Hertfordshire

  6,054

  0

  149

  0

  550

  142

  West Kent

  10,750

  0

  0

  125

  976

  249

  West Pennine

  5,816

  145

  137

  101

  528

  144

  West Sussex

  9,050

  226

  0

  77

  822

  211

  Western Surrey

  6,860

  172

  0

  195

  623

  161

  Wigan and Bolton

  7,410

  185

  114

  77

  673

  177

  Wiltshire

  6,531

  163

  172

  0

  593

  152

  Wirral

  4,213

  105

  95

  125

  383

  237

  Wolverhampton

  3,136

  0

  70

  0

  285

  179

  Worcestershire

  5,748

  144

  154

  0

  522

  135

  1 Performance fund paid in quarterly tranches. Figures shown are for the first tranche.

  2 The additional funding announced in the Budget has been used to enhance an existing budget. Figures shown are for the full budget.

  Therapists
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) training places available for speech and language therapists and (b) applicants for places there were in each of the past 10 years. [130668]

  Mr. Denham
  These data are not collected centrally.

  Data on the number of training places and the total number of applicants for places is a matter for the University and Colleges Admissions Service.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the(a) number of clinical placements available for physiotherapists and (b) recruiting requirements for physiotherapists. [131739]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of clinical placements available for physiotherapists is not held centrally. It is for education consortiums to assess the availability of sufficient, high quality clinical placements and commission the education and training to meet the needs of local health services.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Therapists working within the speech and language therapy and physiotherapy areas of work, in England, North West Regional Office area and North West Lancashire Health Authority as at 30 September 1999

  England

  North West Region

  North West Lancashire HA

  Whole time equivalent

  Numbers (headcount)

  Whole time equivalent

  Numbers (headcount)

  Whole time equivalent

  Numbers (headcount)

  Speech and language therapist

  3,834

  5,065

  540

  687

  43

  52

  Population ratio per 100,000

  7.71

  10.18

  8.18

  10.40

  9.22

  11.12

  Physiotherapist

  11,803

  14,808

  1,707

  2,116

  111

  144

  Population ratio per 100,000

  23.72

  29.76

  25.85

  32.04

  23.75

  30.8

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census Office for National Statistics (ONS)

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the impact on recruiting requirements for speech and language therapists of their increased responsibilities, with particular reference to dysphagic patients and children with special educational needs. [131735]

  Mr. Denham
  Following the Dearing Review of higher education in 1998, funding for training of speech and language therapists, chiropodists, dietitians, orthotists and prosthetics was transferred from the Department for Education and Employment to the Department of Health. This Department has commissioned consultants to carry out a labour market analysis of speech and language therapists. This will include any recruitment implications resulting from increased workload due to treating dysphagia patients and children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the retention rate was of speech and language therapists in the NHS in the last 12 months. [131742]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally. The number of speech and language therapists (whole time equivalent) employed in the National Health Service increased by 17 per cent. between 1995 and 1999 (from 3,270 to 3,830).
  628W
  The National Workforce Review document, "A Health Service of all the talents: Developing the NHS Workforce, Consultation Document on the Review of Workforce Planning" outlines wide-ranging and radical proposals and recommendations which look to address issues surrounding the way the National Health Service plans for, educates, trains and deploys its staff, to ensure that the NHS has the workforce required to deliver service priorities.

  We are reviewing our assumptions about staff requirements in the light of the autumn 1999 census of NHS staff, the current survey of recruitment, retention and vacancy levels, and any other recent and relevant information.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the ratio is of(a) speech and language therapists and (b) physiotherapists to service users in (i) Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde, (ii) the North West and (iii) nationally. [131741]

  Mr. Denham
  The data requested are in the table:

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of research by Deborah Rossiter, of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, into the recruitment and retention of speech and language therapists. [131737]

  Mr. Denham
  The research is being fed into the Department's current labour market analysis of the speech and language therapy profession.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans and targets his Department has for the recruitment of(a) speech and language therapists and (b) physiotherapists. [131743]

  Mr. Denham
  The national recruitment, retention and vacancy survey published in September 1999 gave us the latest authoritative data on staff vacancies from 98 per cent. of National Health Service trusts. It shows that only 3.3 per cent. of physiotherapist and 1.2 per cent. of speech and language therapist posts have been vacant for 3 months or more (in England). We are ensuring that effective recruitment and retention policies are in place to make the best use of trained staff and that training levels are sufficient to get a better match between supply and demand.

  We are taking a number of steps which will help to address the issue of recruitment and retention of physiotherapists and speech and language therapists.
  629W
  These include the publication of the framework for the management of human resources for the whole of the NHS, "Working Together: securing a quality workforce for the NHS", which sets targets for local employers to improve recruitment and retention year on year. We have issued guidance to the service on improving working lives and we will shortly be issuing guidance on Lifelong Learning and Continuing Professional Development.

  We are also modernising services and modernising employment practice in the NHS: developing more supportive, flexible and family friendly working practices; extending and improving investment in lifelong learning and professional development; tackling violence and racism in the workplace; involving staff in the way services are delivered and in the changes and developments that affect their working lives.

  We have accepted in full the pay increases recommended by the Pay Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (including physiotherapists) for 2000–01. The Review Body have recommended an across the board increase of 3.4 per cent. for 2000–01 and for the second year running these increases will be paid in full without staging. Taken together with last year's award, this means that physiotherapists will have received real terms increases of over 5 per cent., the best settlement for over 10 years.

  Earlier this month, speech and language therapists accepted the pay offer for the years 2000–01 (3.25 per cent. or £300 whichever is the higher) and 2001–02 (a formula on which negotiations will be based) and the agreement will be promulgated to the NHS on 27 July 2000. Manufacturing Science and Finance Union, the main union representing speech and language therapists, balloted their speech and language therapist membership on the offer and the vote in favour of accepting the offer was 98 per cent.

  Career prospects for speech and language therapists have been improved with the introduction on 19 May of a revised grading structure for speech and language therapists which extends the existing pay spine to match that of clinical psychologists.

  Mechanically Recovered Meat
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards are in place to ensure that mechanically recovered meat is not contaminated with specified risk material; and if he will make a statement. [131891]

  Ms Stuart
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that specified risk material (SRM) controls are designed to ensure that all SRM is completely separated from the parts of the carcases of cattle and sheep which might be used for food before any further processing, such as the production of mechanically recovered meat (MRM), can take place. These controls are rigorously supervised by the Meat Hygiene Service, which inspects each carcase individually to ensure that all traces of SRM have been removed before the health mark is applied. As an additional safeguard, the SRM rules also prohibit the use of vertebral column of cattle or sheep, which will have been in contact with SRM in the form of the spinal cord, in MRM production.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance his Department gives on the frequency of air-changes in residential accommodation that is compatible with good health; [132083]

  (2) what guidance his Department gives to asthma sufferers on the importance of air circulation in the domestic environment; [132084]

  (3) what recent research he has commissioned on the link between asthma and air quality in the domestic and work environment; [132368]

  (4) what steps he is taking to evaluate the role of air quality in home and business environments on health. [132085]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Health and Safety Executive has commissioned research into the relationship between certain substances and occupational asthma. It has also commissioned research to develop monitoring methods and improve workplace controls.

  The Health and Safety Commission sets occupational exposure limits for some 500 substances. Virtually all hazardous substances that can cause ill health in the workplace are subject to control under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  The Department also provides information for the public on air pollution and health in the form of an information pack. This pack contains a wide range of information, including leaflets and factsheets from organisations such as the National Asthma Campaign and the Lung and Asthma Information Agency that contains specific health advice for people with asthma. The pack also provides information on how to obtain Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions leaflets on such issues as dust mites in the home, carbon monoxide poisoning in the home and damp and mould control for the home.

  The Department's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants has recently published advice on the health effects of air pollutants and this includes advice on precautions to take with pollutants indoors, including maintaining domestic appliances and ventilation. The importance of ventilation to improve air quality in the home is well understood and is enforced through the building regulations.

  In 1997, the Department, together with the DETR jointly commissioned a research programme "The Effects On Health Of Exposure To Air Pollutants And Damp In The Home". This £1.3 million programme focused on air pollution in the home and its effects on health. Specific projects concentrated on exposure to indoor air pollutants in children and their mothers with asthma and exposure to particulate air pollution and respiratory illness. The projects are due for completion later this year when the results and conclusions will be assessed.

  Pathology Services
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) the role of pathology services in the National Health Service and (b) what steps he has taken to increase recruitment and retention of staff in the pathology service. [132403]
  631W
  Mr. Denham
  Pathology services are an integral part of effective National Health Service diagnosis, treatment, patient care and screening programmes, they play an important role in protecting the public health in the new NHS.

  The Department is currently developing a specific strategy for improving recruitment and retention; liaising closely with employers, the Royal College of Pathologists, professional bodies and trade unions to raise the profile of the work of pathology staff. In addition, the National Advisory Group for Scientists and Technicians has been charged to develop plans to improve workforce planning, education, training and career development.

  Drinking Water (Chlorination)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) the Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Association, (b) the Pure Water Association and (c) other bodies regarding the chlorination of drinking water. [132345]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: No representations have been received.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the study commissioned by his Department into the use of chlorine-treated drinking water, with particular reference to(a) its cost, (b) when the report is expected and (c) the reasons for his Department's decision to commission the study. [132330]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment advised that:
  We consider that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the presence of chlorination by-products in tap-water increases the risk of adverse reproductive outcomes. We recommend, however, that the claimed associations between patterns of drinking-water intake and the incidence of adverse reproductive outcomes be investigated further, since any causal association would be of significant public health concern.

  The statement was published in the 1999 Annual Report of the Committees on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Copies of the Annual Report are in the Library, and may be found on the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/coc.htm.

  In view of the Committee's advice, funding Departments (which include the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions), commissioned the Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) at Imperial College to undertake a case-control epidemiological study to examine whether there are adverse reproductive outcomes associated with chlorination by-products in drinking-water. The study is part of core funding of SAHSU, and is not costed separately. The first part of the study, which is investigating the hypothesis of an association between chlorination byproducts and stillbirths, low birth weight, birth weight distribution and sex ratio, is expected to report in the autumn of 2000. A proposed second phase will investigate the hypothesis of an association with certain congenital anomalies (cleft lip/palate, and major defects of the heart and of the abdominal wall), and is expected to take about 16 months to complete.
  632W
  In addition, the Department of Health has commissioned the Medical Research Council Institute of Environment and Health to examine the techniques of systematic review and meta-analysis in environmental epidemiology and toxicology. The project, which costs £85,260, and which is expected to report by the end of 2002, will include consideration of epidemiological studies on chlorinated drinking-water and reproductive outcomes as one example of a body of research to which such techniques may be applied.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department gives to water companies regarding the chlorination of drinking water. [132347]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: Chemical disinfection of drinking-water is an important part of the treatment of water to protect human health. There are, however, concerns that traces of the chemical by-products of disinfection processes may be harmful. Standing expert advisory committees, whose members are appointed by the Chief Medical Officer, have advised the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the evidence linking the consumption of chlorinated tap-water with cancers and with adverse reproductive outcomes. The Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment concluded that:
  Overall, the further epidemiological studies fail to provide persuasive evidence of a consistent relationship between chlorinated drinking-water and cancer. It remains possible that there may be an association between chlorinated drinking water and cancer which is obscured by problems such as the difficulty of obtaining an adequate estimate of exposure to chlorination by-products, misclassification of source of drinking water (including the use of bottled water), failure to take adequate account of confounding factors (such as smoking status), and errors arising from non-participation of subjects.
  We therefore consider that efforts to minimise exposure to chlorination by-products remain appropriate, providing that they do not compromise the efficiency of disinfection of drinking-water.

  The statement was published in March 2000 in the 1998 Annual Report of the Committees on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment concluded that:
  We consider that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the presence of chlorination by-products in tap-water increases the risk of adverse reproductive outcomes. We recommend, however, that the claimed associations between patterns of drinking-water intake and the incidence of adverse reproductive outcomes be investigated further, since any causal association would be of significant public health concern. We therefore consider that efforts to minimise exposure to chlorination by-products by individuals and water authorities remain appropriate, providing that they do not compromise the efficiency of disinfection of drinking water.

  The statement was published in March 2000 in the 1999 Annual Report of the Committees on Toxicity, Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Copies of the Annual reports have been placed in the Library, and may be found on the internet at http://www.doh.gov.uk/coc.htm

  The advice was passed on to water and sewerage companies, and water companies, in England and Wales, by DWI in Information Letter 12/99 on

  633W
  14 July 1999. The letter included additional advice from DWI to the companies. The letter may be found on the internet at http://www.dwi.detr.gov.uk/regs/infolett/1999/ infol299.htm

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions officials in his Department have had with their counterparts in other Governments regarding the chlorination of drinking water. [132346]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: There have been no recent discussions. However, officials keep in touch with scientific and regulatory developments in this area, through published literature, contact with scientists working in this field, involvement in preparation of World Health Organisation guidelines and evaluations, and through colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Mobile Phones
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of(a) the NRPB report and (b) the Stewart report on mobile phones. [132435]

  Yvette Cooper
  The most recent document concerning mobile phone base stations published by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) is "Exposure to Radio Waves Near Mobile Phone Base Stations" (NRPB-R321 published June 2000). A summary is available at www.nrpb.org.uk. The contents of this report have been noted and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The Stewart report published on 11 May made wide-ranging recommendations. We issued our initial response on the same day. The Department is keeping an overview of action taken by the appropriate Government Departments to respond to the report's recommendations. Progress is as follows:
  Advice has already been issued to local education authorities and schools about base stations in an around school premises and the use of mobile phones by children.
  Research recommendations are being taken forward by the Department of Health in conjunction with the Department for Trade and Industry, the research councils and industry. An announcement is planned for September.
  The Department of Trade and Industry is also developing arrangements for information about mobile phones exposures to be made available and on measurement and auditing of base stations, for which schools are seen as the priority.
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will shortly be consulting on the principle and precise scope of possible changes to the planning process for mobile phone base stations.
  The Department of Health will issue a leaflet later this year to be distributed widely and, specifically, to be available where mobile phones are sold.

  Human Embryo Stem Cells
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the report from the Chief Medical Officer about the use of human embryo stem cells for medical research. [132436]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group on Therapeutic Cloning has completed its work on the potential benefits, risks and the ethical issues raised 634W
  by developments in stem cell research and cell nuclear replacement. We are now considering the report's recommendations.

  Human Papilloma Virus
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria will be used to set up the pilot schemes for human papilloma virus testing. [132504]

  Yvette Cooper
  The final criteria for selection of joint pilot sites for human papilloma virus testing and liquid based cytology have not yet been agreed by the Project Steering Group. They will broadly cover areas such as population size, high quality audit and historical information, number of smears taken annually and meeting national population coverage targets.

  Liver Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of hepatitis C infection levels of Government cancer strategy in relation to liver cancer. [132117]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: Studies carried out in a number of countries have shown that a percentage (generally about 1–5 per cent.) of individuals with chronic hepatitis C infection may progress to primary hepatocellular cancer. The Public Health Laboratory Service, in association with the British Association for the Study of the Liver, is setting up a surveillance system to monitor end stage liver disease attributed to hepatitis C.

  As part of our modernisation programme for the National Health Service, we are taking action on a number of fronts to ensure prompt access to cancer diagnosis and treatment across the country. This will include improving liver cancer services.

  Smoking
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the total tobacco consumption in the United Kingdom in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [132340]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of cigarettes released for home consumption in the United Kingdom were in(a) 1997 81.0 billion (b) 1998 75.3 billion, and (c) 1999 34.2 billion. It is not possible accurately to estimate overall cigarette consumption because of the effects of smuggling and forestalling.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, before supporting the proposal for an EU Directive on the manufacture, production and sale of tobacco products he prepared a regulatory impact assessment on the proposal. [132339]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: Yes. This assessment was available to the Scrutiny Committees of both Houses of Parliament examining the Directive proposals.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which members of staff of Action on Smoking and Health(a) have been and (b) are to be seconded to his Department; and to whom they will be responsible and report. [132342]
  635W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: No member of the Action on Smoking and Health staff has been seconded to the Department and no decisions have been taken on any future arrangement.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to continue to authorise the use of the product descriptions(a) low, (b) light, (c) ultra light, (d) mild and (e) other similar terms relating to tobacco products. [132341]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: As currently drafted, the Directive on Labelling, Manufacture and Sale of Tobacco Products would ban the use of such descriptions. The original European Commission proposal permitted member states to allow the terms to be used on tobacco products but the United Kingdom has argued strongly against any form of derogation.

  Biomedicine
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans Her Majesty's Government have to sign up to the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine; and if he will make a statement. [131643]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine contains a wide range of complex ethical and legal provisions. The rights of patients, whether undergoing medical treatment or research, are central to the Convention. The provisions cover a mixture of devolved matters (such as consent to treatment) and reserved matters (such as embryo research). We are considering the most appropriate way forward in the light of devolution.

  Public Records
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will open for public inspection the file DT 33/2055 at the Public Record Office. [132752]

  Mr. Denham
  File DT 33/2055 contains records of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales (GNC). The decision whether or not to open the file for public inspection is a matter for the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, the successor body to the GNC.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the visits outside Britain made by his Department's Permanent Secretary on official business since 1 January 1999, indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. [132751]

  Ms Stuart
  The Permanent Secretary visited Bonn, Germany on 17 to 18 May 1999 to discuss the German health system.

  Health Service Managers
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to health authorities or trusts about employment contracts of senior administrative and managerial personnel employed by the NHS; and where they are published. [132708]
  636W
  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive have issued guidance to NHS trusts and health authorities on employment contacts in respect of:the pay and conditions of service for NHS managers in trusts and health authorities who retain residual national arrangements, set out in Personnel Management (86)7 (which also included a model contract for general managers, amended by Health Service Guidance (96)1), and in Health Circular (89)1 (which also included model contract clauses for senior managers);
  the pay and conditions for managers in health authorities, effective since 1 April 1998, set out in Health Service Circular 1998/017;
  a service-wide policy restricting the use of short term contract for all staff working in the NHS, set out in Health Service Circular 1999/108; and,
  guidance on the early termination of general and senior managers fixed term rolling employment contracts, set out in Health Service Circular 199/138 and Health Service Circular 1999/140.

  Copies of these are in the Library. Guidance published since 1996 is also available on the Department's website.

  Medical Inquiries
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to require the General Medical Council to hold its inquiries in public and to put the conclusions of its inquiries into the public domain. [132706]

  Ms Stuart
  Much of the fitness to practise work of the General Medical Council is already conducted in public. Decisions that a doctor is not fit to practise are always made public.

  The General Medical Council is undertaking a "Structural and Legal Review" of its fitness to practise procedures. The GMC will publish its proposals for modernisation later this year. We will need to consider how far they meet the rising expectations of the public and Parliament for fundamental changes to the way the GMC deals with doctors who do not meet the expected standards of conduct and performance set by the profession. If the Council cannot deliver the reform that is necessary we will act to put into place effective measures for the protection of the public.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues on non-judicial inquiries into events in the NHS; how many of such inquiries have been conducted; how many reports of such inquiries have been put in the public domain; and how many such inquiries have been carried out by employees of the NHS since May 1997. [132707]

  Ms Stuart
  Non-statutory inquiries into events in the National Health Service are carried out at many levels of NHS management as part of the management process. They may be initiated internally by staff, through formal mechanisms such as the NHS Complaints Procedures, or through external agencies. Some inquiries may be staffed from within the NHS organisation while others will have the benefit of independent members. No general guidance
  637W
  has been issued, although specific information on the NHS Complaints Procedures was issued under cover of Executive Letter (96)19, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Full details of these inquiries are not held centrally. For information on inquiries established by the Department since December 1997 1 refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) on 25 July 2000, Official Report, columns 499–500W. all those inquiries listed have either reported publicly or intend to do so.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in Ribble Valley waited(a) between six and 12 months, (b) between 12 and 18 months and (c) over 18 months for an in-patient appointment; [132723]

  (2) how many people in Ribble Valley waited (a) between three and six months, (b) between six and nine months and (c) over nine months for their first out-patient appointment; [132724]

  (3) how many people from the Ribble Valley died while on an NHS waiting list between 1994 and 2000. [132727]

  Mr. Denham
  Patients waiting for a first out-patient appointment at Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care National Health Service Trust at 31 March 2000 for all specialities, were:

  waiting 13–25 weeks—516 patients

  waiting over 26 weeks—147 patients and

  total waiting over 13 weeks—663 patients.

  Patients waiting for an in-patient appointment at Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust at 31 March 2000 for all specialities, were:

  between 6 and 12 months—857 patients

  between 12 and 18 months—48 patients and

  over 18 months—none.

  Information relating to the number of people from Ribble Valley who died on an NHS waiting list is not collected centrally.

  Note:
  The waiting list information available is collected centrally by the Blackburn. Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust and not by area of residency.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is made in relation to prepayment prescription charges for payment to be made in instalments by direct debit instalments. [132364]

  Ms Stuart
  In England prescription pre-payment certificates (PPCs) are not available by instalments. To introduce payment on a sliding scale, by instalments or by direct debit, would inevitably increase administrative costs. This would in turn lead to higher season ticket fees, and so reduce the potential savings and make them less attractive for those who continue to use them. However, we recognise that some people may have difficulty in finding the fee for an annual PPC in one payment, which is why we have also made PPCs available for four-monthly periods at a cost of £31.40.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the level of absenteeism was in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its related public bodies in the last year for which figures are available; what his estimate is of the total cost of this level of absenteeism to public funds in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [131321]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: In 1999–2000 staff in the Department took an average of eight days of sickness absence. Based on an average salary cost (including superannuation and national insurance) the cost to the FCO was £5.5 million. These figures include absences at the FCO's only Executive Agency, Wilton Park, which employs around 40 staff, and the FCO's non-departmental public bodies, all of which employ fewer than seven staff. The cost of this level of absenteeism in the previous four years would have been £5.3 million in 1998–99, £5.3 million in 1997–98, £5.4 million in 1996–97 and £5.4 million in 1995–96. The average number of days of sickness absence in the British Council's operations in the United Kingdom in 1999–2000 was 5.3 days at a total cost of £726,829. The cost of this level of absenteeism in the previous four years would have been £701,882 in 1998–99, £680,825 in 1997–98, £660,401 in 1996–97 and £640,589 in 1995–96.

  Nepal
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what reports he has received regarding the demonstrations held in the Kailali district of Nepal and in Katmandu by bonded labourers demanding their freedom; [132308]

  (2) if he will make early representations to the Government of Nepal urging it to release bonded labourers from slavery. [132309]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware of the demonstrations. The announcement made by the Nepalese Government on 17 July to abolish bonded labour will be well received by those campaigning against it.

  Indian Sub-continent (UK Visits)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to reduce the obstacles presented to citizens from the Indian sub-continent wishing to visit their immediate family in the UK. [132244]

  Mr. Vaz
  The 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act provided for the restoration of appeal rights for people refused visas to visit close family members in the UK. The new appeal right, which will apply to many visitors from the sub-continent, will come into effect from 2 October, and will provide a further, independent review of refusal decisions.

  We are making every effort to improve the visa service, particularly in the sub-continent. At my request, there was an independent high level review of the Immigration Section in Islamabad last month, which made recommendations for improvements in the service there. We are in the process of implementing those.

  Chagos Islands
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the study of the options for repatriating the Ilois People to the Chagos Islands was commissioned; what it has cost to date; when it will be completed; what epidemiological studies have been undertaken of the displaced Ilois People since their evacuation from their home islands; and if he will place in the Library copies of Government papers relating to the evaluation of such studies. [132049]

  Mr. Battle
  The initial stage of the feasibility study of the physical problems and possible environmental impact of any resettlement in the outer islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory was commissioned in March. The work to date will cost about £55,000. It is being borne by the Government of the territory. The first report, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House shortly, has identified the need for further study and data collection of issues such as the availability of groundwater. This could take up to 12 months. The timing of more detailed work is uncertain at present. In part it will be influenced by the outcome of the further scientific studies identified by the consultants.

  Her Majesty's Government have not undertaken any epidemiological studies in Mauritius of the Ilois.

  Ambassadors and Commissioners
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British ambassadors and high commissioners on 1 January in each of the last 10 years were(a) women and (b) members of an ethnic minority; and if he will express the number in each category as a percentage of the total number of ambassadors and high commissioners. [132501]

  Mr. Hain
  The number of women who were British Ambassadors or High Commissioners on the 1 January in the past 10 years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  Percentage

  1990

  3

  2.4

  1991

  3

  2.3

  1992

  2

  1.5

  1993

  3

  2.2

  1994

  3

  2.2

  1995

  3

  2.2

  1996

  5

  3.5

  1997

  7

  4.9

  1998

  7

  4.9

  1999

  7

  4.9

  2000

  7

  4.9

  On 1 January 1994 and 1 January 1995 one Ambassador (0.7 per cent.) was of minority ethnic origin.

  Moldova
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on bilateral relations with Moldova and his Department's assessment of the political situation in that country. [131836]
  640W
  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: Bilateral relations with Moldova are good. Our Ambassador in Bucharest is also accredited to Moldova and he and his staff visit regularly. Her Majesty's Government, through Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development technical assistance, support projects designed to promote economic and democratic development. This year bilateral assistance has supported a range of projects including police training, training of journalists, an education programme for teachers and work in the conflict prevention field. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development opened the Department for International Development's office in Chisinau in June 2000.

  Her Majesty's Government hope that the current debate over the constitutional issues in Moldova will not undermine the prospects for economic reform. HMG remain concerned about the situation in Transdniestria and support the work of the OSCE Mission to Moldova in promoting a political settlement. HMG continue to press Russia to comply with commitments made at the OSCE Istanbul summit in November 1999 to complete withdrawal from Moldovan territory by the end of 2002. Her Majesty's Government have contributed £100,000 to the OSCE voluntary fund to assist with this withdrawal and has offered, in principle, to provide resettlement training for the Russian troops based in Transdniestria.

  Diplomatic Missions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish figures recording the number of outstanding parking and other minor traffic violation fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom during the year ending 31 December 1999. [133341]

  Mr. Battle
  At the end of 1999, unpaid fines in respect of parking and other minor traffic violations incurred by members of diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom totalled 5,112. In April this year the Foreign and Commonwealth Office wrote to all diplomatic missions and international organisations in the United Kingdom giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that they had been issued incorrectly. As a result payments totalling £36,120.00 were received leaving a total of 4,124 unpaid fines for 1999. The following table details diplomatic missions and international organisations which have more than 10 fines outstanding.

  Mission

  Number of fines outstanding

  Nigeria

  536

  Angola

  399

  UAE

  285

  Egypt

  152

  Iran

  125

  Morocco

  120

  Qatar

  117

  Algeria

  109

  Turkey

  103

  Jordan

  96

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sanctions the United Kingdom implements in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [133342]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK implements the provisions of United Nations Security Council resolution 1160 (1998), which imposed an arms embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and a prohibition on arming and training for terrorist activities there.

  The UK also implements the following measures, imposed by the European Union in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which are designed to target the Milosevic regime.

  an arms embargo and an embargo on the supply of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism

  a selective visa ban

  a ban on the provision of Government-financed export credit and other forms of export finance

  a selective freeze of funds and investment ban

  an oil embargo (with specified exemptions including in relation to Kosovo. Montenegro and the EU's Energy for Democracy programme).

  The EU flight ban in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been suspended until 31 March 2001.

  Sanctions
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the sanctions and arms embargoes currently implemented by the United Kingdom. [133343]

  Mr. Hain
  As of today's date, the United Kingdom implements mandatory UN sanctions, imposed by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in relation to Afghanistan, Angola, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. UN sanctions in relation to Libya have been suspended.

  The United Kingdom implements, in addition, sanctions imposed by the European Union in relation to Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Croatia, Libya, Sudan and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  In accordance with a decision of the OSCE, the United Kingdom implements arms embargoes on Armenia and Azerbaijan. There are also national arms embargoes on Iran and Zimbabwe.

  A list of sanctions regimes and arms embargoes implemented by the UK is in the Library of the House. Annexed to this is a summary of additional UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods. These documents are also available on the FCO website and are updated each time there are changes to sanctions regimes implemented by the UK, or to UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods.

  Indonesia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts concerning the imposing of an arms embargo in Indonesia. [132541]
  642W
  Mr. Battle
  The EU Presidency declaration of 17 January made clear that the EU would continue to follow closely events in Indonesia and strictly implement the EU Code of Conduct on arms exports. We regularly discuss the situation in Indonesia with EU partners. EU Ambassadors in Jakarta recently made a joint demarche to President Wahid on 17 July covering the situation in Maluka.

  Separately, the UK has made quite clear that Indonesia is on notice that we will move within the EU to reimpose restrictive measures, if we see a repetition of the type of state-sponsored violence perpetrated in East Timor. We are closely monitoring the situation in the provinces of Indonesia.

  Sudan
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning plans for the restoration of the joint electoral system in Sudan. [132162]

  Mr. Hain
  We have noted statements by the Government of Sudan to the effect that National Assembly elections will be held in the Autumn. I discussed the prospects for elections with the Sudanese Foreign Minister on 18 July and he repeated that his Government was indeed committed to holding elections.

  We look to the Government to proceed with elections, and to lift the State of Emergency, as soon as possible.

  Feira Presidency Conclusions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned effect of Article 50 of the Feira Presidency conclusions on European Communities' legislation on sport. [129918]

  Kate Hoey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Article 50 of the Feira Presidency conclusions recognises the important role that sport can play in social policy. As we have set out in our sports strategy 'A Sporting Future For All' the Government firmly believe that sport has an important role to play in fostering social inclusion. The UK is represented on a working group of sports officials, set up under the Portuguese Presidency looking at the specific characteristics of sport. Their report will be discussed by the Sports Ministers in November.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne dated 12 April relating to his constituent, Miss R. Whittaker. [130652]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: I replied to the hon. Member on behalf of the Secretary of State earlier today.

  Electricity Suppliers
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department intends to
  643W
  publish its Code of Practice for licence-exempt electricity suppliers; what arrangements it will make for its monitoring operation; and if he will make a statement. [131674]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Representatives of electricity industry trade associations together developed a voluntary code of practice for licence-exempt suppliers, but have not yet published or implemented the code. I would encourage them to do so.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with Ministers and officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions about co-ordinating renewable and sustainable energy projects and the regeneration programme. [131993]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Officials in DTI and DETR keep in touch with each other on matters relating to regeneration and sustainable energy projects.

  The location of renewable energy projects is determined largely by the availability of resources and ease of connection to the electricity supply system.

  Earlier this year my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning announced a strategic approach to renewable energy planning. Under the leadership of the Government Offices for the Regions, regional assessments and targets for renewable energy provision are being prepared based upon, and where necessary updating, resources studies. It is our intention that Regional Development Agencies will have a key role to play in this work.

  BAe
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conditions were attached to the grant of £530 million to BAe systems in respect of the company's future employment levels in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [131892]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Conditions in the A3XX launch investment contact, as with all other launch investments, remain commercially confidential.

  We estimate that the A3XX will create 22,000 new jobs (8,000 in BAe SYSTEMS and the UK supply chain, and 14,000 new induced employment) and safeguard a further 62,000 jobs (20,000 on current Airbus programmes and 42,000 in induced employment).

  Launch investment is a risk and revenue sharing Government investment in the design and development of specific civil aerospace projects in the UK. The investment is not a grant and is repayable at a real rate of return, usually via levies on sales of the product developed.

  Trade Bodies
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what criteria he uses to determine whether a trade body is representative of an industry and should be consulted in the formulation of a policy decision; [132261]
  644W
  (2) what his policy is in determining whether a trade body is representative of an industry; [132262]

  (3) what percentage of an industry must a trade body represent to be considered representative of that industry. [132263]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is not the place of the Government to tell industry how to organise its own representative bodies. However, in the Best Practice Guide for the Model Trade Association the Government have identified the key characteristics that we feel trade associations should have as representatives of their industry.

  They should represent the whole of a commercial or industrial sector and seek to cover all products, services and processes.

  They should also ensure that their members represent a substantial proportion of the sector (both in terms of output and members).

  Furthermore, before consulting trade associations or any other organisations representing industry, the Government is guided by the Code of Practice (How to conduct written consultation exercises) issued by the Cabinet Office, which sets out the guiding principles for effective consultation.

  Design in Business Week
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to promote the Design in Business Week in the Autumn. [132082]

  Ms Hewitt
  Design in Business Week is an annual event run by the Design Council and its promotion is a matter for the Design Council.

  The Design Council is to be congratulated on running Design in Business Weeks. Last year, it worked with some 120 organisations to run events which demonstrated the contribution that Design makes to innovation and competitiveness, attracting a business audience of 10,000. The week this year will run from 27 October to 3 November and I wish the Design Council even greater success than last year.

  Bioremediation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been made available by his Department for the purposes of research into bioremediation in each of the past 10 years. [132099]

  Mr. Byers
  The table gives an estimate of the amount of money spent through the OST Science Budget to the academic community, and the DTI Innovation budget to industry for research into bioremediation.

  £

  1990–91

  240,000

  1991–92

  110,000

  1992–93

  405,000

  1993–94

  785,000

  1994–95

  1,060,000

  1995–96

  1,620,000

  1996–97

  3,010,000

  1997–98

  3,770,000

  1998–99

  3,960,000

  1999–2000

  4,360,000

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered(a) citing disproportionate costs, (b) stating that the information is not available, not held centrally, or not held in the form requested or (c) citing commercial or other confidentiality. [132130]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: Very few Parliamentary Questions will not have been answered substantially for reasons other than those specified in the hon. Member's question. In addition to the information provided in the answers to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on 23 June 2000, Official Report, column 313W and 29 June 2000, Official Report, column 576W, a further 12 Parliamentary Questions received answers indicating that the Minister would write with further information.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many written parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April; and how many have not received substantive answers citing disproportionate cost as the reason. [132467]

  Mr. Byers
  Of the 1,707 written parliamentary questions answered during this period, 25 answers cited disproportionate costs as the reason for not providing part or all of the information requested.

  Mobile Phones
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the mobile phone industry about labelling mobile phones with their radiation levels. [132434]

  Ms Hewitt
  Officials have held discussions with the mobile phone industry following the publication of the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (the Stewart Report), which recommended that information on SAR values for mobile phones be readily accessible to consumers.

  SAR is the Specific Energy Absorption Rate. It is the rate at which energy is absorbed by unit mass of tissue in an electromagnetic field. SAR is the measurement unit used in the exposure guidelines of the National Radiological Protection Board and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Mobile phones do not emit ionising radiation.

  In the Government response to the Stewart Report recommendations we agreed that the consumer should have access to SAR values when purchasing a mobile phone and that SAR measurements should be displayed at all points of sale, with each mobile phone, and on the world wide web. It is important that SAR values should be viewed in context, for example, by comparing the SAR value against the recommended exposure limits.

  This recommendation will be implemented when the European standard on the test methodology for SAR measurement is adopted.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many press releases have been issued so far this year; and what the total cost of the production and issuing of press releases was in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 to date. [132781]

  Mr. Byers
  The DTI has issued 520 press releases since 1 January 2000.

  The cost of distributing press releases was:

  (a) 1997—£184,669;

  (b) 1998—£230,560;

  (c) 1999—£211,268;

  (d) 2000 (to date)—£105,701.

  Science and Innovation White Paper
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the White Paper on Science and Innovation; and if he will make a statement. [133102]

  Mr. Byers
  I am today publishing the White Paper, "Excellence and Opportunity, a science and innovation policy for the 21st century".

  I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Post Offices
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to increase Post Office Counters investment in commercially viable sub-post offices in urban areas which are not areas of social deprivation. [132798]

  Mr. Byers
  In the first instance, it is for the Post Office, in partnership with sub-postmasters and the National Federation of Subpostmasters, to determine the scope for additional investment in the modernisation of commercially viable urban sub-post offices to provide an improved level of service.

  ECGD
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason total managed expenditure for the Export Credits Guarantee Department is planned to fall from £0.9 billion in 1999–2000 to zero in 2003–04; and if he will reconcile this planned fall with the figures provided in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review. [132797]

  Mr. Caborn
  Total managed expenditure for the Export Credits Guarantee Department almost entirely consists of the refinancing of previously issued export finance loans.

  The net figure falls from £0.9 billion in 1999–2000 to zero in 2003–04 because the level of repayments on previously re-financed loans is projected to rise progressively to equal the forecast level of new refinancing advances.

  It is not possible to reconcile with the figures in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review as the refinancing programme did not commence until after the Review.

  Astra
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) for what reason his Department is seeking to have documents relating to the Astra case destroyed; [131507]

  (2) what public interest justifications for the retention of documents relating to the Astra case he considered in making the decision not to retain them; [131508]

  (3) if he will require the Official Receiver to retain documents relating to the Astra case. [131510]

  Dr. Howells
  The accounting records of Astra Holdings plc are under the control of the Official Receiver as liquidator of the company following a winding-up order made by the court on 13 January 1999.

  Having established that the records were no longer required for the purposes of the liquidation, the Official Receiver proposed to utilise his powers under insolvency legislation and destroy the records. However, he became aware that third parties were interested in retaining the accounting records, for reasons unconnected with the liquidation.

  In view of the competing demands for the preservation of the records, the Official Receiver has sought direction from the court on the question of their destruction, or continued preservation and custody. A court hearing to determine this matter is awaited and until then the records will be stored at public expense.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of his reply to the organisation Killing Secrets on the question of Astra documents. [131509]

  Dr. Howells
  Copies of my letters of 29 April and 19 May 2000 to Killing Secrets will be placed in the Library.

  Ilisu Dam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 27W, on the Ilisu Dam, what direct contact he has had since May with the Turkish Government concerning consultations with those directly affected by the Ilisu Dam. [132542]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no direct contact with the Turkish Government on this matter.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the full environmental impact assessment report on the Ilisu Dam to be complete. [132540]

  Mr. Caborn
  The latest information is that the full Environmental Impact Assessment Report will not be available before September 2000 at the earliest.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the parliamentary 648W
  questions tabled since May 1997 concerning the Dome which have not been answered on the grounds of (a) commercial confidentiality and (b) public interest. [127820]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: Of the 1,100 questions that have been answered on the Millennium Experience since May 1997, 72 questions have been answered on which information requested has been declined on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Sport England
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will provide a breakdown of the basis on which Sport England forecasts the Lottery draw-down for 2000–01. [130520]

  Kate Hoey
  The drawdown for 2000–01 was based on the estimated payment profile of individual awards. This included budgeted drawdown for payment on major schemes such as the English Institute of Sport and the Commonwealth Games Stadium. The budget for 1999–2000 included some provision for drawdown on these two major schemes, but progress payments were delayed, which has led to the increase in the amount to be paid out this financial year.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what basis Sport England estimates the percentage increase in the Lottery drawn-down for 2000–01 over the figure for 1999–2000. [130517]

  Kate Hoey
  The method used by Sport England for estimating the drawdown year on year is based on the estimated payment profile of individual awards, and not on a percentage increase of the previous years drawdown.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions he deposited papers in the Library in response to parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April. [131230]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]: Papers were deposited in the Library on 40 occasions in response to parliamentary questions tabled to my Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000.

  This figure excludes instances where either my ministerial colleagues or I promised to write to right hon. and hon. Members in response to a parliamentary question.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason commercial or other confidentiality. [132464]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Twenty questions tabled to my Department between 19 October and 20 April 2000 have not received substantive answers citing as the reason commercial or other confidentiality.
  649W
  My Department always aims to provide a substantive reply to hon. Members' questions. Where this is not possible due to commercial or other confidentiality, we endeavour to provide as helpful and as detailed a reply as possible based on the information that is available. In these cases a partial rather than a substantive answer is given.

  Art Thefts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 12 June 2000,Official Report, column 500W, on missing works of art, for what reasons the theft on 9 January 1997 of rings and cameos from the Sir John Soane's Museum was not included in this list. [132512]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My letter of 4 July to my hon. Friend in response to his parliamentary question asking the Secretary of State to list the items missing, stolen or unaccounted for from the national collections did not refer to the Sir John Soane's Museum because it is not a national museum. Copies of my letter were placed in the Library of the House on 4 July.

  Football Regulator
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made on the implementation of the Football Task Force report; and if he will make a statement on the Football Foundation and the proposed regulatory body. [132497]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government will respond to the Football Task Force's final report, Football Commercial Issues, shortly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with the football authorities, yesterday launched the Football Foundation, the new partnership body which will distribute development funding for the sport, and I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the Under-Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on 24 July 2000,Official Report, columns 414–15W.

  Foreign Artefacts
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations have been received from foreign Governments about the return of(a) aboriginal human remains and (b) artefacts removed from aboriginal tombs and graves that are held in United Kingdom museums, Government departments and agencies, and learning and research institutions; and if he will make a statement. [131838]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: The subject of ancestral remains was raised by the Australian Prime Minister Mr. John Howard during his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on, following which they issued a joint statement. No other foreign governments have made representations in recent years.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those art, cultural and folk artifacts that foreign Governments have requested be returned to their country of origin and which 650W
  are currently held in (a) public institutions and (b) private collections within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [131837]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: The following are the requests received from foreign governments:

  For the Parthenon Sculptures from the Government of Greece; for the Koh-I-Noor diamond from the Governments of India and Pakistan and for items from the India Office Library from the Governments of India, Pakistan, Burma, Nepal and Bangladesh.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what inventory has been made of(a) aboriginal human remains and (b) artefacts removed from aboriginal tombs and graves, held in museums, Government departments and agencies, and learning and research institutions within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [131839]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: No central inventory exists at present. It is a matter for each individual institution holding such items to compile their own records.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of Lottery ticket receipts has been spent in Wales through the National Lottery Charities Board. [131030]

  Kate Hoey
  Up to the end of March 2000, the proportion of total Lottery ticket receipts paid out by the National Lottery Charities Board for grants in Wales was 0.2 per cent.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been spent by people in Wales on lottery tickets. [131031]

  Kate Hoey
  Up to the end of March 2000, £2.01 billion had been spent on Lottery tickets in Wales.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many projects have unsuccessfully applied for grants to the National Lottery Charities Board; and if he will list the amount of each of these grants. [131032]

  Kate Hoey
  Up to 21 July 2000.

  Of the 98,026 grant applications that the National Lottery Charities Board (NLCB) has received since it was established in 1995, 62,253 (63 per cent.) were unsuccessful.

  Of these, 11,985 applications were for less than £5,000 (total value was £45,142,978); 18,483 applications were for between £5,000 and £50,000 (total value £392,399,544); 25,259 applications were for between £50,000 and £250,000 (total value £3,195,740,682); and 6,526 applications were for over £250,000 (total value £4,144,673,961).

  Items in lieu of Tax
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the allocation of items
  651W
  accepted in lieu of tax made in the financial year (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [133355]

  Table 1: Allocation of items accepted in lieu of tax made in the financial year 1997–98

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Date of allocation

  Two German drawings, by Martin Schongauer and Jorg Breu the Elder

  British Museum

  9 June 1997

  Peacock Gown

  National Trust for display at Kedleston Hall, Derbyshire

  9 June 1997

  Torbock Archives

  Cumbria County Council for retention at Cumbria Record Office and Somerset District Council for retention at Somerset Record Office

  14 June 1997

  A 17th century pair cased alarm striking watch by Edward last

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside for display at the Prescot Museum

  18 June 1997

  Staffelsee by Wassily Kandinsky

  Ashmolean Museum

  18 June 1997

  A Queen Anne walnut longcase clock by Daniel Quare

  Worshipful Company of Clockmakers Museum

  27 August 1997

  Throckmorten papers

  Warwickshire County Council for retention at Warwickshire Record Office and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust

  21 August 1997

  Regency furniture

  Victoria and Albert Museum (in-situ at Longleat House)

  5 November 1997

  The Armagnac Manuscript for the Two Trials of Joan of Arc

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  7 February 1998

  Portrait of Lord Thurlow by George Romney

  House of Lords Collection Trust

  7 February 1998

  Portrait of Mary Leiter by Alexander Cabanel

  National Trust for display at Kedleston Hall, Derbyshire

  7 February 1998

  Still Life with an upturned roemer by Willem Claez Heda

  Norfolk County Council for display at the Castle Museum, Norwich

  7 February 1998

  Mrs. Leahart and her Children by Arthur Hughes

  Tyne and Weir Joint Museums Committee for display at the Laing Art Gallery, Newcastle

  7 February 1998

  A painting by Aert Van Der Neer

  Ashmolean Museum

  7 February 1998

  Macclesfield Silver

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  18 February 1998

  Twenty two miniature Iron Age shields

  British Museum

  18 March 1998

  Table 2: Allocation of items accepted in lieu of tax made in the financial year 1998–99

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Date of allocation

  The Archive of Lord Clark of Saltwood

  Tate Gallery

  8 April 1998

  Simon Bening illumination

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  10 May 1998

  A Still Life with flowers and fruit upon a ledge in a park setting by Jan van Huysum

  National Trust for display at Dudmaston

  7 June 1998

  The Cobbold Family portrait by Thomas Gainsborough

  The Gainsborough House Society

  9 June 1998

  Four paintings by Pierre Bonnard, Amedeo Modigliani and Claude Monet.

  Fitzwilliam Museum

  15 June 1998

  Hawkins family Archive

  Cornwall County Council for retention at the Cornwall County Record Office

  22 June 1998

  The Sherborne Missal

  British Library

  30 June 1998

  An ormolu and enamel automaton clock by Thomas Weekes

  Leeds City Council for display at Temple Newsam House

  15 September 1998

  A collection of works from Clevedon Court, North Somerset

  National Trust for display at Clevedon Court

  2 October 1998

  Two paintings by Charles de Lafosse

  National Trust for display at Basildon Park, Berkshire

  5 November 1998

  Kay-Shuttleworth papers

  National Trust for retention at Lancashire Records Office

  2 February 1999

  Furniture from Gawthorpe Hall, Lancashire

  National Trust for display at Gawthorpe Hall

  4 February 1999

  A View of the European Factories at Canton by William Daniel

  National Maritime Museum

  19 February 1999

  Needlework Casket

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  8 March 1999

  Table 3: Allocation of items accepted in lieu of tax made in the financial year 1999–2000

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Date of allocation

  A pair of Delft cream Pans made by Adrianus Kocks

  Historic Royal Palaces

  4 May 1999

  Portrait of David Garrick by Johann Zoffany and Le Manchot by David Teniers the Younger

  Ashmolean Museum

  10 May 1999

  Saint Teresa's Vision of a Dove by Sir Peter Paul Rubens

  Fitzwilliam Museum

  17 June 1999

  Portrait of Cesare Alessandro Scaglia, Abbé of Stafforda and Mandanici, 1634 by Sir Anthony Van Dyke

  National Gallery

  7 September 1999

  The Temple of Poseidon at Sunium (Cape Colonna) by Joseph Mallord William Turner

  Tate Gallery

  28 September 1999

  Landscape with Phaeton's Petition to Apollo by Richard Wilson

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside for display at the Walker Art Gallery

  28 September 1999

  The Powis Archive

  Shropshire County Council for retention at Shropshire Records and Research Centre

  29 September 1999

  Shuttleworth family and estate papers

  Lancashire County Council for retention at Lancashire Record Office

  28 October 1999

  Composition B with Red by Piet Mondrian

  Tate Gallery

  5 November 1999

  An equirotal cab-phaeton

  Museum of London

  20 November 1999

  652W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information my hon. Friend requests is as follows:
  653W

  Table 3: Allocation of items accepted in lieu of tax made in the financial year 1999–2000

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Date of allocation

  Master of the Rolls ceremonial robe of circa 1784

  Permanent Exhibition of the History of Legal Robes and Costumes for display at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand, London

  3 December 1999

  The Ballad Seller by Henry Walton

  Tate Gallery

  3 December 1999

  Two portraits of Admiral and Mrs. Bligh by John Russell

  The Captain Cook Memorial Museum

  22 December 1999

  A Charles II studded leather coffer

  Leeds City Council for display at Temple Newsam House

  13 December 1999

  Manuscript by John Bellemain

  British Library

  22 January 2000

  The papers of Sir Henry Page Croft

  Churchill College, Cambridge

  28 February 2000

  A group of medals awarded to Colonel Mark Sever Bell

  Royal Engineers Museum

  6 March 2000

  Hospitality Contact Group
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Government departments are represented on the Tourism and Hospitality Contact Group; and what arrangements he is putting in place to publicise it. [133356]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Tourism and Hospitality Contact Group, set up by the Government to ensure close working between Departments on policies affecting tourism, includes representatives from the following Departments:

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Cabinet Office (Regulatory Impact Unit)

  HM Customs and Excise

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Home Office

  Small Business Service

  Department of Trade and Industry

  HM Treasury

  Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Northern Ireland

  Scottish Executive

  National Assembly for Wales.

  Representatives from the English Tourism Council and British Tourist Authority also attend the Group's meetings.

  I am arranging to place the representatives' contact details on the DCMS website. Details will also be publicised through the English Tourism Council.

CABINET OFFICE

  Computer Disasters
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what research she has undertaken into the likely effects of a computer disaster occurring to the principal departments of state; and what contingency measures have been taken to reduce the impact of a disaster. [130964]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on 21 July 2000,Official Report, column 370W.

  Modernising Government
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions have taken place between her Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, on the place of sustainable development in relation to modernising Government. [131989]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Cabinet Office Regulatory Impact Unit has been leading on the commitment in the Modernising Government White Paper to produce an integrated system of impact and appraisal tools in support of sustainable development. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have been closely involved in this, for example running a pilot exercise to test the Policy Makers Checklist and contribute to proposals for an integrated approach to appraisal. DRTR will also be working with the Centre for Management and Policy Studies which has a remit to identify and promote best practice in policymaking.

  Permanent Secretaries
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many permanent secretaries in the Civil Service are(a) women and (b) members of an ethnic minority; and if she will express the number in each category as a percentage of the total. [132502]

  Mr. Stringer
  With effect from 7 August there will be three women Permanent Secretaries in the Civil Service which is 8 per cent. of the total. They are Rachel Lomax, Department of Social Security, Mavis McDonald, Cabinet Office and Juliet Wheldon, Treasury Solicitor, who is the first woman to occupy this post. No Permanent Secretary is from an ethnic minority background.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff her Department has; what percentage of staff positions in her Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to her Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff her Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much her Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much she expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131439]

  Mr. Stringer
  There are currently approximately 150 unfilled vacancies in my Department; this is approximately 8.5 per cent. of staff positions. The estimated monthly cost
  655W
  of filling these vacancies, based on average salaries per grade, including ERNIC and superannuation costs, is £339,237,00.

  My Department currently employs 45 temporary staff. This represents 2.5 per cent. of total staff numbers.

  In each of the last 12 months the amounts paid by my Department to employment agencies were as follows:

  £

  July 1999

  93,793.63

  August 1999

  114,958.87

  September 1999

  126,714.45

  October 1999

  111,927.39

  November 1999

  108,047.59

  December 1999

  81,414.78

  January 2000

  97,304.51

  February 2000

  146,355.06

  March 2000

  203,174.28

  April 2000

  65,671.40

  May 2000

  177,558.80

  June 2000

  134,168.62

  Estimates of my Department's expected payments to employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months are not available and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will revise her guidance on ministerial travel to include the Rover 75 series in the makes and models of car available to the Government Car Service. [132293]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government Car and Despatch Agency is currently undertaking a thorough evaluation of the suitability of the Rover 75, along with other cars, as a model for use by the Government Car Service. The Agency's report is expected shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many written parliamentary questions tabled to her

  Department/Agency

  Target (working days)

  Total volume

  Percentage of responses within target1

  Target 2000–01 (working days)

  Agencies included in Departments return

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food2

  15

  72,296

  92

  15

  Yes

  Cabinet Office

  15

  5,771

  99

  15

  Yes

  Crown Prosecution Service3

  10

  Not available

  88

  10

  n/a

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  18

  28,841

  81

  18

  No

  HM Customs and Excise

  10

  472,806

  94

  10

  n/a

  Ministry of Defence4

  20

  10,220

  84

  20

  Yes

  Department of Education and Employment

  15

  96,009

  90

  15

  No

  Employment Service (Jobcentres5/Chief Executive Office)

  10/15

  Not available/846

  90/97

  10/15

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  15

  153,159

  89

  15

  No

  Driving Standards Agency

  15

  27,052

  99

  15

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)

  15

  557,483

  97

  15

  Highways Agency

  15

  28,354

  83

  15

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  15

  35,887

  92

  15

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  15

  2,469

  100

  15

  656W
  Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason commercial or other confidentiality. [132463]

  Mr. Stringer
  Between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000, there have been no questions tabled to the Cabinet Office which did not receive substantive replies citing as the reason commercial or other confidentiality.

  Service Standards
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the performance of the main Departments and Agencies against the six service standards for central Government over the financial year 1999–2000. [133344]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have arranged for a report on the performance of the main Departments and Agencies to be placed in the Libraries of the House. This is the first report on performance against the revised service standards announced in the Modernising Government White Paper, and reflects the Government's commitment to openness and to reporting transparently on our performance.

  In most cases, Departments' performance in responding to correspondence from the public has improved over the past year, although performance varies widely and there is still room for improvement overall. Ministers are determined that performance should continue to improve through the introduction of new technology and the overhaul of outdated procedures. The performance of the main Departments and Agencies is summarised in the table.

  Against the other standards, the report shows that visitors to public offices are usually seen within 10 minutes of their appointment, and that most visitors without an appointment are seen within the designated target. All Departments have at least one telephone inquiry point, and calls to designated numbers are usually answered promptly. Use of the internet is increasing rapidly and all the main Departments dealing with the public have websites, publicise their complaints procedure on-line, and, in most cases, are able to accept e-mailed inquiries. The report also shows some of the innovative ways in which Departments and Agencies are consulting their users and making their services more accessible.
  657W 658W

  Department/Agency

  Target (working days)

  Total volume

  Percentage of responses within target1

  Target 2000–01 (working days)

  Agencies included in Departments return

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  20

  46,480

  84

  20

  No

  Government Offices for the Regions

  Maximum 15

  n/a

  80/99

  15

  n/a

  Department of Health

  20

  658,287

  48

  20

  No

  Medicines Control Agency

  7

  5,842

  93

  7

  NHS Pensions Agency

  20

  17,355

  100

  20

  Home Office

  20

  223,958

  64

  20

  No

  UK Passport Agency

  10

  105,826

  81

  10

  HM Prison Service

  20

  72,076

  94

  20

  Inland Revenue7

  20

  8—

  84

  15

  n/a

  Intervention Board

  10

  14,002

  92

  10

  n/a

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  20

  6,047

  88

  20

  No

  Court Service

  20

  5,606

  93

  15

  HM Land Registry

  5

  352,500

  100

  5

  Department of Social Security

  20

  34,446

  63

  20

  No

  Benefits Agency

  10

  1,104

  78

  10

  Child Support Agency

  10

  n/a

  66

  10

  War Pensions Agency9

  10

  275,000

  98

  10

  Department of Trade and Industry

  15

  102,366

  96

  15

  No

  Companies House

  10

  35,000

  98

  5

  Employment Tribunal Service

  10

  363,000

  97

  10

  Patent Office

  5

  7,782

  100

  5

  Insolvency Service

  15

  226,290

  97

  15

  Radiocommunications Agency

  15

  200,340

  98

  15

  HM Treasury

  15

  24,671

  36

  15

  No

  1 Performance has been rounded up or down to the nearest whole figure.

  2 MAFF's Regional Service Centres have a 10 working day target.

  3 Performance in responding to complaints only.

  4 Total volume covers public correspondence sent to Ministers or to the Department as a whole. It does not include correspondence sent direct to individual branches or units.

  5 Performance is measured by an independent research company sending a 'mystery letter' each quarter to each job centre (total of 4,000 letters a year). The company assesses the letters for quality as well as speed or reply.

  6 Correspondence received by the Ministerial Correspondence Unit.

  7 The Inland Revenue merged with the Contributions Agency (CA) in April 1999. Former CA staff are currently working a target of responding to 95 per cent, of customer inquiries (not just correspondence) within 20 working days. During the period of this report, they received some 53,000 inquiries and responded to 99 per cent, within target. All Inland Revenue staff are working towards a 15 day correspondence target for 2000–01.

  8 Inland Revenue offices received some 74,000,000 items of correspondence during the reporting period; however, this figure includes all internal post. There are no facilities for the collation of separate figures for external correspondence.

  9 Target for Chief executive's correspondence is 20 working days. During the reporting year, 762 items were received with 99 per cent, answered within target.

  Northern Ireland Departments and the NIO

  Department/Agency

  Target (working days)

  Total volume

  Percentage of responses within target1

  Target 2000–01 (working days)

  Department of Agriculture

  15

  109,279

  100

  15

  Department for Social Development

  15

  175

  99

  15

  Department of Education

  15

  4,205

  89

  15

  Department of Environment

  15

  8,581

  91

  15

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  15

  6,995

  100

  15

  Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

  15

  21,000

  98

  15

  Department for Regional Development

  15

  12,113

  98

  15

  Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety

  15

  1,487

  100

  15

  Child Support Agency

  10

  935

  91

  10

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing

  3

  14,793

  100

  3

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  15

  670

  100

  15

  Public Record Office

  14

  2,999

  99

  14

  Rate Collection Agency

  10

  56,100

  96

  10

  Social Security Agency

  15

  19,863

  96

  10

  Training and Employment Agency

  5

  4,000

  100

  5

  Northern Ireland Office

  15

  4,344

  79

  15

  Northern Ireland Prison Service

  15

  1,800

  96

  15

  Compensation Agency for Northern Ireland

  10

  213,000

  96

  10

  1 Performance has been rounded up or down to the nearest whole figure

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pupil Expenditure (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was spent per pupil attending(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [124750]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out spending per pupil in both primary and secondary schools in the Greater London area, from 1996–97 to 1998–99 (provisional), the last three financial years for which figures are available. The figures are based on Net Institutional Expenditure.

  £

  Pre-primary and primary

  Secondary

  1996–97

  2,050

  2,760

  1997–98

  2,080

  2,810

  1998–991

  2,220

  2,900

  1 Provisional

  The following table sets out the resources being made available in Greater London for primary and secondary schools, as part of the drive to raise standards. These figures are not comparable with the Net Institutional figures set out above. The special and specific grants total include the money for schools announced in the Budget on 21 March.

  £

  Cash

  Real terms 2000–01 prices1

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Standard spending assessment per pupil

  1997–98

  2,570

  3,350

  2,780

  3,620

  1998–99

  2,720

  3,510

  2,850

  3,690

  1999–2000

  2,870

  3,650

  2,930

  3,730

  2000–01

  2,980

  3,800

  2,980

  3,800

  Special and specific grants per pupil

  1997–98

  30

  30

  40

  30

  1998–99

  40

  40

  40

  40

  1999–2000

  150

  130

  160

  130

  2000–01

  300

  260

  300

  260

  1 Calculated using Treasury GDP deflators published 29 June 2000

  PFI Contracts (Schools)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the estimated rate of return on capital is to the contractors under the PFI contracts for schools. [131350]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is not a signatory to any school PFI contracts and therefore does not have full information about the commercial details of these deals. However, our monitoring of deals signed recently suggests that contractors are likely to receive a return on capital of some 8–9 per cent. from PFI schemes in schools.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 295W, when he expects to have figures for the total cost of administering the performance-related pay scheme. [131675]
  660W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is not possible to say when the total cost will be known.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many representations he received in support of his plans requiring teachers to participate in the assessment of other members of the teaching staff in their schools. [131698]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Representations expressing support were received from the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Employers' Organisation for Schoolteachers and the Secondary Heads' Association.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the average time currently spent in training(a) a primary school head teacher and (b) a secondary head teacher in the administration of performance-related pay; and what has been the cost of such training. [131714]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In England, primary and secondary headteachers were invited to attend a one day threshold assessment training event in March or April. They were also invited to attend a further half day follow-up training event in June. The costs associated with the training events form part of the contracts the Department has with outside companies and are, therefore, commercial in confidence.

  In Wales, each headteacher was offered one day's training and the vast majority have attended. The cost of this training in Wales, which was completed on 11 July, is not yet known.

  We do not have details about any additional training such headteachers may have undertaken.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what role he requires(a) deputy heads and (b) teachers to play in the assessment of other members of a school's teaching staff for the purpose of performance-related pay in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [131716]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Secretary of State's original intention was that a headteacher could request input from their teamleaders or other senior members of staff who had a more direct overview of a teachers' work to assist in assessing threshold applications. This applied in both primary and secondary schools. Following the outcome of the judicial review brought by the NUT the threshold assessments have been put on hold and there is now no contractual duty for such staff to assist the headteacher in assessments.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he expects teachers other than departmental managers to assist heads in carrying out assessments for performance-related pay. [131796]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Secretary of State's original intention was that a headteacher could request input from their teamleaders or other senior members of staff to assist in assessing threshold applications. The Guidance that accompanied the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document made clear that this should only reasonably apply to teachers with managerial responsibilities who have an overview of the relevant aspects of the work of the teachers concerned. Following the outcome of the judicial review brought by the NUT the threshold
  661W
  assessments have been put on hold and there is now no contractual duty for such staff to assist the headteacher in assessments.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of the decision of Mr. Justice Jackson on 14 July on the formula for payments from his Department to local authorities in respect of threshold payments as set out in paragraphs 3 to 15 of Annex A of Special Grant report 61; what modifications he plans to make to the timescale for payments set out in those paragraphs; and whether he intends to proceed on the basis of Special Grant report 66 for making payments. [131797]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government remain committed to the introduction of a threshold for teachers, providing an additional £2,001, backdated to September 2000, for all teachers who demonstrate the characteristics of effective teaching.

  The need to refer the standards for assessing teachers against the threshold to the School Teachers Review Body, following Mr. Justice Jacksons' judgment will have the effect of delaying teachers assessments and so payments to successful teachers. As a consequence, we will not seek parliamentary approval for Special Grant Report 66 which will be replaced with a revised report in autumn setting out a new timetable for payments to local authorities.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the total cost is to the Government of the performance-related pay threshold payments; what proportion this is of the £1 billion set aside for the increase in teachers' pay; and if he will make a statement. [132075]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government have undertaken to fund each full-time equivalent teacher passing the threshold at an annual rate of £2,357. This comprises the threshold uplift of £2,001 increased by 17.8 per cent. for pension and national insurance contributions. The total cost of the threshold will depend on the number of teachers who pass the assessment, as will the proportion this represents of the £1 billion available until March 2002.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of paying assessors to visit schools for the performance-related pay threshold payments; and if he will make a statement. [132076]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  DfEE has contracted Cambridge Education Associates (CEA) to manage the appointment, deployment and quality assurance of external assessors in England. The cost associated with this contract are commercial in confidence. Assessors in Wales will be managed by consortiums of Welsh local education authorities. The cost of the Department's contracts with the Welsh consortia has not yet been finalised.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been set aside as travel expenses for assessors to visit schools in connection with the performance-related threshold payments; and if he will make a statement. [132077]
  662W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  There is no separate fund set aside for travel expenses for assessors.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the costs were of writing, printing, and distributing the printed materials associated with the performance-related pay threshold; and if he will make a statement. [132078]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is not possible to provide this information as many of the materials were produced and distributed under commercial contract.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in relation to the performance-related pay threshold payments for teachers, how much headteachers' training has cost the Government; and if he will make a statement. [132079]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The costs associated with the training events form part of the contracts the Department has with outside companies and are, therefore, commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent on recruiting and training the assessors for the threshold application forms in connection with performance-related pay for teachers; and if he will make a statement. [132080]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The costs associated with the recruitment and training of external Assessors form part of the contracts the Department has with outside companies and are, therefore, commercial in confidence.

  Edinburgh Road Special School, Holt
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Edinburgh Road School for Children with Special Needs in Holt, Norfolk. [132374]

  Jacqui Smith
  In October 1999 Norfolk LEA served Notice on the Secretary of State of its proposal to relocate the existing Edinburgh Road Special School to a new site in Sheringham. The statutory process involves local consultation, the serving of the Notice by the LEA, a period for objections followed by consideration by the Secretary of State during which he will consider, among other information, advice from HMI.

  Today I have informed the hon. Member and Norfolk LEA that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is minded to approve the proposals, subject to the necessary planning permission being granted.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications have been received for courses of postgraduate initial teacher training commencing in September; and how many had been received at the same stage(a) in 1999 and (b) in 1997, broken down in each case into those applying by subject for secondary training, separately identifying those applying for maths, foreign languages, science and technology; and if he will list the Government's targets for recruitment for those subjects for September. [131676]
  663W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Targets for 2000–01 for England are given in the table.

  Number

  Mathematics

  1,850

  English and Drama

  2,160

  Science

  2,690

  Modern Foreign Languages

  2,050

  Technology

  2,000

  History

  900

  Geography

  1,090

  PE

  1,200

  Art

  850

  Music

  630

  RE

  665

  Other

  330

  Margin for flexibility

  200

  Total

  16,615

  Notes:

  1. Targets are for undergraduate combined with postgraduate.

  2. The margin for flexibility is equivalent to the provision the Teacher Training Agency had last year to "vire" places between secondary subjects within certain parameters, but is now given explicitly.

  Source:

  Department for Education and Employment

  Applications for postgraduate initial teacher training courses are only available on an England and Wales basis. Latest available figures for secondary teacher training by subject together with comparative figures for the previous year and 1997 are given in the table.

  19 July 1997

  17 July 1999

  15 July 2000

  Mathematics

  1,289

  1,345

  1,292

  English and Drama

  2,829

  2,694

  2,756

  Science

  2,738

  2,868

  2,907

  Modern Foreign Languages

  2,275

  1,967

  2,282

  Technology

  1,275

  1,186

  1,319

  History

  1,864

  1,580

  1,567

  Geography

  1,082

  1,029

  995

  PE

  1,339

  1,366

  1,481

  Art

  1,341

  1,124

  1,190

  Music

  494

  562

  548

  RE

  732

  704

  653

  Other

  578

  511

  473

  Total

  17,836

  16,936

  17,463

  Note:

  The above figures are for applications as entered on the GTTR computer system.

  Source:

  Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR).

  The number of trainees recruited onto mathematics postgraduate initial teacher training courses declined between 1994–95 and 1998–99, and there was a similar decline in the number of trainees recruited onto science postgraduate initial teacher training courses between 1996–97 and 1998–99. In October 1998 'golden hello' incentives were announced for teacher trainees taking a postgraduate certificate of education in mathematics or science. Such trainees received £2,500 during their training and a further £2,500 on going on to take up a relevant teaching post. Recruitment to these subjects in 1999 was up on the previous year.
  664W
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 30 March 2000 that £6,000 training salaries would be introduced for postgraduate trainees starting initial teacher training courses from September 2000. New style 'golden hello' incentives of £4,000 were announced for postgraduate trainees in mathematics, science, modern foreign languages, information technology and design and technology, who successfully complete their induction and go on to take up a relevant teaching post. Since the announcement, postgraduate application figures for secondary initial teacher training as provided by GTTR are 15 per cent. higher for mathematics, 21 per cent. higher for science, 61 per cent. higher for modern foreign languages and 53 per cent. higher for technology than for the same period from the end of March to July last year. Applications for postgraduate secondary subjects taken together are 38 per cent. higher than for the same period last year from the end of March to July last year.

  Beanfield Community College
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations have been carried out regarding the decision to close the sixth form of Beanfield Community College in order to bring about its reconfiguration as Corby Community College under the Fresh Start policy; what assessment he has made of the effect of this closure on the education of members of the present lower sixth in the college; and if he will make a statement. [131677]

  Mr. Wicks
  The proposals to close the sixth form at Beanfield Community College were decided under the new arrangements for local decision making. Since September 1999, most decisions on statutory proposals have been taken by local School Organisation Committees. Statutory guidance requires those bringing forward proposals to consult all interested parties, and also requires School Organisation Committees to satisfy themselves before deciding proposals with a significant post-16 dimension that all interested parties have been fully consulted and their views explicitly addressed.

  AS Levels
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the policy of university admission authorities towards AS levels; and how many universities he expects to use AS levels as predictors of likely A level performance. [131692]

  Mr. Wicks
  Universities are responsible for their own admissions policies. Initial indications are that they will consider the new AS level qualifications as early predictors of A level performance and make conditional offers that include, alongside A levels, AS qualifications as evidence of breadth. The position will be clearer once the HE prospectuses are published early in 2001. A guidance note for HEIs on changes to the post-16 curriculum in England, Wales and Northern Ireland was published by UCAS in June 2000 in conjunction with the Department and the regulatory authorities. Copies will be placed in the Libraries.

  Examination Fees
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much schools were
  665W
  charged in respect of examination fees for (a) GCSE examination entries and (b) A levels in each year of the last five years. [131693]

  Mr. Wicks
  As schools are charged individually and may have arrangements with more than one awarding body to buy a range of qualifications of which GCSE and GCE A level are but two, it is not possible to provide precise figures. Estimates of the amounts charged to maintained schools (including grant maintained schools) in England, Northern Ireland and Wales, based on the number of reported entries and the average fee charged for each qualification in each year are set out in the table:

  £million

  GCSE

  GCE A level

  1995

  77.5

  8.83

  1996

  81.9

  9.3

  1997

  83.5

  10.5

  1998

  84

  11.5

  1999

  88.8

  12.6

  Note:

  This information has been provided by the Joint Council for General Qualifications.

  The increases in charges are due to higher numbers of entries, as well as to take account of inflation.

  City Academies
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his most recent estimate is of the number of City Academies that will be in place in September 2001. [131694]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Initial discussions are under way with a number of potential sponsors and LEAs about possible City Academies. It is too early to say when the first City Academies will be established.

  Classrooms
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the new primary and secondary classrooms built in Shrewsbury and Atcham since 1997. [131706]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local education authorities may draw on a number of different sources for funding to build new classrooms. The Department does not currently collect information on how local authorities use their Annual Capital Guideline allocations, nor on what building projects are funded from authorities' own resources. Details of projects in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency funded under the New Deal for Schools initiative, which included new classrooms, were given to my hon. Friend on 8 May 2000,Official Report, columns 291–92W. In addition, Shropshire local education authority has received £2.6 million under the Class Size Initiative. Two new infant classrooms have been built in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency: one at Greenfields County Primary School, and one at Springfield County Infant School.

  Assistant Heads
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of teachers likely to be appointed to the post of assistant head in the first year of its operation. [131715]
  666W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Schools and, for centrally employed staff, LEAs will be free to appoint assistant headteachers as needed within their management structures, and within the resources they have available. Given the widely differing circumstances of individual schools, we have not attempted to estimate the total number likely to be appointed, although it is unlikely that any school will need a leadership group (including headteacher, deputy headteachers and assistant headteachers) of more than seven.

  The DfEE will provide a grant of £2,356, comprising £2,000 plus 17.8 per cent. for national insurance and pension contributions, in academic year 2000–01 for all classroom teachers and advanced skills teachers appointed on a permanent basis by 31 December 2000 to assistant head teacher posts.

  Agency and Supply Teachers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his most recent assessment is of the proportion of teaching posts in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools, occupied by agency or supply teachers; and how many were so occupied for each of the last three years. [131719]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers of short-term (i.e. contracts of less than four weeks) agency or other supply teachers employed on the third Thursday in January 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in England are as follows:

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  January 1997

  Number of agency/supply teachers

  8,300

  4,400

  Percentage of all qualified teachers

  4.2

  2.3

  January 1998

  Number of agency/supply teachers

  8,300

  4,000

  Percentage of all qualified teachers

  4.2

  2.1

  January 1999

  Number of agency/supply teachers

  8,900

  4,500

  Percentage of all qualified teachers

  4.5

  2.3

  January 2000

  Number of agency/supply teachers

  10,500

  5,300

  Percentage of all qualified teachers

  5.2

  2.7

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100

  The numbers of short-term supply teachers employed will vary because of the effect of seasonal factors. Many local authorities explained that the growth in the January 2000 supply teachers was due to the flu epidemic.

  There was a growth of 6,900 full-time equivalent regular teachers in the maintained schools sector between January 1998 and January 2000.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of Sure Start in Waltham Forest. [132375]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.
  667W
  Waltham Forest Sure Start received a grant of £1,772,200 from February 2000, and has begun to work towards the 12 demanding objectives in the Sure Start Public Service Agreement. The overall aim of the Sure Start programme in Waltham Forest is to give every child the best start in life. The impact of the programme will be assessed in a major evaluation programme which we expect to be under way later this year.

  Teaching Costs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average cost is per year of employing a school teacher at(a) a primary school and (b) secondary school in the Greater London area. [132634]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The estimated cost of employing a full-time school teacher (including heads and deputies) in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector in Greater London from 1 April 2000 is shown in the following table.

  £

  Nursery/primary

  Secondary

  Average salary

  26,900

  28,500

  Employer costs1

  4,000

  4,200

  Total cost

  30,900

  £32,800

  1 Includes 7.5 per cent. National Insurance and 7.4 per cent. pension costs.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Investors in People
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which organisation will be responsible for administering and awarding Investors in People from 1 April 2001. [132684]

  Mr. Wicks
  From 1 April 2001 the Learning and Skills Council will be responsible for Investors in People services including advice, client support, assessment and recognition services. For advice and support for small and medium sized organisations the LSC will contract with the Small Business Service.

  Assessment and recognition services will be provided by Investors in People regional quality centres.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131436]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: The Department is recruiting externally to fill 60 vacancies for permanent staff at present, across a range of grades, from administrative assistant to Senior Civil Service Band 2.
  668W
  There are also posts which are in the process of being filled by movement of existing staff (for example by promotion or lateral transfer) and which may be temporarily unfilled. The number varies daily but is commonly between 3 and 5 per cent. of total staff numbers.

  The monthly cost to the Department of employing staff in the vacant positions currently being advertised is approximately £126,614.

  The Department employs approximately 85 agency workers on an average working day, this figure is approximately 2 per cent. of the overall number of people employed by the Department.

  The Department paid employment agencies approximately £104,166 each month in the last 12 months to supply temporary staff. The Department expects to pay employment agencies approximately £112,500 each month in the next 12 months to supply temporary staff.

  Joint Venture Company (Leeds)
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what circumstances the services to be operated by the proposed joint venture company in Leeds will be returned to the sole control of the LEA. [132513]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: Leeds City Council, the local education authority, will be responsible for ensuring that services to schools, pupils and parents in Leeds are delivered on its behalf to an agreed specification under the contractual arrangement with the proposed joint venture company. The joint venture company will take day-to-day responsibility for delivery, and will have the power to take the necessary operational decisions. The contract will be for a fixed period, not yet determined. Towards the end of the contract, the Secretary of State and Leeds City Council will need to come to a view on arrangements for the future delivery of relevant services.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will project against annual Government spending plans to 2004 the real unit of resource per student in higher education on the assumption of(a) no increase in student numbers and (b) steady progress towards a target of 50 per cent. participation by young people. [132530]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment last week announced an extra £100 million for higher education in 2001–02 on top of the increase announced in November 1999. Compared to 2000–01 the projected real-terms increase in unit cost per full-time equivalent student in 2001–02 if student numbers remained at 2000–01 levels, would be 2.2 per cent. If the number of students increases in line with plans for 2001–02, which are compatible with meeting the Government's target that 50 per cent. of 18 to 30-year-olds should have the opportunity to benefit from higher education by the end of the decade, then the real-terms unit cost will be about 0.5 per cent. above that in 2000–01. My right hon. Friend has yet to announce the allocation of funding for higher education for 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Term-time Workers
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the number of term-time only workers who are(a) women under 45, (b) women over 45, (c) men under 45 and (d) men over 45; and what is the average per capita annual income of each group. [132713]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not held centrally.

  Education Funding (Bury)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for Bury MBC in each of the last four years(a) the total revenue allocation for education from non-SSA budget headings, (b) the total capital allocation for education and (c) the annual percentage change for (a) and (b). [131387]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The total revenue and capital allocations for education from 1997–98 to 2000–2001 for education outside the Education Standard Spending Assessment for Bury Metropolitan borough council are shown in the following table along with the annual percentage increase.

  The revenue allocation for 1997–98 includes grant to cover for the cost of the nursery voucher scheme. This was funded from Education Standard Spending from 1998–99. The revenue allocations for 2000–01 does not include Nursery Grant for which data are not yet available. Since 1997–98 spending per pupil in England has increased by £300 in real terms.

  £

  Revenue allocations

  Annual percentage increase

  Capital allocations

  Annual percentage increase

  1997–98

  2,306,783

  —

  968,050

  —

  1998–99

  1,705,347

  -26

  2,039,207

  111

  1999–2000

  3,345,615

  96

  3,970,250

  95

  2000–01

  5,133,028

  53

  4,759,253

  20

  School Meals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that all local education authorities provide state school primary aged children with the choice of a hot school meal, with particular reference to the implementation of the Education (Nutritional Standards for School Lunches) (England) Regulations 2000. [132716]

  Jacqui Smith
  We do not have the statutory power to require local education authorities and schools to provide hot meals for maintained primary pupils. This is because cold food that is provided in line with our new nutritional standards can be just as nutritious as hot food. We shall nevertheless make clear, in our forthcoming complementary guidance to school caterers, the importance of making hot meals available, especially during the winter months.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Oversight Commissioner
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what annual budget is set aside for the police Oversight Commissioner, broken down into convenient budget heads; what representations he has received regarding the moneys to be allocated for this purpose. [130421]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are currently in discussion with Mr. Constantine, the Oversight Commissioner, as to the resources he will require.

  Lords Lieutenant
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of Northern Ireland's lord lieutenants are(a) women and (b) members of an ethnic minority. [132143]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 1

  (b) 0

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many proposals his Department received to undertake a study to examine an alternative to plastic baton rounds, in accordance with recommendation 71 in the Patten report; what institution has been commissioned to undertake this research; when a decision was made on who would conduct the research; when the research commenced; which individuals are undertaking the research; and what the expected completion date is. [132032]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have established a UK-wide Steering Group to lead the research project. The Group comprises representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, the Police Scientific Development Branch of the Home Office, the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Northern Ireland Office. The Steering Group was formed in June of this year and held its first meeting on 8 July. The first phase of the project will be completed by the end of this year. One organisation has been suggested as a potential candidate to undertake the research.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to investigate which institutions, organisations and individuals have the necessary expertise to conduct an independent study to find an alternative to the plastic baton round. [131024]

  Mr. Ingram
  The first phase of the research project involves a literature review that will be undertaken by the Police Scientific Development Branch of the Home Office—an organisation with recognised and extensive expertise in this area. This work will involve investigating which institutions, organisations and individuals ought to have a role to play in contributing to the research programme to find an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the plastic baton round.
  671W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the terms of reference will be for the independent study to find an alternative to the plastic baton round. [131025]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Terms of Reference which have been set for the Steering Group leading the research project are as follows:

  Objective
  To establish whether a less potentially lethal alternative to baton rounds is available; and to review the public order equipment which is presently available or could be developed in order to expand the range of tactical options available to operational commanders.

  Task
  In the light of the recommendations in the Patten Report for a research programme to find an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the Plastic Baton Round, and for the RUC to be equipped with a broader range of public order equipment, to provide advice to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a report as follows:

  Phase 1 (Defining operational objectives and literature review)

  Define the operational objective against which less potentially lethal weapons must be tested;

  Prepare a literature review of less potentially lethal weapons available or under research.

  Examine the literature review against the operational objective.

  Phase 2 (Evaluating the literature review, preparing business case and directing further research as necessary)
  Formulate proposals for further research on less potentially lethal weapons which would benefit from further research and which have the potential for successful transfer to the operational field, setting out the timings and the costs of that research; and
  Prepare business case.

  Phase 3 (Research)
  As directed under Phase 2, conduct further research, evaluate performance and safety, and establish deployment costs.

  Phase 4 (Operational objectives and Public Order Equipment)
  Define operational objectives for public order equipment;
  Prepare a report on the tactical deployment of a range of public order equipment in Northern Ireland, covering as wide a range of equipment as possible.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes have been made to police training programmes concerning use of plastic baton rounds since publication of the Patten report. [131026]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the publication of the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, officers undergoing baton gun training have also been involved in a wider training programme including equal opportunities, community and race relations, the effects of Human Rights legislation and the use of force. Baton gun training specifically highlights the use of force, human rights matters, their issue, deployment and use together with command and control protocols, tactical deployment procedures and the criteria for their use. Officers in command positions undertake training in the issue, deployment and use of baton guns at both tactical and strategic levels and concentrate on accountability and human rights issues associated with the use of force.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) organisations and (b) individuals have been consulted in order to implement the Patten Commission proposal for a research programme to find an alternative to the plastic baton round. [131027]
  672W
  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has consulted with ministerial colleagues about the establishment of, and terms of reference for, a Steering Group to lead the research project. The first phase of the research project will involve consultation with other organisations and individuals.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the cost of a research programme to find an alternative to the plastic baton round; and if he will make a statement on how he will ensure best value is achieved and evaluated. [131028]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have made the necessary funding available for phase one of the research project which involves a literature review undertaken by the Police Scientific Development Branch of the Home Office. This research will help to determine the level of funding required for the remainder of the project. The principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness will guide the research project.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to invite tenders from those with the expertise to conduct a research programme to find an alternative to the plastic baton round. [131029]

  Mr. Ingram
  None at this stage.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to publish Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's year 2000 report on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [133347]

  Mr. Ingram
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) 1999–2000 Report will be published today Wednesday 26 July 2000. Copies of the report have been placed in the House of Commons Library. The report will also be available to the public from today.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will respond to the report made by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield following his review of criminal injuries compensation in Northern Ireland, published in July 1999. [133348]

  Mr. Mandelson
  After careful consideration of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's detailed report on the fitness for purpose of criminal injuries compensation arrangements in Northern Ireland, I am today able to announce the Government' s broad proposals for the future of the scheme. The detail will be published next year for consultation in the form of a draft Order in Council.

  I must first place on record my gratitude and thanks to Sir Kenneth Bloomfield and his colleagues on the review for a most diligent and thorough investigation into the legislation and workings of the current criminal injuries compensation scheme. Their terms of reference asked them to advise the Government on:
  the fitness for purpose of criminal injuries compensation arrangements in Northern Ireland in the light of the experiences of victims of terrorist violence…

  673W
  and their research led them to consider many harrowing accounts of death and injury from victims of criminal violence, and to judge the extent to which the compensation scheme met their needs. The review team submitted their report last July when Sir Kenneth said that it would be difficult to argue that the statutory scheme in Northern Ireland is ungenerous, taken as a whole. As a result, the main thrust of their recommendations is designed to re-prioritise the scheme.

  Before addressing the report I must stress this Government's commitment to the provision of fair and equitable compensation for innocent and deserving victims of violent crime, and their particular desire to ensure proper arrangements to recognise the additional suffering of victims of terrorist violence and civil unrest in Northern Ireland.

  The major structural change proposed by the review team is the introduction of a tariff-based scheme with the tariff calculated on the average value of awards in Northern Ireland. This will provide a more transparent and straightforward system, and will allow claims to be settled more quickly. I have decided to accept this recommendation and extend it to apply to all claims and not just to those arising from less serious injuries, as recommended by the review. This will provide for consistency in the value of awards. The review also recommended that a tariff approach would largely make legal assistance in the making of claims unnecessary, and I have accepted this conclusion. Legal costs will therefore no longer be met by the scheme. Instead, Victim Support (NI) will be funded to provide assistance along the same lines as they currently do in GB. I have also decided that the right of appeal to the court should, in the future, no longer be necessary as part of a tariff-based scheme. The review recommended retention of court involvement for reasons which were persuasive at the time, but which should prove less so as progress is made across a range of issues on the wider political front. I therefore propose to replace it with an independent appeals tribunal, along the lines of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel. This will allow appeals to be processed more quickly, with less formality, and with less potential for retraumatising victims.

  I have also agreed changes as recommended by the review in eligibility for awards, and in exclusion from or reduction in awards. More flexible arrangements will apply under the new scheme to those claiming as a result of psychiatric illness, there will be more generous bereavement support payments to a wider group of relatives, and the current statutory time limits for lodging a claim will be replaced by a flexible approach which will allow claims to be made, in certain circumstances, long after the incident. Future cases will also be capable of being reopened for a limited period on strict medical grounds. It is also proposed to introduce a penalty points system to regulate the effect of previous criminal convictions on awards. The same provisions will also apply to convictions for terrorist offences.

  Finally, to address the concerns raised by Sir Kenneth in his report over inadequate financial assistance to past victims of the Troubles, I am also promising a further commitment of funds from next April to take forward the implementation of his report into victims of the Troubles "We Will Remember Them". In total this will represent a substantial package aimed at alleviating the financial
  674W
  hardships and other suffering inflicted on many by violence during the Troubles. Details of how this money will be dispersed will be announced in due course.

  In conclusion, I have accepted some two thirds of the 64 recommendations made by Sir Kenneth and his team. I believe these decisions, which were arrived at only after lengthy consideration, represent the best way to ensure for the future a fair and equitable system of criminal injuries compensation which will recognise the suffering of innocent victims of violent crime.

  Government Information
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is(a) the longest, (b) the shortest and (c) the average number of days taken by his Department to acknowledge receipt of letters requesting information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information at its (a) London and (b) Belfast office. [131361]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Thirteen Open Government requests were received by the Belfast office in the period 1 January 1999 to 30 June 2000. The longest time taken to acknowledge these requests was three working days, the shortest was the day of receipt and the average was 1.3 working days.

  In the same period, one request was received by the London office. There is no record of that being acknowledged. However, a review of documents, instigated as a result of that request, will be completed shortly and a substantive reply will be provided to my hon. Friend without further delay.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April which requested information, pursuant to his previous answers. [132462]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000, 14 parliamentary questions were tabled which were pursuant to previous answers.

DEFENCE

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the appointment of Mr. Bill Finch as Product Development Manager at Feuchter went before the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments following his retirement as Contracts Branch Director of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency. [129731]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 7 July 2000]: Under the Cabinet Office rules on the acceptance of outside appointments by Crown servants, only applications from officials at 3-Star/Deputy Under Secretary level and above are considered by the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee. Mr. Finch's application to join Feuchter was approved under these rules by officials within the Ministry of Defence.

  Extraction/Insertion Pod
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost has been to his Department of the development of the Extraction Stroke Insertion Pod for UK use; and what the expected cost will be to bring this into service; and if he will make a statement. [130377]

  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 26 July 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the extraction/insertion pod for UK use since the work to which you refer was carried out as part of DERA's Pathfinder programme.Pathfinder was launched by the then Defence Research Agency in 1992 in order to strengthen the industry participation in the research programme that MOD contracted from DRA. A concept study of the AVPRO EXINT pod was carried out as a Priority Pathfinder, which DERA funded from its own resources, in 1996. About £39K was contributed to the study by DERA to look at the aeromedical aspects of the pod. A report was issued on the completion of the study and AVPRO subsequently put forward proposals for further work to the Ministry of Defence (MOD). At the present time these proposals have not been taken up.I hope this is helpful.

  Royal Navy Vessels
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the existing procedures by which the names of new Royal Navy vessels are determined. [131565]

  Dr. Moonie
  The procedure for determining the names of Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels is well established. Proposals are initiated by the Ships' Names and Badges Committee (SNBC), comprising representatives from the principal naval command areas. Names, reflecting an appropriate theme across all vessels of a class, are addressed early in the procurement cycle. The Committee consider a number of criteria such as promoting links with communities, the geographical spread of names and opportunities to revive names with an honourable history of service. Selected names are then submitted through Controller of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Staff to the Under Secretary of State for Defence for approval. In the case of major vessels, final approval is sought from Her Majesty the Queen.

  Co-operative Capability Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost to the Government of participating in the US Navy's Co-operative Engagement Capability; and if he will make a statement. [131497]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 542W.

  Chinook Crash, Mull of Kintyre
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Accident Investigations Branch inspector investigating the fatal crash of Chinook ZD576 on 2 June was able to determine that the SuperTANS navigational 676W
  equipment was (a) switched on after impact and (b) functioning prior to impact; and if he will make a statement. [131795]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Air Accidents Investigation Branch team that carried out the independent technical investigation for the RAF Board of Inquiry into the Mull of Kintyre accident reported that the SuperTANS navigation unit recovered from the cockpit wreckage was slightly fire scorched but with little apparent impact damage. The On/Off switch was found in the Off position. However, subsequent examination by the manufacturer clearly showed the unit had been operating until impact, and it appeared that the switch position had been altered by the effect of the impact.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what independent analysis was made of the SuperTANS navigation equipment from the wreckage of RAF Chinook ZD576; and if he will make a statement. [131794]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of the technical investigation after the Mull of Kintyre accident, a detailed investigation of the SuperTANS navigation unit was carried out by the manufacturer, RACAL Avionics Ltd., under the direction of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch. Only the manufacturer had the necessary expertise to interrogate this equipment.

  Missile Defence System
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 433W, on the Missile Defence System, what criteria the UK will use to determine its response should the United States choose to make a request for assistance in the deployment of a nuclear missile defence system. [132566]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have made clear we would consider any request carefully in light of the circumstances at the time, taking into account relevant factors including the implications for UK defence. However, we do not yet know whether, or in what circumstances, we might receive such a request, so it is too early to indicate in more detail how or on what basis we might respond.

  Republic of Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current deployment is of British service personnel in the Republic of Cyprus. [132702]

  Mr. Spellar
  Currently 312 UK service personnel are based in the Republic of Cyprus as part of the UN Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP).

  Landmines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British service personnel are involved in landmine destruction, indicating the countries in which they are deployed. [132701]
  677W
  Mr. Spellar
  British Service personnel are not currently involved in landmine destruction per se. But they do provide technical expertise, management and specialist skills to support mine action programmes worldwide. As at 1 July, personnel were deployed as follows:

  As Senior Technical Adviser to the UN Mine Action Co-ordination Centre in Kosovo.

  As Senior Technical Adviser to the UN Mine Action Centre in Bosnia.

  As a Staff Officer within the Humanitarian Demining Training Centre at the US Army's Engineer School.

  As Head of Technical Unit at the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining.

  Additionally, in Bosnia, as part of the Stabilisation Force (SFOR), UK military personnel are involved in the co-ordination and monitoring of mine clearance; emergency disposal of mines and unexploded ordnance as required; and mine awareness training. Similar work is undertaken in Kosovo. We also maintain an Explosive Ordnance Disposal detachment in the Falkland Islands.

  Military Overstretch
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the extent of the military overstretch faced by the UK's armed forces. [132696]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government remain concerned at the degree of overstretch our armed forces have been subject to due to undermanning and the recent high level of Operational tempo. We are determined to drive this down.

  Undermanning as at 1 May 2000 was:

  The Naval Service—1,016

  Army—7,968

  RAF—922.

  The RAF is now in broad manning balance; the Naval Service and Army will be on target in 2002 and 2005 respectively.

  As at 1 June 2000, the percentage of armed forces personnel committed to operations were:

  The Naval Service—32.39 per cent.

  Army—27 per cent.

  RAF—12.65 per cent.

  This is a significant improvement on the position at the height of Kosovo, when, for example, the Army had 47 per cent. of its trained personnel committed to operations.

  UN/NATO Shared Assets
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all UK/NATO shared assets(a) nationally and (b) by UK region for the most recent year for which figures are available. [131635]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: The information requested is not readily available; however, I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Service Recruitment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by service, corps and regiment, recruitment levels nationally and by region of the UK for the most recent year for which figures are available. [131592]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: Details on armed forces recruitment levels are not held centrally in the format requested. Information is held, however, on the number of selections, by Government Office region. It should be noted that selection figures indicate those personnel who have been chosen to enter the Services. For many, the actual date of intake into the armed forces will have fallen outside the year of selection.

  The selections during the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, by Service and Government Office region, are reproduced in the table.

  Government office region

  Naval Service1

  Army2

  RAF3

  North East

  431

  1,339

  237

  North West

  454

  1,425

  351

  Merseyside

  315

  735

  175

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  454

  1,452

  329

  East Midlands

  307

  730

  205

  West Midlands

  306

  1,071

  187

  Eastern

  320

  637

  345

  London

  302

  702

  108

  South East

  537

  902

  212

  South West

  951

  1,495

  449

  Wales

  294

  1,152

  240

  Scotland

  595

  1,616

  376

  Northern Ireland

  94

  337

  95

  Unknown

  —

  1

  77

  Total

  5,360

  13,594

  3,386

  1 Naval Service data are for Other Ranks only.

  2 Army data are for Other Ranks only.

  3 RAF data includes Officers and Other Ranks.

  Departmental Assets
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total value of assets belonging to his Department(a) nationally and (b) by UK region; and if he will break down the assets by (i) estates, (ii) kit and (iii) plant and machinery for the same areas for the most recent financial year. [131634]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: I regret the information sought is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A summary of the total value of assets belonging to the Department as at 31 March 1999 is as follows:

  £ billion

  Land and buildings

  13.5

  Fighting equipment

  27.9

  Plant and machinery and vehicles

  4.6

  Capital spares

  8.4

  IT and communications

  1.2

  Assets in course of construction

  9.5

  Total

  65.1

  I shall in future be publishing a summary of the values of assets held in Ministry of Defence's annual Departmental Resource Account (DRAc) under the new

  679W
  resource accounting and budgetary arrangements. The first such account will cover the 1999–2000 financial year and will be laid before Parliament later this year following NAO examination.

  The National Asset Register published in November 1997 provides some information on location of land and buildings by region. It is planned to publish an updated version of this with values later this year.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many nuclear submarines carrying conventional weapons are currently operational. [132710]

  Mr. Spellar
  All 15 Royal Navy submarines carry conventional weapons. Currently, nine (three Vanguard Class Trident submarines, three Trafalgar Class and three Swiftsure Class) are operationally available. Submarines in this category may be deployed at sea, in port, or carrying out trials, training or maintenance. In every case they are operational now or at very short notice. The specific operational readiness of each submarine is, however, classified and is being withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  CR Gas
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what(a) quantity, (b) strength and (c) type of CR gas was deployed on 16 October 1974 at HM Prison Maze; [131390]

  (2) how many inmates of HM Prison Maze gave blood samples for analysis following the use of CR gas at HM Prison Maze in October 1974; what the results of blood analysis were; where the data are stored; and what follow-up studies have been made. [131388]

  Mr. Spellar
  As far as can be ascertained from surviving records, some 200 hand-held spray devices containing 0.05 per cent. CR were held at HM Prison Maze at that time, but were not used (although CS smoke was used). We have no record of blood samples being taken at the prison at that time.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation he has made of(a) the effectiveness of CR gas in keeping public order and (b) the circumstances in which CR gas may be deployed. [131389]

  Mr. Spellar
  The term CR refers to the chemical agent Dibenzoxazepine. Dibenzoxazepine has severe short-term incapacitating effects which have been well documented in the medical literature (for example, in Medicine, Science and Law, October 1973). CR may be deployed and authorised for use by the Armed Forces in certain special circumstances, particularly where it might enable the use of firearms to be avoided.

  Defence Munitions Establishment, Gosport
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Defence Munitions establishment at Gosport. [133357]

  Mr. Spellar
  In common with the rest of the Defence Logistics Organisation, Defence Munitions has been set challenging savings and efficiency targets. A number of significant savings initiatives have already been delivered from the constituent parts.

  Previous efficiency studies such as Options for Change and Front Line First have, by and large, resulted in DM Gosport in Hampshire being a net inheritor of tasks and resources. Consequently the Depot has escaped the hard root and branch reviews which other parts of Defence Munitions have been subject to. To address the efficiency issue at DM Gosport a review of work practices and Depot management structure was initiated late 1999. The Study Team identified, as a first step, business efficiencies which, if implemented, would result in reductions of up to 30 per cent. of the total number of posts of 650.

  I was advised in February that further work was necessary. This was undertaken by a team comprising Depot staff and Trades Union representatives, which was supported by consultants to build upon the team's work, and charged with identifying the precise future optimum business processes and management structure of the Depot. This further work has now completed and indicates that post reductions in the order of 46 per cent. are possible without detriment to the output of the Depot.

  A "without commitment" Preference Exercise carried out at the Depot has identified that the majority of redundancies would be achieved voluntarily. While the probability of job losses is always unwelcome, it is crucial that we take advantage of new business processes (such as multi-skilling, operator self inspection, exploitation of new technology, and outsourcing of a number of support functions) if we are to ensure that we are able to maximise investment on front line defence capability and continue to give best value for money to the taxpayer.

  I also hope that these changes will better place DM Gosport to win future commercial contracts for weapon processing and associated work, therefore securing job opportunities for the future.

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many staff were seconded from the private sector to his Department from(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to the latest date for which figures are available, stating in each case the companies from which staff have been seconded. [109074]

  Dr. Moonie
  [pursuant to the reply, 8 February 2000, c. 109–10W]: A correction is required to the information given for secondments from the private sector to the Ministry of Defence for the period May 1998 to April 1999. During this period there were 20 inward secondments, not 19 as stated, as there were two secondees from Rolls-Royce for this period, not one. The corrected information is in the table.
  681W

  May 1998 to April 1999

  Number

  GEC Marconi Radar and Defence

  1

  Private Finance Panel Ltd.

  1

  Tarmac ServiceMaster

  1

  British Nuclear Fuels

  2

  AWE plc

  1

  Gardiner & Theobald

  1

  TI Group

  1

  British Aerospace

  3

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  1

  Simmons & Simmons

  1

  Wragg and Co

  1

  Defence Acquisition Group

  2

  PA Consulting Group

  1

  Dibb, Lupton Alsop

  1

  Rolls Royce

  2

  Total

  20

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bottom-set Gillnets
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to reduce the use of bottom-set gillnets; and if he will make a statement. [130382]

  Mr. Morley
  I have no such plans at present. The Sea Mammal Research Unit is currently trialling a range of gear modifications, including the use of acoustic deterrents (pingers) with Cornish fishermen, in order to reduce the scale of cetacean bycatch. If these measures prove effective, I will encourage their use in all similar UK fisheries.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 did not receive substantive answers, citing as the reason that the information was(a) not held centrally, (b) not held in the form requested and (c) not available. [131197]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 July 2000]: According to our records, of the 1,189 written parliamentary questions tabled during this period, we answered seven questions where the information was not held centrally, nine where the information was not held in the form requested and 34 where the information was not available.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason commercial confidentiality or other confidentiality. [131228]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]: For this period there were 1,189 written parliamentary questions tabled, of which seven did not receive substantive answers, citing as the reason commercial or other confidentiality.

  Felling Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 2000,Official Report, column 723W, on tree felling licences, what the outcome was of the investigation by the Forestry Commission into allegations that the RSPB had felled trees which were not included in the felling licence for Avon Heath Country Park; and if he will make a statement. [132357]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: The Forestry Commission has not yet completed its investigation. I shall write to the hon. Member when I have further information.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many unfilled vacancies for permanent staff his Department has; what percentage of staff positions in his Department are vacant; what the monthly cost would be to his Department of employing civil servants in these positions; how many and what percentage of staff his Department employs on a temporary basis through employment agencies; how much his Department paid employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the last 12 months; and how much he expects to pay employment agencies to supply temporary staff in each of the next 12 months. [131440]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: Pay budgets within my Department are decentralised so the above information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1999–2000 Annual report and Accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service. [133345]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The 1999–2000 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service have been laid before Parliament. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Business Appointments
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the third report of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and if he will make a statement. [133247]

  The Prime Minister
  The Committee has submitted its third report to me and I have today placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. Since 1975 the Committee has advised the Prime Minister of the day on the propriety of business appointments that Crown servants wish to take up when they leave the Crown service. Following a recommendation of the Committee on Standards in
  683W
  Public Life, it now also provides advice directly to former Ministers on their business appointments. The Committee's third report provides an account of their work in 1999–2000.

  The Committee has an important role, and I am very grateful to all the members for giving their time so freely to it.

  Standards in Public Life Report
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Government intend to respond to the Sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [133414]

  The Prime Minister
  The Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which focused on implementation of the Committee's First Report, was published in January. It concluded that the process of reform of standards of ethical behaviour in public life that had been set in train following the publication of its First Report had been a success and made a number of further recommendations. I am grateful to Lord Neill and his Committee for their continued work in this vital area.

  I have published today the Government's response to the Committee's Sixth Report (Cm 4817) and copies are available in the Library.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he has deposited papers in the Library in response to parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April. [132465]

  The Prime Minister
  Sixteen.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 26 July. [132363]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to her Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, citing as the reason that the information is(a) not held centrally, (b) not held in the form requested and (c) not available. [132469]

  Clare Short
  Of the 574 written parliamentary questions tabled to my Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000, one did not receive a substantive answer because the material was not held centrally, two because the information was not held in the form requested and four because the information was not available.

SCOTLAND

  Post Offices
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on changes to the payment of benefits and pensions and the effect on post offices(a) in Glasgow and (b) in Scotland. [127716]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government are committed to investing £480 million in the automation of the entire post office network, allowing the move to paying benefits and pensions by automated credit transfer to start in 2003. This will not prevent people from continuing to collect their benefits in cash from their local post office if they prefer.

  In addition, the Government have recently unveiled a further package of measures to modernise the post office network, giving opportunities for significant new business and securing its future. As an example, from 27 July Lloyds TSB customers will be able to carry out basic banking transactions at 2,000 post offices throughout Scotland free of charge, underlining the potential for post offices to provide an ever-increasing range of services to local communities.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions he has deposited papers in the Library in response to parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April. [132466]

  Dr. Reid
  Two.

WALES

  Spending Review
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on transport in Wales. [130883]

  Mr. Hanson
  I discuss many aspects of transport with the First Secretary during our regular meetings. The settlement announced for Wales last week has given Wales an extra £299 million transport consequential under the Barnett Formula. As my hon. Friend will be aware, any decisions on how the settlement is allocated within Wales will be for the Assembly to decide and will be announced in their budget plans later this year.

  There will also be scope under European Structural funded schemes for ambitious transport infrastructure projects, which the National Assembly for Wales will evaluate alongside all other bids.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on police funding in Wales. [130888]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues.
  685W
  Last Wednesday's announcement by the Home Secretary of an extra £1.6 billion for police funding in England and Wales for the next three years is very good news. It represents an average annual increase in police funding of 7 per cent. and will mean a further 4,000 recruits for England and Wales, bringing the total to 9,000 extra recruits over the next three years. Police forces in North Wales, Dyfed Powys and Gwent will also benefit from extra funding in recognition of the special challenges which they face in policing sparsely populated rural areas.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Assembly First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 comprehensive spending review on EU structural funds in Wales. [130890]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have discussed this matter with the First Secretary on a number of occasions.

  The settlement covers in full the increase in EU Structural Funds receipts, outside of the Barnett formula, and he welcomes it as much as I do.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on police chief constables in Wales. [130891]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  Last Wednesday's announcement by the Home Secretary of an extra £1.6 billion for police funding in England and Wales for the next three years is very good news. It represents an average annual increase in police funding of 7 per cent. and will mean a further 4,000 recruits for England and Wales, bringing the total to 9,000 extra recruits over the next three years. Police forces in North Wales, Dyfed Powys and Gwent will also benefit from extra funding in recognition of the special challenges which they face in policing sparsely populated rural areas.

  It will be for individual chief constables in Wales to determine how they spend the funds allocated to them.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on education in Wales. [130893]

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on education in Wales. [130899]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I met with the First Secretary on a regular basis in the run-up to the 2000 Spending Review.

  I welcome the excellent settlement secured for Wales, which includes amounts consequential on allocations to the Department for Education and Employment.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the effect of the 2000 spending review on health and social services in Wales. [130894]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State met with the First Secretary on a regular basis in the run-up to the 2000 Spending Review.
  686W
  The excellent settlement secured for Wales includes amounts consequential on allocations to the Department of Health which can be allocated by the National Assembly to improve healthcare.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with the First Secretary about the impact of the national minimum wage on the Welsh economy. [130884]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales and discuss a number of issues including the Welsh economy.

  The minimum wage has brought substantial benefits to large numbers of people, especially women and part-time workers, without any indication of significant adverse effect on employment or economy in Wales.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress on reform of the common agricultural policy in relation to upland farming in Wales. [130885]

  Mr. Hanson
  A major reform arising from Agenda 2000 CAP reforms was contained in the European Commission's Rural Development Regulation, relating to Less Favoured Areas (LFAs). The new scheme for the LFAs, which constitute 80 per cent. of Wales, was submitted to the European Commission last December by the National Assembly for Wales. Commission approval is expected in the near future.

  Local Government Settlement
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary regarding the consultation over the local government settlement for Wales. [130887]

  Mr. Hanson
  The Secretary of State had regular meetings with the First Secretary in the run-up to the 2000 Spending Review. The settlement we have secured for Wales includes amounts consequential on allocations to the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions for local government. It will of course be for the National Assembly to decide how the consequential amounts will be allocated in Wales, and it is currently consulting on its joint review of the standard spending assessment formula for distribution of grant to local authorities in Wales.

  Rural Development
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last discussed sustainable rural development with the First Secretary; and if he will make a statement. [130889]

  Mr. Hanson
  My right hon. Friend discusses a range of rural issues in his weekly meeting with the First Secretary and I discuss rural development matters in my regular liaison meetings with Assembly Cabinet members. The National Assembly for Wales has what we believe is a unique duty, set out in section 121 of the Government
  687W
  of Wales Act 1998, to make a scheme setting out how it proposes to promote sustainable development in the exercise of its functions.

  Exchange Rate
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the impact of the level of the pound on farmers; and if he will make a statement. [130892]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular weekly meetings with the First Secretary and we discuss a wide range of topics. I understand that the majority of the agrimonetary compensation out of the total £10.6 million promised to Welsh dairy, beef and sheep farmers at the No. 10 Agriculture Summit on 30 March will be paid between August and December this year. We also are hopeful that the Agenda 2000 CAP reforms and the Rural Development Plan will enable Welsh farmers to achieve a sustainable agricultural industry.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will meet the First Secretary to discuss farm incomes in south Wales. [130895]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues. I am hopeful that the Rural Development Plan for Wales, coupled with support from Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of the European Structural Funds and the industry's own resilience and coherent approach to rural development, will result in an improved level of farm incomes not only in south Wales but the whole country.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on match funding for Objective 1 structural funds for west Wales and the valleys. [130896]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The excellent spending review settlement for Wales announced last week included an additional £421 million to cover in full the increase in EU Structural Funds receipts in Wales, outside of the Barnett formula. This settlement unlocks funding within the Block to meet the match funding requirement.

  I have talked with the First Secretary and the Assembly Finance Secretary who agree that as a result of this settlement, no worthwhile Objective 1 project will be held back by lack of resources.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about promoting organic farming. [130897]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a regular weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues. I understand that the National Assembly has committed nearly £3 million to the organic farming scheme in its first year of operation. The scheme pays grants to farmers to help them through the period of conversion to organic farming. I also welcome the launch of the Centre for Organic Excellence in Aberystwyth on 688W
  10 July, which will help the Assembly achieve its aim of converting 10 per cent. of agricultural land to organic production by 2005.

  Pensioners
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Social Security on behalf of Welsh pensioners. [130898]

  Mr. Hanson
  As a member of the Inter Ministerial Group on Older People I regularly discuss pensioner issues.

  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.

  The Minimum Income Guarantee will benefit 94,000 pensioners in Wales. This will be increased in line with earnings throughout the remainder of this Parliament.

  A comprehensive strategy has been put in place by this Government to tackle pensioner poverty. This targeted approach ensures that more help is directed towards those pensioners that need it most.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the First Secretary to discuss the implementation in Wales of national targets for ambulance response times. [130900]

  Mr. Hanson
  I have no plans to discuss this issue at present but would be happy to include this item in my regular discussions with the First Secretary or the Assembly Health Secretary.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales regarding NHS waiting lists. [130901]

  Mr. Hanson
  Regular discussions about the NHS in Wales are held with both the Assembly First Secretary and the Assembly Health Secretary and waiting lists are often included on the agenda.

  The National Assembly are keen to reduce waiting lists as much and as soon as possible. Together with providing additional funding for this purpose, they have set strict targets to be met by Health Authorities.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary on manufacturing industry in Wales. [130879]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The First Secretary and I meet on a regular basis and discuss a number of issues including manufacturing in Wales. Overall, manufacturing output in Wales for the four quarters to the first quarter of 2000 was 2.9 per cent. higher than this corresponding period a year earlier.

TREASURY

  Savings
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was invested in individual savings accounts in their first year of operation(a) in total and (b) net of transfers from other savings instruments; how much was invested in (i) TESSAs and (ii) PEPs in their first year of operation; and if he will make a statement. [127835]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Individual Savings Accounts attracted a total of over £28 billion in their first year 1999–2000, which is around a third more than the sum put into PEPs and TESSAs in their last year of operation of 1998–99. This excludes proceeds from matured TESSAs subscribed to cash components of ISAs or TESSA only ISAs. The proportion of funds which is attributable to new savings is not available.

  Only £480 million was subscribed to PEPs in their first year (1987) compared to over £16 billion subscribed to the stocks and shares components of ISAs in their first year. The amount invested in TESSAs in their first year (1991) was around £7.3 billion, whereas the cash component of ISAs attracted some £12.3 billion in their first year.

  Census Forms
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the oral statement of the Economic Secretary on 5 July 2000,Official Report, Standing Committee D, column 15, with whom the status of the commitment to ensure that census forms will read, "What is your religion? This question is voluntary, has been checked"; and if he will make a statement. [131365]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Census Act 1920, for the purpose of enabling any Order in Council directing a census to be taken to be carried into effect, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may make regulations with respect to the forms to be used in the taking of a census.

  If the Census (Amendment) Bill, as currently drafted were to become law, then subsequent to the necessary Amendment Order being made providing for particulars in respect of religion to be added to those already approved by Parliament for inclusion in the 2001 Census, I will make, on behalf of the Chancellor, regulations setting out the form and wording of the particular question on religion to be included on the 2001 Census forms. This would include the statement that the question is voluntary.

  Legal advisers for the Office for National Statistics have confirmed that the authority to include such a statement on the census form would fall within the provision of Section 3(1) of the Act, once the Act has been amended to provide for such particulars to be included without penalty for not doing so.

  In my statement to the Standing Committee D on 5 July, I announced my intention to make such a statement on the 2001 Census form to be included in regulations, should the Bill receive Royal Assent.

  HIPC
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the World Bank's refusal to include(a) Haiti, (b) Bangladesh and (c) Nigeria in the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries programme. [130992]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The list of countries eligible for debt relief under HIPC is not fixed, nor does the UK Government regard it as fixed. Any country which is eligible for concessional lending from the IMF and World Bank, which has established a track record of reform and sound programmes and which faces an unsustainable debt burden, beyond available debt relief mechanisms, can qualify for debt relief under the HIPC Initiative. It is then, of course, a matter for the country itself to chose to opt for HIPC debt relief.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the rate of up-take of the Working Families Tax Credit in Dorset. [130836]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit at the end of May 2000 is provisionally estimated at 1,056,000. The number in receipt of Family Credit at the end of May 1999 is estimated at 821,000.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families receive the Working Families Tax Credit. [132625]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit at the end of May 2000 is provisionally estimated at 1,056,000.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many recipients of the Working Families Tax Credit work in the(a) public and (b) private sectors. [132698]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates could not be made without incurring disproportionate cost. Information on the sector of the employer is not relevant for determining eligibility for Working Families Tax Credit or calculating the value of the award, and is not captured to the computer system used for the statistical analysis of these awards.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown by region of the number of recipients of the Working Families Tax Credit. [132700]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of families in receipt of Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) at the end of May 2000 is provisionally estimated at 1,056,000. The breakdown by country and Government Office Region is as follows:

  Thousand

  Country and Government Office Region

  Provisional estimate of number of recipients of WFTC at end-May 2000

  United Kingdom

  1,056

  England

  855

  North-East

  62

  North-West

  154

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  119

  East Midlands

  83

  West Midlands

  107

  East of England

  72

  London

  78

  691W

  Thousand

  Country and Government Office Region

  Provisional estimate of number of recipients of WFTC at end-May 2000

  South-East

  96

  South-West

  84

  Wales

  62

  Scotland

  101

  Northern Ireland

  37

  Lost Working Days
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working days were lost to individual action in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999. [131116]

  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. Nick Gibb, dated 26 July 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of working days lost to industrial action.
  The table below shows the number of working days lost to labour disputes in the United Kingdom for each year since 1996.

  Number of working days lost due to labour disputes in the UK

  Number

  1996

  1,303,300

  1997

  234,700

  1998

  282,400

  1999

  241,800

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average take-home pay of workers benefiting from the National Minimum Wage(a) before the Budget in March and (b) following the measures announced in the Budget. [130956]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to ensure that every individual shares fairly in the increasing prosperity of the nation. As a result of personal tax and benefit changes announced in Budget 2000 and previous Budgets, households will be, on average, £460 a year better off. Households with an individual in receipt of the National Minimum Wage will be, on average, £1,500 a year better off.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage to date. [132107]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 July 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the number of men and women who have benefited from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage (132107). I am replying in the absence of the National Statistician.
  692W
  Definitive estimates on the number of people that have been affected by the national minimum wage are not yet available. Currently available estimates for assessing the effect draw on data from both the New Earnings Survey and the Labour Force Survey, and recognise the particular value that each survey adds to the quality and analytical details that can be provided. However, the latest adjusted estimates are mainly based on data for the Spring (March-May) 1999 Labour Force Survey. The reference period spans the implementation date for the National Minimum Wage Act on 1 April 1999. This means adjusted estimates are unlikely accurately to measure the effect of this legislation since there are employees who could have been earning below the minimum wage rates in March 1999, before the law took effect.
  The currently available estimates for March-May 1999 were published in an Office for National Statistics (ONS) First Release on 14 October 1999 and show that the number of people earning below the minimum wage rates set in April 1999 had fallen significantly between 1998 and 1999. A copy of this first release is available in the House of Commons Library.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 17 July; and if he will make a statement. [131570]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I attended the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

  Draft conclusions on the taxation of savings and the Code of Conduct were circulated by the Presidency and adopted without amendment.

  The Presidency concluded that it was not possible to adopt the draft conclusions on Money Laundering because the question of how broad a definition of predicate offences to include in the Directive would need to be discussed further. The extent to which lawyers and accountants should be included in the scope of the directive also requires further consideration. It was hoped political agreement would be possible at the September ECOFIN meeting.

  Conclusions were adopted without discussion on Undertaking for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS) and Accounting Standards.

  The Commission presented its communication on a Global Strategy for the Protection of the Community's interests, noting it intended to resubmit to InterGovernmental Conference its proposal for a European Public Prosecutor (EPP). The Council agreed conclusions to maintain momentum on fight against fraud, but did not support the Commission on the EPP.

  On Lisbon follow-up it was agreed that ECOFIN would discuss in November reports on the Quality and Sustainability of Public Finances and Structural Performance indicators.

  A mandate for the Group of Wise Persons was agreed unanimously. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Conclusions on enlargement were adopted. ECOFIN agreed to discuss exchange rate policy and economic and financial stability in EU candidate countries at a future meeting.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 2000,Official Report,

  693W
  column 592W, on the effect of the minimum wage on household income of different income deciles, what estimate he has made of the percentage effect on the population estimated in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to have below half average household income. [132020]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are implementing a comprehensive strategy to tackle the causes of child and pensioner poverty. The National Minimum Wage, in providing a statutory level beneath which pay cannot fall, forms part of that strategy.

  The National Minimum Wage was introduced in April 1999. It is therefore not possible to estimate its effect on incomes in 1997–98 and 1998–99. Income information for 1999–2000 will be available next year in "Households Below Average Income" which is produced by the Department for Social Security.

  Tax Allowances
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield for the next five financial years of restricting the value for the purpose of income tax of(a) the personal allowance and (b) age related allowances to the value of the basic rate of income tax; and if he will make a statement. [132271]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated revenue yield in a full year from restricting the personal allowance to the basic rate would be £2.7 billion in 2000–01. Because of the tapered withdrawal of the age-related personal allowances, there is no relief for them at the higher rate and there would be no Exchequer effect from restricting them.

  This estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 26 July 2000:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the number of men and women who have benefited from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage (132107). I am replying in the absence of the National Statistician.
  Definitive estimates on the number of people that have been affected by the national minimum wage are not yet available. Currently available estimates for assessing the effect draw on data from both the New Earnings Survey and the Labour Force Survey, and recognise the particular value that each survey adds to the quality and analytical details that can be provided. However, the latest adjusted estimates are mainly based on data for the Spring (March - May) 1999 Labour Force Survey. The reference period spans the implementation date for the National Minimum Wage Act on 1 April 1999. This means adjusted estimates are unlikely accurately to measure the effect of this legislation since there are employees who could have been earning below the minimum wage rates in March 1999, before the law took effect.
  The currently available estimates for March - May 1999 were published in an Office for National Statistics (ONS) First Release on 14 October 1999 and show that the number of people earning below the minimum wage rates set in April 1999 had fallen significantly between 1998 and 1999. A copy of this first release is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Pesticides Tax
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 21 June 2000,694W
  Official Report, column 215–16W, on pesticides tax, if he will list each of the meetings held with organisations named in the question. [132313]

  Mr. Timms
  I have had a number of meetings with interested parties, including industry representatives and the RSPB. In addition, I have read a number of written representations.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has revised his plans for announcements concerning debt management as referred to in his written answer of 12 June 2000,Official Report, column 462W; and if he will make a statement. [132250]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There have been no subsequent changes to the Government's financing remit since the statement of 12 June.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2000,Official Report, column 99W, concerning payment of duty on fuel products at the terminal instead of the point at which they leave the refinery, if he will carry out a strategic environmental appraisal of this policy. [132644]

  Mr. Timms
  The potential environmental impact is only one consideration of this policy. Any change would also impact on revenue flow, Customs resources and accounting systems and revenue security. There are no plans to review the policy.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on employment in coastal areas of the introduction of the proposed aggregates tax. [132493]

  Mr. Timms
  All of the revenues raised from the levy will be recycled back to business through a cut in employer National Insurance contributions (NICs) and a new `Sustainability Fund' aimed at delivering local environmental benefits. It is not possible to say precisely what the effect of the levy, the cut in employer NICs and the Sustainability Fund will be on the aggregates and construction industries, since this will depend, among other things, on future employment trends and the degree to which firms switch to recycled materials.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the principal objectives are of the proposed aggregates tax. [132431]

  Mr. Timms
  The main objective of the aggregates levy is to bring about environmental benefits by making the price of aggregates better reflect their true environmental costs, and encouraging the use of recycled aggregates.

  In addition, some of the revenues from the levy will be used for the new `Sustainability Fund' aimed at delivering local environmental benefits to areas subject to the environmental costs of aggregates extraction. The Government will be consulting shortly on how this fund can best be used.

  Audit and Accountability Steering Group
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the central Government Audit and Accountability Steering Group will have objectives relating to environmental sustainability; and if there are members of the Steering Group with expertise in environmental sustainability. [132572]

  Mr. Timms
  The terms of reference for the review by Lord Sharman of central Government audit and accountability have not yet been discussed by the Steering Group. The members of the Steering Group include a former senior official of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Spending Review
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 July 2000,Official Report, columns 219–29, when he will publish full public service agreements for all departments; and if he will make a statement. [132677]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I plan to do so on 28 July.

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy that, when the Disabled Persons Tax Credit is replaced in 2003, the Employment Tax Credit will be paid to childless disabled people. [132697]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Final decisions on the precise details of the ETC will be taken nearer the time of its introduction. When the new credits are introduced in 2003 payments to the working disabled will continue to be made to both those with and without children.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to reply to the letter of 4 April, sent by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, concerning Mr. Marguson of Deeside. [133131]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no record of this letter having been received. If my right hon. Friend would send a copy to me it will be dealt with as soon as possible.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he proposes to answer the letter of the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, of 6 June, concerning Mr. Collard of Deeside, Flintshire; [133132]

  (2) when he proposes to answer the letter sent by the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside, regarding Mr. Peck of Deeside, Flintshire, on 9 June. [133128]

  Mr. Timms
  I have already done so.

  Euro
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which studies his Department has(a) commissioned, (b) reviewed and (c) undertaken that examine the cost to (i) UK businesses and (ii) euro zone business of preparing for introduction of the euro; and if he will make a statement; [132901]
  696W
  (2) which studies his Department has (a) commissioned, (b) reviewed and (c) undertaken that examine the cost to (i) UK businesses and (ii) euro zone business of preparing for introduction of the euro; and if he will make a statement. [132899]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury has neither commissioned nor undertaken studies of this nature. The cost of a changeover would depend on the overall approach taken and the decisions made by individual businesses.

  ENTRUST
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure best use of public money by ENTRUST. [131666]

  Mr. Timms
  ENTRUST does not determine where funds generated through the landfill tax credit scheme are spent. The Government are keen to promote more spending of contributions on recycling and re-use, particularly the recycling of household waste. The Government set out in the Waste Strategy 2000 ways in which they hope to achieve this and intend to consult interested parties on these proposals.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment he has made of the(a) efficiency and (b) funding distribution policies of ENTRUST. [131665]

  Mr. Timms
  Funds are donated by landfill site operators to environmental bodies. ENTRUST has no part in deciding which projects receive funding. The landfill tax legislation sets out the broad categories of environmental projects that can qualify for funding.

  As the regulator of the landfill tax credit scheme, it is ENTRUST's job to ensure that the money is properly spent by qualifying environmental bodies in ways governed by the landfill tax regulations, and that no direct benefit passes to the contributors. HM Customs and Excise, which audits ENTRUST's performance to ensure that it meets an acceptable standard, is satisfied that ENTRUST has appropriate systems in place to identify abuses and revoke the approval of non-compliant bodies.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to abolish ENTRUST and redirect landfill tax moneys to local authorities. [131667]

  Mr. Timms
  No. The Government have set out in the Waste Strategy 2000 that they will explore options for amending the landfill tax credit scheme to contribute more to the objective of increased recycling, including helping local authorities to raise recycling levels.

  Financial Services Authority
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Financial Services Authority submitted its response to the Cruickshank report. [132802]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The FSA's response to the Cruickshank report will be published alongside the Government's own response to the report.

  Debt Management Office
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the UK Debt Management Office's annual report and accounts. [133248]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The DMO's annual report and administrative accounts for 1999–2000 are being published today. Copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Travellers
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the powers available to(a) local authorities and (b) the police to deal with travellers; and what discussions he has had with (i) local authorities and (ii) the police about strengthening these powers. [131888]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We consider that the statutory powers currently available are adequate provided that they are used effectively and at an early stage when necessary.

  There has been some concern that guidance on dealing with trespass by travellers needs clarifying in some respects. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) has, therefore, today published a revision to DETR Circular 18–94 to local authorities on the use of their powers to deal with unauthorised camping. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  We also propose to publish shortly, jointly with the DETR, a revision to the Good Practice Guidance "Managing Unauthorised Camping", aimed at ensuring there is clarity over the use of the relevant powers. In addition, research into the effectiveness of this Guidance has been commissioned and is expected to report in the Autumn. Further changes to the Guidance may be considered at that time.

  It is the Government's view that there needs to be adequate site provision if unauthorised camping is to be managed properly. The DETR is about to commission research into the availability and condition of local authority Gypsy sites. The results will be considered as part of the next spending review. In the meantime, the Minister of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 24 July 2000, Official Report, columns 398–404W, that his Department would be making available over the next three years £17 million to help local authorities to improve and refurbish a limited number of existing sites. Details of the scheme will be published in the autumn.

  There are regular discussions involving Ministers, Members of Parliament, local authorities and the police about all aspects of the Government's policy on travellers.

  Transsexual People
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Transsexual People; and when he proposes to publish it. [132882]
  698W
  Mr. Straw
  The Interdepartmental Working Group reported to me just before Easter. I am most grateful to members of the Working Group and those who contributed to it for the thoroughness of their work. Since Easter, I have consulted ministerial colleagues in other Government Departments and the devolved Administrations.

  I have today placed copies of the report in the Library. Similar arrangements are being made in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The report will be placed on the Home Office website. Hard copies may be obtained on application to my Department.

  The report will be considered carefully within Government.

  Sexual Offences Review Report
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the sexual offences review report will be published. [132520]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 25 July 2000]: I can confirm that the "Setting the Boundaries: reforming the law on sex offences", report of the review of sex offences, is being published today.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out the terms of reference for the review in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 25 January 1999, Official Report, columns 80–81W. The review was asked to look at the law in England and Wales and to make recommendations that will provide clear and coherent sex offences that protect the individual, particularly children and more vulnerable people from abuse and exploitation; enable abusers to be appropriately punished; and were fair and non-discriminatory in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.

  This review was open and inclusive—it involved many stakeholders directly in its Steering Group and advisory External Reference Group, and consulted with many more at a series of conferences and seminars. It has looked at the evidence from research and the experience of law reform in other countries. The review has now completed its report to Government. It has made far-reaching recommendations to strengthen the effectiveness and protection of the law for children, raised important questions about the nature of the protection that should be offered to vulnerable people, proposed codifying and clarifying the law on consent in rape and setting the law on a fair and non-discriminatory basis for men and women whether as victim or offender. It also recommends new laws for dealing with the trafficking of human beings for sexual exploitation and the use of children in sexual exploitation, as well as looking at penalties and treatment.

  The issues involved are sensitive and complex ones, on which there will be differing views. It is a long time since we have had such a thorough and comprehensive set of proposals on the law of sex offences, based on careful thought and consultation. But these proposals are just that—recommendations made to Government by a broadly based review, set up to provide the framework for further debate. The review involved many people from outside the civil service from many different groups and backgrounds, as well as civil servants from a wide range

  699W
  of departments. Before the Government can come to a conclusion on any of them, we need further input and views on what is recommended. This is the start of a real debate on what we think the law should be and how it should be framed.

  We would like views on all of the proposals in the report. The review has posed some specific questions, but we want reactions to all the recommendations. We would like to know how well they would work, whether they would add to the protection of the vulnerable, whether they would apply fairly, equitably and with justice and whether there would be any effects or consequences that have not yet been identified.

  The Government particularly welcome the proposals to strengthen the law for children and vulnerable people—we have made great strides in tackling the issues of evidence for children and vulnerable people and it is time that the offences in the criminal law were revised to ensure robust and comprehensive protection for the weakest in our society. It is important to get the law right while ensuring that vulnerable people are not deterred from seeking advice from statutory authorities. We would welcome views on the proposals that relate to the protection of children and vulnerable people—what the impact and consequences of those would be. We welcome the review's clarity on the importance of the age of consent and the need to maintain it at 16.

  The Government do not think it would be right to take a view on the proposals in the report until they have been scrutinised and tested in consultation. This report and its proposals are not an end but a beginning—the report provides a carefully argued framework for consideration by all those who are affected, personally or professionally, by these proposals. The report is being made widely available in summary and full form, both in hard copy and on the Home Office website. It is free and available on request, as is a supporting volume of evidence. The period for consultation is long—until March 2001—to give time for the full implications of the proposals to be considered. I look forward to an important social debate that will help the Government frame proposals for a safe just and tolerant society.

  Copies of the report and summary have been placed in the Library and the Vote Office.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce planned future capital provision for the Fire Service in England and Wales. [133349]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To assist the fire service in improving its efficiency and effectiveness, I am increasing credit approval provision for the service from its current level of £35.7 million to £59.7 million in 2001–02. Planned provision will be sustained at that level in 2002–03 and increased by a further £2 million to £61.7 million in 2003–04.

  Access to Government Information
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the 1999 report on the operation of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [133351]
  700W
  Mr. Straw
  I have published this report today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Horserace Betting Levy
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the fifth report on the impact of the National Lottery on the horserace betting levy. [133352]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  An update on the impact of the National Lottery on the horserace betting levy has been published today. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library.

  The paper, which has been prepared by the Home Office's Economic and Resource Analysis Unit, examines continuing trends in off-course betting expenditure and their relationship to the horserace betting levy.

  The analysis indicates, that in 1999, off-course betting expenditure was about 14.7 per cent. below the level it would have reached in the absence of the National Lottery and that, by implication, the horserace betting levy raised £9–10 million less than it may otherwise have done.

  This is broadly consistent with the findings of the first four reports.

  As the Government have already announced their intention to abolish the horserace betting levy system, it is not our intention to commission any future reports in this series.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the appointment of the Asylum Support Adjudicators. [133353]

  Mr. Straw
  I have pleasure today in announcing the appointment of the following Asylum Support Adjudicators, under section 102 of and Schedule 10 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999:

  Asylum Support Adjudicators

  Appointments

  Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator

  Mrs. Sehba Haroon Storey

  Deputy Chief Asylum Support Adjudicator

  Ms Gillian Carter

  Asylum Support Adjudicators

  Mrs. Sarah Breach

  Mr. Laurence Brass

  Mr. Alan Ponting

  Dr. Ethlyn Prince

  Mrs. Susannah Walker

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local authorities in areas to which asylum seekers are being dispersed have designated a named individual as a contact for the National Asylum Support Service and the Home Office; and if he will make a statement. [132383]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service has regular contact with local authorities, but no local authorities have designated a named individual as a contact point for the National Asylum Support Service. Local authorities who wish to exchange information with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate about
  701W
  individuals who may be subject to immigration control must register a named person as the contact point. Some 549 local authorities have designated a named individual.

  Detention and Training Orders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) boys and (b) girls have been sentenced to a detention and training order broken down by (i) sentencing court area, (ii) offence and (iii) type of accommodation they were placed in; and if he will make a statement. [125341]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 12 July 2000]: The detention and training order was implemented on 1 April 2000. Information provided by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales indicates that between 1 April and 30 June 2000, 1,475 detention and training orders were made, 1,383 against boys and 92 against girls. There were 1,234 boys placed in Prison Service accommodation, 109 in secure training centres and 40 in local authority secure units. There were 61 girls in Prison Service accommodation and 31 in local authority secure units.

  The available information on sentencing court area and offence is set out in the tables.

  Detention and training order: 1 April to 30 June 2000

  Sentencing court

  Male

  Female

  Acton

  4

  0

  Aldridge and Brownhills

  1

  0

  Ashby-de-la-Zouch

  1

  0

  Aylesbury Crown Court

  8

  0

  Barking

  5

  0

  Barnet

  1

  0

  Barnsley

  4

  0

  Barnstaple and South Molton

  1

  0

  Barrow-in-Furness Crown Court

  4

  0

  Basildon

  7

  0

  Bath and Wansdyke

  0

  1

  Batley and Dewsbury

  2

  0

  Bedford

  4

  1

  Bexley

  3

  0

  Birmingham

  40

  0

  Birmingham Crown Court

  10

  1

  Blackburn, Darwen and Ribble

  1

  0

  Blackfriars Crown Court

  0

  2

  Blackpool and Fylde

  2

  0

  Bodmin

  2

  0

  Bolton Crown Court

  4

  1

  Bolton

  12

  0

  Bournemouth and Christchurch

  1

  0

  Bournemouth Crown Court

  4

  0

  Bradford Crown Court

  4

  0

  Bradford

  9

  0

  Brent

  3

  1

  Brentford

  1

  0

  Brighton and Hove

  2

  0

  Bristol Crown Court

  2

  0

  Bristol

  6

  1

  Bromley

  2

  0

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  1

  0

  Burnley Crown Court

  2

  0

  Burton-upon-Trent

  2

  0

  Bury

  2

  1

  Bury St. Edmunds Crown Court

  1

  0

  Calderdale

  5

  0

  Camberwell Green

  10

  0

  Cambridge

  3

  0

  Cannock

  3

  0

  Canterbury and St. Augustine

  3

  0

  Canterbury Crown Court

  1

  0

  Cardiff

  11

  3

  Cardiff Crown Court

  16

  1

  Carlisle

  4

  1

  702W

  Detention and training order: 1 April to 30 June 2000

  Sentencing court

  Male

  Female

  Central Buckingham

  1

  0

  Central Criminal Court

  6

  0

  Channel

  1

  0

  Chelmsford Crown Court

  4

  1

  Chester

  1

  0

  Chester Crown Court

  6

  0

  Chesterfield

  4

  0

  Chester-le-Street

  3

  0

  Chichester

  2

  0

  Chichester and District

  1

  0

  City of London

  3

  0

  Corby

  1

  0

  Coventry Crown Court

  1

  0

  Coventry

  11

  2

  Crawley

  3

  0

  Croydon

  7

  0

  Croydon Crown Court

  2

  0

  Cynon Valley

  1

  0

  Dacorum

  4

  0

  Darlington Crown Court

  5

  0

  Denbighshire

  4

  1

  Derby and South Derbyshire

  11

  0

  Derby Crown Court

  11

  3

  Doncaster Crown Court

  1

  0

  Doncaster

  18

  0

  Dudley

  9

  0

  Durham Crown Court

  2

  0

  Durham

  6

  0

  East Berkshire

  3

  0

  East Derbyshire

  1

  1

  East Hertfordshire

  1

  0

  Eastbourne and Hailsham

  1

  1

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  1

  0

  Enfield

  1

  0

  Exeter and Wonford

  2

  2

  Faversham and Sittingbourne

  1

  1

  Flintshire

  4

  0

  Furness

  2

  0

  Gateshead

  3

  0

  Gloucester Crown Court

  2

  0

  Gloucester

  9

  0

  Grantham

  2

  1

  Great Yarmouth

  2

  0

  Grimsby and Cleethorpes

  7

  0

  Guildford Crown Court

  1

  1

  Haringey

  4

  2

  Harrow

  4

  0

  Harrow Crown Court

  3

  0

  Hartlepool

  2

  0

  Harwich

  0

  1

  Hastings and Rother

  2

  0

  Haverfordwest Crown Court

  1

  0

  Haverhill and Sudbury

  1

  0

  Havering

  1

  0

  Hereford Crown Court

  3

  0

  Herefordshire

  2

  0

  High Peak

  3

  0

  Houghton le Spring

  4

  0

  Hounslow

  1

  0

  Huddersfield

  6

  0

  Huntingdon

  1

  0

  Hyndburn

  5

  0

  Inner London Sessions House

  24

  5

  Ipswich

  4

  0

  Isle of Wight

  5

  0

  Isleworth Crown Court

  3

  3

  Keighley

  3

  0

  Kendal and Lonsdale

  3

  0

  Kettering

  4

  0

  Kingston upon Hull

  14

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  2

  0

  Kingston upon Thames Crown Court

  3

  1

  Knowsley

  13

  0

  Lancaster

  1

  0

  Leeds Crown Court

  15

  1

  Leeds

  18

  0

  Leicester Crown Court

  8

  0

  703W

  Detention and training order: 1 April to 30 June 2000

  Sentencing court

  Male

  Female

  Leicester

  20

  0

  Lewes Crown Court

  3

  0

  Lincoln Crown Court

  1

  0

  Lincoln

  4

  0

  Liverpool

  18

  1

  Liverpool Crown Court

  11

  0

  Loughborough

  1

  0

  Lower Rhymney Valley

  2

  0

  Luton

  10

  0

  Luton Crown Court

  1

  0

  Macclesfield

  1

  0

  Maidstone Crown Court

  3

  0

  Maldon and Witham

  1

  0

  Manchester (Crown Square) Crown Court

  12

  0

  Manchester (Minshull Street) Crown Court

  3

  0

  Manchester

  13

  2

  Mansfield

  11

  2

  Medway

  3

  0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4

  1

  Merthyr Tydfil Crown Court

  3

  0

  Mid Kent

  2

  0

  Mid Warwickshire

  2

  0

  Mid North Essex

  1

  0

  Milton Keynes

  4

  2

  Miscellaneous

  97

  10

  Mold Crown Court

  2

  0

  Neath and Port Talbot

  2

  1

  Newark and Southwell

  3

  0

  Newcastle and Ogmore

  1

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  8

  0

  Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court

  3

  0

  Newcastle-Under-Lyne and Pirehill North

  2

  0

  Newport Crown Court

  1

  0

  Newport

  8

  0

  North Avon

  2

  0

  North East Suffolk

  4

  1

  North East Hampshire

  1

  0

  North Gloucestershire

  3

  0

  North Hertfordshire

  1

  0

  North Lincolnshire

  4

  0

  North Tyneside

  6

  0

  North West Essex

  2

  0

  North West Surrey

  1

  0

  Northallerton and Richmond

  1

  0

  Northampton Crown Court

  5

  1

  Northampton

  5

  0

  Northern Oxfordshire

  1

  0

  Norwich

  1

  1

  Nottingham

  20

  1

  Nottingham Crown Court

  14

  0

  Nuneaton

  6

  0

  Oldham

  5

  1

  Oxford

  4

  0

  Oxford Crown Court

  3

  0

  Peterborough

  2

  0

  Peterborough Crown Court

  4

  1

  Plymouth Crown Court

  0

  1

  Poole

  9

  0

  Portsmouth Crown Court

  8

  0

  Preston

  4

  1

  Preston Crown Court

  5

  0

  Reading

  2

  0

  Redbridge

  1

  0

  Rochdale, Middleton and Heywood

  10

  0

  Rochford and Southend

  1

  0

  Rotherham

  12

  0

  Rugby

  3

  0

  Salford

  2

  0

  Salisbury

  3

  0

  Scarborough

  8

  1

  Sedgefield

  7

  0

  Sedgemoor

  2

  0

  Selby

  2

  0

  Sheffield Crown Court

  12

  0

  Sheffield

  9

  0

  Shrewsbury

  4

  0

  Shrewsbury Crown Court

  5

  0

  704W

  Detention and training order: 1 April to 30 June 2000

  Sentencing court

  Male

  Female

  Skegness

  1

  0

  Snaresbrook Crown Court

  10

  0

  Solihull

  4

  0

  South Cheshire

  1

  1

  South East Cornwall

  1

  0

  South East Hampshire

  17

  2

  South East Northumberland

  4

  0

  South Hampshire

  9

  1

  South Sefton

  4

  0

  South Somerset

  1

  0

  South Tyneside

  2

  1

  South West Surrey

  1

  0

  South Western Magistrates Court: Lambeth and Wandsworth Youth Courts

  4

  0

  Southampton Crown Court

  3

  0

  Southampton

  12

  0

  Southend Crown Court

  1

  0

  Southwark Crown Court

  1

  0

  South-West Essex

  1

  0

  St. Albans

  5

  0

  St. Helens

  1

  0

  St. Albans Crown Court

  2

  0

  Stafford Crown Court

  3

  0

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  3

  0

  Stockport

  4

  0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  4

  3

  Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court

  3

  0

  Stourbridge and Halesowen

  1

  0

  Stratford Magistrates Court

  12

  1

  Sunderland

  15

  1

  Sutton

  4

  0

  Sutton Coldfield

  15

  1

  Swansea

  1

  0

  Swansea Crown Court

  2

  0

  Swindon

  9

  0

  Swindon Crown Court

  4

  0

  Tameside

  6

  0

  Tamworth

  3

  0

  Taunton Crown Court

  2

  0

  Teesside and Wear Valley

  1

  0

  Teesside Crown Court

  6

  0

  Teesside

  16

  0

  Telford (Shifnal, Wrekin, Wenlock)

  6

  0

  Thames

  8

  2

  Thanet

  9

  0

  Torbay

  1

  0

  Trafford

  6

  0

  Truro Crown Court

  0

  1

  Truro

  0

  2

  Uxbridge

  3

  0

  Vale of Glamorgan

  2

  0

  Vale Royal

  2

  0

  Wakefield

  2

  0

  Walsall

  8

  0

  Waltham Forest

  3

  0

  Warley

  2

  0

  Warrington

  4

  0

  Warwick Crown Court

  3

  0

  Watford

  2

  0

  Wellingborough

  1

  0

  West Allerdale

  4

  0

  West Berkshire

  1

  1

  West Bromwich

  3

  0

  West Devon

  1

  0

  West Kent

  1

  0

  West London

  13

  1

  West Norfolk

  0

  1

  West Wiltshire

  7

  0

  Weymouth and Portland

  1

  0

  Wigan District

  9

  0

  Wigan (Leigh Division)

  1

  0

  Wimbledon

  2

  0

  Winchester Crown Court

  1

  0

  Wirral

  10

  1

  Wolverhampton Crown Court

  3

  0

  Wolverhampton

  7

  1

  Wood Green Crown Court

  7

  0

  705W

  Detention and training order: 1 April to 30 June 2000

  Sentencing court

  Male

  Female

  Woodspring

  1

  0

  Worcester Crown Court

  9

  0

  Worksop

  1

  0

  Worthing

  2

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  6

  0

  Wyre

  1

  0

  Ynys Mon/Anglesey

  3

  0

  York Crown Court

  1

  0

  York

  13

  1

  Total

  1,383

  92

  Note:

  It has not been possible in all cases to record which courts passed the DTOs. The miscellaneous figure denotes these cases.

  Detention and training order: 1 April to 30 June 2000

  Offence type

  Male

  Female

  Arson

  50

  4

  Breach of Statutory Order

  168

  4

  Burglary

  410

  8

  Criminal Damage

  6

  0

  Death or Injury by Reckless Driving

  2

  0

  Drugs

  43

  8

  Fraud and Forgery

  12

  0

  Public Order

  119

  11

  Racially Aggravated

  22

  0

  Robbery

  190

  9

  Sexual

  19

  0

  Theft and Handling

  285

  23

  Vehicle Theft

  354

  2

  Violence against Person

  245

  45

  Other offences not detailed

  396

  14

  Total

  2,321

  128

  Note:

  The number of offences is greater than the number of DTOS because more than one offence may be associated with the sentence.

  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many children have received a detention and training order, broken down by(a) age, (b) gender and (c) race, since its introduction; [129699]

  (2) how many boys and girls aged under 18 years have been sentenced by each court to a detention and training order. [129700]

  Mr. Boateng
  The detention and training order was implemented on 1 April 2000. Information provided by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales indicates that between 1 April 2000 and 30 June 2000, 1,475 detention and training orders were made, 1,383 against boys and 92 against girls. The available information on age and ethnicity is set out in the tables. Information on sentencing court was contained in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) today.

  Age

  12 years

  6

  13 years

  25

  14 years

  280

  15 years

  80

  16 years

  394

  17 years

  612

  18 years

  78

  Total

  1,475

  706W

  Ethnicity

  Asian, Bangladeshi

  1

  Asian, Indian

  2

  Asian, Other

  12

  Asian, Pakistani

  22

  Black, African

  14

  Black, Caribbean

  53

  Black, Other

  25

  Chinese

  1

  Mixed, Other

  15

  Mixed, White and Asian

  7

  Mixed, White and Black

  8

  Mixed, White and Black Caribbean

  36

  Not Available

  69

  Other Ethnic Group

  8

  White, British

  1,172

  White, Irish

  16

  White, Other

  14

  Total

  1,475

  Police (Kent)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what contribution his Department will make towards the extra staff required by Kent County Constabulary to enforce the provisions of the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill; [130934]

  (2) how many extra police he estimates will be needed by Kent County Constabulary to enable effective enforcement of the provisions of the Kent County Council Bill and Medway Council Bill; [130933]

  (3) how many (a) meetings, (b) e-mails and (c) telephone calls there have been between his Department and Kent County Constabulary to discuss the Kent County Council Bill and Medway Council Bill. [1309320]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 17 July 2000]: Meetings were held between the Home Office, Kent County Constabulary and the Trading Standards Authority to investigate the principle of the Kent County Council Bill and the Medway Council Bill before they were deposited. Additional meetings and telephone calls have been held between the Home Office and the solicitors representing the Kent County Constabulary. The Home Office submitted a report on the Bills and Kent Country Constabulary met any concerns.

  Records are not kept centrally of the number of meetings held, e-mails exchanged, or telephone calls received or made by the Department on any specific subject.

  The Chief Constable has advised me that he does not anticipate that enforcing the provisions of the Bills will impose any significant increased demand on police resources. He is confident that the Bills will enhance Kent's existing intelligence led policing and lead to increased efficiency for individual officers investigating individual crimes.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October
  707W
  1999 and 20 April 2000 have not received answers, citing as the reason commercial confidentiality or other confidentiality. [131229]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 20 July 2000]: My Department answered a total of 2,751 written parliamentary questions between 19 October and 20 April 2000.

  It is always my practice to provide as full a reply as possible to all parliamentary questions, and to provide all relevant information even where that specifically requested is not available. Where, occasionally, information is withheld, the reasons for non-disclosure are consistent with the exemptions contained within the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information Section Second Edition (1997). For example:
  information which could harm national security or defence, (paragraph la);
  information whose disclosure could prejudice the enforcement or proper administration of the law, including the prevention, investigation or detection of crime, or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders (paragraph 4b);

  Year to March 1998

  Year to March 1999

  Year to March 2000

  Offences

  Percentage cleared up

  Offences

  Percentage cleared up

  Offences

  Percentage cleared up

  Violence against the person

  296

  75.3

  661

  64.8

  1,000

  39.3

  Sexual offences

  89

  100.0

  29

  41.4

  60

  36.7

  Robbery

  43

  27.9

  28

  10.7

  49

  4.1

  Burglary1

  —

  —

  904

  15.6

  1,054

  7.5

  Theft and handling

  2,600

  15.2

  2,481

  13.0

  3,026

  8.7

  Fraud and forgery

  373

  25.7

  293

  19.1

  466

  9.9

  Criminal damage

  1,355

  14.8

  1,242

  11.1

  1,516

  7.5

  Drug offences1

  —

  —

  118

  2115.3

  103

  95.1

  Other notifiable offences

  54

  72.2

  51

  45.1

  59

  20.3

  Total

  5,657

  21.7

  5,807

  21.7

  7,333

  14.0

  1 Data for the year to March 1998 are not available

  2 Clear up rates are based on crimes detected in a given period compared to crimes recorded in that period, because some crimes detected in the period may have been recorded in a previous one the clear up rate can exceed 100 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. The rules for recording crimes changed in April 1998 which led to a large increase in the number recorded, see Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/99 'Recorded Crime Statistics, England and Wales April 1998 to March 1999' for more details

  2. The definition of clear ups changed in April 1999, to exclude certain types of police action that would previously have been recorded as clear ups, and led to a decrease in clear up rates, see Home Office Statistical Bulletin 12/00 'Recorded Crime Statistics, England and Wales April 1999 to March 2000' for more details

  Young Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) 15 and (b) 16-year-olds were held on remand in adult prisons according to the most recent figures available; and if he will list the prisons concerned. [131723]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 30 June 2000, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers were:

  Prison

  15-year-olds

  16-year-olds

  Altcourse

  0

  1

  Doncaster

  12

  13

  Norwich

  1

  2

  Total

  13

  16

  Alcohol
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has held
  708W
  information whose disclosure could endanger the life or physical safety of any person, or identity the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes (paragraph 4f; and
  information whose disclosure could lead to improper gain or advantage or would prejudice negotiations or the effective conduct of personnel management, or commercial or contractual activities (paragraph 7a).

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were committed in the borough of Hertsmere in each of the last four years for which figures are available, broken down by type of offence; and what the clear-up rate was in each case. [131948]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The latest available data for notifiable offences recorded by the police in Hertsmere are given in the table. No data are available for the year to March 1997 due to substantial changes in boundaries.

  with alcohol retailers on measures they are proposing to help prevent high percentage volume beers, lagers and ciders from reaching under-age drinkers; [132255]

  (2) if he will discuss with alcohol retailers the display and marketing of high alcohol volume percentage beers, lagers and ciders. [132257]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 21 July 2000,Official Report, columns 362–63W.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the numbers of recorded incidents of criminal damage that have involved the consumption of alcohol by the perpetrator, indicating the proportion which involved under-age drinkers; [132243]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the numbers of recorded non-vehicle related thefts (a) nationally and (b) on Merseyside that have involved the consumption of alcohol by the perpetrator, indicating the proportion which involved under-age drinkers; [132253]
  709W
  (3) if he will make a statement on the number of recorded burglaries (a) nationally and (b) on Merseyside that involved the consumption of alcohol by the perpetrator, indicating the proportion which involved under-age drinkers; [132265]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the number of recorded crimes (a) nationally and (b) on Merseyside that involve the consumption of alcohol by the perpetrator, indicating the proportion which involved under age drinkers; [132258]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the number of recorded violent crimes (a) nationally and (b) on Merseyside that have involved the consumption of alcohol by the perpetrator, indicating what proportion involved under age drinkers; [132272]

  (6) if he will make a statement on the numbers of recorded incidents of criminal damage on Merseyside that have involved the consumption of alcohol by the perpetrator; [132274]

  (7) if he will make a statement on the numbers and proportion of recorded incidents of criminal damage on Merseyside which involved under age drinkers in each of the last three years. [132310]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available. The police do not routinely provide information on the perpetrators of the offences that they record, and for many offences the perpetrator will not be known.

  Estimates of the proportion of offences in which alcohol is involved have come from various ad-hoc studies. The figures they give vary somewhat according to the samples of offences taken, and the methodology of the studies. Moreover, it is difficult to say whether the misuse of alcohol was the cause of an offence, or merely a contributory factor.

  One recent study looked at arrestees in five police force areas in 1996–97. This showed that 25 per cent. tested positive for alcohol, ranging from 42 per cent. in Sunderland to eight per cent. in Manchester. The proportion of offenders arrested for violent crime, burglary, non-vehicle related thefts and criminal damage that tested positive for alcohol is shown in Table 1. Information on the age of the arrestees is not available.

  Table 1: Proportion of arrestees testing positive for alcohol

  Main offence

  Percentage of arrestees testing positive for alcohol

  Grievous bodily harm

  17

  Actual bodily harm

  38

  Burglary dwelling

  26

  Burglary non-dwelling

  16

  Theft from the person

  0

  Theft from a shop

  12

  Criminal damage

  46

  Note:

  Based on Table D.5 in "Drugs and crime: the results of research on drug testing and interviewing arrestees", by Trevor Bennet, Home Office Research Study 183, Home Office, 1998. Only offences for which there are large enough numbers are included in Table 1

  The British Crime Survey also asks victims who had some knowledge of the person(s) who committed crimes
  710W
  against them mentioned in the survey whether they considered the perpetrator to be under the influence of drink or drugs. Table 2 presents results.

  Table 2: Violence involving alcohol and/drugs (percentages): 1996 British crime survey

  Offender under influence of alcohol

  Offender under influence of drugs or alcohol

  Domestic violence

  32

  38

  Mugging

  17

  25

  Stranger violence

  53

  57

  Acquaintance violence

  54

  53

  All contact crime

  41

  48

  Source:

  The 1996 British crime survey: England and Wales, Home Office Statistical Bulletin 19–96. Home Office, 1996.

  According to the most recent statistics, the number of offenders found guilty or cautioned for drunkenness in England and Wales in 1998 was 53,587. The number of those found guilty or cautioned under 18 was 8,487. For Merseyside the number of offenders was 8,602: 1,649 of these were aged under 18.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the timetable for introducing a new offence of knowingly permitting the sale of alcohol to an under-18-year-old. [132105]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is currently an offence under section 169(1) of the Licensing Act 1964 for the holder of a liquor licence knowingly to allow any person to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under 18. Under the Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell), the Licensing (Young Persons) Bill, this offence will be amended to include any person who works in licensed premises in a capacity, whether paid or unpaid, which gives him authority to prevent the sale. The Bill has so far enjoyed wide support and was successful at Second Reading in the House of Lords on 14 July. We therefore hope that the extended offence will become law this year.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to discuss with the brewing industry measures they are proposing to tackle anti-social and criminal behaviour by under-age drinkers. [132307]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), has this year chaired two seminars with representatives of the brewing, hospitality and leisure industry, and other interested groups to discuss this and other matters relating to the links between alcohol and crime. A further seminar is due to take place in September. A range of initiatives within a strategic action plan should flow from this work.

  The Government have already been encouraged by the industry's approach to social responsibility. A good example was the launch of the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association's Partnership Initiative on 29 March this year. The Initiative is part of an ongoing industry-wide strategy to promote retailer responsibility across the licensed trade. It opens the way to direct industry involvement in crime and disorder partnerships, and will enable them to make a positive contribution to

  711W
  public order policies at local level. The aim of the initiative is to facilitate this involvement by setting up a database of company nominees and actively seeking to place them in local partnerships through liaison with local authorities.

  Life Signs Monitoring Systems
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the sensors in the life signs monitoring systems produced by Mandel UK Ltd. have been approved by(a) the Department of Trade and Industry and (b) the National Radiological Protection Board; and if he will make a statement. [131777]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: I understand that the life signs monitoring system has been approved by Department of Trade and Industry and the National Radiological Protection Board.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in which locations life signs monitoring systems are to be installed in police cells by Wiltshire Constabulary; and at what cost. [131770]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 24 July 2000]: Wiltshire Constabulary are installing a life signs monitoring system in the new custody suite at Melksham. I understand the cost of equipping the 20 cells will be approximately £55,700 excluding cabling and enclosure costs.

  Prisoner Rehabilitation
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what training exists for prisoners to assist them with their rehabilitation. [132505]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's clearly stated aims for the Prison Service are to reduce re-offending and to protect the public. To achieve the objective of reducing re-offending the Prison Service seeks to provide constructive regimes which address offending behaviour, improve education and work skills and promote law abiding behaviour in custody and on release.

  The Prison Service offers three general offending behaviour programmes, Enhanced Thinking Skills, Reasoning and Rehabilitation and Problem Solving, suited to prisoners convicted of offences related to sex, drugs and violence. There is also a family of specialist programmes for sex offenders. These programmes have been accredited by an independent panel of experts as being effective in reducing re-offending. Government funding has allowed the Prison Service to double the number of accredited programmes delivered over the period 1999–2002 and to develop new programmes to address a wider range of offending behaviour, including drug related crime.

  Education in prison focuses on a core curriculum of basic educational skills, life and social skills and Information Technology skills. Together with opportunities to gain National Vocational Qualifications, these training opportunities enhance the prospects of a prisoner's employability.

  As preparation for release, an Inmate Development and Pre-Release programme is offered at a number of establishments, while others run an eight week preparation for work course which provides the opportunity to acquire
  712W
  nationally recognised accredited skills. In addition, resettlement prisons and specialist resettlement units provide a range of training facilities to enable prisoners to return satisfactorily to the community.

  Training Schemes (Prisons)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which prisoners are eligible to follow training schemes provided within HM prisons. [132491]

  Mr. Boateng
  The purpose of education and training in prisons is to address the offending behaviour of prisoners by improving their employability and so reduce the likelihood of their re-offending on release. All prisoners, including those removed from association, in segregation units or in hospital units, should have the opportunity to participate in educational activities.

  Prisoners under 18 years of age must spend on average at least 30 hours per week engaged in purposeful activity, including education, training, work, physical education and offending behaviour programmes.

  All prisoners allocated to work undertake an induction programme which covers health and safety issues, first aid, and workshop practice.

  Offending Behaviour Programmes seek to address the cognitive deficits (poor thinking skills) which cause prisoners to offend in order to prevent recidivism. To be successful, they must be targeted on those prisoners who have been assessed as having the kinds of cognitive deficits which the existing programmes are seeking to address. This inevitably means that some prisoners are excluded from participation.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many press releases were issued this year to date; and what the total cost of production and issuing of these press releases was in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 to date each year. [132772]

  Mr. Straw
  The information for my Department is as follows:

  Number

  1997

  386

  1998

  524

  1999

  450

  2000

  1250

  1 To date

  The primary cost of issuing press releases relates to their electronic distribution which is carried out through the Central Office of Information, and postage. No central records of other costs which might be involved (eg faxing, e-mail) is available.

  Electronic news distribution costs were:

  £

  1999

  21,095

  1998

  21,095

  1997

  127,764

  1 When the service included some hand delivery of press releases

  713W
  Postal costs varied according to the number of press releases issued in the year and were approximately £15,000 in 1997, £19,500 in 1998 and £12,000 in 1999.

  Costs to date for 2000 are £11,374 for electronic distribution costs and for postage costs £6,750.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received from victims of crimes of violence in the last 12 months. [132703]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department receives representations from victims of crime of violence on a wide range of issues. Details are not collated centrally.

  Prison Service
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in setting up a pay review body for prison governors, prison officers and related grades for the Prison Service in England and Wales, and in modernising the arrangements for industrial relations; and if this will extend to these grades in the Northern Ireland Prison Service. [133354]

  Mr. Boateng
  Agreement has been reached to set up a pay review body to make independent recommendations to the Government on the pay of prison governors, prison officers and related grades for the Prison Service in England and Wales. This review body would operate on the lines of the five existing review bodies which deal with 1.3 million public sector employees. Like the existing review bodies, it would have a secretariat from the independent Office of Manpower Economics.

  This establishment of an independent pay determination mechanism would be under the provisions of Section 128 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 as part of a comprehensive programme of improvement in prison service management.

  It is also my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's intention, when Parliamentary time allows, to replace Section 127 with a reserve statutory power and a voluntary industrial relations agreement. Section 127, as it stands, makes it unlawful for officers of a prison to take industrial action. The voluntary agreement which has been accepted by the Prison Governors' Association (PGA), the Prison Officers' Association (POA) and the National Executive Committee (NEC) will be put to a special POA delegates conference in August. This will mean that they have agreed not to induce, support or authorise industrial action. In recognition of this we will provide them with a new disputes procedure which will include independent arbitration. The voluntary agreement, which will be legally binding, will give my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the power to seek injunctive relief.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to use the provisions of the voluntary agreement instead of those in Section 127, while awaiting Parliamentary time to effect the changes in legislation. However, it is clear on all sides that Section 127 would be used in the event of a breakdown of the agreement.
  714W
  Together, I hope these measures will create a new climate for industrial relations in the Service. They clear the way for more constructive dialogue on a wide range of issues by modernising the way that this key group of public sector workers deal with their employer.

  The remit of the pay review body would also have the scope to make an independent determination in relation to the pay of prison governors, prison officers, night patrol officers and prison auxiliaries in the Northern Ireland Prison Service based on submissions made to it by that Service.

  The implementation of this agreement and the delivery of the intentions I have outlined are dependent on my being satisfied that the state of industrial relations within prisons is such as to enable the effective and efficient management of the Service.

  Such a state cannot be said to have been attained in the light of the current withdrawal of good will by the POA, but I will keep the situation under constant review.

  Police (Medical Retirement)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many medical retirements from the police there have been in the last 10 years as a result of periodontal deformities which exceed 3 mm. [132801]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 (as amended) a police officer may be retired on the ground that he or she is permanently disabled. For these purposes disablement means inability, occasioned by infirmity of mind or body, to perform the ordinary duties of a male or female member of the force. It would be a matter of fact whether a periodontal deformity could render a police officer unable to perform the ordinary duties of a police officer.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department's approved medical standards for police recruitment were last approved(a) in total and (b) in respect of periodontal conditions. [132800]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office Guidelines on Medical Standards of entry to Police Forces were first issued to forces on 13 February 1995. They were endorsed by the Association of Local Authority Medical Advisers and the Association of Chief Police Officers' Joint Working Group on Organisational Heath, Safety and Welfare. The guidelines were reviewed and re-issued to forces on 3 March 1998. No separate review has been undertaken of periodontal conditions, in relation to which the current guidelines recommend that forces should consider carefully any candidate with evidence of poor dental hygiene.

  DNA
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will refer to the Law Commission the question whether the restrictions on the use of DNA to be found in section 643(B) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 should be maintained. [131478]
  715W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am looking at this issue carefully to determine whether to propose changes to section 64 (3B) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I do not consider it necessary at present to seek advice from the Law Commission on this issue.

  Ms Elaine Moore
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in settling on a figure to compensate Ms Elaine Moore following her wrongful arrest and imprisonment in July 1998. [131362]

  Mr. Straw
  I am not aware of any application for compensation having been received by the Home Office in respect of Ms Moore's case. If an application is received, it will be dealt with in the usual way. It falls to me, as Secretary of State, to decide whether in principle an applicant qualifies for compensation. The amount of any award is determined by the independent assessor, Sir David Calcutt QC.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Enforcement Procedures Review
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the Enforcement Procedures Review which was due to end in June. [133350]

  Mr. Lock
  We have been engaged in a comprehensive review of the enforcement of civil court judgments since 1998 and the first phase ended in June 2000. In that phase we have:

  examined the present methods available for enforcement of county court and High Court judgments;

  assessed their effectiveness; and

  identified what changes would be necessary to enhance the effectiveness of the current methods of enforcement.

  Copies of the paper on this work have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. It outlines the conclusions reached to date. Many of the proposals have already been exposed in consultation. This paper provides information on the current state of play of the enforcement review. The proposals remain subject to refinement, particularly as we examine in more detail the issues arising from the second phase of the review. Its terms of reference are:
  to implement costs recommendations (including the production of a unified set of Rules of Court for enforcement); and
  to identify, in the light of the amended procedures and revised powers of bailiffs, the type of agent(s) or form of agency which should be responsible for carrying out those enforcement procedures; and to make costed recommendations.

  I am also pleased to announce that Professor Beatson has now submitted to the Lord Chancellor his "Independent Review of Bailiff Law: Report", copies of
  716W
  which have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This report will inform the work of the second phase of the review.

  It is the Government's intention to issue a White Paper after the review is complete. It will also cover some issues which arise in the enforcement of the orders of the criminal courts.

  Access to Justice (Funding)
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions since May 1997 his Department has(a) authorised and (b) refused requests for funding in exceptional individual cases, under section 6(8)(b) of the Access to Justice Act 1999, for representation before (i) a tribunal, (ii) an inquest and (iii) a public inquiry. [R] [132709]

  Mr. Lock
  Before 1 April 2000, the Lord Chancellor had the power to direct the Legal Aid Board to grant legal aid in exceptional individual cases, under section 4 of the Legal Aid Act 1988. Since 1 April, when the Access to Justice Act came into force, he may direct or authorise the Commission, under section 6(8)(a) of the Act, to fund cases in those circumstances he chooses to specify. He may also authorise funding in exceptional individual cases under section 6(8)(b) of the Act, but only where the Legal Services Commission asks him to do so. In March, the Lord Chancellor issued detailed directions setting out the circumstances in which he would expect the Commission to request his authorisation. The numbers of directions and authorisations the Lord Chancellor has given, and of refusals by him and the Commission, are shown in the table.

  Directed or authorised

  Refused

  1988 Act

  1999 Act

  1988 Act

  1999 Act

  Tribunals

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Inquests

  2

  6

  0

  1

  Public inquiries

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the written parliamentary questions tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered(a) citing disproportionate cost, (b) stating that the information is not available, not held centrally, or not held in the form requested and (c) citing commercial or other confidentiality. [132461]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer that I gave him on 18 July 2000,Official Report, column 162W and to the written answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) on 22 June 2000, Official Report, column 295W.

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

Globalisation
The Earl of Sandwich The Earl of Sandwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the purpose of the White Paper on globalisation.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the White Paper will build on the existing White Paper on International Development and will set out how the increased capital flows, trade and the effects of information technology and the other forces of change commonly referred to as globalisation can be managed in a way which encourages the systematic reduction of poverty world-wide.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very skilful reply. Does she agree that by definition the very poorest people are beyond the reach of globalisation and are left out of national statistics? How can the Government meet the 2015 development targets if through a process of globalisation they are unable to reach the very poorest people?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my opening remarks, trade investment and new technology are creating huge wealth. The challenge is to ensure that developing countries, and in particular the poor people in developing countries, benefit from those changes. We believe our responsibility is to improve the climate for domestic investment and to provide an environment which ensures that trade and investment in developing countries contributes to poverty reduction. In that way we anticipate that we will meet our targets for 2015.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will the White Paper include a short explanation of the term "globalisation"?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it will certainly include an explanation. Whether it is short or not will depend on the editing we do over the next few months.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report produced by the European Communities Select Committee on the future role of the World Trade Organisation? Its view, generally speaking, is that globalisation and increased world trade are good. However, in terms of their impact on the third world—on the poorest countries—there need to be certain changes on our side. I refer in particular
412
to the opening of our markets, so that free trade is turned into fair trade, and to the need for fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that I am aware of that Select Committee report. In fact I read that report. It made very interesting reading indeed. The recent Lomé Convention, agreed in February this year, included a new trade deal which will gradually integrate the African Caribbean and Pacific countries into the global economy. We recognise that that will take time. Therefore, we will maintain the current preferential arrangements for those countries until 2008. But we also recognise that we need to look at developed countries and the kind of access that developing countries have to their markets.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will the noble Baroness ensure that in her input to the White Paper, which sounds as if it will be quite a long one, the point is made that the best engines of development in the modern world now are globalised free trade and global free movements of capital? Those, if handled properly, are the best means of bringing development riot only to the more prosperous regions but also to the poorer countries of the world. That should be the centrepiece of the policy in the White Paper.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord said. However, it is important that we recognise that the responsibility is two-way. It is about investment and market, but it is also about responsibility of governments to create the kind of conditions which will encourage investments. Issues like good governance, putting in place good social policies, ensuring that developing countries and assisting developing countries to put in place pro-poor growth strategies will also be important.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in view of the failure o r the G8 summit at Okinawa to make any progress on debt cancellation of the poorest countries, will the Government make every effort before the next summit next year to persuade the more reluctant members of the G8 group that it is actually in their own best interests to cancel debt, so that the poorest countries can actually spend on goods and services the money they receive from foreign trade rather than contribute to the already full coffers of the banks and financial institutions?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have to say that I do not agree with my noble friend that there was a failure at Okinawa. Clearly, the issue of debt relief was a key part of the meetings in Cologne last year which put in place the reviewed HIPC framework. We were somewhat disappointed that the number of countries we had hoped would reach decision point had not yet

413
done so. However, there was a renewed effort to implement the Cologne agreement on debt relief. My noble friend may recall that at the spring meetings of the IMF and the World Bank it was agreed that an implementation committee would be established to speed up the process of countries reaching decision point. I do not think that Okinawa was a failure. The countries put in place mechanisms to speed up that process.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that education and health are absolutely crucial to the success of developing countries in a globalising world. In the White Paper on globalisation will she therefore address the issue of the cuts which have been made in the past two years in both education and public health, especially in East Asia, as a result of pressures for structural adjustment and budget correction. Can she say whether the Government will continue to try to ringfence education and health in any structural adjustment programmes that are advanced?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, makes some very important points about social policies, in particular education and health. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the poverty reduction strategies which are being put in place in developing countries through their co-operation with the World Bank lay great stress on the importance of education and health. We very much welcome that move and will continue to push for the inclusion of such strategies in developing countries.
With respect to the specific question about East Asia and the cuts in public health, we will continue to push developing countries that we work with to try and improve the resources that they put into education and health because we see those as the cornerstone of our poverty reduction strategy.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one gigantic distortion in the global market is that the free movement of capital is not balanced by the free movement of labour? Will the White Paper address the issue of the compensating arrangements that have to be made strategically by the international community to balance the absence of the free movement of labour in the market?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that discussions are going on in government about the benefits of migration. We are particularly concerned that much of the flight of skilled labour from developing countries results in problems in developing countries themselves in terms of capacity and human resources. I am not sure to what extent the detail of this argument and analysis will be in the White Paper but we are considering it in the run-up to the production of the White Paper.

House of Lords: Application for Membership
2.44 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the proposal to advertise for applicants for membership of the House of Lords meets with their approval.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government welcome the establishment of the Independent Appointments Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham. The particular working methods adopted by the noble Lord and his commissioners are for them to decide. However, we recognise that advertising is consistent with the aim we set out in our White Paper on reforming the House of Lords that the commission should operate an open and transparent nominations system. If advertising widens the trawl for potential Members of this House so that the commission's nominations improve the gender, ethnic and age balance here, the Government will certainly approve.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. I am even more grateful to her for replying to my Question herself and not asking the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to answer. Does the noble Baroness agree that we really have plumbed the very depths of insult and vulgarity when we have to advertise in a newspaper and ask people to send in a mission statement for them to be considered for membership of the House of Lords? Does the noble Baroness realise that the commission intends to advertise on the Internet and have its own website? I suppose that would be called wannabeapeer.com. Do the Government intend to follow their new-found tradition and invite people to apply for the position of, for instance, Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords? Does the noble Baroness think that that is a good idea, or a bad idea, or does she have no view?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, the appointments commission's remit is to appoint people to the Cross Benches. If he is suggesting that it would be preferable for those offices to be held by members of the Cross Benches, perhaps his own Front Bench might have different ideas. The noble Earl has a consistent and long-standing record of opposing any change to the membership of this House. I remind him of what he said when the issue of women Peers becoming Members of this House was first suggested. I quote from the relevant Hansard:
"I think it would be an unmitigated disaster".
He went on:
"Frankly, I find women in politics highly distasteful"— [Official Report, 3/12/57; cols. 708–10.]

415
I suggest, respectfully, to the noble Earl that he would perhaps be more comfortable if he abandoned pretending to be the Earl Canute and recognised that "dot corn" and the 21st century have arrived.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if the proposal is adopted, how is it likely to affect the right of the remaining 92 hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships' House? Can my noble friend confirm that it is still the Government's policy that hereditary Peers will not have the right to sit in your Lordships' House? Can she scotch the rumours that their removal might not take place at all or even that we shall have to wait until after the next election?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I remind my noble friend that we are talking about the appointments commission, which will recommend appointments to the Cross Benches. It will not recommend appointments on the basis of party nominations or indeed on any other basis. The Government have always made clear their determination to proceed with the next stage of House of Lords reform. That will be a matter for legislation and not for the activities of the appointments commission.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, in the light of a remark made by the noble Baroness towards the end of her first Answer to the noble Earl, can she confirm that no requirement will be placed on the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to apply any quotas to the selection made from this trawl, whether they be quotas as regards gender, race, religion or any other category?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I do not think that anything I said suggested that I would be in favour of quotas or that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would be required to take that kind of approach when considering the appointments. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is aware that in his report of the Royal Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, suggested, for example, that not less than 30 per cent of the Members of the fully reformed House should be women.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether it is correct that the members of the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, were themselves appointed after the Government had utilised the services of a firm of headhunters? If that is the case, do the Government intend to extend that system of selection? Might they not even extend it to the appointment of the Prime Minister?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, frankly, that reflects a misunderstanding of the assistance given to the Cabinet Office. As I have explained to the House on several occasions, the PricewaterhouseCoopers Executive Search and Selection exercise produced a long list of people who might be interested in serving in positions on the appointments commission. Those
416
people were then selected by an independent panel chaired by the Secretary to the Cabinet Office. It had nothing to do with the Government.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wonder whether it has occurred to the noble Baroness, who is the Leader of the House, that it might make a welcome change if, from time to time, she were to demonstrate that she had given careful consideration to ideas put forward and expressed by those with whom she does not always agree? If she cared to look back at those who in the past have occupied her position, I think she will find that they enjoyed a reputation for uniform courtesy and civility. It would be nice if she were to emulate them.
Noble Lords: Shame.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his remark that I am discourteous.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the simplest and most straightforward way of settling the question of who should or should not be Members of this House is to put in place a fully elected Chamber as soon as we possibly can?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend will know that that is not the position taken by the Government. The Government have accepted the recommendation made by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in the report of the Royal Commission that a minority of Members of the second Chamber should be directly elected.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, can the noble Baroness take us a little further and tell the House when the Government will give an unequivocal reply to the question: what is that composition to be? When will the Government make up their mind and come forward with a plan?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is aware that, on the part of the Government, there is no intention to delay this matter. As I explained in my reply to my noble friend Lord Dormand, that is a question for any legislation which is proposed.

Universal Bank
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there have been any contacts with European Union officials about the legality of government financial assistance for the universal bank recently proposed to assist rural post offices; and, if so, when the first contacts took place.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the European Competition Commissioner was informed on 4th July about the new package of measures to modernise the post office network. As the detailed projects are developed, officials will consult with the European Commission to ensure compatibility with state aid rules.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, I am also somewhat concerned. In June, when we discussed in Committee the Post Office Bill, the Government gave an assurance that there was no possibility of not supporting rural post offices. However, I understand that the proposal to set up a universal bank has been made without approval being sought and in advance of legislation that is currently moving through this House. Can the noble Lord clarify matters for me?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in such cases it is the usual practice to apply to the commissioner, especially when a detailed proposal has been made. That is the normal procedure. We believe that our proposals will be in accordance with the relevant competition issues. Given that the universal bank is to be established jointly with the banks and that it will cover areas where there is an absence of banking services, it is difficult to see that the proposals will infringe on competition policy. However, that is for the European Commission to establish.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, my noble friend will recall the cautious welcome I gave to the concept of the universal bank when we discussed the Postal Services Bill. Is my noble friend now in a position to give us further details of the functions and services to be provided by the universal bank? Have the proposals been progressed to the point where they are ready to be presented to those people who are likely to use the universal bank?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the broad outline of the services of the universal bank is clear. It will not offer overdraft or borrowing facilities. It will offer basic bank accounts, along with a direct debit facility which will enable many customers to reduce their gas and electricity costs. Furthermore, a cash card facility will be offered to enable cash to be withdrawn from ATMs. The business case will be developed further over the period up to September, by which time details of the services to be offered will be complete.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether it is true that no informal contacts were made with the commissioner before these proposals were made? Generally, it is the case that ongoing relationships with the Commission allow people, in particular those involved in industry, to gauge the temperature of the water, as it were. It seems rather strange that we do not yet know, at least informally, whether we may be 100 per cent or even
418
90 per cent certain that these proposals will be approved. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope that I have indicated that it seems clear that the broad outline of this proposal is unlikely to infringe competition policy. I cannot confirm specifically whether informal contacts were made. I shall look into it and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate to the House why it should be necessary to consult the European Commission at all on this matter? Furthermore, can he give the House an assurance that the costs of these representations will be included in the impact cost assessment, in accordance with Foreign Office instructions in connection with such matters?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, because the possibility exists that this could conflict with competition issues, it is clearly right that we should put the matter before the commissioner. So far as concerns the costs involved, I cannot believe that these will be particularly significant in relation to the size of the total project.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister clarify for me two small, simple and specific matters? Further to the Minister's comments to my noble friends, can he confirm that, at the point when the Performance and Innovation Unit announced its rescue plan for rural sub-post offices, stating at that time that one element would be a universal bank, and at the point when the Minister repeated a Statement made by his honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place announcing the Government's total commitment to ensuring a network of rural post offices, the Department of Trade and Industry at that stage had not sought the approval of the EU? If that is the case that would mean that, when the Statement was made, it could not have been possible for the Government to confirm their plans.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am always worried about a specific question, particularly when it is described as being "small". I did say categorically that we made information available to the European Commission subsequent to the publication of the PIU report.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister respond to the second part of my question?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are committed to these proposals. We shall try to get them agreed with the European Commission. Furthermore, we shall ensure that the financial assistance to be offered will be compatible with state aid regulations.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, many noble Lords are unhappy with the Minister's response. It does not seem

419
right to take legislation through this House which suggests proposals that the Government cannot then fulfil. We now find ourselves in that situation. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on the article published in the Sunday Telegraph headed, "EU may block plans to save rural post offices"? I do not think that the Minister has answered fully my original Question.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is a matter that the noble Baroness and I have discussed on many occasions. The idea of a universal bank has nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation, which related to the status of the Post Office. This is a separate issue concerned with the services that will be offered. It in no way relates to the legislation, which, so far as I remember, does not refer to a universal bank.

Sex Offenders: Publication of List
3 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond Baroness Harris of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any Minister of the Crown has been in contact with the Press Complaints Commission following the publication in the News of the World of a list of child sex offenders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, no. I understand, however, that the Press Complaints Commission has received and will be considering complaints relating to the News of the World article. Responsibility for disclosing information about sex offenders or any other dangerous offenders rests with the police. They will do so if public safety requires it. The Government believe that in these matters the press ought to act on the advice of the police.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware of the statement by the Association of Chief Police Officers, whose spokesman on these matters is the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire, Tony Butler, who said:
"The News of the World's action in publishing a list of alleged sex offenders amounts to irresponsible journalism … Past evidence suggests that the publication of such information causes serious breaches of child protection"?
Does the Minister agree that if the News of the World persists in this appalling campaign it is certain that innocent people will be attacked, as happened recently in Manchester in the case of Mr Ian Armstrong?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, I should like to associate myself with the noble Baroness's comments. I agree with her; and I entirely agree with Tony Butler, the Chief Constable of Gloucestershire. He was right to describe this as irresponsible journalism. The noble Baroness has rightly drawn attention to the sad case of Ian Armstrong who was attacked by vigilantes. Not only was his personal safety put at risk but also that of his two sons when
420
thugs gathered outside his home. It is greatly to be regretted that the News of the World has decided to conduct this campaign in this way. It should listen carefully to the advice not just of Tony Butler but of all chief constables, who have an important role to play in these matters.
Lord Wakeham: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Press Complaints Commission will hold a preliminary meeting this afternoon to consider these issues? However, we shall not be able to adjudicate until we have heard the evidence from both sides and both parties. Then, we shall adjudicate in accordance with a published code of practice, taking into consideration the European Convention on Human Rights, which contains important provisions on both privacy and freedom of information.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am sure that all Members will welcome the noble Lord's statement. The Press Complaints Commission is right to consider the matter in that way. It is perhaps time for the commission to consider what further advice it might give on such matters, where clearly there must be sensitive handling of information such as that which the News of the World decided to publish.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, "naming and shaming" has a dubious history. There are instances where the perpetrators of crimes can become vulnerable—though obviously not as vulnerable as those who have been their victims. Are the Government aware of the extent of the concern about this kind of journalism? The spin-offs for the perpetrators' family and friends and for a whole network of relationships in the community are of a profoundly destabilising kind.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am aware of that. Again, I associate myself closely with the right reverend Prelate's comments. We must approach these matters carefully and sensitively. The police have an important role to play. It is best left to them to make the kinds of judgments that are necessary in these circumstances. There may be occasions when it is right to provide additional public information when public safety is of paramount concern—but only in those circumstances.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the purpose of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 was to enable the proper authorities to keep track of sex offenders, which is right and proper? Does he agree that the register is probably the most successful in the world, with a 97 per cent "take-up"'? Does he further agree that the publication of the list by the News of the World is an abuse of press freedom, and that its threat to continue to publish jeopardises a very good record and, sadly, puts more children at risk?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the great difficulty is that the approach adopted by the News of the World may well put children at risk because it will

421
drive sex offenders underground. What we need is for the authorities to know where they are. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the Sex Offenders Register, which has 12,000 names on it. It has a 97 per compliance rate, compared with the best register abroad, with an 85 per cent compliance rate. We can take comfort from that. I believe that our approach in these matters is right. The Government's approach has been balanced and proportionate. I believe that Members of this House will look forward to the additional measures which it is our intention to introduce by virtue of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Press Complaints Commission would be infinitely more effective and more satisfactory to its members, this House and the people of this country if it could impose substantial fines? At present, the News of the World will laugh at any penalty imposed on it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be wrong of me to direct the Press Complaints Commission on how best to operate. The noble Lord makes an important point. But in this country we greatly value press freedom. The PCC does an excellent job in that regard and strikes a difficult balance. It is worthy of our support.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Society (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
  COMMONS REASONS
  [The page and line numbers refer to HL Bill 54 as first printed for the Lords.]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  17 Clause 38, page 34, line 22, at end insert-
  (""(4B) The regulations shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete."")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
  17A Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any fur ther reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 17A.
  422
  Your Lordships will recall that the Government announced on 15th March this year that they would set up a scheme called the inherited SERPS scheme to provide redress to those individuals who were given incomplete or incorrect advice about widows' benefits in SERPS and had then relied on that advice. The amendment inserted in the Bill by your Lordships would extend the protection offered by the Government to people who took no action at all to obtain information. That could end up costing the same as reversing the policy altogether—some £23 billion by 2050. In other words, the original amendment makes the scheme pointless.
  Not surprisingly, the other place rejected such a potentially large financial commitment. We have said that we are prepared to accept the responsibility that we inherited to put right the inherited SERPS mess. What we cannot agree to is to hand out huge amounts of taxpayers' money to people who were never misinformed and who might well have assumed that, as with occupational pension schemes, widows would receive only half of their benefit.
  Since this House debated the matter, we have been working up the detail of the scheme—I pay tribute to Age Concern as represented by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—and we have been consulting widely. As a result, we have already clarified in the Bill the eligibility criteria for the inherited SERPS scheme.
  The original legislation provides that the scheme may deal with claims made by people who, having received incomplete or incorrect information about the SERPS reduction, either failed to take any steps that they would have taken or took any steps that they would not have taken had they received correct information. The ombudsman pointed out that, 15 years down the road, it would be difficult for many people to demonstrate that they would have taken a particular course of action, or not, had they been correctly advised. The Bill will now ensure that the scheme can provide redress for people who, because they relied on the wrong information, were denied the opportunity to consider taking relevant steps to protect the position of their spouses.
  As a further step, the Social Security Advisory Committee issued a consultation paper on 14th July. We shall look very carefully at the responses, which are due in by 25th August. When Parliament comes back in the autumn we should have some draft regulations on which the Social Security and Public Administration Select Committees can comment. We want to be certain that the regulations which govern the scheme will enable those who were misled by incorrect or incomplete information to be protected, but we cannot include those who were never misinformed—certainly not at a cost of £23 billion. I therefore ask noble Lords not to insist that their amendment forms part of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 17A.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
  3.15 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, we have debated this matter on a large number of occasions. Certainly, the cost to which the Minister referred is extremely important. No doubt that matter has influenced those in another place. I was slightly surprised by one comment of the Minister at the beginning of her remarks. She suggested that if the amendment was accepted the scheme, which throughout these proceedings we have welcomed, would potentially have no effect and the cost would be the same as if there were no scheme.
  This amendment switches the burden of proof, which the Ombudsman has said should happen and the Government have accepted. However, that covers only the first of two hurdles to be cleared by an individual who makes a claim. First, the person must show that (in the words of the amendment) he "received incorrect or incomplete information". If that is taken as read the individual must still be able to demonstrate that he has suffered financially as a result of failing to take action because of that incorrect or incomplete information.
  Consequently, it does not seem to me—no doubt the Minister will explain it if I have misunderstood the position—that acceptance of the fact that people have cleared the first hurdle necessarily means that they will clear both, which must happen for the scheme to incur any cost. Effectively, the amendment seeks to implement the recommendation of the Ombudsman which the Government say they accept. I do not believe that it does any more than that. If that results in other people clearing the second hurdle public expenditure will be incurred.
  In another place Mr Rooker quoted very large figures of the kind referred to today by the noble Baroness. The Minister of State said:
  "The lower estimate of doing so is £8 billion, but we have no idea of the number of claimants, and the upper estimate … is £23 billion".—[Official Report. Commons, 24/7/00; col. 809.]
  That cost is spread over a period and will not be incurred in one, two or even three years.
  We all accept that this is probably the worst administrative financial disaster that has ever occurred, or certainly for many years. It appears that misleading leaflets were issued. It is common ground that if someone can show, on the basis of very relaxed standards of proof—I accept what the Government have said as to that—that he received misleading information, the position is covered. But many people believed that they would receive the full pension at the time they first heard anything about this matter. If in the mean time they received no information at all to say that the position had changed it is reasonable to suppose that they took a particular course of action which, had they known about the change, they would not have taken.
  As far as concerns the cost estimate, I am not clear about the extent to which it turns on the point that I have just made; namely, whether the Government claim that the increase in cost covers those cases where people have received no information about the
  424
  change—that is the higher figure—or it applies only to those individuals who can demonstrate that they were misinformed. Clearly, we need a breakdown of the estimate of £8 billion to £23 billion, which by any standards reflects a large margin of error. Some calculation of the cost must have been made; otherwise, the Government would simply say that they do not know.
  If one looks at the recent spending review, that part which is devoted to the Department of Social Security—I pointed out earlier that the relevant section appears in a different place from that indicated in the contents page—refers only to the building of a new IT system and the ability of people involved in social security to telephone for answers to their problems and so on. However, in relation to this matter, which I presume is a development worth mentioning, I see no reference to the potential cost and what the Government are doing about it. Noble Lords will be assisted if the Minister can clarify the position before a final view is taken on this matter.
  This matter has dragged on for nearly two years. In another place Mr Rooker said that the Government still had not managed to put any flesh on the bones of the scheme. It is true that further consultations have taken place, but this matter has been going on for a long while. It would be helpful to have an update. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when we are likely to have a scheme which is better formulated than the present one and we may reach the stage when people can expect to make applications.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I congratulate the Department of Social Security on producing a major Bill with fewer than 100 government amendments to it and a list of amendments in your Lordships' House which is considerably smaller than the Bill itself, contrary to what appears to be the usual experience. Given that the other place is relying on privilege in this matter, there is nothing that we can do. Therefore, I have nothing further to add to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
  Baroness Greengross: My Lords, this is the last opportunity open to noble Lords to debate the inherited SERPS scandal—or severe problem—as part of this Bill. Just as it formed part of the Welfare Reform Act 1999, largely through the redoubtable efforts of my noble friend Lord Rix and, as the Minister kindly acknowledged, the work of Age Concern, I am certain that the matter will return next year when we debate the regulations. It is about that that I should like to speak for a moment.
  I understand, but am obviously disappointed, that the Government could not at Report stage accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, nor my own. However, I was reassured that genuine consultation would occur between now and the introduction of the promised regulations.
  I am already aware of the work begun by the Social Security Advisory Committee on 19th July. However, I still do not believe that matters are as clear as they should be. From briefings with Age Concern I am

  425
  aware that many of those affected are not very happy with the prospect of the protected rights scheme. One wonders how many of those who are still unaware would be happy with it if they did know about it—probably not a great number. We now must work with the Minister to ensure that things turn out as well as possible for the people affected.
  There is one thing to help us. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, Section 52 of the Welfare Reform Act 1999 is now our fail-safe mechanism. That Act provides that if the Government do not produce regulations by October 2002 the cut in SERPS will not take place. Thus, I hope the Minister can meet the expectation she raised on Report to my concern and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that the regulations will be genuinely consulted on, or, if we are unhappy with them, that this House and Members in another place will use their power to reject the regulations. For once the power only to accept or reject is useful to us, because rejecting could be seen by some as better than accepting in entirety.
  Finally, I ask the Minister when we can expect the regulations to be debated by this House. Will it be during the next parliamentary Session?
  Lord Rix: My Lords, I apologise for being late. I saw on the annunciator what was taking place, but unfortunately the lift appeared to be engaged.
  I noticed that when Lords Amendment No. 17 was being debated in another place Dafydd Wigley made reference to me and the regulations on which we had received assurances from the Minister at the last stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. Reference was made to the fact that I was speaking on behalf of Mencap. May I make it quite clear, I was not speaking on behalf of Mencap. I was speaking on behalf of old people, like myself, and hope that the Minister can assure me that the regulations to which she referred at the last stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House will refer to "old age pensioners", not exclusively to people with a learning disability.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I respond first to the points on timing, which were raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I cannot go much beyond what I said. The Social Security Select Committee has issued a consultation paper. The Government will be looking at responses to that paper. In the autumn there should be draft regulations for the Social Security Select Committee and the Public Administration Select Committee to comment on in advance of those regulations coming to your Lordships' House.
  The noble Baroness said that if they were not satisfactory she hoped that the House would reject them. If it did, people who were entitled to money would get none. Perhaps she might wish to reflect on that position further.
  426
  On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I am happy to confirm, as I did when he pressed me at Report stage, that people with a severe and continuing mental disability, and those speaking for them, their advocates, would be covered.
  The noble Lord's first question was about money and how the Government arrived at the figures of £8 billion to £23 billion. Basically, the assumption of £8 billion is that on the protected rights scheme, with a deferral until October 2002, and then the introduction of the protected rights scheme, we expect approximately 5 million applications, which therefore costs the £8 billion figure. Under the noble Lord's amendment virtually everybody would qualify. I know the noble Lord does not believe this, but that is the legal advice I have received, so he may wish to take these figures seriously. Under his amendment, the 4 million pensioners on SERPS, as well as 16 million people of working age, would qualify. That would mean a potential eligibility of 20 million people as opposed to 5 million. That is how the Government judge the cost of £23 billion. The veracity of those assumptions can be tested but that is the basis for them.
  The noble Lord's second point was about the two steps. It is true that Government are undertaking two steps, as he described it. The difference between us is this. I believe that if people did not know what the changes were, they cannot usefully say what they would have done had they known. If they did not know, they did not know. That seems to be the gap between the noble Lord and myself.
  Within social security more generally, whether someone does or does not know is not a defence or a claim of entitlement. For example, when a person becomes a widow, when there is a change of benefit status, or whatever, or if there is any change in regulations, the DSS does not expect to send out leaflets individually notifying 20 million people in receipt of benefit. It expects information to be gained through leaflets, provided that the leaflets available at the local offices are correct.
  The problem was that the leaflets were incorrect. The information was incorrect. With the protected rights scheme we are addressing the problem we inherited—not that people may or may not have known of the change in the law but the fact that a smaller group was clearly misled by the information received. The protected rights scheme is to address that very real problem of misinformation—the equivalent, if you like, of government mis-selling.
  I hope that with that explanation we are correcting the problem we inherited. We are seeking the widest possible consultation. I hope that as a result your Lordships will be satisfied in the autumn when the appropriate regulations are considered and that your Lordships will accept the Commons response to Amendment 17.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  18 After Clause 41, insert the following new clause-

  CONCURRENT HOLDING OF PENSIONS
  (" . A person shall be able to hold both a stakeholder pension and an occupational pension concurrently and without financial penalty.")
  The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following reason—
  18A Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 18, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 18A. This amendment was intended to enable people to be members of both the stakeholders scheme and an occupational scheme and make tax privileged pension contributions into each scheme at the same time. The amendment would, however, be ineffective because the legislation which governs such contributions is contained in Inland Revenue legislation, which this amendment does not alter. In any event, the Government have recognised, and were consulting at the time, that greater flexibility would assist people to build up pension savings. On 5th July the Government announced that people earning up to £30,000 a year will be able to save an extra £3,600 a year in stakeholder pensions, as well as saving in an occupational pension scheme. This means that almost 90 per cent of employees contributing to occupational schemes will be able to enjoy the benefit of stakeholder pensions as well. This announcement has been widely welcomed by the pensions industry.
  The Government do not, however, believe that the cost of further extending this concession—which is what the amendment would have done—can be justified. Our partial concurrency benefits almost 90 per cent of people at a cost of £150 million. To extend it by the extra 12 or 13 per cent, for example, to people with incomes above £30,000 would incur a cost of a further £250 million for the better off. This Government believe that it is right to target available resources on moderate and low earners, and those most likely to be moving between schemes and therefore might find themselves in a confusing situation. That is what our proposals will do and I hope your Lordships will welcome them. I therefore ask your Lordships not to insist on their original amendment.
  Moved, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 18 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 18A. —(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, it would not be appropriate for me to rise in the role of Oliver Twist. The Government have made a considerable concession on the arguments, although they propose to implement it in a different way from that which we envisaged. The level at which the Government regard people as low paid, medium paid or highly paid seems to fluctuate rather wildly between one part of the Bill
  428
  and another, but £30,000 a year in this context is not an unreasonable level. While we would have preferred full concurrency, the argument is accepted
  There is one question for the Minister. Does she envisage that that limit will eventually be indexed?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should imagine so but I should want to take advice.
  The reason for the £30,000 figure is that stakeholder pensions were designed for those with an income of between £10,000 and £20,000 but, given indexation and people's climb up career ladders and so on, many of those on pensions of £18,000 or £19,000 may go up to about £25,000 or £27,000. The Government do not want people inadvertently committing a fraud by continuing one pension scheme while coming into an occupational pension scheme.
  I am pleased that the noble Lord and the industry welcome our new position. I am also delighted that many people will have greater protection for their old age. I commend the Motion to the House.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  26A After Clause 60, insert the following new clause-

  CHAPTER IV WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS WAR WIDOWS' PENSIONS—ENTITLEMENT
  .—(1) The Secretary of State shall review the operation of this section when—

  (a) a report on the armed forces pension scheme has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State for Defence; and

  (b) the results of any public consultation upon a report as cited in paragraph (a) above have been published;

  and a report of any review carried out under this section shall be laid before Parliament.
  (2) Subject to subsection (3), a widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (4) ("the DSS pension") and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
  (3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a widow in receipt of a basic pension under section 44 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; and a widow in receipt of such a pension who has remarried or is living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex may not retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
  (4) The enactments referred to in subsection (2) are—

  (a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,

  (b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,

  (c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939, or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),

  (d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment.")

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  26A Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
  3.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 26A.
  The reason given in the other place for rejecting your Lordships' amendment was that it infringes its financial privileges, but there are other reasons. Your Lordships will be aware that last Thursday the Government announced their intention to allow widows and widowers to keep their Armed Forces attributable pension should they choose to remarry. This will be achieved through secondary legislation and therefore the new clause inserted in the Bill is no longer required. I am sure that all noble Lords will want to join me in paying tribute to the War Widows Association and to the noble Baroness, our noble friend, Lady Strange, who have campaigned so assiduously to ensure that the war widows who are currently in receipt of an attributable Armed Forces pension can continue to receive the payment if they decide to remarry.
  As your Lordships will know, the Government have been examining the case for changing the services' occupational pensions as part of the current review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. That review is looking at the whole package of pension benefits and the outcome will be subject to full public consultation.
  I am pleased to be able to advise the House that one of the recommendations of the review will be that all widows or widowers of service personnel covered by the new pension arrangements will be able to keep their service pension for life. That is regardless of whether the death was attributable to service or to some other cause. As is normal with changes to pension schemes, this provision will apply to future service and future pension recipients only.
  It was in the knowledge of the recommendations of the review that at earlier stages of the Bill I asked the House to wait and not to cut across it. However, as the timing of the review has slipped somewhat, it seemed right in the context of your Lordships' concerns that we should bring forward and announce that part of the review. It was always intended to arrest your Lordships' concerns.
  In addition, we have recognised the exceptional circumstances in which the Armed Forces operate, so we intend to ensure that widows and widowers already in receipt of an attributable pension will be able to retain that pension should they decide to remarry. The new provision will be operable as soon as we are able to amend the existing legislation.
  Therefore this change will be introduced ahead of the introduction of any other recommendations made by the review. It does not require primary legislation. It can be introduced using regulations in the
  430
  prerogative instruments, which will need to be amended, approved by the Queen and placed before Parliament before the policy can be implemented. The rules applying to each of the services can be changed by subsidiary legislation to be effective in the autumn.
  Furthermore, the new clause excludes widows who qualify for a category A DSS retirement pension. We see no reason why, in the spirit of your Lordships' concerns, widows and widowers who have reached pension age should not be allowed to remarry and keep their pension if they want to do so. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, did not go far enough, so we propose to go further and extend the right to retain the war widows pension on remarriage to those who are currently over pensionable age.
  The Government have announced that they will introduce amendments to the existing service pensions regulations. We will provide that in future widows and widowers will be able to retain their attributable pension should they decide to remarry. The intention is that the legislation will be in place in the autumn and will go further than provided for in this clause. The wider pension review will come forward with provisions for existing servicemen, which your Lordships' debate cut across.
  For that reason, we are accepting the substance of your Lordships' recommendations. It was part of the review which slipped in time but we are going further and extending the provision to those over the age of retirement. In the light of that, I hope that your Lordships will be pleased not to insist on their amendment.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 26A.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have not often served on committees set up to give reasons to your Lordships for rejecting or accepting amendments. However, like the noble Baroness, I believe that from time to time such committees are unimaginative and come up with the usual formula. In fairness to the Government, perhaps excessively so. The committee could have stated that it was making alternative arrangements which were better, and it missed a spin point!
  However, the amendment is welcome and I join the noble Baroness in congratulating the War Widows Association and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on the way in which she has pursued the provision.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we are sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, is not here today to see the final vindication of her campaign. We on these Benches strongly supported the amendment and are delighted that, although it will not reach the statute book, a better version will find its place. We are therefore entirely happy with the amendment.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, this is a very special parliamentary occasion for many of us in all

  431
  parts of the House, not least of course for the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, whose constancy in the cause of making life better for Britain's war widows is rightly honoured by all who know her.
  It is a special occasion also, as my noble friend said, for the admirable War Widows Association, over which the noble Baroness presides and of which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and I have the honour to be vice-presidents.
  The conventions of the House do not allow me from these Benches to call the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, as a Cross-Bencher, "my noble friend". But in fact we have been good friends and fellow campaigners for many years. Her parliamentary record is held in high admiration and has been further enhanced by her work on the Bill.
  As she is unable for compelling family reasons to attend the debate, she asked me by letter to say how deeply sorry she is not to be here. Characteristically, she writes in praise of everyone who contributed to previous debates on this issue and specifically referred to my noble friends Lady Hollis, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean and Lord Carter, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in full recognition that Ministers past and present who have been unable to help on the scenes have often done so behind them.
  Her message also refers to the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, the noble Earl, her kinsman, Lord Russell, Mrs Jacqui Lait MP and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who has often spoken here and with such distinction about the rightful claims of war widows.
  My right honourable friend Jeff Rooker MP has also been most supportive. Indeed, he personally espoused the war widows' cause and is to be warmly congratulated on his speech about it in another place on 24th July. He said:
  "Members of the armed forces enter into a unique contract with the state. In effect, they agree to die for their country if necessary. They are commanded to go into situations where they might be killed. It goes without saying that the people of this country … are extremely grateful to them for their dedication, service and sacrifice".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 816.]
  That is the case which many of us here today—and of course the noble Baroness, Lady Strange—have argued in justification of the change in the law that has now been announced. For my part, I believe that of all duties that it falls to Parliament to discharge, none is of more compelling priority than our bounden duty to act justly to men and women who were prepared to lay down their lives for this country and the dependants of those who did so. That is the duty we are addressing today.
  A war widow's pension is not a passport to la dolce vita, and it never has been—as I know from being the son of a war widow who was widowed when I was seven—any more than a war pension itself. Indeed, I am reminded of Kipling's sharp comment on the subject when he wrote:
  "Think where 'e's been,
  Think what 'e's seen,
  Think of his pension—
  An' Gawd save the Queen".
  432
  I want also briefly to refer today to all the enormous help given by the Officers' Pensions Society on this and related issues of importance to war and service widows and, in particular, to the untiring efforts of its former General Secretary, Major General Peter Bonnet. I know that his friends on both sides of both Houses of Parliament wish him Godspeed in recovering from his illness and look forward to seeing him again soon. We shall rejoice to see him.
  General Bonnet's successor, Major General James Gordon, wrote to me yesterday welcoming the Government's decision to introduce pensions for life for war widows, regardless of whether they remarry. However, like others of us, he deeply regrets the continuing exclusion of service widows and widows who have already remarried, or whose spouses died from non-attributable causes while serving just as devotedly, or whose circumstances pre-date the changes in the regulations. General Gordon writes:
  "This Society has always maintained that all service widows should be treated the same when it comes to remarriage, as why should anyone be financially penalised for the natural act of trying to build a new life after bereavement. If the MoD Pensions Review eventually delivers that, as was indicated in a joint MoD/DSS press release on 21 July 2000, a great wrong will have been righted, but the 'no retrospection' rule will inevitably exclude many equally deserving people".
  I know that my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will have that in mind in their continuing work on provision for war and war service widows and hope very much that they will keep in close touch with the Officers' Pensions Society and the War Widows Association alike on all issues of concern to them.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall be brief. As my noble friend Lord Higgins said, one would not know from the rather dull words of Amendment No. 26A that any good news has been given by the Government. The words look like the usual dead hand of the Treasury. However, the good news has been given and I believe that it is only fair and, indeed, perhaps gallant of me to stand up and congratulate the Government on taking this decision.
  I want to make one serious point. I understand that the noble Baroness is saying that the regulations will not come into force until later in the year. I believe that we shall have to make it clear to certain war widows who may be lining up their men for a trip to the altar that they should wait until the regulations are passed or they may find themselves on the wrong side of the dividing line. I am sure that the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lady Symons are aware of that point, and I shall probably send an e-mail to the indefatigable Mrs Jenny Green to remind her, not perhaps for her own benefit but so that she may disseminate the information to other members of the War Widows Association who may well be making plans.
  I believe that two groups should be thanked: first, your Lordships. I regret to say that, despite the noble Baroness's words, I am fairly certain that if we had not put a little steel into this issue, the Government would still be allowing the MoD to slip, as it is so good at doing and has done so efficiently for many years.

  433
  Therefore, I believe that your Lordships, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, are to be congratulated.
  It is also only fair that I should remind your Lordships of the remarks that I made on a previous outing of this matter when I said that, as a Minister, I had tried to shift the MoD but had failed fairly miserably to persuade them to move. They continually told me that the matter was under review. My noble friend Lord Astor, who was then at the MoD, tried as well, and was probably told the same thing. I concluded that I hoped that the noble Baronesses, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean and Lady Hollis, would do better. In fact, I believe that I used a Scottish expression, hoping that "the lasses would do better than the laddies". I am pleased to see that the lasses have, indeed, in this instance at least, done better than the laddies.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am most grateful that the House has responded so warmly. I am delighted to be associated with this announcement. Therefore, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 26 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 26A.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Resources and Accounts Bill
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
[The page and line numbers refer to HL Bill 42 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 8, page 5, line 5, leave out ("of a government department's accounts")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
5A Because it would alter the financial accounting and audit arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may he deemed sufficient.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5A. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 6A, 7 and 7A, 7B and 7C, and 8 and 8A.
The issue of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive on the audit of and access to public expenditure is one which goes back not only to the
434
beginning of the consideration of this Bill, nor back only to the National Audit Act 1983 or to the 1921 or the 1866 Acts. This issue is inherent in parliamentary government and I do not in any way regret the further debate on it that has taken place.
I shall not give a history lesson; I shall refer only to the history of this Bill. From the beginning of the consideration of this Bill, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and members of the Public Accounts Committee have expressed their concerns about audit and access and have used the Bill as a vehicle to express their concerns. The Bill is not about accountability as such; it is about resource accounts. However, it is legitimate to say that, because it is about the accounts, it should cover also issues of access for audit purposes. That, indeed, has been a continuing theme throughout our debates.
We have responded right from the beginning to concerns expressed by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and noble Lords opposite. First, we made clear our view that any new non-departmental public bodies which we set up since 1997 should be audited by the National Audit Office, and so they have been.
Secondly, we made it clear in Clause 8(2)(b) of the Bill that access should be available not only to financial records held by departments but to those held by any outside bodies which are deputed to hold their financial records.
Thirdly, and perhaps more importantly, we made it clear in amendments introduced during the passage of the Bill, and notably Clause 23, that we believe that changes in the law are necessary. Clause 23 clarifies the role of the House of Commons in the control of the National Audit Office. It makes it clear that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office are acting on behalf of the House of Commons and that they report directly to the House of Commons. I pay tribute to those who have exerted pressure on us. As a result we have made those matters clear.
Clause 23 makes clear that the responsibilities of the National Audit Office apply to any body that,
"exercises functions of a public nature or is entirely or substantially funded from public money".
That goes a very long way towards a definition of the kind of public body that ought to be covered by the National Audit Office.
We have responded from the start. Since then, further pressure has been exerted on audit and accountability. I do not object to that. On audit, the matter came to a vote and your Lordships decided not to pursue the matter. On accountability, when the Bill first arrived in this House, we set up the Sharman review, which is about not just audit, but accountability, which the Bill patently is not.
I think that your Lordships have generally welcomed the accountability provisions. The Sharman committee met for the first time at 2.30 this afternoon. I do not know whether the meeting is still going on and whether we shall have the pleasure of seeing the noble

435
Lord, Lord Sharman, in his place. The committee is almost certainly thrashing out its terms of reference as we speak.
Concerns were then expressed in this House about the implementation of any Sharman recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, waxed very eloquent on that. I do not blame him; he was entirely right to do so. We gave assurances that we would take the Sharman review very seriously. He is right to say that assurances are only assurances and should not be taken too seriously. I understand that, but the Sharman committee has many distinguished members, including many members of the Public Accounts Committee, as well as members of this House. We are not going to short-change them.
We have done more. We introduced amendments to make clear that the recommendations of the Sharman committee could be implemented by secondary legislation without waiting for further primary legislation, as there could well be a gap of 40, 50, 60 or 80 years between major legislation on public accounts.
The provisions in Clauses 8 and 23 that I have mentioned make it possible to implement any recommendations that the Sharman review may produce on greater scrutiny for audit purposes. Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B, which the manuscript amendment would remove, are a further assurance that any recommendations that Sharman makes about greater scrutiny for audit purposes can be implemented by secondary legislation. If the committee makes recommendations about value for money or other examination, that is fine. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury made clear in the Commons on Monday that we will take a positive and constructive view of any such recommendations which we believe can be implemented without primary legislation.
I repeat our assurance that the Government will not shrink from implementing any recommendations from the Sharman committee if they appear to be for the benefit of both Parliament and the executive. Parliament and the executive clearly have a concurrent interest. I shall come to the divergences later, but they are both interested in the proper expenditure of public money. That is a fundamental basis of our reaction to any Sharman recommendations. Of course, without knowing what he will recommend, I cannot say that we will implement all his recommendations, but I hope that my assurances go as far as conceivably possible in explaining that we believe the examination worthwhile and that we propose to take the committee's recommendations very seriously, including—I make this clear in case it is not already apparent—any reconsideration of the provisions of the National Audit Act 1983, which was called into question in the Commons on Monday.
The amendments carried in this House at Third Reading went much further than any amendments asked for or debated in the past. They went way beyond the examination for audit purposes of departments' or NDPBs' accounts. They covered the whole range of examination of public expenditure by
436
the Comptroller and Auditor General. Mr David Davis read out the version of Clause 8 as it would have been if Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 had been carried. Subsection (1) read:
"For the purposes of an examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General—

(a) he shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to any relevant documents; and

(b) a person who holds or has control of any of these documents shall give the Comptroller and Auditor General any assistance, information or explanation which he requires in relation to any of those documents".

The right would apply to any documents,
"held or controlled by a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body, or
(b) which are documents to which a government department or relevant non-departmental public body has, or can obtain, access".
We resisted those amendments on the grounds that they went far beyond the scope of the Bill, even if they were not spoken to on that basis by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, or the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. They were taken up in Monday's debate in the Commons on the proper terms that they are issues between Parliament and the executive on the control of public expenditure. The eloquent speeches of Mr David Davis, Mr Edward Davey, Mr Alan. Williams, Mr Robert Sheldon and others all addressed the relationship between Parliament and the executive in the control of public expenditure—not departmental audit, but the whole role of the National Audit Office in the examination of public expenditure. The debate was one-sided, with the Minister left on her own. The arguments will endure. Some of the things said will remain the constant concern of this Government and future governments for many years to come.
However, that is not what we are debating today. The Opposition's manuscript amendment would not reinstate those Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. The Opposition want to replace our Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B with the original Lords Amendment No. 7, which applies only to departmental audit.
This is a strange kind of ping-pong. We start a serious process of discussion of public policy. Points are put to us and we respond. Those who have put their points to us then move away to the next ping-pong table. We respond there. They move away again. We are not playing at the same ping-pong table at any stage. We have responded positively to everything that has been said to us. I am even responding positively to the points that were made in the Commons on Monday on the wider issues raised by the Lords amendments that the Commons have disagreed to. Instead of debating the matter discussed in the Commons, we are going back to the issue of access for departmental audit.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I used on a number of occasions about the defects of the Lords' amendment which would now be re-instated—the definition of a non-departmental body, the burdens of businesses and so on. We have gone past that. I am convinced that this is now crunch time.

437
I am also convinced that this Government have gone the extra mile in seeking to persuade your Lordships, and Parliament in general, that this is a Bill that is coherent in its own right and pays proper respect to the rights of Parliament, the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General in departmental accounts. The Government have set up a body to examine the wider issue of accountability in the form of the Sharman review, and they have given every assurance that the Sharman review will be taken extremely seriously and can be implemented by government. Under those circumstances, I shall be sorry if your Lordships return to the amendment now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 5A.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
4 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments enumerated by the Minister. The Minister has recounted the history of these matters and we are now debating a series of amendments. The Minister referred to the various amendments that the Government have tabled, in particular the reasons given by the Commons. Earlier I commented on the way in which committees set up to produce such reasons sometimes get into a rut. On this occasion the reason given is that,
"it would alter the financial accounting and audit arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient".
I believe that is a strange reason because the whole of the Bill concerns financial accounting and audit arrangements.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the reason given is a privilege reason. It is comparable to the reason in relation to public expenditure. It is not a new phrase; it is always used when the Commons conceive that their views are affected by Commons privilege.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I realise that. However, it is a strange reason to give when the Bill is concerned with these very arrangements. If it were the case that we were precluded from moving such amendments, one would have thought that the Speaker would have certified the Bill as a money Bill in the first place. As I understand it, that is not the case. Your Lordships have considered this point all the way through.
The Minister has stressed—to some extent what he has said is correct—that the Government have sought to meet a number of points that have been pressed upon them in another place and in this House. He suggests that the amendments that were tabled in another place seek to meet the points that we make in saying that we should stay with Amendment No. 7.
438
It is clear from the speech of the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Mr David Davis, in another place—I believe it is also the general view of the Public Accounts Committee—that he does not regard these amendments now before us in lieu of the original amendment as satisfactory. He pointed out that,
"First, the power provides the Treasury with the right to decide to which bodies the Comptroller and Auditor General can or cannot have access".
It is for Parliament to decide that and not for the Treasury to do so. Secondly, he stated,
"the proposal does nothing to overcome the problem of the time-consuming negotiations that are currently necessary",
for the Comptroller and Auditor General to obtain access to particular areas where government money is being spent. Thirdly, he said,
"the provision will also place the CAG's access powers in secondary legislation, rather than in primary legislation".
Only a moment ago the Minister stressed that this whole matter is fundamental to the control of Parliament over the executive, as it has been down the centuries. It is not appropriate that it should be dealt with in secondary legislation. Finally, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said,
"the effect of the order-making power is to add to the hotch-potch of arrangements referred to in the Committee's ninth report. It is not a global solution and will allow current anomalies to be handled only on a piecemeal basis".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 836.]
For those reasons I do not believe that it would be right for your Lordships to accept the amendments that the Government have put forward. The Minister says that this is an attempt to meet the points made, but in the debates in another place to which I have just referred those amendments were described as retrograde, not progressive. That is an important point.
Throughout the passage of this Bill we have had a problem in as much as the Minister has sought to stress that the issues that we raise somehow do not relate to the Bill. Clearly, they are within the Long Title. As such an event occurs only three times in 150 years, clearly it is right that we should be able to raise these matters on this Bill.
The Minister has been too concerned to restrict our debates to the narrow issues, although again, as pointed out in another place, the Bill in its original form covers a number of points concerned with auditing and so on. It is also true that the Bill covers the proposals in regard to resource accounting that we on these Benches, and I believe throughout Parliament, have welcomed, although in another place it has been suggested that a Bill of three clauses would have been sufficient to achieve that objective.
My point is illustrated by the remarks made by the Minister at Third Reading. In speaking to the amendments and the matter of access and he said:
"Indeed, the Comptroller and Auditor General himself admitted that in giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. However, the Opposition have responded in the most extraordinary way: by removing the requirement that the clause should apply to departmental accounts, which is what is meant in Amendments Nos. 4 and 5".—[Official Report, 12/7/00; col. 249.]

439
That is not what was meant by Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. He said what was meant by those amendments in another passage of his speech. A number of people came up to me after the Division was called saying, "Is it really true that this does what the Minister said; that by removing the requirement the clause would apply to departmental accounts?" He should have said, "We remove the requirement that it applies only to departmental accounts". I do not suggest that the Minister intended to mislead the House at Third Reading, but in reality we sought to widen the scope to include these measures that are clearly of great concern to Members of another place. He pointed out that the debate in another place was rather one-sided. Apart from the Minister's speeches, no one spoke in favour of the line that the Government took on the amendments.
We have been over the ground a number of times in previous debates and I shall not weary the House by going over it again. But in relation to the right of access, which is what is at issue here, the Government are saying that the Comptroller and Auditor General has a right to roam. That point was clearly dealt with in the debate in another place. On the one hand it was argued—it is certainly the case—that the extent to which the National Audit Office is likely to roam in some irresponsible way is gravely limited by its resources, which are not as great as they might be. Having been chairman of the Public Accounts Committee which determines those resources, I can say that that is certainly so. Certainly the intrusion, which was made much of in the Minister's speech in the other place, is not likely to be on any scale.
In any event, in terms of this amendment, the National Audit Office would have to operate within the same constraints of intrusion which the Government themselves exercise. The same regulations and code of practice will apply equally. So we on this side do not believe that there will be the kind of dangers in our Amendment No. 7C, which we are suggesting should be reinstated, as the Government argue. Moreover, the Comptroller and Auditor General should not need to negotiate with those who spend public money and whose affairs he feels he ought to examine; that is not something that the representative of Parliament ought to have to do. He ought to have the right. As Mr Sheldon—the former chairman of the PAC and now the chairman of the Liaison Committee in another place—said, we want to go back to the situation of the 1866 Act which, "covered the lot", as he expressed it. The reality is that, at the moment, the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General do not cover the lot in terms of public expenditure.
I make just one further brief point. We welcome the Sharman committee. But this is a tremendously wasted opportunity. If the Government felt that these matters needed to be examined, then clearly the Sharman committee or its equivalent should have been set up in time for its recommendations to be incorporated in this Bill. We know it is extremely rare for a Bill of this kind to come before us.
440
We are glad to hear that the Sharman committee met this afternoon. We still have no explanation from the Minister as to what the relationship is between that group and the so-called steering group. The Minister merely says it is a steering group which has been set up with a very distinguished membership. But as to exactly how the two interact, I fear we remain very much in the dark. However, we shall await their reports in due course. To say that all the recommendations can be implemented by secondary legislation rather anticipates what the committee may say. It may be that they require primary legislation. At all events, it is likely to be some time before we make any progress on that. Meanwhile, we should pursue this matter and the other place should have an opportunity to consider it further.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seeks to reject the Government's amendment put forward in the Commons and to reinstate Lords Amendment No. 7. From these Benches we wholly support that proposal.
Our reasons for rejecting the Government's amendment are as follows. First, far from it being simply an issue of accountability, it is a fairly precise amendment and the issue about which we are concerned is access. The main purpose of the series of amendments tabled at Third Reading by the Opposition was to give the Comptroller and Auditor General rights of access to documentation that he needed to fulfil his responsibilities as auditor of public moneys. At present he is frustrated in that function by the fact that he has to negotiate with departments and, through them, with non-departmental public bodies in order to obtain the documentation.
That is time-consuming and costly in terms both of personnel and frustration of personnel when they find it difficult to obtain the documentation they need. It was to prevent those costs and those frustrations that it was proposed throughout the discussions on the Bill in the other place and in this House that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be given reasonable rights of access directly to those documents he needed and amendments were tabled to that effect.
Admittedly, the government amendment removes departments as gatekeepers, as they have been to date. The amendment put forward by the Government in the other place puts the Treasury in place of the department as gatekeeper. The Treasury is, arguably, a more formidable gatekeeper than departments. Indeed it suggests that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have to go cap in hand to the Treasury every time he has difficulty in gaining the access he needs. Far from having the right of access, as was proposed in the original amendment, instead it proposes that the Treasury shall have the right to decide to which bodies the Comptroller and Auditor General can or cannot have access.
That is one reason we reject this amendment. Secondly, the provision does nothing to overcome the problem of the time-consuming and frustrating

441
negotiations that are necessary to secure access. Indeed, in making the whole arrangement subject to affirmative resolution via secondary legislation, in many ways it makes the procedures yet more cumbersome and more difficult to handle.
Thirdly, the provision does nothing to simplify the procedures. The proposal in the original amendment was far simpler; that is, it gave the Comptroller and Auditor General the right to have access to the documents that he needed. As I say, the amendment does nothing to simplify that, which a right of access in primary legislation would ensure and which we would like to see. It is yet another item of piecemeal legislation which merely adds to the hotchpotch of arrangements in this area referred to by the Public Accounts Committee in its 9th Report of 1999–2000.
By contrast, the original amendment tabled by the Opposition at Third Reading was clear and straightforward. It is not, as was claimed by the Government in the other place, an unconstrained right to roam. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned this. It states clearly that the Comptroller and Auditor General will have the right to apply only for documents,
"held or controlled by a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body, or … which are documents to which a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body has, or can obtain, access".
In other words, the National Audit Office has to follow the access guidelines that the Government themselves follow. It is not a wholesale right to roam.
We come back time and again to the fundamental purpose of this amendment. In that sense the Minister is right that it is broadly about accountability in terms of the relationship between Parliament and its officers and their right properly to fulfil the functions set out under the 1866 Exchequer and Audit Departments Act; that is, to regulate the receipt, custody and issue of public moneys and provide the audit thereof.
In the other place a Labour Member, Mr Alan Williams, who is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, said,
"At the heart of the matter—and we must constantly return to it—is whether we have a parliamentary democracy and parliamentary accountability. Access is fundamental to that—on all Government expenditure and income. If Parliament does not have that access, it cannot exercise propose control over the Executive".
Further, he said,
"It is effrontery for the Executive to tell Parliament that we should not have the right to inspect them. For those who are being monitored to say what can be monitored would be mildly comical if we saw it in a Whitehall farce—yet that is what is being proposed".—(Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 842.)
As has been made clear from the outset of our discussions in this House on the Bill, the purpose of these amendments is to gain access in order to fulfil those tasks of audit. This is the fourth set of amendments that has been proposed covering the issue. Time and again, those proposing these amendments—the issue received cross-party support from members of the PAC in the other place—have
442
tried to meet the objections raised by the Treasury in terms of limiting the scope and trying to define "non-departmental public bodies".
Time and again the Treasury has raised new objections. Initially, we had the argument that the Bill is not about audit. Then the impossibility of defining "non-departmental public bodies" was put forward, followed by the issue of the extra red tape and the regulations involved. There have also been many references to the Sharman report. Those arguments are not directly relevant to the issue of access. None of that detracts from the fundamental purpose of the original set of amendments—namely, to reinforce Parliament's control over public moneys—or from the Treasury's purpose, which is to frustrate that objective.
I shall quote again from the debate that took place in the other place. This time I refer to the words of Mr David Davis, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who said:
"We should not assume that the Treasury would permit these rights automatically. Time and again, even in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, the Treasury has argued that the Comptroller and Auditor General should not have access to private bodies. That happened in connection with housing associations, which are now known as registered social landlords. It will happen again in connection with the PFI companies that will deliver public services in the coming years".—[Official Report. Commons, 24/7/00; col. 837.]
The amendment passed by the House of Commons is nothing but a move in the same direction. Indeed, as indicated, it concentrates discretion in the hands of the Treasury and makes the Comptroller and Auditor General subject to Treasury decisions and subordinate legislation. I should like to offer the House one final quotation. This one comes from Mr Sheldon, a previous chairman of the PAC, who said:
"Access by the CAG should be the result of a right, and not involve permission. He should not have to seek the permission of the people whom he is auditing; he should have an unqualified right of access—I should not have to ask for that".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 845.]
In many respects, this is a minor issue; but it is a minor issue about a fundamental principle. It is about the powers of Parliament vis-à-vis the executive. From these Benches, as I said previously, we believe that the power of the executive has grown too strong over the years and that, where there is an opportunity to reverse that tendency, we should pursue it. We therefore support the Opposition in their Amendment No. 7 and urge the House to reject Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B, which have been put forward by the Government.
Lord Roper: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long, but I feel that I ought to intervene at this point to express my support for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I was greatly influenced by the debate that took place in the other place. When we discussed this matter on Third Reading, I was not totally convinced on the strength of the argument that was then advanced. Indeed, the Minister made a rather strong case against the amendment on that occasion—rather stronger than that made by the Economic Secretary in another place.

443
However, having had an opportunity to read the report of the debate that was referred to by my noble friend, it seems to me that the quality of the debate in the other place last Monday indicates the importance of this matter. It was quite extraordinary to see such support from all parts of another place. Although this is not the greatest of matters, that support seems to indicate that it is an important parliamentary matter.
When he introduced the debate, the Minister referred to the concurrent interests that exist at some stages. Of course there are such interests; but there are other occasions—and this is one of them—when there is inevitably a difference of view between the executive and the legislature. The views expressed in that one-sided debate on Monday night in another place indicate why it is important for us to carry the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, this evening.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I rise to reinforce briefly the points just made. I completely agree with the arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. My comments will be short because many of the points contained in my notes are identical to what both speakers have said.
The amendments originally made by your Lordships' House served to strengthen and protect the position of Parliament in relation to the executive. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that there is a fundamental point at issue; indeed, it is actually an important constitutional point. I appreciate that the Government won the vote in the other place, but they very clearly lost the argument. The Minister has conceded that fact to some extent. Indeed, not one Labour Back-Bencher spoke in support of the Government's position. If one reads the report of the debate, it is quite clear that the Government do not have the support of the chairman of the PAC or of his immediately predecessor, Robert Sheldon, who was a very distinguished Labour member of that committee. Indeed, he abstained in the vote that took place. Moreover, as I understand it, the Government do not have the support of the current members of the PAC.
The arguments for the House to pass the noble Lord's amendment are compelling. I believe that the order-making powers proposed by the Government are inadequate. My noble friend Lord Higgins has put on record the comments made in the other place by David Davis, the current chairman of the PAC. Indeed, my noble friend outlined the four points that were made at that time. The first of the latter is especially important; namely, that the power to be given under the Government's proposals will provide the Treasury with the right to decide to which bodies the Comptroller and Auditor General may have access. That is an extremely important point.
The Government's proposed amendments would leave Parliament's ability to engage in proper scrutiny to the discretion of the government of the day. That cannot be right. We need to protect the position of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The noble Baroness talked about the latter fulfilling his
444
responsibility, but I believe that she could have referred to his "fulfilling his responsibility as an Officer of Parliament". That is a fundamental point.
Mention has also been made of the fact that the Lords amendments would not create a "general right of access", as was claimed in the Treasury's memorandum: they are limited to the issue of government access. That is quite clear from the amendment. The further point was made in another place that they are also limited in practical terms because of the limited resources of the NAO, which cannot, therefore, go on a general roaming exercise. The point about the review team under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has already been addressed. However, the Sharman review cannot deliver the necessary statutory vehicle to entrench Parliament's rights. It is extremely important to bear that in mind.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, quoted from Alan Williams, who is a Labour member of the PAC. As she indicated, his words were very powerful and I do not intend to repeat them. However, I shall merely conclude with the final words of Alan Williams in that debate:
"I merely want to record that this is far more than a debate about auditing, it is about the power of Parliament against the Executive. In this Bill, the Executive is winning".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/7/00; col. 844.]
I do not want the executive to win; I want Parliament to win.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have again the difficulty that I have experienced on many previous occasions of choosing between addressing the amendment or the arguments that have been put forward in the debate. The arguments put forward in this debate bear no relation to the amendment now before the House. Those arguments reflect what I previously described: when we attempt to respond to the game of ping-pong that we are playing, the other side abandons the table and goes to another table next door.
When a clutch of amendments was put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on Third Reading in this House, I addressed them. I did so seriously and one by one. I drew attention to the fact that they would broaden the definition. If there was a slip of the tongue that allowed the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to think that I meant that they did not cover departmental accounts, that was a mistake. I made quite clear what I meant: they would broaden the definition to cover all of the activities of the National Audit Office. I addressed that. Neither the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, addressed that. No one addressed it. However, I addressed the amendments before us.
Now we have a single amendment which does not constitute the range of amendments which the House of Commons debated. The House of Commons debated the amendments which I addressed and which were not addressed by their proponents in this House. The thrust of the debate in the House of Commons, which was a high quality debate, did not concern the

445
amendment before us today; it concerned fundamentally Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. It concerned the amendments which raise the general issue of accountability for all public expenditure, not just departmental accounts. As I say, it was a good debate. But what did the speakers in that debate talk about? What did Mr David Davis choose to talk about? He talked about the fraud in the Focus Housing Association. That would not be covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, which is before us today. Fine speeches were made about the role of Parliament, which must be addressed. I have argued that they do not have to be addressed in the Bill; but they are certainly not addressed by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, today.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the problem with the Focus Housing Association was that the Comptroller and Auditor General had not been able to gain access to its documentation. Difficulties in obtaining access to that documentation were discussed. It seems to me that the amendment we are considering concerns this whole issue of access to documentation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, but it does not. These are not documents to which, under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, a department has or can obtain access to. This is a much wider issue. It is a proper issue and one which deserves to be addressed. However, it is not addressed by Amendment No. 7C.
That applies to many of the comments made in the course of the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, both referred to the speech of Mr David Davis. In that fine speech Mr Davis talked of the time-consuming and embarrassing need for an inquiry to simplify proceedings. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, went so far as to say that the Treasury would require the NAO to go cap in hand every time the latter wanted access to accounts. However, that is not what Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B achieve. They provide that Sharman recommendations on access to anything related to public expenditure can be implemented by secondary legislation. They are not to be used on an ad hoc basis as required. That is made clear by the fact that orders are to be made only by affirmative resolution.
It is intended that we shall have the ability to implement Sharman recommendations on access to any issue of public expenditure without the need to wait for primary legislation. That is what the amendment is about. It is not a retrograde amendment but one which pursues the line of recognition—I nearly said conciliation, but it is not conciliation—of the force of the arguments. That has been the line we have taken throughout the debate.
I have attempted again to address the amendment before us. I respect the speeches made by those on the Front Benches and by the noble Lords, Lord Roper and Lord Norton. However, they are still speeches
446
addressing the amendments that went to the Commons and not speeches about the amendment before us tonight. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press Amendment No. 7C.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 8, page 5, line 6, leave out ("of the documents relating to the department's accounts" and insert (relevant documents")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
6A Because it would alter the financial accounting and audit arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6A.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
7 Clause 8, page 5, line 12, leave out from ("documents") to end of line 16 and insert("-
(a) which are held or controlled by a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body, or
(b) which are documents to which a government department or a relevant non-departmental public body has, or can obtain, access.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—
7A Page 12, line 20, at end insert ("and")
7B Page 12, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert—
("(8) The Treasury may by order provide for section 8(1) to apply in relation to documents (in addition to those specified in section 8(2)) —

(a) of a specified description, or

(b) which are held or controlled either by a body of a specified kind or in specified circumstances.

(9) An order under subsection (8) may apply in respect of the examination of the accounts of a particular department or body or in respect of examinations under section 8(1) generally.
(10) An order under subsection (6) or (8)—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument,

(b) shall not be made unless the Treasury have consulted the Comptroller and Auditor General, and

(c) shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

447
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

LORDS AMENDMENT

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  7C Lord Higgins rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 7 but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof, to leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 7".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move Amendment No. 7C.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 7 but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof, to leave out the words after "House" and insert "do insist on its Amendment No. 7"
  4.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7C) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 131; Not-Contents, 137.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Ferrers, E.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Flather, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Fookes, B.

  Barker, B.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Hanham, B.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Buscombe, B.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Byford, B.

  Henley, L.[Teller]

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Hooper, B.

  Chadlington, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Howe, E.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Coe, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Cox, B.

  Jopling, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Denham, L.

  Kirkham, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Laird, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Elles, B.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B

  448

  Lucas, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Ludford, B.

  Renton, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Rogan, L.

  McNally, L.

  Roper, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Selborne, E.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Newby, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Tebbit, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Tope, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Trefgame, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Waddington, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Redesdale, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B

  Alli, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Amos, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Gale, B.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Bach, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Borrie, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Brett, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Carter, L.[Teller]

  Healey, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Christopher, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  David, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

  Desai, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Judd, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Layard, L.

  Elder, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Levy, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  449

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Rea, L.

  Longford, E.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Richard, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Serota, B.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Simon, V.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Orme, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Peston, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Puttnam, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): The Question is that this House does not insist on its Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 7A and 7B in lieu thereof.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  8 Clause 8, page 5 line 21, at end insert—
  ("(4) The rights of access conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercisable in relation to any document relating primarily to accounts which—

  (a) are subject to audit by the Auditor General for Scotland or the Auditor General for Wales, and are not also subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, or

  (b) are subject to audit under section 2 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 or section 97 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and do not relate to a body specified in section 98(1) of the National Health Service Act 1977.

  (5) In this section "relevant non-departmental public body" means a non-departmental public body which is one for which the department whose accounts are undergoing examination is responsible; and for this purpose "non-departmental public body" means a body—

  (a) which is not a government department or comprised within a government department,

  (b) which exercises public functions of a governmental nature which might otherwise fall to be exercised by central government, and

  (c) an officer of which has been designated by a government department as its accounting officer in respect of the preparation of its accounts.")

  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  8A Because it would alter the financial accounting and audit arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons
  450
  do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Football (Disorder) Bill
4.48 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I have a slightly unusual invitation to offer the Government. It is not unexpected because I have given them notice. My invitation is that they should adjourn today's proceedings until tomorrow. My reason for doing so, quite simply, is that I tabled three amendments of some importance which were moved at about 10.30 p.m. last night. After the Minister had conceded that he would be able to give me additional information if I tabled my amendments today, I withdrew last night's amendments on the express ground that there was an understanding that I would be able to bring forward these matters without objection on Third Reading.
In regard to one of the items on which he could not at that time help, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said,
"I undertake to look further at the point. Again, if the noble and learned Lord tables these amendments tomorrow"—
that is today—
"we will endeavour to respond to this point".—[Official Report, 25/7/00, col. 394.].
On that basis, as soon as the Public Bill Office opened I asked for my amendment to be put down again, with a significant alteration—an alteration designed to persuade the noble Lord that what I was asking for was nothing like as strenuous as he thought. I then learned for the first time that because of Standing Order No. 48, and I quote:
"No amendment, other than a privilege amendment, shall be moved upon the Third Reading of a public Bill unless notice of the amendment has been given to the Clerk not later than the day preceding that on which the amendment is to be moved, in sufficient time to enable the amendment to be printed and circulated in the form in which it is to be moved".
I understand that the Public Bill Office let it be known yesterday that it normally closed the list at 6 p.m. but on yesterday's occasion they would be more flexible. That did not sound as if at 10.30 it was going to be possible, and in any event I wished to think again about the amendment to see whether I could

451
reduce the extent of my demands, which the noble Lord, with characteristic courtesy, had suggested might be thought to be excessive.
The Public Bill Office was, unbeknown to me, still available to take minutes through the devotion to duty of their Principal Clerk up until midnight, I believe. But no one had pointed that out and no one had suggested it, either to me or to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. We were both under the impression, or at least I was, that in this super-fast-track Bill time limits had been waived: otherwise there would be absurdities. It would mean that if the Bill had gone on, as it nearly did, beyond midnight there would be no prospect of putting any amendments down in respect of that material—
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is not quite correct on that last point because the parliamentary day does not end until the business of that day is completed. So even if that stage of the Bill had continued until 2 o'clock in the morning that was still the day on which it started. The Public Bill Office was open until after midnight, and a phone call there would have provided the answer.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it was not a phone call that the noble Lord the Minister thought was necessary: otherwise he would not have said to me that he would look further at a particular point if I tabled my amendments tomorrow. He said that at col. 394 of Hansard. However, I am grateful for the Chief Whip's intervention. I always learn something from him whenever he stands up, sometimes to my benefit and sometimes not.
I was about to stress to your Lordships the importance of the amendment. When a number of us attended a meeting which the Home Secretary called about a week ago, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, raised a point about the sunset clause. I raised the point which is covered by my amendments. Quite simply, it is this: that if notices were to be served by the police based upon their suspicions or based upon their belief, it was then right that the respondent to those notices should be given proper details as to the basis of the belief or the suspicions alleged.
The Government had stressed that these were in the nature of civil proceedings, and it is established procedure in civil proceedings that if you make an unparticularised allegation you have to face up to a request for further and better particulars. Take the simplest of cases: if the rather incompetent draftsman had entered particulars of claim or a statement of claim alleging that a driver was negligent, full stop, and if as a result of that negligence the plaintiff had suffered damage, he would immediately be required to provide further and better particulars of the alleged negligence, stating the facts of the matters relied upon in support of that allegation. In other words, was the negligence in driving too fast, not staying awake, driving on the wrong side of the road or whatever it was?
Many of your Lordships have taken the view that these proceedings were wrongly called civil when they were criminal proceedings, or certainly more of a
452
criminal kind than civil. In the criminal code it is a basic and fundamental rule of natural justice that you must be provided with full particulars of any allegation which the prosecution is relying upon. In both fields, civil and criminal, that is because it is only just that you should know what is the case you are required to meet.
The result of my making this type of observation at the meeting was held as an important contribution, and the two contributions which were in fact looked upon as being of significance were the sunset clause and my clause in regard to notice. On Second Reading, the noble Lord the Minister in his winding-up speech said:
"The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, made a number of helpful detailed points about drafting, particularly on new Sections 21A and 21B. We are of course going to pay very close attention to his advice, and I should like to place on record our thanks to him for the advice and encouragement that he gave us during the open session".—[Official Report, 20/7/00; col. 1258.]
The Bill itself had recognised the point that I had made by providing in new Section 21A, which is concerned with summary detention, that the police officer who had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the respondent had at any time caused or contributed to any violence or disorder and had 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 would be required to give his reasons for detaining him in writing. These reasons, quite simply, could be the grounds he had for suspecting and his belief. I accordingly requested that it should be an obligation to provide full particulars of the facts and matters relied upon in support of his suspicion for belief. I did likewise under new Section 21B.
I asked the Minister specifically if he could tell me what he envisaged would be covered by the reasons. He was unable to do so, but offered to make inquiries and provide that information today. The same applied to the grounds under new Section 21B. He said that guidance would be provided. He was unable to tell us what the guidance would be but promised that it would be provided tomorrow—today that is. This important matter of informing a respondent of the nature of the case that he has to meet under this very strange legislation, with allegations of suspicion and belief being the foundation of the police's case, just does not exist at the moment. It will not exist unless the Minister is prepared to adjourn today's proceedings until tomorrow. By that time I shall be able to comply with the requirements of standing orders. It cannot do the Government any harm because many noble Lords thought that was the result of yesterday's successful amendment on this very subject.
On the other hand, if the Government adhere to today's proceedings, there will be an unfair result in a Bill which is replete with possibilities of further unfairness.
5 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the House was quite clear in its wish yesterday. It wished the Bill to be organised so that we could debate Report stage and Third Reading

453
on separate days. The Chief Whip therefore made arrangements for amendments to be accepted until midnight. He did not tell any of us. He certainly did not tell me. He did not tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. None of us knew about that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I did not make arrangements. That was a matter entirely for the Public Bill Office.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, none of us knew that. All we knew was the standard procedure. I am not at all surprised that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, was misled by the remarks of the Minister into thinking that the Public Bill Office was—as would usually be the case—closed and would be open for business the following morning.
In the Motion which we successfully amended yesterday, the Government asked for standing orders to be set aside for the purpose of taking the remaining stages on one day. The right procedure for the usual channels to have followed was to give us that same width—to have allowed standing orders to be set aside so that amendments could be made when noble Lords were fresh and awake and had had a chance to look at Hansard and consider the previous day's proceedings. Standing orders are for the convenience of the House. If we are to take two stages of a Bill on successive days, we must have arrangements that allow those noble Lords who come in in the morning and read Hansard to put down amendments for consideration at Third Reading on the second day. It is not right that we should be prohibited from so doing. If the Government wish for their convenience to have the two stages of the Bill taken on consecutive days, they must suspend the standing orders that prevent noble Lords putting down amendments to that second stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I understood—of course one has to accept it, one is never there—that the usual channels made a deal. That deal was, as I understand it, that the Bill would pass by Friday. That was the deal; that it would pass in that way. That pre-empted of course the functions of this House. But let that pre-emption go for a moment. The deal that was made has pre-empted in this manner. It has worked with manifest unfairness to the noble and learned Lord, and in relation to a very important aspect of the Bill—whether particulars are given on the criminal side or the civil side. Of course without them there is inevitable injustice. The House is indebted to the noble and learned Lord on this occasion for having drawn the attention of the House to that matter.
I respectfully suggest that the deal can be kept if Third Reading is dealt with on Friday. The noble and learned Lord can put down his amendment and anyone else can put down an amendment. Noble Lords may wish to do so. We have been pre-empted twice. Talk about double jeopardy; there is a good example of it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps it would help the House if I said a few words. As the noble Lord, Lord
454
Campbell of Alloway, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are aware, the standing order says that manuscript amendments cannot be tabled for Third Reading. In other words, they cannot be tabled on the morning of the debate. It is true that my noble friend the Minister said, with a slip of the tongue, that they could be tabled tomorrow. We should all know the standing order; it is quite clear. So any noble Lord who wished to table amendments for Third Reading had only to ask the Public Bill Office, "What is the arrangement because I wish to table an amendment for Third Reading?" He would have been told that the Public Bill Office would stay open until the House adjourned, which it did.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have enormous respect for the Chief Whip in other situations, but what he has just said is an outrage. Yesterday the Minister—that it was a slip of the tongue has only now been admitted—nevertheless advised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that he could table his amendments "tomorrow". Tomorrow is today.
My noble friend Lord Renton suggested a compromise which, sadly, was not accepted the other day when we had a similar debate. I should like to suggest one now. The House has co-operated to this point to allow the Government to have their Bill before the House rises on Friday. All the normal intervals between the different stages of the Bill have, by agreement, collapsed. It would make eminent sense also to make an adjustment to the rules which pertain to a Bill when the normal intervals are not observed. If that is the case, the Minister—having now accepted that it was a slip of the tongue when giving advice to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner—should accept that there should be a short interval and that manuscript amendments should be accepted, especially as the House knows about those amendments. They were referred to yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, agreed to bring information to the House today in response to those amendments. If he does not accede to this request, I hope that the House itself, as indeed it did the other day, will take a view on the matter.
Lord Richard: My Lords, yesterday we had a debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Noble Lords expressed their views with varying degrees of certainty and enthusiasm. We came to a certain conclusion. I am bound to say that I found the decision somewhat confusing. But it was afterwards clarified that we would have the Report stage yesterday and we would have the Third Reading today. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—that was the deal that was come to in the usual channels after the vote on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, yesterday afternoon. If that is the deal, I can suggest only that the House should stick to it.
I find the two propositions really quite extraordinary. The one just advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was that if a Minister expresses a view on a matter of procedure, that somehow or

455
other overrides the provisions in the standing orders and therefore that entitles the House in those circumstances to pretend that the standing order is in a different form from that which it is in. I find that an astonishing proposition.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in answer to that point, does the noble Lord agree that, if the Government give an undertaking in the House through a Minister, that entitles the Government to postpone a stage of a Bill?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am talking about the procedures. Everyone knows what the procedures are on Third Reading. Everyone knows that, under standing orders, one cannot put down a manuscript amendment at Third Reading. The fact that a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and gives an opinion that is contrary to the standing orders cannot bind the Government; nor indeed can it conceivably bind the House.
The second proposition I find a little strange is that advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I had the experience of appearing before the noble and learned Lord when he sat as a judge. If I had stood up in front of the noble and learned Lord and said, "I am terribly sorry. I thought that the procedure was different from that which it is. Please will you now allow me to tear up the rules of procedure and pretend that they are otherwise than the white book suggests?", I do not think that the noble and learned Lord would have given me a very good hearing.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, with respect, I have not made that suggestion. I have accepted the error and have merely suggested that, in all fairness, the Government should agree to adjourn today's proceedings until tomorrow. There are very few amendments to be considered today. They are all government amendments. There is no hardship in putting Third Reading over until tomorrow. That is what the Government should do. I have not suggested that the concession made by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has changed anything except the merits of the case and the strength of my submission that, in all fairness, the Government should do what I have suggested.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, yesterday we had a long debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. It was said by noble Lords on all sides that we are masters of our own procedures. We voted to overturn the agreement which had been reached by the usual channels precisely and only to allow a reasonable interval between Report and Third Reading. The arrangements that we are being told have been agreed between the two Front Benches prevent the substance of the vote yesterday being implemented. Frankly, if it is impossible for Members of the House to table amendments to be debated at Third Reading, then yesterday's vote was a totally nugatory exercise.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Only three amendments have been tabled for Third Reading. They are all government amendments. We should look
456
to the substance of this matter and not become bogged down in, if I dare say it, the bogus technicalities raised by some noble Lords. The substance is that we had a long and earnest debate about the way in which the Bill has been proceeded with. It would be a total farce if we were now to proceed to Third Reading without a single amendment from any opposition party.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in reaching a decision on this matter, the Government and indeed the Opposition Front Bench should bear in mind that this is a most unusual Bill. If we do not get the provisions right, injustice could occur, for which the Government and others would never be forgiven. It would be so easy for us to make a further attempt to get it right in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. Instead of pursuing the Third Reading now, we should adjourn it until the first item after Questions tomorrow. We could deal with the few amendments that there are—they will be mostly government and formal amendments—and present them to Members of another place first thing on Friday. They could either agree with them or send them back to us, and we would not then try to pursue the matter further.
The choice is this: do we stick rigorously to our rules of procedure and the decision of the usual channels, or do we try to get the Bill right, in order to avoid future injustice, by doing what has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and other noble Lords, and deal with Third Reading tomorrow?
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Bill is full of some fairly unhappy precedents. That is why it is having a sticky time in this House. It would be a great pity if we added a new precedent. We all know that Ministers frequently make slips of the tongue. There is nothing unusual in that. If a Minister comes back to the House and says that he or she has made a slip of the tongue, that is well understood and no one feels too hard about it. That is what has always happened in the past. However, if a Minister says that it was a slip of the tongue when he gave an undertaking and therefore the undertaking, on which others have relied, is to be washed away, that would indeed be an unhappy precedent to set.
I simply cannot see why the Government should be so obstinate. As noble Lords have said, the Third Reading could be taken tomorrow without any great problem. The agreement entered into by the usual channels could be maintained. I must say that I am riot bound by agreements entered into by the usual channels. I am no part of the usual channels and I am not consulted. Most of us are in that position. None the less, where we can, we like to go along with what is agreed for the expeditious conduct of business in the House. However, there is no reason why the agreement that the Bill should be delivered on Friday should not be honoured. We can discuss the Bill tomorrow. Why on earth should we not do so?
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I think that the House is getting on to dangerous ground on two or three points.

457
First, it is true that the usual channels are the servants of the House and its Members. It is equally true that the freedoms of all individual Members of the House are protected by our standing orders. Therefore, if we are to protect our own rights, we need to be careful about how we approach sudden changes in terms of standing orders. In fact, if we wish to change standing orders, the proper way of doing so is through consideration by the Procedure Committee and agreement to any recommendations by the House.
The usual channels are the servants of the House. We could not work in the smooth, business-like way which allows our independence as individuals to be maintained without the usual channels negotiating arrangements for business. Therefore, if the usual channels entered into an arrangement based on the broad picture, it would be an undermining of our procedures and of our confidence in our arrangements if that agreement was overturned, as it was.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord must have been away from the House for a while. Had we stuck to the intervals prescribed for public business, we would not have attempted to go through Committee, Report and Third Reading on the same day.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the noble Lord is not listening. I said that the House agreed to suspension of the standing orders as they relate to the timing of this Bill. We are therefore acting within the standing orders.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words. This is the second time in three days that we have held this kind of discussion. The House works by agreement and by co-operation, as a result of discussions between the Front Benches and through the usual channels. I can confirm that there has been no breach of standing orders.
Noble Lords will recall a point I made in our debate yesterday when the House decided that a split should be introduced between Report stage and Third Reading: I immediately made arrangements to hold the Third Reading today. However, I pointed out that the arrangements for the Bill had been agreed. In fact, the days on which we had the Second Reading and were to have had the Committee stage, the Report stage and Third Reading were days suggested by the Official Opposition, to which I agreed. Nothing was said until the debate yesterday in which the House decided to introduce a split between Report and Third Reading. That was because the Committee sat until 10 past five o'clock of that morning.
The omission of one word in my noble friend's response has caused the problem we are now discussing. If my noble friend had said, "If the noble Lord tables his amendments for tomorrow", there would have been no problem. Noble Lords know well the rules of this House. Many noble Lords present in the Chamber have been involved with this Bill. Noble Lords know that manuscript amendments cannot be
458
tabled at Third Reading. Surely anyone who wished to table an amendment at Third Reading should have asked me or, still better, inquired at the Public Bill Office or sought the advice of the Clerks and authorities of the House. Noble Lords could have asked what needed to be done to table an amendment at Third Reading. Noble Lords would have been told of arrangements made by the Public Bill Office—not by me—to meet that eventuality. Those arrangements were in place. The fact that noble Lords did not attempt to avail themselves of that information is not my problem.
If, every other day, we are to have a debate in which the House seeks to take issue with agreements that have been made between our old friends "the usual channels"—who aim to ensure that the business of this House proceeds in an orderly manner—it will be very difficult for the House to retain its reputation for upholding the agreement and co-operation usually demonstrated on all sides.
I have discussed the problem of adjourning Third Reading with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. My noble friend has ensured that a full reply on all the points that have been raised is ready to be given to the noble and learned Lord.
I suggest to noble Lords that it would be better if we now continued with Third Reading, as tabled, and proceed with the Bill which must go back tonight to the Commons to fit in with the timetable there. That is in case, for a variety of reasons, it needs to be returned to this place.
I stress again that there has been no breach of standing orders. However, there has been a failure on the part of noble Lords themselves to check what they should have done if they had wanted to table amendments at Third Reading.
Lord McNally: My Lords, explanations and justifications are going to dig us deeper into this hole. Can the noble Lord the Chief Whip answer one point? Lords amendments are amendable in another place. Would it be possible, perhaps with the co-operation of the Government, to arrange for the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to be tabled in another place and debated there?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that could take place only if an amendment were consequential on an amendment that had been made in this place. That is the difficulty.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord the Chief Whip, having decided to take the Bill today, must have appreciated—certainly if he heard the response given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—that people were not going to put down their amendments in time. It was open to him to move that the standing order be suspended to enable the amendments to be tabled today. Is not the right answer at this point to move that the amendments, although now suspended, be tabled and for the Bill to be taken later today—if the noble Lord is so keen to complete it today? That would allow a little time for the amendments to be put down.

459
It would be perfectly easy for the noble Lord himself to suspend the standing order. He moved to suspend the standing order yesterday in an attempt to get the Bill passed in one day. Surely he could move a lesser Motion to suspend this standing order and thus enable the amendment to be tabled.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the point made by the noble Viscount. The reason why we were able to hold yesterday's debate on the suspension of standing orders was because a Motion had been put down on the Order Paper.
Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of Standing Order No. 87:
"No Motion shall be granted for making any new Standing Order, or for dispensing with a Standing Order of the House, unless the notice shall have been given in the Order Paper to consider the said Motion".
It is quite clear that we cannot now move a Motion to suspend standing orders. It should have been tabled last night so that it could have appeared on the Order Paper for today.
Although I appreciate that noble Lords feel strongly about this matter, I suggest that we should now get on with our business. I repeat, there has been no breach of standing orders. Immediately after Tuesday's debate, I met with the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. We agreed to leave a day between Report and Third Reading and to take Third Reading today. Everyone agreed with that. No complaints were made when it was clear that Third Reading was put down on the Order Paper for today.
I repeat: it is not my responsibility to ensure that noble Lords check on the procedures. All noble Lords know and understand the procedures as regards manuscript amendments. There are plenty of lawyers in this House. Why did no one think to ask me, the Clerks or the Public Bill Office about the procedure covering amendments to be tabled at Third Reading? I think that noble Lords forgot to do this and now they are making a meal of their own forgetfulness.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, perhaps I may make two very brief points. My action yesterday had two purposes. The first was to point out the undesirability of omitting the normal intervals, a point which I suspect has been underlined by our discussions this afternoon.
My second point, which I made specifically, was,
"It is also clear that, under Standing Order 48 it would not be possible for any amendments to be tabled for Third Reading. That could be a serious handicap in terms of our wish to improve the Bill".—[Official Report, 25/7/00; col. 284.]
That is the central point here. Surely what we are really discussing is not a point of procedure, but the need to improve the Bill.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this episode has vividly demonstrated the difficulty and danger of legislating at the high speed we have been trying to achieve over the past few days.
460
The point raised by the noble and learned Lord —"affecting natural justice"—was raised initially at the meeting with the Home Secretary to consider the draft Bill. The Government responded to that in the Bill. It was again raised by the noble and learned Lord in the debate on Second Reading held only last Thursday, although for some of us that already seems like a long time ago. It came up again in Committee—at 4.30 on Tuesday morning, but still in Monday's sitting. It was then discussed in the understandable absence of the noble and learned Lord. A response of a sort was given. We returned to the matter again on Report—at half past 10 last night. It was at that point that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, made his remark about amendments to be tabled tomorrow.
Those noble Lords who have been present for all the stages of this Bill can well accept that the noble Lord might easily have made a slip. It was 10.30 at night; all noble Lords had been up until gone five o'clock that morning; what is more, we had been debating the Bill since directly after Questions yesterday, on top of the previous day's sitting. So we can all accept that the noble Lord made a mistake at that point. But the fact remains that we have got into this difficulty.
My noble friend Lord Lucas made a good suggestion which should be considered by the Procedure Committee; namely, that should these circumstances be repeated in the future and Standing Order No. 48 is suspended so that two stages, in this case Report and Third Reading, can be taken on the same day, the standing order preventing manuscript amendments being taken at Third Reading should also be suspended. I believe that the Procedure Committee should look into that.
There is a point worth making about the usual intervals between stages of legislation. There are two types of interval in our procedures. There is the standing order which it was proposed yesterday should be suspended, but was not, stating that we cannot take two stages of a Bill in the same day. But in the Companion there is also a less binding requirement that there should be two weekends between this, a fortnight between that, and so on—the conventional longer intervals. These, of course, have been drastically suspended for this Bill, and we have been considering the Bill day by day without suspending the standing order, merely breaking the convention laid down in the Companion. But it was also proposed that we should go further and suspend the standing order as well, and the House rejected that yesterday. The question is what we should do now, having arrived at this position.
It seems to me that the first thing that should happen is that in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, should do his best to answer the points raised by the noble and learned Lord and attempt to reassure him about the way in which they will be dealt with more fully than he was able to do at half past ten last night. Then we can decide whether to proceed with the Third Reading and the government amendments that have been tabled.

461
One of the fortunate consequences of the House carrying the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford yesterday is that the Government have had some further thoughts and, being more understanding of the procedures than some of us, have managed to get their amendments under the wire for consideration today, which they would otherwise have been prevented from doing. So if the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will now do his best to reassure the noble and learned Lord, we may be able to make progress.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before my noble friend does so, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Cope. We did suspend standing orders yesterday to take all stages of the Finance Bill in one day. It is not uncommon for the intervals between stages to be collapsed. We have dealt with emergency and other important legislation. I shall not go into all the arguments as to why the Government feel that this legislation must be on the statute book before we rise for the Summer Recess. As noble Lords know, there is a game in Germany next week which could be affected. We can bring this matter before the Procedure Committee, and I undertake to make sure that, on any future occasion when it is proposed that we should take the Report stage and Third Reading on successive days, everyone is made aware of what is happening.
The noble Lord rather gave the game away. He said that some of us were a bit forgetful of procedures or were not too sure about the procedures. I think that that is what has happened. I am afraid that your Lordships have slightly overlooked the procedures of the House in this case. I undertake to make sure that arrangements are made so that when Report and Third Reading are taken on successive days everyone knows the arrangements for tabling amendments for Third Reading.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, just said. At its next meeting the Procedure Committee should examine all the issues involved over the past few days. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that we were all aware of the standing order. I have been in the House 25 years and I must confess that I had not known of its existence. No doubt that represents gross negligence on my part; nevertheless, until this morning I was not aware of it.
The sensible idea proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, was that we should now hear from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, who owes an explanation to the House for the words that he used last night when he inadvertently misled the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. However, I very much hope, if it is at all possible—I have discussed this with my noble friend Lord McNally—that the issues raised in the amendment might be included in an amendment to Lords amendments tabled in the Commons. It is not right that the issues repeatedly drawn to our attention
462
by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, should not be ventilated by means of an amendment in one House or the other.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so that we understand the procedures that we now face, perhaps I may ask the Government Chief Whip whether my understanding is correct. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will now speak in answer to the all the points made; the Question will then be put, without any further opportunity for any other noble Lord to speak; and if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, feels that he has not received the response that he wishes, and wishes therefore that the Third Reading should be postponed until tomorrow, he should at that point shout, "Not Content", and then we can all follow, or not follow, as the case may be. Is my understanding of the procedure correct?
Lord Richard: My Lords, before my noble friend rises to reply, I am not prepared to accept that deal. If we are going to have Third Reading starting now, in the course of which the Minister will give his explanation, I entirely accept that. It is sensible. But if the idea is that the Minister gives his explanation and we then have this wrangle again, that does not seem sensible at all.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should certainly have been prepared, if advised that it was possible, for the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, wants to be tabled in the Commons, and would have suggested that. Unfortunately, it cannot be done because amendments relating to reasons for detention and grounds for notice could not be taken in the Commons. Only amendments which are consequential on amendments made in this place can be taken, and none has been made.
My noble friend Lord Bassam has a very full reply to all the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and has discussed them. Before I sit down—I hope for the last time in this discussion—I would express the hope that this House is not going to get into the habit, after all its years of agreement and co-operation, of every other day deciding itself, rather than through the usual channels, whether we should take a Third Reading. We must make this House work.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may make one point. I telephoned the Public Bill Office and asked it to repeat my amendments, with an amendment. The amendments suggested that the police should give full particulars of the facts and matters relied upon. That had been objected to by the Minister on the grounds that it involved too big an obligation. So I amended my proposal and dictated the amendment to the Public Bill Office, which rang back later to say that it was not able to be tabled because I was out of time. So what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, should be dealing with is the amendment, which merely deletes the word "full" before "particulars" and inserts, in lieu of "full", "essential".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I had not intended to produce a major procedural wrangle. I

463
obviously owe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, a fulsome apology for having misled him at 10.30 yesterday evening when I endeavoured to help him in suggesting that he should table the amendments again for tomorrow—I obviously got the words wrong—so that we could provide him with an explanation as to why we were content with our position. I apologise unreservedly to the noble and learned Lord. I also apologise unreservedly to your Lordships' House. I was merely trying to be helpful, because I had appreciated that the House wanted to have an opportunity to hear what the Government had to say in response to the noble and learned Lord's points; that seemed to me proper and right. I have also greatly appreciated the degree of co-operation which the Government have enjoyed in seeking to achieve this piece of legislation in the week before the Summer Recess. There is common agreement on all sides that, for the most part, we have had civilised debates and tried to solve problems as we have gone along.
I said that I would offer an explanation to the noble and learned Lord when he raised these matters yesterday. The noble and learned Lord now advises me that one of his amendments adopts a slightly different position. I have not had the opportunity fully to think it through, but I shall certainly provide the information that I promised yesterday. The noble and learned Lord asked why the Government had not accepted Amendment No. 39 in his name tabled last night. That amendment would have added a reference to "the grounds set out in section 21A" in new Section 21B.
I am extremely reluctant to disagree with the noble and learned Lord on a point of statutory interpretation. However, I am advised that the amendment is not necessary and that to make it would he repetitive and confusing. New Section 21A(1) already provides that the powers in both new Sections 21 A and 21 B are exercisable only if a constable has the grounds set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of new Section 21A. It follows that the powers in new Section 21 B can be exercised only where those grounds exist. I hope that the noble and learned Lord accepts that explanation.
I also explained to the House last night why, reluctantly, I was unable to accept the noble and learned Lord's suggestion that "full particulars" should be given in the reasons for detention under new Section 21A or the grounds in new Section 21B. The noble and learned Lord asked what I envisaged would be contained in the reasons and grounds to be given. In relation to the power of detention under new Section 21A, I have explained that the section already goes beyond what the common law, required under the doctrine of Christie v. Leachinsky, and what PACE requires on arrest under Section 28; namely, that the person arrested must be told the grounds for his arrest.
New Section 21A goes further and requires that the person be given the grounds in writing. This is a short-term power of detention to make enquiries to decide whether or not to issue a notice under new Section 21B. I do not envisage that the grounds will go further than to explain the provision under which the detention
464
takes place, the statutory grounds for detention and the fact that consideration is being given to the issue of a notice under new Section 21B. We believe that that is sufficient to inform the person detained of the reason for his detention.
As to the grounds to be stated in the notice under new Section 21B, I fully accept that more detail is required to enable adequate preparation for the forthcoming court appearance. It may not be practical in every case to give full particulars of all the evidence to be relied on at the hearing. But I certainly expect, and will ensure that guidance to the police reflects, that the notice will contain details of any previous convictions on which it is sought to rely and the reasons for believing that the person is likely to be involved in football-related violence. I shall certainly encourage the police to include as much information as they can at the time the notice is issued. Obviously, further evidence may come to light between the issue of the notice and the court hearing.
The speed with which we hope to bring these matters to court may not allow for the full advance disclosure which is normal in civil proceedings. I hope noble Lords agree that it is of the utmost importance to bring these cases before a court as quickly as possible. That may mean that full details will not be available at the time of the issue of the notice. But it would not be right to delay issue of the notice or delay a court hearing, and potentially increase the period of detention, simply so that a comprehensive document can be prepared.
I can assure the House that guidance will emphasise the importance of giving the individual concerned as much advance notice as possible of the evidence against him. The availability of legal advice and assistance will help in this respect. The respondents in these cases will have access to legal advice. If they need more time to prepare for the hearing the court will be able to adjourn for that reason. I hope that the noble and learned Lord accepts that we shall do as much as we can to meet the spirit of his amendments.
I turn to the noble and learned Lord's further amendment relating to the provision of essential rather than full particulars. I am afraid that the same range of objections applies to providing on the face of the Bill that the police must provide essential as opposed to full particulars. As much information as possible should be given in the notice under new Section 21B, but it would not be right to prevent reliance On new information which came to light after the issue of the notice and before the hearing.
I assure the House that guidance to the police will ensure that as many particulars as possible are included in the notice. We intend to consider carefully and consult upon the range of guidance that we give the police in dealing with these matters. I said that I would attempt to share that information with the noble and learned Lord. Clearly, the publication of that guidance and consultation upon it should be as full as possible. I believe that we are approaching this matter in the right order.

465
We have been over these matters on two previous occasions. I hope that my explanation satisfies your Lordships. I again apologise for inadvertently provoking what has turned out to be a rather lengthy but interesting procedural debate.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, my particulars are criticised because they require the information to be given in writing. If one looks at page 9, line 21, of the Bill one sees that the obligation inserted by the Government is that reasons for detaining the individual must be given in writing. Therefore, we are ad idem on that particular matter. A new criticism has emerged which is not supported by the Bill now before your Lordships. The Minister says in effect that one must not oblige those concerned to give the essential grounds; they may find it difficult to do so. Further, the Government will provide unpublished guidance to safeguard the defendant. People must rely on the Government to get the guidance right and the police to comply with that guidance. All of that is meant to protect a person who is at risk of losing his liberty, not on the basis of evidence or hard facts but suspicion—that is the word used in the Bill—and belief. I suggest to noble Lords that that is quite inadequate.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Schedule 1 [Amendments of the Football Spectators Act 1989]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("absolutely or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government have reflected on the reasons put forward in Committee by noble Lords opposite as to why it is inappropriate to impose a football banning order on someone who has been convicted of a football-related offence but has received an absolute discharge for it. Despite the fact that this provision is carried over from earlier legislation, we have concluded that we can do without this provision, and today we have tabled an amendment which will have that effect. I thank those noble Lords who were, quite rightly on reflection, insistent on this matter and drew it to our attention. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches put down these amendments, and I spoke to this particular amendment, I believe, just before or just after midnight on Monday. I am, of course, grateful to the Government for taking up this point, but a certain amount of time could have been saved if the Government had accepted the amendment at the time instead of putting forward arguments, as they did on that occasion, as to why they should not take it on board. However, I am grateful that they have changed their minds.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a valuable change, albeit a modest one in its importance. For the information of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, he was
466
speaking at about 1.40 a.m. when he last moved this particular amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, rejected it in absolute terms. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord is now proposing it to us, we support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 10, line 11, leave out ("appropriate chief officer of police") and insert ("constable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 arise from a discussion at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made the point that British citizens could be issued with a notice under new Section 21B but that there would be no appropriate chief officer of police to make the application under new Section 14B if the person did not reside in England and Wales. This caused the Government to look again at new Section 21B(4) and made us alive to a more general difficulty. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for alerting us to the problem.
We envisage in most cases that the powers in new Section 21A and 21B will not be exercised in the individual's home area but near a point of embarkation. In that case, it would not be appropriate for the chief officer of police for the area in which the person resides to be deemed to be the applicant for the order.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 therefore amend new Section 21B(4), so that the applicant for the banning order in the case of someone issued a notice under the new Section is the constable who issues the notice rather than the chief officer for the person's home address.
I hope that is a clear amendment, and I am confident that the amendment will achieve the objective we are seeking. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I confess to having moved an amendment in Committee relating to this provision but it omitted the proposal that British citizens could be caught under new Section 21A and subsequent sections. It covered people resident in England and Wales, referred to in new Sections 14A and 14B. I pointed out, I believe rightly, that the wording in the Bill was ineffective. I very much hoped that the Government would go away and look at my amendment and decide that only the English and Welsh should be collared at the ports, rather than British citizens. The Government have come back and emphasised the fact by making this section relate to British citizens being collared at the ports.
We are looking at a Bill whose basic arrangements in new Sections 14A and 14B, and, indeed, in the underlying Football Spectators Act 1989, relate to people resident in England and Wales and to their misbehaviour abroad. All the penalties and remedies are designed for people living in England and Wales, but in new Section 21C we suddenly have the concept that those who can be collared by the police at the ports are to be British citizens. People resident in Scotland cannot be caught under new Sections 14A or

467
14B but if they happen to try and go out through the port of Dover they will suddenly find themselves caught by the provisions of this Bill.
I do not believe there has ever been an explanation from the Minister as to why there is this difference in the Bill. Under what circumstances is it intended that people who are resident in Scotland should be collared by the police when they try to leave through an English or Welsh port? Why has the Bill been written in that way? Why is it wished to have jurisdiction over the Scots in those circumstances, or, indeed, over people who might be living in France or Australia or anywhere else in the world, just because they happen to leave from an English port even though they are not resident in England?
Presumably, the Government have a list of undesirable Scots and they know they cannot collar them in Scotland because the Scottish Executive will not allow them the power to do it. But if those people have the temerity to try and leave through Dover they will find themselves nabbed. If they are nabbed the consequences are quite spectacular. The remedies are designed for the English and Welsh, which means that the first thing the Scots will be told is that they cannot go home to Scotland. They will have to hang around in England and Wales until their day in the magistrates' court comes up, and that may be postponed for some while. Indeed, if they announce their intention to go back to Scotland—as they might reasonably do—the magistrates have the power to imprison them and keep them in England.
When those people receive the banning order—because presumably the police are not going to collar a Scot unless they have reasonable evidence against him—they will have to come back to England, register at a police station and surrender their passports every time England plays a match abroad. That could be 20 times or so a year, so these unfortunate Scots will be brought scurrying back across the Border 20 times a year. It is ridiculous.
What is the purpose of the extension of this jurisdiction to Scotland? It is indeed much wider, although I suspect that not many Australian football thugs will be travelling through Dover to matches in France. It may well be that people resident or working in Europe might be collared at Dover at some stage, and that may be part of the Government's intention. They may believe that there are people involved in football violence who are actually resident on the continent of Europe and want to be able to catch them any time they come through the port of Dover. It does, as an extension of the injustices done by this Bill, have an extraordinary lack of sensitivity for the feelings of those Scots who will be caught by this provision, and for the consequent feelings of their nation. This really does take the Bill into new territory even by its standards.
I urge the Minister to think again and to accept the ineffectiveness of this part of the Bill with which the Government have landed themselves in relation to Scots, or, if not, at least to make some further amendment in the Commons to make it quite clear
468
that the only people who are going to be stopped at the ports are residents of England and Wales and not those from north of the Border or from Northern Ireland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas drew my attention to this matter and I have listened with interest to what he has said. I am not sure how many people resident in Scotland will want to go abroad to a football match in which England play, unless, of course, it is to support the opposing team, whoever they may be. I am not saying that because I necessarily support it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. When I attended the England versus Germany match in Charleroi I saw a Scottish flag at the German end, so it is just possible that they may have travelled abroad to support the Germans.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think the Minister is probably right. I am not saying that I approve of this attitude but I certainly recognise that it exists, so it is possible that somebody resident in Scotland might go abroad to support the opposing team. Of course, there could be an Englishman resident in Scotland who goes abroad to support the English team. Leaving aside the merits or demerits of the whole of the Bill, what happens when that person is stopped at Dover and is expected to turn up at the police station in England on future occasions to hand in his passport and therefore not be able to go abroad to a football match? That seems to me an unnecessary burden on the individual.
Perhaps it goes a little further. What happens if he uses his passport to leave directly from Scotland? What will the English policeman do about that because he will not have jurisdiction in Scotland? Indeed, I suspect travel agents may be looking into the business which can be conducted on the back of this Bill and the fact that there is a backdoor exit from the United Kingdom into Europe.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. If a native of Scotland does that he will have committed a criminal offence by breaking the banning order and presumably we can have him extradited back to England.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend raises another issue. Perhaps the Minister will explain what would happen if an individual decided to travel abroad directly from Scotland without coming to England to surrender his passport. Legislation ought properly to address such detail. As a result of devolution, there will be real problems as regards this and other issues.
If it were not for devolution, no doubt we should be addressing the matter on a UK-wide basis. But because of devolution, and because the Scottish Parliament rightly sees no need to impose these

469
restrictions on the Scots, the Government may have a problem dealing with such issues. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
6 p.m.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps in reply the Minister will deal with the question of the Irish. I know nothing whatever about football and the point had not occurred to me until I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Lucas, but I understand that around Merseyside certain teams attract a heavy measure of Irish support. I have little doubt that a number of those Irish supporters will have Irish as well as British nationality.
I do not know whether any of them have two passports or the Government's intention in this respect. I am unsure of these matters while the Minister is sure-footed on them. Perhaps he can explain the implications of taking from a foreign citizen the passport which has been issued to him by a foreign government.
The point emphasises the untidiness of the legislation and how much easier it would have been had we had a little more time to consider these matters.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's point about the amount of time we have been given to consider these matters. During our debates on the Bill, from Second Reading onwards, we have repeatedly come across the Scottish angle in the case of an Englishman travelling to a match overseas via Scotland. That would seem to be good for Scottish airports and so forth.
The amendment takes the matter a stage further because it extends to those resident in Scotland. I was surprised to realise that when I saw the amendment this morning but the Minister confirmed it a few moments ago. I am now in no doubt about it. It will be difficult for someone resident in Scotland to contemplate travelling at the time of a football match, never mind whether he is attending, if he believes that he might fall foul of this legislation. He certainly will not want to use Newcastle airport.
With respect to my noble friend, such an individual would be relatively unlikely to use Dover but he would be likely to use Newcastle or Teesside airport. He may there be served with a notice by the police, told he has to turn up at the magistrates' court in Newcastle the next day and be unable to return home. Assuming he is not detained by the police, he will then have to spend the night in Newcastle in an hotel. He will then have to turn up 40 times a year; 20 times a year to hand in his passport and 20 times a year to collect it!
He will be allowed compensation only if the magistrates refuse the order. His hotel bill will then be paid—assuming that he has not spent more than £5,000 on the hotel—as will his flight and so forth. However, he will be put to extreme difficulty. The result will be that he will stay in Scotland. I know of no extradition treaty nor way in which he can be made to turn up in the town of the airport he was using in order to hand in his passport, or whatever.
470
In effect, we are setting up internal exile in Scotland. That means that not only will an Englishman be refused permission to go to Scotland if he falls foul of the legislation—at least for a period because he will be confined to England and Wales by the police notice—but now a Scotsman will not be able to come to England if he is not careful. In that sense, the measure is extremely divisive and we need a good explanation of why the amendment has been moved at the last minute to extend all the powers to Scotsmen.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, put his finger on the Irish issue. It is difficult to understand in this extremely badly drafted, badly thought-through Bill what happens to Irish citizens who also have British passports. If such a person shows his Irish passport, presumably the police can take no action. However, if he shows his British passport, it can be seized under the circumstances we have discussed.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, given the large number of Irish citizens who come to this country to watch Liverpool and Manchester United, it is important that the Minister clarifies the matter tonight.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I appreciate that not all Members of your Lordships' House like or appreciate the Bill or believe that it is the right legislation. I also appreciate that there may well be one or two interesting anomalies. However, by and large, it must be understood that the legislation is primarily aimed at dealing with a problem with English supporters, and English club supporters, travelling abroad. That has also been the primary purpose of other legislation introduced with this and previous governments in trying to wrestle with the difficulties associated with football hooligans.
I shall deal with the points that have been raised, in particular about Scotland. A banning order can be made after conviction in England and Wales regardless of nationality or permanent residence. A banning order could be made in relation to a Scot against whom the powers in new Section 2IB are exercised. One effect of a banning order is to report to a police station in England and Wales. It is unlikely that an order would be made in relation to a Scot who lived in Scotland because the test in new Section 14(4)(b) is unlikely to be met in his case.
However, there is no reason why an order should not be made in relation to any of the many Scots who are resident in England and Wales, unlikely though in practice that may be. It is extremely unlikely that many Scots will travel with a hooligan intent in support of an English team, or perhaps an English club team—but perhaps the latter is more likely than the former.
In our view, the banning order is not likely to be made in relation to a Scot who is resident in Scotland. It is unlikely that the test of new Section 14(4) will be met. We believe that an order in this case is unlikely to help prevent violence at football matches.

471
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, raised one or two questions. There is no power under the Bill to take the passports of foreign nationals. The measure applies only to British passports. I believe that commonly we understand that. A person with dual nationality can be required to surrender only his British passport but he can be issued with a notice, prevented from travelling and summoned to appear in court. I believe that that answers the various questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, too. These amendments were moved in order to make the Bill more workable and more flexible. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 11, at end insert ("and subsection (1) of that section is to have effect as if the references to the chief officer of police for the area in which the person resides or appears to reside were references to that constable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.11 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this Bill puts four distinct powers on to the statute book. I shall list them in order of increasing controversy. The first is the combining of domestic and international banning orders. The second is the withdrawal of passports from those with banning orders. The third is the magistrates' power to issue banning orders on application by the police, even where there is no conviction for football offences or, for that matter, any conviction. The fourth is the power given to the police to detain a person for six hours for inquiries and to restrict his movements to England and Wales for up to 24 hours until he attends the magistrates' court in order to ascertain whether a banning order should be made or, in some cases, to detain him in those circumstances.
Broadly speaking, the first three are not matters of great controversy, but the fourth is. The longer the issue has been debated, the more doubts I must admit to having about it. My doubts relate, first, to how the power will work in practice. I refer to its practical effects, some of which we discussed a few moments ago. Secondly, I have doubts about how the power will work legally and whether it will stand up. I do not believe that we have heard arguments to demonstrate that it clears the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU treaties or the various other matters that have been raised. There is certainly doubt about its legality in that respect. Great doubts have also been expressed about its liberty aspects: it is a new "sus" law of a very specific kind.
472
Originally, the Secretary of State justified the Bill as being a response to a wholly new phenomenon or, at least, a new angle to an old phenomenon; that is, that a large number of the individuals who caused trouble in Belgium were not known to the police in any form and had not committed an offence. We now know that the Belgian police returned to this country a good number of people—no one knows precisely how many, but a substantial proportion—by what can only be described as a "mistake". Those people had done nothing and did not deserve to be returned. Therefore, in that sense and in part, we are at risk of passing this legislation because of the errors of the Belgian police.
However, throughout the arguments we have all acknowledged that there is a national problem. We all hate to see television pictures of our compatriots rioting in the streets of foreign towns when football matches take place and we all want the Government to do something about it. The first two, or even three, of the powers under the Bill have been urged on the Government for some time. We ourselves have urged them on the Government and so have others. That is why I have done my best to live up to what I said at Second Reading; that is, not to stand in the way of the Bill and to allow the Government to have the powers for which they ask in order to attempt to deal with the problem.
As your Lordships decided yesterday, those powers will last for two years. In the meantime, we can consider whether to make them permanent and whether the controversial elements of the powers—the only parts to which the sunset clause applies—should be either refined and put back on the statute book or not proceeded with. That will depend on the legality, the practicality and the liberty aspects of them as they emerge in practice.
There is a great national problem. I believe that it is right that certainly three of the powers should be put on the statute book. I am prepared for the Government to operate the fourth power for two years and then for the matter to be considered further and a decision made on how we should proceed from there. It is possible that additional measures will need to be put in place. In the course of our debates, some have been suggested, such as extra-territoriality. In addition, we all know that there are non-statutory things to be done. The Minister has spoken about them at intervals during the debates and we are entirely supportive of his efforts in that respect.
It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us that the Government intend to accept the two-year period and will not attempt to reverse that amendment in another place. To my mind, it is an important element in deciding to put this legislation on the statute book. The unsatisfactory element—the fourth power to which I referred—is the one to which primarily the sunset clause refers. I believe that if we are to include these unsatisfactory powers, the least time that they are in force the better. I hope that the noble Lord can reassure me. However, in general, and certainly so far as concerns the first three powers, I support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is 34 years since I first met Jack Straw at the Exeter conference of the National Union of Students. For a time earlier this afternoon I believe that we should both have recognised the atmosphere of a National Union of Students conference where regular debates were postponed while points of order to points of order to points of order were put by various barrack-room lawyers, some of them now in the Government.
I do not believe that in my experience in either House I have ever been part of such a lawyerfest as we have had over the past few days. If this were a lawyerfest, my prediction is that there will be further feasting from this Bill for my learned friends once the various appeal procedures get under way.
I do not attach any blame to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for what happened earlier. I believe that he had been dealing with points for approximately 15 out of 24 hours. The truth is that the fault lies with those who conceived the legislation in haste because they believed it to be populist. It was brought forward in response to No. 10's call for imaginative initiatives and a late-night phone call from Mr Tony Banks requesting quick action before the World Cup vote. When one considers what has taken place, it is quite understandable that the Government got into such a mess.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, pointed out that he had kept the promise he made at Second Reading, I should say that my promise at Second Reading was that I could guarantee the Government no smooth passage for the Bill. I claim that that pledge, too, has been redeemed over the past three days.
I was trying to think of the right words to sum up our position. I found them in tonight's Evening Standard in the column of Mr Mick Dennis. I shall not quote the whole column, although I ask the Minister to read it, because it is a good, sound article. One paragraph bears quoting. It says:
"The only satisfactory way of identifying a hooligan is to arrest him, charge him and present evidence to a court of law. That way, he or his solicitor can challenge that evidence and call witnesses for the defence. It is the system we use for every other crime in this country".
That remains the position of the Liberal Democrats. We do not think that the Government have proceeded sensibly and we remain very concerned about the civil liberties aspects of the Bill. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I take great comfort from the sunset clause that has been adopted. Like him, I hope that the Minister will assure us that no attempt will be made to reverse it in another place. That would not bring credit to the Government or make the Bill any better.
The Bill needs to be put in perspective. It may help to deal with the problem of soccer hooliganism, but I do not think that it is the cure-all. I know that the Minister agrees that we have to ensure that the players, the media and the clubs play their part. All those parties need to think carefully before they kill the goose that is laying their golden eggs. Sponsors and
474
advertisers will not continue to pay large sums for ever if, in the public mind, soccer is identified with the worst elements of behaviour in our society.
One of the most important things to come out of the Government's initiative is not the Bill or its fourth power, but the Minister's committee. I hope that he grabs that opportunity with both hands. Far too many people in the Government like to be associated with soccer for its ersatz glamour. They imagine themselves as football directors in camelhair coats, puffing on their cigars. However, I know that the Minister is a genuine soccer fan. I hope that his committee looks at issues such as the influence of drink on hooliganism, good policing practices as well as failures, the effectiveness of measures such as club life bans, as applied by Leeds, the importance of a vigorous prosecution policy—a real truth and consequences for hooliganism—and the theme of extraterritoriality.
There is also an urgent need for the appointment of a soccer regulator. I am not being frivolous when I say that our debates have shown that the Government have a candidate in the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds. I would have much more confidence if I thought that he was going to regulate soccer than I have in some of the names that have been bandied about.
We have gone through a rather fevered period for the Home Office. The Home Office works best when it is occupied by cool heads who keep matters in perspective, not by people seeking eye-catching initiatives. The Home Office should not be a ministry of internal security; it should be our first line of defence for civil liberties. We have had enough Home Office Bills that chip away at our civil liberties. We expect Home Office Ministers to be as conscious and wary as everybody else of short-term expediency that could have long-term consequences for civil liberties.
The sunset clause means that the Bill is experimental. Let the Government have their experiment and we shall return to these matters another day.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, in almost his last speech, the Minister used certain words again and again: "intended", "likely", "unlikely", "not intended". Ministers should not be telling us what their legislation is "intended" or "likely" to achieve. It should be clear what legislation will achieve in judicial terms. The Bill has been so sloppily drafted that it is in danger of encountering the law of unintended consequences. As noble Lords know, that law is that if an unintended consequence is possible, it will almost certainly follow.
I have two thoughts on the issue. First, if we had let the Government have the powers for which they asked in the form in which they asked for them as the Bill came to us from another place, there would have been even more unintended consequences. It is because this House has been rather difficult—generally good humoured, but occasionally fractious—that the Bill is no worse than it might have been.
Secondly, had I, as a Minister, had the difficulty of dealing with the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and had I relied on the

475
advice of my officials that he was wrong and they were right, I would be uneasy in my ministerial seat. I have a feeling that it will not be long before the Government regret that they did not make it possible for the noble and learned Lord's amendment to be fully discussed, and preferably accepted.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I disagree with only one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said: that the Bill has been significantly improved in this place. It has not. It is a striking contrast with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill, on which the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord Bach, laboured, as did my noble friend Lord McNally and I, together with the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Lucas. That Bill came to this House in a tawdry and inadequate state and left it much improved. This Bill came to us in a tawdry and inadequate state and leaves us in that condition. There has not been a single major concession to the fears expressed not just by the Opposition, but from the Government Benches.
I may be a recent arrival in this place, but if ever a Bill called not for emergency speed, but for emergency slowness and deliberation, this was it. Some noble Lords have taken a cavalier view of the Bill. There has been too much concentration on hooligans, whom we all deplore, and not nearly enough consideration of the fundamental legal aspects. I fear that I, too, have fallen prey to that tendency many times, thinking about hooligans when I should have been thinking about hooliganism. We have all slipped into the temptation to draw up a Bill designed to convict people whom we know are guilty.
The problem with hooligans is that they are difficult to find and to pin down, as the experience of Euro 2000 clearly shows. Let us make no mistake about what we have done. We have a long and proud history of dealing with difficult issues that balance liberty against public order. For the first time, we have ended up with legislation that will ban people from an activity for up to 10 years on the basis of wholly lawful conduct that could have taken place up to 10 years in the past.
In effect, we shall be punishing past actions under provisions of a law that did not exist at the time they took place, actions that were lawful and actions that are lawful now. Many instances have been cited of such cases: student demonstrations and riots, peaceful demonstrations, demonstrations in regard to genetically modified crops, demonstrations against animal treatment and a 101 other such instances. There has been too much of an assumption that we all know with whom we are dealing. I am afraid that down the ages tyrants have said, "We know who we are dealing with".
I have not been impressed with the reassurances given again and again by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that we should not worry that the powers in the Bill are uniquely wide. The noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord McNally, and others have made the point that the hurdles set by the Bill are uniquely low. We are told, "Do not worry, the police will be responsible and the justices of the peace will be wise". If that were the basis on which we legislate in matters
476
of this kind we would forget "intent", we would forget "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" and we would forget most of the protections to which we have clung in fair weather and foul down the long course of our history.
Most disreputable of all is the attempt by the Government to dress up this Bill as a civil measure. It is not a civil measure. It has punishments of a criminal nature; its context is of a criminal nature; it involves detention; it involves endless processes before magistrates' courts; it involves the police at every turn. My heart goes out to the police who will have to implement the Bill and my heart also goes out to the magistrates who will have to construe it and apply it. I repeat that it is disreputable that the Government have cast a civil shroud around this corpse so that they can get by on a civil test of proof and so that they can justify retrospectiveness.
In the two years that I have been a Member of this House I have always felt, when a piece of legislation has been concluded, that the House has done its best. I have always felt that we have done a fairly good job. But in this case I have the sense that this shoddy Bill has not been dealt with in the way that is expected of us. We have not discharged our duty of protecting fundamental liberties in balance with our proper purpose of trying to deal with an extremely intractable social evil.
This is a precedent that will ring down the ages. It is all well and good to say that there is a "sunset" clause, but the sun should never have risen on this Bill. The Government are already justifying the Bill on the back of the anti-social behaviour orders, which have been attacked and which were the subject of the sort of reassurance that we have had, but we have gone three steps further than the Crime and Disorder Bill ever went. At Second Reading I attempted to explain how the reassurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, at Second Reading of the Crime and Disorder Bill, have been broken in every instance in this Bill.
Although lawyers have a reputation for being money-making cynics, I believe that all lawyers in the House are extremely disillusioned by this measure. It is difficult not to use rather inflated language. Enough said. I wish the Bill well. I fear for it; I fear for the precedent that it creates. I hope that when, under the "sunset" provisions, the Bill comes back, it will be consigned to the place it deserves.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his courtesy, good humour, patience and stamina. I confess that I am puzzled and disappointed by the attitude of the Opposition. I do not refer to the Back Bench opposition—to the rigorous, hard-hitting and effective opposition provided, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and above all by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which cannot be faulted—but to the Front Bench Opposition, or perhaps I should say the shadow Cabinet Opposition. I mean no criticism of the noble

477
Lord, Lord Cope, whose interventions have been most effective, particularly in speaking to the second amendment this afternoon.
This is a Bill, which according to the organisation Justice, seriously breaches European Community law, which does not comply with the Human Rights Act and, as a number of noble Lords from all sides of the House have said, is contrary to British traditions. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has most effectively pointed out, it has not improved since it arrived in this House. If a Bill, or parts of it, are so wrong in principle, merely curtailing the period during which its provisions have effect scarcely makes it any better.
Suppose that, worried by a sharp increase in muggings and burglaries and other forms of robbery, the Home Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, were to stand up in the House of Commons and announce that he was to introduce a Bill to provide for the introduction of Sharia punishments for the worst forms of theft, encouraged perhaps by focus groups that had reported to the Prime Minister that such punishments would play well with the tabloids. One cannot deny that such punishments may be extremely effective, judging by one's knowledge of the Middle East. Would the Official Opposition say, "We are uneasy about this legislation that seems to run counter to the tradition of British justice, but on the other hand it cannot be denied that the crime wave is extremely serious, so perhaps it is a reasonable compromise to agree to Sharia punishments being applied for a trial period of two years, after which we shall review the situation". One has to wonder!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I express entire agreement with my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I also express the hope that in reply the Minister will bring himself to say that he agrees with every word of the very effective speech of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. If the Minister does not agree with every single word, I hope that he will indicate his disagreement and explain why he disagrees.
In other contexts I have asked about this matter. I hope that Ministers who bring this kind of legislation before Parliament will pause to reflect on what they themselves would have said if they had been sitting on this side of the House and had been faced with this kind of sloppy rubbish. I have always rather admired the skill of the Labour Party in opposition. It has had a good deal of experience in that role. Had it been faced with a Bill of this kind, it would have been the first to protest again and again at almost every tenet in it. It would have seen no justification whatever for the measure. I believe that the Government are motivated by purely populist motives. They have no respectable legal argument.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will be able to tear the curtain of privacy aside for a moment and explain to the House the processes through which the Bill passed before it was printed and presented to Parliament. I would love to know who took part in
478
those discussions. I suspect that the Bill was composed by a multitude of cooks who ruined what would always be a very bad broth.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, this is undoubtedly the worst example of tabloid legislation that I can remember in all the years I have been following parliamentary affairs. It panders to the headlines of the last couple of years. It was bad when it started because it had not been adequately thought through; it remains bad because there is not sufficient time to consider it.
That is a serious accusation. I hope that if one lesson has been learnt it is that the Government will never again introduce in such a rush legislation which has such serious implications. This legislation tramples on liberty, which should be one of the highest priorities in our consideration of any legislation. Above all, I hope that this House will never again acquiesce in curtailing the proper discussion of such legislation.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I do not like this Bill. I have said that before and will not say it again. I say only this.
I hope that when we come to evaluate the effects of this Bill before the sunset clause kicks in we take proper care to conduct a good, objective, academic study—perhaps a combination of British and foreign academics—starting now. Then, when we come to review this legislation, we shall have a proper evaluation of it. The success of these provisions should not be that the tabloid headlines go away—tabloids have other things to think about—but that we have not violated the liberty of too many citizens.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I hope that the Government will prove more co-operative than departments sometimes are in letting us know what is happening with the enforcement of this Bill as time goes on. I hope that we will be able to table questions asking, "In relation to such-and-such a foreign football match, how many people were detained under Sections 14A, 14B and 21A? And if under 21A, what was their treatment and what were the grounds?". I hope we do not receive the answer that those statistics are not held centrally. It is the usual answer to questions about what is happening in magistrates' courts. Proper answers are crucial. I hope the Minister will confirm that statistics will be collected centrally and will be made available promptly to Parliament either in an organised way or on request when noble Lords table questions.
With his colleagues through the usual channels, I hope also that the Chief Whip will consider the desirability of setting up a committee of this House or perhaps of both Houses to watch over this Bill. With a two-year sunset period, the process of the next Bill through both Houses of Parliament will start in about 15 months. Before then we need to have looked carefully at the way this Bill is being put into effect; to have consulted widely; to have a clear idea of where it falls in relation to the Human Rights Act and European law. There is much we can do by discussion

479
and consultation which has not been possible in bringing forward this Bill. I hope that the powers that be will allow this House to take the time to look at the legislation carefully, so that when we come to the next Bill we do so in an informed manner.
We are looking at a Bill which trespasses on human rights in a way which we should be extremely careful of doing. First, it is arbitrary. The tests in new Sections 14A and 14B will be met by over half the young white males who attend foreign football matches, though not nearly that number will be picked up. The people who are arraigned under this Bill will be chosen arbitrarily by the police on the basis of what they wish to do. That application of the law is extremely undesirable. It will impose on people who have not committed a crime—they may never have committed a crime—the stigma and inconvenience of a criminal conviction from the restrictions under which they are placed. It may even result in their serving a term of imprisonment under new Section 21, and that term of imprisonment may be quite extended.
This Bill trespasses on civil liberties in a way which we should be extremely careful about doing. We know that the Government have a penchant towards this kind of trespass. We know that there is a proposal in the wings which might unkindly be called, "Lock up the loonies", whereby people can be subjected to eternal imprisonment on the basis that it is thought they might commit a crime.
We can see the result of going down that road. We know that it will lead to a relative absence of crime. We can look at the history of Soviet Russia and see that crime, at least among the governed rather than the governing classes, was pretty low under that system. We can eliminate crime if we go down the route of eliminating civil liberties. When we look at Northern Ireland today we can see that the arbitrary enforcement of anti-drug measures by the IRA and others perhaps resulted in a reduction of drugs crime. But that is not the route down which we wish to go.
Liberty involves inconvenience; it costs us something. But it is a prize for which we have fought in the past and for which we should struggle ever to retain. We should not go back on the Petition of Right 1628. We gained that privilege after a long struggle and at the end of it suffered a civil war. We should not lightly allow the Government to trespass on that territory and allow arbitrary imprisonment as part of our civil law.
The amendment we won to restrict this Bill for two years is a ray of light. It gives me some comfort that we shall be able to consign it to the grave relatively soon, though I suspect it will have been badly mauled by the lawyers before then. I wish the Bill no good at all. But am afraid we have to let it pass.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have had a long Second Reading debate at the end of this Third Reading tonight. I listened carefully to all the contributions. I was merely going to rise and thank
480
everyone for their patience and forbearance with the debates we had on Monday, Tuesday and last Thursday on this Bill.
I particularly want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for his constructive approach. I pay tribute also to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, whose views on football I share in almost every respect. We may have disagreed once or twice in relation to this legislation, but we are close in our analysis and understanding of what we need to do to change the nature and face of some of the support for part of our game.
I also want to pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Woolmer for his constructive and thoughtful observations based on his practical experience as a director and also to my noble friend Lord Faulkner. His was one of the best contributions in our Second Reading debate.
I thank my noble friend Lord Bach who has done a sterling job, not least for keeping me awake among other things. He also did an excellent job in fortifying the arguments.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for being the good civil libertarian that he undoubtedly is. I do not know whether he is a supporter of Sudbury Town or Sudbury Wanderers. They used to take part in a fiercesome local derby, though I doubt it ever led to hooliganism. However, it may have informed his opinions in your Lordships' House. He also contributed greatly by raising the issue of extra-territoriality. I gave an undertaking to the House that we would look at that issue seriously. It certainly receives a measure of support. I said it was not a strategy; I do not believe it is. But it may be part of one.
I suppose I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, for his occasional contributions to this debate. I learnt, as did many Members of your Lordships House, that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has become a latter-day civil libertarian. I do not know whether or not that has anything to do with the fact that he once watched a football match in Scotland, about which he told us. I am amused by the notion of his being a civil libertarian; but better late than never!
We have had a most constructive debate. I know that there is unease in your Lordships' House about some of the measures. However, I happen to believe that our primary purpose here is being well served; namely, to protect the civil rights and liberties of the honest, decent and law-abiding majority of people who wish to attend football matches in peace and enjoy such games as they should best be enjoyed. That is what motivated me in bringing forward this legislation and I know that it is the primary purpose that informs the way in which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary considers such matters.
It is not about eye-catching headlines in newspapers; it is about trying to deal with long-term problems. This is part of that strategy; indeed, it has been part of the strategy of not just this Government but also the previous government. I pay tribute to them in their endeavours and efforts to try to tackle such problems. We all owe it to the country to play a part in that

481
process. I appreciate the kind consideration that noble Lords have shown and the kind words that have been expressed during the course of the debates on the Bill. I am most grateful to noble Lords for the close attention that they have given to the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked me whether I could say something about the sunset clause. I regret to say that I am not in a position to advise the House on whether we shall look again at that particular amendment. However, I have certainly taken on board the comments made from all parts of the House during the debate. As I made plain at the time when moving a government amendment, we were sympathetic to a shorter rather than a longer period. But the House has spoken on that issue; it is for others to reflect upon it.
This is a good Bill. I am sure that it will be helpful. I have no doubt that it will be effective. This debate will doubtless continue over the next few years as we approach the point when we need to look again at the legislation.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time; and to be printed.

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]
6.52 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 4 [Qualification or authorisation of nominees and supervisors]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 15 to 18 and 21 to 30. When we moved these amendments both in Committee and on Report, the point that I made was a very simple one: if a company or debtor in financial difficulties consults an authorised person, that person may be tempted to recommend a moratorium or a voluntary arrangement because he will then be able to act as nominee or as supervisor in his role as an authorised person and so get paid as the nominee or the supervisor. If he does not recommend a moratorium or a voluntary arrangement, he will not be paid for the advice that he gives. In many cases the authorised person will be so tempted and will recommend an insolvency procedure that is inappropriate.
I believe that the Minister knows that I really have the bit between my teeth on this issue. We feel that it is important to try to get this point across on Third Reading. We are also concerned about the suggestion
482
that there is some kind of hidden agenda behind our opposition. I have never said that there was a hidden agenda.
In the Minister's response to what I said on Report he said that he would write to me to make it plain that nominees and supervisors would be able to act in relation to voluntary arrangements generally and not just in moratorium cases. I am grateful for that correspondence but, with great respect, I never understood otherwise. The noble Lord then went on to say that it would be strange to suggest that the Secretary of State would regard Clause 4 as a measure of dumbing down on standards. Perhaps I may point out that I do not suggest that the Secretary of State would regard Clause 4 as a means of dumbing down on standards.
The Minister also said that the proposition that only a licensed insolvency practitioner will ever have the skills necessary to act as a nominee or supervisor was untenable. Again, I do not make that proposition. The noble Lord went on to say that there were areas of a supervisor's role, such as collecting in regular payments and distributing them in accordance with the terms of an agreed voluntary arrangement, where it would be absurd to claim that the particular skills of an insolvency practitioner are always needed. Again, with respect, I do not—and did not—make that claim.
We believe that any authorised person should be licensed to be an office holder in bankruptcies, administrations and liquidations. If he is not so licensed and if he is asked for advice as to which insolvency procedure is appropriate, he will be less likely to recommend bankruptcy, administration or liquidation. Because an authorised person will only be authorised to act as a nominee or supervisor, he is more likely to recommend a moratorium or a voluntary arrangement. If he recommends the former, he will not be remunerated. If he recommends the latter, he will be remunerated. Human nature is such that he will find it difficult to resist the recommendation that leads to remuneration rather than no remuneration.
To suggest that Clause 4 will not give rise to that danger is unrealistic. It happens now with licensed insolvency practitioners where some of them recommend insolvency procedures where they are more likely to be appointed and remain as the office holder than others. Further, as the Minister said on Report, there have been accusations, which have been made known to the insolvency service, that if insolvency practitioners provide advice as authorised persons they are more likely to recommend insolvency procedures through which they can make money. With respect, the Minister cannot ignore us; nor can he ignore those accusations. There is no doubt that, as currently drafted, the Bill introduces an element that might give rise to the danger feared by those of us who have made those accusations known to the insolvency service.
The Minister also mentioned previously that those who seek the advice of authorised persons must take into account the possibility that those who are advising

483
them might receive fees through one course of action rather than through another course of action. The noble Lord said that he was sure they would do so. I accept that some of them may take that into account. However, many of them will not; and it is they whom we seek to protect. The directors of an insolvent company and an insolvent debtor are very susceptible to any advice that may save them from their financial difficulties. They will clutch at straws. Indeed, I suggest that many of them will be desperate. We should do all that we can to protect them. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as always, I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said. However, I am as perplexed as ever. I entirely accept what she said about the various points where she believes I accused her of saying something that was not her intention. Indeed, I accept everything she said about her intentions.
The noble Baroness is now speaking to a quite limited point; namely, the relationship between an authorised person and the person who might ultimately be a nominee or supervisor. However, her amendments do not do that; indeed, they go much further. Like the previous amendments, the current amendments would take the stuffing out of Clause 4, which allows the Secretary of State, under certain very restricted circumstances that I shall spell out, to recognise a body that could provide nominees and supervisors.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is saying—she has said it before—is that because a person authorised via the new Section 389A of the Insolvency Act will be authorised only to act as a nominee and supervisor, he will inevitably be tempted only to recommend a voluntary arrangement of the kind that he might make money from as a nominee or supervisor. Of course, all of that is speculation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to the charge which has been made that when advice is given by insolvency practitioners to a company in difficulties, they might be tempted to recommend a course of action from which they could make money as insolvency practitioners. A serious charge of that kind needs to be examined on a case by case basis. We have to determine whether that happens; otherwise it is mere speculation. I suggest that the charge that authorised persons who are qualified to become nominees and supervisors might be tempted to recommend a voluntary arrangement also constitutes speculation and needs to be tested.
The amendments ignore the realities of the situation. Under new Section 389A the Secretary of State will be able to recognise a body to authorise its members to act as nominees or supervisors in relation to voluntary arrangements. But he will only be able to do so if the body maintains and enforces—I emphasise the words "maintains and enforces"—rules for securing that its members are fit and proper persons to act as nominees or supervisors and meet acceptable requirements as to education and practical training and experience. That means that if an individual did
484
not continue to maintain those standards—II can imagine that an accusation that he had used his position as an authorised person to put business his way would be a serious accusation and a serious departure from those standards—he should be dealt with appropriately by the body we are discussing. I assure noble Lords that nothing of importance would be lost by the absence of the word "professional" from what will be the new section.
The power as drafted makes clear that the Secretary of State will recognise only bodies which have in place all that is needed to ensure that their members are up to the mark. Those authorised will also have to have in force security, or in Scotland, caution, for the proper performance of their functions which meets the prescribed requirements. For instance, we need to provide that the surety or cautioner will be jointly and severally liable with the nominee or supervisor for losses caused by the fraud or dishonesty of the office holder. So a body looking to apply for recognition will have to ensure that its regime for regulating its members is sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the high standards currently expected of nominees and supervisors can continue to be met. Why on earth would the Secretary of State want standards to fall? However, I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has not said that she thinks they will fall. The regime may be different from that applied to insolvency practitioners because of the limited authorisation but it will have to be rigorous and effective. If not, the body's recognition will be withdrawn.
I return to the assertion that prospective nominees will be tempted to recommend a voluntary arrangement when it is not appropriate. On a practical level, we cannot see how it would be good for business continually to recommend procedures that did not work. But the assertion ignores the fact that the authorising body will be monitoring its members. Those are the conditions laid down in Clause 4. The kind of conduct about which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, speculates would almost certainly lead to a revocation of authorisation.
This is not a Bill about authorised persons; this is a Bill about a moratorium and about nominees and supervisors. The amendments would delete from the Bill the provision that there could be an alternative organisation with very rigorous standards to which nominees and supervisors might belong. Unless the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, can convince the House that an authorised person would be more likely—being a member of such an organisation—to recommend something to his advantage than is now the case, I do not think that the amendments have any substance.
7 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am sorry that he has not moved, as it were, on the point about which we feel strongly. We accept that there is no question of wanting standards to fall, as the Minister confirmed today. However, the Minister said that the Bill is not about authorised

485
persons. He also said that it was speculation to suggest that individuals would use their position to obtain business. However, we suggest that it is human nature for individuals to recommend a course of action which will benefit them. We are talking about their livelihood after all. As the Bill is drafted, an authorised person is limited by the licence in terms of what he can do. Therefore, it would be common sense for him to follow a course of action for which he can be remunerated as a nominee or supervisor. I shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister said. I am sorry that he will not move on this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Moratorium where directors propose voluntary arrangement]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 13, line 12, leave out ("either of those meetings") and insert ("the meeting of creditors").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted provides that if a creditors' meeting meets and decides to extend the moratorium and the company meeting meets but decides not to, the moratorium will be extended against the express wish of the members, unless, of course, the court orders otherwise under paragraph 35. But if the company meeting has not met, the moratorium comes to an end. In other words, the creditors would not have their wish even though no one had turned up for the company meeting. That is clearly a perverse outcome.
I know that the Minister will agree with all I have said in speaking to this amendment as I have adopted precisely what he said in his positive remarks on Report. Indeed, in revisiting this amendment at Third Reading, I simply seek to probe the Minister—it is such an important point in our view—as to his thinking on the matter following Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know that my thinking has advanced much, but I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that at any rate it has not gone backwards. We recognise that there is a serious point behind the amendment. We debated it in Committee and on Report. On Report, although not in Committee, I recognised that the Bill as drafted could lead to a curious outcome—what the noble Baroness calls a perverse outcome.
If the creditors' meeting met and decided to extend the moratorium and the company meeting met but decided not to, the moratorium would be extended against the express wishes of the shareholders—unless, of course, the court ordered otherwise under paragraph 35.
But if the company meeting had not met, the moratorium would come to an end. In other words, the creditors would not have their wish even though no one even turned up for the company meeting. That is certainly a perverse outcome. We consider it important that both the creditors and the members are
486
offered the opportunity of meeting within the first 28-day period of the moratorium and, if they are not offered that opportunity, the moratorium should end after the 28-day period. I recognise the validity of the thinking behind the amendment but it does not provide the important safeguard that members of a company are able to have their say. On Report I said that we would bring forward amendments to deal with the concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, raised. We did not expect them to be ready for Third Reading. They will be tabled in another place. I am sorry that they are not ready today, but I repeat the assurances that I have given.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and his reassurances. I look forward to seeing the amendments when they are tabled in another place. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 14, leave out line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report the Minister said that these amendments were wrecking amendments. I protest. They accurately reflect the existing rights of floating charge holders when a petition for an administration order has been presented. In those circumstances, a floating charge holder is entitled to appoint an administrative receiver before an administration order is made. That right has existed since 1986 when the administration order was introduced. That right did not wreck the administration order procedure and we cannot see how that right continuing could possibly wreck the Bill.
As the Minister observed, the Cork committee saw that opportunities for business rescues were often lost when there was no floating charge holder to appoint a receiver to effect a rescue. The Government subsequently put in place the administration procedure but left intact the right to appoint a receiver whenever possible. The administration order procedure filled the gap either where there was no floating charge holder to appoint an administrative receiver or where the floating charge holder was unwilling to appoint an administrative receiver. The essence of these provisions was to provide an insolvency procedure instead of an administrative receivership.
The essence of the present proposals is to provide a new insolvency procedure even where a floating charge holder intends to appoint an administrative receiver. That goes beyond what the Cork committee recommended and, as the Minister is aware, seriously interferes with the rights of floating charge holders.
The Minister said that a floating charge holder might make it plain that he fully intended to appoint an administrative receiver the moment the moratorium came to an end. He said that that act itself might have an impact on the viability of the voluntary agreement, which could in turn cause the nominee to

487
conclude he should withdraw his consent to act, thus ending the moratorium. The floating charge holder could then appoint an administrative receiver.
Let us suppose that the floating charge holder makes it quite clear that he will do that; let us suppose that he does that in terms where even an authorised person can be left in no doubt whatever that the moment a voluntary arrangement Is approved the floating charge holder will appoint an administrative receiver. In those circumstances the nominee would be under an obligation to withdraw his consent to act, thereby ending the moratorium and permitting the floating charge holder to appoint an administrative receiver.
What if the nominee does not withdraw his consent to act? He will compel the floating charge holder to apply to the court in those circumstances under paragraph 25. That application would add to the expense of appointing an administrative receiver and lead to delay, during which the company's movable assets could simply disappear. What possible benefit is that to anyone?
In my submission it would be more appropriate to leave a floating charge holder with the right to appoint an administrative receiver during the moratorium. It will then be up to the nominee or the directors to persuade the floating charge holder not to appoint an administrative receiver. They should try to do that by putting forward sensible arguments. That procedure has worked as regards administration orders because, as the Minister told us, recent research has shown that in some 50 per cent of administrations a floating charge was in existence but the floating charge holder agreed—or at least did not veto—an administration order.
I therefore reaffirm the point that I made in Committee: these provisions rewrite the bargain between the floating charge holders and companies and will deter lenders from making loans to small companies. That will be to the detriment of lenders and small companies. In contrast, there is no real benefit in delaying a floating charge holder appointing an administrative receiver. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are going over ground that we have covered already in the earlier stages of the Bill. I do not know that I have a great deal to add to what I said before but it is my duty to say it again.
Our purpose in legislating for the option of a moratorium in the company voluntary arrangement procedure is to provide a short respite for the directors of a company to put a rescue plan to the company and its creditors free from the immediate threat of individual creditor action. Of course, if that can be agreed, it is good all round—not only for the creditors but for the employees, shareholders, directors and the wider economy. To allow an administrative receiver to be appointed or a floating charge to crystallise in the moratorium period would, in our view, be counterproductive.
488
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and I are talking the same language this time. Previously, I was talking about a floating charge holder and the noble Lord was talking about a debenture holder. I am grateful that we can use the same terminology.
We see no good reason why a floating; charge holder—which will often be a bank—should be exempted from the general stay. But let us look at the arguments that have been urged on us. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that floating charge holders might be severely prejudiced if they could not appoint an administrative receiver during the moratorium. We do not agree. Quite apart from the fact that the moratorium does not have any effect on security rights other than to stay them, the nominee has to be satisfied that a voluntary arrangement is likely to be agreed and implemented before a moratorium can be obtained. If the nominee is able to reach that conclusion, I simply cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, thinks that things will deteriorate so badly during the moratorium.
If at some point during the moratorium the nominee concludes that a voluntary arrangement is not likely to be agreed, he is obliged immediately to withdraw his consent. The noble Lord returned to this point today: he said that the nominee might not bring the moratorium to an end and there would therefore have to be a costly application to the courts. The nominee has no choice in this matter. He would have to withdraw if he became aware that the charge holder fully intended to appoint a receiver at the end of the moratorium and he thought that that would scupper implementation of any agreed voluntary arrangement.
I quoted the Cork committee; the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has done the same. But in the review that preceded the Insolvency Act 1985, the Cork committee recognised that the process of receivership could rescue businesses; but it also saw that possible rescues were lost when there was no floating charge holder to appoint a receiver to effect the rescue. As a consequence, the administration procedure came into existence but left in place the right to appoint a receiver where that was possible.
I also said that research has shown that in some 50 per cent of administrations a floating charge does exist but the administration was agreed to—or not vetoed— by the floating charge holder. So what appeared to be an automatic preference of secured creditors for administrative receivership over administration has diminished over the years.
I also wonder why the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, thinks that a bank will want to appoint an administrative receiver when there is a viable prospect of rescue. It would be contrary to the code of practice of the statement of principles of the British Bankers Association. That states that banks, which are usually the best placed creditor in terms of security,
"will add [their] support to a rescue proposition which [they] believe will succeed".
Then there is the question of the fate of the other stakeholders when an administrative receiver is appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seems to

489
be content to leave that in the hands of the bank, but let us be clear about the role of an administrative receiver. He is appointed by the charge holder. His duty of care is primarily to the charge holder. His job is to get the best price for the assets and to pay the lender, regardless of where that leaves the company's employees, other creditors, directors or shareholders. Sometimes he will sell the company's business but it is rare for him actually to save the company. So if a plan can be agreed for the rescue of a company by means of a voluntary arrangement we are firmly of the view that this is more likely to result in a better outcome for all concerned than a receivership. We do not wish banks to be the ultimate arbiters of whether a company should be saved.
Finally, it is strange to imagine that a voluntary arrangement procedure somehow takes place in a vacuum. We expect that in most cases the nominee will need to talk to the company's bankers, both before and during the moratorium. That may be in relation to funding during the moratorium. It will almost certainly be about their attitude to the rescue plan, and their interests will be taken into account by the nominee. But even if they were not, there is nothing to stop the bank making its views known to the nominee and challenging his decisions or actions, if appropriate. This is not some artificial process divorced from reality.
I have to repeat, though I will avoid using the offensive word "wrecking", that if these amendments were accepted they would defeat the purpose of the proposed legislation.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, despite the compelling arguments advanced by the Opposition the Minister remains obdurate, indeed defiant. In those circumstances I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 125.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

Dixon-Smith, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller]

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Blatch, B.

Freeman, L.

Boardman, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Geddes, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glentoran, L.

Burnham, L.

Hanham, B.

Buscombe, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Byford, B.

Jopling, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Kingsland, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Laird, L.

Coe, L.

Lucas, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

490

Miller of Hendon, B.

Renton, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Seccombe, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Tebbit, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Vivian, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Waddington, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wakeham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Alli, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Amos, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Andrews, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bach, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barker, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Barnett, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Judd, L.

Berkeley, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Borrie, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Lipsey, L.

Brett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brookman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Burlison, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Chandos, V.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Christopher, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Maekie of Benshie. L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Methuen, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Craig of Radley, L.

Mitchell. L.

Crawley, B.

Molloy. L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morgan, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Orme, L.

Desai, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dubs, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Sawyer, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Gale, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gavron, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gilbert, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Thornton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Grenfell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hamwee, B.

Uddin, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Harrison, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Haskel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hayman, B.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hollisof Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Winston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.31 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 15, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("apply") and insert ("Paragraphs 16 to 22A").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 7 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 19 and 20. Opposition Amendment No. 11 is in the same group. These amendments should address the concerns of the Opposition that bona fide third parties should not have to check that certain preconditions have been met before dealing with a company which is subject to a moratorium; for example, that a disposal is for the benefit of the company. As I said in Committee, we also would not want third parties to be put off dealing with a company in a moratorium because of doubts about whether transactions entered into by the company will be valid and enforceable against that company. Therefore, we have brought forward Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 and 12 which provide that if a company enters into a transaction in breach of paragraphs 16 to 22, those transactions will still be valid and enforceable against the company. Those paragraphs deal with transactions such as disposals, payments and the obtaining of credit by a company during the moratorium.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, would mind me saying a few words about Amendment No. 11 at the same time. Although we recognise the concern, we consider that Amendment No. 11 does not go quite far enough. We consider it necessary to make it clear that not only transactions under paragraph 18, which Amendment 11 would provide, but also those under paragraphs 16, 17 and 19 to 22 are to be valid and enforceable against the company even if the provisions of those paragraphs have not been complied with.
We have also provided by way of Amendment No. 14 that, first, market contracts and charges under Part VII of the Companies Act 1989 and, secondly, transfer orders and collateral security as defined in the Financial Markets and Insolvency (Settlement Finality) Regulations 1999 will also be valid and enforceable by as well as against the company, even though the company should not have entered into such a transaction in the first place. We have also provided that nothing done by or in pursuance of such a transaction is to be treated as done in contravention of paragraphs 12(1)(f), 14 or 16 to 22.
Given that companies which are party to such types of transactions are effectively banned from entering into a moratorium, that may seem a somewhat strange provision. But we have concluded that it is possible that a company in a moratorium might just
492
conceivably be able to enter into such a transaction. That being so, it is vital that it is valid and enforceable by all parties, even if entered into in contravention of the provisions of Schedule A1. It is also important that property subject to a market charge or collateral security charge cannot be dealt as if it were not subject to that security. Therefore, paragraph 20 has been disapplied. All of that is necessary to protect the integrity of the financial markets and ensure we are not in breach of our obligations under the EC Settlement Finality Directive.
However, as companies are not supposed to enter into market contracts, give transfer orders, grant market charges or provide collateral security during a moratorium we have provided by means of Amendments Nos. 14 and 20 that if a company does enter into any such transaction when it should not, the company and its officers can be prosecuted. Amendment No. 19 is consequential on Amendment No. 20.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise briefly to respond to the Minister and to speak to Amendment No. 11. The Minister has accepted that it would be damaging to rescue attempts if third parties were reluctant to deal with a company which is in a moratorium because of doubts as to whether the contracts would be enforceable against the company. We are pleased that the Minister has responded to our concerns. We were particularly concerned in relation to Amendment No. 11 which we put forward in Committee, on Report and again at Third Reading. We feel that the matter has now been addressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution on the group starting with Amendment No. 11. I forgot to speak to Amendment No. 13. Perhaps for the record I should say that Amendment No. 13 sets out more fully the two offences which are committed if a company, first, disposes of any of its property which is subject to a security without the consent of the holder of the security or leave of the court under paragraph 20 and otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the security; or, secondly, disposes of any goods in its possession under a hire purchase agreement without the consent of the owner of the goods or leave of the court under paragraph 20 and otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 10:
Page 15, line 28, at end insert—
("(1A) The fact that a company enters into a transaction in contravention of any of paragraphs 16 to 22 does not—

(a) make the transaction void, or

(b) make it to any extent unenforceable against the company.").

Page 15, leave out lines 29 to 35.
Page 16, line 31, at end insert ("otherwise than in pursuance of an order of the court").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 14:
Page 16, line 47, at end insert ("otherwise than in pursuance of an order of the court").
Page 18, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—

("(a) without any consent or leave under paragraph 20, disposes of any of its property which is subject to a security otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the security,

(aa) without any consent or leave under paragraph 20, disposes of any goods in the possession of the company under a hire-purchase agreement otherwise than in accordance with the terms of the agreement, or").

Page 18, line 12, at end insert—

Insolvency Bill [H.L.]

  Market contracts, etc.
  22A.—(1) If the company enters into any transaction to which this paragraph applies—

  (a) the company is liable to a fine, and

  (b) if any officer of the company, without reasonable excuse, authorised or permitted the company to enter into the transaction, he is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both.

  (2) A company enters into a transaction to which this paragraph applies if it—

  (a) enters into a market contract,

  (b) gives a transfer order,

  (c) grants a market charge, or

  (d) provides any collateral security.

  (3) The fact that a company enters into a transaction in contravention of this paragraph does not—

  (a) make the transaction void, or

  (b) make it to any extent unenforceable by or against the company.

  (4) Where during the moratorium a company enters into a transaction to which this paragraph applies, nothing done by or in pursuance of the transaction is to be treated as done in contravention of paragraphs 12(1)(f), 14 or 16 to 22.
  (5) Paragraph 20 does not apply in relation to any property which is subject to a market charge or a collateral security charge.
  (6) In this paragraph, "transfer order", "collateral security" and "collateral security charge" have the same meanings as in the settlement finality regulations.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 22, line 43, at end insert ("but may only apply within 7 days of the decision taken by the creditors' meeting").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we proposed a similar amendment in Committee. The Minister rejected the amendment because he said the timing of any application by a member of a company was not critical for the nominee or the supervisor. Therefore, there was no reason to restrict the time period during which a member of the company could make such an application. By contrast, at Report the Minister said there might be an advantage to having a cut-off point beyond which such applications could not be made.
  494
  He said the Government would reflect and perhaps amend the Bill to that purpose. It may be that my amendment is otiose but we shall see. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have avoided using the offensive word "otiose" in respect of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has a good point with the amendment. I said so at Report. Perhaps I did not say So glowingly enough for his taste. He said in Committee that there should be a time limit on the ability of a member of a company to go to court if the decision of a creditors' meeting—which takes effect under paragraph 35 of Schedule A1 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 2—differs from that made by the company meeting. We still take the view that that will normally be self-regulating. But we can see that there is an advantage in there being a cut-off point beyond which applications cannot be made. We shall be amending the Bill in another place to that purpose. We think that seven days is too short a period for a member to consider his position and make any application to the court which he considers appropriate under this paragraph. We think that a 28-day period would be more appropriate. However, I hope it will be thought that the coming together of minds is sufficient for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am more than content with the glowing support shown by the Minister for the principle lying behind the amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
  Page 29, line 17, leave out ("and 22(1)") and insert ("22(1) and 22A(1)(a)").
  Page 30, line 14, at end insert—
  Chapter
  Short title
  Extent of repeal

  ("Sch. Al, para. 22A(1)(a).

  Company entering into market contract, etc.

  1. On indictment. 2. Summary.

  A fine. The statutory maximum.

  Sch. A1, para. 22A(1)(b).

  Authorising or permitting company to do so.

  1. On indictment. 2. Summary.

  2 years or a fine, or both. 6 months or the statutory maximum, or both.")

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Company voluntary arrangements]:
  [Amendments Nos. 21 to 25 not moved.]
  Schedule 3 [Individual voluntary arrangements]: [Amendments Nos. 26 to 30 not moved.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kingsland and I believe that we have made considerable progress on a number of important issues in the Bill, although it continues to be our submission that, in a sense, the Bill's timing is somewhat premature. We thank the Minister for the positive way in which he has responded to a fair number of those issues. I wish also to pay tribute to and thank two people who have helped us; namely, Mr Peter Griffiths and Mr Bernard Weatherill QC, whose collective skill and considerable experience on this subject matter have been invaluable.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her words, which I reciprocate.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Transport Bill
7.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, before the Question is put, perhaps I may observe that it is now nearly a quarter to eight in the evening on the fourth day of the Committee stage. We were promised four days for consideration of the Bill and we now find ourselves on the fourth day dealing with it at a quarter to eight in the evening. It is a massive Bill, as all noble Lords know. I should like to protest in the mildest possible way that we should find ourselves dealing with it at this time of the evening.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord protesting in the mildest possible way. I understand his frustration. All of us would have preferred to start the proceedings on the Bill earlier. Regrettably, we are at that time of the year.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 252 agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodl Baroness Thomas of Walliswoodl moved Amendment No. 372:
Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause—

Transport Bill

  ROAD TRAFFIC STRATEGY
  .—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State (in respect of England) or the National Assembly for Wales (in respect of Wales), within one year of the coming into force of this Act, to prepare a strategy specifying an indicative level of road traffic for each year over the next ten years such that by the year 2010. total road traffic miles do not exceed 90 per cent. of the levels which apply on the day when this Act comes into force.
  (2) In preparing the strategy the Secretary of State or National Assembly for Wales shall consult such persons as they see flit.
  (3) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall as soon as is practicable after its completion publish the strategy and take such steps as are in their opinion necessary to ensure that the indicative levels are met.
  (4) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall thereafter report from time to time on the progress of the strategy.
  (5) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may amend the strategy from time to time as they see fit to ensure that the indicative levels are met.").
  The noble Baroness said: Before I go any further, I confess that I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, about the wisdom of starting consideration of the Bill so late in the day. We shall he dealing with some important amendments. We shall try to be brief but sometimes it will not be possible to be brief because the issues raised in the amendments are complicated.
  Amendment No. 372 would introduce a new clause before Clause 253, which is the first clause in Part V of the Bill. The clause requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to prepare, within one year of the coming into force of this Act, a 10-year road safety strategy. The purpose of the strategy is a reduction of road traffic miles to 90 per cent of their current levels by the year 2010. It requires the two authorities to consult about the formation of the strategy, to take appropriate action to achieve the objectives of the strategy, to report on progress and to amend the strategy if necessary. The new clause is a refined and simplified version of the substantive clauses of the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill which was introduced into this House in June 1998. Indeed, that Bill provided for other approaches to the problem of increasing road traffic to be adopted. This amendment is a continuation of that approach.
  I shall not go into the details of the argument which I deployed two years ago. We are all aware of the cost in environmental damage, reduction of quality of life and crowded roads and streets of the rising tide of traffic. Indeed, increasing prosperity has worsened all of these effects. The CPRE has suggested that traffic could double or even treble by the year 2025. It is enough to say that, in their recently issued 10-year plan for transport, with its return to a large package of road-building, the Government have emphasised the need to reduce congestion rather than what causes it.

  497
  Unfortunately, road-building, even the building of by-passes which may offer temporary relief to hard-pressed villages and towns, does absolutely nothing to reduce the number of journeys made by private car or lorry and, more particularly, the length of such journeys. Indeed, they may contribute to the opposite—more and longer journeys by road.
  The new clause seeks to provide a mechanism to make reduction in the number and length of journeys by road one of the considerations which influences and informs government policy over the next 10 years. I beg to move.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said in moving the amendment. We on these Benches cannot support it. We regard the growth in traffic as being very much a consequence of the growth in the economy. We want to see good growth in the economy. To put an artificial target on it such as is proposed in the amendment would not be practical.
  Lord Berkeley: What is proposed is a good idea, although I am not sure how practical it is in the short-term. It was interesting to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, thinks that the economy comes first and that traffic growth is inexorably linked to it. It is important to have a road traffic strategy even if the targets have to be reduced. Strategies are important. I am looking forward to strategies for the railways, which we have not had until now. There is no reason why there should not be a strategy for road traffic as well.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has called for an absolute reduction in the national volume of traffic to 90 per cent of its current level. When we responded to the first report on the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act, we indicated, as we did again in the 10-year plan, that we wished to slow the rate of growth of traffic. In some places there may need to be an absolute reduction in the rate of traffic. Concentration on the national volume of traffic is not a good measure of the success of a transport policy; nor is it what people are worried about. People are concerned about congestion and pollution. We have therefore framed our objectives in those terms, both in our report, Tackling Congestion and Pollution, on the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act and in the 10-year plan.
  That plan, in particular, sets out the outcomes that we expect to achieve. We seek to see a reduction, for example, in the contribution of road traffic to air pollution to be cut by around half, principally through cleaner fuels and vehicles but also through traffic management. Savings in carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector will make a significant contribution towards meeting climate change targets. Similarly, on congestion, with the investment to be made in alternative forms of transport and other measures contained in the plan, we seek to reduce
  498
  congestion to below current levels, in particular in our largest cities where it is most severe—even when the total volume of national traffic is rising.
  We believe that we should focus on air quality, health, road safety and the levels of greenhouse gases rather than on the absolute national volume of traffic. One of the objectives as regards the inter-urban network and large urban areas contained in the 10-year plan is the target of reducing congestion to below present levels by 2010.
  We have set out our strategies for carrying these forward. We believe that that will be a better way to progress, rather than to aim for a simplistic national target that relates to volume rather than outcome. We have set that out clearly at least twice in government documents. The National Assembly for Wales came to similar conclusions, which it published in February. For those reasons, I would ask the noble Baroness not to pursue the national volume targets. The targets I have outlined are already built into our national transport plans.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his support for the general principle of setting a target for traffic reduction or, to put it another way, for the control of traffic growth. This is only one way of putting that ambition into a legislative mode but it may not even be the best way.
  Our view is that it is necessary to adopt an overall approach to traffic reduction within which local authorities can relate to national aims and ambitions. I believe that merely seeking to solve congestion on the urban and inter-urban road network—which in most cases would mean simply building more space for cars to travel on—is not necessarily a way of reducing pollution, for example. It may even contribute to a slowdown in the reduction of pollution which is being achieved by other means. It is hoped that we shall see a transfer of journeys, not only those made by freight but also of passenger journeys, from the motor car to other, less polluting modes of transport.
  I shall not press my amendment. I thank the noble Lord for his response and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 373:
  Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause—

  ROAD TRAFFIC STRATEGY

  INSHORE SHIPPING SERVICES
  .—(1) The Secretary of State may enter into agreements or other arrangements—

  (a) for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or development by others of any inshore shipping services or maritime assets, or

  (b) for any purpose relating to inshore shipping services.

  (2) Agreements or other arrangements entered into under this section may provide for the Secretary of State—

  (a) to make grants or other payments or loans,

  (b) to give guarantees, or

  499

  (c) to invest in bodies corporate,

  on such terms and subject to any such conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall not enter into agreements or other arrangements under this section for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or development in Scotland of—

  (a) services for the carriage of cargo by sea,

  (b) facilities for or in connection with the carriage of cargo by sea or the loading or unloading of cargo carried or intended to he carried by sea,

  if the Scottish Ministers have power to do so.
  (4) In this section—

  "facilities" includes vessels, pilotage, buoyage, harbours, piers, jetties, equipment for embarcation and disembarcation and equipment for loading and unloading cargo;

  "inshore shipping" includes coastal, island to mainland, inter-island, canal, navigable river, loch, lough and lake.").

  The noble Baroness said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, I wish to table this amendment which was drafted by my noble friend. The concept behind the amendment and the wording have been developed from Clause 210 which makes provision for financial assistance for the purposes of railway assets and services.
  The Bill is silent on the question of shipping and waterway traffic; it ought not to be. The Bill's Long Title states simply that it seeks to make provision for transport. At present it covers air, rail and road transport. We are left to wonder why sea and waterway transport has been left out. This amendment would fill that gap by establishing that the Secretary of State and the Scottish and Welsh Ministers may make grants to improve sea and waterway facilities for freight and in consequence for passenger services.
  This will be extremely useful among the various islands and island groups that make up the United Kingdom. Living, working and trying to secure a strong economy are difficult enough in terms of remoteness, sparsity of population and distance from markets in those areas without adding the avoidable burden of inadequate freight and passenger facilities and services. The redevelopment of coastal shipping has the merit of removing substantial bulk loads from the road network. A new movement of timber from Argyll to Irvine by sea is an example of this. The same could also be true of the redevelopment of waterway traffic. We were pleased to read recently that the British Waterways Board has announced the new construction of a 19-mile canal in eastern England, the first to be built since 1810.
  Those providing such forms of transport are also pleased with this amendment. They have made the point that more bulk goods could be transported by waterways, and thus come off the roads, if only the higher costs of waterway transport could be mitigated. The removal of bulk transport from the roads is a much sought-after objective and could be delivered in some areas by assistance with the costs of a modal shift to waterway transport. The improvement of piers and jetties, which would be enabled by the amendment, is vital to maintaining populations in the islands and, indeed, in some remote areas of the mainland.
  The provision of freight facilities grants for sea and waterway transport will add to the effectiveness of the Bill and are exactly parallel to the freight grants awarded to similar kinds of facilities to serve the rail freight industry.
  I had an interesting meeting with a councillor from the Isle of Wight who brought to my attention the cost of travel from the Isle of Wight to the mainland. It is only a short distance but the journey costs £9 return. That is a considerable sum for a pensioner who perhaps needs regularly to visit a doctor or hospital on the other side of that short sea journey. In that context, it would be interesting to see if it would be possible to extend the provisions of the half-fare bus pass to that kind of pedestrian ferry service. Such ferry services are similar to the bus services to be provided through quality transport partnerships under the Bill.
  I have covered only two of the many different advantages that might be gained by this amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Many people thought that I would oppose this amendment, but that is not the case. I support it and I have added my name to it.
  This is a good amendment. It is not before time that the islands and not so inland waterways are brought within the scope of grants. The amendment does not separate the use to which the transport would be put; namely, between passengers and freight, whereas Amendment No. 426A in the same grouping does make that distinction. I was not absolutely sure whether the noble Baroness wished to suggest whether passengers should be included in the provision. There may be other ways of supporting passengers. Indeed, I believe that that is already the case in Scotland. However, the Bill does not cover Scotland and so that is not relevant.
  Agreements of this kind would certainly be necessary for freight. It is already allowed for, of course, on inland waterways. I am told that in Scotland grants are available for inland waterway travel between the Mull of Kintyre and Ayr. That must be a very wide inland waterway and no doubt sometimes rather rough.
  Basically, we need to examine, in comparison with rail freight, the number of road/lorry miles that might be saved. Some interesting calculations would need to be made as regards working out the correct ferry or sea miles. It is also important to recognise that the provisions should apply not only to islands such as the Isle of Wight, the Isle of Man and across to Northern Ireland but also to services along the coast. There is no reason why timber should not be transported from Aberdeen to the south of England by sea rather than by road or rail. So the competitive situation would have to be examined.
  I should be unhappy if the provision were extended to apply across the North Sea to mainland European countries. I do not think that is the plan. It would introduce further questions of competition that would need to be looked at. Apart from that, the important

  501
  point is to make sure the grants—presumably either for capital expenditure or operating costs, or a combination of the two—retain the same flexibility but also the same competitive edge against road freight as is the case with rail freight.
  I hope that my noble friend will look with favour on this proposal. We have received many messages of support from the ports industry. I support the amendment.
  8 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister replies, it may be for the benefit of the Committee if I point out that inshore shipping includes coastal; island to mainland; inter-island; canal; navigable river, loch and lake. It does not include journeys across the North Sea or the Channel.
  Lord Elder: I should like to speak to the other two amendments in the group standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Goudie. Amendment No. 426A covers the same general ground as Amendment No. 373, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
  There will be enormous environmental benefits if we succeed in taking freight off the roads. The freight facility grant currently does that by encouraging a switch to rail or to inland waterways. The amendments would extend that to coastal and short-sea shipping. As I understand it, they would cover services around the UK and between the UK and Europe. Support for short-sea shipping is a declared objective of the European Commission.
  The amendments cover reserved matters; so they would cover trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK but not wholly within Scotland, which would be a matter for the Scottish Executive.
  Congestion on roads is already leading to a reassessment of the benefits of water travel, and that reassessment is to be encouraged. The amendment seeks to do exactly that; and it is to be hoped that it will encourage more operators to make the switch.
  For the sake of simplicity, the amendments combine all water-related grants into one, putting coastal short-sea shipping and inland waterways together. Under the amendments, both capital and non-capital grants could be made, which would provide a good deal of flexibility. As grants are paid only when an actual shift is made from roads, I believe that the proposal would prove both efficient and effective.
  Amendment No. 427A repeals the relevant part of the Railways Act 1993. I believe that together the amendments would succeed in assisting some shift from roads to other, more environmentally friendly forms of transport and are therefore to be encouraged. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to them.
  Baroness Goudie: I support my noble friend Lord Elder and the other speakers. I declare an interest as an
  502
  adviser on shipping to Clydeport. If the amendment were accepted, we should be able to see much more traffic shifted off the roads. It would ensure that short-sea shipping was able to take container goods from Glasgow to Southampton, and then on to the main ships, from Grangemouth to Felixstowe, on to the main mother ships and out to Europe and other parts of the world. That would make a great improvement to the environment. Therefore, I hope that we shall receive government support for these proposals.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am interested in these two amendments. Amendment No. 373 would appear to cover the Isle of Wight—I declare an interest as a resident. However, the amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, would appear not to cover the Isle of Wight, or indeed any other island, because the wording in subsection (1) is, "rather than by road". Obviously, there is no road alternative for the Isle of Wight, or indeed the Scottish islands. The only way to get there is by ship—as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is well aware and as he rather foolishly said the other day.
  I have one or two questions for the Minister on the amendments. If the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, is acceptable to the Government, there is a question of what the Treasury calls deadweight; that is to say, you do not want to subsidise a service that is already happening. How would the Government deal with that situation?
  In principle, we support the movement of more freight by sea, whether on inland waterways or up and down the coast. But that is already happening to some extent with certain commodities such as fuel, oil and heavy bulk aggregates. So we need to be certain that the Treasury will not end up subsidising services that are already under way.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that the rail freight grant covers that situation? The two conditions before a grant can be obtained are: first, that there must be environmental benefits, up to so much for motorway miles; and, secondly, that the traffic is not presently operating and could not do so without a subsidy. Does the noble Lord agree that similar wording would cover this matter?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: That is precisely my point; it is why I question the reference in the amendment. The traffic should not already be a viable proposition, operated commercially, as is the case with rail freight.
  I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that the Isle of Wight has doctors and hospitals at present. Many of the residents there are well satisfied with the services that they receive.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): The Government made a commitment in their integrated transport White Paper and in their shipping daughter document to extend the

  503
  application of the freight facilities grant regime to coastal and short-sea shipping. The freight facilities grant scheme is an environmental grant designed to encourage the transfer of freight from road to more environmentally friendly modes of transport. The current grant scheme covers railways and inland waterways but not shipping. Amendment No. 373 provides for a general grant to be made available for inshore shipping services and maritime assets.
  The amendment is restricted to inshore shipping services and, therefore, does not include short-sea shipping services such as those operating between the UK and Europe. Nor does it focus clearly on a key issue for the Government of encouraging the transfer of freight from road to water. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but we cannot support the proposed amendment.
  However, the Government are able to support Amendments Nos. 426A and 427A. The intention of the new clause in Amendment No. 426A is to extend the current freight facilities grant scheme to coastal and international shipping. Services operating to the rest of Europe, as well as around the UK, would be eligible for grant. It will constitute a general "water transport" grant scheme by also including inland waterways which are currently provided for in Section 140 of the Railways Act 1993.
  The clause also requires that freight traffic must be transferred from road to water, thus ensuring an environmental benefit as a condition for the payment of grant. I hope that that explains why the Treasury would have its concern focused on the environmental benefit and would not judge the matter simply in regard to any dead-weight implications.
  The clause will also allow the payment of grant for capital and non-capital costs and provide flexibility to enable the grant to be paid to shipping companies, ports, consignors, consignees and navigation authorities. The powers of the Secretary of State will include only reserved matters. Therefore, the National Assembly for Wales will continue to have power to administer inland waterway grants in Wales, and Scottish Ministers will have power to administer inland waterway grants and grants for eligible shipping services that operate wholly within Scotland. I am pleased to say that Scottish Ministers support this amendment. The Secretary of State will also have power to grant-aid eligible services from and to Northern Ireland. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. The wording does not cover passage to the Isle of Wight. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, agrees that Amendments Nos. 426A and 427A go a long way to meet her objectives and that she will withdraw her amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend sits down perhaps I may raise one matter. First, my noble friend said that the grant could apply to shipping to mainland Europe but not the Isle of Wight. Does it apply only if there is an alternative road route? The position appears to be slightly odd. What about the Isle of Man which also does not have a road alternative? Secondly,
  504
  on what is the grant calculated? I suppose that if one received a grant for a journey from Grangemouth, to which my noble friend Lady Goudie referred earlier, to Rotterdam the alternative route would be through the Channel Tunnel, which would have a cost, and by road for the rest of the way. Is that the environmental road alternative?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I do not understand how the grant can possibly apply to shipping across the North Sea and to the Scottish islands, as the Minister implied, but not to the Isle of Wight and, presumably, the Isles of Scilly. If that is so, there will be a serious English rebellion. The amendment reads "rather than by road". There is no road alternative to the Isle of Wight, the Isles of Scilly or the Isle of Man; nor is there a road alternative across the North Sea or the English Channel. Either it applies to places where there is a road alternative or it does not. The answer to that question must be fairly straightforward.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The point that I sought to make was that freight for the Isle of Wight would travel by road to ports either side of a short ferry journey to the island, so the effect would be the same. However, I confess that I do not speak from great certainty. I shall confirm the detail and write to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to the Minister. There is a considerable argument in the Isle of Wight about the cost of the ferry. If it is to be subsidised by the Government that is a major policy move. I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware of that. We should like to know the answer to that question, especially as we approach Cowes Week.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We have had an interesting exchange. I am delighted that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elder, finds favour with the Government. However, it does not go as far as our amendment. The amendment does nothing to mitigate the cost of passenger transport by sea when that is the only means of travel available to people. In most cases, if one lives in any of the Scottish islands, the Isle of Wight, or any other island off the coast of this country, one cannot reach the mainland except by sea. That is the point of part of our amendment. It was in that context that I quoted the problem experienced by my friend Morris Barton in relation to the cost of the "bus" from the Isle of Wight to Portsmouth. That service costs a great deal more than other bus services and does not offer half-fares. Some people must make the crossing for the purposes of attending hospital or their place of work. Everyone must pay the full fare. I should be interested to know whether the Government would consider the provision of the same kind of concessionary fare scheme on that service as on bus services on land. I shall not take up any further time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 253 and 254 agreed to.
  Schedule 29 [Detention of vehicles used without operator's licence]:
  [Amendments Nos. 374 to 376 not moved.]
  8.15 p.m.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 377:
  Page 322, line 45, leave out from ("informing") to ("that") in line 46 and insert ("the registered keeper or other persons who may be entitled to the goods vehicle").
  The noble Earl said: Before I speak to or move any amendments I should declare some interests. I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and I own a rather large transporter that resides in the REME Museum in Bordon. That vehicle can be operated only under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
  I am grateful to the Minister for including the provisions of my impounding Bill in this Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to seek an assurance from the Minister that when the Bill is implemented and he drafts regulations he will pay attention to the needs of the vehicle hire and leasing industry. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was very helpful during the passage of my Private Member's Bill. I hope that the Minister can be just as helpful. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 377, which deals with hire companies, is an attempt by the noble Earl to extend further the impounding provisions which he was instrumental in inserting into the Bill in another place. However, it raises the particular issue of vehicle hire companies. An impounding scheme would need to encourage vehicle hire companies as well as consignors and insurers to ensure the use of legitimate hauliers. It is true that it is the users of hired vehicles who are required to have operator licences, not the rental companies. A rental company that does not check that a person who hires one of its vehicles has an operator licence runs the risk of having the vehicle detained. I do not, however, suggest that a hire company which has had a vehicle impounded in this way should have no means of recovering it.
  My department has held discussions on this matter with the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association. The Bill provides for the making of regulations. If the vehicle is being operated illegally without the owner's knowledge the latter can recover the vehicle on notification. However, that is a matter of detail that is best left to regulations. There will be wide consultation before regulations are laid before Parliament. I believe that the point which the noble Earl seeks to make in the amendment will be covered in those regulations and that it is unnecessary to amend the Bill to that effect.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's response. It is clear that the hire companies will have to change their procedure; otherwise, they will find themselves in difficulty. I recall that during the passage of my Private Member's Bill I hired a small tipper truck. The hire company, although reputable, made no attempt to find out whether I required an operator
  506
  licence. It may be necessary in future to make rapid changes to vehicle holdings because the impounding arrangements eliminate the margin scheme. One can still have more vehicles on one's licence and not use them but one must notify a vehicle before one uses it. By the time the legislation is implemented will it be possible to notify changes in vehicle holdings electronically?
  Lord Whitty: The noble Lord will know that we are moving towards electronic licensing of vehicles. I am not sure when this particular passage comes into force. However I suspect that electronic licensing will not be in force by then. But we are moving towards electronic licensing and therefore within a few months, or perhaps a year, that will be the situation.
  Earl Attlee: It is to be hoped that electronic notification of vehicle changes will be implemented rapidly. Otherwise we shall be behind the power curve.
  The Minister also referred to "wide consultation". I hope that it will not take too long. When the provision is on the statute book it will need to be implemented as rapidly as possible for obvious reasons. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment Nos. 378 to 381 not moved.]
  Schedule 29 agreed to.
  Clause 255 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 382 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 382A:
  After Clause 255, insert the following new clause—

  OPERATORS' LICENCES: GOOD REPUTE
  (" .—(1) Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (qualifications for standard licence) is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 2 after "shall" there is inserted "except in exceptional circumstances".
  (3) After paragraph 2(b) there is inserted—

  "(c) has within the last two years employed one or more drivers that he knew or suspected were illegally claiming unemployment benefits; or

  (d) has within the last two years employed one or more drivers that were illegally claiming unemployment benefits and has failed to take suitable measures to ascertain whether or not they were claiming benefits or to remit national insurance deductions to the Contributions Agency."").

  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 382A I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 389A, 387 and 388. These amendments deal with closely related issues. The Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act provides for two types of licence to operate goods vehicles: standard and restricted. A restricted licence prevents use for hire and reward. In order to be granted a standard licence an applicant has to be of good repute, professionally competent and have the appropriate financial standing. An applicant for a restricted licence need fill none of these requirements.
  My original amendments removed the distinction between the two types of licence. Therefore an applicant would need to meet all the conditions. However, I was tactfully briefed against this.
  Amendment No. 387 inserts the requirement for the applicant of a restricted licence to be professionally competent. In other words, he needs to have a properly qualified transport manager.
  It is probably worth remembering that even operators of rubbish skip lorries normally require only a restricted licence. There will be some obvious difficulties that the Minister will draw to the Committee's attention. He will refer no doubt to the small operators who have only one or two vehicles. I think that the concept of the amendment could be developed so that a suitable trade association could provide the top cover of a transport manager. Therefore it would not be necessary for a small organisation to have a fully qualified transport manager. They would just have to have access to that knowledge. The trade association could send bulletins to people subscribing to their services.
  Amendment No. 388 inserts a requirement for all operators of goods vehicles to be of good repute. I cannot understand why the Minister would be happy for anyone who is not of good repute to operate a goods vehicle.
  Amendments Nos. 382A and 389A provide that a goods vehicle operator must lose his good repute if he knowingly employs drivers illegally claiming benefits. At practically every multi-agency check of goods vehicles, employed and self-employed drivers are detected illegally claiming benefits. It is despicable for an employer to do that. It cannot be done accidentally and therefore the operator's good repute should be forfeited.
  It sometimes seems to me to be unduly difficult for an operator to lose his good repute. This amendment deals with only one particular scam. There are many more. I believe in minimum regulation for those who will operate legally within the industry, and removal for those who will not. I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: I support what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said. He referred to the fact that many scams are detected, for example, at multi-agency checks. This is just one that I have witnessed. It is not an occasional offence. It is a regular offence, as is using a vehicle which is running on red diesel. I recently saw a vehicle which had two filler caps in the diesel tank: one on the outside which contained white diesel; the majority of the tank contained red diesel which was filled from another cap. Anybody found doing that should be barred from the industry. I support the amendment regarding the claiming of unemployment benefit. It is obviously done with the knowledge of the owner and operator of the vehicle.
  Lord Berkeley: The Committee will be pleased to know that I shall not support every one of the amendments of noble Earl, Lord Attlee. However, when this Bill started in another place there were no
  508
  substantive clauses on road transport. It is due to his perseverance that we have tabled a good raft of amendments tonight, which, taken in total, would make enormous improvements in the legal operations and safety of the road freight industry. I recognise that this was part of the Government's policy. The recommendation in the Commission for Integrated Transport Report was 44 tons as an essential prerequisite. I shall return to that in Amendment No. 412. With his wide-ranging knowledge, the noble Earl has done the House a great service in putting down such an excellent range of amendments.
  Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 386, which is in this group of amendments, although it does not reflect exactly the same issues as in the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. That amendment concerns undertakings given by operators to traffic commissioners, but not the original undertakings which they give as a condition of their original licence, where a traffic commissioner may grant a licence and may attach a condition. I refer to undertakings which are given to a traffic commissioner at a hearing in the traffic commissioner's court where an operator has been called in to the court to see the traffic commissioner usually because the maintenance arrangements of his vehicles are not up to standard.
  That operator may give a verbal or a written undertaking at that time to the effect that he is, for example, employing a proper maintenance foreman, will keep proper records and will do various things to ensure that the failings in the maintenance of his vehicles are rectified. Unfortunately, as I understand the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, undertakings given subsequent to the granting of the licence are not regarded as part of the licence, and therefore if that failing is repeated the licence is not automatically at risk.
  That is a weakness in the law. It was referred to in the Standing Committee in another place and there was an exchange between my honourable friend Mr Foster, and the Minister, Mr Hill. No conclusion was reached, although Mr Foster was complimented for raising the point, which the Minister said interested him greatly.
  This is an important point and it affects the whole safety of road haulage. Can the Government now tell us whether they are able to amend the regulations? When an operator who is called in at a disciplinary hearing gives an undertaking—and he is giving that undertaking voluntarily as a result of being found wanting—can we then be sure that that will be recorded in such a way that should the same failing occur again the licence of that operator is automatically at risk? I am sure that that would be the case both in railway and air travel and I believe that it ought to extend to road travel, where far more people are killed and injured.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: I join my noble friend Lord Berkeley in commending the noble Earl on his activity in this

  509
  regard and for the amendments which have appeared in another place. We are focusing on transport tonight and I want to put on record my gratitude to the road haulage industry. This morning, in my noble friend's absence I chaired a meeting before the Select Committee. We had a constructive discussion with the trade associations and trade unions on issues such as enforcement. Many of the issues are being faced in that context probably for the first time.
  As regards the noble Earl's amendment and the issue of deciding whether an applicant is of good repute, at present the commissioners must take into account the criminal convictions of the operator and his employees, including road transport offences, and any previous conduct in relation to the operation of vehicles as part of a business. Once a licence has been granted the operator must continue to satisfy the good repute requirement throughout the time he holds the licence. Operators can face the suspension or revocation of their licence by the traffic commissioner if they do not.
  The legislation is particularly firm where an individual has been convicted of road transport offences or more than one serious offence. In such circumstances, the commissioner must revoke the operator's licence. The first part of the proposed amendment would allow the traffic commissioner to waive this requirement in "exceptional circumstances". That is not an appropriate form of words. Indeed, the existing provisions of the regulations implement the requirements of an EC directive which provides no derogation that would allow us to give the transport commissioner powers to waive the requirement for more than one serious offence. Therefore, the amendments would result in a breach of the UK's Community obligations. In any event, we believe that the situation covered by the amendment is already tight enough within the existing provisions. If anything, his amendment would dilute them.
  In other respects, the existing discretionary powers of the traffic commissioner concerning good repute are already wide-ranging. The commissioner may take into account "all the relevant evidence" concerning the conduct of the holder of an operator's licence of any of his employees.
  To determine effectively whether an operator is of good repute, the traffic commissioner must have powers to take into account any evidence of misconduct that to him appears relevant. The existing legislation does that already. It enables him, for example, to consider offences such as benefit fraud, to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred. In view of that, I believe that Amendments Nos. 382A and 389A are unnecessary because sufficient powers already exist.
  Amendments Nos. 387 and 388 relate to the position of restricted licences. I believe that the UK is the only country in the EU which has a system of restricted licence for own-account hauliers. Other member states do not licence them in this way. The requirements for own-account operators in the UK are therefore
  510
  already more stringent than anywhere else in Europe. We have no evidence that the restricted licence holders are any less professional or run their vehicles in a less safe manner. Making it mandatory, for example, for restricted licence holders to hold a certificate of professional competence, or to employ a transport manager with that qualification, would present a significant burden on the high proportion of restricted licence holders that are small businesses.
  Restricted licence holders must already prove to a traffic commissioner that they are fit to hold a licence and can run their vehicles safely and within the law. I am therefore not convinced that there is a sufficient case for seeking those changes.
  I understand what lies behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. He is concerned that any undertakings should be taken into account by a traffic commissioner when he considers that they are material to the granting of a licence. Undertakings which are given on occasions that cannot be recorded on the licence therefore present a problem. If undertakings which are recorded on a licence are breached, the traffic commissioner may take disciplinary action. That gives the traffic commissioner wide powers.
  The amendment is designed to take action if any undertakings, wherever they are given by the operator, are breached. Unfortunately, I do not believe that his amendment does that. It still refers to undertakings being recorded on the licence and does not appear to allow for the recording on the licence of any undertakings given subsequent to the granting of the original application, even, for example, at a disciplinary inquiry. There is a need for clarity concerning the status of undertakings given by and agreed with the licence holder, otherwise there would be frequent disputes as to whether something which had been said or written amounted to a formal undertaking. The status of the present regulations, and his amendment, would not relate to undertakings outside those which could be recorded, but the legislation more broadly requires the traffic commissioner to take note of the undertakings. Because they are not recorded on the licence there is not the same degree of automaticity as there will be for those recorded at the point of granting the licence. Nevertheless, I believe that existing legislation and regulation already covers that point.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply but I do not find it satisfactory. There is clear evidence of disputes as to whether undertakings given subsequent to the granting of a licence are on the record in such a way that they can properly be taken into account. There is disputation.
  I readily accept that my wording may not be of the best, but I do not believe that it is impossible between now and another stage for someone to see whether the words can be altered to make a small but necessary amendment in the interests of road safety and clarity. The enforcement authorities and the hauliers will then clearly understand where they are. We must do away with the artificial distinction between undertakings

  511
  given at the time of granting the licence and subsequent undertakings given, for example, following an inspection of maintenance facilities.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who spoke to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned red diesel and special modifications to the tank. That is a another good example of the possible automatic loss of good repute. The Customs and Excise detector vehicles have a specially modified fuel system and they normally impound straightaway.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke of undertakings. The point he was making was that they are made voluntarily in order to retain the licence because it appeared to the operator as though the traffic commissioner was about to withdraw it.
  I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his kind words. We shall wait and see how we get on with his Amendment No. 412.
  I thank the Minister for his reply, but the principle we are debating is the automatic loss of good repute. I am suggesting that we should be tougher than the system which obtains in the rest of Europe. I am a little disappointed in that the Minister did not pick up any of the suggestions. I shall read his reply carefully and I am sure that we shall return to the matter at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 383 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendment No. 384 not moved.]
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 385:
  Alter Clause 255, insert the following new clause—

  OPERATING CENTRES FOR GOODS VEHICLES: LICENCE CONDITIONS
  (" . In section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
  "(dd) in permitting goods vehicles operators to establish an operating centre the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the centre is available, suitable and of sufficient capacity and must take into account the suitability of the local public road network for the establishment of such a centre."").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 385, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 390. Amendment No. 385 relates to goods vehicle operating centres and Amendment No. 390 refers to centres from which buses are operated. Again, these matters were referred to in Standing Committee E in another place.
  The amendments place on the traffic commissioner the responsibility for ensuring that the local road network which leads to and from a proposed operating centre is suitable for the purpose of the operation of goods vehicles or, indeed, buses. However, we need to ensure that the traffic commissioner's duties are expanded in that way. I take as an example North Yorkshire. When the matter was raised in another
  512
  place, we were told that the local planning authorities had sufficient powers to control those activities and that, therefore, there was no need to extend the traffic commissioner's powers to take into account the local highway network.
  I am told that in North Yorkshire applications often fall between the county council as a highway authority, the district council as a planning authority and the traffic commissioner. The traffic commissioner may examine a farmyard. He can see that the facilities exist to maintain the lorries properly. He can look at the lane leading from the farmyard to the road and check that it is wide enough and suitable for driving heavy goods vehicles. However, if the farmyard abuts a country lane which is quite unsuitable for driving heavy goods vehicles, there is absolutely nothing that the traffic commissioner can do.
  I am told that in North Yorkshire often the premises are ones to which HGVs occasionally come and go. The premises may be an established user. It may not necessarily be a vehicle operating centre, but vehicles come and go to the site to make deliveries. The local authorities find that in planning terms they cannot turn down the access to such a place because it is an established user, and the traffic commissioner has no power to say that it is not a suitable place from which to run a haulage business.
  The amendment seeks merely to say that the traffic commissioner, who is an expert in lorry sizes, lorry weights and so on, should be able to take into account whether or not the lane or road is suitable for heavy vehicles.
  I have received many letters from various parts of the country where people's lives are being made an absolute misery. Roads are being smashed to pieces and the verges cut back because heavy vehicles are being operated to and from places which are unsuitable for modern haulage operations. It seems to me that a judgment as to the suitability of a road is a matter which comes very much within the purview of a traffic commissioner. He knows what type of vehicles are in question and he knows their height, width and other features.
  Amendment No. 390 seeks to insert a similar clause but deals with buses. Again, it states that if an operating centre is set up for a bus, the centre should be suitable for that purpose. In this case, the problem arises from a number of buses being kept almost at the roadside, much to the annoyance of people in the vicinity when the vehicles are started up early in the morning. Again, it seems that because this is essentially a transport matter the traffic commissioner is best fitted to judge whether the premises are suitable.
  I ask Ministers to consider carefully whether this small extension to traffic commissioners' duties, which, by the way, the traffic commissioners want, should be granted to them. Professionally, they are by far the most competent people to discharge that duty. I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: I support both amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I have also

  513
  received many representations about unsuitable lorries and buses on local roads. I suppose that that is not surprising when farmers find that their financial situation is not so good as it used to be. They have many outbuildings and occasionally lorries will arrive for delivery or collection of grains which, obviously, must go by road. I believe that irritation arises when that activity is converted into a business.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, serious problems are caused with regard to quality of life and, most importantly, to road safety. I believe that particular problems arise in some of the more outlying parts of the country; for example, in Devon, Cornwall and probably Kent. East Anglia also has a similar problem with regard to roads. I believe that these two small amendments could make life a great deal easier for local residents by improving the quality of life in the countryside.
  8.45 p.m.
  Earl Attlee: I understand the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but I am slightly concerned as to where new operators are to locate affordable premises as operating centres.
  Lord Whiny: I understand the problem to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, refer. However, we must be clear as to what is the appropriate role for the traffic commissioners, the highways authority and the planning authority. The noble Lord refers to North Yorkshire where, he claims, matters fall between three stools. However, we are considering the effect of generated traffic on the road system. That is an issue faced frequently by both highways authorities and planning authorities. The two tiers of government deal with such problems all the time, not only in the case of transport operations but in relation to factories and other planning permissions. I believe that it is inappropriate to put that type of problem on to the traffic commissioners when essentially they are issues which relate to planning, traffic and roads. The traffic commissioners have a wide range of duties to perform in assessing whether an operating centre is suitable. Basically, those duties relate to the business, safety and environmental effects on the vicinity and on the residents. I believe that it would be extending their duties too far if they were asked to take on what are essentially planning functions. Those are matters for local planning authorities.
  Amendment No. 390 effectively seeks to apply similar criteria to the siting of operating centres for PSVs as apply in relation to goods vehicles. That is a different situation. I accept that at present traffic commissioners have no powers to refuse to grant a PSV licence on the basis of the adequacy of an operating centre. I recognise the logic that lies behind the noble Lord's amendment in trying to establish an equivalent in relation to goods vehicles.
  However, again, when local authorities determine applications for planning permission, they have powers under the town and country planning
  514
  legislation to take account of the wider issues of the possible problems created by goods vehicles on the highway network. Powers also exist under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit or restrict particular types of vehicle from using local roads on environmental grounds.
  Again, I believe that the local authorities are best placed to take decisions on those issues. Their current powers are sufficient to address the concerns in relation to bus operating centres in the local area. Therefore, I believe that it is not appropriate to extend the traffic commissioners' powers in that respect; nor is it appropriate to establish an equivalence between what are a relatively small number of bus operating centres and the provisions which apply to even a one-lorry operating centre for HGV businesses. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his reply, which again I find extremely disappointing. If an application is made for a licence, the traffic commissioner has to go and inspect the premises and the road leading from the yard to the main road. It seems to me that he is the best qualified person to judge environmental and safety issues, which he is required to do as a matter of course.
  The Minister's disappointing answer will be bitterly resented in many country areas, where such traffic causes great distress. I point out to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that there are plenty of places on industrial estates and elsewhere where haulage businesses can and should be located. I am concerned about their location in patently unsuitable areas down narrow country lanes.
  I am very disappointed by the Minister's answer and I may come back to the issue, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 386 to 390 not moved.]
  Clause 256 agreed to.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 391:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  OPERATING CENTRES FOR GOODS VEHICLES: LICENCE CONDITIONS
  ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO DRIVERS' HOURS
  After section 99 of the Transport Act 1968 there is inserted—
  ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO DRIVERS' HOURS

    Power to prohibit driving of vehicle.
    99A.—(1) If—

    (a) the driver of a UK vehicle obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of his powers under subsection (2) or (3) of section 99 of this Act or fails to comply with any requirement made by an authorised person under subsection (1) of that section,

    (b) it appears to an authorised person that, in relation to a UK vehicle or its driver, there has been a contravention of any of the provisions of—

    (i) sections 96 to 98 of this Act and any orders or regulations under those sections, or

    (ii) the applicable Community rules, or that there will be such a contravention if the vehicle is driven on a road, or

    515

    (c) it appears to an authorised person that an offence under section 99(5) of this Act has been committed in respect of a UK vehicle or its driver, the authorised person may prohibit the driving of the vehicle on a road either for a specified period or without limitation of time.

    (2) Where an authorised person prohibits the driving of a vehicle under this section, he may also direct the driver to remove the vehicle (and, if it is a motor vehicle drawing a trailer, also to remove the trailer) to such place and subject to such conditions as are specified in the direction; and the prohibition shall not apply to the removal of the vehicle in accordance with that direction.
    (3) On imposing a prohibition under subsection (1) of this section, the authorised person shall give notice in writing of the prohibition to the driver of the vehicle, specifying the circumstances (as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of that subsection) in consequence of which the prohibition is imposed and stating whether it is imposed only for a specified period (and if so specifying the period) or without limitation of time.
    (4) Any direction under subsection (2) of this section may be given —

    (a) in the notice under subsection (3) of this section, or

    (b) in a separate notice in writing given to the driver of the vehicle.

    (5) In this section—
    "authorised person" means—

    (a) an examiner appointed by the Secretary of State under section 66A of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or

    (b) a constable authorised to act for the purposes of this section by or on behalf of a chief officer of police;

    "UK vehicle" means a vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994.

    Duration and removal of prohibition.
    99B.—(1) Subject to any exemption granted under subsection (2) of this section, a prohibition under subsection (1) of section 99A of this Act shall come into force as soon as notice of it has been given in accordance with subsection (3) of that section and shall continue in force—

    (a) until it is removed under subsection (3) of this section, or

    (b) in the case of a prohibition imposed for a specified period, until it is removed under that subsection or that period expires, whichever first occurs.

    (2) Where notice of a prohibition has been given under section 99A(3) of this Act in respect of a vehicle, an exemption in writing for the use of the vehicle in such manner, subject to such conditions and for such purposes as may be specified in the exemption may be granted by any authorised person.
    (3) A prohibition under section 99A(l) of this Act may be removed by any authorised person, if he is satisfied that appropriate action has been taken to remove or remedy the circumstances (as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 99A(1) of this Act) in consequence of which the prohibition was imposed; and on doing so the authorised person shall give notice in writing of the removal of the prohibition to the driver of the vehicle.
    (4) In this section, "authorised person" has the same meaning as in section 99A of this Act.

    Failure to comply with prohibition.
    99C. Any person who—

    (a) drives a vehicle on a road in contravention of a prohibition imposed under section 99A(1) of this Act,

    (b) causes or permits a vehicle to be driven on a road in contravention of such a prohibition, or

    (c) refuses or fails to comply within a reasonable time with a direction given under section 99A(2) of this Act,
    516
    shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale."").

    The noble Earl said: The amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Marsh. It may be convenient to speak also to Amendment No. 428.
    This is an important amendment. The Bill contains most of the text of the Road Traffic (Enforcement Powers) Bill that I introduced during the previous Session. The principal effect of that Bill would have been the impounding of illegally operated goods vehicles. I am very grateful to the Minister for having introduced the necessary amendments in the other place and for the credit that he has given me publicly and on an earlier amendment.
    However, there was a smaller, but still important part of my Bill that has not yet found its way into this Bill. We all know how important it is to limit the number of hours that a lorry or coach driver can drive before he takes a rest. Without sufficient rest, drivers of such heavy vehicles are a danger to themselves and to other road users.
    The rules on drivers' hours are complicated and it is easy to fall foul of them. Fortunately, we do not need to go into the details. However, no rules, however detailed, are effective if they cannot be properly enforced. At the moment, if a policeman or a vehicle inspector realises that the driver of a foreign-registered lorry or coach has driven for longer than he should have done, he can insist that the appropriate rest period is taken immediately. However, if a UK driver exceeds his hours, the authorities do not have the power to make him rest immediately. Of course, a driver who flouts the law in that way can still be prosecuted, but in the mean time he will have driven when he was too tired to do so safely. He may even have had an accident, but he still cannot be stopped from driving.
    Prosecution is not enough. There must he a power to prohibit movement. The amendment would give the police and vehicle inspectors the power to require the drivers of UK-registered lorries and coaches to take overdue breaks or rest periods immediately, or at least as soon as the driver can get to a safe place to take that rest. Prosecution remains an option, but the important point is that drivers who may be unsafe because they have driven excessive hours cannot continue until they have rested. I beg to move.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I support the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has done sterling work on the subject. I hope that he will be rewarded today with the success that he deserves.
    There is no doubt that exceeding proper driver's hours is implicated in many road accidents, which shows how dangerous it is. I am sure that we all support action being taken on that.

    517
    This is a rainbow amendment—I colour my amendments according to who puts them forward and I have four colours on this one—and it deserves the support that amendments coming from all sides of the House often receive.
    Lord Berkeley: I am the third part of the rainbow. Many of us debated this provision when we considered the noble Earl's Bill a year ago. Amendments were made—I believe that the Government may have tabled some of them. I think that the Government were happy with the Bill when it left this House, so I hope that my noble friend the Minister will say that he is happy with it today.
    Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others for tabling Amendments Nos. 391 and 428, which would tighten up the enforcement of drivers' hours. Together with Clauses 253, 254 and 255 and Schedule 29 on HGV impounding, the amendment formed part of the noble Earl's Private Member's Bill last Session, which ran out of time. We made it clear then that the measure is fully in line with our aims. For that reason, I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Earl that we can support these two amendments.
    At present, the vehicle inspectorate and the police have no formal power to prohibit the drivers of vehicles registered in the UK who have exceeded their permitted driving time from continuing their journey. They have powers to prohibit the drivers of foreign-registered vehicles, under the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972, but for vehicles registered in the United Kingdom the only available remedy is prosecution, which does not necessarily prevent the driver from continuing his or her journey.
    For road safety reasons, it is important that enforcement officers are able to prohibit a driver who is found to have reached or exceeded the daily driving time limits or taken inadequate rest. Prohibition is an option for other infringements as well, such as when a driver fails to produce any record sheets detailing his daily activities or when those records have been falsified.
    Prohibitions will not be unduly onerous and will normally be the same as the period of rest that is due. For example, when a driver should have taken an 11-hour daily rest period but has not done so, the prohibition will normally be for 11 hours. For other infringements, the length of the prohibition will depend on the circumstances in which it was imposed.
    In some cases, prohibition might be more effective than prosecution. The power would also act as a deterrent and it would remove any grounds for complaining of discrimination between UK and foreign-registered vehicles. Above all, it should ensure that exhausted drivers do not continue to drive when they are a danger to themselves and others. I hope that the Committee agrees to the amendments.
    Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment and for his further explanation of the details.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 392:
    After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  PUBLICATION OF GUIDE TO OPERATING COSTS
  (" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall publish an annual guide to the minimum cost per mile of legally operating a variety of goods vehicles.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall not include any element of operating profit in the guide.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all United Kingdom taxes and duties are included in his calculations.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall ensure that annual mileages of —

  (a) 50,000.

  (b) 75,000, and

  (c) 100,000.

  are included in the guide.
  (5) When producing the guide the Secretary of State shall consult any trade association, vehicle manufacturers or vehicle distributors he thinks fit.
  (6) The guide for the second and subsequent years shall include the figures for the previous year.").
  The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 425. Amendment No. 392 deals with the costs of operating goods vehicles. That is desirable for a number of reasons. First, new operators in the road haulage industry enter wearing rose-tinted spectacles and do not fully understand their costs of operation. Often they do not understand the costs of tyre wear, depreciation or maintenance. Secondly, frequently customers do not understand the full cost of a transport operation either and, therefore, they may not realise that their haulier may be operating illegally to achieve a competitive rate. Finally, the Government must understand that if fuel taxes are increased the costs of the industry will also increase and their competitive position will suffer.
  If it is the Government's intention to show that the cost of transport is increasing rapidly due to the Chancellor's sterling efforts, surely they will want the decision-makers in industry to be aware of that so that they can modify and reduce the amount of transport for which they contract. I beg to move.
  9 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: My contacts with the road haulage industry have not suggested that they wear rose-tinted spectacles or that they have little idea of the costs that face them. I believe the opposite is the case. To put a requirement on the face of the Bill for the Government to produce a year two publication seems to be unnecessary. A better way to approach the matter is through the process to which I referred earlier: through regular meetings of the Road Haulage Forum. This morning we discussed the work of one of the sub-groups that is looking at the statistical base of information on the road haulage industry. Likewise, that will cover some aspects of the fiscal side. The production of a report on the fiscal barriers to all modes of transport does not seem to me to be the appropriate way to do that. It should be part of an overall approach to transport on the one hand and an

  519
  overall approach to fiscal management on the other given by the Chancellor. A requirement by the Government to produce by law a report in these terms does not seem to me to be sensible.
  The Government will continue to look at the case for further fiscal measures in the context of the 10-year transport plan and fiscal measures may be one of the ways in which we achieve the objectives of that plan. To produce a separate report on those matters, as the second amendment in the group would require, is not an approach that finds favour with the Government. I hope that the noble Earl will not proceed with the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his reply. He mentioned the Road Haulage Forum. I look forward to reading the feedback in the next couple of issues of the Commercial Motor. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 393:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  PUBLICATION OF GUIDE TO OPERATING COSTS

  LAWFUL USE OF WEIGHT RESTRICTED ROUTES BY GOODS VEHICLES
  It shall be incumbent on the driver of a goods vehicle using a weight restricted route to provide evidence on demand to any police officer or member of the Vehicle Inspectorate or Trading Standards Office that he is using the route lawfully.").
  The noble Lord said: This is an amendment that was raised in Standing Committee E in another place. I hope that I shall have more luck with this one! Since the debate in the House of Commons I have pursued this matter with the police and with others. There is considerable doubt as to whether a police officer can, as the law presently stands, demand from a driver of a heavy goods vehicle, driving along a weight-restricted route, evidential proof that he is there for a legitimate purpose.
  We have had a long debate on the adequacy of signing routes and about the words "access for loading" or "the route is restricted except for access". It appears that "loading" is the best word to use, although many routes have been signed using other words that were laid down in the law at the time and they may not be the best ones to use now. However, to re-sign is extremely expensive.
  Most weight restricted routes are in rural areas but there are some in towns which lorries use to take short cuts through housing estates. If a goods vehicle takes a route that is restricted by law, the driver of that vehicle should be able, when challenged by a police officer, to produce some evidence as to why he is on that route. In most cases he will have some form of collection order or delivery note. In other cases he will be driving to premises, the reason for which he can explain to the police officer. There will also be other cases such as lorries collecting rubbish, when the reason will be perfectly obvious.
  In many towns and villages people's lives are being made absolutely miserable because heavy lorries are persistently driven through narrow streets, taking short cuts for their own business interests and where something needs to be done. The police tell me that as the law stands they cannot demand evidence that would incriminate a person or would not incriminate a person if they were able to produce satisfactory evidence. They have to fall back on the measure of following a vehicle through a restricted route. That is extremely expensive in terms of police manpower. I am sure that most police forces find it quite impossible to police such restrictions.
  It seems that it should be possible to word a simple amendment that would place some responsibility on the driver who takes such a short route to justify his presence. I do not pretend that the words that I have used in this amendment are the ideal but if one can be drafted that would give many people in housing estates and in the country routes some protection, I am sure it would be welcomed. I hope that the Minister may be able to reply favourably in this case. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. I am surprised that such an amendment is necessary at all. I look forward to hearing the Minister say why it is not necessary.
  Lord Whitty: I understand the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, refers but I believe his amendment hits the wrong target. In relation to police powers, it is not necessary. We have consulted the police and the Crown Prosecution Service about this proposal and their view is that it is not necessary.
  The present position is not quite as the noble Lord describes. If a lorry is stopped by the police, having passed a sign indicating that there is a weight restriction, the onus is already on the driver to show that he is complying with the qualifying plate on the sign that allows access to the area covered by the prohibition. If he is unable to give a satisfactory explanation—a delivery note or whatever—he will face prosecution. So the burden is already on the driver and the police can demand that proof. It is therefore in the interests of the driver to make sure that he is not committing an offence.
  In discussion with the police, it appeared that the problem was not so much the police powers, but the signing. This is particularly important and I ask local authorities to ensure that their restrictions and alternative routes are, first, clearly signed and, secondly, for the most part, they provide in the order for an exemption for loading but not for access. The use of a loading exemption (for delivering or collecting) instead of an access exemption., which could include stopping off at a newsagents, for instance, makes the restrictions far easier for lorry drivers to understand and for the police to enforce.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was concerned that the police often have to follow a lorry through a weight-restricted area before they can take enforcement action. That would only be necessary in cases where the restriction was for access and not for

  521
  loading. Access does not necessarily mean loading or unloading and the absence of a delivery note in those circumstances is not necessarily proof that the driver is committing an offence. It is therefore a question, first, of signing and, secondly, of what the exemptions relate to.
  Amendment No. 393 also envisages giving powers to the vehicle inspectorate. The inspectorate already has substantial powers but the inspectors cannot stop vehicles; they cannot take any action against moving vehicles without the police being present. It is therefore questionable whether giving them powers to demand evidence for a traffic regulation offence is appropriate.
  Therefore, although I accept what has prompted these amendments and agree that we need to improve compliance with weight restrictions, the problem lies more with local authorities and the way they sign and provide exemption orders rather than with the powers of the police. I hope that the noble Lord accepts that.
  Earl Attlee: Perhaps the Minister can say what will happen if the police stop a vehicle on a restricted route and the driver just keeps quiet. It looks as though he is simply going to plead guilty on prosecution, but he then provides a form of delivery note as a defence.
  Lord Whitty: As my noble friend Lord McIntosh says, he would be wasting police time. But in those circumstances he would have a defence. The existence of a delivery note on the appropriate date at the appropriate time would clearly be a defence, whether or not he offered it to the police in the first instance. I am not sure that either the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, or what I have said in relation to signing resolves that problem.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Hearing that we have now got advice from the Crown Prosecution Service to back up what was previously the advice from the ACPO may well give the police courage to go ahead.
  However, I ask that the Department of Transport ensures that circulars and instructions to local authorities about signing restricted routes make it absolutely clear that the words "restricted for access" are not used and that the word "loading" is used. That simple difference in wording appears to result in huge confusion. No police officer wishes to embark on prosecutions when he believes he will be undermined or overruled because of some technicality in the signing restrictions which, in many instances, are wide area restrictions involving large numbers of signs.
  With that proviso and expressing the hope that the circulars can be made clear, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 394:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  LAWFUL USE OF WEIGHT RESTRICTED ROUTES BY GOODS VEHICLES

  OFFENCE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SPECIAL VEHICLE AUTHORISATION
  . In section 42(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after paragraph (b), insert—
  "(c) fails to comply with any of the provisions of an order made under section 44 of this Act,".").
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 394, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 396. In speaking to this group, I must declare an interest in that I applied to the Secretary of State for a special order under Section 44 in connection with a military exercise taking place in Wales.
  Section 44 allows the Secretary of State to make an order to permit the movement of abnormal loads. The orders can be specific or general using a statutory instrument. The authorisation of special types of general order has a number of conditions attached to it; some are minor and of a technical nature, but are nonetheless important. But if any condition is broken, then the protection of the special type of order is lost. The operator is then back to construction and use regulations. That could mean that the vehicle is legally, though not in terms of design, severely overloaded.
  If taken to court for a minor infringement of the condition of the order, a disproportionate fine could result if the magistrate and his clerk become confused. The authorities therefore may sometimes turn a blind eye to an infringement such as not displaying exactly the right sign. Amendment No. 394 would create a new offence of failing to comply with the condition of an order made under Section 44 of the 1988 Act.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 396. Noble Lords will be aware that the construction and use regulations are now fearfully detailed and that they often cross-refer to EU directives. It is necessary for the authorities, presumably the vehicle inspectorate, to ensure that a new design of vehicle complies with the construction and use regulations. This is called, "type approval". However, it may be that a manufacturer desires to test a new vehicle or a new component by putting it into revenue-earning service.
  The Minister can make regulations to permit this but the regulations must be drafted, published and possibly laid before Parliament. That would not be appropriate for a specific authorisation. An order-making power would give the Minister much more flexibility. An order could be an SI or just a permit issued by the DETR on behalf of the Secretary of State. The amendment would add a new subsection to the Act and is drafted in the same way as the one allowing regulations to be made. However, this one would provide instead for orders. I hope that the Minister finds both these amendments attractive. I beg to move.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Both the amendments now before the Committee would affect the use of vehicles used for special purposes, such as the carrying

  523
  of abnormal loads. As the noble Earl said, the second amendment would also cover vehicles used as prototype test vehicles or for testing components. Indeed, that is a possibility that had not occurred to me but I see the point.
  At present, such vehicles are authorised to operate on the public highway by an order issued under the authority of the Secretary of State which exempts them from the general construction and use requirements under Section 41 of the Act. This may contain a number of provisions, frequently including one that they must meet certain regulations within the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Other conditions may include, for example, a requirement to notify the police, the highway authority or a bridge owner; or, indeed, a limitation on the date and time that a vehicle can be used.
  As the noble Earl said, there is no specific offence at the moment for not complying with a provision of the order. Therefore, if a vehicle fails to meet any one of them, it ceases to be authorised by the order and has to comply with all of the construction and use regulations, as well as any other regulations made under Section 41. Because of the special nature of these vehicles it is unlikely in many cases that they will be able to comply with all the requirements. That would leave the driver of such a vehicle open to prosecution for every requirement that the vehicle fails to meet; for example, for abnormal load vehicles this could include the vehicle weight and dimension legislation that clearly such vehicles could not meet.
  If a vehicle is in breach of a provision of the order, that is not a prosecutable offence. So Amendment No. 394 seeks to ensure that a prosecution can be made on the breach of a provision of the order that the vehicle has failed to meet. However, it would not quite achieve that aim unless other amendments were made to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Such amendments would need to be made to provide a suitable and appropriate punishment for the offence. Nevertheless, I should like to take away this issue, which clearly reflects a genuine concern, and think about it before the next stage.
  Amendment No. 396 would provide for the exemption of similar vehicles from type approval regulations under Section 63 of the Road Traffic Act. At present, goods vehicles are subject to construction requirements through the Motor Vehicles (Type Approval for Goods Vehicles) (Great Britain) Regulations 1982. Similarly, passenger cars are subject to the comparable regulations of 1984. Exemptions to these requirements can only be made through changes in the regulations. As the noble Earl said, this can be cumbersome. Moreover, I am not sure as to whether it would require parliamentary approval. In any event, the process is cumbersome where it is intended to exempt a small number of vehicles such as prototypes or those built for a very specialised purpose.
  Therefore, instead of having to obtain an exemption through a change in the regulations, the amendment proposes that the vehicle should be exempt through the issuing of an order under Section 63 of the Road
  524
  Traffic Act 1988. Again, I sympathise with this proposal. It would enable vehicle manufacturers to develop special vehicles to perform tasks safely and efficiently without the design being compromised or restricted by the requirements placed on vehicles generally. However, important safety and environmental standards can be maintained by the restrictions or controls applied through the order.
  The powers would be useful, but, in terms of the drafting of the amendment, I believe that these would prove to be wider than would be necessary for the exemptions for special vehicles. Again, provision would have to be made for offences. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment. However, as I said, I should like to consider the thinking behind the other proposal. On that basis, I trust that the noble Earl will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that reply; indeed, I could expect no more. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 395 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendments Nos. 396 and 397 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 398:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  STRATEGY FOR PROVISION OF SERVICE AREAS
  (" . After section 96 of the Transport Act 1968 (permitted driving time) there shall be inserted—
  STRATEGY FOR PROVISION OF SERVICE AREAS

    Strategy for provision of service areas.
    96A. The Secretary of State shall publish a strategy for the provision of service areas on special roads and the trunk road system so that commercial vehicle drivers can—

    (a) conveniently comply with the provisions of section 96 of this Act, and

    (b) have access to a comprehensive range of ablutions."").

    The noble Earl said: This amendment concerns the provision of suitable rest facilities for drivers of commercial vehicles so that they can comply with the law and industry can attract and retain suitable drivers.
    The road transport and the bus industries are currently experiencing a shortage of drivers. Part of the cause may be the poor image and working conditions of the industry. In the past there were many establishments, collectively known as transport cafés, distributed along the trunk road network. Nowadays few survive and most have been turned into Little Chefs or Happy Eaters. Unfortunately, heavy commercial vehicle drivers are not welcome because their vehicles are large and their spend is modest in comparison with that of most car drivers. However, that is progress and we do not oppose it.
    The market for commercial vehicle drivers has developed a little. There are now a few locations, called "truck stops", distributed around the country. The BP company is in the lead in this field. However, there are severe problems. If a noble Lord were to visit Clacketts

    525
    Lane or South Mimms services on the M25 at night with his 38-tonne articulated horse box, he would probably find nowhere to park, even though he must do so in order to comply with the drivers' hours rules. If, having managed to park, the noble Lord needed a shower after a hard day on the road, he might often find the washing facilities to be, frankly, disgusting.
    Noble Lords may be surprised that I have tabled this amendment. However, the poor facilities available impinge upon the ability of the industry to recruit. Worse still, a driver who has spent all night in his cab, still sticky and sweaty from his or her (and why not?) previous day's work, will not be in the right frame of mind to undertake his responsible duties. Thus there are also important safety implications here.
    It is not the duty of the Minister directly to provide improved service facilities; that is a matter for the industry. However, the industry is not well structured to deal with it. There is also the problem to which I alluded where it is understandably more profitable to look after car drivers than commercial vehicle drivers. The Highways Agency, which answers to the Minister, has a role to play in selecting sites for motorway service areas, but no doubt it has severe problems with the NIMBY syndrome.
    The Minister's department is also responsible for planning. Can the Minister make any changes to planning guidance in this regard? What is the Minister doing about the problem of service areas for commercial vehicle drivers generally? I beg to move.
    Lord Whitty: As the noble Earl said, the provision of services on motorways and other roads is a matter for private developers. However, the policy gives guidance to intending developers. It makes clear, for example, that drivers should not have to travel on the motorway system for more than half-an-hour before coming to a motorway service area and having the chance to stop and rest. That objective has been largely met on the motorway system and in most cases there is provision for lorry parks as well as car parks. However, I understand the noble Earl's concern that on non-motorway roads the provision is more patchy. We undertook in the transport White Paper to issue further advice on the provision of services, particularly for lorry drivers. We expect that to be published later this year.
    Existing policy is therefore well known and generally effective. Customers have concerns about the quality of services at motorway service areas. That is a matter which the guidance should address both as regards car and lorry drivers. However, little would be gained by requiring the Secretary of State to publish a more detailed strategy. As I have said, the provision on the motorway network largely meets the criteria we have set. The drivers' hours rules already provide flexibility to enable drivers to find a suitable stopping place where they can take their required break or rest period.
    So far as concerns planning, we have looked at the planning guidance in this area. The new draft planning
    526
    procedures encourage greater development of motorway service areas which fit in with the general distance criteria and, in certain locations, the development of park-and-ride facilities attached to motorway service areas.
    In general we have the network covered—it is covered for lorry drivers as well as for car drivers—and a formal strategy of the kind requested by the noble Earl does not seem to be the best way of addressing the problems he identifies, which are essentially an important element of customer provision for private sector companies.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Earl decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I recognise the problem that the noble Earl seeks to address with his amendment. I also recognise the difficulties that local authorities have in fulfilling the guidance I thought to be in existence—I seem to remember it from my time on highways committees—and in achieving its aims. People do not want service stations near where they live.
    Can the Minister tell the Committee how successful the guidance has been in creating sufficient rest places on the remainder of the priority network—that is, on the non-motorway priority network—on which large volumes of traffic, including HGVs, currently run on any one day?
    Lord Whitty: I said that the situation on the non-motorway network was rather more patchy. We have almost entirely met the criteria we have set ourselves on the motorway network and on the main trunk roads, but there are parts of the trunk road system where facilities do not exist at sufficient intervals. In some cases there are planning permission issues but, more often, it is a straightforward commercial issue as to whether the volume of trade would be sufficient for a developer to provide such facilities.
    Earl Attlee: Before acceding to the Minister's attractive invitation to withdraw my amendment, does he think that it is a reasonable aspiration for a commercial vehicle driver to have a shower at the end of his day's work?
    Lord Whitty: I think a shower at the end of a day's work is one thing; every thirty miles is an entirely different matter.
    Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for his excellent reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 399 not moved.]
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 400:
    After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  CONSTRUCTION AND USE REGULATIONS
  (" . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (6) of section 41, there shall be inserted—
  "(6A) The Secretary of State shall publish the regulations made under this section in a fully updated form on at least an annual basis.
  (6B) The Secretary of State shall produce and release electronically all the extant regulations made under this sect ion."").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is simple: it seeks to provide that the construction and use regulations are published once a year, fully updated. In addition, the regulations would be available electronically on the net. Quite understandably, there are frequent amendments to these regulations but it is very difficult to access the extant regulations. I am fully confident that the Minister will have no difficulty with the amendment. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, deals with a different matter and I suspect that I shall not be able to support him. I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful for the noble Earl's friendly introduction to my amendment. I do not have a view on Amendment No. 400, but I should like to speak to Amendment No. 402, which stands in my name.
  As the Committee will be aware, the Government have announced that they intend to introduce 44 tonne lorries generally in this country, probably at the end of the year. Can my noble friend tell the Committee the means by which they intend to change the legislation; in what kind of order and how will it be done?
  The Government have made it quite clear that the lorries permitted to operate at 44 tonnes will have to have six axles and so on; they will also have to have Euro II exhausts. Back in 1994 the Government allowed 44-tonne lorries to operate under certain circumstances to combined transport terminals. There arc not an enormous number operating— probably not more than 100 in the country—but they do provide a very useful and important commercial service as part of generally inter-modal operations. Freightliner, which is probably the biggest inter-modal operator in this country, has 90 of these vehicles, and just under 10 per cent of its loads, it believes, need this 44-tonne derogation.
  Without getting into the debate of whether 44-tonne lorries generally are a good or bad thing—we have been through that—Freightliner, quite rightly, is rather concerned that having bought these lorries and operated them quite happily for six years, it may well not be allowed to operate them next year, even though other 44-tonne lorries will be operating. These lorries were not built with the Euro II exhaust because that design was not around earlier.
  So my amendment seeks to suggest that the original road vehicle construction and use regulations which permitted this should not be changed for 10 years after this Act commences. I am sure that the wording is not
  528
  right but I also hope that my noble friend will see the point of the argument and may be able to come up with an alternative solution.
  Earl Attlee: Perhaps I ought to withdraw my somewhat acidic comments about the noble Lord's amendment.
  Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 400 seeks to consolidate and make available in electronic form the construction and use regulations. These regulations contain a detailed prescription of the technical design and construction standards required of vehicles. They are very complex and that of itself places a practical limit on those who can use them. Generally, only manufacturers and others with a professional interest in the subject are likely to consult them. We do, of course, provide advisory material for maintenance and other purposes and for private individuals where necessary, much of which can be seen on the Internet.
  Specialist publications, including electronic media, already make available commercially the consolidated position. In addition, Her Majesty's Stationary Office has placed all statutory instruments made since January 1997 on its website, and that is freely accessible.
  There have been numerous amendments to these regulations since they were made in 1986. It is undeniably the case that consolidation is now warranted. We are also considering whether some restructuring would be beneficial, for example, by separating the regulations into subject themes. The Road Vehicles (Lighting) Regulations 1989 are a precedent. That would make the regulations easier to follow. and to amend in a transparent fashion. However, that option represents a very substantial drafting exercise. We are starting to give the task due priority, along with other drafting work. Once that is completed the number and net complexity of any future changes will vary year by year. In some years there might be few amendments whereas in other years there could be a substantial number. The question of whether to republish every year needs to be taken into account and we therefore need a rather more flexible requirement than automatic annual consolidation.
  Once we have consolidated and, if appropriate, restructured the construction and use regulations, they will appear on the HMSO website, as will subsequent amendments. Given that that is already in the pipeline, I do not believe that it would be cost effective to divert resources to achieve what the proposed amendments seek.
  On the rather different subject of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, I am sorry to have to disappoint him. We have already indicated that we are tackling some of the problems in the 10-year plan arising from the issue he raises. He questions under what powers we will conduct the introduction of the 44-tonne lorries. The Government will be making regulations under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
  The issue concerns the existing inter-modal operators who have already taken advantage of the current 44-tonne weight limit and have invested in

  529
  equipment as well as demonstrating a commitment to inter-modal road/rail freight movements. The noble Lord was concerned that the Euro II engine requirement which will come into effect on the new extension of 44-tonne lorries—which will come into effect now on 1st February next year—will affect disproportionately the inter-modal operators which already exist. Euro II engines became compulsory anyway for all lorries put into service in late 1997. We have had discussions with the inter-modal operators and have established that the relatively small number of 44-tonne vehicles which came into service before that date will, by and large, have reached the end of their useful life by the end of 2003.
  For that reason we announced last week that we will not repeal the existing 44-tonne combined transport regulations until the end of 2003. Therefore, we are giving a three-year extension to non-Euro II engine compliant vehicles rather than the 10 years which the noble Lord requests in Amendment No. 402. We believe that will deal with the bulk of the problem which he identifies. With these explanations I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I have slightly different information. Although 10 years was my and their first stab at the time period, perhaps something in the middle is right. I shall certainly go away and speak to the noble Lords further. Perhaps I shall come back and perhaps I shall not.
  Earl Attlee: It is good that the time is not right to test the opinion of the Committee. I was a little disappointed with the Minister's reply. The construction and use regulations are very detailed. Sometimes it is important to be able to look up in a reference book when a particular requirement comes into force. For instance, how young does a vehicle
  have to be before it needs to be fitted with sideguards?
  Perhaps the Minister can say why the Northern Irish road haulage fraternity has the benefit of one volume of the Northern Ireland construction and use regulations?
  Lord Whitty: All I would say is that things are often better in Northern Ireland.
  Earl Attlee: I hope that Hansard caught that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 401:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  CONSTRUCTION AND USE REGULATIONS: MOBILE CRANES
  (" . After subsection (5) of section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
  "(5A) No order relating to mobile cranes made under this section shall prevent the operator of the mobile crane from carrying a motor bicycle of no more than 250cc displacement with the vehicle."").
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 401 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 409. These amendments deal with totally unrelated issues but I am confident that I shall receive a full reply. Amendment No. 401 seeks to allow a small motorbike to be carried on a mobile crane. Current construction and use regulations prohibit the carriage of anything not strictly necessary for the operation of the crane. However, these cranes are expensive to run and sometimes can be very large indeed. One type weighs 138 tonnes. If a small motorbike could be carried, unnecessary movements could be avoided. I hope the Minister will look favourably at the principle.
  I turn to Amendment No. 409. I remind the Committee that I have an interest. Amendment No. 409 deals with the need for a network of roads that can accommodate very high, wide or heavy loads. I am not convinced that sufficient attention is being paid to the need to maintain a suitable network. I believe the Minister is aware of the problem but sometimes highways and bridge authorities are very willing to move the problem somewhere else. That could result in an order for our heavy engineering industry going somewhere else as well. Perhaps the Minister would say what is being done about this problem. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: Amendment No. 409 concerns the movement of abnormal loads. I can inform the Committee that we are already tackling this problem. Officials from my department are engaged in the task of developing and seeking agreements on maintaining a strategic route network for moving heavy and high loads safely and economically. Any system for routeing abnormal loads needs to be flexible to take into account the varying circumstances, the time of the movement, the duration of the movement and the size of the movement. A legislative base, which is what the amendment provides, would be somewhat less flexible than what we hope will be the outcome of the administrative approach which we are already developing. It might preclude the development and use of other transportation systems—for example, on inland waterways—which might help in one instance and not in another. I hope that the noble Earl is reassured that we are administratively beginning to tackle that problem and that he will not therefore press his amendment.
  Amendment No. 401 relates to heavy mobile cranes. There is a fairly strict requirement that mobile cranes should not carry anything. I remain to be convinced that a small motorbike should be an exemption from that requirement. Presumably, the intention behind the amendment is that when the operator of the mobile crane has arrived at his destination he can jump on his motorbike and go home. When we are dealing with capital equipment worth several thousands it is not beyond the wit of the operator to ensure that when the crane driver arrives at the site he has a means of transportation home, if that is the problem. I am not totally convinced that what seems to be a minor and convenient amendment

  531
  for the operator is justifiable in that it could be seen as the thin end of the wedge. There are other ways of meeting that requirement.
  Lord Bradshaw: I was interested in the Minister's reply to Amendment No. 409 regarding high and heavy loads. I am desperately concerned about the number of railway bridges that are regularly hit by high vehicles. One bridge between Aylesbury and Bicester has been hit several times this year. There is a tragedy waiting to happen. I hope that the Minister's officials working on the high and heavy load strategy will mark out on the map the bridges that are frequently hit by heavy lorries and will try to ensure that wherever possible routeing avoids them. There is a serious problem.
  Lord Berkeley: They should also ensure that the drivers and owners of heavy lorries are prosecuted. When last we discussed this matter the answer given by my noble friend—perhaps it was his predecessor—was that Railtrack would prosecute only in cases of vehicles owned by large companies because those companies would be expected to know the height of their lorries. We need to go further than that. Perhaps I may make one comment on Amendment No. 401. The alternative to a motorbike is a pushbike, for which one does not need a licence.
  Earl Attlee: The problem with a pushbike is that it would still not be essential to the operation of the crane. Therefore the mobile crane would not be able to carry a pushbike.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned the problem of bridge bashing. The most significant problem arises when relatively normal vehicles bash the bridge. They are not especially high ones. They are just a little higher than the minimum height limit of the bridge!
  I am not surprised by the Minister's reply to my first amendment. I am sure that I would have said exactly the same thing if I were in his position. I am very reassured by his response to Amendment No. 409. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 401.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 402 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 403:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  EFFECTS OF DELAYS IN GRANTING PROVISIONAL HGV DRIVERS LICENCES: PUBLICATION OF ANNUAL REPORT
  (" . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (2) of section 111, there shall be inserted—
  "(3) The Secretary of State shall produce an annual report on the effect of delays in the granting of provisional vocational drivers' licences."").
  The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 405 and 426E. We are short of about 2,500 bus drivers and a large number of heavy goods vehicle drivers. These amendments seek to deal with that problem. The bus
  532
  industry is experiencing difficulties with tile delay in issuing PSV licences. That is largely due to the need to issue licences with a photograph. Unfortunately, the bus industry frequently loses good applicants due to the delay in issuing a new licence with a photograph on it.
  First, what is the Minister doing about the delays in general? Secondly, is there any way in which he could provide a dispensation to allow training to commence—although not on fare-paying services— before the issue of a new licence? There may be difficulties, but if so, what are they?
  Amendment No. 405 deals with a little difficulty for the Armed Forces, created by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. The forces can allow young drivers to drive heavy vehicles before they are 21 years old. This is both desirable and necessary. There is a limited safety risk because such drivers are well trained and under military discipline. For some time, several penalty points on a driving licence meant that a vocational driving licence could not be issued. That was bearable, but now, I understand, any penalty points issued would mean that a vocational driving licence cannot be issued to a driver under the age of 21. This means that youngsters with only a very minor speeding offence cannot join many regiments in the force, especially the Royal Logistic Corps. Will the Minister review his policy in respect of the Armed Forces?
  Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 426E. The House decided that a driver should be able to lose his licence for reasons totally unrelated to his driving. We shall not revisit that debate, but we need to be able to measure any adverse effects. My fear is that these changes will severely undermine road safety. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that he will ensure that the DVLA keeps full records so that after a reasonable time, noble Lords will be able to table Questions in order to detect any adverse effects arising from the new legislation. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: We are dealing once again with slightly disparate amendments all related to issues of licensing. Amendment No. 403 is defective in that it wll not achieve what the noble Earl is seeking. The information required to publish such a report is not held centrally. In his amendment, the noble Earl has made no provision for the collection of such information.
  What is held centrally is licensing information. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency already publishes an annual report showing its performance in meeting performance targets, which includes a customer service target. The noble Earl has expressed concern about bus driver licences, but the target for turnaround of vocational driving licences for the year 2000–01 is 95 per cent within eight days; namely, eight days from receipt of the application. The DVLA has met that target consistently over the past three years. Market research conducted among vocational drivers, which included bus drivers, indicated that, generally speaking, a high level of satisfaction has been

  533
  expressed over that standard. I believe that that performance in turning around volume applications is better than in many other parts of either the public or the private sector.
  The annual report of the DVLA, which details those figures, was laid before both Houses on 24th July and will be published formally in mid-August. Should the noble Earl so wish, I shall send him a copy direct.
  Delays in the issuing of provisional driving licences are sometimes inevitable where there is a need for proper medical checks or a problem is encountered as regards validating an applicant's identity. For obvious reasons of safety, applicants for vocational driving licences are required to demonstrate that they are responsible people and have a higher standard of fitness that would be expected of applicants for ordinary licences.
  I shall turn now to Amendment No. 405, which would allow members of the Armed Forces to be granted a vocational driving licence even when six valid penalty points have been accumulated through driving offences. This amendment implies that we should treat driving offences committed by young drivers in the Armed Forces more leniently than those committed by young civilian vocational drivers or, for example, young drivers on the young driver training scheme. I do not think that that is a reasonable request. Young military drivers already benefit from a driving licence concession in that they are allowed to drive vocational vehicles from the age of 17, whereas non-military drivers must be 21 years old, with some exceptions. I do not believe that such a provision is vital. The conduct of vocational drivers, especially those under 21, ought to be exemplary. There are road safety implications in allowing young military drivers in effect to commit two driving offences before having their vocational entitlement refused.
  Amendment No. 405 would also conflict with the Road Traffic (New Drivers Act) 1995. A new military driver would be able to continue driving with six penalty points whereas a new civilian driver who had accumulated six points within two years of passing his or her driving test would have the driving licence revoked. I do not believe that there is a need for preferential treatment of military drivers in this respect. Indeed, the DVLA has regular meetings with the military to discuss all areas of licensing arrangements and policy in related areas and the matter has never been raised in that context. It would seem, therefore, so far as the DVLA is aware, that the Armed Forces are content with current procedures.
  Amendment No. 426E is intended to secure the annual publication of statistics detailing the number of drivers disqualified from holding a driving licence as a result of judgments made under provisions in child welfare legislation. I am not entirely clear what this means, and the noble Earl did not refer to it. There is currently no child welfare legislation on the statute book which provides for the disqualification of drivers. I am not sure, therefore, what lies behind the noble Earl's amendment unless he is thinking of the child support Bill that has just completed its passage.
  534
  The provisions in that Bill relate to the Child Support Agency and are different from child welfare provisions.
  The Home Office publishes annual statistics dealing with motoring offences, broken down by type of offence, and lists the numbers of people convicted of driving while disqualified. Those statistics are placed, as a matter of course, in the Library of the House. They are sufficient to provide a record of the number and type of offences and offenders. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendments.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. He mentioned that the DVLA is turning round licences within eight days. That is commendable. I shall be interested to see what feedback I receive from industry as a result of our discussions.
  I am rather disappointed with the Minister's response to my amendment relating to the Armed Forces. My understanding is that there were some breakdowns in consultation prior to the changes being made. We shall have to re-examine this matter, either by parliamentary opportunity or at the later stages of the Bill.
  As regards child support legislation, it is difficult to draft an amendment that covers a Bill rather than an Act of Parliament. We shall return to most of these issues at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 404:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  DRIVING INSTRUCTORS: REGISTRATION ETC
  (" . In section 123(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after "motor car" insert "or heavy motor car.").
  The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 417 and 424. These amendments deal with driving instructors. I must declare an interest as a qualified Army driving instructor, although I cannot benefit from Amendment 417 as drafted.
  Amendment No. 404 provides that instructors for vocational driving licences, as well as ordinary licences, must be approved. It is a probing amendment. Has the Minister any intention of introducing such a provision?
  Turning to Amendment No. 417, the Armed Forces operate an excellent defence school of transport at Leconfield, near Hull. All their instructors and examiners are trained there. As I understand it—I am ready to be corrected—a qualified Army driving instructor cannot, by virtue of his military qualifications, become a DETR approved driving instructor.
  Amendment No. 424 is in a different group, but perhaps it ought to be in this one. The amendment calls for another report by the Secretary of State on the supply of drivers. I shall not move it but I am sure that it is more relevant to this debate. I beg to move.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I speak to our Amendments Nos. 426B and 426C which are part of this group. These amendments insert two clause into the Bill. Their purpose is to provide that all driving instructors are subject to a regime of testing, licensing, registration, regulation and supervision. They do so by amending the Road Traffic Act 1988. The better regulation of driving instruction, with the improved driving standards that should follow, was a main objective of the Government's Road Safety Strategy. I am grateful for the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his officials in assisting me to achieve my ambition to help the Government further the objectives of their strategy which require legislation. I hope that these amendments meet with the approval of the parliamentary draftsman; if not, I am prepared to return at Report stage with a simple enabling amendment.
  Amendment No. 426B substitutes "motor vehicles" for "motor bicycles and mopeds" in those provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which deal with the training requirements of instructors. Amendment No. 426C, which is a substantive amendment, amends Section 123 of the 1988 Act which currently regulates the licensing and registration of instructors of motor car drivers. The amendment gives the Secretary of State power to set up a register of all those who are permitted to be professional driving instructors. He may exempt certain people from the need to be on the register; he may restrict some instructors to certain types of vehicles; he may specify the tests and fees required for registration; and he may remove from the register incompetent instructors or those of insufficient financial standing.
  The clause also provides for an appeal against removal from the register to the Transport Tribunal, which must determine the appeal within 90 days. Those on the existing register, and any who appear on a voluntary register maintained by the Driving Standards Agency, may be placed on the new register. That reflects the intention of the Government as expressed in the strategy to make a start with voluntary registers of some driving instructors. These amendments provide on the face of the Bill a detailed specification for the better regulation of driving instructors, which is precisely what the Government seek to achieve in the context of their Road Safety Strategy.
  Earl Attlee: I shall enjoy reading the speech of the noble Baroness. However, can she say why an instructor must have appropriate financial standing?
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Many instructors are self-employed and, therefore, should be able to support their businesses.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: I rise to support Amendment No. 426C. Clearly, the quality of driver training affects
  536
  road safety. The registration of instructors would be evidence of both their competence as instructors and the fact that they are fit and proper persons to carry out that task. Such a scheme must have two qualities. First, it needs to be relatively straightforward so that the cost of the scheme does not discourage people from using professional instructors and resorting to more informal methods of training, which would not improve road safety. Secondly, a real test of any scheme is whether it is accurate. A number of well publicised cases in the medical profession, where registration is probably more important, illustrate the difficulty of maintaining accurate registers. I believe that the principles of this amendment should be supported, and I hope that my noble friend will do so.
  Lord Whitty: All of these amendments in part address the quality of driving instructors, with the exception of Amendment No. 424 which I believe the noble Earl said he did not intend to move. As to Amendment No. 426C spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, clearly that fits within our Road Safety Strategy. The key element is the need to improve the quality of driving instruction if we are to improve both the pass rate and the quality of drivers who pass the driving test. We set out in our strategy the need to move to a system of registration to enable more timely enforcement and create an appeals procedure independent of the Secretary of State to deal with some complaints relating to present instructors. On the financial aspect, as the noble Baroness said, a large number of driving instructors are self-employed and therefore there needs to be that provision when they are running as a separate business.
  10 p.m.
  Earl Attlee: While we are on that point, why does a driving instructor have to have appropriate financial standing but the holder of a restricted goods vehicle operators licence does not?
  Lord Whitty: The holder of a restricted goods vehicle licence would be part of a bigger business and involved in the carriage of goods, but the carriage of goods is not the main business. Therefore the financial standing does not relate to the carriage of goods. A road haulage operator or, as in this example, driving instructors are by profession one-man businesses offering their services and clearly the financial standing is important as regards a consumer having some security in any contracted instruction courses being deliverable.
  Amendment No. 426C tabled by the noble Baroness sets out many of the provisions we would wish to see in the area of Road Safety Strategy. Whether it would meet with the approval of parliamentary counsel, however, depends on its compatibility with Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act and we would need to look at that. With the permission of the noble Baroness, I shall take the amendment away to see whether it can be made compatible and whether, as she implies, that is the best approach. An answer will be given at a later stage.

  537
  The same comment applies to Amendment No. 426B which fits its purpose but needs to be complemented by other provisions to which consideration will have to be given. We will come forward with that at a later stage so that we can meet the prescription of training courses and those who may provide them for all types of motor vehicles. That should make a major contribution to the improvement of the quality of training and therefore of road safety.
  I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl. Amendment No. 404 would have the effect of requiring all driving instructors who are currently unregulated to reregister in order to engage in their trade. I appreciate the purpose of that and our strategy would eventually require such a provision. However, the amendment as it stands would not allow a transitional period or any prioritisation and it could not be brought into effect in the way the amendment implies. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment at this stage.
  Amendment No. 417 would have the effect of specifically allowing an instructor at an MoD school of transport to be registered as a commercial car driving instructor without obtaining any qualifications. That is difficult. Clearly many MoD instructors would be appropriate but the MoD instructors as such operate within a specialised environment, often with quite unusual vehicles and with trainees who are subject to rather more discipline than perhaps trainees in the outside world. People with different training backgrounds who wish to pursue careers as car driving instructors teaching the general public to drive on public roads must be able to demonstrate competencies at least the equivalent to other approved driving instructors. Therefore, I could not accept a straight transfer from MoD instructor to registered ADI. I hope that the noble Lord will not insist on that amendment.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for his reply, which I think meant—perhaps he will confirm this—that the principles of what I was proposing are likely to reappear in some form or another in the Bill at a later stage. Do I see the Minister nodding his head? I would be disappointed if, after the efforts I have made, we did not achieve something which is so obviously desirable through the legislative process. That is required to take the matter forward, although the implementation of the clause may be delayed for some reason or other because of the processes which have to be gone through before it can be put into effect.
  Earl Attlee: Clearly, my Amendment No. 404 is nowhere near as sophisticated as the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I was disappointed with the Minister's response to Amendment No. 417. It is not the right time to pursue it but I shall return to it at a later stage. I shall look closely at the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness when it appears in some guise and it is to be hoped that
  538
  we can approve her approach to improving the quality of driving instructors. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 405 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 406:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
  (" . In the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, after subsection (1) of section 104, there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) When a person authorised under subsection (1B) below finds on private property a vehicle which has been permitted to remain at rest there in contravention of any warning signs, he may fix an immobilisation device to that vehicle if he is authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.
  (1B) The Secretary of State may authorise a person to immobilise a vehicle in accordance with subsection (1A) above.
  (1C) Before the Secretary of State authorises an applicant, he must be satisfied that the applicant fulfils the following requirements, namely—

  (a) that he is of good repute, and

  (b) that he is of the appropriate financial standing."").

  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 406 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 421. Amendment No. 406 raises the issue of wheel clamping. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has since tabled a far more superior and carefully drafted amendment. My only question is, why is the Minister dithering so much?
  I turn to Amendment No. 421. The Committee will be aware of a wide variation in the level of security offered by public car parks. Some are inherently secure while others are not. Presently, there is no indication on the standard road sign for a car park that it relates to a secure car park. However, there is some understanding about what standards are required. The public need to know whether they are being directed to a secure car park or one operated by Mr Arthur Daley. What is the Minister doing about it? I beg to move.
  Viscount Simon: I shall not accuse the Minister of dithering. I shall be much more expansive but I suppose the result will be the same.
  The intention of Amendment No. 416 standing in my name is simple. It is to regulate those people who clamp motor vehicles on private land. There are those who operate companies which can be applauded and who abide by a code of conduct but there are others, generally called "cowboy dampers", who charge huge amounts of money, often without the knowledge of the owner of the land. It is the latter who would benefit from regulation.
  Perhaps the Committee will permit me to give a partial chronological history of the Denver Boot, as it used to be called. After it became apparent that cowboy dampers were causing problems, in 1992 a Scottish court ruled that private clamping was unlawful and a year later the Government published a consultative document setting out measures to control clamping on private land.

  539
  In 1994 an attempt to insert an amendment in the Criminal Justice Bill to outlaw unscrupulous clamping was overruled. In 1995 an English court determined that private wheel clamping was lawful within certain parameters. In 1996 a Private Member's Bill was presented in the other place to regulate private wheel clampers. On 15th July 1997 the Home Secretary in a press office release stated:
  "It is essential that cowboys and cheats that besmirch the industry's name are weeded out".
  Last year, a White Paper was published on the proposed regulation of the private security industry. So the intention to address the problem of wheel dampers has been with us for some years and there is overwhelming support for its regulation—but nothing has happened.
  Since the introduction of the wheel clamp in this country, tens of thousands of people have fallen victim to cowboy wheel clampers who have in many cases extorted outlandish sums of money in often questionable circumstances. To this day many wheel clamping acts are probably unlawful. I hope the Committee will forgive me for digressing slightly when I cite the case of a disabled couple of pensioners on income support who, according to a recent edition of the Sunday Times, had their car towed away by Waltham Forest Council or its contractors for parking during a weekend in a bay used for council workers during the week. As I said, that occurred on a Sunday. The couple were charged £170. Their appeal against the charge, via the Sunday Times consumer champion, failed. Therefore, it is not only the private operators who charge what appear to be excessive amounts in dubious circumstances. I have on two occasions spoken with someone who works for the council's chief executive but I have heard nothing further. Therefore, I assume that that example is accurate.
  I wonder whether any Members of the Committee watched the television programme a few days ago which showed a company in, I believe, Harrogate clamping vehicles within a few seconds of the driver getting out of a car. As I recall, the clamper charged £75 for releasing the clamp and appeared to be enjoying his employment. Although that company has, I believe, been forced to stop its activities in relation to wheel clamping, many like it are still operating. It is for that reason that I address this problem.
  The British Parking Association has announced a new code of practice which covers clamping on private land. Excellent! However, I doubt very much that that will stop the cowboys from continuing their abhorrent trade. It has been said that landowners will not want cowboy dampers to operate on their land. But the owners of the land simply want people not to park there and they will not worry about the status of the dampers. This trade has been getting away with extorting huge sums of money from unsuspecting motorists for a long time. It is now time to address the problem.
  Lord Whitty: I recognise the problems. The noble Earl asked me what. I am doing about them. I am not
  540
  doing anything but neither am I dithering. My colleagues in the Home Office have the matter well in hand. My noble friend Lord Simon referred to the Home Office initiatives. The Home Office will produce firm proposals to regulate the private security industry, including particularly the clampers, and will introduce legislation, as they say, as soon as parliamentary time allows.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Whitty: The Home Office generally gets its Bills, as we have seen in the course of the past week or two.
  Those proposals will tackle directly the question of criminal activity and the whole basis of cowboy operations within the clamping sector. It will be a condition of acquiring a licence that the applicant will not have previous convictions for criminal offences and will operate according to the new requirements. Therefore, the matter is in hand and I hope to see the proposals come through the system very soon.
  My noble friend Lord Simon also tabled Amendment No. 421 but did not speak to it at great length. There are reasons why that amendment is defective. However, the national Secured Car Parks scheme is now in operation and the revision of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions is already in hand. Together, they should meet the concerns behind that amendment.
  I ask noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.
  Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for his interesting remarks. I am somewhat confused by the term "parliamentary timetable" or whatever it was that he said. However, I assume that that will mean "sooner rather than later". I shall riot move my amendment.
  Earl Attlee: From what the Minister said, it appears that we need to stop the Home Office rather than the Minister from dithering.
  I should like to mention one of the difficulties in relation to clamping. Clearly we must eliminate the criminal element but we must also be careful to avoid over-regulation. I shall read carefully what the Minister said about the traffic signs. I hope that it is good news. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, subject to the usual conditions.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 407:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  CARRYING OF GUIDE AND HEARING DOGS IN TAXIS: EXEMPTIONS
  (" . In section 37(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, after the word "medical" insert "or religious".").
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 407, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendment No. 408. Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act prevents unfair discrimination by taxi drivers against blind travellers and, possibly deaf

  541
  travellers using a guide dog. The legislation has been on the statute book for some time. There is no associated secondary legislation. The Minister has said that he is consulting. When will he finish that consultation?
  Amendment No. 407 would provide the option of exemptions on religious as well as medical grounds. Amendment No. 408 is fairly brutal, providing that Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 should come into force on 1st April next year. When will the Minister implement that most important piece of legislation? I beg to move.
  10.15 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: On behalf of my noble friends, I support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Addington has been a doughty fighter for the rights of disabled people, including their right to proper access to transport. It would be a great advantage if disabled people could be sure of always being able to take their guide dog with them when they use a taxi.
  The only problem might be that ordinary hire cars, which are often used by disabled drivers, might not be covered. Nevertheless, it would be a valuable step in the right direction.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, rightly says that the proposals on consultation, which I announced in the House only last week, cover taxis. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not cover private cars.
  The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked how soon we were going to enact Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act. My answer is, sooner than his amendment would. The consultation suggests a date of 1st March 2001, whereas his amendment says 1st April 2001. The consultation announced last week, which had been delayed, has been distributed. That meets the intention of Amendment No. 408. We are almost there.
  I do not understand the argument behind Amendment No. 407, which would allow exemptions for taxi drivers on religious as well as medical grounds. That sounds like a pretty wide exemption. Religion is never defined in legislation. The amendment could lead to spurious applications. We have checked and we are not aware of any specific religious objections, so we do not think that a religious exemption is appropriate. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The last thing that I want to do is delay the implementation of Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act, even by one month.
  I tabled the amendment to add religious grounds to medical grounds in case there might be a problem. I am glad that the Minister says that there is not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 408 and 409 not moved.]
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 410:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  COMPULSORY GOODS VEHICLE WEIGHING SCHEME
  (" .—(1) The Secretary of State may make an order to provide that all major road freight facilities, ports and premises with an estimated throughput of more than 10,000 goods vehicles per year exceeding 7500 kilograms gross vehicle weight shall have a compulsory goods vehicle weighing scheme.
  (2) Any order made under subsection (1) above shall provide—

  (a) for the weighing of every goods vehicle leaving the facility;

  (b) for the provision of the driver with two copies of a weight report;

  (c) that the driver must sign and return one copy of the weight report to the facility operator;

  (d) that the weight report shall show—

  (i) the registration number of the vehicle,

  (ii) the gross vehicle weight,

  (iii) the number of axles,

  (iv) the weight on each individual axle,

  (v) whether the vehicle would be illegal in terms of axle or gross weights even if it had the most favourable axle spacings and tyre equipment, and

  (vi) the details with broadly the same layout as the plating certificate, provided for under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1988;

  (e) that the facility operator shall keep a copy of all weight reports for a period of 12 months and shall make originals available to enforcement agencies.

  (3) Production of a weight report together with relevant tachograph records may be used as evidence of the weight of the lorry in any court proceedings involving overloading.
  (4) In this section a "major road freight facility" or "facility" means a location—

  (a) of one or more premises under common management, control or ownership,

  (b) having one or more common exits onto the highway; and

  (c) having a throughput of more than 10,000 goods vehicles with a gross vehicle weight exceeding 7500 kilograms per annum.

  (5) If a driver is convicted under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 of an offence relating to overloading, the court must disqualify the driver for a period of at least one month if his vehicle was weighed in accordance with subsection (1) above unless—

  (a) the driver can show that an additional significant load was taken on after weighing in accordance with subsection (1) above and—

  (i) it was not practical to re-weigh the vehicle,

  (ii) the overload was caused by the additional load,

  (iii) there was no reason to suspect that the vehicle would be overloaded by the additional load, and

  (iv) the tachograph records show that it would have been possible for an additional load to have been taken on in accordance with the driver's evidence in defence, or

  (b) there are exceptional circumstances why the driver should not be disqualified.

  (6) In this subsection, "exceptional circumstances" means circumstances relating to the overload.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment arises out of one major cause, the agreement that was formed in the Commission for Integrated Transport on the introduction of 44-tonne lorries. That was not a

  543
  popular agreement among all members, but a bargain was struck. The package included the introduction of heavier—44-tonne—lorries but it also included much better enforcement of the existing laws relating to the road transport industry.
  We are delighted that progress has been made on the matter of impounding and tonight we are also delighted that the second part of the Bill moved in the last Session of Parliament by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, relating to drivers who have exceeded their driving hours being stopped is now on its way.
  The third element was that something effective would be done about overloaded lorries. First, overloaded lorries are dangerous. If a lorry is loaded above its plated capacity, its braking is impaired, making it unable to stop effectively. Therefore, it is much more likely to be involved in an accident. If such a lorry is involved in an accident the sheer weight of the lorry means that the accident may be more serious than it would be otherwise.
  Secondly, an overloaded lorry does huge damage to the roads. The damage created by a lorry, or any vehicle, to the roads is related to the fourth power of the axle weight. A lorry that is, for example, one or two tonnes overloaded on its drive axle can do immense damage to the road, which has to be repaired at public expense.
  Thirdly, overloaded lorries trade at a competitive advantage to those who comply with the law. There is clear evidence that many overloaded lorries emanate from the ports. In discussion with officials in the department, in which I took part, there was some procrastination about whether it was possible to weigh vehicles at ports of entry. We were told that if weighing was exclusively confined to ports we may be discriminating illegally against vehicles coming in from European countries.
  In trying to draw up this new clause we were careful also to include inland places from which large numbers of lorries enter the highways. At many of those places, such as quarries, lorries are weighed, in any event, because there is a need for a weight ticket to effect a sale of hulk goods like grain or aggregates. However, it appears to us to be absolutely essential from the point of view of safety, fair trade and the proper maintenance of the highway that proper measures are taken to ensure that before lorries enter the highway they comply with weight regulations.
  I am the first to admit that this amendment may not be drafted in the most elegant way possible. In moving the amendment we seek a commitment on the part of the Government to do something about overweight lorries. That was an implicit part of the bargain that was struck within the Commission on Integrated Transport on the introduction of 44-tonne lorries which, I believe, we have been told will be next April.
  I hope the Minister, in his reply to this debate, will be able to give some comfort to those of us who are looking for fairness, proper trading procedures, greater safety and proper regard for roads. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: Amendment No. 410 stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who moved it. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was heavily involved in discussions on it, but unfortunately, due to an administrative error (perhaps on my part) his name was not put to it.
  Amendment No. 410 may be defective. But behind it lies the view that certain locations handle a large number of heavily loaded vehicles; notably ports. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, described lucidly why we need to include inland facilities; a potential problem may arise in that regard as well.
  During discussions outside the Chamber, Members of the Committee were discussing consignor liability. The amendment does not provide for consignor liability, though I may come hack to that at a later stage with an amendment that does. The amendment recognises that ports should not have to police the road haulage industry. On the other hand, the amendment ensures that no driver could leave such a facility without knowing for certain that he was overloaded. The penalty is a short period of disqualification. I accept that that may be a little fierce. There is an "exceptional circumstances" escape; but that relates to the load and not to the personal circumstances of the driver.
  What is the Minister's view on the amendment? What would his reaction be to a consignor liability amendment at a later stage? Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I will be parting company on his Amendment No. 412. We have had endless studies on the maximum weight of goods vehicles. We had the Armitage report in the 1980s. It recommended 44 tonnes and the last administration went for 38. We had the Select Committee report of your Lordships' House in 1994; it recommended 44 tonnes and the Minister went for 41 tonnes. That is unique to the UK; so much for a standardised Europe.
  According to the Esso company's letter to the Select Committee, moving from 38 to 44 tonnes would save it 35,000 vehicle movements and 2.44 million vehicle miles. That is what stimulated me to table Amendment No. 416C, to introduce 44 tonnes for liquid fuel deliveries to retail outlets immediately.
  Lord Berkeley: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for moving Amendment No. 410. I would have added my name to it and I support it. I shall speak to that amendment first and then move on to Amendment No. 412.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, summed up the reasons behind Amendment No. 410. One point he did not make was that if a lorry is overloaded not only wall its brakes not work so well but also its steering can be

  545
  impaired, which can be just as dangerous as can be seen from the many letters that I and other noble Lords have received in recent weeks.
  However, I want to inquire into whether or not it is practical to introduce this mechanism. There is no point in saying that all premises with a throughput of more than 10,000 goods vehicles a year should be brought within this provision if the equipment is not available to make it work. It is good that there is at least one system which can be moved around easily and which provides an accurate, automatic weighing of individual axle weight, which is the problem, the weight of axle groups and the overall weight of a heavy lorry. It was demonstrated to the Vehicle Inspectorate earlier this year. It will give the driver a printout, as required by the amendment, giving the information in a record form, a copy of which can be kept by the facility and another copy given to the police.
  It is a mechanism that I believe would make this amendment work; and, indeed, it would not cost too much money to install. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister is aware of this portable weighbridge. It has been developed by Captels and is called an LS WIM system. It does seem to work, as do many other systems. However, the important thing to bear in mind is that such a system exists which would enable such a weighing scheme to be operated. I support the amendment.
  I shall not say much on Amendment No. 412, which I tabled some time ago. It was meant to be a probing amendment and arose as a result of the report of the Commission for Integrated Transport issued in March, or late February, and the Government's subsequent decision on 44 tonnes. In view of the announcement on the 10-year transport plan, the statements by Ministers tonight about the enforcement of regulations and the other matters mentioned in the report, I shall not pursue this amendment. I should like to take this opportunity to say how grateful I am for the announcement last week as regards the transport plan for the railways.
  10.30 p.m.
  Viscount Simon: I had not intended to speak to this amendment, but I felt that some practical experience of mine might be relevant to the debate. Until fairly recently when the broader changes took place regarding the M25, it was well known that junction 7 on the M11 was to be avoided at all costs. In fact, the whole of the M11 was to be avoided because the Essex constabulary used to haul over lorries on to junction 7 where they would be inspected. I have been on traffic patrol when this has happened. I have crawled over and under lorries and have seen the faults that have been found. On average, one in three lorries has defects. That is certainly a matter worthy of consideration. If that aspect could be extended, all well and good!
  Earl Attlee: The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned one in three lorries being either defective or overloaded and suggested that that does not really
  546
  matter; it is a sorry tale. However, we need to remember that the vehicle inspectorate has that eagle eye for any vehicle that is defective. It is not surprising that it has a fairly high hit rate.
  Viscount Simon: I should point out that it is the police officers who pull over the vehicles in the first place.
  Lord Whitty: I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint noble Lords in this respect. We recognise that overloading can be a problem, but the solution suggested in this amendment seems disproportionate. The number of permanent sites in the country that would be covered by the proposed definition is estimated at 100,000, not including temporary sites such as building sites. Although the cost involved may come down a little if the machine mentioned by my noble friend Lord Berkeley were used, the estimated cost for having fixed-point weighing machines would be about £2 billion. I believe that to be somewhat excessive.
  We believe that the problem would be better tackled by enforcement improving its sophistication and by ensuring that defects such as overloading, as well as other vehicle defects and drivers' hours defects, are better dealt with by the targeting of the vehicle inspectorate's operations. Indeed, there have been substantial improvements over recent years both in terms of resources and the way in which lorries are pulled over.
  As far as concerns overloading, this is becoming less of a problem. The proportion of overloading offences has fallen by about 30 per cent since we introduced the regulations in line with EU limits on 1st January 1999. We are faced primarily with a damage to the road problem. Indeed, although there are safety implications, they are statistically not large in number. Nevertheless, overloading is a problem that would be best addressed by improving the enforcement by the vehicle inspectorate, and so on, and not by providing weighing gear at 100,000 sites and at that cost.
  My noble friend Lord Berkeley indicated that he did not expect a detailed reply to his amendment. I appreciate what he said about the 10-year plan, which certainly addresses the need to support the rail freight industry.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before my noble friend decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether he is satisfied that police forces and others involved in this kind of enforcement are as keen as they should be to pull heavy lorries off the roads on to sites where they can be inspected. It is an unsafe occupation.
  In my local authority, which has some of the most crowded roads in England, the police are reluctant to endanger themselves trying to persuade drivers to move to the side of the road. I do not know whether the Minister has encountered that difficulty.
  Lord Whitty: I have not encountered police reluctance on this matter. There needs to be close cooperation between the Vehicle Inspectorate—or, in

  547
  some instances, the local authority—and the police in terms of checking vehicles. In general that relationship is satisfactory. But, there are other major pressures on police time which occasionally cut across the arrangements which the Vehicle Inspectorate has agreed with the police. That can constitute a problem. However, that is not a lack of willingness or an objection to the task itself on the part of the police.
  Lord Berkeley: Before my noble friend sits down, will he discuss further the 100,000 permanent sites that he mentioned? When the amendment was being drawn up, there was discussion about whether the relevant figure should be 10,000 lorries a year, 100,000 or a million. If the figure were much higher, that would reduce the number of sites where the measure would apply. Mobile facilities could also be provided. Would that make the principle any more acceptable to my noble friend?
  Lord Whitty: There comes a point where the cost and the benefit may cross over. However, in terms of comprehensive coverage, it is likely that any resources which were ploughed into better enforcement on the part of the Vehicle Inspectorate, for example, would yield a greater return than if they were ploughed into providing permanent weighing facilities at a large number of sites. Nevertheless there needs to be a greater number of weighing facilities and therefore there needs to be some increased expenditure in that area. However, we do not accept the prescriptive nature of the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: Officials must have enjoyed advising the Minister on his response to the amendment.
  Lord Whitty: The figures were calculated on the basis of discussions with the Freight Transport Association.
  Earl Attlee: I am well aware that the Freight Transport Association does not much like the amendment. It does not like the idea of consignable liability either.
  As I said, I anticipated that the amendment would he defective but not in what way it would be defective. We thought of beginning the amendment with the words,
  "No person may operate a container port without the weighing facilities".
  However, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, explained the difficulty with that. I was interested in the Minister's reply. We may return with a similar measure. I await to hear what the noble Lord intends to do with the amendment.
  Lord Bradshaw: I am disappointed with the nature of the Minister's response. I fully understand that the figures may be wrong. Perhaps we should have set the weight level per lorry and the number of lorries much higher. However, in the discussions on the 44-tonne lorries where officials were present, it was stated that something would be done. The Minister has
  548
  mentioned better targeting on the part of the Vehicle Inspectorate. However, it is a question of better targeting using the existing resources. There is little in the way of extra resources being allocated to the Vehicle Inspectorate.
  Further, the state would benefit from the measure in that road maintenance costs would reduce if overweight lorries were taken off the roads. Officials have an obligation to suggest some proposals for weighing schemes. I thought that was part of the bargain to which I was a party. Officials should not take part in discussions, talk about a package and then almost make fun of the proposals put forward rather than coming forward with their own proposals.
  The Freight Transport Association is parti pris— but it was represented at the same discussions and it agreed that there should be better enforcement. Having got the 44-tonne lorries, it is of course now very willing to walk away from its side of the bargain. I believe that we are owed something here. While I accept that the amendment may be defective and withdraw it, this is a matter to which we shall return. I hope that in the meantime we shall have discussions with officials in an attempt to frame an amendment which is fit for purpose.
  One last point: very little enforcement takes place at night because, as my noble friend Lady Thomas said, it is too dangerous to go out onto the roads at night to stop lorries. The amount of overloading and other offences at night is very high indeed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 411 to 414 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 415:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  RETRAINING (NO. 2)
  (" . After section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, there is inserted—
  RETRAINING (NO. 2)

    Endorsement of licences.
    36A.—(l) Subsection (2) applies where—

    (a) a person is the holder of a licence;

    (b) he is convicted of a second offence under section 3 (careless driving) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 within a three year period;

    (c) the penalty points to be taken into account under section 29 on the occasion of the second offence number between two and five;

    (d) the court makes an order falling within section 44(1)(b) in respect of the offence.

    (2) Where this subsection applies, the court must send to the Secretary of State a notice containing the particulars required to be endorsed on the counterpart of the person's licence in accordance with the order referred to in subsection (1)(d).

    Mandatory retraining classes.
    36B.—(1) Where the Secretary of State receives a notice sent to him under section 36A(2) of the particulars required to be endorsed on the counterpart of a person's licence, the Secretary of State must by notice served on that person require them to attend mandatory retraining classes.
    (2) A requirement under subsection (1) shall have effect from a date specified in the notice of retraining which may not be earlier than the date of service of that notice."").
    The noble Earl said: I am sure that all Members of the Committee have received numerous letters imploring us to address the issue of the penalties available to the courts when there has been a loss of life attributable to careless driving. Many of these letters relate to the tragic death of a child or youngster. There is obviously a well organised campaign under way to raise the profile of this issue and I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the efforts of those responsible.
    Few people in society have the opportunity to save lives, even directly. In Parliament, we can do just that, albeit indirectly. We also know that road safety is at the top of the agenda of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. His road safety strategy paper recognises the problems. I am sure that the Committee is fully aware that in the UK we have a very good and improving road safety record. There is, of course, always room for improvement, and successive governments have made their contributions.
    However, we have a particular problem because we still have a disproportionate number of children killed or seriously injured. Campaigners seek to reduce casualties by increased deterrence through more severe penalties. My understanding is that there is a desire to create an offence of causing death by careless driving or something similar. This offence would attract a custodial sentence.
    I have some difficulty with this approach. First, a responsible and decent motorist will have an absolute dread of the courts finding him or her responsible for death or serious injury. For most that is deterrence enough; penalties in terms of fines and penalty points are secondary considerations. Secondly, it smacks more of revenge and retribution rather than measured punishment. Finally, it can be hard enough to secure an immediate custodial sentence in a case of causing death by dangerous or reckless driving; I cannot see how it would be any easier in a case involving a moment's inattention.
    That does not mean that we should do nothing—far from it. I believe that we should concentrate on the prevention of accidents rather than taking revenge afterwards. Accidents are mainly caused by a lack of skill and inappropriate attitude, but this can be corrected by training people to drive to advanced standards. The Committee may be aware that commercial driver retraining organisations expect to be able to reduce the claims experience of a fleet by 20 per cent.
    It always seems peculiar to me that we religiously submit our vehicles to an annual MOT test but a car driver is tested only once, and at a very tender age. To suggest a compulsory driver retraining scheme would be prohibitively expensive and electoral suicide. On the other hand it could bring about a considerable reduction in accidents. However, we could introduce either retraining or retesting for those drivers who
    550
    have demonstrated that their driving is not up to standard and who have been convicted of certain moving traffic offences. The prime candidates would be careless or dangerous drivers and those convicted of any offence which involved disqualification.
    Retesting could involve a standard or, more likely, an extended test. Obviously, it would be necessary for a candidate to seek training in order to be able to pass. The anxiety I have to this approach is that it is relatively easy to pretend for 45 minutes that one always drives to advanced standards. Furthermore, it is a poor tool for addressing an inappropriate attitude, and this is so important as regards youngsters and lorry drivers.
    The alternative is to follow the route of retraining, which, after much thought, I prefer. The aim would be to raise the standard of trainee to that of advanced driver in order to be granted the necessary certificate. My amendment has a sting in the tail for the trainer who signs the certificate. If his trainee is involved in an accident after training, the trainer can be called on to justify the grant of his certificate. He cannot just take the money and run. Clearly, the training organisations would need to be properly approved.
    I do not want to weary the Committee with detailed explanations of my amendments, as they are exploratory and, I am quite sure, defective—or even unworkable. The issues that the Committee needs to consider are, first, whether retraining would be an effective tool, or do the Committee and the Government favour revenge and retribution, or indeed some other solution? Secondly, is there more scope for a retesting scheme and, if so, how should it be used? Finally, if the Committee does favour the retraining approach, when should it be made available? Perhaps the answer is after the first more serious moving traffic offence for the novice and after the second for a more experienced motorist. Should the courts have discretion over when to apply it or should it be automatic?
    I shall be interested to hear the views of the Committee. I have no intention of pressing the amendment tonight. I hope therefore that the Minister will concentrate on informing the Committee of his approach to the problem, which will no doubt have the benefit of considerable research on his part. I appreciate that I may have been speaking out of turn on the groupings, and I would appreciate having a few minutes in which to gather my thoughts. I beg to move.
    10.45 p.m.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I think the noble Earl was speaking to Amendment No. 415; I did not actually hear what was called. I do not think there is anything wrong with the ideas put forward in the amendment but it is rather unfortunate that they should have been put forward with an alternative to dealing with careless and dangerous driving. These may be valuable amendments in the fight for safer

    551
    roads but I should not like to be associated with any moving away from giving penalties to those who drive carelessly and cause death or injury thereby.
    Viscount Simon: I am led to understand that the current retraining scheme and the extended test for those who are subject to it have been quite successful in that people do not re-offend to the same extent. It would be nice if magistrates seized their powers in appropriate circumstances not only to disqualify a person but also to take away the vehicle of the offender.
    Lord Whitty: I agreed with quite a lot of what the noble Earl said even before I realised what amendment he was referring to. All those who have spoken will be pleased to hear that my colleagues at the Home Office with, in this case, rather more active participation by me in joined-up government, are about to issue a major consultation document, taking forward the right strategies in relation to penalties and the way they are enforced. The document will deal with stronger penalties for careless and dangerous driving, and also with the idea of providing an alternative of retraining in certain circumstances. Retraining, as we have just heard, does have a very good effect in the limited circumstances where it is now applied. It should be much more widely used. It deals also with re-testing in relation to offences attracting a penalty above a certain level. That will all be covered in the Home Office document. There will be a clear sense of direction there. Noble Lords will have the ability to comment on it. I hope that fairly shortly the Home Office will once again be legislating on that issue.
    Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I shall read it carefully. I look forward to the Home Office consultation paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 416 not moved.]
    Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 416A:
    After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  SPECIAL TYPES LICENCE
  (" . After subsection (1) of section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, there shall be inserted—
  "(1A) No person may operate a vehicle under the provisions of subsection (1) unless he has been granted a special types licence for the vehicle by the Secretary of State.
  (1B) The Secretary of State shall not grant a licence under subsection (1A) if it appears to him that the applicant is technically incompetent."").
  The noble Lord said: Before moving Amendment No. 416A and speaking to Amendment No. 416B, I remind the Committee of my interest. The Committee may not be aware of how expensive vehicle excise duty can be for goods vehicles generally and vehicles carrying abnormal loads in particular. For many goods vehicles the rate is well over £3,000 but for a vehicles taxed as "special types" it is over £5,000. I have no problem with the actual rate. These vehicles
  552
  often have very high axle weights and may need police escorts. It is right that they should pay their true costs and not be subsidised.
  There are a number of difficulties. First, special types tax is required even if a vehicle is only running at just over 41 tonnes gross, just outside the construction and use regulations threshold. Vehicles that normally run within the construction and use regulations can occasionally be used as special types. However, the taxation class of that vehicle will have to be changed. It may be necessary only to change it for a week. Then the challenge for the operator is to get his refund back from the DVLA. That can take several weeks, as we found out from one of my written Questions for Written Answer answered by the Minister. Regrettably what happens is that some unscrupulous operators do not bother altering their vehicle's taxation class because of the difficulties that I have described. That is unfair to regular heavy hauliers who have all their vehicles properly taxed as special types.
  Secondly, with developing trade, many abnormal loads go to or come from Europe. The European hauliers tend to have far lower vehicle tax rates. Their fuel at home is sometimes up to £1 per gallon cheaper. The Committee will not be surprised to hear that they do not avail themselves of the opportunity to contribute to the Chancellor's coffers by buying his fuel.
  The amendments provide for a vignette scheme to permit abnormal load operation under Section 44. It would apply equally to UK or continental hauliers. The vignettes would be valid for a variety of periods but any period less than one month would not be refundable. I do not know what the Minister's reaction will be to the amendments. However, I would point out that several years ago it was possible to purchase seven-day licences for heavy haulage vehicles. That was because at that time the vehicle excise duty rate for such vehicles was considerable. The law then changed and special types tax was cheap, so the non-availability of seven-day licences did not matter. The rate now is very steep. If the Minister cannot accept the principle of my amendment, perhaps he could consider the reintroduction of seven-day licenses. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With these amendments we return to the types of vehicles we discussed on Amendments Nos. 394 and 396; that is vehicles authorised under Section 44. Those vehicles which fall outside the construction and use regulations but may be used on the public road if granted permission by order under Section 44 of the Road Traffic Act. As before, most of those are goods vehicles which carry unusually large or heavy loads, but they might also be prototype vehicles or special vehicles used by the armed forces. If enacted, the clauses will require those operating the vehicles to obtain a licence from the Secretary of State, for which a fee will be levied. That fee will be no higher than the highest rate of vehicle excise duty set out in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and may be rebated

  553
  to the extent of any vehicle excise duty, or its equivalent for foreign vehicles, paid on the vehicle. I hope that I have described the amendments correctly.
  We do not believe that these measures are necessary or justified. They would simply add a layer of bureaucracy for those operating special types of vehicle. The noble Earl confirmed that the purpose of the proposal is to raise revenue through something akin to the vignette scheme which operates in some European countries, in which vehicles pay a fee to use that country's roads, rebated for domestic vehicles to the extent of their national circulation tax. There is no other service for which this fee pays. We believe that the proposal would be in breach of European law. It seems to us that the proposal would be caught by the Eurovignette directive, which sets a maximum level of 1,250 euros less than £800—for a modern lorry.
  Even if that were not the case, there would be difficulties arising from the maximum level of fee allowed under the amendment. The noble Earl proposes that the maximum fee should be equivalent to the highest rate of vehicle excise duty in the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. I should point out that this is not the £5,170 currently paid by special types vehicles involved in heavy haulage but £9,250. The amendment would give the Secretary of State powers to levy an additional fee of £4,000 on a UK-registered heavy vehicle. That is surely not what the noble Earl proposes.
  The noble Earl said that the fee should take account of road wear costs and the costs of providing police escorts. The Government are reviewing vehicle excise duty for lorries to ensure that rates more accurately reflect both wear and tear on the roads and their environmental impact. Until 1992 the taxation was based quite explicitly on track costs. Although that explicit link has been broken, the structure of goods vehicle taxation has not changed essentially since then. Thus road wear is already a factor in goods vehicle taxation. We intend that in future taxation should reflect road wear more closely.
  Turning now to the point about the cost of police escorts, it is not normal practice for the police service to charge for the escort of abnormal loads. However, several police forces have introduced charging for their services dependent on local circumstances such as the urgency or timing. The issue of escorting abnormal loads is currently being reviewed by ACPO. The option of police charging is one that may be considered. But it would certainly be unlawful for the United Kingdom to put in place a charging structure for escorting those loads which discriminated against hauliers from other EU nations, which would be the case if those costs were taken into account in the excise duty. We are concerned about that problem. For those reasons, I ask the noble Earl not to press the amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister for his careful consideration of the amendments and for his full answer. I should love to make a quip about starting
  554
  to read the Finance Bill, but perhaps we should move on. I shall probably come back with an amendment on seven-day licences if I can tempt the Clerks with it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 416B and 416C not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 416D:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  MEANS OF ACCESS FOR INSPECTION OF VEHICLE ROOFS
  (" . After subsection (7) of section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
  "(8) Regulations made under this section shall provide that vehicles licensed under section 3(5A) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (international operations) shall be fitted with convenient means of access for inspection of the roof of the vehicle, in order to comply with the code of practice prescribed by section 33 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999."").
  The noble Earl said: Section 33 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides for a £2,000 fixed fine for each illegal immigrant carried into the country. That is grossly unfair and I cannot see how it complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. We shall find out whether or not it does in October.
  The Committee will be aware that there is a defence if the haulier or driver has complied with the code of practice under the Act. Unfortunately, in order to comply with it, it is necessary to examine the roof of the vehicle. It would not be safe to do so single-handedly with a ladder. It will therefore be necessary to have built into all trailers used for international operations suitable access to the roof. That is the purpose of my amendment. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. I beg to move.
  11 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl's amendment seeks to address a serious problem. It is certainly true that the issue of illegal immigration has become especially serious, in particular after the deaths of 58 would-be immigrants. That was a terrible business.
  The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that the drivers of all UK-registered lorries travelling internationally have a means of checking the roof. The noble Earl has pointed out that, under the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act, drivers have an obligation to ensure that they are not carrying illegal immigrants. They can discharge that obligation by following the code of practice laid down under the Act.
  How that is done is a matter for the drivers, but I take entirely the point made by the noble Earl about the relevance of inspecting the roof. Illegal entry could be made through the roof of a lorry—but not of all lorries, such as container lorries. However, I do not believe that the amendment would deal with the problem. Other measures are being undertaken that may help to ease the situation.

  555
  The Calais Chamber of Commerce has announced a number of measures to improve security at the port, including security fencing, CCTV, the employment of a private security company to guard the outer perimeter and the introduction of electronically controlled access to the restricted access lorry park. Two companies are actively involved in plans to establish commercial search facilities in and around the port of Calais. We are ready to move to do what we can to facilitate discussions with the French if that becomes necessary.
  The difficulty about the amendment is one of practicality. For example, on a skeletal semi-trailer, if it is used to carry containers, there is nowhere to position a ladder. On some semi-trailers, fixing a ladder to the side or to the rear would take the trailer beyond the maximum permitted dimensions and thus could be dangerous to other traffic. Furthermore, space at the front of a lorry is often limited.
  For practical reasons and because of other solutions being sought that may be more effective, I invite the noble Earl not to press his amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the serious response given by the Minister. I have yet to decide whether I shall table another amendment to deal with the same issue. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 416E:
  After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—

  REGULATION OF MAXIMUM WEIGHT FOR RECOVERY VEHICLES
  (" . In section 41(2)(d) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 after "trailers" insert "and recovery vehicles".").
  The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment and the other amendments in the grouping, I should declare an interest. I own a heavy recovery vehicle, but it is unlikely to be used commercially in the UK again.
  The Minister will be aware that the secondary legislation regarding recovery vehicles is out of date and I am sure that he will agree that it needs to be improved. However, the hour is late—still late rather than early—so I shall not explain those difficulties tonight. However, I shall return to the detailed points at a later stage.
  Turning to Amendment No. 416F, this deals with the status of concrete pumping machines. The very first accident or emergency involving heavy equipment that I witnessed was at school when a mobile crane nearly turned over. The crane was being used for lifting large buckets of concrete in order to build a swimming pool. Nowadays concrete pumping machines are used for the same task because they are more efficient and safer. They generally consist of an articulated or folding boom which supports a large diameter pipe. The machine also mounts a pump to move the concrete from ground level at the edge of the site to where it is required.
  Both mobile cranes and concrete pumping machines spend relatively little time on the road. Their depots are usually within a short drive of the site. Sometimes they spend weeks on one site. The advice from the DVLA used to be that they should be taxed as special vehicles. As a result of a recent court case, that advice is no longer valid. Concrete pumping machines now have to be taxed as goods vehicles. The situation now is that mobile cranes are taxed at about £165 but some large concrete pumping machines attract over £4,000 of vehicle excise duty.
  This situation creates problems. First, it causes severe financial problems for operators. One major concrete pumping company will have to find £100,000 for vehicle excise duty now. Its operating costs will be up by about £200,000 per annum and that will come off the company's bottom line. I remind the Committee that there is very little difference between a concrete pumping machine and a mobile crane.
  Secondly, using a crane with a bucket the old-fashioned way is less safe but better from a taxation point of view. It cannot be right to promote an unsafe working method.
  In a Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the Finance Act would not be amended to correct the position, and I believe that that is the case. How does the Minister intend to correct this situation—or will he leave it to market forces? I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: Is not the answer to the problem of mobile cranes with arms and booms for them to have a small hook built in which can be lowered, so that the vehicle is then an ordinary crane as well as a concrete pump? In that way, all the manufacturers would save tens of thousands of pounds in licence fees.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that the Treasury would approve of that suggestion!
  As I understood it, this group of amendments included Amendments Nos. 416E to 416G and 426D. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has spoken only briefly to Amendment No. 416E, and we are grateful for that. I shall therefore reply briefly.
  A recovery vehicle is covered by the broader category of, in this case, locomotive contained in the Act. The noble Earl's amendment does not in any case provide a definition of what is to be considered a recovery vehicle. Therefore, it is much better to rely on secondary legislation for this purpose. Officials in the department are considering a suitable definition for a recovery vehicle which can be introduced into secondary legislation.
  So far as concerns Amendment No. 416F, the noble Earl is right in saying that a court case has been going on, R v. Reilly Concrete Pumping, and the Appeal Court ruled in the terms that he described. However, I understand that it will be taken to the House of Lords; therefore, I do not think that I ought to comment in any way on that individual case.

  557
  Any change that would have to take place would not be, as proposed in the amendment, under the Road Traffic Act; it would have to be under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. So that would rule out this amendment. Secondary legislation is the most appropriate place for such detailed vehicle definitions.
  Can I tempt the noble Earl not to move Amendments Nos. 416G and 426D in this group by replying to them now? That might save time. Amendment No. 416G allows the Secretary of State to make different regulations in regard to axle and gross weight of recovery vehicles which are locomotives. As I said, there is a reference within the Act to a locomotive, including a recovery vehicle; and on the specific point about vehicle weights, there is a provision to set axle and gross weight limits for these vehicles. Officials are working with the operators of recovery vehicles and highway authorities to develop suitable weight limits that are practical for recovery operations and these can be set within the scope of the existing legislation. They would not need this amendment.
  Amendment No. 426D relates to the definition of railways and tramways. It proposes that the definition should be based on whether it goes mainly in the street rather than partly in the street. We agree that the state of definition as between railways and tramways is imperfect but we do not think that it is important. The Railway Inspectorate assures us that despite any problems with definition the current system does not appear to cause light rail promoters serious difficulty and in practice the process of assessment, inspection and giving permission for systems which fall within the existing definition of "tramways" is not substantially different from that applicable to railways. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl does not feel it necessary to move that amendment.
  Earl Attlee: I did not speak in detail to the problems of recovery vehicles, but I am grateful to the Minister for his response on that subject. The tax rate that is applicable to concrete-pumping vehicles will cause enormous damage to the construction industry. I was not aware that an appeal was due to be heard by this House. Obviously, that matter is sub judice and we must await the outcome. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 416E to 416G not moved.]
  Clause 257 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 417 not moved.]
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 418:
  After Clause 257, insert the following new clause—

  OFFENCE OF DRIVING WHILE USING A HAND-HELD MOBILE TELEPHONE
  (" .—(1) In the Road Traffic Act 1988, before section 4 insert—
  "Driving while using a hand-held mobile telephone.
  3B. If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place while making, receiving or conducting a telephone call using a hand-held mobile telephone he is guilty of an offence."
  (2) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offenders), before the entry relating to section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 insert—

  "RTA section 3B

  Driving while using a hand- held mobile telephone.

  Summarily.

  Level 4 on the standard scale.

  Discretionary.

  Obligatory.

  3–9".")

  The noble Baroness said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 413, to which the noble Lord did not speak. Amendment No. 418 inserts a new clause into the Bill to amend the Road Traffic Act 1988, thus creating a new offence of driving while making, receiving or conducting a telephone call using a hand-held mobile telephone. It also modifies the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by providing a fine up to level 4 on the standard scale.
  We have discussed this matter more than once. A year ago this month the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, who is in his seat, introduced his Road Traffic (Use of Mobile Telephones) Bill, which this new clause follows. He was supported by a considerable number of noble Lords. In particular, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, introduced the results of a good deal of relevant research which clearly indicated the effect on the safety of a driver who uses a hand-held telephone while driving.
  On 6th July of this year the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, drew attention to the evidence of the Stewart report. Other evidence from Canada was also adduced to indicate that drivers using hand-held phones while driving were four times more likely than others to be involved in an accident. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, agreed with the findings of the Stewart report that the use of hand-held telephones could substantially increase the risk of an accident. He also said that it was an increasing phenomenon and that if the use of mobile telephones by drivers while driving continued to increase the Government would review the case for specific legislation.
  I do not claim that my approach to amending the Bill is the best; I am prepared to be told that it is far from adequate. However, in this case there is a good deal to be said for giving the Government the powers that they admit they may need in future. My amendment could be redrafted to suit that approach. I hope that, following the ritual exposé of the faults of this amendment, the Minister may yet say that in another form it will prove useful. I beg to move.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I have very few of my own teeth left in my head. I have lost my teeth in batches over the years. The second batch was lost when I was reading a book while riding a bicycle along a Norfolk road and impinged on a stationary van. I tell that anecdote because it has a bearing on the apparent self-confidence of people who use a telephone while driving a car, which is becoming a common practice. I have relatives in America where that phenomenon is even more common. Like a number of other practices

  559
  in that country, I believe that we are likely to follow that example. It is not safe to use a telephone while driving a car any more than it was safe to read while riding a bicycle.
  I do hope that the Government will take this amendment on board or, if they do not accept it, produce something of their own.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Davies of Oldham: I have two speeches to make on mobile phones. One speech lasts for three and a half hours and the other for three and a half minutes. It is the latter which I intend to deploy at this late stage of the evening.
  I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for her reference to the efforts I made last year with regard to a Bill in this House. As she rightly said, matters have moved on in terms of the Stewart report and its very substantial evidence of the abuse of road safety implicit in people seeking to make or receive telephone calls while driving a car.
  I declare my interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which has campaigned on this issue for some time. At this stage I state the obvious: last year we were treated to considerable police action to demonstrate that this matter could be dealt with under existing law and that that would act as a deterrent to people and establish the fact that this was a practice which ought not to be pursued by drivers. I was grateful for that response, as I am sure all Members in the House were. If it was thought that this would reduce the use of mobile phones by drivers, I am sure the Minister must recognise that it did not have that effect.
  The issue, of course, is quite straightforward. Even if people learn at a sufficient rate of the dangers of such a practice, the number of mobile phones being purchased is growing at such an extraordinary rate that their use on the roads is almost certainly increasing rather than decreasing.
  The necessity for legislation has parallels with what happened over seat belts. Sensible people knew that the wearing of seat belts was a safety aid. But it was not until it became the law of the land that seat belts were universally used and the law largely complied with. I think the same obtains with regard to mobile phones.
  I recognise the reservations of the Minister. There may be imperfections, as the noble Baroness was kind enough to recognise, as regards her proposal. But she is to be congratulated on reintroducing the issue at this stage of the Bill. I would emphasise that something needs to be done in legislative terms, and soon.
  Viscount Simon: Most people say that the police have sufficient powers regarding the use of mobile phones in a moving vehicle. Police officers say they would much prefer a specific offence and that is what the noble Baroness, I believe, is trying to achieve.
  It appears to me that she has not made clear in her amendment something I believe she intends; namely, that it is when the vehicle is actually moving that the driver commits an offence and not when it is stationary.
  560
  Finally, something which has to be borne in mind, whether the mobile phone is hand held or not, is that the concentration of the driver can be adversely affected for up to 10 minutes after conversation has ceased.
  Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, for introducing this important amendment. I see some problems about the use of a hand held telephone when the vehicle is mobile. I agree it would be desirable to create a specific offence so that motorists knew that they were going to get into trouble if they used their hand held phone while the vehicle was in motion.
  Lord Winston: I cannot help intervening briefly, having visited the Transport Research Laboratory this afternoon. Whatever legislation we enact, we must ensure that there is good evidence for doing so. One of the questions we must ask before legislating is the extent to which using a hand-held telephone, with or without hands free, contributes to accidents. My impression was that the answer is not entirely clear but perhaps I am wrong. I hope that the Government will pursue the question because it is important.
  Lord Whitty: As my noble friend will know from his visit to the TRL, the issue is being assessed in various research projects in order to ascertain the statistical contribution of mobile telephones to road accidents. Many accident reports indicate that the problem is growing but because it is relatively recent it is not easy to establish the precise statistical base.
  The view of the police is that they do not need the additional power because the act is already covered by general offences relating to undue attention or careless driving. The specification of a particular offence could have two downsides.
  Viscount Simon: Is the opinion of the police at ACPO level or officers on the street? The officers on the street would like to see legislation.
  Lord Whitty: My noble friend may have conducted an opinion poll, but it is the view of chief police officers. It is also the view of various operational people within the police traffic area. I have no doubt that some police would like to see offences for all kinds of acts, but, in general, police representatives have said that the provision would not be sensible because there are two downsides. The first is that specifying the mobile telephone would take away attention from other distractions such as combing your hair, eating a sandwich and so forth within a car. I leave the rest to Members' imagination. It is therefore a no more serious offence than other ways of being distracted within the car.
  Secondly, the only type of mobile telephone which would cause the police to stop a car would be handheld because a hands-free telephone could not be seen. Research shows that the level of distraction when using either is almost the same. Therefore, specifying that a hand-held telephone could lead to police action,

  561
  even if there were not an accident or driving offence, would undermine the message that hands-free telephones can also cause considerable distraction for drivers. Significant research, mainly that carried out in America, suggests that.
  We have said that if that proves not to be the case we will review the situation. If it remains the case, I assure the House that were it to be proved from accident statistics or police reports that current powers are insufficient to deal with the problem, when we are examining penalties and offences we shall consider bringing it forward as a separate offence. However, at this point we are not convinced of the necessity for that, nor are representatives of the police.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that response. Before withdrawing my amendment I want to comment on some of the interventions. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who made it clear that ACPO is arguing against the need for a specific offence. One should not forget that road traffic accidents are a low priority in police work. One may argue about whether that is desirable but it is the case. Therefore, one can understand why the most senior police officers might be reluctant to have to introduce new duties in an area which is already under-resourced.
  I was interested to hear the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I believe that research is now becoming more and more specific in indicating that there is a connection between accidents and the use of a mobile phone while driving—that is, while the vehicle is moving. That is what the amendment says. It refers clearly to a person driving a vehicle and it assumes that the vehicle is moving. However, there is certainly a connection between driving a vehicle, using a phone and being accident-prone while doing so.
  I shall respond briefly to the Minister. I agree with him that it would be more desirable if all use of a mobile phone by a driver of a moving vehicle were prohibited by law. However, I do not believe that I would get that past his eagle eye because there is a divergence of opinion as to whether or not using a mobile phone which is hitched on to the car—that is, it is not hand-held—is as dangerous as using it while it is in one's hand. Therefore, I went for the more obvious of the two targets.
  I am sorry that the Minister does not believe that the amendment will be of use to him in his considerations of how our attitudes and the law should progress with regard to this problem. I consider that it is a problem that is increasingly likely to become a nuisance in the years to come. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 419:
  After Clause 257, insert the following new clause—

  SPECIAL PARKING AREAS
  (" . In paragraph 2(5) of Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991 (special parking areas), at the end of the words in parentheses insert "and to moving vehicles failing to comply with the indications given by the signs shown in any of diagrams 612, 613, 614, 953, 960, 961, 1043, 1044, 1048 and 1048.1 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994.").
  The noble Lord said: I move this rather prosaic-looking amendment with some reluctance following the rich diet that we have had today with regard to concrete pumping machines.
  The effect of this amendment would be to extend the scope of camera enforcement of road traffic offences outside London. It would extend that scope in terms of going outside London geographically and would also include other offences, such as banned turns, restricted access, yellow box markings, no entry restrictions and the like.
  First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for the letter which he wrote to me and which I received by fax this afternoon. I refer to matters which were raised in the Moses Room during the Grand Committee stage.
  I know that the Government—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said so then and says so in this letter—want to extend the experience of camera enforcement of bus lanes outside London before moving to extend that enforcement to other offences. Local authorities also want that extension. I have a letter from one local authority which states that it would very much like to have added to the list of offences banned turns, restricted access and parking within yellow box markings.
  I do not ask that the powers should be extended immediately, but that the opportunity should be taken in this legislation to build in the possibility at some future date to extend the powers by order rather than return to primary legislation. The major way to improve public transport in the short term is to get more use out of buses. The greater use of buses is closely linked to buses moving freely along the highway. That means two things: first, the enforcement of parking, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, refers in his letter; and, secondly, local authorities should take up the powers available to them to take over the enforcement of parking areas through special parking area regulations.
  The police should be able to enforce the provisions on the operation of buses properly throughout the length of streets. We have just talked about their inability to enforce the mobile phone regulations and I was talking earlier about their inability to enforce the rules on the use of restricted roads by heavy lorries. The police do not do those jobs. We have to move on technologically. I seek an assurance that the Minister will at least consider taking the powers, even if they are not used until he has the experience that he is seeking of the enforcement of bus lanes outside London. I beg to move.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Lord has correctly divined that my view is that we should concentrate on making sure that the extension of enforcement powers to bus lanes, which we agreed in Grand Committee, should run and we should see how the enforcement powers work, rather than extending them to other potential offences. I remain of that opinion. The amendment would not meet the noble Lord's objectives because it would make no provision for the issuing of regulations, which he recognises would be needed were we to do as he suggests.
  In general, the Government tend not to warm to suggestions that we take powers that we are probably not going to use within the foreseeable future. We intend to stick with that doctrine and not take powers when we will not know for some time whether we will need them. That will depend on how effective the bus lane enforcement provisions are. Reluctantly, I fear that I cannot accept the amendment.
  Lord Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for that reply. All that I can say is that the prospects of the Government achieving their 10-year transport plan and the better use of bus services and reductions in traffic levels that I know that they want will be very much reduced if they do not take powers to enable them to free up our streets as quickly as possible so that buses can make a proper contribution. I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments No. 420 and 421 not moved.]
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market Baroness Scott of Needham Market moved Amendment No. 422:
  After Clause 257, insert the following new clause—

  LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN AND ROAD TRAFFIC
  (" .—(l) As part of their local transport plan, and subject to guidance issued by the Secretary of State, a local transport authority may designate any residential road or roads within their area as a home zone, and any rural road within their area as a quiet lane, for any or all of the following purposes—

  (a) improving the environment;

  (b) improving the safety and security of the community in whose area the home zone is situated;

  (c) improving safety on rural roads, especially for pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders, by reducing the risk of accidents;

  (d) protecting the character and distinctiveness of the countryside from damage to traffic.

  (2) The Secretary of State may introduce regulations with regard to home zones or quiet lanes which may have any or all of the following effects—

  (a) giving pedestrians and pedal cyclists precedence on any highway in a home zone, and pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horseriders precedence on any quiet lane;

  (b) requiring the driver of any mechanically powered vehicle to accord such precedence to any pedestrian, pedal cyclist or horse rider;

  (c) requiring pedestrians, cyclists and horseriders to show reasonable behaviour towards any mechanically powered vehicle, and not wilfully to obstruct its passage;

  564

  (d) requiring physical or other measures to reduce traffic speeds to no more than 10 mph in a road designated as a home zone, or 20 mph on a designated quiet lane.").

  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 423. I need not take up your Lordships' time at this hour of the night to explain the concept of home zones and quiet lanes. I know that Ministers have been much persuaded by the experiences of our European neighbours. In many continental towns and cities, home zones have made a significant contribution to the safety of vulnerable road users and have encouraged walking and cycling. Perhaps most significantly in the long term, reclaiming space for people rather than vehicles has done much to foster a sense of community, which we all fear is fast disappearing.
  Quiet lanes are rather different in character and a less well proven concept but they could make an equally valuable contribution to safe and sustainable transport in rural areas, as well as improving the quality of life.
  I am sure that we are all looking forward with interest to the outcome of the pilot schemes currently under development but it seems a shame not to draw on the vast experience of our European neighbours. They have shown that where there are successful home zones, cars do not take priority over pedestrians and cyclists and are required to move at walking pace, although in practice something like 9 miles per hour is tolerated.
  In Committee in another place the Minister said that the Government would consider changing the law if the evidence of the pilot projects showed that it was necessary. Our Amendment No. 422 is intended to help the Government by providing a framework within which they could, by regulation, achieve these schemes, which have such widespread support.
  In Amendment No. 423 we are again seeking to help the Government to achieve their road safety objectives by enabling the development of a rural road hierarchy. The Government's road safety strategy, which highlights the well understood link between speed and accident rates, further points out that our rural roads have a serious accident problem. My authority, Suffolk County Council, chose to address that by introducing a presumed 30 miles per hour speed limit in all villages. Although that has been highly successful, both in terms of reducing accident rates and speed, a more strategic whole route approach would have been even more effective.
  An area-wide route hierarchy would enable local authorities to develop a network in which roads are used for the purposes for which they are truly fitted rather than an outdated classification. Not only would objectives of safety and sustainability be served by that, but road maintenance, signing, lighting and movement of freight would also be better served.
  On several occasions during the passage of this Bill the Minister has referred to the toolkit approach, intending to provide local authorities with the tools that they need to do the job. I urge the Government to add those extra tools to the kit. I beg to move.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I, too, have put my name to this amendment. Although at this time of the evening I shall not indulge my personal reminiscences about my accidents in vehicles of different kinds, I have some personal experience of the problems caused by a combination of faulty marking of roads and an inability to have speed limits on rural roads. I believe that we need to attend to both of those matters. Allowing rural areas, in particular, to set up hierarchies of roads and, therefore, to sign them adequately for the benefit of those who use them will be a serious step forward towards reducing the unfortunately high incidence of motor accidents in the countryside.
  Lord Berkeley: I rise to support this amendment. I was slightly surprised not to see it in Part II, somewhere near Clause 107, but I am sure there is a good reason for that. It seems to embody many things about which noble Lords have been arguing in the way of implementing the transport White Paper. In particular it would be great to see something like the home zones on the face of the Bill, which could be implemented where local authorities require them.
  Baroness Thomas of Wallisvvood: The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminds me that at an earlier stage in the passage of this Bill I tabled an amendment that I hoped would act as an enabling amendment with regard to the local road hierarchy amendment and the speed limits that would flow from that. Unfortunately, that amendment did not find favour with the Minister. Perhaps he can be persuaded that a redrafting of that enabling amendment may be of value. I hope he will address that matter in his reply.
  I hope we have achieved some safety amendments to this part of the Bill which is titled "Miscellaneous and supplementary". During Committee stage, or any other part of the passage of a Bill, we are not permitted to change the titles or the sideline titles of a Bill, but perhaps the Minister will consider renaming it "Safety, miscellaneous and supplementary" to reflect what I hope will be its slightly different character.
  Lord Whitty: Any consideration of that last point will depend on how we return to some of the issues on Report. While I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for tabling these amendments, I cannot accept them in their present form. I would like to take them away for consideration. Both home zones and a new approach to speed limits are central parts of our approach to urban and rural road accident problems and road safety problems. Clearly, while there are many provisions involved in establishing home zones, where existing regulations will allow local authorities to do what is required to establish a home zone, there
  566
  may be others that are not there, although some of the specifics in the amendment of the noble Baroness run into the difficulties of absolute precedents which were discussed in another place.
  I would have to look at that carefully. Nevertheless, I should like to take away that amendment, along with Amendment No. 423, which is probably too prescriptive for my taste. But it is important to give local authorities adequate powers to introduce new speed hierarchies in a way which is more rapid than the designation of speed limits on roads is for local authorities and is a less expensive and time consuming process.
  Therefore I should like to look at both amendments in that context and return to this matter after the Summer Recess. We can then discuss whether these should be enabling clauses or the more prescriptive clauses tabled by the noble Baroness today. However, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn at this stage.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I have no intention of being prescriptive, either for him or anyone else. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 423 to 425 not moved.]
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 426:
  After Clause 257, insert the following new clause—

  STREET WORKS: CHARGES FOR ADVERSE AFFECT ON TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC
  (" .—(1) Except in cases of emergency arising from defects in any pipes, cables or other works, an undertaker planning to execute street works in a maintainable highway must inform (in respect of local transport) the local transport authority and (in respect of traffic regulation) the traffic authority (or in Greater London, Transport for London) of the proposed works.
  (2) Where—

  (a) the local transport authority considers that street works notified to them under subsection (1) adversely effect the implementation of the local transport plan made under section 98, or

  (b) the traffic authority (or in Greater London, Transport for London) considers that those street works adversely effect the passage of traffic on a road or roads,

  the relevant authority may levy a charge of £1,000 for each day or part of a day in which a street, or a unit of area of a street, is occupied for the purpose of executing those street works.
  (3) Where street works notified under subsection (1) occupy more than one unit of area of a street a charge may be levied under subsection (2) in respect of each unit.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall make provision by regulations—

  (a) as to the meaning of "unit of area" in this section;

  (b) as to the time and manner of making payment of a charge;

  (c) for the relevant authority to reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.

  (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute for the sum mentioned in subsection (2) such higher sum as appears to him appropriate.
  (6) Regulations under subsection (5) shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  (7) Regulations under subsection (4)(a) may make different provision in respect of different areas or classes of area or for different streets or classes of street.
  (8) Regulations under subsection (4) shall be laid before Parliament and subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
  (9) In this section—

  (a) "local transport authority" has the same meaning as in section 98 above.

  (b) "road" has the same meaning as in section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,

  (c) "traffic authority" has the same meaning as in section 121A of that Act.

  (10) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory instrument.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 426 on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil—he asked me to apologise to the Committee for the fact that he cannot be here this evening—I shall speak also to Amendment No. 429 which also appears on the Marshalled List in his name.
  Members of the Committee will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has this year waged something of a one-man campaign on the issue of streetworks. He asked his first Question on the subject on 7th February as a Business Question to my noble friend the Government Chief Whip, when he reminded your Lordships of the sessional order which requires the chief of police to keep the passages through the streets leading to this House free and open. He followed that by a plethora of Starred Questions in March, April and May and an Unstarred Question debate, and he intervened on other occasions. He then piloted a Private Member's Bill through all stages in your Lordships' House which had its Second Reading on 30th June.
  The noble Lord tabled these amendments which are consistent with the other elements in what I can only call a remarkable crusade. The purpose behind Amendment No. 426 is to enable local transport and traffic authorities to charge streetwork undertakers—utilities and others—a daily charge for the time they occupy a publicly maintainable highway. It contains a number of related provisions which allow for increasing the level of charges and also for their waiver or reduction. Amendment No. 429 ensures that those charging provisions apply in England, Wales and Scotland. The two amendments together provide more than a passing resemblance to the provision in the streetworks Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
  I am happy to move these amendments on the noble Lord's behalf for two reasons. First, I believe he is right to try to make the people who inflict such misery and inconvenience on all road users pay something by way of recompense; secondly, because I hope my noble friend may have something positive to say in response. I beg to move.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The intention of the first and substantive clause is to enable local transport authorities and traffic authorities to charge streetwork undertakers—utilities and others—a daily charge of £1,000 for the time during which they occupy a publicly maintainable highway, subject to any regulations the Secretary of State may make under those proposed powers.
  While I am second to none in my admiration of the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, in pursuit of solutions to what is undoubtedly a real problem of disruption on the roads at present, his amendment runs the risk of creating an additional level of bureaucracy. I say "an additional level" because it would introduce new roles of surveillance over streetworks by local transport authorities and traffic authorities under provisions which are unrelated to the main controlling legislation, the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. And certain aspects of the amendment, for example on dealing with emergency works, would cut across the requirements of that Act. It would be a recipe for confusion. If there are to be changes to the controls, the Government believe that they should come through that Act or amendments to it.
  I am sure that all of us in this Committee are very conscious of the seriousness of the problem. The Government sympathise with the objectives of the noble Lord's amendments and would not want to close off options for dealing with the problem but we cannot accept the amendment as it stands. However, I can agree to take it away and consider whether we can bring forward our own amendment on Report to amend the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 so that the Secretary of State could, if necessary, make regulations allowing responsible highway authorities to require utilities and others carrying out street works in England to pay them a lane rental for the occupation of the highway. This would be in addition to the existing power in Section 74 to require payments by utilities in the event of prolonged occupation of the highway, for which we have already been drawing up a scheme.
  The second amendment would commit the administrations in Scotland and Wales to the introduction of charges in an area of policy that is devolved to them. Although I am unaware of any strong desire on their part to introduce parallel measures, I must protect their position and, therefore, must oppose the noble Lord's proposal to extend the powers beyond England.
  I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was not able to be here to move his amendment. However, as a former Minister of Transport who has done the state some service, and with midnight approaching, I do not believe that any of us would grudge him his beauty sleep. I very much hope that my noble friend

  569
  Lord Faulkner, who, as he said, discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, earlier, will agree to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, will be more than satisfied with my noble friend's reply. Therefore, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Elder Lord Elder moved Amendment No. 426A:
  After Clause 257, insert the following new clause—

  STREET WORKS: CHARGES FOR ADVERSE AFFECT ON TRANSPORT AND TRAFFIC

  FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR INLAND WATERWAY AND SEA FREIGHT
  .—(1) The Secretary of State may make grants or other payments for the purpose of securing or encouraging the carriage of goods by inland waterway or by sea rather than by road where he is satisfied that that is in the public interest
  (2) Grants or payments under this section may in particular be made in respect of facilities for or in connection with the carriage of goods by inland waterway or by sea (including facilities for loading or unloading goods).
  (3) Grants or payments under this section shall be of such amount and subject to such conditions (including conditions requiring their repayment in specified circumstances) as the Secretary of State may determine.
  (4) So far as it relates to inland waterways in Wales the power conferred by this section is a power of the National Assembly for Wales.
  (5) The power conferred by this section may only be exercised in or as regards Scotland if its exercise relates to reserved matters within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998.
  (6) In this section "inland waterway" includes both a natural and an artificial inland waterway.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 426B to 426F not moved.]
  Clauses 258 and 259 agreed to.
  Schedule 30 [Repeals and revocations]:
  [Amendment No. 427 not moved.]
  Lord Elder moved Lord Elder moved Amendment No. 427A:
  Page 342, line 16, at end insert—
  ("1993 c. 43. Railways Act 1993. Section 140.")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 260 to 263 agreed to.
  Clause 264 [Extent]:
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 428:
  Page 164, line 19, at end insert ("and section ("Enforcement of requirements relating to drivers' hours")").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 429 not moved.]
  Clause 264, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Learning and Skills Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments to certain Commons amendments agreed to.

Local Government Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments in lieu of the words left out of the Bill agreed to; with certain Commons amendments to which the Lords had disagreed not insisted upon; with amendments to other Commons amendments agreed to; and with a consequential amendment to the Bill agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before midnight.

  Meat Hygiene Service Annual Report
  Meat Hygiene Service Annual Report
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  European Investment Bank: Nominations for Vice-President
  European Investment Bank: Nominations for Vice-President
  Far Eastern Markets Impact of Turmoil on UK
  Far Eastern Markets Impact of Turmoil on UK
  Poorer Countries Debt Relief
  Poorer Countries Debt Relief
  Entrepreneurs: Attraction to UK
  Entrepreneurs: Attraction to UK
  Forensic Science Service Annual Report
  Forensic Science Service Annual Report
  Police Complaints Authority Appointments
  Police Complaints Authority Appointments
  Kosovo: Police Manpower
  Kosovo: Police Manpower
  Entry Clearance Study
  Entry Clearance Study
  Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration
  Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration
  Diplomatic Missions and the National Non-domestic Rate
  Diplomatic Missions and the National Non-domestic Rate
  Best Practice Research Scholarships
  Best Practice Research Scholarships
  Special Educational Needs Draft Code
  Special Educational Needs Draft Code
  Science and Innovation White Paper
  Science and Innovation White Paper
  Circle Line Suspensions
  Circle Line Suspensions
  Carbon Emissions
  Carbon Emissions
  Canoeists: Access to Water
  Canoeists: Access to Water
  Abnormal Load Movement
  Abnormal Load Movement
  Farm Scale Evaluation
  Farm Scale Evaluation
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Medium Secure Psychiatric Hospital Beds
  Medium Secure Psychiatric Hospital Beds
  General Practitioners
  General Practitioners
  Medicine Laboratory Scientific Officers: Remuneration
  Medicine Laboratory Scientific Officers: Remuneration
  Therapeutic Cloning Report
  Therapeutic Cloning Report
  High Garden Hedges Report
  High Garden Hedges Report
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  House of Lords Committee Rooms: Acoustics
  House of Lords Committee Rooms: Acoustics
  Standards in Public Life Committee: Sixth Report
  Standards in Public Life Committee: Sixth Report
  House of Lords: Composition
  House of Lords: Composition
  Civil Court Judgments: Enforcement Procedures Review
  Civil Court Judgments: Enforcement Procedures Review
  Infantry: Primary Role Training
  Infantry: Primary Role Training
  Operational Aircraft
  Operational Aircraft