Sitting of 5 June 2000

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

  Decommissioning (Warships and Submarines)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What his policy is on the decommissioning of warships and submarines that were built less than 20 years ago. [122639]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The life of each vessel is planned carefully at the design and procurement stage, but requirements change over the course of a ship's life and we must maintain an affordable front-line capability to meet the current and predicted strategic requirements.
  Mr. Prentice: Jane's Fighting Ships is not my usual reading, but I found it worrying that the editor of that august manual fired a broadside at the Government, saying that we were flogging off at a knock-down price ships that were perfectly serviceable and were commissioned only 12 or 13 years ago. More worryingly—I cannot believe that this is true—he said that, in the lifetime of the Government,
  2
  we have failed to order a single warship for construction. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
  Mr. Spellar: During the strategic defence review, it was clear that the requirement for major surface vessels had altered. As a result, six older and, more importantly, less capable vessels were to be replaced by three type 23 frigates. One of the reasons for the delay is that, under the previous Administration—as we and others pointed out at considerable length—the Horizon project was in considerable difficulty. We had to terminate that project and move to the capable type 45, for which we have already awarded the design contract and look forward to awarding the manufacturing contract later this year.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: In 1997, the previous Government left one of the youngest naval fleets that had been available to the Navy since the war; frigates and destroyers at 35 and submarines at 15. Now, we have 27 frigates and destroyers and 10 submarines available to the Navy. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the early sell-off of certain ships—"early sell-off" being the key phrase. What new orders for warships have the Government placed since they have been in power?
  Mr. Spellar: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not responded to the point that I made. I will happily quote from the editorial of Jane's Fighting Ships, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred. It stated that the UK
  has finally withdrawn from the always ill-conceived air defence destroyer project with France and Italy, and a new national design has a prime contractor ߪ The hidden cost of a decade—
  I wonder who was in power during that decade—
  of the wrong sort of collaboration lies in the prolonged delays of introducing a modern capability in this most vital of all warfare disciplines.
  That is why the projects are delayed and why we are awarding the design contract. That is why, later this year, we will award the first-of-class contract for the type 45

  3
  and why we have already awarded the design contracts for the two new aircraft carriers which the hon. Gentleman and his Government did not think to order either.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: We have now had the usual from the Government, which is no answer. I asked a simple question: how many new orders have they placed? As Captain Richard Sharpe, the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, has said, this represents
  the biggest gap since the days of Henry VIII.
  That is the condemnation of the Government. Given that we are to have fewer ships with less capability—in addition to seamen saying "Bang!" instead of firing real bullets—will the Minister tell us why, at the height of the Kosovo war and with all their cuts planned for the Navy, the Government reduced the budget for the fuel allocation to the fleet by one third?
  Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that fuel prices were moving at that time. I am surprised that he describes the fleet as less capable, particularly following the fitting of Tomahawk cruise missiles to all British nuclear-powered fleet submarines, which demonstrated their extreme capability during the Kosovo war. I am surprised also that he describes the type 45 as less capable. The previous Government left us with a considerable mess with a project that had been hanging on and which they refused to terminate. This Government had the courage to terminate that agreement with the hon. Gentleman's European allies. As a result, we have now ordered the type 45. The Conservatives left us with a mess, and it is extraordinary that they come here and pontificate in this way.

  Defence Diversification
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What progress the Government have made in promoting defence diversification. [122640]
  Laura Moffatt: What progress the Government have made in promoting defence diversification. [122641]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): We set up the Defence Diversification Agency last year, with a permanent director appointed last summer. The agency is already making a substantial contribution to the transfer of technological know-how between the Ministry of Defence and small to medium-sized businesses. With seven offices already established across the country, and with a further seven to follow later this year, the agency has already handled about 300 company inquiries.
  Mr. Savidge: Apart from the existing Defence Diversification Agency offices in Rosyth, are there any plans to open more offices in Scotland? To what extent is the agency's objective not merely to seek profitable civil spin-offs from military production but to expand our civil production base?
  Dr. Moonie: I am very pleased to be able to inform my hon. Friend that it is our intention to open an office of the DDA in Glasgow before the end of the year, as part of the next phase.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Surprise, surprise.
  Dr. Moonie: Indeed.
  Civil spin-offs are a major priority for defence diversification, with a view to securing as much additionality as possible from our defence military production and research.
  Laura Moffatt: As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, small businesses are the most likely to be able to take advantage of technology transfer and to use the Defence Diversification Agency for research. That must certainly be the case in my constituency. What is he doing to target those businesses and ensure that they can take full advantage of the opportunities available?
  Dr. Moonie: We have quite a few initiatives in progress that will be of direct benefit to small businesses. For example, a couple of weeks ago I was fortunate enough to speak at a seminar on opportunities in defence for small and medium-sized companies; we are encouraging secondments from the defence industry to the DDA; we conduct technological roadshows and exhibitions; and business support partnerships have been established, connecting to Business Links, Scottish Enterprise and similar agencies in Northern Ireland and Wales, working in partnership with existing business support networks and initiatives. We believe that an effective working partnership with intermediary business support networks is critical to the success of the Defence Diversification Agency.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: So what is the answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)? Is it true that no ships have been ordered and that sailors now shout "Bang!" instead of using live rounds? Is the idea of the Government's diversification programme to replace offensive weapons with offensive language?
  Dr. Moonie: You will be well aware, Madam Speaker, that I never use offensive language, especially in the House.
  I am very much afraid that I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I can add nothing to the full reply that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces gave some moments ago.
  Mr. David Heath: Given the enormous importance of the defence industry to the west country and our disproportionate exposure to the sector,

  5
  how many times have the Minister or his colleagues met representatives of the South-West regional development agency to discuss diversification?
  Dr. Moonie: I have absolutely no idea what my hon. Friends have done, but I have not yet had the opportunity to hold such meetings. Were I to receive an invitation, I would be very happy to meet those people and discuss our plans.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Can the Minister reassure the House that any proposals for diversification are better thought out than the plans to diversify the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, which have caused so much uncertainty and hostility among those who work for it, such as the people at Fort Halstead in my constituency? How can the Government be so sure that exactly three quarters of the staff will be diversified to the private sector yet be so hazy on all the details?
  Dr. Moonie: One of the problems with conducting a process openly is that it leads to certain doubts and discussions about what one's plans are and what the results are likely to be. This is a complex process. Of course, the figure of 75 per cent. is an approximate one, but we believe that that proportional split between those to be retained in the agency and those to be privatised is approximately correct, and we will introduce plans to put it into effect later this year.

  RAF Fylingdales
  Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make a statement about the purpose of RAF Fylingdales. [122642]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): RAF Fylingdales provides the United Kingdom with early warning of potential ballistic missile attack against the United Kingdom and western Europe, and the United States with early warning for north America. It has performed that function since 1963.
  Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that many people believe it to be foolish and dangerous to allow RAF Fylingdales to be used to make the UK a sitting target by basing a national missile defence system there that will protect US but not UK airspace? Why does he say that the anti-ballistic missile treaty is solely a matter for the parties who have signed it? If UK land is to be used to break that treaty, surely it is a matter for him. Will he confirm that the decision to allow the deployment of the national missile defence system at Fylingdales is a matter for him, and not for the US Government? Will he rule out that deployment today? If not, will he give us a date when the decision will be taken?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes a considerable number of points, some of which, I regret to have to tell him, are quite wrong. I will not go through them in detail, save to say that, clearly, if two parties are signatories to a treaty, it is for them, and not any other nation, to interpret it. He is right to this extent: it is for the United Kingdom to decide what should happen at RAF Fylingdales. As yet, there has been no specific request for
  6
  the use of those facilities from the US, not least because it has made no decision about whether to deploy national missile defence.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if such a request is made, RAF Fylingdales will have to be upgraded to perform that role?
  Mr. Hoon: If such a decision were made by the President of the United States and if, as a result of that decision, a request were made to the United Kingdom for the use of RAF Fylingdales, yes, the facilities would have to be upgraded.

  Battalion Duty
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: How many men were at battalion duty on 15 May with (a) 1 Para, (b) 2 Para and (c) 3 Para. [122643]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The trained strengths of 1 Para, 2 Para and 3 Para as at 1 April 2000—the latest date for which figures are available—were 584, 551 and 620 respectively. These figures are for UK trained army personnel only and include attached arms.
  Mr. Blunt: I take it that that answer does not reflect the deployment to Sierra Leone, which I asked about in a question on 15 May, or the fact that more than a company of the 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, had to reinforce the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, in Sierra Leone. That reflects the woeful state of understrength infantry battalions, not just in the Parachute Regiment but across the board. What does the Minister expect the undermanning to be in the Scottish Division in six months' time? Will he undertake not to try to blame the previous Conservative Government, because Labour has now been in office for more than three years, which is longer than a soldier's standard engagement?
  Mr. Spellar: I am more than happy to blame the Conservative Government, and will continue to do so, for leaving us a deficit of more than 5,000 in the Army. We have had to add 3,000 additional posts to fulfil the strategic defence review and our assessment of the requirement. The total trained strength of the three regular Parachute Battalions is 1,755, and that is 153 higher than at the same time last year. I shall announce later, in answer to other questions, the increase in the Army overall. However, we are not complacent. We are pleased by the levels of recruitment, especially at a time—thanks to the policies of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of record employment. We are considering the issue of retention and we have made some improvements, but we can go much further.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: After the Americans had to scuttle out of Somalia and the French left Brazzaville to burn, is not it a matter of some pride that British paratroopers can go in and restore order in Sierra Leone, working with the United Nations? Is not it a matter of some shame that all the Conservatives can do, having left the Army grievously undermanned for this Government to put right, is to undermine the Army in

  7
  every way with constant criticisms of what our men are achieving abroad for the Government and for the international community?
  Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. In spite of the Opposition's earlier performance, they have improved a little recently, probably in response to the spectacular success of our armed forces and the great national pride that is taken in their performance. As my hon. Friend knows, the Parachute Regiment has returned to the timetable that we initially announced and its job is now being performed, equally professionally, by the Marines. We are proud of them and, in our discussions with our international counterparts, we have learned that they have been impressed by the speed with which our forces reacted and the professionalism with which they perform their jobs.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am glad that the Minister had the opportunity to visit the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment, on Thursday morning and to take breakfast with it to congratulate the men on their magnificent achievements in Sierra Leone. I am only sorry that he was not able to inform me in advance, because I would have been happy to have joined him in that trip to my constituency. The Minister will know, from his close connections with that regiment, of the enormous pride that it has, so it is unfortunate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out, the 1st Battalion recently had to be reinforced. I understand that a Gurkha company is also with the Paras. Does the Minister agree that it would be advisable, and beneficial to the Government, if the Parachute Regiment could be brought up to full strength?
  Mr. Spellar: Certainly, the Parachute Regiment is working on that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are always more applicants than there are places available, and the training regime is extremely rigorous. When I spoke to officers of the regiment on Saturday, I was pleased to see the work being done to rectify the problem.
  I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was unable to get a free breakfast on Saturday, and I apologise for the fact that my officials did not notify him of my visit. However, given the speed of the withdrawal of our troops from Freetown, he will understand that the timing of my visit was slightly uncertain until the last moment.
  The hon. Gentleman is right about the skills of the Parachute Regiment. I only wish that he would not overlay the constructive points that he makes with so much carping criticism. Members of the Parachute Regiment are enormously, and justifiably, proud of the role that they played in the crisis.

  KFOR
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: What logistical support his Department is continuing to offer KFOR in Kosovo. [122644]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): We have some 650 personnel deployed to provide support for our own forces, including logistic, medical and equipment specialists.
  8
  In addition, we are providing the commanding officer for KFOR in Macedonia, we are responsible for operations at the airport near Pristina, and we are assisting KFOR with the movement of its personnel and equipment within Kosovo.
  Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It underlines the nation's great pride in the success of British troops in KFOR in maintaining an even-handed approach in Pristina and in apprehending war criminals in the area. However, does he agree that one of the problems during the conflict was the lack of surveillance and intelligence information on the ground? Will he therefore look at improving our reconnaissance and surveillance capacity as a matter of urgency? That is important, given the local elections to be held in Kosovo in the autumn and the fact that, as is reported in today's edition of The Guardian, moderate Serb leaders have already asked European officials to beef up anti-terrorism measures in Kosovo.
  Mr. Spellar: It is certainly a matter of some pride that the upsurge of insurgency in the Presevo valley has been dealt with very well by allied forces there. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to support and assess information. We have deployed Phoenix to the area to conduct observation for that reason, and the Astor programme, which the Government have ordered, in due course will enhance enormously our capability in that respect.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I commend the Government on their exercise of open government with regard to today's publication of the report entitled "Kosovo: Lessons from the Crisis"? Is it not clear that many of the shortcomings identified in the report result from systematic reductions in the defence budget dating from about 1989? In truth, when the then Conservative Government made the proposals, neither Labour nor Liberal Democrat Members sought vehemently to oppose them. However, if we are to have an expeditionary strategy and assert the moral obligation to intervene on humanitarian grounds, is it not clear that we must be able to intervene in the first instance with sufficient capability? Also, must not we be able to sustain the forces that we deploy so that they can cope with what, inevitably in some cases, will be a long haul? As long as the shadow of the Chancellor continues to threaten the Ministry of Defence budget, how do the Government think that they will achieve that?
  Mr. Spellar: I am always in favour of pleas from Opposition Members for additional funding, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman's analysis closely resembles that of the strategic defence review. The effectiveness of the SDR was demonstrated clearly in Kosovo, where we were able to respond rapidly. We have also managed to sustain that operation with forces in Bosnia and Kosovo, and they are doing a tremendous job extremely professionally.
  With reference to an earlier question, I should like to point out that, at the same time as running those operations, we were able to intervene in Sierra Leone with spectacular speed—more rapidly, I believe, than almost any other country in the world. Obviously, we need to enhance that capability, which is precisely why my right

  9
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the heavy-lift programme, which will start with leasing four C-17 aircraft and include the A400M. Naturally, a programme of that size will have been agreed with the Chancellor and the Treasury. That demonstrates the commitment of all Departments to the implementation of the SDR.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Minister aware that German soldiers in Kosovo have been told not to eat local produce after fears that deposits of uranium from NATO's use of depleted uranium might have contaminated the soil? Similarly, there have been reports that the United Nations has warned its officials that the water supply could be contaminated. What warnings have been given to the civilian population and to British troops serving there?
  Mr. Spellar: I have had no indication of any of that. The problems of water supplies are more to do with traditional pollution, which is why our forces have substantial supplies of bottled water. The argument about depleted uranium seems to have been greatly exaggerated. As for pollution, the United Nations investigation demonstrated that most of the problems stemmed from before the military engagement in Kosovo, and are down to the reprehensible policies of the Milosevic regime.
  Mr. Robert Key: Progress in Kosovo for both the military and the civilian populations continues to be hindered by the danger from unexploded ordnance. I understand that there have been 100 deaths and 400 other casualties as a result, many of them, regrettably, from unexploded allied cluster bombs. However, 40 per cent, of the area at risk has still not been cordoned off. Given the Government's commitment to humanitarian de-mining, why did NATO not co-operate with the United Nations mine action co-ordination centre in Pristina, when last August it asked for help in locating cluster bomb drops? Why did Kofi Annan have to write last month begging Lord Robertson for help? Why, after all this time, have only 4 per cent, of the minefields in Bosnia been cleared?
  Mr. Spellar: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be congratulating our forces which, as a priority on entering Kosovo, cleared many public buildings, notably schools, so that some 90 per cent. of children were able to get into their schools. I should have thought that extremely important.
  In Kosovo, we are undertaking, as we do in all countries with similar problems, a lot of work in alerting people—not just our own troops, allied personnel and non-governmental organisations, but the local population—to the dangers of unexploded ordnance. Our troops are also working with local organisations to deal with clearing them. It is a major job, as we have found in all such countries. Indeed, as we all know, even today we are still finding unexploded ordnance in this country. We should recognise the considerable work that has been undertaken to enable Kosovo to return to a degree of normality, rather than simply carp about what still requires to be done.

  Army Strength
  Mr. Owen Paterson: What the current strength is of the Army. [122646]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The current strength of United Kingdom trained Army personnel as at 1 April 2000—the latest figures available—is 96,475, an increase of some 175 since 1 April 1999.
  Mr. Paterson: That answer does not tell us what the adjutant-general told the Select Committee on Defence—that it will take 31 years to reach the target set by the strategic defence review. Will the Minister tell us three practical measures that he has taken that will accelerate this woeful progress?
  Mr. Spellar: Yes, I can tell the hon. Gentleman of more than three practical measures. Let me say first, however, that an increase of 175 is a considerable improvement on previous figures, when there has been a steady run-down of forces numbers. That increase is a movement in the right direction.
  Rightly, we are looking at the problems of retention. Many of those are down to communication with families. That is particularly the case in a time of full employment when other options are available. That is why we increased the time that can be taken to make telephone calls from three to 20 minutes a week. However, there is no point in having additional time if the telephones are not of an adequate quality. That is why we have introduced Project Welcome, which is of enormous benefit to our troops. When I was in Kosovo last week, the improvements were widely recognised. Similarly, in Sierra Leone we responded within two weeks.
  Secondly, there is an increase in leave at the end of an operational tour so that personnel can spend more time with their families. There is also the bonus for those who have been on an extended operational tour. We have seen the introduction of e-mail—[Interruption.] It is interesting that Conservative Members can sit comfortably in the Chamber and be dismissive of improving communications between our service men and women and their families. That will be noted. Our troops work in difficult conditions and do a tremendous job, and Conservative Members could not give a damn.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend will recall that the Cheshire Regiment was one of the first to go into Bosnia some years ago. At the same time, the Staffordshire Regiment was located in the Dale Army camp in Cheshire. This situation brought to my attention a number of issues that my hon. Friend has raised, and especially the provision of telephones. I am pleased that that particular issue has been addressed.
  The interesting feature in terms of the Staffordshire Regiment was the lack of support that the Army was then receiving in dealing with social problems—for example, children's special requirements. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he is taking action to ensure that there is

  11
  proper co-ordination so that the social support that Army families are entitled to receive will be available to them, unlike the provision under the previous Administration?
  Mr. Spellar: As I have reported previously, there has been a considerable improvement in a number of areas that have been raised by the Army Families Federation so that we might improve conditions in the United Kingdom and those that apply to overseas postings, especially where the peculiar nature of service life and the demands that we put on service personnel and their families lead to their being disadvantaged when compared with the rest of the community. The feedback is that these improvements are having a considerable impact and beneficial effects on family life for service personnel.
  We recognise that, with our increasingly expeditionary armed forces, television, telephones and e-mail—all of which the Opposition dismiss in their comfort—matter considerably to personnel. These facilities contribute very much to the greater welfare of our forces as part of the welfare package.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: One of the consequences of the historic reduction in the size of the Army is that the Ministry of Defence has been able to dispense with and sell both land and property. One such example in my constituency is the town of South Wigston, where the Ministry, through Defence Estates, is getting rid of some real estate. However, before the contract has been completed, the residential developer has moved on to the site and is destroying trees and woods, for example, much to my concern and that of my constituents. Will the Minister please look into this matter to ensure that the developer is not doing what he should not before he has proper possession of the land? I do not expect the hon. Gentleman to give me a detailed answer now, but I would be most grateful if he wrote to me quickly.
  Mr. Spellar rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. That question hardly relates to the original Question. Minister, I am sure that you will give not an answer but a commitment to consider the matter. Is that right?
  Mr. Spellar: How Neanderthal are Conservative Members? They have not even heard of e-mail. It would have been helpful to have notice of the supplementary question of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier). However, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who deals with Defence Estates, has taken note of the question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will provide him with details, my hon. Friend will be more than pleased to take up the matter.

  Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What assessment he has made of the potential threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons. [122647]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We assess that there is no significant threat to the UK from nuclear weapons at present, but developments continue to be monitored closely. We remain committed
  12
  to limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons through our international treaty obligations and national programmes.
  Mr. Swayne: Despite the Secretary of State's assessment of the threat, does he agree that our best deterrent against the aggressive use of nuclear weapons remains our nuclear capability? If so, how does that sit with the policy, to which the Foreign Office has signed up, of a nuclear-free world? Would the Foreign Office policy have delivered the successful conclusion of the cold war?
  Mr. Hoon: I agree, perhaps surprisingly, with the hon. Gentleman's first proposition, but the non-proliferation treaty agreement—the process towards which we conducted negotiations on behalf of the entire Government and into which previous Governments, including the Government that he no doubt supported, entered—is an aspiration; it is not likely to produce results in the short term. Nevertheless, I hope that the entire House would welcome circumstances in which the world was rid of nuclear weapons.
  Ann Clwyd: How concerned is my right hon. Friend, therefore, by reports, chiefly from Richard Butler, the former head of UNSCOM in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein may be starting to rebuild his arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Hoon: The Government are concerned about that, which is why we, together with our allies, have spent so much time trying to achieve an international situation in which Iraq accepts the paramount importance of permitting the inspection of facilities inside Iraq as a means of restoring Iraq to the international community. We have made it clear that an effective inspection regime is a prerequisite of any such restoration.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On what possible moral basis can we argue against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, when we insist on having them ourselves? If the Secretary of State believes in a nuclear-free world, should not the Government give a lead in that direction, as his own leader advocated in the 1980s, when the situation was much more dangerous?
  Mr. Hoon: In the strategic defence review, we carefully set out the importance of nuclear weapons to the United Kingdom, as long as other countries retain them. Nothing has changed in the interim, but in New York the Government, together with other Governments such as that of the United States, recognised that, as an aspiration in a civilised world, it would be sensible—if we could achieve it—to rid the entire world of nuclear weapons.

  Royal Navy Auxiliary Vessels
  Mr. Ben Chapman: When he will announce decisions on orders for auxiliary vessels for the Royal Navy. [1226491
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): An invitation to tender was issued to five UK companies in early April to bid for the contract to supply two alternative landing ships logistic,

  13
  which will support amphibious operations by carrying troops and their equipment into theatre. We expect to place the contract before the end of this year. In addition, we hope to announce a decision on the provision of a strategic sealift service later this year
  Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that some yards, including Cammell Laird, felt obliged to withdraw from the tendering process for the ALSLs because they thought that the points system did not allow them to compete fairly? Is he satisfied that the tendering process was fair and right? Is he also satisfied that the tendering process for the ro-ro vessels will be equally fair and right, that it will give UK yards every chance to bid successfully for those vessels, and that it will do so equitably between the yards?
  Dr. Moonie: I can confirm that our tendering process is fair and right. It is always disappointing when companies feel unable to remain in the process, but we cannot as a rule devise our specifications on that basis. With regard to roll on/roll off ferries, I confirm that no decision has yet been taken on who will be awarded the contract, and bids from the four consortiums involved are still being assessed by the Ministry of Defence. As my right hon. Friend has already announced, the intention is to place the contract later this year.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the hon. Gentleman entirely satisfied with the process used by the Ministry of Defence for the tendering for and the procurement of vessels for the hydrographer's department? Will he examine the process, and let me know whether he believes that it was thorough and entirely fair not only to the yards that tendered, but to the owners who wanted to become involved?
  Dr. Moonie: So far as I know, that is the case—but I shall happily consider the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of any other EU or NATO country that has placed orders for naval vessels, naval auxiliary vessels or roll on/roll off ferries with military application—if he can find such an example—other than with their own shipyards?
  Dr. Moonie: It appears that the pro-European member of the Opposition Front-Bench team has caught the disease from the shadow Secretary of State; every time he stands up, he is becoming more anti-European by degrees. I confirm that all ships with a military application are sourced in this country; those without are subjected—as is correct—to the EC tendering process.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. David Ruffley: What recent representations he has received regarding deployment of United Kingdom armed forces in Sierra Leone. [122650]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have received a number of representations from a variety of sources, including right hon. and hon. Members,
  14
  regarding the deployment of our armed forces in Sierra Leone. I am sure that the House will want to join me in sending congratulations to those members of the forces who have been and continue to be deployed in Sierra Leone, on the skill and professionalism they have shown.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am sure the House will concur with the Secretary of State's views on the excellent job that our service men and women are doing in Sierra Leone.
  Can he tell us how many serving British soldiers are in Sierra Leone at present? Does he believe that he will be able to pull them out by Christmas?
  Mr. Hoon: There are up to 4,000 British forces in and around Sierra Leone—not all of them are deployed on the ground; a number are in ships offshore. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we remain absolutely committed to our timetable for withdrawing the bulk of UK forces currently in Sierra Leone by mid-June.
  Mr. Martin Bell: May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Kurt Schork? He was a brave and brilliant writer-journalist who was ambushed and killed in Sierra Leone two weeks ago, and his death causes me to wonder whether the Secretary of State is satisfied with the idea that a substantial contingent of troops are out there without any significant armour to protect them.
  Mr. Hoon: I am confident—relying on the military advice that I have received—that the forces deployed in Sierra Leone are appropriate for the job that has been undertaken, and that they continue to undertake.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Given the nature of recent speculation about changes to the profile of British armed forces in Sierra Leone—especially the idea that 300 Royal Anglians may find themselves substituting in the role currently being undertaken by the Marines—will the Secretary of State take this opportunity categorically to deny that any such deployment is being considered? Does the plan for withdrawal remain that, hopefully—give or take one or two slight problems—the Government will withdraw British troops by mid-June?
  Mr. Hoon: I make it clear, as I did in answer to the substantive question, that we remain absolutely committed to the timetable of withdrawing the bulk of UK forces by the middle of June.
  However, we have always made clear to the Government of Sierra Leone our commitment to training in that country. As long ago as 27 March, the Prime Minister announced longer-term assistance to the Government of Sierra Leone in the form of a UK-led international military advisory and training team. Ultimately, we expect that that training team will consist of about 90 people, with the UK providing half the total. To ensure that the training team gets under way effectively, we are considering deploying a team from the UK for about six weeks from the middle of June. However, I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that it will not substitute for the Marines in any way; it will provide training.
  Mr. John Swinney: After the Secretary of State's most recent statement to the House

  15
  on Sierra Leone, has he given any further consideration to the way in which arms can be provided to the Sierra Leone Government without jeopardising matters or intensifying the conflict?
  Mr. Hoon: Further to the answer that I have already given, we have for some time been concerned about the lack of effective training available to the armed forces of the Government of Sierra Leone. It thus follows that, in providing training, we believe it appropriate that those trained troops should have access to weapons. I announced that decision to the House about two weeks ago. If we are providing effective training, it seems sensible that those forces should have weapons to accompany it.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Brian Jenkins: What savings have been identified as a result of the smart procurement initiative. [122651]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As part of the strategic defence review, we set ourselves a target of saving £2 billion on equipment procurement expenditure over the 10 years to 2007–08 through the introduction of smart procurement. We are on track to achieve that target in that the sum of cost reductions identified and made in successive planning rounds is approaching the £2 billion mark, and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement last month about the strategic air lift and future missile for the Eurofighter aptly demonstrates, we are delivering the programme set out in the strategic defence review.
  Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, is he aware that, according to the National Audit Office, the Government inherited a cost overrun of £3 billion and a three-year delay in the Ministry of Defence's 25 most expensive projects? When he considers the strategic defence review and present commitments, will he undertake to the country and to our defence services that he will take no advice from the Conservative party, which proved itself incapable of handling the defence finances of this country?
  Dr. Moonie: I share my hon. Friend's shock and dismay at the incompetence of the previous Administration, of which he has given us another dismal example. I certainly agree with him that smart procurement will deliver real savings while preserving our capacity to meet the challenging targets of the strategic defence review.
  Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Bercow.
  Mr. John Bercow: Question 16, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I was calling the hon. Gentleman on question 13. I shall call the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) instead.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given that the F22 fighter in the
  16
  United States, which is similar to the Eurofighter, has had to be equipped with a cannon, surely it is not very smart not to fit a gun to the Eurofighter.
  Dr. Moonie: All such decisions are taken on the basis of advice from the armed forces concerned. I agree with you, Madam Speaker, in that I, too, find it difficult to distinguish between those two hon. Gentlemen.
  Madam Speaker: I do not, actually.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What contribution UK forces are making to security in former Yugoslavia. [122652]
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): We, together with our partner nations participating in the KFOR mission in Kosovo, face a challenging security situation. Ethnic intimidation and violence continue, albeit often orchestrated by a small number of extremists without the support of the majority of the population. However, British forces, along with our allies and partners in KFOR, are making a major contribution to solving those problems and the security situation is improving. British forces undertake a wide range of tasks designed to reassure and protect minorities while continuing to encourage refugees to return to their homes. They also provide support to non-governmental organisations, international organisations and other governmental bodies throughout Kosovo, helping to secure a safe, multi-ethnic and democratic society. Currently, we have some 3,500 troops in Multinational Brigade Centre in KFOR.
  In Bosnia, SFOR provides a stabilising presence, allowing for civilian reconstruction and the return of refugees and internally displaced persons to a secure and peaceful environment. Currently, we have some 2,700 troops in SFOR, primarily based in Multinational Division South West, and will reduce this to some 2,000 by the end of this year.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: That was a very interesting answer. Will my hon. Friend pass on the appreciation of the House of Commons, expressed at Question Time today, to all our troops in the former Yugoslavia for the courageous effort that they are making in trying to keep the peace in very difficult conditions? However, will he also tell us whether it is true that some countries are not pulling their weight in terms of protecting the Serbs?
  Mr. Spellar: I shall be pleased to pass on that appreciation. Indeed. I was able to do just that when I met some of our forces in Pristina on Wednesday and Thursday last week They are doing an excellent and professional job and playing a considerable role in many areas to help to reconstruct the country.
  Sometimes, the cause of peace in Kosovo is not best served by the media, which focus very much on the areas in which there are difficulties and ignore the wider picture. Not only are many refugees returning, but there is greater stability, and, equally important, the reconstruction of economic life is taking place. Our forces are playing a major role in helping to reintroduce a proper

  17
  system of law and order. Indeed, 56 MOD police are due to fly out this week to reinforce the international police effort, to which the Royal Ulster Constabulary has already contributed considerably. As my hon. Friend says, we pay tribute to the work being undertaken, but we also recognise that there is some way to go.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Has the Minister seen any sign that the dwindling band of Serbs in Kosovo is likely to enjoy security and safety after the troops withdrawal?
  Mr. Spellar: First, I must correct the hon. Gentleman, as some Serbs are returning from Serbia, not least because of the problems in that country. When I was in Pristina, it was a pleasure to talk to members of our forces who are playing a significant role in protecting Serbs, both individually and in groups. That situation is not ideal. It is by no means perfect, but it is certainly better than a year or so ago. At the same time, people in that country are starting to establish a pattern of co-existence. As I said in response to the previous question, we should examine positive developments. We should not ignore, underestimate, or fail to take action on negative elements, but we must get them into perspective and achieve a balance.
  Mr. David Winnick: I fully supported the action in Kosovo. Indeed, everything seems to have justified what was done by the international community, which includes this country. Will further action be taken to try to secure protection for those Serbians who are undoubtedly being harassed and persecuted by ethnic Albanians? Does my hon. Friend agree that further arrests of those responsible would give the Serbians far greater confidence that Kosovo is as much their part of the world as it is that of the ethnic Albanians?
  Mr. Spellar: That is very much the message from our forces, who, as I said, are playing a significant role in providing protection. Ultimately, that is not a substitute for a proper system of policing and law and order. We are making a contribution to policing, but penal institutions in Kosovo must be enhanced, and the judicial system must be reinforced. My hon. Friend is right to say that actions outside the law must be arrestable and punishable. Again, I am not saying that we have achieved a perfect solution, but we have made considerable progress.
  Mir. Paul Keetch: I endorse what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said about the importance of British forces in the former Yugoslavia. However, does the Minister agree that the situation is still very tense? Last Friday, a car on a British-controlled road just outside Pristina hit a land mine, killing two men and injuring a woman and two young children. What credence does the Minister give to reports from the United States that America may consider withdrawing its troops from Kosovo? Does he agree that the presence of US forces on the ground in Kosovo is an important contribution to KFOR? As we approach the first anniversary of the UN mandate in Kosovo, does he accept that the withdrawal of US troops would send a very bad signal indeed?
  Mr. Spellar: We need to see in place the right number of troops from all countries. We also need a broad spread
  18
  of forces in a range of international operations, and countries must fulfil their commitments. The way in which international forces are working together in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina is an example of that, and has developed well.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the former Yugoslavia, and it is important that we focus on the steady progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina, not least the electoral support for moving away from sectarian parties towards centre parties. A lot of that has been driven by encouraging developments in Croatia, such as the election of a leadership that wants to be part of the European household and consequently is examining how to modernise its own country, and putting considerable pressure on Bosnia-Herzegovina to withdraw support from extremists.
  As has been recognised, all that requires an on-going international presence which, yet again, is having an impact, creating co-existence and starting to encourage those who want to play a positive role in the reconstruction of their countries—as opposed to those who merely seek sectarian division—so that they can start to advance. That is progress, but there is still a long way to go.

  Trident
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What is the total warhead capacity of the Trident fleet. [122654]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As announced in the strategic defence review, our minimum nuclear deterrent requires a stockpile of fewer than 200 operationally available warheads. The submarine on deterrent patrol carries 48 warheads.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that even 48 warheads—about half the possible capacity—represent a huge proliferation of weapons compared with the previous Trident submarine system? Does he not follow the thinking of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and agree that, having signed up to the principle of nuclear disarmament, we should at least take Trident off patrol, ending the use or consideration of the use of such weapons, so that we may set an example to other countries that are thinking of acquiring or developing nuclear weapons?
  Mr. Hoon: Perhaps my hon. Friend inadvertently referred to Trident when he meant Polaris. Nevertheless, the size of the United Kingdom's minimum deterrent depends not on the size of other nations' arsenals but on the minimum necessary to deter any threat to our vital interest. That was set out in the strategic defence review, and remains the Government's clear position.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Would the Secretary of State like to reconsider his rather complacent answer about the possible nuclear threat from third-world countries? In view of the first conclusion of the American presidential commission on defence that that country faces a severe potential threat from the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of third-world countries, is it not time that we thought about some of the other measures that the

  19
  Americans are taking besides Trident—a system of ballistic missile defence and a proper system of civil defence, which has almost disappeared in this country?
  Mr. Hoon: I do not need, at this stage at any rate, to reconsider the answer that I gave only a few moments ago. As I made clear, we keep threats to the United Kingdom under continuous review. A threat consists both of the ability to deliver a ballistic weapon to the UK—capability—and of the intent to do so. We assess, for the moment, that no country in the world has both the capability and the intent to attack the UK with a ballistic weapon.

  Ministerial Discussions (ESDI)
  Mr. John Bercow: What discussions he has had with the French Defence Minister about the European security and defence identity. [122655]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We continue to make excellent progress on the European defence initiative, in the course of which my ministerial colleagues and I have had several discussions with the French Defence Minister.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, complacent though it was. Given that President Chirac, supported by the Germans, Italians, Portuguese and others, said as recently as 30 May that the development of an EU defence and foreign policy was fundamentally a "political project", and that the American ambassador to NATO has warned that the European
  20
  security and defence identity threatens to damage and rupture NATO, are Ministers just too dozy to perceive the threat that exists, or are they determined to hoodwink the rest of us into thinking that it does not exist?
  Mr. Hoon: It is because we do not see this as a political project that we have concentrated on the question of capabilities. Throughout all the agreements into which we have entered on behalf of the UK, we have emphasised the need to improve Europe's military capability. A number of UK Governments have sought to achieve that, and I am delighted to say that this Government are doing something about it. By improving Europe's military capability, we are not in any sense undermining or weakening NATO, but strengthening its capability. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been sufficiently awake to realise that.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: If one is to fight successfully in any army, however, should one not be quite clear to whom one owes one's allegiance? Is it not therefore very worrying that the Government should be assuming that it will be possible to create a unified force without accepting the idea of political control over its objectives?
  Mr. Hoon: May I reassure my hon. Friend? None of our proposals contains the slightest suggestion that we are creating a unified force. The proposal that we are dealing with is no different from any of the multinational military organisations that have existed in the past and will continue to exist in future. In reality, each country will, rightly, remain responsible for its own forces, but those forces will operate together in multinational operations.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any indication that a Minister from the Department for Education and Employment plans to come to the House to make a statement to clear up the astonishing confusion in the mind of Baroness Jay? You will be aware that on 28 May this year, the noble Baroness said that she had gone to a pretty standard grammar school. Given that it has now been revealed that the school she attended was an independent fee-paying school, she has abused that school, misrepresented her past anti denigrated grammar schools. Do not Ministers have quite a lot of explaining and apologising to do?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister wishes to make a statement today. If the hon. Gentleman has anything to say about a Member of the upper House, he should do so through our usual procedures, by means of the Order Paper.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is usual for Opposition Front Benchers not to abuse the right to raise points of order from the Dispatch Box. As has been said by successive Speakers for many years, it is for Front Benchers to abide by the rules and not abuse them. Will you deprecate what you have just witnessed here in the House of Commons?
Madam Speaker: To the best of my knowledge, Front Benchers do, from time to time, raise points of order with me—but they usually couch those points of order in language that is acceptable to me and to the House. On this occasion, I felt that the comments made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) were not in keeping with those that he has made as a Back Bencher, which are generally interesting; Opposition Front Benchers should take note of my remarks. In addition, if reference is to be made to a Member of the upper House, it is usual to do so by means of the Order Paper, through an early-day motion.

Orders of the Day

  Financial Services and Markets Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)
  3.32 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move,
  That the Order of the House [9th February) be supplemented as follows:

  Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock.
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

  (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.

  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.

  (7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  Subsequent Stages
  3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

  (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

  (3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.

  (4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any item.

  (7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question. That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Reasons Committee
  4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  5.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  (2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
  (3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

  (a) first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided; and

  (b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

  (4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

  Miscellaneous
  6. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

  (2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

  (3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  (4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  8. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 7 applies are in progress, proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of those proceedings.
  Although there have been a good many amendments made to the Bill in another place, we believe that we will be able to give them adequate scrutiny in the course of our extended sitting this evening. The scope of the Bill, like that of our reforms, is unprecedentedly broad and ambitious: in addition to putting in place a single regulator, we are replacing several, complicated systems of statutory regulation with a single legal framework. The result is clearer, better legislation, but the scale of the exercise is, inevitably, extensive. A large number of amendments is to be expected with a Bill of this size and technical complexity.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Economic Secretary remind the House of the running total so far of Government amendments to this well-thought-out Bill?
  Miss Johnson: I am happy to do that—in fact, I was about to discuss that very topic. However, before I do so, I should like to draw the Opposition's attention to a related matter; they clearly have short memories. The Financial Services Act 1986 was extensively amended during its passage through Parliament, even though it was a much less far-reaching Bill. Unlike the Financial Services and
  24
  Markets Bill, it dealt only with the investment sector and not with banking, building societies, insurance and Lloyd's, yet the Government of the day made 582 amendments to that smaller Bill in the second House.
  It is right that legislation as important as the Financial Services and Markets Bill should be subject to intense scrutiny. Opposition parties tabled almost 1,300 amendments; we have considered those amendments and listened to the arguments put to us in almost 200 hours of parliamentary debate and in wider consultation. That process has been constructive and co-operative in both Houses. There is a consensus on our underlying policy aims, and a shared determination to get the detail right.
  Several improvements were made in the other place, and are explained at some length in explanatory material made available by the Treasury on 24 May, which hon. Members will have had plenty of time to study in advance of today's debate. They should be reassured that we have not introduced new policy in the other place. The majority of our amendments are to meet commitments made in this House, or are in one way or another consequential on changes made before the Bill left this House in February.
  Those changes generally follow up recommendations of the Joint Committee, or respond to developments during the passage of the Bill, notably the stock exchange's decision to demutualise. Some improvements arose out of earlier debates in this House, such as those to the Financial Services Authority's procedures and accountability. Other amendments that had to be made in the other place are purely technical or drafting amendments, such as corrections to definitions.
  The nature of the Bill means that a single, insignificant change may require scores of separate amendments, which I am sure need not detain the House.
  Mr. Eric Forth: What!
  Miss Johnson: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is asking me a question or making an exclamation.
  Mr. Forth: The Minister has just said that the amendments need not detain the House, as if that were a statement of fact. I suggest that that is a decision for the House to make, not her.
  Miss Johnson: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman believes that he is the keeper of the soul of this Chamber, but I reiterate that the nature of the Bill means that a single, insignificant change may require scores of separate amendments. Those amendments are basically the same, so they need not detain the House. That was my point.
  The Government make no apologies for the extent to which the Bill has been improved in the other place. That is how the revising process is supposed to work. I hope that my explanation helps to clarify the nature of the task involved in considering the amendments, and that we can proceed to consider them as expeditiously as possible.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Does the Minister's first experience of taking a Bill through Parliament over the past nine months lead her to conclude that it may have been a good idea if the Government had introduced the Bill in better shape in the first place?
  Miss Johnson: My experience of taking the Bill through Parliament since July last year is that, because of

  25
  the Joint Committee scrutiny of the draft Bill—a process with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar—we were able to tackle enormously complex subjects. As I explained, the Bill replaces three main separate pieces of legislation and covers a wide range of financial services. It has received the degree of scrutiny that it ought to have received. It has been scrutinised in great detail in this Chamber, in Committee and in the other place, so we have before us a much improved Bill that I believe is now ready to go on to the statute book.
  3.38 pm
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The Economic Secretary has failed to explain why the Government have tabled almost 700 amendments, new clauses and new schedules at this late stage in the Bill. The volume of amendments that hon. Members will have received from the Vote Office is like a substantial paperback. It runs to more than 90 pages, but none of it has been scrutinised by this House—these amendments have been passed in the other place. The Government are pushing through this paperback under a guillotine in one day.
  The Economic Secretary dismissively said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that most of the amendments are trivial and need not detain the House. That is for us to decide. It is not up to a Minister to tell us what we consider important, especially as many Opposition Members have been engaged with the subject for rather longer than the Minister. There have been three ministerial changes since the Bill began its rocky passage through Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and I are two Members who have been present right from the start.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has served in the Treasury. Does he recall a time when such substantial changes were made to a Bill at such a late stage? Does not this demonstrate—as with the Utilities Bill—that the Bill was ill thought out in the first place?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes. Indeed, I would go further—I think that this Bill bears increasingly little resemblance to the Bill that received a Second Reading last year. It has been constantly redrafted, and that can in no way be described as a response to consultation. Tabling nearly 700 amendments at such a late stage has nothing to do with consultation; it is simply bad legislation. Good legislation is produced when the Government know what they want to do, consult on how to do it and then produce a Bill for consideration by both Houses. As my hon. Friend says, in this case the Government have abused the process by substantially rewriting parts of a Bill. Indeed, in some instances—such as the provisions relating to the new competition regime—they are beginning to amend their own amendments. The Bill is diverging from the measure to which the House thought it was assenting last summer.
  There is no excuse for the guillotine. As the Economic Secretary acknowledged, the Opposition have co-operated fully, and have given the Government no provocation whatever. Why, then, should the Government slam on a guillotine and push through all the Bill's remaining stages in one day? That is no way to treat an industry that employs more than 1 million people and is such an
  26
  enormous foreign exchange earner for the United Kingdom. Many people's livelihoods will be affected by the Bill, and it needs proper, careful scrutiny.
  The casual way in which the Government have treated the House goes back some time. The Bill was published nearly two years ago, and was examined by a joint Lords-Commons Committee chaired by Lord Burns. We supported that procedure. The Government said that they would support most of the Committee's recommendations, and would present a Bill in good order. I attended a meeting of Ministers, parliamentary counsel, draftsmen and House authorities, at which I asked whether the Bill was in a suitable state to be debated and scrutinised by the House of Commons. I was assured that it was in such a state, but I am afraid that that has turned out not to be the case.
  On the basis of those assurances, we allowed the Bill to be carried over from the previous to the current Session. However, the Government not only constantly and consistently amended it in Committee, but tabled more than 300 amendments on Report in the Commons. That is exactly what they are doing today—at a very late stage, they have tabled pages of new amendments that have not been subjected to proper scrutiny in either House.
  Changing a Bill after it has completed the stages that allow proper debate and scrutiny does not constitute consultation. This is now the most amended Bill in the history of the House, I am advised. The Economic Secretary tried to draw a parallel between the Bill and the Financial Services Act 1986. The arithmetic is on our side. Hundreds of amendments of a substantial, not trivial, nature have gone entirely unscrutinised.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: On the comparison with the 1986 Bill, that legislation first regulated the Financial Services Authority. We have had 14 years of experience since then to ensure that the current Bill builds on that experience and gets it right, so it is an even worse scenario that we have more amendments now than we did when we came to the matter afresh in 1986.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Given also that the Burns committee looked at the matter and gave the Government a lot of advice and recommendations, there is even less excuse for treating Parliament in this way.
  Two other matters are relevant to the motion. Two additional matters have come up in recent weeks, to which the Government have not fully responded. The first is the proposed merger between the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges. No one from the Government side will tell us how or whether the Financial Services Authority will regulate the merged exchange. It is a very important matter. It is not good enough for the Government, who presumably had warnings of that merger, to have no real response to the question about which rules and regulations will apply to the merged exchange.
  The second matter that has caught the Government on the hop is the issue of the overlap and possible conflict between the Financial Services Authority and the takeover panel during bids and mergers. The Government were defeated on that matter in another place. The amendment inserted there will provide that if the parties to a bid comply with the City code issued by the takeover panel, that will be a defence against allegations of market abuse. In other words, that will provide a safe harbour against market abuse.

  27
  The Financial Services Authority will still be in charge. It will be able to issue the statement and its own code, which provides that safe harbour, and it may include conditions and limitations on it, so it will still be the league regulator, but that is an enormously important issue that has not yet been properly debated in the House. It is made worse by the fact that, instead of accepting that improvement to the Bill in another place, the Government apparently will seek to reverse it. Apparently, they do not like the fact that it is the takeover panel that will determine whether the behaviour of the parties to a bid actually complies with the City code and so gives a safe harbour against market abuse.
  The Lords amendment is a good one because it provides a clear demarcation between the responsibilities of the Financial Services Authority and that of the takeover panel. Without that clear distinction about who does what, there will be endless scope for confusion, delay and litigation during a bid, which will undermine the role and success of the takeover panel. That is acknowledged in all parts.
  It is also rumoured that the Liberal Democrats will collude with the Government in another place in overturning that amendment. If there is any party in the House of Commons that has few credentials for determining the future of the Bill, it is the Liberal Democrats. As my hon. Friends will recollect, the Liberal Democrats failed to provide anyone at all to attend the proceedings of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. I see that we are now graced by the presence of one Liberal Democrat. I do not recollect him attending any of our previous debates. He has obviously been co-opted at a late stage to try to put up some defence for that collusion, but it is a shabby deal.
  Mr. John Bercow: While listening to my right hon. Friend's honeyed words, I briefly consulted the list of Lords amendments. Is he aware that there are no fewer than 35 groups of amendments and that, even if we were to work on the dubious assumption that the House would not divide on any of them, that would mean an allocation of approximately 12 minutes debating time to each group?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is an assiduous parliamentarian, and he has already done some work showing the outrageous nature of this allocation of time motion. He will know that many of these groups of amendments concern very sensitive and contentious issues indeed, such as whether the whole issue of competition has been given adequate prominence in the Bill. There is also the fact that people and market makers can be convicted of market abuse even if they did not intend to commit the offence. That someone can be convicted of something that they did not intend to do is a new and most unwelcome departure in British law.
  Opposition Members have tried in this place, and my noble Friends have tried in another place, to correct and improve those parts of the Bill. Now, however, the debate will be compressed into the space of a few hours.
  Sir Robert Smith: I should like to clarify one point: is the right hon. Gentleman planning on forcing a Division on the Bill?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Bill has already received its Second Reading. It is pretty extraordinary that the Liberal Democrat spokesman apparently thinks that we are debating its Second Reading. May I refer him to the Order Paper, which shows that we are debating a guillotine motion? It is that guillotine motion that we shall be opposing.
  The motion is an abuse of the House. The Government should take the Bill away for a proper and full debate on all the outstanding issues, and come back with a properly prepared Bill that the House can consider.
  3.51 pm
  Sir Robert Smith: I should start by correcting my intervention, which was on the allocation of time motion. I simply wanted to clarify whether the official Opposition planned on dividing on that. If they do force a Division on it, at this stage in the debate Liberal Democrat Members would be quite happy to join them in the Lobby, to make it quite clear that allocation of time motions—[Interruption.] Who knows who will join me when the Division Bell goes?
  We are now three years into a Government who were elected after claiming that they wanted to modernise our democracy and the way in which the House does things, such as scrutinising legislation. I do not, however, recognise what is so modern or fundamentally different about this allocation of time motion.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the motion's modern feature is the fact that the Minister made no case for it whatsoever? She did not address at all why there is a need for a guillotine motion to curtail free speech. That is what was modern about it.
  Sir Robert Smith: That feature has been quite common in this place. The situation in previous Parliaments may have been different from the situation in this one, but, based on my experience of the past few years, that feature has been quite common in this Parliament.
  I am extremely disappointed and concerned that the Government, with such a large majority, are so frightened of debate. If they use their Whips efficiently and effectively, there is not a chance of overturning legislation. Debate is the only instrument available to us to persuade them to reconsider legislation. If legislation is properly scrutinised, there is a chance that Ministers will recognise that it is flawed and requires amendment. Debate also provides an opportunity to those who are outside the House not only to recognise the parts of the legislation that are causing us concern, but to see their concerns expressed in this place.
  A vast number of amendments were made in the other place.
  Mr. Tyrie: If the hon. Gentleman agrees with Conservative Members that the procedures under which the Bill is being examined are pretty disgraceful and

  29
  certainly substandard, why have Liberal Democrat Members done a deal with the Government on a crucial clause? We would have had a chance on that clause if they had not sold out. Why have they sold out to the Government on an issue as fundamental as that of market abuse and the takeover panel?
  Sir Robert Smith: That is a matter for the debate on the Bill. We are currently debating the procedure to consider the Bill and the importance of time being properly and effectively allocated to it in the House.
  The Minister claimed that many of the amendments were minor and consequential. It is open to Ministers to explain all the amendments that they consider to be minor and consequential and let the House make a judgment. An allocation of time motion means that that is highly unlikely.
  The Minister said that we were having an extended sitting. It has been extended from the normal 10 o'clock deadline until 11 o'clock, but the Government have subtracted 45 minutes for the debate on the allocation of time motion, so in reality the sitting has been extended by 15 minutes, which could be taken up by a Division on this motion. We might have only two or three extra minutes over a normal sitting day to consider all these Lords amendments.
  Mr. Bercow: For the House to judge whether there is adequate time for debate, we need to have some idea of the level of contributions that we can expect. Will the hon. Gentleman advise the House—as he has not so far been able to do—whether we shall have contributions from the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)?
  Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman will have to sit in his place, watch the debates and see who takes part. I do not understand why he needs to know in advance who wishes to take part in the debate. Anyway, it is up to you, Madam Speaker, to decide who takes part in the debate. It is not for any of us to choose. That is probably enough interventions for now.
  The Government also prayed in aid the record of the previous Government, which is a tedious and boring argument. It can place some things in context, but if their aspiration is always just to replicate the record of the previous Government, there was not much point in the electorate turning out at the last election and removing the previous Government from office.
  Time is running out if the Government really want to modernise the House. They cannot do so just by guillotining debates, ignoring arguments and allowing them to go away. They have to look carefully at the procedure of legislative scrutiny. They cannot avoid problems just by tinkering with one or two aspects of the House. That way lies a great danger that, in the frustration of occasionally having to stay up late at night, they will decide to curtail debate without finding other avenues for scrutiny of legislation. If they do not find other avenues, they should be willing to stay up late and accept scrutiny that way.
  The Government should also think about their management of legislation. This is a major Bill that has been heavily amended in the other place. They should ask
  30
  whether they have too much legislation in the pipeline for this year and whether they have managed their priorities right. They talk about wanting to reduce waiting times and end queues in the health service. If they apply the skills that they use in managing legislation here to the health service, I am not optimistic.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: The hon. Gentleman is making great play of the adequacy of the scrutiny. Why, in Committee, did a Liberal Member attend on only two occasions?
  Sir Robert Smith: Presumably there were reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Cable) could not be there. The whole House is entitled to scrutinise legislation at this stage. We are not in Committee. The whole House must consider what the other House has done to the Bill. It is up to this House to decide how much time we want to spend on it. The Government should have the confidence to let the House scrutinise the Bill, range freely over it and expose its flaws in debate, rather than trying to rush through it without debate or proper scrutiny. I urge the House to recognise that when we come to vote.
  3.59 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: This is an example of the Government somehow managing to combine incompetence and arrogance. That might be considered quite an achievement, but we have become rather used to it from them.
  I wanted to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, so I went through the Government's amendments and tried to spot the trivial ones that she claimed were none of our business and which we should not be so impatient as to want to deliberate. Even giving her the benefit of the doubt and without being an expert on the Bill, in my cursory reading I calculated 80 substantial amendments at the minimum. If that is the case—I suspect that there are more than that—the Government believe that we can deal with them in just over five minutes each.
  That would be bad enough in itself, but I have had a look at the amendments. Amendment No. 61, for example, is one of those to which the Government presumably believe the House should give but five minutes attention. It involves a new clause entitled "Exercise of own-initiative power: procedure" and contains 12 subsections. Amendment No. 82 contains two subsections and nine paragraphs, amendment No. 87 contains 14 subsections, and amendment No. 90 contains 7 subsections. Amendment No. 107, which also caught my eye, seeks to add a new clause entitled "Appointment by competent authority of persons to carry out investigations." That contains considerable detail.
  It is one thing for the Minister to claim in a glib and superficial fashion that we do not need to waste our time on the 675 items of trivia placed by the Government on today's Order Paper, but, even granting her that—which I would be very reluctant to do—she is really saying that this House of Commons should accept a new principle. She is suggesting that we allow ourselves, or that the Government give us, five minutes to consider large and often controversial new measures in a Bill. That is the extent of the Government's arrogance and of their wish to ignore the traditional proceedings of this House and the other place.

  31
  It is a measure of the Government's sheer incompetence that we are faced with the absurd situation that, in this sitting—which can last only until 11 o'clock—we are expected to give the most cursory consideration to law that could affect the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people. These are the depths to which the Government have sunk and this is the extent to which they are seeking to minimise or eliminate the role of this House in the legislative process. It is totally unacceptable.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons that Ministers seem to think that such truncated consideration is adequate is that they believe that unless a Member has sat on the Standing Committee considering a Bill, he or she has a bit of a cheek to try to contribute on Report? Does he agree that they need now to understand what new Ministers in particular have hitherto failed to learn—that the Bill is being reported to the House for proper consideration by it?
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. In addition, there are two Houses of this Parliament, and what one does is properly to be scrutinised by the other. The fact that a matter may have been dealt with in another place—with all of the expertise that resides there—does not mean that this House of Commons can either take that for granted or ignore it. This motion is an outrage and a disgrace, and I hope that the House will reject it.
  4.3 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: There are few points that I wish to make, as the matter has been covered adequately by my right hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). I was cheered to note that the Liberal Democrats are actually weighing how a procedure motion addresses the issues that we want to address.
  This motion is a product of a rollover process following modernisation. It is an indication that my Front-Bench colleagues agreed to such an arrangement; it could only have gone forward on that basis. Therefore, this is an important process. That the Government are abrogating proper investigation and examination of the many clauses in the Bill is inappropriate and it may discourage my Front-Bench colleagues from ever agreeing to any future rollover. That would be a real loss in terms of the serious consideration over a longer period of detailed and highly complex Bills such as this. The Government should take on board the fact that a guillotine on a rollover that has allowed two parliamentary Sessions to deal with the detail of a Bill is inappropriate.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that what we shall be debating are Lords amendments. I have been in the House long enough to remember—as you will too, Madam Speaker—when it was unthinkable to guillotine that which came from a Chamber that may not be democratic, but has equal weight in our legislative processes.
  The Government have now guillotined 34 Bills. That is a historic high, and no other Government have ever approached it. Previous Labour Governments since 1945
  32
  seldom used the guillotine, but now there is a crescendo applied to the second Chamber and what it says in its amendments. This guillotine demonstrates the power of a majority to deny freedom of speech. I do not know whether the time is adequate, as the whole debate could implode, but the Government have allowed less than five minutes for each of 80 substantial amendments—again taking the figure supplied by my right hon. Friend—and that is not including votes.
  Parliament should not be muzzled in this way. We have enough bad legislation as it is. Sometimes, Conservative Governments have been hung by having inadequate discussion of detail. This Government should not go down that route, which is a denial of the very purpose and function of this Chamber.
  4.6 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: The Bill is not exactly the stuff of red-hot party politics. Because of that, and because it affects our biggest industry and the prosperity of the whole of the south-east, the Opposition have endeavoured throughout to be wholly constructive, to get complicated matters legally right and to end up with a piece of legislation that is not damaging to our key industry.
  It is extraordinarily disappointing to me that, when the Treasury is aware that there are many key issues on which we are advised that the Government and their legal advisers have got it wrong, the Government are unwilling to listen further and are railroading this stage through with a guillotine motion.
  It is easy to take for granted the prosperity of the financial services industry of the City of London, but it depends on Britain being highly competitive in terms of tax, regulation and accommodation and staff costs. I am afraid to report that I have encountered several business people in the past few weeks who, having seen the final proposals on market abuse, are considering moving their businesses elsewhere, whether within the European Union or to other major financial centres.
  The Bill comes from the Lords wrong, and we are being
  given inadequate time to consider it in the key areas of the obligation to preserve our international competitiveness, market abuse, proper practice in line with corporate governance required elsewhere, avoiding being ultra vires in respect of the European Court of Human Rights and, indeed, the new situation regarding what is to happen to stock markets. Did the Government even imagine, when rushing through the change of the listing authority from the stock exchange to the Financial Services Authority, the implications if the London stock exchange were to merge?
  I declare an interest as not only the non-executive chairman of a financial services business but probably the only Member of Parliament who has worked in the industry for 30 years. As such, I stand back from the Bill and am seriously concerned that it creates a body that is too powerful and inadequately accountable and that there remain too many areas in which the legal balance is wrong or tilted against the industry.
  It is wrong that the House should have only one evening to go through nearly 700 further amendments. We welcome the amendments that were introduced in response to issues that we raised, but we believe that the Bill remains wrong in certain key areas. That is why I

  33
  oppose the motion. When a piece of key legislation is not right, the House of Commons should have time to get it right.
  4.10 pm
  Miss Melanie Johnson: The importance of the financial services sector is well recognised by the Government, and I trust that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) did not wish to imply that the Government do anything other than attach as much importance to that sector as he would claim to do. We believe that the Bill is a crucial part of securing the future of that industry. Without the Bill and the new regulatory arrangements that it will introduce, the future of that industry would increasingly be at risk.
  Hon. Members have raised the issue of scrutiny of the amendments. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) suggested that the amendments before us today had not received sufficient scrutiny, but they received extensive scrutiny in the other place. Only one additional Government amendment has been tabled for consideration this afternoon.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the Economic Secretary give way?
  Miss Johnson: No, I have limited time and I wish to—[Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. The right hon. Member for Wells claimed that we faced a paperback of amendments, but the amendments made to the Financial Services Act 1986 in the other place covered some 135 pages, which is more than 40 pages more than the amendments before us today. No difficulties appear to have been experienced as a result of that earlier legislation. It is also important to recognise that 582 amendments were tabled by the then Government to that Act at a comparable stage in 1986.
  Opposition Members have also neglected to mention the fact that there were 1,300 non-Government amendments discussed both here and in the other place. The Opposition have made a lively contribution to the debate and, as a result, in some cases we have tabled Government amendments to implement the changes that the Opposition have requested. The Bill is better as a result. The publication of the amendments on 24 May, and the report of the Bill's progress in the other place, have enabled those hon. Members who wished to do so to take an interest in the amendments long before they came here for debate. I trust that Opposition Members have done so.
  The Opposition argue that we have not accepted their points, but in some cases that is because we do not agree with them, and hours of debate will not change that. In other cases, we have accepted the Opposition's arguments and tabled amendments to that effect. The fact that so many of the Lords amendments were passed with all-party support is further proof that we have listened. That is why they are before the House this afternoon.
  As a result of the scrutiny it has undergone, we have a good Bill. Hon. Members will wish to discuss certain matters during the remaining hours of debate, but I reiterate that many of the amendments before us are purely technical, drafting or consequential on one main change in the Bill. Hon. Members can do the arithmetic on the number of amendments, but their case is not as substantial as they claim. With the possible exception of one area of discussion, I believe that it would be quite
  34
  surprising if I were to hear anything in the Chamber this afternoon that I had not heard several times before, in more than 200 hours of parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. We have already reached the point where many debates have become exceptionally repetitive.
  I therefore urge the House to accept the supplemental allocation of time motion on the remaining consideration of the Bill.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 126.

  Division No. 210]

  [4.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Dobbin, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Alexander, Douglas

  Doran, Frank

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Drew, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Austin, John

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Battle, John

  Edwards, Huw

  Bayley, Hugh

  Efford, Clive

  Beard, Nigel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ennis, Jeff

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Fisher, Mark

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Best, Harold

  Gapes, Mike

  Betts, Clive

  Gardiner, Barry

  Blackman, Liz

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Borrow, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Goggins, Paul

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Grogan, John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hanson, David

  Caton, Martin

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoon, Fit Hon Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cranston, Ross

  Hurst, Alan

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dismore, Andrew

  35

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rooney, Terry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kidney, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Roy, Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Salter, Martin

  Laxton, Bob

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sawford, Phil

  Levitt, Tom

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Linton, Martin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lock, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McDonnell, John

  Spellar, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  squire, Ms Rachel

  McIsaac, Shona

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  McNulty Tony

  Stringer, Graham

  MacShane, Denis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  McWalter, Tony

  Taylor Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Taylor' Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Maxton, John

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow w)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Timms, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Tipping Paddy

  Miller, Andrew

  Todd, Mark

  Moffatt, Laura

  Touhig, Don

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Trickett, Jon

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Truswell, Paul

  Morely, Elliot

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

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

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Mudie, George

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mullin, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Ward Ms Claire

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Wareing, Robert N

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  White, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Pearson, Ian

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Pendry, Tom

  Wills, Michael

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Winnick, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Pike, Peter L

  Wood, Mike

  Plaskitt, James

  Woodward, Shaun

  Pond, Chris

  Worthington, Tony

  Pope, Greg

  Wyatt, Derek

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Purchase, Ken

  Mr. Kevin Hughes

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Allan, Richard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Brady, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Brazier, Julian

  Bercow, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  36

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Burns, Simon

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Butterfill, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Norman, Archie

  Collins, Tim

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Cotter, Brian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cran, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Paice, James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Paterson, Owen

  Day, Stephen

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan, Alan

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Randall, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Rendel, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Robertson, Laurence

  Flight Howard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ruffley, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gale, Roger

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gray James

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Greenway, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Grieve Dominic

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

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

  Hammond, Philip

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Horam, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Swinney, John

  Syms, Robert

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor John M (Solihull)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor Matthew (Truro)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor Sir Teddy

  Trend Michael

  Keetch, Paul

  Tyrie, Andrew

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

  Viggers, Peter

  Wallace, James

  Key, Robert

  Walter, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  wells, Bowen

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Whittingdale, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Lansley, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Loughton, Tim

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Geoffrey

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Order of the House [9th February] be supplemented as follows:

  Lords Amendments
  1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock.
  2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
  (3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and

  (b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
  (7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  Subsequent Stages
  3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

  (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

  (3)Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.

  (4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and rot yet decided.

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.

  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any item.

  (7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

  Reasons Committee
  4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  5.—(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  (2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
  (3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall—

  (a)first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided; and

  (b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.

  (4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.

  Miscellaneous
  6. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to
  38
  be brought to a conclusion under this order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
  7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

  (2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

  (3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

  (4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  8. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 7 applies are in progress, proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 2

  THE AUTHORITY'S GENERAL DUTIES
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 18, leave out ("any exercise of its general functions") and insert ("anything done in the discharge of those functions").
  4.28 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 82.
  Miss Johnson: Amendment No. 1 is a technical change to clause 2, which sets out the general duties of the Financial Services Authority. Subsection (2) sets out its regulatory objectives while subsection (3) lists a number of principles to which it must have regard in discharging its general functions. Subsection (3)(f) makes it clear that the authority needs to minimise any adverse effects on competition that may result from its work. The amendment makes it clear that this requirement applies to any action that the authority takes in the discharge of its functions.
  Amendment No. 7 concerns value-for-money reviews. Clause 10 enables the Treasury to appoint an independent person to carry out value-for-money reviews of the FSA in its competent authority function, as well as its other functions under the Bill. The amendment simply makes it clear that under reviews of the authority generally, reviews of the competent authority cannot cover the merits of its general policy or principles but only the competent authority's use of resources in discharging its functions under part VI.
  Amendment No. 82 introduces a new clause after clause 72, requiring the competent authority to have regard to a number of things in discharging its general functions. Those general functions are defined in subsection (2). The new provision is similar to clause 2(3). The requirements of subsection (1) are intended to

  39
  act as constraints on the way in which the competent authority carries out its functions under part VI. Unlike clause 2(3), the new provision does not include a principle on the responsibilities of senior management. The competent authority is not responsible for the conduct of business or the prudential regulation of listed companies.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

  THE PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS
  Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 16, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 21 and insert ("—

  (a) who are consumers for the purposes of section 129; or

  (b) who, in relation to regulated activities carried on otherwise than by authorised persons, would be consumers for those purposes if the activities were carried on by authorised persons.")

  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4, 5, 8, 51, 52, 154, 156, 237, 238, 240, 410 to 415 and 605.
  Miss Johnson: The amendments fulfil a commitment made in Committee to review the provisions on consumers. When clause 5 was considered in Committee, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said:
  The Bill advances different definitions of consumer, but it would be much simpler if it contained the same definition throughout. I can imagine muddle developing in the future as a result of the different definitions.
  The then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, said:
  we shall consider whether it is possible to have a more consistent definition throughout the Bill. That might be helpful.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 July 1999; c.205–06.]
  The amendments achieve greater consistency in references to consumers. They include the core definition in clause 129 and will ensure that those using the services offered, both by the appointed representatives of authorised persons and by trustees and those who deal with authorised persons, come within the definition, thereby eliminating potential gaps in coverage.
  The amendments will enable the Financial Services Authority to give appropriate protection to those who use the services of non-authorised persons who nevertheless carry on regulated activities—some lawfully, others unlawfully—such as Lloyd's underwriters, recognised exchanges, clearing houses and persons acting in contravention of the general prohibition.
  As well as introducing greater consistency, the amendments bring greater precision to the definition of consumers. They make it clear that the authority's rule-making powers extend to those whose rights or interests may be adversely affected by the use of services by another person only where that person is acting on their behalf or in a fiduciary capacity in relation to them. The amendments make corresponding changes to the definition of "client" for the purposes of clause 319.
  40
  Minor consumer-related changes to part IV and part XIII will help to meet a commitment given by the Government in Committee to improve and rationalise the supervisory procedures and the authority's decision-making procedures under the Bill more generally.
  Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 deal with part VI and bring the reference to consumers in clause 42 into line with clause 43(1) and 185(1)(c). Amendment No. 240 broadens the category of consumers in whose interests the authority can intervene in the business of an incoming European Economic Area or treaty firm under clause 185. That change will mean that the definition can cover all the consumers and potential consumers of regulated activities. It is necessary to ensure that the authority can act as necessary to avert systemic risks arising from such firms activities.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 3, after clause 6, to insert the following new clause—Duty of Authority to follow principles of good governance—
  (". In managing its affairs, the Authority must have regard to such generally accepted principles of good corporate governance as it is reasonable to regard as applicable to it.")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out from 'to' to end of the Lords Amendment and insert
  all relevant generally accepted principles of good corporate governance and in discharging its functions the Authority must act in a way which is fair, reasonable, open and proportionate'.
  We shall have to be highly selective in speaking to the groups of amendments given the shortage of time, but the House should pause on amendment No. 3 on corporate governance because it raises important issues about how the FSA is run and how we can improve its accountability.
  We have debated that matter previously, but the Government have always been reluctant to ensure that the FSA respects the principles of good governance, even though they urge everyone else to abide by them. For instance, there is general agreement that companies—especially large public companies—should have split chief executive and chairman functions.
  Many other observations have been made under several chairmen. Cadbury, Hampel and Greenbury successively produced codes on good governance, which have been summarised in a combined code of corporate governance. That should also be binding on the FSA. The obvious rejoinder is that, unlike a public company, the FSA does not have shareholders. However, that does not dispose of the matter. The same issues of checks and balances and of accountability apply to the FSA—perhaps with additional force because of the authority's power. The FSA enjoys a high degree of statutory immunity; it will be a rule-making and thus a law-making body. It will be charged with enforcing its own rules, as well as investigating wrongdoing and fining those who transgress those rules. The concentration of executive power in the FSA means that it should abide by those basic rules of good governance.

  41
  That view was taken by several Members in another place. They persuaded the Government to table an amendment to introduce the concept of good governance. However, we believe that it does not go far enough. In relation to the split between the chairman and the chief executive, we should recall the conclusions and recommendations of the Joint Committee chaired by Lord Burns. Paragraph 113 stated that
  in the longer term we recommend that the posts of Chief Executive and Chairman should be separated and that a non-executive Chairman should be appointed. We see advantages in this of limiting the power of and focus on a single individual; enhancing the power of non-executive directors; and ensuring that control of the agenda does not lie exclusively with the executive.
  I agree with those recommendations, although that is not a criticism of the present incumbent at the FSA. That Committee and I have a high regard for the talents of Mr. Davies. We are looking to the future structure—on the ground that Bills are for ever, while incumbents come and go. We want to lay down a structure for the future administration of the FSA.
  We especially want to disperse power within the authority. There is already a sufficient concentration of executive power in the body, which is, after all, only a private company with statutory functions. Power should be dispersed within that company. There is also considerable merit in having one person running the FSA from within, while someone else acts as the public outward face and speaks for the authority in the outside world—a time-consuming job in itself.
  A separate non-executive chairman and chief executive would enhance the role of the latter and would give confidence in the regulating community that complaints would be considered at some remove from the chief executive and his office. Of course, other aspects of the Bill deal with complaints and we shall debate those later. However, splitting those roles would improve and increase confidence in the way that the FSA carries out its statutory functions. The Government have, in principle, adopted the concept of corporate governance, but they have not been persuaded of the merits of splitting the roles.
  Slightly alarmingly, the notes on the Government amendment passed in another place say only that the principles referred to in the amendment
  might include those contained in the Combined Code of the Committee on Corporate Governance.
  Therefore, it is not even clear that the FSA would adopt that combined code. The Government amendment is a watered-down proposal, which our amendment would strengthen. It would also ensure that good governance includes the concept of the authority acting in a way that is
  fair, reasonable, open and proportionate.
  I do not see how the Government could object to that. Indeed, other amendments would insert the concept of reasonableness into the Bill, so our amendment should be unobjectionable.
  The principle of openness should also be more clearly stated in the Bill. The Government do not have a good record on openness. We have already discovered from our consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill that there is a report on tobacco smuggling. The report is familiar to Ministers, but the Government regard it as secret and have failed to publish it, even thought it deals with a matter of public interest. They talk much about transparency
  42
  and openness, but they have delivered little in practice. We want to ensure that the FSA, at least, operates openly when it consults on making or changing rules and across the whole range of its operations.
  Our amendment would strengthen the commitment in the proposed new clause to good governance in the way that I have described. It would provide a stronger steer towards splitting the role of chairman and chief executive and it would ensure that the authority operates in a
  fair, reasonable, open and proportionate
  manner. Those are two modest concepts to tack on to the proposed new clause. I commend our amendment to the House.
  Mr. Howard Flight: I merely wish to ask the Government what they intend by the words that they have used. In the other place, the Opposition's objective was to shift the presumption that the FSA was not required to have a separate chairman and chief executive to the presumption that it would separate the roles. The current arrangements exist essentially because of Mr. Howard Davies.
  The proposed new clause contains the phrase
  as it is reasonable to regard as applicable to it
  and will operate in the context of the rather strange animal that is a private company with a particular statutory function. Given those words, our legal advice is that the presumption would not necessarily be for a proper corporate structure with a separate chairman and chief executive. What is the Government's intention and what do they believe the presumption in the proposed new clause will be?
  It has become clear that, in an increasing number of cases—particularly phase two inspections—FSA teams have acted in a way that has not been reasonable or open. Why should the Government not accept the requirement that the body should act in a way that is
  fair, reasonable, open and proportionate?
  If they cannot accept those broad terms, we should assume that they are happy for it to act in a way that is unfair, unreasonable, closed and disproportionate. As the Minister will be aware, this is not the first time that we have raised the issue of trying to get the corporate governance right. The Government have yet to give a satisfactory explanation of why they are unwilling to accept the general requirement on the regulator's conduct.
  4.45 pm
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I shall first deal with why the Opposition amendment to Lords amendment No. 3 is unacceptable. The Opposition amendment would require the FSA to act in a
  fair, reasonable, open and proportionate
  way in discharging its functions. The Opposition tabled a similar amendment when the Bill was in Committee, and on 8 July my predecessor, now the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, explained why it was unnecessary. She said that the FSA must act in a fair, reasonable and proportionate way, discharging its functions in a proper manner. As a body exercising public functions, it is bound to operate in accordance with administrative law and, if it fails to do so, it runs the risk of judicial review. Moreover, as a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, it will be subject to constraints imposed by that Act.

  43
  Opposition Members may therefore ask why we are rejecting their amendment if, in any event, the FSA is required to act in accordance with it. Accepting the amendment would risk throwing into doubt whether every other public body whose governing legislation did not specify such requirements would be required to act in accordance with those principles. I assume that Opposition Members do not seek such an outcome.
  On openness, we have already put in place a variety of accountability measures and it may be worth while going through some of them quickly. In contrast with the current two-tier system, the FSA will be a single institutional regulator with clear objectives, regulatory principles and governance. However, in relation to procedures, the it will be required to consult, and to give the results of consultation, when making policy or changing rules and guidance. It will publish an annual report and have an open annual meeting. It will be required to provide a cost-benefit analysis of changes to its rules.
  The FSA is also required to set up consumer and practitioner panels as part of its commitment to consult and must consider representations by them. If it disagrees with them, it must give them a written statement of its reasons for doing so. There will be an independent investigator of complaints, who will report publicly, and an independent tribunal to which the FSA's decisions can be referred. I took exception to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat—Amory) about this Government and openness, as our track record on that is extremely good. Indeed, the track record of the previous Government compares unfavourably with ours. The measures on openness and accountability that I have just outlined speak volumes for our achievements in taking those issues forward.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Lady wishes to live up to her rhetoric, will she explain why the Government are suppressing the report on tobacco smuggling by Mr. Martin Taylor? That report was drawn up at public expense, so why does she not publish it?
  Miss Johnson: I am puzzled, because earlier we heard that there was not enough time to discuss the Bill. The matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is being discussed at considerable length by members of the Committee considering the Finance Bill. However, he has returned to it, even though it has nothing to do with the issue that we are considering.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked for clarification of the way in which the provision measures up to the principles of corporate governance. Principle A.2 of the combined code on corporate governance states:
  There should be a clear division of responsibilities at the head of the company which will ensure a balance of power and authority, such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision.
  There is no incompatibility between combining the roles of chairman and chief executive and adherence to that principle of corporate governance. The objective, as the principle makes clear, is to
  ensure a balance of power and authority, such that no one individual has unfettered powers of decision.
  44
  Code provision A.2.1 states:
  A decision to combine the posts of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in one person should be publicly justified. Whether the posts are held by different people or by the same person, there should be a strong and independent non-Executive element on the Board, with a recognised senior member other than the Chairman to whom concerns can be conveyed.
  The Chairman, Chief Executive and Senior Independent Director should be identified in the Annual Report.
  The FSA complies with all those requirements.
  Public justification is on page 107 of the FSA's annual report. There is a strong and independent non-executive element on the board. Indeed, paragraph 3(1)(a) of schedule 1 specifies that the majority of members of the governing body must be non-executive. Moreover, there is a recognised senior member other than the chairman: the non-executive deputy chairman of the FSA—Stewart Boyd QC. We have repeatedly made clear the important role that we expect him to play on the board.
  The chairman, chief executive and senior independent director are identified in the FSA's annual report. On the latter, page 108 states:
  Stewart Boyd QC acts as the company's lead non-Executive Director".
  In other words, the FSA complies fully with the requirements recommended by the combined code for companies, which combine the role of chairman and chief executive.
  I therefore stress that there is no incompatibility. The proposed structure is the best means of meeting the FSA's objectives of securing clear accountability and of ensuring speed of decision making. I therefore urge the House to agree with the Lords amendment and to oppose the Opposition amendment to it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 6, after clause 9, to insert the following new clause—Duty to consider representations by the Panels—

  (".—(1) This section applies to a representation made, in accordance with arrangements made under section 7, by the Practitioner Panel or by the Consumer Panel.

  (2) The Authority must consider the representation.

  (3) If the Authority disagrees with a view expressed, or proposal made, in the representation, it must give the Panel a statement in writing of its reasons for disagreeing.")

  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss
  Melanie Johnson.]
  Mr. Flight: I beg to move an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 8, at end insert—
  '(4) The Authority's statement must be published in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate.'.
  The Government tabled the new clause on Third Reading in the other place in response to pressure from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. It concerns when the FSA disagrees with the view expressed or the proposal made by the practitioner or consumer panels in representations to the FSA. Under our amendment, the FSA would have to give the relevant panel a written

  45
  statement of its reasons for disagreeing. The Economic Secretary referred to that just a few minutes ago. As presently drafted, it is not clear under the new clause whether the FSA's statement should be made public. Our amendment would make that clear. We understand that the Government confirmed in the other place that such statements would be made public.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: The new clause proposed in Lords amendment No. 6 responds to points raised in another place in connection with representations made to the FSA by the practitioner and consumer panels. In line with suggestions made by Opposition Members, it will improve arrangements for giving feedback to the panels.
  The new clause will require the FSA to consider representations made to it by either panel in accordance with arrangements under clause 7 and, where the FSA disagrees with those representations, to make a written statement of its reasons for disagreeing. The new clause will add, in a structured way, a greater degree of transparency and therefore improves on the arrangements for the panels.
  I was rather surprised to discover that the Opposition had tabled their amendment, especially given that their colleagues in another place welcomed the new clause so warmly—I believe that Lord Kingsland described himself as delighted by it. When the new clause was introduced, Lord Kingsland asked whether reasons given by the FSA would be made public; my noble Friend Lord Bach explained that they would. It is self-evident that if the FSA issues a formal response to a formal representation, by the very act of doing so it puts its reasons into the public domain.
  It is a different matter to require, as the amendment would, that every such response is to be published by the FSA. To do so would be as likely to confuse as to shed light on discussions between the FSA and the panels. For example, it would be odd if the FSA were to publish its response to a representation that had, for whatever reason, not been published in the first place by the panel. Requiring automatic publication, without any regard to the nature of the issue involved, might also involve unnecessary and inappropriate expenditure by the FSA.
  It is quite possible that one of the panels might make a representation to the FSA in connection with a serious flaw or loophole that it had identified in the rules; the FSA might not agree with the panel's proposed solution, in which case it would have to write to the panel to explain why. However, I find it hard to imagine that the FSA, the panels or the vast majority of consumers and practitioners in general would want the existence of such a loophole to be exposed before an appropriate solution had been identified.
  Mr. Flight: Will the Economic Secretary explain clearly what the Government meant by giving a verbal assurance in the other place that the reasons would be made public? Either they will be set out, published and made public, or they will not—I do not understand why the Government appear to want to I have their cake and eat it.
  Miss Johnson: Ultimately, it will be for the panels to decide whether to publish statements made by the FSA when the FSA has decided, for its own reasons, not to do
  46
  so. I have no doubt that both the FSA and the panels will give full and proper consideration on a sensible, case-by-case basis to whether publication is appropriate. I urge the House to accept the new clause and to reject the Opposition amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 agreed to.

Clause 14

  POWERS OF APPOINTED PERSON AND PROCEDURE
  Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 7, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 189, 211 to 227, 229 to 233, 265, 266, 269, 314 to 325, 374, 551, 565 and 652.
  Mr. Timms: The main effect of the amendments is to rationalise the treatment in the Bill of legal professional privilege and to strengthen it. The changes are, in part, a response to concerns raised by the Opposition in Committee about the fact that privilege might not be adequately protected in all cases. Therefore, the amendments bring the Bill's definition of legal professional privilege into line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I believe that they will be broadly welcomed.
  At the same time, the amendments consolidate existing provisions of the Bill into a single clause that extends to all the information and document-gathering powers in the Bill. The existing, separate provisions that prevent different powers being used to require a person to disclose or permit the inspection of material that is subject to legal professional privilege are, therefore, made redundant and omitted.
  The amendments also simplify the drafting of clause 159 and other clauses in part XI that deal with the investigation powers of the FSA, and they align the investigation powers under part XVII in respect of collective investment schemes with the main provisions in part XI. I believe that all those amendments will be welcome and I urge the House to agree to them.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

  AUTHORISED PERSONS ACTING WITHOUT PERMISSION
  Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 8, line 19, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) The contravention does not—

  (a) make a person guilty of an offence;

  (b) make any transaction void or unenforceable; or

  (c)(subject to subsection (3)) give rise to any right of action for breach of statutory duty.

  (3) In prescribed cases the contravention is actionable at the suit of a person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.")
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 29, 33, 35 to 44, 78, 89, 178, 179, 250 and 251.
  5 pm
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  In the light of points made in this House, particularly by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), and in the other place, the Government have reconsidered the different provisions in the Bill dealing with rights of action and enforcement of agreements.
  The amendments on rights of action fulfil the Government's commitment given in Committee and on Report in this House to review and align the provisions on rights of action. The aim of the Government's amendments is to enable the current pattern of rights of action for rule breaches, as provided for under clauses 62 and 62A of the Financial Services Act 1986, to be reproduced as far as it is possible to do so given the different structure of the Bill in relation to contraventions of requirements imposed under parts IV, X and XIII.
  The amendments will enable the Treasury, subject to Parliament, to give rights of action to private persons if an authorised person has handled client money without the appropriate part IV permission, but not for a breach of a capital requirement or premium income limit imposed under that part. The Treasury will also be able to extend rights of action to non-private persons acting in a fiduciary capacity for a private person.
  Amendments Nos. 89 and 179 are technical improvements that relate to the transfer of the competent authority for listing function from the London stock exchange to the FSA. They ensure that the wording of the Bill properly reflects the fact that the transfer has taken place, but do not alter the basic position that clauses 141 and 142, which deal with rights of action for FSA rules made under part X, do not apply to listing rules.
  The amendments on enforcement of agreements meet Opposition concerns raised in Committee and on Report in this House about the grounds on which agreements entered into in the course of, or as a result of, an unauthorised regulated activity or illegal financial promotion will be enforced.
  As we said we would, we have reflected on those concerns and have tabled amendments that meet directly the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire and his colleagues. In particular, amendments Nos. 25 to 29, 33 and 38 to 44 introduce a single test for the court to determine whether an agreement is enforceable by considering whether it is just and equitable for it to be enforced.
  The other amendments make technical and drafting improvements. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

  RESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL PROMOTION
  Lords amendment: No. 11 in, page 8, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(5A) An order under subsection (5) may, in particular, provide that subsection (1) does not apply in relation to communications—
  48

  (a) of a specified description;

  (b) originating in a specified country or territory outside the United Kingdom;

  (c) originating in a country or territory which falls within a specified description of country or territory outside the United Kingdom; or

  (d) originating outside the United Kingdom.

  (5B) The Treasury may by order repeal subsection (3).")
  Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 18, 172 to 174, 272 and 296.
  Mr. Timms: Clause 19 prohibits financial promotion unless the communicator is an authorised person or the promotion is approved by an authorised person. Clause 231 prohibits promotion by authorised persons of collective investment schemes unless the scheme is either authorised or recognised. Both clauses were extensively debated during the Committee stage in this House. The amendments debated in the other place were largely technical, tidying-up amendments made in response to concerns expressed by hon. Members in Committee.
  Amendments to clauses 19 and 231 allow for some exemptions to be made, including exemptions dealing with the territorial scope of each prohibition. Amendments to clause 137(1) on financial promotion rules ensure that the limits of this rule-making power are consistent with the limits on promotions by unauthorised persons. There are also some technical and consequential amendments to clause 19. I commend these amendments to the House.
  Mr. Flight: There were two big issues in this territory. One arose from clause 19 and the issue of the FSA being empowered to regulate cyberspace and anything that could affect a UK person. Our understanding is that the exemptions that have been published achieve what we felt was appropriate to be dealt with in clause 19.
  Secondly, we were particularly concerned that managers of UK-based collective investment schemes who were seeking to market those schemes outside the UK but within EU jurisdiction would be subject to competing regulatory jurisdictions. As the Bill was drafted, they would have been obliged to conform with the FSA's regulations and with those in the jurisdiction in which they were marketing the scheme. Again, we understand that the Government have addressed the issue satisfactorily. I merely ask for confirmation that that is so in both cases.
  Mr. Timms: It is certainly my view that all those concerns have been addressed satisfactorily. I hope that the House agrees.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 24

  AGREEMENTS MADE BY UNAUTHORISED PERSONS
  Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 10, line 34, leave out ("("the purchaser")")
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 24, 30 to 32, 34, 46 to 48, 53 to 56, 88, 98, 100, 106, 110, 113 to 119, 121, 122, 160 to 167, 190, 191, 260 to 264, 349, 375, 397, 405, 433, 435, 444, 446 to 456, 462 to 484, 536 to 539, 555, 560, 563, 564, 616, 617, 632, 637 to 649, 661, 663, 664 and 672.
  Miss Johnson: This large group of amendments provides a good illustration of the way in which the Bill's drafting has been improved and consistency achieved through technical refinement in another place. It is also an example of the fact that a minor drafting change to improve clarity in a Bill of this complexity can involve dozens of amendments representing absolutely no change in policy.
  I am sad to see that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is no longer present, but I hope that Opposition Members will not be too disappointed if I deal with the amendments fairly briefly. They achieve a number of things. First, they standardise the references in the Bill to the acceptance of deposits. Secondly, they rationalise the references to insurance. Certain amendments correct grammatical errors that we have noticed, insert, correct and delete defined terms, and correct references to other provisions that have somehow become inaccurate. I am happy to acknowledge that some of the amendments reflect points made by the Opposition, who have identified potential shortcomings in the Bill's drafting.
  I am sure that hon. Members do not want me to deal with the amendments individually, despite the exhortations of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The explanatory notes produced by the Treasury before the recess explain each of them for the benefit of those who are particularly curious.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 56 agreed to.

Clause 49

  APPLICATIONS UNDER THIS PART
  Lords amendment: No. 57, in page 22, line 28, after ("may") insert ("reasonably").
  Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 58, 74, 187, 188, 234, 235, 273, 304, 335, 372, 373, 430.
  Mr. Timms: I will not push my luck too far: I will say a few words on this group.
  50
  The amendments were tabled in response to discussion in Committee and on Report in the House of Commons, where some inconsistencies were identified in the circumstances in which the Bill uses express concepts of reasonableness, for example, in relation to powers of the FSA. We have had some discussion on that point already this afternoon.
  As a matter of administrative law, it is well understood that a body exercising public functions under statute must act "reasonably". That requirement will apply to the FSA, just as it does to other bodies such as the Treasury or the Secretary of State. If the FSA were to act in a way in which no reasonable authority would, that would give rise to a risk of challenge by judicial review.
  Imposing express requirements for the authority to act reasonably in exercising certain powers under the Bill might therefore make little real difference in the way in which the authority was required to act under those clauses, but, at the same time, it might cast doubt on the need for the authority, or indeed other public bodies, to act reasonably in other cases where the requirement to act reasonably was not made explicit.
  We have not sought to impose requirements in the Bill for the FSA to act reasonably in every particular circumstance, but we have tabled amendments to ensure that the Bill contains an express "reasonableness" element in identifying information that the authority may require a person to provide in support of an application. In such cases, it is appropriate to include such express provision because it qualifies the information that the authority can require a person to provide, as opposed to the way in which the authority is required to act.
  Amendment No. 430 differs from the other reasonableness amendments only in that it concerns the powers of an appointed auditor or actuary under clause 331 to require information and explanations from the officers of an authorised person, rather than the powers of the FSA.
  Amendments Nos. 187, 188, 372 and 373 amend clauses 301 and 152. At present, those clauses provide that the Director General of Fair Trading may require a person to produce documents only where they relate to a matter that is relevant to his investigation, but they do not make it clear that the same relevance test applies to a requirement to supply information. The amendments remedy that by applying the same relevance test to both documents and information.
  I believe that the House will see that the Bill as thus amended is consistent in the way that I have described. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment. No. 58 agreed to.

Clause 50

  DETERMINATION OF APPLICATIONS
  Lords amendment: No. 59, in page 23, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
  ("(4) If the Authority grants an application for, or for variation of, a Part IV permission, it must give the applicant written notice.
  (5) The notice must state the date from which the permission, or the variation, has effect.
  (6) If the Authority proposes—

  51

  (a) to give a Part IV permission but to exercise its power under section 40(6)(a) or (b) or 41(1), or

  (b) to vary a Part IV permission on the application of an authorised person but to exercise its power under any of those provisions (as a result of section 42(5)),

  it must give the applicant a warning notice.
  (7) If the Authority proposes to refuse an application made under this Part, it must (unless subsection (8) applies) give the applicant a warning notice.
  (8) This subsection applies if it appears to the Authority that—

  (a) the applicant is an EEA firm; and

  (b) the application is made with a view to carrying on a regulated activity in a manner in which the applicant is, or would be, entitled to carry on that activity in the exercise of an EEA right whether through a United Kingdom branch or by providing services in the United Kingdom.

  (9) If the Authority decides—

  (a) to give a Part IV permission but to exercise its power under section 40(6)(a) or (b) or 41(1),

  (b) to vary a Part IV permission on the application of an authorised person but to exercise its power under any of those provisions (as a result of section 42(5)), or

  (c) to refuse an application under this Part,

  it must give the applicant a decision notice.")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Timms.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be for the convenience of the House to consider an amendment to Lords amendment No. 59, Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64, 71, 72, 75 to 77, 84 to 87, 97, 101, 102, 134 to 141, 236, 241 to 249, 252 to 254, 274 to 295, 297 to 303, 305 to 313, 393, 398 to 402, 503 to 525, 526, an amendment to Lords amendment No. 526, and Lords amendments Nos. 527 to 533, 546 and 604.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Flight: Several Government amendments tabled in the other place dealt with procedural matters, particularly in relation to warning, decision and final notices. We view most of those amendments as improvements to the Bill and as having picked up many of the matters raised in this place in Committee. However, in the draftsman's haste to table the amendments, an error seems to have been made in Lords amendment No. 59. That is why we have tabled our amendment to that Lords amendment.
  Clause 50 was substantially redrafted on Report in the other place. It is concerned with the FSA's obligation to determine applications for permission to conduct a regulated activity. However, as drafted it provides that if the FSA proposes, after receiving an application for permission, to impose limitations under paragraph 40(7)(a) on the description of a regulated activity for which application has been made, or a narrower or a wider description under paragraph 40(7)(b), or a requirement under subsection 41(1), the FSA would have to issue the applicant with a warning notice, then a decision notice, and then a final notice. The provision applies even if the applicant, as part of the consideration of his application, requests the FSA to impose the limitation or to include the stated requirement up front.
  Therefore, currently the only alternatives are to go through the warning, decision and final notice procedure—which is surely a waste of everyone's time—or for the applicant to withdraw his application and
  52
  resubmit it in the form acceptable to the FSA. The trouble with the second alternative is that the six-month period for considering applications would start to run in relation to the new application and could put an applicant at considerable disadvantage.
  Therefore, our amendment to Lords amendment No. 59 provides that, if the FSA exercises its powers to impose limitations or specify particular descriptions of regulated activities under paragraphs 40(7)(a) or (b), or includes limitations under subsection 41(1) at the request of the applicant, the warning, decision, and final notice requirements would not apply. It is necessary to cover all the different types of notice, because the applicant may make his request at any stage—for example, after the warning notice has been given, but before a decision notice has been given.
  Our amendment to Lords amendment No. 59 is very technical. However, the Opposition hope that the Government will readily agree to it, on practical grounds. Our amendment to Lords amendment No. 526—which proposes inserting a new clause after clause 376—is more substantial than our previous amendment and designed to prevent the whole Bill hitting the rails in relation to the European convention on human rights.
  The Government have effectively made the European convention, which they clearly support, part of United Kingdom law. The House, too, has broadly indicated its support for the convention. Our amendment is intended to provide for compliance with the convention in relation to the disclosure of evidence to the accused. Other provisions of the Bill are simply not in compliance with the convention, although we have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will certify—as required by the Human Rights Act 1998—that the Bill is compatible with the rights granted by the convention.
  We are particularly concerned about two specific matters: the right given to the accused not to have used against him evidence that was extracted from him only under compulsion of law; and the right to legal assistance. The Government have quite rightly provided those protections in the case of market abuse, but have refused to grant them in the case of ordinary disciplinary proceedings. Unfortunately, it is not possible to raise the latter issue now, as to appropriate amendments have been tabled on which to hang a debate on it. That is why our amendment to Lords amendment No. 526 relates only to the disclosure of evidence and does not go any wider. We hope that the Bill will comply with the European convention at least on this issue.
  We have requested repeatedly that the Financial Services Authority should give an accused person all the evidence available to it, even if it is helpful to the accused by showing that he could not have committed the offence. The Government have finally provided for that in certain cases. That is what our amendment is about. The new clause inserted by amendment No. 526 provides for important exceptions from that general principle. First, evidence does not have to be disclosed if it
  has been intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued under any enactment relating to the interception of communications
  or if it is subject to legal privilege. More worryingly, the new clause also allows the FSA to refuse the accused access to particular material if allowing him access
  would not be in the public interest

  53
  or would not be deemed to be fair in the FSA's eyes because of a potential prejudice to someone else's commercial interests.
  In all those cases, the European convention clearly requires the accused to be given access to the material, or at least to other protections in its place. That was the subject of three recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in February. All three cases related to the use of public interest immunity certificates by the UK Government. The court held that the withholding of such evidence under those certificates in principle contravened the convention. The court decided that the Government would comply with the convention if it gave the trial judge the withheld evidence, so that he could see its effect and decide for himself whether it should be introduced, or other protections could be provided, in particular giving the accused a summary of what was in the material that was not handed over. That is what we are seeking to achieve with the amendment, which provides that the accused must be told reasons for the refusal—although that is not sufficient.
  The Minister may repeat the Government's objection that the provisions should not apply to civil offences, because the decisions in question relate to criminal cases. We do not believe that that view is legally correct. Both decisions were based on article 6(1) of the European convention, which requires a fair hearing. The court's decision was that the hearing would not be fair if helpful evidence was withheld. Article 6(1) applies to civil as well as criminal offences, although perhaps the fair hearing requirement can be tailored differently in each case. We have received clear legal advice that the requirement in article 6(1) applies to disciplinary proceedings, even when they are treated as civil matters.
  The Minister will be aware that Lord Lester, who is one of the leading authorities on the subject, has written an opinion that was submitted to the Treasury and the Joint Committee. He said that disciplinary proceedings would be treated as proceedings on criminal offences for the purposes of the European convention. If they are not, they are at least quasi-criminal in our view, because the accused could be subject to unlimited fines and perhaps thrown out of the industry. The European Court of Human Rights is more likely to treat the proceedings as if they were criminal, rather than merely civil issues in this context. Quite apart from the European convention, it is a matter of English law that the prosecutor—as the FSA describes itself in the new regime—should give the accused access to all the evidence that it has, even if, or perhaps especially when, it is helpful to the accused.
  There are two key principles. One is the principle of natural justice. The second is the need for the legislation not to be bowled out quickly if it is to be operative. We believe that that will happen unless the Bill addresses the point raised by the amendment.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) has put the points clearly and succinctly on what can be reasonably expected as a matter of legal fairness and in terms of whether or not the Government's proposals comply with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. The question at issue is whether, unless the amendment is accepted, the Government's proposals will give the accused—of whatever name or description—a fair trial.
  54
  It is now fundamental to our law, happily, that where someone is accused of something, those acting as prosecutor should disclose all relevant documents, and should particularly be astute in disclosing any relevant documentation or other information in their possession which would assist the accused. The failure to do that on many occasions in the past underlies a large number of the serious miscarriages of justice with which we have had to wrestle over the past 15 years.
  The FSA will be an extremely powerful body. We do not object to its power—we are raising questions about the manner in which it exercises that power. It is important that these matters of quasi-prosecution-whether they come under a civil or criminal heading—should be conducted with scrupulous fairness. The FSA should follow rules that are likely to lead to fairness in practice.
  I await with interest what the Minister says on the cogent points that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs has made and which I have sought to support.
  Mr. Timms: These amendments fulfil an undertaking that we gave in Committee to table amendments to rationalise the decision-making procedures across the Bill as a whole. They do not just makes things neater and more consistent, but clarify a number of important issues raised during the Bill's passage.
  I wish to refer to the nature of the tribunal. Following our consultation on the Bill in 1998, we amended it to make clearer the first instance nature of the tribunal. However, concern was raised that we had not eliminated all room for doubt, so we have gone further. The amendments to part IX make absolutely explicit the ability of the tribunal to consider any evidence that it considers relevant. The amendments also make it absolutely clear that disciplinary decisions and decisions to withdraw authorisation or approval cannot take effect while the matter is still open to review by the tribunal or higher courts.
  Supervisory decisions, such as the imposition of requirements under part IV while a possible threat to the interests of consumers is evaluated, can take effect before that point—as Opposition Members acknowledged in Committee that they must—but only where the particular grounds for the action justify it taking effect earlier.
  We have replaced the various separate provisions dealing with notices for payment with a single provision in amendment No. 522—a concern raised by Opposition Members. The amendments make clear that the FSA cannot publicise the actions it proposes in warning and decision notices while the matter is open to review. I refer hon. Members to amendment No. 523, as there has been confusion on that point.
  In line with the recommendation of the Joint Committee, publication is generally required when any proposed action does take effect to ensure the necessary degree of transparency. However, information may not be published if that would be unfair or would prejudice the interests of consumers.
  The amendments also include extended provisions, giving rights of access to material held by the FSA in disciplinary-type cases. We have taken on board representations made to us by the Law Society and Opposition Members. These rights would include not only

  55
  the material on which the FSA relied in reaching its decision, but material it considered but did not rely upon, or which it obtained in the course of an investigation into the matter and which it considered may assist the other party.
  Those are generous rights of access, going beyond those generally available in administrative proceedings. They are modelled on those that apply in criminal cases, and we have introduced them for these cases to reflect the wide range of powers and sanctions under the Bill.
  5.30 pm
  Lords amendment No. 101 is a consequential change arising from the transfer of the official listing function. Other amendments in this group are consequential changes arising from the alignment of the sanctions for market abuse under part VIII with those available under parts V and XIV.
  Lords amendments Nos. 134, 135, 137, 138 and 140 make consequential changes to the procedural provisions in part VIII to reflect the wider range of available sanctions.
  I believe that the House will welcome these changes, which show how ready we have been to listen to the points made by the industry, other interested bodies and opposition parties, and how we have worked to improve the Bill at a technical level.
  The amendment to Lords amendment No. 59 is identical to one that was debated in another place and my response will be along similar lines to the points made there.
  When the authority grants a permission or variation in terms that the applicant has requested, that amounts to granting an application so the procedure that applies is the simple written notice procedure under clause 50(4) and not the warning/decision/final notice procedure under clause 50(6)(a).
  That includes requirements imposed on the permission under clause 47 when those requirements are requested by the applicant. When the request is made after the initial application is made but before it is determined, that should not delay the date on which the applicant will be able to benefit from the new permission. Equally, when the applicant asks for permission narrower than that originally sought, there is nothing to prevent the FSA from treating that as an application for the narrower permission and proceeding to grant it through the simple written notice procedure.
  The important point is that the amendment to Lords amendment No. 59 is unnecessary and, moreover, unhelpful because it casts doubt on whether clause 50(4) would apply in that situation. I agree with the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that a person should be able to accept the requirements that the FSA proposes to impose if it grants the application. In practice. that will be achieved by the FSA telling the applicant that it is minded to impose a requirement, and the applicant will be able to accept the requirement either by submitting a notice under clause 50(3) withdrawing the application and a new application reflecting the requirements, or by submitting an application under clause 49(2) for a variation along the lines proposed by
  56
  the FSA. In either case, the Bill allows appropriately streamlined procedures to apply, enabling the application to be suitably expedited.
  The substance, although not the precise wording, of the amendment to Lords amendment No. 526 is also familiar from debates in another place. It would require a summary of any material withheld to be given to a person on whom the FSA proposes to impose a penalty. Subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause that amendment No. 526 will introduce will enable the FSA to withhold material in certain circumstances.
  Requiring the FSA to provide a summary of any such evidence would be going too far. Subsections (4) and (5) require notice to be given of the fact that material is being withheld on grounds that it is subject to privilege, or because the FSA has taken the view that access would be unfair or against the public interest. When such a view has been reached, subsection (5) also requires those reasons to be included in the notice. That will enable the person who is subject to the notice to consider whether he should refer the matter to the tribunal, but, in line with the general approach under other legislation, notice will not be given of material that is excluded because it has been intercepted under a warrant or indicates that such a warrant has been issued.
  I should remind the House that the FSA does not itself make use of such warrants, but in the interests of effective co-operation between law enforcement agencies we cannot exclude the possibility that it may have access to such material.
  The summary that the amendment to the Lords amendment would require would appear to have to cover material withheld under any of the cases set out in subsections (2) to (5) of the new clause. It cannot be right that the FSA should give anyone a summary of material that indicates the existence of an interception warrant, material obtained under such a warrant or information that is subject to legal professional privilege, including legal advice, or is subject to public interest immunity—for example, because it suggests the existence of an informer. Even if the amendment applied only to material considered for comparative purposes under subsection (2), it still would not be right.
  To the extent that the consistency of FSA decision-making is properly a matter for public concern, ample material will already be in the public domain on which to judge consistency with the FSA's general policy. The FSA will have to consult on and publish a statement of its policy on financial penalties. It will also publish material on the disciplinary actions it has taken in its annual report each year. That material will also be available to the tribunal, but the primary focus of the tribunal's decision will properly be the merits of the particular case before it. It is the merits of the case against which the proposed penalty must ultimately be judged.
  Hon. Members asked about the position with regard to the European convention. Convention rights will be fully met at the stage at which a reference is made to the tribunal, including rights of access to evidence. That is the fair and impartial tribunal required by article 6, before which, and for the purposes of which, evidence will be disclosed. The new clause introduced by the amendment to amendment No. 526 would go further than we are required to go by the convention and further than it is sensible to go. I hope that the House will resist that amendment.
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 250.

  Division No. 211]

  [5.37 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Allan, Richard

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Amess, David

  Key, Robert

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Baker, Norman

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Baldry, Tony

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Leigh, Edward

  Bercow, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lidington, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Brady, Graham

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brazier, Julian

  Loughton, Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bums, Simon

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Butterfill, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Madel, Sir David

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chidgey, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clappison, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Norman, Archie

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Collins, Tim

  Öpik, Lembit

  Cotter, Brian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James

  Page, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Paice, James

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Paterson, Owen

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Pickles, Eric

  Day, Stephen

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Randall, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Rendel, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence

  Fallon, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Flight, Howard

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fraser, Christopher

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gale, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

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

  Gray, James

  Soames, Nicholas

  Greenway, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Spring, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hammond, Philip

  Steen, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heald, Oliver

  Swinney, John

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Syms, Robert

  Horam, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Trend, Michael

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Keetch, Paul

  Walter, Robert

  58

  Wells, Bowen

  Yeo, Tim

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Whittingdale, John

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Geoffrey

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Doran, Frank

  Alexander, Douglas

  Drew, David

  Allen, Graham

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Edwards, Huw

  Austin, John

  Efford, Clive

  Battle, John

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ennis, Jeff

  Beard, Nigel

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Fisher, Mark

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Benton, Joe

  Galloway, George

  Berry, Roger

  Gapes, Mike

  Best, Harold

  Gardiner, Barry

  Betts, Clive

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Godsiff, Roger

  Borrow, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Grogan, John

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gunnell, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cann, Jamie

  Healey, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Caton, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hope, Phil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hurst, Alan

  Coleman, Iain

  Hutton, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  (Copeland)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kidney, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  59

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Roy, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Linton, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Lock, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Love, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCabe, Steve

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonnell, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNulty, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  MacShane, Denis

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McWilliam, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stringer, Graham

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Maxton, John

  (Dewsbury)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'd Heeley)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Miller, Andrew

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moffatt, Laura

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Timms, Stephen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mountford, Kali

  Todd, Mark

  Mudie, George

  Touhig, Don

  Mullin, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tynan, Bill

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pearson, Ian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pendry, Tom

  White, Brian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  (Swansea W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Pond, Chris

  Wills, Michael

  Pope, Greg

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wood, Mike

  Purchase, Ken

  Woodward, Shaun

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Worthington, Tony

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wyatt, Derek

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Rooney, Terry

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendments agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64 agreed to.

Clause 55

  PROHIBITION ORDERS
  Lords amendments: No. 65, in page 24, line 24, leave out ("or an exempt person")
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 66, 67, 69, 70, 406 to 409, 416 and 417.
  Miss Johnson: Following consultation, part XX was introduced on Report. The amendments debated in another place introduced further necessary refinements to ensure that part XX works properly and in a way that is consistent with the rest of the Bill. It has the effect that certain professional firms which, among other things, are subject to regulation by a designated professional body, and offer financial services as an incidental part of their professional practice, will not require authorisation under the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 65 to 67 and 69 and 70 will amend clause 55 on prohibition orders so as to enable such an order to be issued, preventing an individual from performing functions in relation to an exempt regulated activity carried on by a professional firm which benefits from the exemption from the general prohibition under part XX.
  As for exempt persons, amendment No. 406 will amend the definition of "exempt regulated activities" in clause 316. The amendment is the first in a package that will enable a professional firm which has the benefit of a part XX exemption also to carry on regulated activities as an exempt person without contravening the general prohibition. Clause 318 sets out the tests which need to be met in order for a professional firm to qualify for the exemption.
  Amendment No. 407 is the second amendment in the package. It means that a professional firm carrying on exempt regulated activities under part XX will not be held to be in breach of a prohibition set out in clause 318(5) where he is also carrying on regulated activities in relation to which he is an exempt person. Amendment No. 408—the third amendment in the package—would amend subsection (7) so that where a professional firm carries on exempt regulated activities under part XX, it may also carry on activities as an exempt person—for instance, as an appointed representative.
  Clause 323 requires the designated professional bodies to make rules designed to ensure that professional firms that benefit from the part XX exemption do not carry on regulated activities that are not complementary to providing particular services to a particular client. Amendment No. 416 completes the picture in relation to professional firms which are also exempt persons. It means that the clause 323 rule-making requirement will not extend to regulated activities conducted by professional firms as exempt persons under the Bill.
  Amendment No. 417 will introduce a new clause into the Bill after clause 323, making it an offence for a person to describe himself as one who has the benefit of the part XX exemption in relation to a particular regulated activity, or
  behaves, or otherwise holds himself out, in a manner which indicates (or which is reasonably likely to be understood as indicating) that he is such a person,
  when he is not. The new clause would create an offence similar to that set out in clause 22, bringing persons who give the impression that they benefit from the provisions

  61
  of part XX when they do not, into line with persons who give the impression that they are authorised or exempt persons when they are not.
  Clause 319 allows the authority to direct that the exemption from the general prohibition is not to apply to certain classes of professional. The authority may exercise this power only where it is satisfied that it is desirable to do so in the interests of clients.
  Amendment No. 409 will require that any direction must be published in the way
  "best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
  It will allow the authority to charge a reasonable fee for providing a copy of the direction, and requires it to give without delay a copy of any direction to the Treasury. These requirements ensure consistency between directions given under this clause and those given under clauses 309 and 311, both of which are in respect of Lloyd's.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 78 agreed to.

Clause 72

  THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY
  Lords amendment: No. 79, in page 33, line 5, leave out ("Stock Exchange") and insert ("Authority")
  Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 80, 81, 83, 90 to 96, 99, 104, 105, 107 to 109, 111, 112, 436, 559, 626 to 631 and 633 to 636.
  Mr. Timms: This group of amendments relates to the provisions of part VI, which deals with the listing of securities. They are consequential upon the decision to transfer the competent authority for listing function from the London stock exchange to the FSA.
  The House will recall that when the Bill was originally drafted, the assumption was that the stock exchange would continue as the UK's competent authority. However, in the light of the stock exchange's decision to demutualise and become a for-profit company, which was announced in July 1999, it was inappropriate for it to continue to exercise the public function of competent authority. The FSA has now taken on that role under the Official Listing of Securities (Change of Competent Authority) Regulations 2000, which came into force on 1 May 2000.
  Although the transfer of functions to the FSA has already taken place and is working well, it is clearly necessary that the Bill should also take account of the new arrangements. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary therefore announced in Committee that we would be bringing forward amendments to that effect in due course. The amendments were made in another place.
  The amendments fall into two categories. Some, such as amendment No. 79, which will replace the words "Stock Exchange" with the word "Authority", are simply drafting changes. However, there is a category of amendments which is intended to provide for how the FSA is to carry out its responsibilities as the competent authority. The key amendment in this respect is amendment No. 626, which will introduce a new schedule
  62
  after schedule 6. That new schedule applies the provisions of the rest of the Bill to the authority, with modifications, when it is exercising the competent authority function. It does not simply apply the entire Bill en bloc to the competent authority because there are differences between the regulatory and listing functions, which it is helpful to allow for in the arrangements that we make.
  So the schedule disapplies clause 7, which places a duty on the FSA to make arrangements for consulting practitioners and consumers. That is not necessary in the context of the competent authority because it already has a listing committee which fulfils that function, and which will continue in existence when the Bill comes into force.
  The remainder of the amendments are very much along the lines that I have described, and I think that they will be broadly welcomed.
  Mr. Flight: The change from the stock exchange to the FSA as the listing authority was debated at considerable length both in Committee and at the time of the relevant order. Many questions were raised. The central issue was how matters would go forward in future. Since then, the proposed merger of the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges has been announced. How are the Government expecting the listing role to work in that context?
  In particular, under the new arrangements, it is envisaged that a continuing, traditional exchange in London will deal with established blue chip companies, and that growth and new economy stocks will be listed in Frankfurt. Do the Government intend the FSA to be the listing authority for such stocks, even if traded in Frankfurt, or do they intend to limit the FSA's role as the listing authority to stocks traded only on the continuing blue chip London stock exchange?
  6 pm
  I understand that the intention is that stocks could be listed by the FSA but traded in Frankfurt. That would give rise to major international problems because pension funds, collective investment schemes and other such vehicles frequently have requirements that securities should be listed and traded at the same recognised stock exchange. Therefore, many United Kingdom stocks could be listed not on the exchange but by the FSA as the listing authority, and traded on a different stock exchange—Frankfurt. That could happen quickly. The fact that Frankfurt is involved in a merger does not cease to make it separate from the London stock exchange. If that were the case, large numbers of stocks would be held illegally in various portfolios around the world.
  Few of us expected the stock exchange proposals to come forth in their current form. The reaction of the members of the stock exchange suggests that the deal may not go ahead in that form, but the possibility that the London and Frankfurt stock exchanges might merge was contemplated when the FSA became the listing authority, and the Government have become involved in the process. It is fine to say that the stock exchanges can do what they want, but the Government clearly have a responsibility because the listing authority—the FSA—is part of the public sector.
  In essence, the mechanism for transferring the team of people and the listing responsibility to the FSA has been provided for under the Bill, the amendments and the exemption order. That mechanism is operating, but a very

  63
  different stock exchange scene could come into play, against which it must interact. Therefore the Government should tell the House how they expect those issues to be addressed so that they do not damage the ability of investors throughout the world to invest in British securities.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: I shall add some questions to those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). The story of the competent authority has been changing fast ever since it was first considered in Committee just after the summer recess. Indeed, we faced a wholly different scenario in Committee when we returned from the summer recess to be told suddenly that the stock exchange would lose its role as the competent listing authority, in favour of the FSA. That news was not heralded before the summer and it was certainly not envisaged by the head of the FSA earlier last year.
  Now—just six or seven months later, as my hon. Friend said—the entire scenario is about to change again because of the proposed tie-up between London and Frankfurt, which, depending on the members of the London stock exchange, may or may not happen, although it has been agreed in Germany. Therefore, we must ask some questions. If that takeover goes ahead, what are the listings standards for the German equivalent of the FSA—the name of which I shall not attempt to pronounce, as some did in Committee.
  Exactly what will be the link between the London and Frankfurt listing authorities? Where will the division of spoils lie, and for which stocks will which body be the competent authority? Are there any implications for alternative investment market stocks remaining with the stock exchange as the competent authority? I have raised those issues many times. If the new technology stocks, of which the AIM has many examples, go to Frankfurt—which seems likely—surely the AIM may go as well, in which case the stock exchange will be left with no listing responsibilities.
  We have asked questions, which were never properly resolved, about the apparent conflict of interest between the FSA acting as the competent listing authority—raking in about £29 million, as the stock exchange did last year—and its power to regulate companies that have obtained a listing, for which they pay a fee to the FSA. The implication is that regulatory standards may be lowered to bring more companies to the market for listing, which will provide more listing revenue. Such conflicts of interests still exist, and are muddied even further by the division of responsibilities between London and Frankfurt.
  I am not entirely clear about what will happen if the merger between London and Frankfurt takes place before NASDAQ comes on the scene. That third suitor waiting at one end of the aisle may change the entire scenario. Given the many changes that have taken place, we deserve a more detailed explanation of exactly what will happen. Companies that want to list need clarity. The regulatory authorities in London and Frankfurt may have different approaches, and we have heard only about the supposed commercial advantages of the merger, not about the effect
  64
  on the companies to be listed, or to which regulatory authority they will be beholden. Will the Minister elaborate further?
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) is right about the speed at which the developments have unfolded, but we have no doubt that the provisions relating to the recognition of exchanges can cope with structures such as the proposed international exchanges. We are confident that the recognition requirements for exchanges will be robust enough to cope with issues that may arise because of the operations outside the UK of UK-based exchanges.
  The hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for East Worthing and Shoreham asked some detailed questions about the listing regime, but its details are not settled as yet. It would appear that companies will not be forced to give up their current listing, so both markets will be able to trade in the shares of companies operating under different listing regimes. That happens already; overseas companies listed on the London stock exchange do not have to comply with all the listing rules. The differences between UK and German listing regimes may be dealt with under the trading rules set by international exchanges. Those additional requirements may bring the two regimes more into line.
  A misunderstanding may have arisen. The directives require each member state to appoint a competent authority for listing, but there is no requirement that securities have to be listed to be admitted to trade on an exchange. Listing is a seal of approval, ensuring that investors know that the issuers of a security will provide certain information to the markets at prescribed times. It is also an EU-wide concept; an enterprise admitted to listing in one member state can be admitted to trading as a listed security on any stock exchange in any member state. The announced merger would not therefore raise any problems for listing.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 80 to 102 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 103, after clause 92, to insert the following new clause—Competition scrutiny—"Competition
  —(1) The Treasury may by order provide for—

  (a) regulating provisions, and

  (b) the practices of the competent authority in exercising its functions under this Part ("practices"),

  to be kept under review,
  (2) Provision made as a result of subsection (1) must require the person responsible for keeping regulating provisions and practices under review to consider—

  (a) whether any regulating provision or practice has a significantly adverse effect on competition; or

  (b) whether two or more regulating provisions or practices taken together have, or a particular combination of regulating provisions and practices has, such an effect.

  (3) An order under this section may include provision corresponding to that made by any provision of Chapter III of Part X.
  (4) Subsection (3) is not to be read as in any way restricting the power conferred by subsection (1).
  (5) Subsections (6) to (8) apply for the purposes of provision made by or under this section.
  (6) Regulating provisions or practices have a significantly adverse effect on competition if—

  (a) they have, or are intended or likely to have, that effect; or

  (b) the effect that they have, or are intended or likely to have, is to require or encourage behaviour which has, or is intended or likely to have, a significantly adverse: effect on competition.

  (7) If regulating provisions or practices have, or are intended or likely to have, the effect of requiring or encouraging exploitation of the strength of a market position they are to be taken to have, or be intended or be likely to have, an adverse effect on competition.
  (8) In determining whether any of the regulating provisions or practices have, or are intended or likely to have, a particular effect, it may be assumed that the persons to whom the provisions concerned are addressed will act in accordance with them.
  (9) "Regulating provisions" means—

  (a) listing rules,

  (b) general guidance given by the competent authority in connection with its functions under this Part.")

  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 181, 182 and 183 and the amendment thereto, 184 to 186, 192 to 210, 337, 338, 353 to 371, 376 to 390, 392, 442 and 660.
  Miss Johnson: This group of amendments completes the changes that we made in the House on the competition scrutiny regime for the FSA in the light of the Cruickshank report. The changes made in another place apply to recognised bodies under part XVIII the same scrutiny arrangements as apply to the FSA, and give the Treasury a power under part VI to do likewise for the competent authority listing.
  The headline change is that we have given the Competition Commission an important role in the competition scrutiny arrangements and reduced the scope for Ministers to take a different view from the competition authorities.
  In another place, changes were made to three aspects of the FSA scrutiny arrangements. First, improvements were made to the definition of what the regime was intended to cover. The description of what is bad for competition was revised so as to take the wording away from that used in article 81 of the European treaty. Similar language is, of course, used in chapter I of part I of the Competition Act 1998.
  However, the Competition Act and the treaty are concerned with the behaviour of commercial undertakings. Given that the provisions of part X are concerned with the application of competition controls to the effect of law and practices adopted in the exercise of statutory functions, that language is not appropriate here.
  Amendment No. 183 therefore removes that provision and replaces it with one that refers to
  a significantly adverse effect on competition.
  The amendment will also allow the director general and the commission to look at rules and practices of the authority that require or encourage a person to exploit a strong market position.
  Amendments Nos. 184, 185, 186, 194, 195, 197, 200, 202 and 204 make consequential changes. Amendments Nos. 181 and 182 make further drafting changes clarifying what the authority's regulatory provisions cover and what, therefore, the competition authorities should consider.
  66
  Secondly, in another place, the exclusion from the Competition Act 1998 was narrowed from things "contemplated" by the FSA's regulatory provisions to those "encouraged" by them. We said that we would narrow the exclusion in response to the Cruickshank report. That is achieved by amendments Nos. 205, 207 and 209.
  Amendments Nos. 206, 208 and 210 remove the exclusion from the Competition Act for things done as a result of the practices of the authority. That is because only the regulating provisions, including guidance, are relevant here.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I have been following the Minister's argument closely. I think that she is telling us that, as a result of the amendments, the Office of Fair Trading will be able to supervise the FSA in that, if the authority introduces rules that are anti-competitive, the OFT would have some influence. Is that the case?
  Miss Johnson: Yes, but it would be more technically correct to say that the Competition Commission, rather than the OFT, would be in that position.
  The third point is that drafting amendments were made to clause 153 concerning the role of the Competition Commission to bring it into line with similar provisions under the Fair Trading Act 1973. Those were amendments Nos. 192, 193, 196, 198, 199, 201 and 203.
  Amendment No. 103 inserts a new clause after clause 92, giving the Treasury a power to subject the regulating provisions of the competent authority—the listing rules and general guidance it produces—and its practices to a competition scrutiny regime. The Treasury proposes to use that power to create a competition scrutiny regime for the competent authority that is broadly similar to the regime for the FSA—in its role as financial services regulator—as provided for by chapter III of part X. The power will enable the Treasury to provide for exclusions from the provisions of the Competition Act analogous to those for which chapter III of part X makes provision.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The proposed new clause states:
  The Treasury may by order provide for.
  Will the Minister tell us why the wording is not "will by order"? In fact, the subsection provides for matters
  to be kept under review.
  Why has the Treasury been given discretion not to keep matters under review?
  Miss Johnson: Because that is what we wanted the new clause to say—that is the obvious answer. The hon. Gentleman may wish that it said something different, but it says what we want it to say. That seems perfectly reasonable.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The point of my earlier question is also relevant to that put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). I have been much concerned by a questionnaire sent to me by an independent financial adviser—I have passed it to the Minister. It contains 171 detailed questions that have to be answered every month. That will bear heavily on all independent financial

  67
  advisers, but especially heavily on small ones. Under the provisions that the Minister describes, would the Competition Commission be able to intervene to make representations to, or to impose controls on, the FSA in respect of such over-regulatory questionnaires?
  Miss Johnson: Yes, it would be able to do so and that is one way in which the provision may work.
  Before the interventions, I was discussing amendment No. 103. It will insert a new clause after clause 92 that will give the Treasury a power to subject the regulating provisions of the competent authority—that is to say the listing rules and general guidance that it produces—and its practices to a competition scrutiny regime. The Treasury proposes to use that power to create a competition scrutiny regime for the competent authority that is broadly similar to the regime for the authority in its role as financial services regulator.
  Arrangements were made in part XVIII to align the competition scrutiny arrangements for recognised bodies under chapters II and III of part XVIII with those applying to the authority under chapter III of part X and to reflect the fact that it is possible that a recognised body may itself exploit the strength of its market position. The relevant amendments are amendments Nos. 337, 338 and 353 to 371, 377 to 390 and 392. They will broadly align the roles of the director general, the Competition Commission and the Treasury with those provided for in part X in respect of the FSA. The only significant difference, and complication in terms of the drafting, arises from the fact that scrutiny arrangements apply to applicants for recognition as well as to bodies that are already recognised. Obviously, that is not the case with the FSA.
  Amendments Nos. 442 and 660 will introduce a new clause and new schedule respectively that will make provision for the protection of information obtained by the director general and the commission under their powers of competition scrutiny under the Bill. These provisions closely reflect the equivalent provisions on protection of confidential information in section 55 and schedule 11 of the Competition Act 1998. I ask hon. Members to agree to the changes made in another place that align the competition regime for recognised bodies and the competent authority with those that we introduced in this House for the FSA and that make minor improvements to the drafting of the Bill.
  Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): I have been thinking about the Economic Secretary's answer to the question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). If burdens were imposed on a particular sector of the industry, he asked whether that would be a matter for Competition Commission referral to the Office of Fair Trading. She said that it would, but surely, if the burdens were imposed equally on everybody and it was just a matter of internal competition, it would not be a matter for referral. That is why our amendment to amendment No. 183, which distinguishes between internal and external competition, should apply. In the light of the answer to my right hon. and learned Friend's question, it appears that burdens will become anti-competitive only when they are seen to be
  68
  externally anti-competitive in relation to other countries. Therefore, given the amendments that the Government have tabled, the Economic Secretary's answer was wrong.
  Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the question of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) may be no better than mine. We can guess what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intention was, but perhaps he will confirm that his point was that independent financial advisers, as small businesses, would be disadvantaged in some way. His point was about a level playing field between IFAs and other sectors of the financial services industry and that is different from the one that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) has just raised.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: My question related to the comparative competitive position within the United Kingdom financial services industry. I was concerned that small businesses would find it even more difficult than larger ones to comply with what I regard as over-burdensome regulation. However, there is a second aspect to the issue. If there is over-burdensome regulation in the United Kingdom, it will drive business abroad and disadvantage consumers.
  Miss Johnson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right in that regard. However, the hypothesis that he has described will not result from the Bill or from the work of the FSA. Among other things, the authority is bound to try to be proportionate in what it does. We have striven in drawing up the Bill and in our scrutiny of it to make sure that there is a balance between regulation and ensuring that competition is able to flourish. I believe that we have the balance right.
  The Opposition's amendment to amendment No. 183 would insert a reference to
  prejudicing the competitive position of the United Kingdom
  into amendment No. 183, which defines what is meant by
  a significantly adverse effect on competition.
  The amendment is an old favourite. It first appeared in the Bill's Commons Committee stage—we debated it on 9 November 1999—and then regularly reappeared in one form or another in the later stages of the Bill's parliamentary process. The last time that such an amendment made an appearance was on 18 April this year on Report in another place. After the Opposition had heard what my noble Friend Lord McIntosh said, they said that they would examine his remarks and, in the light of them, consider whether to reintroduce the amendment on Third Reading in another place. Given that they did not do that, I thought that we might have seen the last of this matter, but it appears that we need to go over the ground one last time tonight.
  It is hard to think what can be said that has not been said many times before about the relationship between competition and competitiveness, so I shall confine myself to repeating a few general remarks that I made on a previous occasion. I shall explain why the amendment would be undesirable.
  Competition within the UK market and the UK's competitiveness are closely related, but they are nevertheless quite distinct. All regulation has an impact on competition. Regulation involves placing restrictions on who can perform a regulated activity and the way that

  69
  they perform it. No one doubts that an appropriate level of regulation is necessary, but nor can they doubt that too much can be counter-productive. That is why we extended and improved the special competition scrutiny regime for financial services that was first provided for in the Financial Services Act 1986. If the FSA regulates in a way that has a significantly adverse effect on competition, the competition authorities can investigate and, ultimately, the FSA can be directed to change its rules or practices.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Will the Economic Secretary clarify whether the competition authorities in this country can intervene if the FSA regulates in a way that damages our international competitiveness, or do the authorities have power only in relation to internal competitiveness?
  Miss Johnson: The best way that I can answer that question is to come to the point that I was just about to make. It deals with the relationship between competition and international competitiveness—an issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire have raised.
  If the FSA regulates in accordance with its objectives and principles and in a way that does not have a significantly adverse effect on competition, what is there for the competition authorities to examine? I certainly acknowledge that there is the separate issue of the competitive position of the UK, but the problem with the Opposition amendment is that it would introduce that issue into the competition scrutiny regime. The issue is whether the regulatory framework to be set up by the Bill, including its objective and principles, remains the right one in the light of developments in the UK and the world financial markets. That is a legitimate issue, but it is not appropriate for the competition scrutiny regime.
  Ministers will keep the legislation under continual review and, as a part of that process, they will consider its impact on the UK's competitive position. They will be responsible for their policies to Parliament in the usual way. If appropriate, they could decide to commission a review of the impact of the regulatory regime on competition and the competitive position of the UK.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Tyrie: The Minister is now telling the regulated community and the country that the Treasury may decide to call for a review if things start to go wrong. Why not give them an assurance that, in three years, there will be the review that almost everyone involved in the Bill has called for?
  Miss Johnson: If the issue arose, we would have to consider carefully whether the competition authorities would be the right body to carry out such a review, as suggested by Opposition Members, including the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Tyrie: That was not the point that I was making. The Minister is conceding that it is possible that the Government may be wrong on this issue. I am happy to concede that we may be wrong on the issue, but we are not content that the Government should decide whether to have a review in due course, if they feel like it. Surely they should be prepared to commit themselves to re-examining the issue in three years or so in a thorough
  70
  review. If they do that, many of the regulatory community's concerns will be assuaged at a stroke. Will the Minister now give such an undertaking?
  Miss Johnson: Competition policy is about preventing and removing unfair barriers that hinder firms from competing. The Bill's competition provisions are intended to stop the FSA adding to those barriers, except when that is an unavoidable price to be paid for achieving the necessary regulatory purpose. Competition is undoubtedly beneficial to consumers. However, international competitiveness involves the strength and ability of UK industry as a whole to compete and secure business in home and international markets.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: I would like to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), but I should be happy to give way in a moment.
  The regulator's key job is to ensure that regulation in the UK is set at the right level and strikes the right balance between costs and benefits, as I said earlier. To ensure that UK business remains internationally competitive, we must ensure that it keeps costs down and innovation up. In the long term, the best way of doing that is to ensure that it is exposed to vigorous competition at home. On the other hand, the most effective way of restricting competitiveness is to stifle competition at home.
  I do not believe that there is anything between the Opposition and the Government in relation to the importance that we attach to the UK's international competitiveness. However, we differ on the question of who should carry out a review, if appropriate, of the impact of regulation on the UK's competitive position. As I said, the Opposition are arguing that the job should be done by the competition authorities, but we do not want that requirement in the Bill. Of course, Ministers are fully accountable to Parliament, so if in the light of events we decide that a competitiveness review is appropriate, we shall commission one. However, we do not want to hold a review just for the sake of it. I hope that Opposition Members who are arguing—rightly, in this case—that we do not want bureaucracy and red tape for the sake of it, will support the view that we should not commit ourselves to something that may prove to be unnecessary.
  Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister argued that competitiveness concerned the whole industry and its relationship with industries abroad, so was different from competition at home. Does she accept that competition and competitiveness have a much greater link? For example, British Airways' defence against the charge that it had a quasi-monopoly on internal competition was that it had strong competition abroad. Therefore, the argument about competition partly concerns competitiveness, and the two are closely linked, even if they are separate in the Minister's mind. They should be treated as one entity, as, indeed, they are by the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading in competition arguments.
  Miss Johnson: I was arguing that competition and competitiveness are two distinct concepts. None the less, in many ways they are closely related. It is pretty hard to think of a credible example in which the long-term interests of competition and competitiveness point in

  71
  opposite directions. Therefore, by ensuring that internal competition in the UK flourishes, we are addressing international competitiveness to a significant extent. Given the value of the financial services industry to the UK economy and its standing as a contributor, Treasury Ministers in any Government must, at all times, take due regard to ensure that our international competitive edge is maintained. This Government will certainly make sure that that is so in all that they do. I therefore commend most of the amendments, but I oppose the Opposition amendment and ask them not to press it.
  Sir Michael Spicer: Once again, I shall declare an interest as president of the Association of Electricity Producers, in case there is an obscure read-across between what I am going to say about the amendments and the electricity industry.
  Under the previous Conservative Administration, regulation involved moves towards competition. However, under the present Administration, regulation is, by and large, antithetical to competition. There are many examples of that in the FSA and the financial industry, as well as other industries. Indeed, that applies to every major regulator, such as the Rail Regulator, that is concerned with planning and integration, but not competition. The Post Office regulator is concerned about the degree of privatisation. The electricity regulator deals with fuel poverty, Oftel with the full coverage of telecommunications, Ofwat with the environment, and so on.
  In all cases, especially that of the FSA, the regulatory regime is antithetical to competition. Therefore, the role of the Competition Commission, with which the amendments are concerned, together with the role of the Office of Fair Trading and the Director General of Fair Trading is of paramount importance in a discussion of a Labour regulatory Bill. The Lords amendments are therefore extremely important, as is our amendment. Of course, we welcome the sharpening of the competition rules and the restraints on the FSA's role with respect to competition, and that is why we agreed to amendment No. 82, and to clause 72, which certainly sharpened the competitive element in Parliament's instructions to the regulator.
  As has been said already, page after page of the Bill shows that the regulator's basic rules and objectives are antithetical to competition and involve risk aversion. With other members of the Select Committee on the Treasury, some of whom are in the Chamber tonight, I spent a day at the FSA. I was struck by the enormous panoply of bureaucracy and expertise on intervention that was building up in the FSA that was against competition. I am sure members of the other party were also struck by that, but they were happy about it. A mass of economists were there to look in a detailed way at future risk taking by undertakings and to try to second-guess the market, presumably with the aim of introducing rules that are meant to be risk-aversive: anti-competitive. Unless one has risk, one will not have competition; they are two sides of the same coin.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: The essential purpose of the legislation and the Financial Services Authority is to secure the integrity and probity of financial markets in Britain. Without such integrity and
  72
  probity, immense damage will be done to the competitive position of a major piece of industry in Britain. Is that not the central purpose? Is not the legislation therefore a vital ingredient to our financial industry competing internationally?
  Sir Michael Spicer: The City of London must have been doing something right over the past 20, 30 or 40 years because it happens to be the most successful financial entity in the entire world—bar none. The hon. Gentleman's argument for increased regulation, control and intervention would be stronger were it arguable that the City of London and financial services had not been so highly competitive as to become the largest industry in this country, far overtaking manufacturing, for instance, in the generation of exports and income earned from abroad—not to mention employment. In order to substantiate the case for massively greater intervention of the sort proposed, he must argue that something has been going badly wrong in competition, which manifestly it has not.
  The question is—I suspect that it interests hon. Members on both sides of the House—how we maintain probity and regulation but at the same time ensure that such a vital element of our national economy not only prospers as it has but does so to a greater extent in future. That is why, if there is to be a great panoply of intervention, risk aversion and so-called protection of the consumer, we have at the very least the right to ask that competition safeguards are firmly entrenched in the Bill.
  The Government are arguing that they have achieved such entrenchment on internal competition, but there is a further argument for, as we have been debating, a strong link between internal and external competition. They do not always work quite, as the Minister has said, in the same way. There seems, to Opposition Members at least, to be the need to bolster the requirements on various authorities, including the FSA, to have in mind external competition.
  Although it might be argued that the provision should be inserted in a different part of the Bill, the Government are denying that there should be a countervailing force to all the intervention and further regulation to ensure probity and so on, in order that the panoply of regulatory authorities takes into account the essence of what has made the City of London and the financial services of this country: its high competitiveness.
  The closer that I look at the FSA's powers, potential for intervention and proactive determination to intervene and regulate, the more I am concerned for the future of our financial services. That is why out amendment to Lords amendment No. 183, which would ensure that authorities bear in mind the external competitiveness of the industry, is of such essence and importance.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) because he put his finger on the importance of competition and competitiveness. They are two slightly different concepts. During the passage of the Bill, we have constantly argued that the Government should pay more attention to the vulnerability of the United Kingdom's financial services industry despite its very success, as described by my hon. Friend. He is right that it is Britain's

  73
  biggest industry. It is a colossal foreign exchange earner. Indeed, without it, we would run a probably unsustainable persistent current account deficit. Precisely because of its success, we can easily become complacent and assume that people coming here to do business—to bank or to buy and sell securities—will go on doing so whatever the conditions. That is a dangerously short-sighted attitude.
  We are lucky in this country because of our location; we are in the right time zone. We are lucky with the English language. We are lucky, too, to be comparatively lightly regulated, although that could easily change. We are therefore highly vulnerable to adverse changes.
  I sometimes think that Labour believes that the City is rather like the Government. Governments, I am afraid, will always be with us because they have the compulsion that comes with having taxation at their disposal. Those trading here, however, cannot so demand revenue; they have to earn it. Therefore, the environment in which they trade is extremely important. The Government set that regulatory environment and we are worried that the regulatory itch is not under sufficient control—that there are not sufficient countervailing forces under the Bill to stop the inevitable tendency of any regulatory regime to grow and expand.
  It is a natural feature of Governments that they will always look for more things to do. It has been said that fish swim, birds fly and regulators regulate. Governments will always find new things to regulate, and Governments come under political pressure to defend consumers, investigate and intervene in markets and to correct real or imaginary deficiencies.
  The problems are evident; one need not look very far to find abandoned centres of markets and vigorous transactions. The art market is a good example. Paris used to be not just the biggest art market in Europe but, following the second world war, the biggest art market in the world. That all went because of bad and short-sighted regulation and an unfavourable tax regime. On the whole, the business came to London, but it is in the process of going to New York for much the same reasons. Owing to changes in value added tax and new levies on the resale of art, our market in art will probably go to the United States.
  I do not want the same to happen to our capital market, but capital, by its very nature, is extremely mobile. Therefore, businesses that depend on very slim margins and small advantages could easily move to other centres that are hungry for such business—not just to the familiar big centres, such as Tokyo and New York, but to places such as Dublin, which is making a strong pitch for this country's business.
  Frankfurt is a topical example. The London and Frankfurt stock exchanges are proposing to merge. The Government seem to have no view on how that is to be regulated, but I can tell them that which centre comes out on top from such a merger will depend very much on tax and regulatory differences. Already, unfortunately, the Government are refusing even to contemplate removing the 0.5 per cent. stamp duty on share transactions in London, which is not levied in Frankfurt. So there is already the clearest possible incentive for business to move to Frankfurt. The Government are being obstinate about that. The same problem might arise from a different regulatory regime. Remarkably, when that issue was raised in another place during discussion of the merger,
  74
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey, speaking for the Government, said, in essence, that there was no problem. His words were:
  We are talking about two separate exchanges and, although there will need to be co-operation between the FSA and its German counterparts, there are separate regulatory jurisdictions.— [Official Report, House of Lords, 18 May 2000; Vol. 613, c. 373.]
  He was saying that there was to be no merger—that there would still be two exchanges and two regulatory jurisdictions. That will present problems, which might lead to the phenomenon of regulatory arbitrage, whereby firms and transactions migrate to a more favourable regulatory regime.
  That is not an argument for no regulation: everyone agrees that all markets need rules and that those rules have to be simple, understood and properly enforced. However, if we get it wrong and over-regulate, we might find that the merged exchange centres on Germany, not the United Kingdom. For all those reasons, we want to elevate the possibility of examining and, if necessary, taking action in circumstances in which the United Kingdom finds itself at a disadvantage.
  We are well aware that, under clause 2, the FSA already has to
  have regard to ‖ the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom—
  which is all right, in so far as it goes. However, a requirement to "have regard to" is much weaker than having competition or competitiveness as an objective of the Bill. There are four regulatory objectives but they do not include competition or competitiveness matters, and that is a weakness. Therefore, we have taken the opportunity to suggest that the Director General of Fair Trading should keep such matters under review, which represents only a modest extension of the Government's proposals.
  The relevant part of the Bill has already been amended extensively. The entire competition regime was only introduced on Report in the House of Commons; now, it is being added to and amended. It would not take much to insert a requirement that the Director General of Fair Trading should have regard not only to the possibility of market dominance and abuse, but to the possibility that rulings and statements by the authority might prejudice the competitive position of the United Kingdom. That is what our amendment would achieve.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to appear so ignorant, but I am finding it extraordinarily difficult to link the amendments as published with the provisional list of amendments, because the amendments as published do not have any numbers. I do not know how anyone can link them, and I should be grateful for an explanation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is only one official Opposition amendment under discussion: the amendment to Lords amendment No. 131—[Interruption.]—sorry, I am getting confused too. The Opposition's amendment is to Lords amendment No. 183. All the other amendments are Lords amendments, grouped for the purpose of debate. The amendment to which the Opposition have been referring will not be voted on at this stage, but, for the

  75
  convenience of the House, it has been grouped for debate now. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds that explanation clear.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am genuinely grateful. I gather that one takes the document headed "Consideration of Lords amendments" and attempts to find one that has about it a number that appears in the provisional selection list, and then tries to learn what the amendment to that amendment is.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman might recall that, rather than call all the numbers of the amendments in the group, I said that amendment No. 103 had grouped with it amendments that were laid out in the papers before us. Lords amendments are confusing, even to me, but I hope that I have been able to help.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I might not be any the wiser, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I certainly feel more intimidated. Nevertheless, I rise to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). That is not to say that I am criticising the new clause, which I think is healthy and probably useful, but I do criticise the drafting, which has a last-minute air about it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) says, subsection (1) of the new clause that would be inserted by Lords amendment No. 103 appears to be almost doubly discretionary, in that the Treasury "may" produce the relevant orders and the individual tasked with carrying out the review "may" then keep the matter under review.
  The Economic Secretary could have cut through the problem if she had been prepared to make the obligation mandatory. I can understand why she does not want to commit the Government to a particular review at particular intervals; that is a matter of dispute between the Opposition and the hon. Lady. However, I do not understand why she will not accept the word "shall" instead of "may", which would make mandatory the duty to keep the issue under review. I assume that the whole question will be kept under review anyway, so I am a little surprised that she will not amend the new clause—she could probably use a manuscript amendment to substitute "shall" for "may". If the problem she refers to is genuine, the solution is equally genuine and the whole process should be made mandatory.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) spoke about subsection (2) of the new clause. It is right to say that anyone's view of the effect of competition cannot be entirely insular. I do not understand why the Government want to restrict that view to
  a significantly adverse effect on competition
  domestically. We might hold a view on that matter, but our view might differ, or come to differ, from views held elsewhere in the world, or from views taken of competition as it emerges in other markets and financial centres. It is wrong to box ourselves in.
  76
  Even if the Economic Secretary will not accept our amendment, she could at least broaden the new clause's definition of "a significantly adverse effect". Why will she not make the provision cover competition nationally and internationally? The insertion of those or similar words, or of some reference to the international marketplace and the significance of our competitive position and our changing competitive relationship with other financial centres, would answer the point. I support the new clause, but it would be improved if our amendment were accepted.
  7 pm
  Mr. Tyrie: I want to have one more go at getting across to the Economic Secretary my point about competition and competitiveness. It will be my last go, both procedurally and for some time, but I feel I must make just one more attempt.
  The Minister should forget competition altogether and think only about competitiveness. Now think about the phrase "economic performance", which means the same. There is a trade-off between too much regulation leading to lower economic performance and not enough regulation also leading to lower economic performance. There is probably only one level of regulation that will give an optimal level of economic performance.
  All markets need regulation. Markets are created by a body of rules. Without rules there are no markets. There is not a free-for-all or a free-market jungle: there is almost always monopoly as a consequence—an insight that Hayek brought to bear. It is important to understand that.
  The key question is, does the optimal level of economic performance coincide with the point at which there is zero regulatory failure? The answer is almost certainly "no". If that is so, there will have to be acceptance of some regulatory failure. Does the regime that the Bill will put in place allow for that? I fear that all the incentives built into the Bill as drafted will result in over-regulation. There is no provision in the objectives of the Bill to take account of economic performance. There will be huge pressure from the Treasury to avoid regulatory failure. There will also be pressure on the FSA from the public and the media whenever there is a regulatory failure. The Opposition amendment is one more attempt, in a specific part of the Bill, to insert the notion of economic performance under the guise of the word "competitiveness".
  Mr. Beard: The hon. Gentleman's thesis is that there is a golden means of regulation that will enhance competitiveness, and that beyond that golden means there will be damaging over-regulation. This issue has been debated at almost every stage, from the Burns committee onwards. The hon. Gentleman makes out that this legislation is over-burdensome. It is always an assertion, and we have been given no facts or evidence to justify that position. Having just repeated the same charge, can he produce evidence that the Bill is over-regulatory? I have seen none.
  Mr. Tyrie: With a Bill that is not yet on the statute book, it is obviously difficult to provide evidence that it will be over-regulatory. I can provide the hon. Gentleman with a wealth of evidence from those who have

  77
  considered this issue and have given evidence to the Joint Committee, in newspaper articles and on many occasions stating—
  Mr. Beard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head in denial, but that evidence is on the record. I shall not delay the House further by reading it all out, but almost everyone has said the same thing, which is that the incentives on the FSA will result in over-regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) is on the Treasury Select Committee, and he has told us that he and most members of the Committee came away with the same impression. Wherever one goes, the same message comes across. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) has not picked it up yet. Don Cruickshank agrees: his interim report makes the point clearly.
  The hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues have not been able to dispute my argument, so we must decide how to counterbalance the urge to over-regulate. There are three possible routes. One is to incorporate a competitiveness objective in clause 2. I shall not go through all the arguments about that again, as we have debated it on many occasions, but the Government rejected it. A second route is to introduce thoroughgoing cost-benefit analysis of every regulation. The Government have set their face firmly against that, too. They have rejected all attempts to put such a provision in the Bill.
  The third possibility is to do what the FSA has decided is the only way forward, which is to publish its own document and accept some regulatory failure, and to move to what it has described as a risk-based approach to regulation. That is all very well under the current FSA headed by a man who seems to be fairly enlightened. What happens when there is a change of leadership? What happens when great pressure builds up on the FSA after a prominent regulatory failure? The Government have not thought about that. They seem to have little grasp of the extent of the pressure that they and the FSA will be under in those circumstances if there is no statutory counterbalance in the Bill to the urge to over-regulate.
  The amendment is a small, last attempt to put back part of what is required to counterbalance an over-regulatory Bill. That counterbalance is crucial. There is only one other respectable route for the Government to take, which is to accept that there should be a thoroughgoing review after a few years to see if they or we were right. Instead, they have said, "Thank you very much, but we don't want to commit ourselves to a review. We don't want to have to wash our dirty linen in public. We don't want to discover later on that we got it wrong." There is no commitment to a thoroughgoing review.
  It is essential to have that counterbalance in the Bill. The Government have not provided it, and unless we get such a commitment I hope that we will divide the House on this amendment.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree that we must divide the House on this amendment, although it will be a symbolic Division, not merely because the massed ranks of Government supporters will troop into the Lobby against us—we are used to that—but because all we can do at this stage is to table an amendment that highlights rather
  78
  than solves the problem. The amendment that would solve the problem would be one that made international competitiveness or competitiveness generally one of the statutory objectives. That is not what the key amendment we shall vote on does.
  The Government are in a complete muddle on this matter. If they are not in a muddle, they are deliberately obfuscating. They know what they ought to do, but as is so often the case they will not admit that they have got this wrong, and consequently they will not take steps to put it right. [Interruption.]
  The Government have failed to put right up front in the objectives the fact that over-regulation damages not only internal competitiveness, but international competitiveness. [Interruption.] Why do I say that the Government are obfuscating? Because we know from what the Economic Secretary has told us and from what Howard Davies, when he introduced the FSA document "A new regulator for a new millennium" in January this year—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. Many conversations are being held in the Chamber. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is addressing the House.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I appreciate that people are coming in hoping that there will be a vote fairly soon. It is always difficult to hold the House's attention under those circumstances.
  The Economic Secretary said on this very matter of competition that the FSA was bound to try to be proportionate and to balance regulation and competition. I am quite sure that what she meant by competition when she said that was competitiveness—she would have been right if she meant that, which I think she did. She did not mean balanced regulation and competition in the technical senses of most of the activities of the competition authority.
  In the document "A new regulator for a new millennium", which was published this January, the FSA said of itself that it
  must take into account the international mobility of much financial business and must avoid damaging the competitive position of the UK—which works to the advantage of consumers as well as markets."
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been saying that until we are blue in the face. We are very glad to know that the Government recognise the truth of what we have said; what we criticise is their failure to do the right thing about it. Even at this late stage, the Government are not amending the Bill sensibly. Amending it sensibly would involve putting the point that we have made upfront, and making it clear to the FSA that one of its principal objectives was to do what it knows it is essential that it should do.
  I support the amendment. It is a half measure, but at least—by means of the competition authority—it pushes the regulatory authorities slightly further in the right direction, although it shows a tendency to muddle their functions. I do not know what Sir Christopher Bellamy, the president of the Competition Commission, is to make of his role. I know Sir Christopher to be both a very experienced competition lawyer and an extremely skilful judge, recently returned from Luxembourg. I believe that he will do his wise best: I believe that when he finds

  79
  that FSA activities are pushing us away from international competitiveness, he will be able to say so clearly enough to encourage the authority to try to mend its ways. That, however, is like trying to steer a horse and cart from behind without reins. It is much better to lead from the front, with the right objectives.
  I support what our amendments seek to do, but, even at this eleven-and-a-halfth hour, I ask the Government to think again about the fundamental issue.
  Mr. Flight: Yet again, the Government fail to accept that we live in a global world. Employers in London—in the financial services industry and the institutional marketplace—are international players: their headquarters are in Germany, America, Hong Kong and all over the place. We have taken a leaf out of the Chancellor's book when his party was in opposition, and been to see them all. They told us, as one might expect, "If this happens we will operate from New York, or from somewhere else." They run their businesses in a global fashion.
  It is absurd to enact legislation, in 2000, that pretends that global competitiveness does not matter. It is the most important single factor.
  Hitherto, the Government have refused to act on the ground that the Office of Fair Trading has not been equipped, for some reason, to keep an eye on global competitiveness. It can hardly be a difficult task to equip the OFT for the purpose. As it happens, the FSA is so equipped, and has done its best, but without any mandate.
  It must come as no surprise that we have been banging on about this throughout the Bill's passage so far. Unless the necessary provision is written into the legislation, the poor chaps running the FSA, who must be given legal briefing, will not be able to give proper attention to it: they will have to override all sorts of other things. I warn the Government that, unless the problem is dealt with, huge mistakes will be made in crucial areas. I am thinking of market abuse, for instance. Business will go to other centres, and there will be a massive loss of jobs.
  In the last 30 years, the City of London was revived—by, I might add, a Labour Government who introduced the right law when the equivalent of the withholding tax obtained. America, foolishly, had an interest equalisation tax; we allowed tax-free Euro-banking here, and hence got all the global dollar deposit business. What the Government did then led, almost by accident, to a recovery in London, because they got the fiscal regime right. If we do not get the competitive regulatory regime right now, down it will go again. I am very upset by the present Government's refusal to address this central issue.
  7.15 pm
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I have heard nothing new this evening, but I appreciate the reiteration by some hon. Members of points that they had already made. I particularly appreciated what was said by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) suggested, one reason why the hon. Gentleman's arguments did not make more progress was his lack of evidence in their favour.
  80
  Let us remind ourselves of what the Bill says. Opposition Members have made passing reference to its content.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: I will, briefly.
  Mr. Tyrie: May I read this into the record?
  I am concerned that there will inevitably be a tendency to err on the side of reducing the risks of the regulator at the expense of the regulated. The FSA and its chairman will probably be judged harshly if there is even modest wrongdoing that escapes their gaze.
  I could quote dozens of examples from people who have given clear evidence proving that the Minister is mistaken, but you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would prevent me from doing so. It is nonsense to suggest that the Government have not been told about the position, and that there is no evidence; there is ample evidence.
  Miss Johnson: I believe that the hon. Gentleman was reading from his own book. Let me return to the Bill, because it is the Bill with which we are concerned. Clause 2(3)(e) states—
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Johnson: No. I want to make some progress.
  Mr. Tyrie rose—
  Miss Johnson: I will give way very briefly.
  Mr. Tyrie: Although I was quoting from my book, I was quoting someone else's words. I was quoting the words of the chief executive of Britain's largest pension fund, Hermes, Alastair Ross Goobey.
  Miss Johnson: Right.
  Clause 2(3)(e) states—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is addressing the House. Conversations should not be taking place.
  Miss Johnson: As Opposition Members have raised a number of points, I assume that they will be interested in responses to those points.
  Clause 2(3)(e) states that the FSA must have regard to
  the international character of financial services and markets and the desirability of maintaining the competitive position of the United Kingdom.
  That is a duty that the Bill places on the FSA. Opposition Members have given scant recognition to the force of the requirement, and to its exact wording.
  We are not, as some Opposition Members have suggested, interested in increased regulation; we are interested in better regulation, which is very different. We are interested in maintaining the right balance between consumers and risk. I took the point made by a number of Opposition Members that it was a question of balance. We strongly agree that this is a question of balancing the various aspects of the issue, and securing regulation at the right point. However, the fact that it is a question of

  81
  balance does not mean that anything in the Bill will damage competition; quite the reverse. We want to ensure that the balance continues to be right, but it needs to be right for consumers as well.
  I hesitate to mention the words "pensions mis-selling" here, because Opposition Members seem to have forgotten that it existed, but there was pensions mis-selling, and there have been significant failures in regulatory regimes. The issues must be addressed genuinely, and they are being addressed. However, there have also been changes in the way in which financial services business is done. For example, many organisations that used to provide just one aspect of financial services now provide several, including banking insurance. The existence of a single regulator will provide the right flexibility, and a single reference point reflecting the changed nature of financial services in the United Kingdom.
  If we do not make these changes, we shall be in danger of doing what Opposition Members say they want to avoid. We shall be in danger of slipping behind in the international competitiveness stakes, and failing to move ahead in a way that will ensure our continuing leadership in financial services in what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) rightly described as a global economy and a global marketplace. I would have thought that there was ample evidence. If I had more time, I would be happy to spend a long time citing the many pieces of evidence that the Government are at the forefront of recognising the fact that we are in a global economy.
  It is important that we get the balance right. A bad balance is poor ground to grow a flourishing financial services industry. The document entitled, "A new regulator for the new millennium", to which the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) referred, does indeed strive to carry that forward in terms of the practicalities that the FSA will face in conducting its regulations. That document has been extremely well received. It is an indication that the FSA is getting the balance right and is working in the way in which the Bill anticipates it will. The Bill puts in place an improved and extended competition scrutiny regime that ensures that there are external checks to ensure that the FSA gets that balance right. I commend the amendments, with the exception of the one tabled by the Opposition, to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 104 to 126 agreed to.

Clause 109

  MARKET ABUSE
  Lords amendment: No. 127, in page 51, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 128 to 130, 131 and the amendment thereto, 132, 133, 142, 143, 180 and the Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu and amendment (b) in lieu, 228, 487, 488, 489 and the amendment thereto and 490 to 501.
  Miss Johnson: This group of amendments covers a number of different points relating to the market abuse
  82
  arrangements introduced by the Bill. It contains some relatively minor improvements to the market abuse provisions, which I will describe briefly. We can then debate the specific questions of the takeover panel and the amendments tabled by the Opposition to the Lords amendments.
  Before discussing the detail of the Lord amendments, it is important to remind ourselves why the Government have introduced part VIII. The new market abuse regime has been recognised to be an important addition to the regulator's armoury to tackle abuse of the financial markets. It closes a gap in the protections for markets, allowing the regulator to take action against anyone, regulated or unregulated, who abuses the markets. Having well-regulated, fair and efficient financial markets is in all our interests.
  I said when the Bill left the House that we had no intention of changing the substance of the market abuse provisions, which are effective and fair. I did say, however, that we might look at whether any further, more technical changes were necessary.
  Noble Lords in another place supported the aim of the new regime and understood the arguments for our approach. Relatively minor but none the less important improvements were made in another place on a few fronts. I ask hon. Members to agree that those amendments should be part of the Bill.
  The first improves the protections available for those who have reasonable grounds for believing that their behaviour is not market abuse, or who take care to avoid engaging in market abuse. We introduced protections along those lines in Standing Committee. The effect of amendments Nos. 127 and 131 is to improve those protections. Rather than being things to which regard must be had in determining whether behaviour amounts to market abuse, the amendments mean that the FSA cannot impose a penalty for market abuse if, having heard representations, it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that someone had reasonable grounds for their belief or exercised due diligence. That is, of course, something that the tribunal can review.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister might perhaps clarify the following matter. She has pointed out that, in another place, amendments were accepted that put the burden of proof on the defendant in market abuse cases. Is it still the case that one can be found guilty of market abuse without having intended to abuse the market? If that is the case and if the burden is put on the defendant, is that in conformity with the European convention on human rights?
  Miss Johnson: May I answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question in a moment? The answer to his first point is yes, but I should like to answer his second point in a little more detail in a moment.
  To maintain the high degree of transparency provided for in the Bill, amendment No. 133 places a duty on the authority to include in the statement issued under clause 114 on the imposition and amount of penalties, indications of the circumstances in which it will be satisfied that a person comes within the proposed safe harbours in clause 113. Amendments Nos. 489 and 496 introduce those protections into the restitution provisions as well. Amendments Nos. 490 to 493 and 497 to 501 make consequential drafting changes.

  83
  The other change made in another place in the area of protections was to provide that behaviour does not amount to market abuse if it conforms with rules specified by the FSA. The effect of the safe harbour put into clause 109 in Standing Committee was too uncertain in that it provided a safe harbour for behaviour that conforms with any of the FSA's rules. The provision would have extended to all rules, even completely unrelated ones. That was going too far and could have had uncertain and random effects.
  7.30 pm
  The second set of changes concerned the alignment of the provisions on sanctions for abuse with those in parts V and XIV. Under the Bill as it left the Commons, the FSA could not make a public statement about someone as an alternative to imposing a penalty. Lords amendment No. 132 corrects that anomaly. Lords amendment No. 228 provides that a statement obtained under compulsory powers from a person cannot be used in proceedings against that person to make a public statement that he has engaged in market abuse.
  The third set of changes involved ensuring that the provisions on those who require or encourage others to engage in abuse work as intended. The changes involved two features. The first entailed closing a potential loophole by which those who required or encouraged others to engage in abuse could escape sanction by using an unwitting third party to perform their abuse for them. Lords amendments Nos. 129 and 130 achieve that objective.
  The second feature concerned restitution. The need for the change arises from the fact that someone who requires or encourages another to engage in abuse is not, under the Bill's definitions, said to be engaging in abuse. Consequently, the restitution provisions do not bite on such a person whereas, clearly, they should. Lords amendments Nos. 487, 488, 494 and 495 correct that.
  The Opposition have tabled a couple of amendments—to Lords amendments Nos. 131 and 489—and I shall happily respond to their points. The amendments are very similar in form. The first is intended to extend the protection that is offered by clause 113 in relation to the imposition of penalties for market abuse, and the second is intended to have an equivalent effect on clause 370, which deals with restitution for market abuse.
  The first part of each of the Opposition's amendments—that is, paragraph (c)—would provide that penalties or restitution were not payable if a person engaging in behaviour that was likely to give a regular user of the market a false or misleading impression did not intend to give such an impression or was not reckless about whether he might give anyone such a false or misleading impression.
  It is difficult to see why such amendment is thought to be necessary, given that amendments made in another place would have the effect that the FSA cannot impose a penalty if there are reasonable grounds for it to be satisfied either that the person concerned believed on reasonable grounds that his behaviour did not amount to market abuse or that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid engaging in
  84
  market abuse. We believe that the tests of reasonable belief and due diligence—not the tests of intent and recklessness, which the Opposition amendments would add—are the right ones.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does the Minister recognise that she is saying that she is reversing the burden of proof?
  Miss Johnson: I do not recognise that, but, as I just said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I am happy to come back to the point in a moment. I think that the point he has just made is linked to the one that he made earlier.
  As I said, we believe that reasonable belief and due diligence are the right tests, and that intent and recklessness—which is the force of the Opposition's amendments—are not the right tests. Let us suppose, for example, that we are dealing with a person who, not having bothered to make the inquiries that a reasonable person would have done, engages in behaviour that misleads the markets. It would be quite wrong for such a person to be given a blanket protection from the consequences of his actions, viewed from his own perspective.
  The appropriate question is not what a person thinks about his own actions—which, obviously, could vary widely between individuals, depending on their level of knowledge and experience—but whether the person can show reasonable grounds for believing that his action would not be regarded as abusive by a reasonable person who uses the market regularly, or that he took the precautions and displayed the diligence that a reasonable person would expect. Those are clear and proper protections.
  Conversely, the Opposition's amendments would significantly weaken the new market abuse regime. As the Opposition in another place did not return with amendments of that type on Third Reading, I had assumed that, at long last, this particular set of coach and horses had been put back in the stable; obviously I was wrong.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Why is this particular set of coach and horses so different from, for example, the situation in trading standards? In trading standards legislation, one is not guilty of misleading the market unless one intended to do so. Why should such intent not have to be present in financial services?
  Miss Johnson: I am not an expert on trading standards matters. I am also not quite clear that that comparison is one that we need to take on board now. However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking an answer to his question on intent, perhaps I can return to that and say that intent is not a feature of the mischief of market abuse—the markets can be damaged regardless of someone's intent. The burden of proof rests with the FSA, which has to prove that someone has engaged in abuse.
  We have addressed the issue of whether the protections that we have introduced—which require people to demonstrate that they are covered by them—might be regarded as shifting the burden of proof, and we have concluded that they do not. The Bill is in conformity with

  85
  the requirements of the European convention on human rights, and we are confident that there has been no change in that position.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Could the Minister give just a short explanation of what the FSA has to prove to demonstrate that there has been market abuse? Could she give just one short example?
  Miss Johnson: That is pretty difficult to do. What will damage a particular market depends on the standards expected of that market. That is the point of the regular user test. In certain circumstances, abuse might or might not involve a mental element. However, it is pretty hard for me to say what those circumstances might be. It is really a question for the users of the various markets to be covered by the regime.
  Accepting a blanket exemption for behaviour that is not intended to distort the market would make it impossible to take action against behaviour that may damage a market in certain circumstances. It would be reckless to make such a change. If we went down the path that I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is advocating, it would be very difficult in various ways to pursue market abuse.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
  Miss Johnson: I shall give way on this matter one more time.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am very grateful to the Minister. Are there not two defences for the financial public—the civil defence and the criminal defence? Someone who is damaged by market abuse can seek compensation and restitution, and such action does not require the same burden of proof as action against someone who is to be prosecuted for a crime of market abuse. Does the Minister not recognise those differences? Do they not have exact parallels in trading standards generally, and in the case of someone who has taken away someone else's goods in circumstances that might be a civil tort, but not a criminal wrong?
  Miss Johnson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman causes me some concern. Market abuse is a civil offence, and I am not quite sure where the criminal part of his distinction enters into the matter. My understanding is that, in United Kingdom law as proposed in the Bill, market abuse is not a criminal matter. He seemed to connect market abuse and criminality.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Am I not right in thinking that market abuse can lead to very large penalties?
  Miss Johnson: Yes, it can lead to large penalties, but that does not necessarily make it a criminal matter. In UK law, market abuse is a civil offence, not a criminal one.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Minister cannot simply say that market abuse is called a civil offence when it has effectively criminal penalties, including unlimited fines. She cannot, like Humpty Dumpty, make words mean what she wants them to mean to that extent. Surely she recognises that the European Court of Human Rights will
  86
  regard such behaviour as criminal. Perhaps she could take some advice and explain later how the Bill conforms with the convention.
  Miss Johnson: The Bill does conform. I said that market abuse was a civil offence under UK law. It may be construed as a criminal offence under the ECHR requirements, but it is a civil offence in the UK. The UK regime is non-criminal. We have introduced various protections that would be appropriate if a case was considered as a criminal matter under the ECHR only because we want to be as safe and circumspect as possible. I repeat, it is a civil offence under UK law.
  The amendments also deal with market abuse by firms when control of information rules—or so-called Chinese walls—are in operation. We are well aware that appropriate protection needs to be provided. That is the point of clause 109(9), as amended. We could specify in the Bill the situation set out in the Opposition amendment, but we think that it is better to leave it to the FSA, which will have discretion to make control of information rules. It will do so and work is in hand, but the legal position, as now, is that it does not have to. Putting explicit safe harbours in the Bill rather than leaving it to the FSA to decide when safe harbours should apply would not change the position, as we shall be able to do under clause 109. Be that as it may, the point of our approach is to provide flexibility, because the FSA may want to form a safe harbour from market abuse in other areas. The obvious example is price stabilisation rules.
  The FSA will have to consult on all its rules. In doing so, it may identify situations in which further protection is warranted. Equally, it may conclude that it does not want to give protection in all circumstances to everything that is done in accordance with permissive rules. Let us remember that the unscrupulous are very good at exploiting loopholes. The better approach is to leave it to the FSA to consider on a rule-by-rule basis, having regard to consultation responses.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I am getting very confused. During her interesting exchange with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), the Minister said that although market abuse was a civil matter in this country, it would be treated as a criminal matter under European law. Is she saying that corpus juris has arrived already? Some of us fear that it might, but the Government's official position was that it would never arise. Will she clear that up? It would be very serious if a matter were treated under civil law here and under criminal law in Europe.
  7.45 pm
  Miss Johnson: I did not intend to give the impression that a criminal regime would apply under the ECHR. I intended to make it plain that we have built all possible safeguards into the Bill, including establishing the independent tribunal, to ensure that every safeguard is afforded to anybody against whom a charge of market abuse is made. The Government gave extensive evidence to the Joint Committee a considerable time ago, explaining in detail our reasoning and conclusions on reporting on compliance with the convention. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) is familiar with that evidence and it would be helpful for him to look at it again.

  87
  I was proposing to turn to the role of the takeover panel in cases of market abuse.
  Mr. Loughton: The Minister is going back to the Burns committee, where we heard clear evidence from Lord Lester and other highly learned professionals in the area. They gave clear warnings that the clause contravenes article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Those fears have not been assuaged by the changes that have been made. Treasury solicitors had to admit that European law in this area comes about only by precedent and there are no precedents yet to suggest that the Bill will not conflict with the ECHR. How can the Minister explain that?
  Miss Johnson: As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware, different evidence was given to the Joint Committee by different legal experts. We are content that there is no problem with the market abuse regime in relation to the ECHR. That point was made on our behalf in the evidence.
  Mr. Loughton: Even though one of her predecessors was in charge of the Bill at the time, the Minister must admit that the Treasury's solicitor, who brought along an expert in European law, told us that it was not clear that the Bill was not in breach of the convention, because European law is built up from precedent and there is no precedent yet. She cannot give us an assurance.
  Miss Johnson: The Bill is ECHR-compliant. There is no problem with the market abuse regime in that context.
  Mr. Beard: The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) has only half represented the evidence that was given to the Burns committee. I do not want to repeat all the evidence, but the conclusion was that the market abuses that were subject to relatively moderate penalties would be consistent with the convention if they went by civil procedures and levels of proof, but, as the penalties became larger, a criminal procedure would be necessary. The Bill as amended reflects that. Lord Lester's opinion was not the only one given. As the penalties are graduated, there is a need to move to criminal procedure. That is what my hon. Friend is saying.
  Miss Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming my points. He was a member of the Joint Committee and was present when the discussions took place.
  The role of the takeover panel on cases of market abuse will also be of considerable interest to the House. There is much common ground on these issues. It is a common aim across the House to ensure that takeovers continue to be regulated in the same speedy and effective manner as they currently are. At the same time, the new market abuse regime needs to work as effectively and coherently as possible to prevent and deal with abuse of the financial markets. Those aims are not at issue, but how we achieve them is.
  Lest there should be any misunderstanding, let me make it clear that we support the takeover panel. Its work in regulating the conduct and process of takeovers is
  88
  important for the effective and efficient operation of capital markets and for the protection of shareholders. We are in no doubt about that.
  We also believe that it is vital that our financial markets are protected from the effects of market abuse, wherever and whenever it occurs. That is why we have introduced the new market abuse regime. Well-regulated markets attract business, which is good for the market, good for investors and good for the economy.
  We do not think that these two aims are in conflict in any way. Clearly, market abuse—indeed, very serious market abuse—can occur during takeovers. It is important that proper procedures and arrangements are in place between the FSA and the takeover panel. We do not want unnecessary duplication or to create unnecessary uncertainty or the risk of tactical litigation in this sphere. We take the practical arrangements seriously. The FSA and the panel are working on operating agreements and setting out formal mechanisms for liaison and information sharing, similar to those that the FSA is working on with the investment exchanges.
  The FSA and the panel are also drawing up policy statements concerning the circumstances in which the FSA or the panel would take the lead. As Lord Saatchi said in another place, the best solution is an agreement on a sensible modus operandi. We are of the view that the FSA will be able to adopt robust policy statements which mean that it will only take action against market abuse which occurs during a takeover in exceptional circumstances.
  Of course people can seek judicial review if the FSA declines to take action, but as long as the FSA acts reasonably it has nothing to fear. The courts have been very clear that they will not generally intervene during the course of a takeover. Why would we expect the courts to take a different view depending on whether it was the panel that was being reviewed or the FSA?
  Even if judicial review were sought, that would not cause problems for the timing of takeovers—the issue about which the panel is concerned. If the FSA does get involved, it will only do so to deal with any market abuse that has occurred or is likely to occur. There is no reason to expect it to impact on the timetable. We think that the procedures and arrangements that the panel and FSA are working on will ensure that problems do not arise, but we have accepted the need for what I might call a safety valve.
  Our amendment, like the amendment passed in another place, will allow the FSA to provide a safe harbour for behaviour in conformity with the City code produced by the takeover panel. However, there is a crucial difference between our amendment and Lords amendment No. 180.
  Under our amendment, the decision whether behaviour amounts to market abuse will always rest with the statutory regulator, the FSA, and, ultimately, the independent tribunal to be established under the Bill. Under the amendment made in another place, there would be circumstances in which that decision would in substance rest with the takeover panel. By providing a safe harbour for behaviour which, in the panel's opinion, conforms with the code, the amendment gives the panel the power to determine that a person has not engaged in market abuse.
  The issue we face is in some ways a narrow one, but it is extremely important. Where market abuse takes place during a takeover, should the ultimate decision on whether

  89
  action should be taken rest with the statutory regulator, the FSA, and the tribunal or the non-statutory takeover panel? I think that the answer is equally straightforward. In what I would expect to be the very rare event of a disagreement between the FSA and the panel, it must be right that the last word should rest with the statutory regulator and the independent tribunal to be established under the Bill.
  Mr. Flight: Under Lords amendment No. 180, the last word rests with the FSA in relation to market abuse, except for the specific territory covered by the code. Any other area in which market abuse might be committed, or where the FSA might sniff out market abuse, is entirely a role for the FSA—even while a bid is taking place.
  Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has made exactly the same point as me, although his "except" is the important point. That is the difference. It is not a big difference, but it is important to realise that we have set up a regime that is supposed to have a single definition of market abuse, to be accountable, to be statutorily underpinned and to have reference to an independent tribunal. The hon. Gentleman, with his "except", would transfer some things into an arena where none of that provision was in place.
  If amendment No. 180 were allowed to remain part of the Bill—I will encourage the House to remove it—I believe that there would be important consequences, particularly in terms of the European convention on human rights, that were not appreciated by those who drafted the amendment. Giving the panel a determinative role in the question whether particular behaviour amounted to market abuse would, in effect, give it statutory functions. These functions would involve the determination of civil rights and even, possibly, criminal charges under the convention.
  Throughout the passage of the Bill, Opposition Members have insisted, rightly, that in exercising such functions the FSA should be subject to comprehensive accountability arrangements, and that there should be the safeguard of full access to an independent tribunal for those accused of market abuse. We have ensured that the market abuse regime is fair, transparent and certain, with appropriate safeguards set out in the Bill. These include those safeguards to ensure compliance with the European convention on human rights that are needed where a body has a role in determining civil rights and criminal liabilities.
  That does not mean that we are questioning the arrangements for the accountability of the panel in the usual context in which it operates. It simply means that those arrangements are not appropriate in this context. They were never designed to deal with the determination of whether market abuse has occurred in terms of part VIII of the Bill. Against that background, I am pleased that the Opposition appear to have had second thoughts, although, for reasons that I will explain, we cannot agree to their proposed substitute.
  I refer now to Government amendment (a). If the problems which people have argued might arise do arise, the Government amendment in lieu of amendment No. 180 provides a proper and adequate mechanism for dealing with them. The FSA will, with the approval of the Treasury, be able to provide for safe harbours for all or
  90
  part of the City code produced by the panel. In giving such approval, the Treasury would, of course, be answerable to Parliament.
  Our amendment is very similar to the amendment that Lord McIntosh tabled in another place on Third Reading, and which Lord Donaldson described as achieving "all that is necessary". However, we have given careful thought to concerns expressed about it in another place by both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
  We have listened to those concerns and, as a result, the amendment has been further improved. As my noble friend Lord McIntosh said in another place:
  Given … the nature of the code and the panel's role in interpreting and applying it, I would naturally expect the FSA to take the panel's view before it decided whether behaviour fell within the safe harbour which the Government amendment would enable it to provide. It would be very foolish if it did not … I would expect the tribunal and, if the matter came before them, the higher courts, to attach due weight to the panel's views in accordance with established case law.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 May 2000; Vol. 613, c. 403.]
  The Conservative spokesman in another place, Lord Kingsland, made it clear that he would have been willing to support our amendment had we been willing to refer expressly to the City code as applied by the takeover panel. That reflects the concern, which we fully understand, that in looking at safe harbours provided by the City code, the FSA should not be able simply to impose its own interpretation, but should, in essence, be guided by the panel's interpretation.
  The FSA will have arrangements for ensuring that the panel's views on whether behaviour is in conformity with the City code are sought and listened to. The panel's views will not be—and, for reasons I have explained, cannot be—determinative in law. However, they will be highly persuasive. Subsection (4) underlines this and, I hope, provides additional reassurance.
  The FSA will be under a statutory duty to keep itself informed of the way in which the panel interprets and administers the relevant provisions of the code and, it follows, fully reflect that in its decisions about whether to act in cases of possible market abuse arising in a takeover.
  That is the right result. To go further would be to go too far in terms of making the panel the final arbiter as regards market abuse in this area. Our amendment will ensure that if problems do arise in this area—we are confident they will not—adequate and effective safe harbours can be provided without compromising the position of the panel or the single statutory regulator, the FSA.
  8 pm
  We cannot accept amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 180. It is based closely on the so-called gatekeeper amendment which Lord McIntosh described in another place as
  the worst of all the amendments before us.— [Official Report, House of Lords, 18 May 2000; Vol. 613, c. 414.]
  The amendment would prevent the FSA from acting during a takeover unless it was given permission to do so by the takeover panel, a non-statutory body. I recognise that the prohibition would be temporary, in the sense that it would last only as long as the takeover was in progress.

  91
  I also note that a new provision has been added requiring the panel to co-operate with the FSA in the ensuing period, although I doubt whether that adds much, since—
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for asking again. I seek clarification. To which amendment are we referring?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to advise the right hon. and learned Gentleman which amendment is being referred to. I have called Lords amendment No. 127, and we are discussing it along with all the other amendments that are grouped with it on the selection list. It is not for the Chair to advise on what amendments are under discussion. The Chair is confused enough as it is.
  Miss Johnson: I hesitate to disagree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am not confused at all. I am completely clear about what we are discussing. Having said that, however, I seem to have lost my place in my notes.
  I note the new provision requiring the panel to co-operate with the FSA in the ensuing period, but I doubt whether that will add much, because that is the kind of behaviour that one would expect of a body in the panel's position when dealing with a statutory regulator.
  On the other hand, I note the blanket nature of the prohibition. It would apply to each and every one of the FSA's powers, not just those in relation to market abuse. It would apply to market abuse of all kinds, no matter how trivial or how serious, and to any action instigated during the course of a takeover, regardless of whether it was likely to disrupt the timetable of the bid. I cannot believe that the Conservative party really wants the FSA to be hamstrung in that way.
  I believe that it would be a mistake for the Bill to contain a provision that hands over the powers of the statutory regulator in the area of market abuse to a non-statutory regulator that is not subject to the same checks and balances. We expect the FSA to adopt a general policy of not intervening in a way that could disrupt the course of a takeover bid. That will be part of the sensible administrative arrangements to be put in place with the panel. However, it is not impossible to imagine circumstances in which an exception might need to be made—for example, if the regulator became aware of serious market manipulation that it, but not the panel, was in a position to do something about.
  As a matter of principle, it would be wrong to fetter the discretion of the statutory regulator in the way contemplated by amendment (b). I commend Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 180 to the House and urge the House to reject amendment (b).
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This is a very large group of amendments and has inevitably caused some confusion. It may be of assistance if I speak only to the issues concerning the takeover panel, and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) deals with the other amendments.
  The key issue concerns the possible conflict—and certainly overlap—between the jurisdictions of the Financial Services Authority and the takeover panel,
  92
  which the Government have not satisfactorily addressed. One of the City of London's great advantages is that it offers certainty, speed and flexibility in dealing with takeovers and mergers. In a previous debate, we discussed whether the United Kingdom, and London in particular, can hold its own in an international market. I believe that it can if it holds on to its traditional flexibilities in dealing with mergers and bids. That is important internationally and for the dynamism of the United Kingdom market. We have here something very precious.
  The FSA is charged with dealing with market abuse and the takeover panel regulates mergers and bids. The Economic Secretary praised the takeover panel and said that she did not want to do anything to damage it. It has indeed been a success story. It was established in 1968 and is widely admired. The panel itself has raised directly with the Treasury serious concerns about the Bill, and I do not believe that she gave an adequate response.
  The danger of overlap occurs in several areas. It must be objectionable in principle for someone to be vulnerable to double jeopardy. Someone abiding by one set of rules, published by the takeover panel, should not be vulnerable in relation to a second set of rules, published by a second regulator.
  It must be bad for the market for uncertainties to develop about which regulator is responsible in each individual case. For instance, it would be dangerous if the FSA said that certain behaviour during a bid was abusive and the takeover panel said that it was not. Who would decide the outcome? If the matter went to appeal, it would certainly be very embarrassing if the court had to arbitrate between two different regulatory bodies. It is bad for the City and for the regulatory regime itself to have the possibility of conflict and overlap.
  It must be recognised that parties to a bid can themselves seek to manipulate the regulatory process. Tactical litigation can be launched by the object of a bid in order to frustrate the whole process. The scope for that will be immeasurably greater if that party can appeal to the FSA outside the traditional authority of the takeover panel.
  The Economic Secretary seemed simply to deny that there was such a problem. She suggested that any involvement of the FSA would not affect the timetable of a bid, and would not delay it because the action would simply be aimed at the market abuse. That view demonstrates ignorance of how bids progress. For instance, under the takeover code, a bidder usually has to complete the process within 60 days, or the bid lapses. So there is a limited time for the bid to be declared unconditional.
  One can imagine a situation in which a hostile bidder for another company publishes a document in order to persuade independent shareholders to accept the bid. The hostile bidder might do that just before the expiry of the 60-day period. The target company might complain that the document was misleading in several material respects. At present, that issue would be considered immediately by the takeover panel, which has a reputation for dealing with such matters efficiently and swiftly, so the bid could proceed if the allegation were groundless.
  However, under the Bill, the target company would be able to bring in the FSA to determine whether the behaviour in question was market abusive, and that would introduce a most unwelcome delay. Indeed, if that

  93
  happened, the takeover panel might have to agree to extend the bid deadline, or, even more damagingly, one of the companies concerned could apply for judicial review, if the FSA refused to examine the issues and the particulars of the case. If that led to an injunction, it would cause unwelcome delay as well as introducing new and expensive litigation into a process that, until now, has always been dealt with swiftly and efficiently.
  The Minister has not dealt with the point about delay and expense. However, she did recognise that the problem might exist. That is why, in the other place, my noble Friends succeeded in passing amendment No. 180, which would provide a safe harbour. It would provide that, in a bid situation, if those concerned conformed to the City code as published by the takeover panel, that would be a safe harbour against allegations of market abuse. It is also important to recognise that, despite that provision, the FSA would remain the lead regulator and would be able to include conditions and limitations on the effect of that safe harbour. It would be the FSA that would issue a statement, modified as necessary, indicating conformity with the City code that would be a safe harbour against market abuse.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): I declare an interest in that I advise a number of companies in the City. Does my right hon. Friend agree that anything that undermines the exceptional speed and efficiency of the way in which the takeover panel works will undermine the position of London as the capital market centre of the world?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. It is not always understood how fast moving such bids can be. Decisions sometimes have to be taken within hours, and that cannot be done if parties to the bid could appeal to another regulator, or to a court for judicial review, which might then lead to an injunction and all the consequential delays and expense. That would undermine London's premier position as a centre in which such business can be done expeditiously and economically.
  The Minister is worried about Lords amendment No. 180, because—she says—it gives too much authority to the takeover panel. It is true that Lords amendment No. 180 would give the panel the job of determining whether certain behaviour is in conformity with the City code. That is a sensible demarcation between the responsibilities of the FSA and those of the takeover panel. The FSA would still be the lead regulator and it would issue the first statement about whether the safe harbour existed. Under subsection (3) of the new clause, it would also be able to include conditions and limitations on that safe harbour.
  8.15 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs pointed out in an intervention that the FSA will still be able to regulate and pursue market abuse outside the City code. It would not be delegating the whole issue of market abuse to the takeover panel.
  We were somewhat at a loss to understand exactly what the Government object to in Lords amendment No. 180. In response, they have tabled Government amendment (a) in lieu, which would provide that the FSA must keep itself informed of the way in which the panel interprets and
  94
  administers the relevant provisions of the City code. In other words, the panel would not decide whether behaviour was in conformity with the code, because the authority would do that after discussions with the panel.
  The Government's response is hopelessly flabby and inadequate. It would create no demarcation of responsibility or any jurisdictional boundary between the FSA and the takeover panel, because discussions would take place anyway. No one supposes that the authority and the panel would not keep each other informed, so Government amendment (a) in lieu would add nothing. However, it would still leave the FSA with the responsibility to take action over market abuse during a bid. If it had that power and responsibility, and did not exercise it, it would be vulnerable to judicial review.
  It is no good having some modus operandi or self-denying ordinance whereby the authority says that normally it would leave the decision to the takeover panel. That would not wash in court. The target of a bid would allege market abuse and would ask the FSA to investigate the circumstances. If it refused, it would be vulnerable to judicial review. The FSA would always have to consider whether to exercise its powers in each case. The very fact that it would have to consider the issue would introduce a most undesirable element of delay.
  The Government are apparently determined not to accept Lords amendment No. 180, but I have said enough to show that their alternative—which was apparently cooked up with the Liberal Democrats—is not a compromise but a dangerous alternative. It would leave in place the overlap between the authority and the panel, and deal a grievous blow to the United Kingdom as a place to do business. I hope that the rumours about the Liberal Democrats are not true, although they caved in on the issue in the other place. The Liberal Democrats in their places tonight owe it to the House to explain why they have had a change of heart on the issue.
  Our alternative to Government amendment (a) in lieu is amendment (b) in lieu. If the Government are determined to overturn Lords amendment No. 180, our alternative would be superior to theirs, and achieve the same objectives by another route. It draws on the Datafin court case of 1986, in which the Court of Appeal ruled that the takeover panel was subject to judicial review, but that the court would not normally interfere while a bid was taking place.
  Our amendment (b) in lieu proposes that the FSA step back from a bid process while it is in progress. Provided that the takeover panel agreed, the authority would be prevented from exercising its market abuse powers. The new element in the amendment was also tabled in another place but was not pressed to a Division. It would ensure that the takeover panel notified the FSA about any suspected market abuse, and co-operated fully in any subsequent action by the authority.
  Crucially, under the amendment, the takeover panel would not decide what constituted market abuse. That decision would remain with the FSA but, in line with the Datafin case, the matter would be dealt with only after the bid had taken place. That alternative approach does not provide a safe harbour, but is another way to deal with the same problem. If the Government persist in overturning Lords amendment No. 180, our amendment would certainly be superior to theirs.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: I shall be brief. This is a highly technical subject and I shall focus on what I consider to

  95
  be the key elements, for fear of getting something wrong, and in order to help myself—if no one else—to see the wood for the trees.
  Two matters are being debated in connection with the amendment. The first is the role of the takeover panel, as opposed to that of the FSA, in relation to takeovers, especially where the question of market abuse arises. The second is market abuse—which the Economic Secretary sometimes calls an offence and sometimes a purely civil matter—and whether it should involve criminal intent on the part of the alleged market abuser.
  I have read Government amendment (a) in lieu, and believe that it is all a question of the Government trying to retain control and the whip hand in all circumstances. I hope that they recognise that, in practice, the takeover panel organises takeovers exceptionally well, and that it is necessary for it be in command of events when it is supervising a takeover. The panel's ability to supervise and control takeovers has won worldwide admiration over the past 20 or more years. I think that the Government accept that. However, although they are not content to leave matters as they are, their amendment (a) in lieu is the nearest that they dare go towards doing just that.
  The amendment suggests that the last word in a takeover should be returned to the FSA. However, subsection (2) of their proposed new clause states:
  But the Treasury's approval is required before any such provision may be included in the Authority's code.
  The Minister smiles quietly at that; I am sure that her officials have told her that the Treasury must have final control over such matters. However, the amendment also provides that the FSA may include in its code an element that makes it clear that the City code—drafted and controlled by the takeover panel—shall apply to takeovers.
  Subsection (3) is another delightful and revealing provision. It states:
  If the Authority's code includes provisions of a kind authorised by subsection (1)—
  that is, if the authority's code states that the City takeover panel's code shall apply—
  the Authority must keep itself informed of the way in which the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers interprets and administers the relevant provisions of the City Code.
  Goody, goody. I am glad that the authority will be required, by statute, to tell itself that it should know what it is talking about before it exercises any administrative function.
  I have never seen such a provision before, but perhaps the Economic Secretary will refer to a precedent. If she does not, perhaps we can pop this precedent into other Bills as the months go by—but I do not wish to be flippant. The key point is who should have the whip hand and real control in the organisation of takeovers. The sensible and simple option is proposed in Lords amendment No. 180, which states, fairly and squarely, that the takeover panel should have control. It leaves the matter at that.
  If the Government amendment is accepted, I hope that the Government will promptly take the option that they have left open and hand back effective control to the City takeover panel. However, it would be better to stick to the amendment passed in the House of Lords.
  96
  The second question that we are debating is whether the offence of market abuse should require intent. The FSA is entitled to impose unlimited financial penalties for market abuse, so under any reasonable interpretation, it is bound to be construed, here and in Strasbourg, as a criminal offence. If that were recognised, the Bill would be a great deal simpler, as intent would be expected and required.
  The FSA seems to consider that it is difficult to convict anyone of market abuse. In the same way, it has turned out to be pretty difficult to convict people of insider trading, which is a very common form of market abuse. However, the FSA does not need the powers contained in the Bill, as not many prosecutions in this area are to be expected.
  The Bill establishes an offence—civil or criminal—of market abuse. It provides that the FSA, after consultation, will draw up a code to describe what constitutes market abuse. A penalty will be incurred by anyone who commits market abuse.
  I hope that in most situations, if not all, the FSA would be able to draw up a description of the types of market abuse that it wished to avoid. Rightly, it does not consider that it would have too much difficulty with that. I do not see, either, that there should be too much difficulty in convicting any experienced operator in the market who deliberately abused the market. It would be much healthier if that were considered the normal approach to take, just as it is in other questions of trading standards.
  The Bill deals with trading in financial services. The market in financial services is no different from the markets in washing machines or motor cars. We are talking about practices that would amount to abuse of that market. For instance, it is a classic abuse of the motor vehicle market to change a car's recorded mileage—to "clock" the car. Proving that abuse, too, requires proof that the person involved intended to carry out the abuse. It is usually easy to show intention, because when there are prosecutions, the people involved have usually done the same thing to scores or hundreds, if not thousands, of cars, and someone has picked them up.
  8.30 pm
  In serious cases of market abuse, one would expect conduct that was obviously intended to mislead the market, and lead people up the garden path, on the part of an experienced operator. It would not be too difficult to get a jury to convict. In my long experience of the Serious Fraud Office, the one element in the system that seldom causes any problem is the jury. If the Financial Services Authority tells 12 good men and women and true about a piece of crookery carried out by Mr. X or company Y, putting it in straightforward terms, and the jury is shown the facts, they will be ready to convict.
  The object of criminal offences, or offences in general, is not principally to convict the one or two people who are prosecuted but to act as a deterrent to the market and to set limits and boundaries. It is far more sensible to do that in a straightforward and up-front way than in a very complicated way.
  I said that I would try not to let my speech get too complicated. However, in the provisions that follow clauses 109 and 110, which I think were probably introduced by the Government in another place,

  97
  with agreement, such an offence starts off being described as civil. To try and get it past Strasbourg, an elaborate system is set up whereby in order to impose a penalty, one has to apply to a tribunal or the courts. The Bill is trying to set up by the back door a court system that would be much better set up by the front door.
  The Government want to get the Bill on to the statute book. However, they have got this bit of it wrong; they should have been straightforward. I think that it is a good idea for a code to set out what constitutes market abuse. If the Government had brought that about, it would not be too difficult to secure convictions—but the very elaborate system set out in these provisions will go wrong. I advise the Government not to go further down that route, and, in so far as it is open to them on the amendments under consideration tonight, to correct the position.
  Mr. Flight: May I first briefly comment on the code and the panel? However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, I intend essentially to speak about intent in relation to market abuse.
  I wish to report to our Liberal Democrat friends in particular the comments of Patrick Drayton, the head of the takeover panel, on the amendment. He says that the panel does not feel that the revised amendment addresses any of the concerns that it expressed in relation to the original. Government amendment, and that subsection (3) does not address its concerns about the amendment raised in the note that it issued.
  It remains the case, under the revised amendment, that the question of whether behaviour complies with the code and hence qualifies as a "safe harbour" would fall to be determined by the FSA in the first instance. That gives rise to—this is the whole problem—the potential for different interpretations of the takeover code, with messy consequences. It will cause uncertainty while the FSA decides whether it agrees with the panel. Disagreeing will have serious consequences for the reputation of each regulator. It may impact adversely on the panel's ability to interpret the takeover code flexibly, and parties may wish to seek clearance on interpretations of the code from the panel and the FSA.
  The key problem is that the Government amendment does not sort out who is in charge of a bid situation. What weight would the FSA attach to an interpretation or practice of the panel that is notified to it under subsection (3)? What would happen if the FSA disagreed with an interpretation or practice?
  Given the effort that the Government are putting into this, I assume that it is not their intent to accept the European Union directive on takeovers and mergers. Under the directive, the panel and the code would be things of the past, and mergers would be governed by statutory arrangements, with a great deal less flexibility.
  I should like to have a last go at intent. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made the key point that, sooner or later, whether from the EU or elsewhere, the courts will determine that the offence is criminal, and intent will have to be given voice. I repeat the earlier point that, although the Government have said that it is impossible to give intent a voice, there has been no problem in the United States with the Securities and
  98
  Exchange Commission defining intent in relation to market abuse and what to look for as evidence of intent. Indeed, there are some provisions for doing just that.
  Our attempt, in the amendment, is limited to the single limb of market abuse, consisting of giving a false or misleading impression. This is our last opportunity to include the principle of intent clearly into the Bill. For an innocent man or woman to suffer merely because someone misinterpreted what they said must be wrong. Individuals may not realise that what they said could be misleading or misunderstood. This is particularly relevant in a bid situation, when either side may make announcements.
  The Minister seemed to misinterpret our amendment, which relates to amendment No. 131 to clause 113. Under our amendment, even though a person has committed market abuse, the FSA cannot impose a penalty in certain circumstances. If those circumstances are satisfied, the FSA can neither impose a penalty on the abuser nor issue a public censure. That will also be the position in relation to the requirement to pay compensation. We welcome both those concessions, which resulted from an undertaking given to the Joint Committee, but we would be grateful if the Minister would explain what happens in relation to market abuse. For example, is it treated as a disciplinary offence for an authorised firm or approved person? If that is the position, we would like to know that the FSA cannot impose a penalty under the disciplinary procedures.
  The amendment would extend the exemption from a fine in two different ways. The first is to provide that a penalty cannot be imposed where the person concerned has not intended to give a false or misleading impression. That follows the criteria for the criminal offence of making misleading statements, which come within section 47 of the Financial Services Act 1986 and which are replicated in the Bill.
  If somebody did not intend to give anyone a false or misleading impression and cannot be blamed for failing to realise that he might, it is surely too much of a nanny state and too unfair to subject him to any fine. The Bill provides already that the FSA's policy on fining must take into account when deciding on the size of the penalty whether the behaviour was deliberate or reckless. In that sense, the Bill demonstrates—intention is the key point—that recklessness can be recognised when it occurs. It follows that it is plain wrong to make somebody liable to a fine if he could not be expected to say something different from that which he said.
  The second part of the amendment, on which I think the Minister did not comment, relates to Chinese walls. It is straightforward. As everyone will be aware, the Chinese wall is a concept within one financial services group to keep entirely separate corporate finance activity and the goings on in that area. The Government indicated in Committee in this place that, if a person employed by a firm on one side of the Chinese wall were to create a misleading impression because he did not know what was known by employees of the firm on the other side of the wall, that firm could not be guilty of market abuse. That is an important point that needs to appear in the Bill. It should not be left to the FSA to make a ruling.
  The Government have amended the Bill to provide expressly, in the context of the criminal offence of making a misleading statement, that firms should not be guilty if

  99
  they were using an effective Chinese wall. That should therefore be spelt out expressly in the context of market abuse. We proposed a similar amendment in another place, and Lord McIntosh expressed surprise that we wanted a Chinese wall defence for individuals. The amendment before us makes our position clear.
  We have suggested also an anti-avoidance provision, which would mean that the firm could still be guilty of market abuse if an individual on one side of the wall who is in possession of information tells someone on the other side of the wall to engage in the relevant behaviour, even though he does not tell him the nature of the information. Due to the speed with which we have had to table amendments, we have omitted a couple of words, which are "or requested" in addition to the requirement to engage.
  As appears from amendment No. 128, the Government have amended the clause in another place in a way that we consider to be inappropriate. As a result of previous pressure on our part, the Minister agreed to introduce a provision that behaviour does not amount to market abuse if it conforms with the FSA rules. That appeared in clause 109 before it was amended in another place. As amendment No. 128 makes clear, the safe harbour for compliance with FSA rules now applies only if the rule includes an expressed provision that "behaviour conforming" does not amount to market abuse.
  That leaves at large the possibility that compliance with other FSA rules may be viewed as market abuse, and that firms could be in a difficult position if they do what the FSA rules tell them. They could still find themselves engaging in market abuse. I cannot believe that the Government intended that to be the position. When we last debated the issue, we felt that we had resolved it.
  We understand that the Government are afraid that a comprehensive safe harbour will validate market abuse, which is not supposed to come within it. Let us say that the rules provide that there should be best execution—that is buying or selling shares at the best price—and the firm concerned complies with that obligation but does so in a trade that in itself amounts to market abuse.
  In the Government's view, the safe harbour for behaviour conforming to FSA rules will mean that a firm cannot be guilty of market abuse in those circumstances. That is a wrong interpretation; the rules do not require insider dealing to have taken place, and it cannot therefore conform with them. Firms need to know that they will not run the risk of being accused of market abuse if they do what the FSA rulebook tells them. Therefore, amendment No. 128 must be disagreed to. Similar amendments apply to restitution and clause 489.
  8.45 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Several references have been made to my colleagues in the other place. Indeed, we have people there who are experienced City practitioners and lawyers. I am neither, but I shall try to interpret their approach to the problem that was brought to their attention by the takeover panel, which, as has been generally observed, was concerned about the way in which its practices should be properly incorporated into the Bill, and by independent investors who have been effectively protected by the way in which it operated.
  100
  Two essential problems have been adequately described. The first is duplication and overlap between the market abuse investigations and the work of the takeover panel and its City code, and the other is fairness, which the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) explained at some length. The principle of fairness means that a company that has complied in good faith with the takeover code should not be subject separately to a market abuse investigation—the problem of double jeopardy.
  Our understanding is that that problem has been adequately taken on board. The Government have accepted the thrust of the criticism from the Opposition and the City that a safe harbour should be explicit in the Bill for companies that comply with the City code. Therefore, the basic point about unfairness has been adequately addressed, but that leaves a residual problem: how to deal with conflicting judgments. In other words, there can be different interpretations of compliance with the City code and its overlap with market abuse. That problem constitutes a narrow area of disagreement that still remains.
  The broad proposition that guided debate in the other place was summarised by Lord Donaldson—a Cross-Bench peer, not part of the party politics on the matter. He said:
  My Lords, I take it that it has been generally agreed that, as a general proposition, in principle the views of the FSA on these matters should prevail over those of the Takeover Panel.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 May 2000; Vol. 613, c. 406.]
  If there is a conflict of jurisdiction and a choice has to be made, the FSA should prevail. The amendments make that clear so that the uncertainty and ambiguity about which Conservative Members have expressed concern do not arise. However, in the view of peers and the takeover panel, the interests of the panel and its operation should be properly recognised.
  Our understanding is that the reference to the panel's need to keep itself informed of how it interprets and administers the provisions is sufficient. That may be flabby language, as the right hon. Member for Wells said, but it represents an attempt to find a form of words in which the FSA's primacy is clearly accepted and in which the need to make cross-reference to the code is recognised. The peers' judgment was that there was no need to raise further objections because the fairness point had been accepted, the jurisdiction had been clearly defined and the work of the takeover panel had been incorporated. Therefore, 90 per cent. of the objections of those who were concerned with code and the takeover panel had been met.
  Mr. Loughton: I have a few brief comments in support of Opposition amendment (b) in preference to the Government's ham -fisted effort amendment (a). I take it that the Liberals support the Government's amendment as they seem to have done some strange deal in another place.
  The panel of takeovers and mergers, which has had a good track record for more than 32 years, is under attack from the Government. Can the Minister give me any example from those 32 years of when the panel would have done its job better, or of when it failed in its job because it did not have another authority—such as the FSA—constantly looking over its shoulder or because

  101
  such an authority was in competition with the regulation that the panel was trying to impose? If the Government get their way, there will be a severe case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.
  It is not only Opposition Members who say that; the takeover panel itself expressed serious concern—even after the Government cobbled together their new amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) quoted Patrick Drayton, the director general, whose comments on the amendment are littered with warnings of the uncertainty that will be caused. Mr. Drayton warns that the UK system will become slow and over-regulated. The uncertainty will have serious consequences for the reputation of each regulator.
  Those are serious words from an organisation that has acquitted itself exceedingly well in the conduct of takeovers and mergers in the City of London for the past 32 years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) has an understanding of the legal implications of the measure that is infinitely superior to that of the rest of us—as the Minister found to her cost. As he pointed out, it comes down to a question of control. The Government are obsessed that the FSA should keep control in that matter and that they should keep control of the FSA, even though there is the prospect of a serious clash—potential double jeopardy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells said earlier.
  Why do the Government want to denigrate the success of the panel by causing confusion as to its future role? The panel has been successful because it offers speed, certainty and flexibility in takeovers. In Committee and subsequently, Government Members gave as a reason for not splitting the roles of the chairman and chief executive of the whole authority the need to act swiftly when there were potential cases of market abuse or other issues that required action. Some of the fastest-moving aspects of the financial services industry relate to the mergers of large firms in a highly cut-throat and competitive market. They are playing for large stakes; huge fees are involved for an enormous phalanx of professionals in the City and abroad.
  The reason for the great success of the takeover panel is that it exists in a spirit of co-operation with the people it supposedly regulates; it relies on a huge reputation for integrity in the City of London. This is a case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Would the takeover of Mannesmann by Vodafone or the merger under way between Glaxo and SmithKline Beecham have happened as smoothly—especially as there were other suitors on the horizon—if organisations other than the takeover panel had been involved? The panel has a clearly defined code of conduct for such matters, but what would have happened if another authority had had a look-in at the feast? We know that one large takeover—the merger between British Airways and American Airlines—was frustrated because of excessive regulation, especially in Europe and America. The whole deal was called off.
  There is potential for extra confusion as a result of the Government's proposals to replace the Lords amendment. We desperately need to be able to take decisions quickly. Two decision-making bodies might come up with two different decisions. That must take longer than if just one were involved and it would materially affect the outcome of any takeover that may be taking place.
  102
  We also need to be assured that the FSA is capable of working within the tight time scales within which the takeover panel operates; it usually makes a ruling within 60 days. If the Government amendment is accepted, the panel's decisions will no longer be final. However, we need the certainty that any decision will be final. The amendment will deter co-operation between takeover partners and the takeover panel, because the partners might fear that they may be implicated in market abuse. There will be great confusion as to whose interpretation of the takeover code is conclusive. Will it be the interpretation of the takeover panel or that of the FSA?
  My biggest fear has already been mentioned. There is a real threat that parties could deliberately drag the FSA into their attempt to frustrate a bid. They could use that as a spoiling tactic to sabotage a takeover. In the world of takeovers and mergers, an unwilling party who is the subject of a takeover bid has an incentive to do just that.
  All that confusion will replace the well-versed certainty and successful track record of the takeover panel. Extra overlap, over-complication and uncertainty all amount to over-regulation. As we have found out during its passage through Parliament in the past two years, that is what the Bill is all about.
  What are the compensating benefits of the additional powers that the FSA will have to stick its nose into takeover panel territory? Where has the panel gone wrong? What will be better as a result of the new role that is proposed? Our amendment (b) would not mean that all powers would be given exclusively to the takeover panel. The amendment contains the phrase:
  Except at the request of …
  If the panel deems it appropriate, it could call in the FSA at an early stage. The matter would be left to the discretion of the panel; our amendment would not give it powers wholeheartedly and irreversibly. The panel would co-operate with the FSA, but it needs to be clear who has the upper hand during a sensitive takeover bid.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire pointed out, our amendment contrasts with the meaningless waffle in Government amendment (a) which states that
  the Authority must keep itself informed.
  What does that mean? It means that, if a large multinational company is trying to make a friendly merger with, or a hostile takeover of, another large company, certainty and clarity will go out of the window. Only by accepting amendment (b) can we restore the credibility, confidence and clarity that the City so desperately needs and that will be such an important part of its continued success.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I shall deal first with the takeover panel and return to the other points later.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) is no longer here as he has had to go home because of a family illness. However, he rightly sketched out the two issues involved and pointed out that the remaining problem was overlap. He explained what would happen if there were conflict. It is interesting that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) admitted that overlap would not often occur. The implication of his remarks was that it would, as we believe, occur rarely. It will certainly be a rare event, so

  103
  the question is who, ultimately, will determine an issue if there is any dispute about it which relates to market abuse. We say, as we have always said, that the FSA must take such decisions at it is the statutory regulator and the accountable body. People have recourse to definitions of market abuse in the Bill and to the independent tribunal. Those matters contribute to the provision on the work of the market abuse regime and stop it being something that it should not be.
  9 pm
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Perhaps I did not make myself clear, but the hon. Lady has taken one part of my speech and transferred it to another. I said that there would not be many prosecutions for market abuse, which is entirely different from the turmoil that can be created by players in the market seeking to frustrate takeovers by contrasting the views of the FSA with those of the takeover panel. I certainly did not say that that would not be frequent. My hon. Friends frequently make the important point that it is one of the dangers of the current position, about which the takeover panel rightly warns.
  Miss Johnson: I apologise if I misunderstood the right hon. and learned Gentleman. None the less, we believe that such disputes will be rare. We can be persuaded to believe that, because so far there have been few problems with judicial review—even though there is currently an overlap between the regulatory regime and the takeover panel's code, and between that code and the criminal offences of insider dealing, market manipulation and misleading statements and practices.
  Those overlaps could be used in the takeover process in the same way that Opposition Members and the takeover panel worry that they could be used in the market abuse regime. To date, people have not sought to frustrate takeover bids by such means. The only thing that will change after the introduction of the new market abuse regime is the potential degree of overlap, not its nature or form.
  It is hard to see how involving the FSA will have any impact on the bid's timetable. That is the panel's main concern, but no one has given a plausible explanation of the way in which that might occur. The panel said that it is worried about injunctions for market abuse, but they would be aimed at the abuse, not the merits or otherwise of the bid, and would not interfere in the takeover process. Indeed, under current provisions there has been no interference in the overlap between the takeover panel and certain areas of legislation.
  I therefore presume that no has ever pressed the FSA to seek injunctions under section 61 of the Financial Services Act 1986 alleging possible breach of the market manipulation offence. That course is open to people who are in the process of takeovers, but to my knowledge it has never been taken.
  Mr. Loughton: Surely there could be real change to the timetable for a bid if it became known that the FSA was looking into market abuse regulations. Acceptances of a takeover would inevitably fall off so that, at the first acceptance date, the required number of acceptances would not be forthcoming and the bid would be pushed
  104
  further back. Indeed, a takeover could be suspended if it was surrounded by uncertainty caused by the FSA, which would surely affect the timetable.
  Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman used the word "surely", but he did not give any reasons why that situation should arise. Concern has been expressed that the courts will force the FSA to intervene. However, it has a stated policy of not seeking to intervene, except in exceptional circumstances. As Lord McIntosh explained in another place, it is clear to us, as it is to the FSA, that it could adopt a policy of not intervening where it thought that it was being dragged in for tactical reasons. There is no reason for it not to take that course of action. It is clear that it could adopt a policy of leaving it to the panel to take action where it is satisfied that the panel can deal with the mischief adequately.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Did not the hon. Lady listen to my points about that? She is just reading out her brief without responding to the points that we have made. The authority's self-denying ordinance will not work. If it has the ability to intervene, it is vulnerable to a judicial proceeding that requires it to intervene. It is no good the Minister simply saying that the FSA may decide that, in general, it will not intervene. Provided that it has the power to do so, it will have to examine the circumstances when it is requested to do so, and that will cause the delay and the possibility of litigation about which we have been complaining.
  Miss Johnson: I do not know who is not listening to whom. I have just explained that although there is already a significant overlap in legislation which could cause people to interfere in the work of the takeover panel—as the right hon. Gentleman fears might occur—that course of action has not been taken. So, there is no reason to believe that it will be taken any more often in the case of market abuse than it has in matters that might be more vigorously pursued and which certainly count as more serious legally.
  Mr. Tyrie: If what the Minister says is correct, she is effectively stating that there will be no overall effect on takeover practice as a consequence of the Government's decisions and this legislation. Is that her view? Does she expect no change in the number of takeovers?
  Miss Johnson: I expect that the FSA and the takeover panel will need to work closely together to sort out the practical arrangements. Indeed, they are in the process of doing so. Those practical arrangements need to be sorted out, but I expect very little or no change in the takeover panel's ability to work. As I said in my opening remarks, none of us differs in the objective. The only question is how best to achieve it given the problems lucidly set out by the hon. Member for Twickenham.
  Mr. Tyrie: I was trying to draw out the Minister on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). He said that the threat of judicial review could generate a change in behaviour and that that would lead to a change in the number of takeovers that eventually go through. Is it the Minister's considered view that there will be no change in behaviour and in the number of takeovers as a consequence?
  Miss Johnson: I think that I have already answered that point. The right hon. Member for Wells

  105
  (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) touched on the Datafin case. I cannot recall his exact remarks, but that case obviously formed the basis of the position that the courts have adopted on judicial interference in takeovers. As a result, the courts may not look kindly on parties to a bid and others involved in the bid seeking to circumvent such an approach.
  Again, I refer Opposition Members to the remarks of Lord Donaldson. He said that the amendment that we tabled in the Lords, which was very similar to the slightly enhanced one before us, was all that was necessary. He has had a considerable amount to do with these matters. If we are seeking legal justification for which way things are likely to go, Lord Donaldson's views are important and should be taken into account.
  Questions were asked about the way in which safe harbour would work in relation to the existing takeover panel provision. Part of Lords amendment No. 180 states:
  "the opinion of the panel" includes any revised opinion formed by the Panel as a result of any further consideration
  in conformity with the City code
  as applied by the Panel and as amended from time to time by the Panel.
  Therefore, in respect of takeovers, the panel would be able to say what is not market abuse. The crux of the issue is the fuss that would have arisen had we said that market abuse is whatever the FSA says it is, and that, at least in respect of takeovers, the FSA can change its mind case by case, without consulting anyone or being accountable to anyone. Had we made such proposals, extreme concerns would, rightly, have been expressed in Committee, in the House of Commons and in another place.
  There are practical problems with the Lords amendment which have not been properly thought through. In addition, there are significant differences between Lords amendment No. 180 and the Opposition amendment in lieu, and I am not clear which is the preferred approach. The two amendments would not have the same force. The Lords amendment makes no provision for a gatekeeper role, which arises in the amendment in lieu. I am not clear how the Opposition want to pursue their case.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked about the takeover panel and the precedents for subsection (3) of the Government's proposed new clause, and he said that the provision is unusual. I refer him to clauses 307 and 316 of the Bill as it stands, which relate to Lloyd's and the designated professional bodies.
  The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked precisely what weight the FSA would attach to the panel's rulings. We expect the FSA to attach considerable weight to them. The panel's view will be highly persuasive in takeover matters. If disagreement arises, we believe that, as the statutory regulator in respect of market abuse, the FSA's view should be the determining view; however, we also believe that disagreement is most unlikely in such cases.
  We have spent a long time debating the ingredients of a good market abuse regime—one in which people clearly understand the definition of market abuse, the means by
  106
  which that definition has been reached, what safe harbours exist in respect of market abuse and, therefore, how they can comply with the regime and so ensure that they do not engage in market abuse. Such provisions will be considerably undermined if we accept the Lords amendment or the Opposition's amendment in lieu, as to do so would leave many issues open to further debate. In addition, there would be not one but two bodies with effective responsibility in respect of market abuse; it is easy to foresee the consequences of that.
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire also raised the issue of the European convention on human rights. The ECHR institutions regard the classification of provisions in national law as not conclusive in respect of our categorisation for convention purposes. A person who engages in market abuse will not commit an offence under UK law and will not have a criminal record. That is an important point to emphasise. Intent is not a necessary element of a criminal offence, as I am sure I do not need to point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
  9.15 pm
  The provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European convention on human rights. They were compatible with article 6 relating to civil matters before the Joint Committee deliberated, but the changes made after the Joint Committee will provide the additional safeguards required in the regime if it were found to be criminal. Those extra safeguards make it absolutely sure that people will have recourse to the elements that will make the provision compliant with the European convention.
  A number of offences contain no element of intent. That point was raised by the right hon. Member for Wells. I refer to section 4 of the Financial Services Act 1986, which covers investment business without authorisation, about which a similar point may be made.
  The key differences between us are small. It is worth while running through the differences between the Lords amendments and the Opposition amendments. The amendment carried in the Lords is concerned with safe harbours and allows the FSA to provide a safe harbour for behaviour when the panel thinks it is in conformity with the code, whereas the Opposition amendment before us would provide a gatekeeper to enforcement action and would prevent the FSA from taking any action during a takeover unless the panel requested it to do so.
  I have outlined why I believe that the arrangements that we have put in place for the takeover panel are the rights ones. We accept that there is a difficulty to be dealt with. We believe that we have dealt with it properly and in a way that maintains the coherence and integrity of the market abuse regime while allowing the takeover panel to continue its work, as we expect it to do, in dealing rapidly and effectively with takeovers. That is what we believe will be the upshot of the support that I hope the House will give to our amendment.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 128 to 130 agreed to.

  Clause 113
  POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTIES IN CASES OF MARKET ABUSE
  Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 54, line 6, at end insert—
  ("( ) But the Authority may not impose a penalty on a person if, having considered any representations made to it in response to a warning notice, there are reasonable grounds for it to be satisfied that—

  (a) he believed, on reasonable grounds, that his behaviour did not fall within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1); or

  (b) he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid behaving in a way which fell within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.")

  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: in
  line 9, after final 'subsection', insert '; or—

  (c) he did not intend to give anyone a false or misleading impression falling within section 109(2)(b) and in engaging in the relevant behaviour he was not reckless as to whether he might give anyone that false or misleading impression; or

  (d) where the relevant behaviour fell within section 109(21(b) and was engaged in by a person other than an individual, the impression given by his behaviour was misleading only because of information which the individual who engaged in that behaviour on his behalf did not know about and that individual was an individual to whom subsection ( ) applies.

  ( ) This subsection applies to an individual if the information was withheld from him in circumstances permitted by control of information rules and he was not directly or indirectly required to engage in that behaviour by a person who did know the information.'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amoryl
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 301.

  Division No. 212]

  [9.19 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gale, Roger

  Baldry, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gray, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Grieve, Dominic

  Boswell, Tim

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hammond, Philip

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Heald, Oliver

  Brazier, Julian

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Horam, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Butterfill, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clappison, James

  Key, Robert

  Collins, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cran, James

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Leigh, Edward

  Day, Stephen

  Letwin, Oliver

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Fallon, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Flight, Howard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  108

  Madel, Sir David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Swayne, Desmond

  Moss, Malcolm

  Syms, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Paice James

  Tredinnick, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Trend, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Randall, John

  Walter, Robert

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Robertson, Laurence

  Whittingdale, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Willetts, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Yeo, Tim

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Soames, Nicholas

  and

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Caton, Martin

  Ainger, Nick

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Clelland, David

  Battle, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Coleman, lain

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Corbett, Robin

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cotter, Brian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Crausby, David

  Benton, Joe

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Berry, Roger

  Cummings, John

  Best, Harold

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Betts, Clive

  (Copeland)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Darvill, Keith

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Davidson, Ian

  Borrow, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Denham, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dobbin, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burstow, Paul

  Doran, Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dowd, Jim

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Drew, David

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Edwards, Huw

  (NE Fife)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cann, Jamie

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Casale, Roger

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  109

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCabe, Steve

  Foulkes, George

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Galloway, George

  (Makerfield)

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Grogan, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Gunnell, John

  Maxton, John

  Hain, Peter

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hanson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Healey, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Morley, Elliot

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Heppell, John

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John(Aberavon)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hope, Phil

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Oaten, Mark

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hurst, Alan

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Illsley, Eric

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jamieson, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Pollard, Kerry

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keetch, Paul

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rendel, David

  Kidney, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rooney, Terry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lawrences, Mrs Jackie

  Roy, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lepper, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Salter, Martin

  Linton, Martin

  Sanders, Adrian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  110

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Todd, Mark

  Sawford, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Tynan, Bill

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

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Soley, Clive

  Ward Ms Claire

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wareing, Robert N

  Spellar, John

  White, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wllliams, Rt Hon Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  (Swansea)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wills, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wills, Michael

  Swmney, John

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  (Dewsbury)

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 179 agreed to.

  New Clause
  Lords amendment: No. 180, after clause 149, to insert the following new clause—Market abuse: behaviour conforming with City Code—
  ("CHAPTER IIA
  POLICIES RELATING TO TAKEOVER REGULATION
  .—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Authority is authorised to include in the code issued under section 110 a statement that behaviour of a person which is in conformity with the City Code does not amount to market abuse.
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of behaviour which satisfies the condition in section 109(2)(a).
  (3) statement made under subsection (1) may include such conditions and limitations as the Authority considers appropriate, including conditions and limitations specifying the behaviour and the persons covered by the statement.
  (4) The Authority may at any time alter or replace any statement made under subsection (1).
  (5) If a person behaves in a way which fulfils the requirements of any statement included pursuant to subsection (1) in the code issued under section 110, that behaviour of his is to be taken, for the purposes of this Act, as not amounting to market abuse.
  (6) In this section—
  "behaviour of a person which is in conformity with the City Code" means behaviour of a person which in the opinion of the Panel conforms with the responsibilities imposed on that person by the City Code;
  "the opinion of the Panel" includes any revised opinion formed by the Panel as a result of any further consideration;
  "City Code" means the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers issued by the Panel as applied by the Panel and as amended from time to time by the Panel;
  "the Panel" means the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers.")
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 110.

  Division No. 213]

  [9.35 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Ainger, Nick

  (Copeland)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Darvill, Keith

  Allen, Graham

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davidson, Ian

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Austin, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Battle, John

  Denham, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dismore, Andrew

  Beard, Nigel

  Dobbin, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Doran, Frank

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Dowd, Jim

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Drew, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Edwards, Huw

  Benton, Joe

  Efford, Clive

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Berry, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Best, Harold

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Galloway, George

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gapes, Mike

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon, Colin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burstow, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  (NE Fife)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cann, Jamie

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gunnell, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hain, Peter

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coleman, lain

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cotter, Brian

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  112

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pendry, Tom

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Pickthall, Colin

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pope, Greg

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pound, Stephen

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keetch, Paul

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Rendel, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rooney, Terry

  Laxton, Bob

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lepper, David

  Rowlands, Ted

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roy, Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Linton, Martin

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lock, David

  Salter, Martin

  Love, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCabe, Steve

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sawford, Phil

  (Makerfield)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonnell, John

  Singh, Marsha

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

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

  McWilliam, John

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Spellar, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Miller, Andrew

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moffatt, Laura

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Swinney, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Morley, Elliot

  (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Timms, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Trickett, Jon

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Oaten, Mark

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  113

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Willis, Phil

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wills, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Tynan, Bill

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wareing, Robert N

  Woolas, Phil

  White, Brian

  Worthington, Tony

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  (Swansea W)

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Baldry, Tony

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bercow, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Madel, Sir David

  Boswell, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Brady, Graham

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Moss, Malcolm

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Bums, Simon

  Page, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Paice, James

  Cash, William

  Paterson, Owen

  Clappison, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Randall, John

  Cran, James

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Robertson, Laurence

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Evans, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Faber, David

  Ruffley, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fallon, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Soames, Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spring, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gill, Christopher

  Steen, Antnony

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gray, James

  Syms, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heald, Oliver

  Tredinnick David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wells, Bowen

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Whittingdale, John

  Key, Robert

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Willetts, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Leigh, Edward

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Loughton, Tim

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put, That amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 180 be made.— [Mr. Timms.]
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 110.

  Division No. 214]

  [9.48 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cummings, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Darvill, Keith

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davidson, Ian

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Austin, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Battle, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Beard, Nigel

  Denham, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dismore, Andrew

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Doran, Frank

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Drew, David

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Berry, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Best, Harold

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blackman, Liz

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fisher, Mark

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foulkes, George

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Galloway, George

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burgon, Colin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burstow, Paul

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Goggins, Paul

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cann, Jamie

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gunnell, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hain, Peter

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coleman, lain

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

  Hope, Phil

  Cotter, Brian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  115

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hutton, John

  Olner, Bill

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Illsley, Eric

  Öpik, Lembit

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Jenkins, Brian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Pike, Peter L

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keetch, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kidney, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rendel, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

  Laxton, Bob

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lepper, David

  Roy, Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruddock, Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Linton, Martin

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Salter, Martin

  Lock, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Love, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  (Makerfield)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Singh, Marsha

  McDonnell, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNulty, Tony

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

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spellar, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Maxton, John

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stringer, Graham

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Miller, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Swinney, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  (Aberavon)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Mountford, Kali

  Timms, Stephen

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mudie, George

  Todd, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  116

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Willis, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wills, Michael

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Winnick, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tynan, Bill

  Wood, Mike

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Woolas, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Worthington, Tony

  White, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  (Swansea W)

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Baldry, Tony

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bercow, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Madel, Sir David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Mates, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Brady, Graham

  Moss, Malcolm

  Brazier, Julian

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Ottaway, Richard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Page Richard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Paice, James

  Burns, Simon

  Paterson, Owen

  Butterfill, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Cash, William

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Randall, John

  Collins, Tim

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Robertson, Laurence

  Day, Stephen

  Roe Marion (Broxbourne)

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ruffley, David

  Faber, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fallon, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Flight Howard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Soames, Nicholas

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spring, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gill, Christopher

  Steen, Anthony

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gray, James

  Syms, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Trend, Michael

  Horam, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Walter, Robert

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Key, Robert

  Whittingdale, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Willetts, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Leigh, Edward

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Lidington, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Loughton, Tim

  and

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Mr. Peter Luff.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 181 and 182 agred to.

Clause 150

  INTERPRETATION
  Lords amendment: No. 183, in page 70, line 28, leave out from ("a") to end of line 30 and insert
  ("significantly adverse effect on competition
  if—

  (a) they have, or are intended or likely to have, that effect; or

  (b) the effect that they have, or are intended to have, is to require or encourage behaviour which has, or is intended or likely to have, a significantly adverse effect on competition.

  ( ) If regulating provisions or practices have, or are intended or likely to have, the effect of requiring or encouraging exploitation of the strength of a market position they are to be taken, for the purposes of this Chapter, to have an adverse effect on competition.")
  Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: after "position", insert ', or of prejudicing the competitive position of the United Kingdom,'.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 283.

  Division No. 215]

  [10.1 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gray, James

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Greenway, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Grieve, Dominic

  Baldry, Tony

  Hammond, Philip

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Harvey, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Horam, John

  Brady, Graham

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Keetch, Paul

  Burnett, John

  Key, Robert

  Bums, Simon

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Burstow, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Butterfill, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NEFife)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Cash, William

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lidington, David

  Uoyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Collins, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Cran, James

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Faber, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Flight, Howard

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fraser, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger

  Öpik, Lemoit

  Gill, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Page, Richard

  118

  Paice, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Paterson, Owen

  Syms, Robert

  Pickles, Eric

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Randall, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Rendel, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence

  Tyler, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Walter, Robert

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wells, Bowen

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Shepherd, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

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

  Willetts David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willis, Phil

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coleman, lain

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Connarty, Michael

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corbett, Robin

  Austin, John

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Crausby, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cummings, John

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darvill, Keith

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blackman, Liz

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, John

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dismore, Andrew

  Borrow, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Doran, Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dowd, Jim

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Drew, David

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Edwards, Huw

  Burgon, Colin

  Eftord, Clive

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Casale, Roger

  Foulkes, George

  Caton, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Clapham, Michael

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Goggins, Paul

  119

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Grogan, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hanson, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Healey, John

  Motley, Elliot

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

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

  Heppell, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hope, Phil

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hutton, John

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Jenkins, Brian

  Plaskitt, James

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Pond, Chris

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kidney, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rooney, Terry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Roy, Frank

  Laxton, Bob

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lepper, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Salter, Martin

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sawford, Phil

  Lock, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Love, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Singh, Marsha

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  (Makerfield)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Soley, Clive

  McIsaac, Shona

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Spellar, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McNulty, Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McWilliam, John

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  120

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Tynan, Bill

  Stringer, Graham

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Swinney, John

  Wareing, Robert N

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wills, Michael

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winnick, David

  Todd, Mark

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don

  Wood, Mike

  Trickett, Jon

  Woodward, Shaun

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 183 to 267 agreed to.

Clause 223

  AWARDS
  Lords Amendment: No. 268, in page 115, line 1, leave out from ("for") to ("of') in line 4 and insert ("—

  (a) financial loss; or

  (b) any other loss, or any damage,")

  10.15 pm
  Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment is technical; it clarifies subsection (3) of clause 223 and results from concerns raised on Report in another place that the provision might be open to misinterpretation. There was concern that the subsection might be read as requiring the ombudsman to try to construct hypothetical contracts, or to award compensation according to whether there had been a breach of an actual contract.
  In fact, the provision was only ever intended to set out the type of loss or damage for which the ombudsman could make awards. To require the ombudsman to make awards based on actual or hypothetical contracts would contradict the principle set out in clause 222 that cases should be determined on the basis of what is
  fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
  The amendment puts matters beyond doubt. It recasts subsection (3) so that the reference to awards of a kind a court could make for breach of contract is replaced by a more straightforward distinction between financial loss and other loss or damage "of a specified kind". I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Flight: I raise one point for clarification. The ombudsman schemes allow consumers redress to the courts if they are not happy with the scheme, with a three-year time limit from when they first raise a matter. In several cases, the Personal Investment Authority ombudsman took at least two years to address a matter and time ran out, so the issue is whether the three-year

  121
  period should run from the time of the first referral or whether the time taken by the ombudsman should be excluded when calculating the three-year period.
  Mr. Timms: The standard limitation period is, of course, six years, although it can vary according to the type of case and according to judicial discretion. If a lengthy complaint was before the ombudsman and a statute bar appeared on the horizon, it would be up to the consumer to institute protective court proceedings to ensure that the limitation period did not run out. Perhaps I could provide the hon. Gentleman with further information to resolve the question that he raises.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 269 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 270, after clause 229, to insert the following new clause—Open-ended investment companies—
  (".—(1) In this Part "an open-ended investment company" means a collective investment scheme which satisfies both the property condition and the investment condition.
  (2) The property condition is that the property belongs beneficially to, and is managed by or on behalf of, a body corporate ("BC") having as its purpose the investment of its funds with the aim of—

  (a) spreading investment risk; and

  (b) giving its members the benefit of the results of the management of those funds by or on behalf of that body.

  (3) The investment condition is that, in relation to BC, a reasonable investor would, if he were to participate in the scheme—

  (a) expect that he would be able to realize, within a period appearing to him to be reasonable, his investment in the scheme (represented, at any given time, by the value of shares in, or securities of, BC held by him as a participant in the scheme); and

  (b) be satisfied that his investment would be realised on a basis calculated wholly or mainly by reference to the value of property in respect of which the scheme makes arrangements

  (4) In determining whether the investment condition is satisfied, no account is to be taken of any actual or potential redemption or repurchase of shares or securities under—

  (a) Chapter VII of Part V of the Companies Act 1985;

  (b) Chapter VII of Part VI of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986;

  (c) corresponding provisions in force in another EEA State; or

  (d) provisions in force in a country or territory other than an EEA state which the Treasury have, by order, designated as corresponding provisions.

  (5) The Treasury may by order amend the definition of "an open-ended investment company" for the purposes of this Part.")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendments (a) and (b) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 271 and 558.
  Mr. Flight: The new clause that will be inserted in the Bill by amendment No. 270 is technical, but it is important for domestic and international funds. Domestically, it will govern the regulations to which the fund vehicle is subject and whether that is prospectus law or the marketing of collective investment schemes. For
  122
  companies established outside the UK, it will determine the tax regime that will apply. Therefore, accuracy and clarity of definition are important.
  The new clause provides that a company will be open-ended only if it satisfies the two conditions—the property and investment conditions—that are set out in the Bill, and amendments (a) and (b) relate to the investment condition. Under subsection (3) of the proposed new clause the investment condition will be satisfied if a reasonable investor is able to realise his investment within a reasonable period. Our amendments would sharpen up that test.
  Under amendment (a), a company will not be open-ended if the investor can receive his money back on the liquidation of the company, but the Government's definition does not appear intended to include a liquidation. A company's byelaws often provide that it is to be wound up at a specified later date, so someone who becomes an investor close to that later date could be deemed to be able to realise his investment within a reasonably short period. Therefore, different categories of open or closed-ended could apply, depending on when different investors invest in a fund.
  Amendment (b) would impose important restrictions on what is meant by realising an investment. As it stands, the condition will be satisfied, as is normally the case, if shares are transferable and the investor knows that he can sell his shares to someone else. It would be wrong to treat a company as open-ended for that reason. Our amendment uses the words in the undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities directive which allows cross-border marketing within the European Union of certain classes of collective investment scheme. That wording also appears in the Financial Services Act 1986 and it should continue to be used. The concept of an open-ended company relates to one that can buy back its shares and our wording covers that.
  It is wrong to provide for a company to be open-ended if the expectation is that the investment can be realised within a reasonable period. We thought about submitting a specific definition of time although we did not wish to undo the constructive negotiations that are taking place between the Treasury and the industry. However, it will be useful for the FSA to specify what "reasonable" means so that there is clarity. That is particularly important for non-UK funds where an unknown change in the tax position could have a material effect on UK investors.
  For example, if the rules of a fund provide for a right of redemption to arise one year down the line and the fund manager thinks that that is outside the reasonable period required by investor conditions, he will proceed on the basis that the company is not an open-ended investment company and therefore not a collective investment scheme. If the regulator or tax inspector takes a different view, there will be conflict and a tremendous tax row.
  I raised this issue in Committee, but there is still a lack of clarity in the Bill. What would happen if one investor says that the period is reasonable and another says that it is not? The fund could be open-ended if it followed the advice of one and closed-ended if it followed the advice of the other.

  123
  There might be scope to address the issue by FSA regulation, but it would be helpful if the Government could tell us that they are committed to tidying up these loose ends and potential conflicts.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Amendment (a) seeks to specify the time at which the expectation of the reasonable investor whom we have postulated for the purposes of the investment condition leg of the OEIC definition should be assessed. It proposes that the assessment should take place when the investor decides to participate in the scheme.
  The Government have stressed the importance of flexibility in all the debates on the definition of an OEIC. By defining an OEIC in the Bill and introducing regulations governing their incorporation and operation, we are facilitating important developments in the UK collective investment schemes industry, and it is essential that we do not stifle future innovation by being overly prescriptive in framing the definition. Indeed, when the Government introduced the current definition, the Opposition's spokesman in another place welcomed it as providing
  a much more flexible and forward-looking definition of open-ended investment schemes.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2000; Vol. 611, c. 942.]
  The Opposition amendment would introduce an element of ambiguity that is absent from the definition. To specify
  the time he decides to participate in the scheme
  begs the question whether that is when the investor makes his decision or when he will participate, which could be some time later than his decision.
  Any words specifying a particular time are unnecessary because it is clear that the relevant time of the assessment to be made by the hypothetical investor is immediately prior to hypothetical participation in the scheme. The fact that the investor and his investment are hypothetical means that the idea of him deciding to participate is the wrong approach to the point. The proposition needs to expressed in conditional language—hence
  if he were to participate…
  The fact that the investor is hypothetical also ensures that the test is flexible. It is a test that can be applied from time to time to allow for the possibility that a closed-ended company can become open-ended and vice versa, on account of significant changes to the way in which the operation of the company and its constitution are structured which push the company over the boundary between the two types. The test has been put together with the need to accommodate changes specifically in mind. This is a dynamic industry—we must have a dynamic definition.
  Mr. Tyrie: To be perfectly honest, I have not got a clue what the Minister is on about. I may be alone in that, but for my benefit at least, will she summarise in plain English what she is trying to say?
  Miss Johnson: I shall endeavour to do so. There are two types of investment companies—open-ended and closed-ended—and both need to be clearly defined. Schemes can move between one arrangement and the
  124
  other, depending on how quickly they can be realised. That point was made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). We want a definition that is flexible but not unduly ambiguous, and we are concerned that the Opposition amendment would introduce ambiguity that is absent from our present definition.
  Mr. Flight: Our particular concern is that under the present arrangements a scheme can be open-ended and closed-ended at the same time, depending on when an investor invests.
  Miss Johnson: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman's point relates to liquidation, with which I am about to deal. I am puzzled by his remark, which does not square with what I understood to be the effect of the Opposition amendment. It is clear that under the hon. Gentleman's proposal the test would exclude a company that was about to go into liquidation. We are talking about a reasonable investor. Someone who invests in a company knowing that it is about to be liquidated—and, for all he knows, it may be an insolvent liquidation—is not a reasonable investor That is a question of common sense. The same goes for the other exclusions: a reasonable investor would not invest in the expectation that the company was going to default.
  Mr. Flight: Many closed-ended investment companies provide that their life will end by liquidation at a certain date. If an investor, who may or may not be fully aware of that provision, invests within six months of that date, his investment will have a life of only six months and will then be liquidated, so he could be judgeable as investing in an open-ended company. That situation particularly applies to closed-ended non-UK funds. That has tax consequences because his investment, which he thought was to be in a closed-ended fund, becomes open-ended and does not have distributing status. The investor thus ends up with an income tax bill on the total return rather than capital gains tax as he expected, so the matter is one of liquidation in the context of closed-ended funds that end their life in the liquidation of assets.
  10.30 pm
  Miss Johnson: The answer to that point is that we emphasised when we introduced the definition that its aim and effect is to cover companies that look, to a reasonable investor, like open-ended collective investment schemes. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is alleging that a closed-ended scheme looks like an open-ended one if it is approaching liquidation, but that is not our understanding of the way in which it would be regarded.
  The investor's expectations could involve consideration of when he would be able to invest in the company and when, having done so, he would be able to realise his investment. A reasonable investor's overall expectations of potential investment in a company when its status with respect to the definition is being judged will determine whether it meets the definition. The matter is therefore definitional rather than one of proximity to liquidation.
  Amendment (b) specifies what is meant by "realise his investment". The effect would be to limit realisation to the repurchase or redemption of the shares or their sale on an investment exchange arranged by the company.

  125
  That would be an unacceptable limitation on the means by which an investor can realise his investment. It would prevent the development of OEICs allowing realisation by other means in certain circumstances and thus restrict the types of OIECs that the Government, the FSA and industry may in future want to be made available.
  In another place, the Opposition expressed interest in the definition allowing
  scope for a wider range of authorised funds which are intended for domestic consumption—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2000; Vol. 611, c. 943.]
  The amendment would run counter to future efforts to do precisely that.
  Similar companies established outside the UK must be capable of coming within the definition. For example, companies may have a mixture of shares—some redeemable, some not. Those partly open-ended, partly closed-ended companies enable investors to realise their investments without having their shares redeemed, repurchased or sold, perhaps by raising loan funds to pass on to investors who want to realise their investments.
  In such a case, the hypothetical reasonable investor should look at the company as a whole. He will think to himself, "If I invest in this body, would I expect to be able to realise my investment and be satisfied that the value would, on the whole, be calculated in the specified way?" If the answer is yes, the company should fall within the definition. Amendment (b) would preclude that.
  However, I reassure Opposition Members that the forms of realisation that they specify are covered by the current definition. With that, and my earlier comments, I hope that they will find it possible to withdraw the
  amendment.
  Mr. Flight: We had not intended to put the issue to the vote; it is highly technical. I believe that the Government's intent is bona fide, but there are still some problems. Perhaps we might discuss the matter, as it is purely an industry one. The broad intent must be clarity for an investor in assessing whether he is investing in an open-ended or closed-ended company. We do not wish to press our amendment to the vote.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 271 to 442 agreed to.

  New Clause
  Lords amendment: No. 443, after clause 342, to insert the following new clause—Authority's duty to co-operate with others—
  .—(1)The Authority must take such steps as it considers appropriate to co-operate with other persons (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) who have functions—

  (a) similar to those of the Authority; or

  (b) in relation to the prevention or detection of financial crime.

  (2) Co-operation may include the sharing of information which the Authority is not prevented from disclosing.
  (3)"Financial crime" has the same meaning as in section 6.")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have a question or two about the new clause that the amendment would insert. It would
  126
  place on the authority an obligation to co-operate and share information with
  other persons (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere).
  What restrictions are placed on that? For example, is it envisaged that the authority will share information with private investigators, or will disclosure be confined to the public sector? As it stands, the only restriction is that the persons to whom information will be given must be connected with the prevention or detection of financial crime. That is a wide definition. Many bodies and people could claim to be preventing or detecting crime, but it would nevertheless be unwise to share information with them.
  Will information be provided only on a reciprocal basis? Otherwise, we could disclose information to parties, particularly in other countries, without any reciprocal arrangement—they may have banking secrecy laws, for instance. I believe it wrong for this to be a one-way street. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us a little about how the new clause will operate.
  Mr. John Butterfill: In her response, will the Minister say what the definition of "crime" will be? What may be a crime in this country may not be a crime in some other regulatory regime, and vice versa. What will be the test of what amounts to a financial crime? Will any other jurisdiction that may have a completely different definition of crime be able to request this information from us, even though the act concerned may not be a criminal act in this country?
  Miss Melanie Johnson: The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked to whom disclosure may be made. I refer to the restrictions contained in part XXIII, which will apply in this case as elsewhere. Financial crime is defined in clause 6(3), and that definition of crime is to be understood in this context.
  I hope that that answers the points raised, but if the right hon. Member for Wells or the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) have further queries I shall undertake to write to them, as there is no amendment on that subject.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister for her offer to write to us. She clearly does not have the information that we requested. She points me to other provisions in the Bill, but it would have helped if she had answered the questions that my hon. Friend and I asked. I think that we will take up her offer to enlighten us by correspondence.
  I am slightly surprised that the Government, having tabled amendments at this very late stage, apparently do not have the answers to our questions at their fingertips. We are trying to be sparing with our questions, given the short time we have in which to debate these important amendments. When we alight on something of more general interest, it would assist if we could have immediate answers.
  10.45 pm
  Miss Johnson: I thought that I had in outline answered both the main points that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend made. I offered to write to them only in the event of their wanting more detail on those outlines—

  127
  if, indeed, there is more to be said. I am happy to supply more information, but I believe that they have had a basic answer to both points.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 444 to 588 agreed to.

Schedule 1

  THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
  Lords amendment: No. 589, in page 219, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
  ("(4) in a case where the investigator—

  (a) has reported that a complaint is well-founded, or

  (b) has criticised the Authority in his report,

  the investigator may include in his report a recommendation to the Authority that it takes steps to remedy the matter complained of including, if appropriate, by making an ex-gratia payment.")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss
  Melanie Johnson.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the amendment thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 590 and 591.
  Mr. Flight: The issue raised by Lords amendment No. 589 and our amendment to it is one of the most important outstanding issues. Given the virtual legal immunity enjoyed by the FSA, it is essential that there should be a full, clear and open complaints scheme. The Government accepted Lords amendment No. 589 in the other place; our amendment to that amendment was, I believe, supported in the Lords, but was not actually tabled.
  To put it simply, our amendment proposes that the investigator should be able, if he sees fit, to investigate complaints, whether or not the FSA has recommended him so to do. It also proposes that the complaints scheme should confer on the investigator the power to recommend to the authority, as he sees fit, appropriate compensatory payments or any other remedies. Together with Lords amendment No. 589, it would give an independent complaints investigator the power to look into complaints and recommend appropriate redress, fairly and without being leant on by the FSA.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: I can be brief. I am grateful to Opposition Members for seeking to restore the safeguard that seemed to have been unwittingly removed during debate in the other place on amendment No. 589. We are happy to support the amendment to the amendment, which, as the hon. Gentleman says, restores one of the safeguards of the investigator's independence.
  Lords amendment and amendment thereto agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 590 and 591 agreed to.

Schedule 3

  EEA PASSPORT RIGHTS
  Lords amendment: No. 592, in page 229, leave out line 19 to 23 and insert—
  ("12.—(1)Once an EEA firm which is seeking to establish a branch in the United Kingdom in exercise of an EEA right satisfies the establishment conditions, it qualifies for authorisation
  (2) Once an EEA firm which is seeking to provide services in the United Kingdom in exercise of an EEA right satisfies the service conditions, it")
  Motion made, and question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 593, 594 and the amendment thereto, 595 to 603 and 606 to 615.
  Mr. Flight: We come to a subject beloved at the Committee stage: the territory of European Union passporting. Our amendment relates to the use of the incoming single European passport by non-United Kingdom firms that are passporting into the UK under EU law, and schedule 3, which reflects that.
  Amendment No. 594 as it stands is helpful, but we fear that it gives rise to some possible confusions, which our amendment seeks to prevent. Amendment No. 594 looks at the position of a European Economic Area firm that wants to do business under its passport, but that does not comply with the notification requirements imposed by schedule 3. The amendment tries to lessen the consequences of that failure by the passporting firm by providing that, although it is as a result unauthorised, its contracts will not be unenforceable, even though otherwise they would be. One of the reasons why we feel that it is desirable to be sensitive in this area and in the case of EEA firms using the passport where technical breaches are committed, is that the more aggressive our treatment of EEA firms here, the worse our firms are likely to find European regulators treat them about Europe.
  Our amendment tries to prevent the confusion that is likely to arise from amendment No. 594. The question of enforceability arises under the sections listed in amendment No. 594 only if the firm is not authorised under the legislation. The policy, which is the same as the policy that we adopted in the Financial Services Act 1986, is that an authorised firm will not be committing a criminal offence if it acts outside its permitted business, although private investors who suffer as a result can sue the firm for compensation. Accordingly, the sections listed apply only in relation to a firm that is not authorised.
  A firm can, however, be authorised under the legislation as a result of the normal authorisation process—getting permission under part IV—for some regulated activities, even though it wants to use the passport for others. Most firms may try to do that because the passport is by no means comprehensive. Therefore, the first change to Lords amendment No. 594 would ensure that the paragraph applies initially only to a firm that is not an authorised person, albeit in relation to non-passported activities.

  129
  The second change that we propose making to Lords amendment No. 594 is to provide that the disapplication of the unenforceability provision should apply only in relation to passported activities. The Lords amendment provides that the unenforceability provisions do not apply to an agreement entered into by the firm. The firm may enter into other agreements, and not only into agreements covered by the passport. The Lords amendment therefore provides that any agreement entered into by the firm is covered.
  Accordingly, the unenforceability provisions would not apply even in the case of agreements that had nothing at all to do with the passport. Although we support the unenforceability provisions already made in the 1986 Act, we would not like what is admittedly a helpful amendment to have that potentially undesirable result.
  The subject—like that of the EEA passporting territory—is extremely technical and obscure, and we had hoped that, by now, it had been entirely put to bed. However, if Ministers are not willing to accept our amendment to Lords amendment No. 594, an unsatisfactory situation will develop in a territory in which many British businesses are EU-EEA passported.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: In the course of our debates, we have given much further thought to the enforcement provisions, and we have made various amendments to meet the concerns expressed by Opposition Members and by their colleagues in another place. We have also reconsidered their application in this context, but concluded that their amendment is probably disproportionate and possibly discriminatory.
  If an outgoing United Kingdom authorised person conducts activities covered by the relevant directive in another European economic area state without having gone through the relevant procedures, the Bill would not render unenforceable transactions effected by that person in the course of conducting those activities. Therefore, to apply the enforcement of agreements provisions to incoming firms that fail to follow the proper procedures might be discriminatory.
  The new paragraph that we propose to insert after paragraph 15 therefore disapplies clauses 24, 25 and 27 in relation to any agreement entered into by an EEA firm in the course of, or any agreement entered into by an authorised person as a result of, regulated activity conducted without the relevant procedures having been completed.
  Conversely, the Opposition amendment would apply the non-enforcement provisions of those clauses in most circumstances. Although I am not sure that that is the intention, use of the term "permitted activity" might be intended to narrow the paragraph's effect to activities covered by the directives, rather than to any regulated activity. However, if that is the intention, it does not work.
  The definitions of "permitted activity" in paragraphs 13 and 14 are related to the activities specified in the "consent notices" provided for in those paragraphs. A "permitted activity" is therefore only an activity for which notification has been received by the FSA from the home state regulator or the firm concerned. The effect of the Opposition amendment would be to disapply the non-enforcement clauses only when the home state regulator or the firm concerned has begun the procedure which leads up to the firm qualifying for authorisation.
  130
  However, it is just as necessary to cover cases in which that first step has not been taken as well as cases in which it has been taken.
  Additionally, the Opposition amendment simply would not work in certain cases. A credit institution, for example, that wishes to do business on a services basis only has to give a notice of intention. Once it has given such a notice, it qualifies for authorisation. The Opposition amendment would apply to a credit institution that has not given a notice of intention, but would define that institution's "permitted activities" in terms that depend upon it having given a notice of intention. That does not make sense.
  The Opposition amendment—for reasons that I do not quite understand—also fails to deal with the effect of the provisions of clause 27. As I explained, we believe that the amendments made in another place are necessary if the UK is not to be open to charges of discrimination. We also believe that the Opposition's amendment is inconsistent with that and is defective in any event. For that reason, I hope that they will withdraw it, but if they do not, I urge the House to vote against it.
  It being Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Lords amendment No. 592 agreed to.
  Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the remaining Lords amendments:—
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 114.

  Division No. 216]

  [11.1 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cann, Jamie

  Ainger, Nick

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allen, Graham

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Caton, Martin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Austin, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Battle, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clelland, David

  Benton, Joe

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Berry, Roger

  Coleman, lain

  Best, Harold

  Connarty, Michael

  Blackman, Liz

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corbett, Robin

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Cotter, Brian

  Borrow, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Crausby, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Cummings, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Darvill, Keith

  Burstow, Paul

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Davidson, Ian

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Denham, John

  131

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Doran, Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dowd, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Drew, David

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Edwards, Huw

  Levitt, Tom

  Efford, Clive

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Feam, Ronnie

  Lock, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCabe, Steve

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Foulkes, George

  Galloway, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Goggins, Paul

  McNulty, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  MacShane, Denis

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grogan, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hain, Peter

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Maxton, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Miller, Andrew

  Healey, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heppell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hoey, Kate

  Mudie, George

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, Bill

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hurst, Alan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hutton, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pendry, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jamieson, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pope, Greg

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Keetch, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Kemp, Fraser

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  132

  Roy, Frank

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Timms, Stephen

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Todd, Mark

  Salter, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Sanders, Adrian

  Trickett, Jon

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tyler, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  White, Brian

  Soley Clive

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Spellar John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wills, Michael

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wood, Mike

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Swinney, John

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Amess, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baldry, Tony

  Heald, Oliver

  Bercow, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Blunt, Crispin

  Horam, John

  Boswell, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brazier, Julian

  Key, Robert

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bums, Simon

  Leigh, Edward

  Butterfill, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clappison, James

  Lidington, David

  Collins, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cran, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Luff, Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Duncan Smith, lain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Evans, Nigel

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Faber, David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fabricant, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Flight, Howard

  Mates, Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fraser, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gray, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Page, Richard

  133

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence

  Viggers, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Walter, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Shepherd, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Willetts, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Syms, Robert

  and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. John Randall.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6) and Order [11 May],
  That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Mr. Clelland.]
  Question accordingly agreed to.

Post Offices (Sutton and Cheam)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
11.13 pm
Mr. Paul Burstow: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate this subject. I sought the debate because sub-postmasters in my constituency have genuine concern and anxiety about their very future. I hope that some of their concerns can be aired through this debate and that the Minister will be able to go some way towards allaying them.
Like many hon. Members, I was greatly impressed by the lobby of Parliament organised by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters on 12 April. Before the lobby, I undertook a survey of the 16 sub-post offices in my constituency, to test the pulse and see what the views and concerns were. I found a group of hard-headed, realistic business men and women who were struggling to survive and keep their businesses as going concerns. Many of them have seen the value of their assets collapse, and it is getting harder and harder for them to make a decent return on the investment and commitment that they have made to providing a postal service.
Over the past 10 years, my constituency has lost four Crown post offices, in Sutton, Cheam village, North Cheam and Worcester Park, although I concede that they were all lost during the previous Conservative Government's term in office. Fortunately, those post offices were replaced by agency post offices, but those business men and women who took on those agencies now find that the investment and commitment they put in are beginning to turn sour.
What those business men and women need, and what my constituents expect, is the Government to act to protect the sub-post office network. As things stand, the switch from pension book to credit transfer will mean that at least one in three of the 16 sub-post offices in my constituency will be under threat, because more than 40 per cent. of their business comes from work for the Benefits Agency. When the Government tabled their amendment to the Postal Services Bill earlier this year to empower the Secretary of State to introduce a subsidy scheme for the public post offices, that initiative was generally welcomed. The Government have recognised the need for some action.
The Government's acceptance that they had a role to play in securing the future of the network was welcome. I read with great interest the Minister's recent speech to the conference of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. It was an under-reported speech and I could find only one article in the national press that did any justice to it. I was not present, but on the subject of closures, the text of the speech read:
unless we find a lasting solution that is acceptable across Government; finds favour with the Post Office; and offers your members a secure future—it won't be the last.
The Minister was right when he said that and a consensus must be found that secures the network not on the basis of a narrow financial assessment, but on a wider appreciation of the social and economic value of the sub-post office network.
The national federation has described its members as the general practitioners of government. They are a one-stop shop for Government services and much

135
potential exists for the development of that role with the expansion of e-government. However, the network is not just a group of small business men and women struggling to make an honest return; it also plays a vital role in sustaining the vitality and viability of smaller, more marginal shopping parades. The closure of sub-post offices can create a domino effect, with other businesses suffering the knock-on consequences of a loss of trade, following the demise of their local sub-post office.
I have already referred to the uncertainty felt by sub-postmasters in my constituency. It could even be described as a crisis of confidence. Only last week I learned that the sub-post office on the London road in North Cheam is due to close on 7 June. It will close its doors because the temporary sub-postmaster has resigned and nobody has expressed any interest in taking on the agency permanently. That post office provides an important service to residents in the Cheam Park Farm and Brocks estate. Its closure will leave many of my constituents, especially the elderly and disabled, with the prospect of a long walk or bus journey to the next nearest sub-post office at Stonecot Hill or the Queen Vic in the North Cheam district centre.
One of the greatest strengths of the network is its accessibility. In my constituency, the local branch of Age Concern contacted my office in the past day or so to express its concern about the closure. The Post Office retail network manager for the area, Elaine Wright, has told me that the Post Office is trying hard to restore services to the locality as soon as possible. I know that the Government are committed to convenient access to all post offices—as the Minister told the national federation at its conference in Bournemouth—and I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to ensure that the restoration of that particular sub-post office is carried through expeditiously and is seen as a top priority by the Post Office.
The closure of sub-post offices contributes to the growing financial exclusion suffered by pensioners and people in other low-income groups. The decision to press ahead with plans to pay pensions and benefits directly into bank accounts from 2003 makes the search for the lasting solution to which the Minister referred even more urgent.
Post Office network managing director Dave Miller told the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters conference that the decision to proceed with direct payments to bank accounts would take away something like a third of the income of Post Office Counters Ltd., and reduce customer visits by almost a half. Ministers have been at pains to reassure sub-postmasters that claimants would be able to draw cash out of post offices, but post offices—and Post Office Counters Ltd.—are still waiting to hear how that will happen in practice. The Minister's conference speech does not make it clear how the Government intend to proceed.
Clearly, although there is no coercion, there is undoubtedly Government encouragement for the way in which the Benefits Agency offers to pay benefits, which leads people to see automatic credit transfer as the only option available. It is important to make it clear that a choice does remain, and to show how it will be secured in the long run. People need to know that there is a choice about how they can gain access to their pensions and benefits entitlements, but it is also important to make it
136
clear how an exclusive payments system at post offices will mean that people who cannot have or do not want bank accounts can get their money.
Sutton and Cheam is neither rural nor urban, but suburban. Its leafy image of wealth and affluence masks many pockets of deprivation. It also hides the fact that a growing number of elderly people are often asset rich—in that they own a home—but are income poor.
I said that the Minister's speech did not attract much press comment. However, The Guardian of 17 May carried a report by Patrick Wintour. Its introductory paragraph rang alarm bells for me when it stated:
Tony Blair is planning to pour cash into inner-city and rural post offices to protect them from the impact of a huge loss of revenue caused by the automation of benefits payments.
That might be considered to be a good introduction to an article on this matter, but it mentioned inner-city and rural post offices. The article went on to mention the Minister's speech, which I rude a point of reading in preparation for this debate.
In his speech, the Minister shared with sub-postmasters some of the highlights of the performance and innovation unit's examination of the network. It is clear that rural post offices have a place in the Government's plans, as do offices in deprived urban areas, but what about suburban post offices? Where does that network fit into the Government's plans? It did not feature in the Minister's conference speech and, given the content of the various speeches made in the House on the matter, it is not clear that that question has been addressed.
Do the Government accept that sub-post offices in my constituency, and other suburban post offices, have an important role to play and are an important part of the fabric of the local community? They need a clear and unambiguous guarantee that they will not be left out in the cold.
The Minister has talked in the past of the need for the post office network to achieve a soft landing. The previous Government's desire to privatise the Post Office meant that a better analogy would have been with the landing made by a kamikaze pilot. Under that Government's stewardship, nearly 4,500 post offices closed, but the achievement of a soft landing now will require a comprehensive and fair package that supports the whole network.
The lobby on 12 April demonstrated the strength of feeling on this matter, as the Minister recognised. Many of my constituents signed petitions organised by the sub-postmasters, and I shall be presenting 4,500 additional signatures later this week to the House. Those signatures came from customers of sub-postmasters and also from the Sutton seniors forum in my constituency. I know, from talking to members of that forum, that they feel strongly that the network must be safeguarded.
I hope, for the sake of residents in my constituency, particularly on the Brocks estate, and for many others in Sutton and Cheam, that suburban post offices will continue to feature on the Government's agenda, along with those in deprived urban areas and rural post offices. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance on those points.
11.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate tonight. I have listened carefully to his speech, and welcome the opportunity to respond to the issues and the points that he raised. The House has not exactly been bereft of debates on the Post Office network—this is one of many to which I have responded, and I doubt whether anything that I say tonight will be fresh and new. However, it is important to emphasise the Government's position with regard to this important matter.
The concerns voiced by the hon. Gentleman centre on the future of the network and the move to the payment of benefits and pensions by automated credit transfer. He also made an important point about the suburban network, and I hope that I can give him some reassurance about that.
The future of the post office network is a matter of public concern in all communities, irrespective of whether they are urban or rural. The challenges facing the network are of interest to all of us. That was demonstrated on 12 April, with the presentation of a record-breaking petition to No. 10 Downing street, which contained more than 3 million signatures. In addition, the network has been extensively debated in the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, the focus of this concern is the progressive migration, over a two-year period, of state benefit payments to ACT as the norm.
The hon. Gentleman also made the point that the network has been declining for some years. He said that four Crown post offices were converted in his constituency. This Government, of course, placed a moratorium on Crown post office closures, so that we could have a proper appraisal of the system. I understand that an office that had been converted to sub-post office status in the high street in Sutton has now been re-converted to a branch office. That suggests that the review of the system has been fruitful. Indeed, in last year's White Paper, we said that 15 per cent. of all transactions will go through Crown post offices, so a flagship of Crown post offices will remain.
The harsh reality is that, despite its many strengths and its importance to the community, the network has not modernised sufficiently over the past 20 years to respond to, and keep pace with, social, economic and technological changes. The previous Government had a well-intentioned plan to computerise the network with the benefit payment card. It was a private finance initiative project. The key objectives of the contract were to automate the network and provide the Benefits Agency with a computerised service.
The contract was for only eight 5 years—it was never going to be a permanent solution. Shortly after we came into office, it was clear that the project had run into significant problems. By late 1997, the project was incurring substantial cost over-runs and would have come into service some three years later than planned.
We knew that we could not go on against that background. We concluded that changes had to be made, and took the tough decisions necessary to get that project back on track. Our decision was to get Horizon working as a simple public procurement, and that has been very
138
successful. We are converting 300 offices a week. This huge network will be completely online and computerised by the spring of 2001.
The argument about ACT, as I have mentioned many times in the House, has been a constant problem. I said at the conference that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters rallied in the early 1980s when the previous Government introduced ACT for the first time, and it rallied in the early 1990s when ACT was extended to cover other benefit payments. If we do not solve that problem, once and for all, in a way that suits the Benefits Agency, the network, the Post Office and sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, we will not have a lasting solution. The move to ACT is accelerating; 500,000 more people are voluntarily having benefits paid into ACT every year, and that number will grow as a new generation used to cashless pay reach pensionable age. We have to resolve that problem.
We must also ensure that the solution deals with how people access their cash once it has been transmitted by ACT. It would benefit no one if the Post Office ignored customer preferences, and the NFSP certainly does not believe that it would. The organisation is not comprised of luddites, and it has raised real concerns that we are trying to tackle constructively. The solutions that we have identified must concentrate on allowing people to access their cash in a modernised network that can thrive, rather than simply survive, clinging on by its fingernails, as has been the case for too much of the past. We need to change that for the 21st century.
The emerging vision that I unveiled at the NFSP conference contained three specific opportunities—in financial services, in e-commerce and in Government services. Important initiatives can be taken, and when the policy and innovation unit report is published shortly, I hope that that emerging vision will be one that both sides of the House can sign up to as a way forward for the Post Office.
On financial services, the Post Office has done well at developing new lines of business. Contracts with institutions including the Co-operative bank, Lloyds-TSB and, most recently, Barclays allow people to access their bank accounts through the post office network. I hope that the incentive of the Horizon automation platform, which reduces the cost to the banks of transactions made across post office counters, will encourage banks to extend that situation to cover many more accounts.
Our arrangements with the high street banks do not by any means cover the sizeable group of customers—three and a half million—who have no form of traditional bank account. We welcome the Post Office's work in developing a universal bank. In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor invited the banks to work with the Post Office to offer not just a substitute distribution network, but a basic banking service to all.
A universal bank in partnership with the banks could help address the problems of financial exclusion. It would greatly reduce the number of people who do not have a bank account. More importantly, it would provide a post office-based solution, allowing a post office card to replace benefit books, allowing people to access bank accounts and pay bills—as many pensioners, particularly the elderly, like to do when they draw their pensions across post office counters. It could meet our clear pledge that, even after the move to ACT, any customer who

139
wants to access benefits or a pension across a post office counter in cash, undiluted by bank charges, should be able to do so. The Post Office is well placed to expand its role in financial services, both in social banking and as a substitute distribution system for the high street banks.
Despite the recent boom and almost immediate gloom in the dot.com sector, there is a wide consensus that e-commerce will be a major growth area over the next few years. The Post Office must think creatively about how to take advantage of the opportunities that that offers. Many people will order goods across the internet, but will not be at home to receive them. Post offices could become places where many customers can order and pay for goods over the internet, and where they can collect the products.
On Government services, the reach of the post offices, which are ubiquitous, makes the network a major national asset. Millions of people already see post offices as places in which to do Government business. There is potential to build on. We are also looking at the role post offices may be able to play in the Government's crusade to bring internet access to all by 2005.
The Government, the Post Office and sub-postmasters will need to work with the private sector, especially the high street banks, to turn that vision into a reality. We want Post Office management to forge a strong future in diversified lines of business. Some of that has started, but there is much still to do. We want rapid movement on that matter.
The contribution of sub-postmasters, which is recognised as one of the greatest strengths of the network, could be utilised more, so that sub-postmasters continue to provide the crucial service of running shops and post offices in many areas that have few or no other facilities. The dedication of sub-postmasters will be essential if we are to unlock and build on the potential of the network.
However, we in Government also have to play our part. We are already investing £500 million to computerise the network. The issues raised in the debate highlight the range of problems of managing and maintaining a retail network of more than 18,000 post offices.
The hon. Gentleman referred to North Cheam sub-post office, which unfortunately had to close on Wednesday because the temporary sub-postmaster had resigned. I am not sure why, but I am aware that sub-postmasters and mistresses resign for a range of reasons. Sometimes they want to retire and the post office is in their private home. Many sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses—especially the elderly ones—are resigning as computerisation comes on line. However, whatever the reason, the Post Office goes to enormous lengths to keep a service running.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will ensure that every effort is made in that case. I am informed by the Post Office that it is intended to restore the service in north Cheam as soon as possible. I shall certainly keep an eye on the matter.
140
Although the Post Office network management might not get everything right all the time, they remain strongly committed to maintaining post office counter service provision wherever possible—often with considerable ingenuity; we should not allow ourselves to forget that.
I do not know where The Guardian reporter found the information in his first paragraph about lots of cash being put into inner-city and rural post offices. We included a subsidy clause in the Postal Services Bill, because, in a measure that will remain on the statute book for a generation, it would be remiss of us not to include at least a safety net, in case subsidy was necessary. As the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to mention, that is a clear demonstration of our determination to support the network.
No one wants subsidy to be the answer; we want transactions. We want the Post Office network to be a going commercial concern. We need to ensure that business flows across the counters in order to meet that objective.
However, we are committed to protecting and modernising the rural network. The reason for the emphasis on that network and the need for post offices in socially deprived areas is that, at present, those offices are cross subsidised within the network—more heavily used offices subsidise those that are used less frequently. That has been true for many years.
The focus on rural and deprived urban areas does not mean that we are not equally committed to the rest of the network. Indeed, we believe that there could be bigger and brighter post offices in suburban areas. The NFSP accepts that many post offices are not pleasant places to visit. We could improve the accommodation; this review offers us an important focal point.
We are looking to work with the NFSP and with the Post Office to reinvent and modernise the network. We are committed to ensuring convenient access to all post offices. We are prepared to define what we mean by a nationwide network of post offices—unlike the previous Government, who talked about achieving that while closing half the network. We are looking to define what is meant by such a network through access criteria.
I set out the Government's emerging vision for the network at the conference of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters on 16 May and the performance and innovation unit report will be published shortly. It will provide the platform for us to take the vision forward, so that we have a network equipped for the 21st century and that is able to provide a secure future for sub-post offices and the communities that rely so heavily upon them. That includes post offices in Sutton and Cheam. They provide a valuable service and are part of the social fabric of this country. This Government are pledged to protect them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve midnight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Internal Mailbags
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what the total cost was of the recent replacement of the House of Commons's internal mailbags; and for what reasons the former mailbags were replaced. [124179]

  Mrs. Roe
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms, I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the President of the Council on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124121]

  Mrs. Beckett
  During the period 31 March 1999 to the end of March 2000, Special Advisers in this Department travelled overseas on one occasion.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set out the response of the Government to concerns over human rights protection in the UK identified by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of the Judiciary in his report to the April 2000 session of the UN Human Rights Commission; and if he will place the relevant documentation in the Library. [121868]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The UN Special Rapporteur's oral statement to the 56th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights focused on Northern Ireland and therefore my hon. Friend's question has been passed to this Department.

  A copy of the UN Special Rapporteur's oral statement is now available on the Internet at www.unhchr.ch.

  The UK Government's response will be placed in the House of Commons Library once it has been completed.

  Military Complaints Procedures
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to lay before Parliament Mr. Jim McDonald's annual report as Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland. [124534]
  2W
  Mr. Ingram
  Mr. McDonald's report is being published today and copies are being placed in the Library.

  I note that Mr. McDonald has said that the military authorities have continued to respond constructively to his independently developed assessment of their role in the complaints system, and that the renewed priority given to training in the specific areas of complaint handling and complaint avoidance produced good results in 1999.

  The Report of the Independent Assessor continues to provide valuable reassurances to both Government and the public that the army's complaints procedures stand scrutiny. The Government attach importance to this role and its statutory basis is to be continued through the Terrorism Bill, currently before the House of Lords.

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the report by Mr. J. J. Rowe QC on the operation during 1999 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. [124533]

  Mr. Ingram
  Mr. Rowe's Report is being published today and copies are being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Rowe recommends the continuance of the EPA powers.

  A continuance Order has been laid to continue in force the EPA until 24 August, the date on which the Act will expire.

  Before 24 August, the EPA will be replaced by the Terrorism Bill, currently before the House of Lords.

  Under the Terrorism Bill, temporary emergency provisions for Northern Ireland will be set in the context of permanent UK-wide counter-terrorism powers.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124116]

  Mr. Mandelson
  During the period 31 March 1999 to the end of March 2000, Special Advisers in this Department travelled overseas on one occasion.

  There has been no Special Adviser in post since my appointment on 11 October 1999.

DEFENCE

  Regular Army
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the net inflow was into the Regular Army in the last financial year. [122657]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the financial year just ended, there was a net inflow of 175 in the trained strength of the Regular Army. This is the first time since 1986 that there has been such an inflow, which represents a significant and welcome improvement.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British military involvement in Zimbabwe. [122658]

  Mr. Spellar
  Nine British Army and two RAF UK military personnel currently serve in Zimbabwe as part of the British Military Advisory and Training Team (BMATT) Southern Africa. The BMATT's main role is to provide regional peacekeeping training in countries throughout the Southern Africa region. We are keeping the situation under review.

  In addition, two Army personnel, the UK Defence Adviser and his assistant, provide advice to the British High Commissioner in Harare on defence issues.

  Joint Force 2000
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in establishing the Joint Force 2000. [122659]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased to confirm that Joint Force Harrier was formed, under the command of Rear Admiral lain Henderson, on 1 April this year. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces had the pleasure of attending the launch ceremonies at RAF Strike Command and RAF Wittering on 31 March.

  Joint Force Harrier combines the Royal Navy's Sea Harrier and RAF Harrier squadrons in a single force which is able to operate from land bases or carriers, as the recent operation off Sierra Leone has demonstrated. In 2003 both fleets will be co-located at RAF Cottesmore and RAF Wittering to fully realise the significant operational benefits that the creation of Joint Force Harrier will bring.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties RAF personnel made in patrolling no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq in the last year. [122661]

  Mr. Spellar
  Between April 1999 and March 2000 RAF aircraft flew a total of 2,683 sorties in the no-fly zones; 450 in the Northern no-fly zone and 2,233 in the Southern no-fly zone.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2000,Official Report, column 19W, on Iraq, what role tanks play in the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System. [120804]

  Mr. Hoon
  Iraqi Main Battle Tanks play no part in the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System.

  Radioactive Materials
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the destruction of radioactive materials held by his Department. [122662]

  Dr. Moonie
  The primary legislation controlling the holding and disposal of radioactive materials is the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and its associated Exemption Orders. Although the Act does not apply to Ministry of Defence activities, my Department's policy is 4W
  to apply standards and arrangements which, so far as is reasonably practicable, are at least as good as those required by the Act. This policy is promulgated in the Departmental Environmental Manual, Joint Services Publication 418, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Vacant Homes (Hendon)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's former homes in Hendon are vacant; and if he will make a statement. [122663]

  Dr. Moonie
  We have sold former married quarters in Hendon to the Notting Hill Housing Trust and in Mill Hill to Annington Homes as part of the sale of all married quarters in England and Wales in 1996. We do not know how many of these are empty once they are no longer our responsibility.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Foreign Office Ministers about the proposals by the New Agenda Coalition to the current nuclear proliferation treaty review conference. [122664]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have kept closely in touch with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), during the course of the Review Conference.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Environment Agency following the decision to refer for judicial review the activities carried out at AWE Aldermaston. [122665]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers have had no discussions with the Environment Agency on this matter since the EA granted a licence to AWE plc to operate at Aldermaston. However, officials of the Ministry of Defence and of the Environment Agency hold regular discussions as part of the normal course of business and these have included the judicial review of the Environment Agency's recent discharge authorisations for the Aldermaston site.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of procedures adopted by the private operators of the Aldermaston site to give his Department temporary ownership of radioactive substances; and if he will make a statement. [122573]

  Mr. Spellar
  I presume that the question refers to erroneous reports that the Ministry of Defence sought to avoid public scrutiny of measures to dispose of some slightly radioactive material at its DERA Shoeburyness site. In fact, the transfer of material was carried out only after the Environment Agency (EA), following a period for consultation with local authorities, had granted approval on the basis that the environmental impact of disposal in this fashion is minimal. The material in question is conventional high explosive removed from obsolete nuclear weapons, dismantled by the Atomic Weapons Establishment, and only contains small traces of
  5W
  radioactive tritium. The EA provides independent monitoring at the Shoeburyness facility to ensure that there is no risk to staff or the public from these activities.

  Kosovo (NATO Ordnance)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of how much NATO ordnance was(a) directed against imposter targets and (b) dumped unexploded in the Adriatic as a result of bad weather during the war in Kosovo. [122666]

  Mr. Spellar
  NATO's assessment of the air campaign was made public by the then Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Wesley Clark, in September last year. It is the most comprehensive assessment undertaken and is explained in detail on NATO's website www.nato.int/kosovoipress/p990916a.htm. The Ministry of Defence has not undertaken a separate assessment of how much NATO ordnance was directed against decoy or imposter targets.

  It would not be appropriate to comment on behalf of other nations, but no UK aircraft dropped ordnance in the Adriatic during the campaign.

  Training
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of opportunities for training with live ammunition in each of the last five years. [122667]

  Mr. Spellar
  Service personnel are trained, individually and collectively, in all aspects of their roles, and live firing of weapons is one element of a balanced training programme which is subject to the constraints of time, money and infrastructure. The opportunities available to military personnel to train with live ammunition vary according to the specialisation of the individual concerned, and also according to the operational role of the formed unit to which that individual belongs. Because most live firing is carried out at unit level, the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Territorial Army (Balkans)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of Territorial Army soldiers serving in the Balkans. [122668]

  Mr. Spellar
  A total of 3,975 Territorial Army soldiers have been mobilised for duty in the Balkans since December 1995. Their role has been to provide individual reinforcements with a variety of skills to Regular Units on operational tours, and fill a number of staff appointments in the various Headquarters in the Balkans.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the use of United Kingdom forces in Sierra Leone. [122669]

  Mr. Hoon
  United Kingdom Forces deployed to Sierra Leone in early May have done an excellent job. They deployed to get UK nationals out and, in securing the airport at Lungi, they were able to help UNAMSIL while reinforcements flew in. The operation has been a success: hundreds of UK nationals were evacuated; thousands of 6W
  UN reinforcements have flown in. The arrival of capable, well-equipped reinforcements has helped create a much more stable and secure environment than when UK forces arrived. We expect to be able to have withdrawn the bulk of our troops from Sierra Leone by mid-June. We will, however, continue to provide UK military observers to UNAMSIL and training and advice to the Government of Sierra Leone, as part of our wider programme of assistance.

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects British Forces to leave Sierra Leone. [122674]

  Mr. Hoon
  We expect the bulk of British forces deployed to Sierra Leone, including 42 Commando, to leave by mid-June. We will, however, continue to provide UK military advice and training in accordance with our wider programme of assistance to the Government of Sierra Leone. We will also continue to work with UNAMSIL.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 May 2000,Official Report, columns 863–65, concerning Sierra Leone, what United Kingdom weapons and ammunition will be issued to any military organisation other than the Sierra Leone army; and how the distribution of such arms will be controlled and monitored. [124055]

  Mr. Hoon
  Light weapons and ammunition will be distributed to Government of Sierra Leone Armed Forces only. Their distribution will be overseen by UK military personnel in Sierra Leone. We have received firm assurances from President Kabbah that they will only be used by regular Sierra Leone soldiers in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights standards.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of British forces in the area of Sierra Leone. [123714]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the statement I gave to the House on 23 May 2000,Official Report, columns 863–74.

  RAF (Fast Jet Pilots)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Fast Jet pilots there are in the RAF according to(a) establishment level and (b) actual manning level; and what the percentage shortfall is. [122670]

  Mr. Spellar
  The position on 1 April 2000, the latest date that figures are available, was as follows:

  Number of Fast Jet pilots in RAF

  Requirement1

  Trained strength

  Deficit

  Percentage shortfall

  All ranks

  882

  846

  36

  4.1

  Junior Officer Pilot2

  550

  452

  98

  17.8

  1 Includes non-flying posts for which aircrew experience and knowledge are required. The majority of these non-flying posts require senior officers.

  2 Flight Lieutenant (and Squadron Leader specialist aircrew) and below included in all ranks total. This is the RAF's most critical manning category.

  Royal Navy Frigates
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy frigates are operationally available. [122672]

  Mr. Spellar
  27 Royal Naval Frigates are currently operationally available. The remainder are in extended maintenance or refit.

  Peacekeeping
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes there have been in the peacekeeping role of United Kingdom forces in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [122673]

  Mr. Spellar
  The peacekeeping role of UK forces was set out in the Strategic Defence Review. There has been no change to that role in the last three years. As my hon. Friend will be aware, UK forces have been engaged in a number of peacekeeping and other peace support operations in the Balkans and elsewhere in that period.

  The prevention, containment and resolution of conflict is a vital element in the maintenance of international stability and security to which this Government are committed. UK forces will therefore continue to make an appropriate contribution, in concert with others, to both peacekeeping and other peace support operations.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings have been identified as a result of the Smart Procurement Initiative. [122675]

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings have been identified as a result of the Smart Procurement Initiative. [122656]

  Dr. Moonie
  As part of the Strategic Defence Review we set ourselves a target of saving £2 billion on equipment procurement expenditure over the 10 years to 2007–08 through the introduction of Smart Procurement. We are on track to achieve that target, in that the sum of cost reductions identified and made in successive planning rounds is approaching the £2 billion mark and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement last month on the Strategic Air Lift and future missile for the Eurofighter aptly demonstrates, we are delivering the programme set out in the Strategic Defence Review.

  BVRAAM
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the beyond visual range air-to-air missile. [122676]

  Mr. Hoon
  I announced on 16 May the Government's intention to procure the METEOR missile, offered by a consortium led by Matra BAe Dynamics, as the beyond visual range air-to-air missile for the Eurofighter aircraft. Our decision will give the RAF the most advanced air to 8W
  air missile in the world, and will ensure that Eurofighter can combat all projected air to air threats well into its service life.

  Surplus Assets (Disposal)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in achieving the target for disposal of surplus assets contained in the Strategic Defence Review. [122677]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Strategic Defence review set a £700 million target for gross receipts from the sale of surplus property assets over the period 1998–99 to 2001–02. In 1998–99 £158 million was achieved, with a further £286.5 million being realised in 1999–2000.

  The Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) was set a target to reduce the book value of spares holdings by 20 per cent., and is on target to meet this by April 2001.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security situation in Kosovo. [122648]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr Campbell-Savours),Official Report, columns 16–17.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his colleagues from other NATO member states to discuss the deployment of military forces in Kosovo. [122660]

  Mr. Spellar
  The situation in Kosovo has been a major subject for discussion among NATO Defence Ministers since the crisis began. The Secretary of State and other Ministers meet colleagues from NATO and other countries regularly on both a bilateral and multilateral basis. The topics for discussion range widely.

  The next formal meeting of NATO Defence Ministers is on 8 and 9 June, at which he will discuss a wide range of issues including Kosovo.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of available stocks of(a) precision guided munitions and (c) non-precision guided munitions were used during operation Allied Force. [124316]

  Mr. Spellar
  The numbers of munitions used during Operation Allied Force were published by the Ministry of Defence last year, in my right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State, Lord Robertson's account of the Kosovo crisis. Details of the percentage of our stockpile this expenditure represented would assist a potential adversary to assess our operational capability. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Medal Awards (Suez)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received calling for the award of a medal for those who served in the Suez Canal zone in the early 1950s. [122671]
  9W
  Dr. Moonie
  Since this Government took office, the Ministry of Defence has received three written Parliamentary Questions calling for the award of a medal for service in the Suez Canal Zone in the early 1950s. We have also received 229 Parliamentary Inquiries from 175 hon. Members, and my officials have dealt with 164 letters from 71 members of the public. Five Early Day Motions have been tabled. In March 1998, my predecessor held a meeting with a delegation of veterans at which he was handed a petition containing some 20,000 names, and in March this year, I held a meeting with two hon. Members with an interest in this subject.

  Multipart Tender
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the tender submitted by Multipart, Chorley, for the stock and supply of spare parts for the armed forces. [122678]

  Dr. Moonie
  Multipart, through an appropriate competitive tendering process, have been appointed the 'service provider' to Vickers Defence Systems (VDS) for the provision, procurement, storage and distribution of Challenger 2 specific consumable spares (Project CRISP). A decision on whether Project CRISP will proceed is expected in late June.

  List of vessels by category

  Class of vessel

  Vessel name

  Laid down

  Launched

  Commissioned

  Type 23 Frigate

  HMS Sutherland

  Yes

  HMS Kent

  Yes

  HMS Portland

  Yes

  Yes

  HMS St. Albans

  Yes

  Yes

  Loading Platform Docking (Replacement)

  HMS Albion

  Yes

  HMS Bulwark

  Yes

  Single Role Minehunter (SRMH)

  HMS Penzance

  Yes

  HMS Pembroke

  Yes

  Yes

  HMS Grimsby

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  HMS Bangor

  Yes

  Yes

  HMS Ramsey

  Yes

  Yes

  HMS Blyth

  Yes

  HMS Shoreham

  Yes

  SSN

  HMS Astute

  Yes

  SSBN

  HMS Vengeance

  Yes

  Yes

  Offshore Survey Vessel (OSV)

  HMS Scott

  Yes

  Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH)

  HMS Ocean

  Yes

  Total

  10

  8

  7

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff from his Department were seconded to private sector companies in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000; and if he will list in each case the companies to which staff were sent, the names and ranks of the staff involved and the duration of the secondment. [123428]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: Information, by financial year, on personnel on secondment to the private sector from my Department is as follows.1

  Demining Assistance (Libya)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assistance has been provided to the Government of Libya for humanitarian demining; and if he will make a statement. [124560]

  Mr. Spellar
  None.

  Warships
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many warships have been(a) ordered, (b) laid down, (c) launched and (d) commissioned since 1 May 1997. [122821]

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

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Christopher Gill, dated 5 June 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the construction of warships since 1 May 1997. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Since 1 May 1997 no warships have been ordered. In the same period, (that is from 1 May 1997) 10 warships have been laid down, 8 launched and 7 commissioned. A list of these vessels by category is attached. More detailed information on the relevant vessels can be obtained from "Jane's Fighting Ships", a copy of which is held in the House of Commons Library.

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  Company

  Grade

  Duration

  Avery Berkel

  SCS

  1 year

  AWE plc

  Gd 6

  2 years

  Babtie Group

  Gd 7

  1 year 3 months

  BAE

  Gd 2

  2 years 6 months

  Gd 7

  2 years 3 months

  SPTO

  1 year 11 months

  British Airways

  SEO (IT)

  2 years 6 months

  British Marine Technology Ltd.

  GD 6

  3 years

  11W

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  Company

  Grade

  Duration

  Bull Information Systems Ltd.

  CO3

  3 years

  CO2

  3 years

  CO2

  2 years 8 months

  CO3

  1 year

  CO3

  1 year

  GEC Marine

  Gd 4

  1 year

  GKN Sankey

  HEO

  5 months

  Horizon IJVC Ltd.

  Gd 7

  2 years

  Magnox/BNFL

  Gd 7

  3 years

  Neville Russell

  EO

  2 months

  R. Twining & Co.

  HEO

  6 months

  Raytheon

  SCS

  3 years

  Rolls Royce & Assoc.

  Gd 6

  2 years

  Rover Powertrain

  HPTO(D)

  1 year 6 months

  SERCO IFTC Ltd.

  FSO

  2 years

  Shell UK

  SEO

  3 months

  HEO

  3 months

  Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd.

  SPTO

  2 years 6 months

  Gd 5

  11 months

  HEO(IT)

  5 years

  Transco

  HEO

  6 months

  SEO

  4 months

  Zeneca Pharmaceuticals

  HEO(MA)

  4 months

  In addition we had 209 miscellaneous interchange activities—mainly trainee engineer/scientist and students who undertake various planned short-term attachments to different companies as part of their training.

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Company

  Grade

  Duration

  Anglian Water

  HEO

  5 months

  AWE plc

  Gd 6

  2 years

  Babtie Group

  Gd 7

  1 year 3 months

  BAe

  Gd 2

  2 years 6 months

  Gd 7

  2 years 5 months

  EO

  2 years

  Barr & Stroud

  Gd 7

  2 years

  British Airways

  HEO

  6 months

  HEO(MA)

  1 years

  SEO(IT)

  2 years 6 months

  British Marine Technology Ltd.

  Gd 6

  3 years

  HPTO

  1 year

  British Telecom

  HEO

  3 months

  Bull Information Systems Ltd.

  CO3

  3 years

  CO2

  3 years

  CO2

  2 years 8 months

  CO3

  1 year

  CO3

  1 year

  HEO(IT)

  5 years

  Defence Industries Council

  HEO

  1 year

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  HPTO

  1 year 5 months

  Ernst & Young

  GD 7

  6 months

  GEC Marconi

  Gd 6

  2 years

  SPTO

  2 years

  12W

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  Company

  Grade

  Duration

  GEC Marine

  Gd 4

  1 year

  Horizon IJVC Ltd.

  Gd 7

  2 years

  Lockhead Martin

  SPTO

  2 years

  Magnox/BNFL

  Gd 7

  3 years

  Marconi Electronic Systems

  SCS

  1 year 3 months

  New Zealand National Institute of Water2

  C1

  2 years

  Pall Europe Led

  SEO

  7 months

  R. Twining & Co.

  HEO

  6 months

  SEO

  3 months

  Robert Fleming

  Gd 7

  2 years

  Rolls Royce

  C1

  1 year

  Rolls Royce & Assoc.

  Gd 6

  2 years

  Gd 6

  1 year 8 months

  Rover Powertrain

  HPTO(D)

  1 year 6 months

  SERCO IFTC Ltd.

  FSO

  2 years

  Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd.

  SPTO

  2 years 6 months

  Gd 5

  11 months

  Transco

  HEO(MA)

  6 months

  SEO

  4 months

  Vauxhall Motors Ltd.

  Gd 6

  1 year 9 months

  Zeneca Agro-Chemicals

  HEO

  6 months

  Zeneca Pharmaceuticals

  HEO(MA)

  4 months

  In addition we had 213 miscellaneous interchange activities—mainly trainee engineer/scientist and students who undertake various planned short-term attachments to different companies as part of their training.

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Company

  Grade

  Duration

  Anglian Water

  HEO

  5 months

  AWE plc

  Gd 6

  2 years

  BAe

  Gd 7

  2 years 5 months

  EO

  2 years

  EO

  1 year 4 months

  BAe Airbus

  HPTO

  1 year

  BAe Royal Ordnance

  HPTO

  1 year

  Barr & Stroud

  Gd 7

  2 years

  British Airways

  HEO

  6 months

  HEO(IT)

  2 years 6 months

  British Marine Technology Ltd.

  Gd 6

  3 years

  HPTO

  1 years

  Bull Information Systems Ltd.

  CO3

  3 years

  CO2

  3 years

  CO2

  2 years 8 months

  HEO(IT)

  4 years

  Defence Industries Council

  HEO

  1 year

  Devonport Management Ltd.

  HPTO

  1 year 5 months

  European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting2

  Cl

  1 year

  GEC (now BAe Systems)

  Gd 6

  2 years

  GEC Marconi

  Gd 6

  2 years

  SPTO

  2 years

  Horizon IJVC Ltd.

  Gd 7

  2 years

  Lockhead Martin

  SPTO

  2 years

  Magnox/BNFL

  Gd 7

  3 years

  Marconi Avionics

  Group Capt.

  1 year

  13W

  1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000

  Company

  Grade

  Duration

  Marconi Electronic Systems

  SCS

  1 year 3 months

  New Zealand National Institute of Water2

  C1

  2 years

  Northrop Grummen

  SCS

  1 year 6 months

  Pall Europe Led

  SEO

  7 months

  Raytheon

  SCS

  2 years

  Renishaw plc

  SPTO

  1 year

  Robert Fleming

  Gd 7

  2 years

  Rolls Royce

  C1

  12 months

  Rolls Royce & Assoc.

  Gd 6

  2 years

  Gd 6

  1 year 8 months

  Thomson-CSF

  SCS

  2 years

  Thomson Marconi Sonar Ltd.

  SPTO

  2 years 6 months

  Vauxhall Motors Ltd.

  Gd 6

  1 year 9 months

  1 All figures exclude DERA

  2 Met Office

  Figures for trainee engineers/scientists and students are not yet available for 1999–2000.

  Special Investigations Branch
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many investigations have been conducted by the Special Investigations Branch of the Royal Military Police in the past two years; how many and what percentage of investigations have led to disciplinary charges being laid against(a) serving and (b) discharged soldiers; what was the breakdown of those cases by outcome; what was the average time taken to conduct an investigation from complaint to report; who is tasked with responding to a report of the Special Investigations Branch; and what options are available for further action to be taken. [123886]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as detailed:

  (a) In the calendar years 1998 and 1999, the Special Investigations Branch began investigating a total of 3,002 cases world-wide of which 264 are ongoing

  (b) A total of 1,175 persons have been reported for offences to date. Of these:

  (i) 1,150 were serving soldiers (records are not held centrally on how many were discharged at the time of the investigation); and

  (ii) 25 were civilians subject to military law.

  (c) Of the total number of cases investigated:

  (i) 876 were resolved;

  (ii) in 543 cases, no crime was established;

  (iii) 216 remain unsolved;

  (iv) 264 are ongoing; and

  (v) 1,103 were inquiries in assistance to Home Department Forces.

  (d) The average time taken to conduct an investigation from complaint to Report is 62 days.

  (e) It is a matter for the Commanding Officer of the reported person to act upon the findings of the SIB investigation, having taken advice from the appropriate Legal adviser.

  (f) A Commanding Officer may dismiss charges, deal with them summarily, refer the matter to higher authority, or remand the accused for trial by Court Martial. A. Regimental Board Of Inquiry may also be ordered.

  Property Disposals
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he gives to the Defence Housing Executive and Defence Estates concerning the disposal of surplus housing stock. [123873]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Housing Executive is required to dispose of as much surplus housing stock as is compatible with meeting its principle function of providing housing for entitled and eligible Service personnel and their families at their place of work.

  The bulk of Service families accommodation (SFA) in England and Wales was sold to Annington Homes Ltd. (AHL) in 1996. The Ministry of Defence leases back those properties it needs to house Service families. Properties which become surplus to military requirements are handed back to AHL for disposal.

  Surplus housing which does not form part of the underlease with AHL, including all that in Scotland, is dealt with by Defence Estates (DE) in accordance with Chapter 32 of Government Accounting.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD properties in Scotland are used for civilian and irregular occupancies; and how many such properties he expects to be disposed of in the next three years. [123914]

  Dr. Moonie
  Of the total number of 5,728 Service Families Accommodation (SFA) held by the Ministry of Defence in Scotland, 51 are occupied by Irregular Occupants and 136 are let to MOD and other non-entitled civilians. There is no intention to dispose of these properties at present although plans continue to evolve in the light of developing demand and it is possible that such properties may be included in those identified for disposal during the next three years.

  A further 173 properties are let to housing associations. Negotiations are continuing for the disposal of 118 let properties at Helensburgh and it is hoped these will be completed within three months. The remaining 55 let properties at Forres have been handed over to Defence Estates for disposal.

  MODDEC
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to place the MODDEC contract via the Buying Agency. [123587]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  HMS Kent
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate HMS Kent's annual cost for(a) fuel, (b) wages, (c) maintenance, (d) general supplies and (e) other outlays; and if he will make a statement. [123960]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Type 23 Frigate HMS Kent, becomes fully operational at the end of the year; her annual operating costs will depend on her future tasking and the
  15W
  maintenance she requires. The indicative annual cost for a Type 23 Frigate, including manpower, fuel, stores and routine maintenance is in the region of £17 million.

  Forms
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123951]

  Dr. Moonie
  To the best of my knowledge, the Ministry of Defence has no requirement to issue any forms for completion by charities and other voluntary organisations in relation to their charitable functions. However, the Department purchases services from a number of charities, and some forms may need to be completed, for example for invoicing purposes.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the most recent mission statement is of the Army in Northern Ireland. [124101]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Army's mission in Northern Ireland is to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the defeat of terrorism in order to assist Her Majesty's Government's objective of restoring normality.

  AWE Llanishen
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 204W, on AWE Llanishen, if, when the site is free from contamination, it will be suitable for (a) housing and (b) light industry development; and on what basis he expects the site to be free from contamination by autumn next year. [123781]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: Further advice indicates that, while the decommissioning and demolition of buildings is expected to be completed by October 2001, further remedial action will be required on the land. A decision has yet to be made on the future development of the site and it is this which will determine the level of remediation which will be required. The site is expected to be available for redevelopment by the middle of 2002.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123733]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: Eight laptop computers belonging to the Ministry of Defence (including the armed forces) are recorded as having been lost since May 1997, and 59 as having been stolen.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow on 16 May concerning warships (Ref. 122821). [124484]
  16W
  Dr. Moonie
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Christopher Gill, dated 5 June 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence which asked when he would answer your question (Ref. 122821) about warship construction. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  I have written to you today in answer to your earlier question.—Official Report, columns 9–10w.

  Northern Ireland Troops
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops there were at each garrison in Northern Ireland in(a) 1999, b) 2000 and (c) 2001. [123964]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information required is set out in the table. In addition, we have also included Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel based in Northern Ireland.

  30 April 1999

  Strength as at1 30 April 2000

  Belfast Garrison2

  6,591

  5,812

  Northern Garrison

  3,390

  3,406

  Southern Garrison

  3,537

  3,437

  Royal Air Force

  1,150

  1,144

  Royal Navy

  182

  179

  Total

  14,850

  13,978

  1 Excludes those forces fully committed to Northern Ireland but rear based in GB.

  2 A number of Force Troop units reside within the Belfast Garrison geographical area but are often called upon to support units within the other garrison areas.

  The number of Armed Forces deployed in Northern Ireland in 2001 will depend on the security situation. While we hope the recent momentum in the peace process will be sustained, it is not possible to predict the numbers of Armed Forces that will be stationed in Northern Ireland next year.

  Pay-as-you-dine Contracts
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards the implementation of the pay-as-you-dine contractorisation of junior mess halls. [123965]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Pay-As-You-Dine Project Team is currently producing an outline business case for consideration by the Project Board at the end of July 2000. If approval to proceed is given, an announcement will be placed in the Official Journal of the European Communities informing industry of the Department's intention to commence the PAYD procurement process. Dependent upon industry's response, I anticipate that a full Business Case will be submitted to the Equipment Approvals Committee in mid-2001, leading to Invitations to Negotiate for the provision of the PAYD cashless payment system and catering services. While there remain significant procurement strategy issues to be addressed, contracts should be awarded in mid-2003 with the aim of commencing a pilot phase towards the end of that year. The pilot phase will effectively represent the start of full roll-out, which should be completed by December 2004.
  17W
  Our intention is that a pay-as-you-dine system will be introduced into all Service messes where food charges currently apply, irrespective of rank.

  Volunteer Reserve Forces
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the United Kingdom Volunteer Reserve Forces' (including the Territorial Army),(a) establishment and (b) strength in (i) 2005, (ii) 2010 and (iii) 2015. [123966]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Reserve Forces' establishments are authorised by Parliament in the Ministry of Defence Votes A, and are based on a detailed assessment of the current and future strategic environment the Services are likely to face. The establishments resulting from the Strategic Defence Review are:

  Number

  Royal Naval Reserve

  3,850

  Royal Marines Reserve

  1,008

  Territorial Army

  41,204

  Volunteer Reserve Air Forces

  2,920

  It is not possible to predict the detail of the future framework owing to the changing nature of the international security environment. The restructured Territorial Army was in place by 1 April this year, and it is expected to be able to maintain force levels at establishment. The Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Marines Reserve expect to reach their establishments within the next two or three years. The Reserve Air Forces expect to reach their establishment over the next two to three years and beyond.

  Nuclear Reactor Storage
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to find land storage sites for nuclear reactors from redundant submarines. [124390]

  Dr. Moonie
  No steps have yet been taken to find land storage sites for the nuclear reactors from decommissioned submarines. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) on 11 May 2000,Official Report, columns 447–48W, which stated that we expect specific sites to emerge during the next phase of our study into the storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines. This phase has just started and is expected to take about three years.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is in respect of research carried out on animals at Porton Down; and what research is carried out there on behalf of other countries, with particular reference to defensive agent testing. [124192]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence undertakes limited scientific work involving the use of animals for defence research purposes. This work is carried out on behalf of the Department by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) mainly at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down, but also to a lesser extent at the Centre for Human Sciences at Alverstoke. The research programme involving animals is 18W
  concerned wholly with providing the UK's Armed Forces with safe and effective protection against hazards they may encounter while carrying out their duties. The Ministry of Defence does not use animals in the development or evaluation of weapons and we continue to seek alternatives to the use of animals in experimentation wherever possible.

  Research using animals within DERA is conducted strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 under which the Home Office licences and oversees all such activity. In addition, an independent Animal Welfare Advisory Committee was appointed in 1996 in response to public and Parliamentary concern over the use of animals in research. Its purpose is to keep animal care and welfare arrangements under review within DERA. A report by this Committee is published annually and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

  The only research involving animals currently being undertaken by the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector at Porton Down on behalf of other countries is a study of the efficacy of prospective vaccines against a potential biological warfare agent. The work is for the US Department of Defense and its successful outcome will also be of direct benefit to the UK and our Armed Forces.

  Operation Danish Bacon
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 May 2000,Official Report, columns 288–89W, concerning Operation Danish Bacon, how battlefield injuries are simulated in the exercise Operation Danish Bacon. [124243]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Surgical Training Exercises in Denmark use pigs as surgical models because they are considered to have the closest physiological response to humans and are similar in size and weight. The pigs are deeply anaesthetised and then wounded by Danish Armed Forces' marksmen using weapons of three different calibres. Each animal is then given medical treatment as if it were a human casualty wounded in battle. Throughout, the pigs remain deeply anaesthetised and are humanely killed at the end of the exercise without regaining consciousness. Veterinary staff are in attendance at all times during the exercise and may withdraw an animal at any point for any reason.

  Forest Moor Base
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purpose of the Forest Moor Royal Naval Communications Base; and how many(a) UK and (b) US personnel work there. [124209]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Forest Moor, near Harrogate, North Yorkshire, is part of the Defence Communication Services Agency. Staffed by both UK military and civilian personnel, HMS Forest Moor is the headquarters of the radio services grouping within the Agency which provides Very Low, Low and High Frequency radio communication services for the British Military and NATO. It has an establishment of 84 UK personnel; no US staff are employed at HMS Forest Moor.

  British Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to give British nuclear test veterans access to their records. [123963]

  Dr. Moonie
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to official Service records, including medical records. It has always been the case that ex-Service personnel may request the details contained in such records though it has been usual for medical information to be passed to an individual's GP or legal representative. In the case of nuclear test veterans, they are also entitled to request any information held relating to their exposure to radiation during their participation in the UK's nuclear test programme in the 1950s and 1960s.

  Missiles and Ammunition
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the book value of the stock-retained totals of missiles and ammunition in each year from 1989–90 to 1999–2000; in each year, what was the(a) percentage change from the previous year, (b) total stock value expended in operations, training and exercises in that year and (c) proportion devoted to war reserves; and if he will make a statement. [124223]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Furthermore, a full response would be withheld in accordance with exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence Security and International Relations.

  Defence Fraud Analysis Unit
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the budget of the Defence Fraud Analysis Unit for 1999–2000 and what it will be for 2000–01; how many staff are dedicated to the unit; who heads the unit and to whom they report; what relationship the Defence Fraud Analysis Unit has with the Specialist Procurement Services scrutinisation system; and if he will make a statement. [123968]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Fraud Analysis Unit (DFAU) has nine staff, is headed by an Assistant Director and forms part of the Directorate of Internal Audit (DIA). In 1999–2000, when the Directorate was being formed the costs of the unit (including set up costs) totalled £312,000. Expenditure for the current year (2000–01) is likely to be some £375,000.

  The DFAU has no direct relationship with the Specialist Procurement Services (SPS). However the DFAU can and does call on the services of the SPS and a range of specialist areas including the Ministry of Defence Police fraud squad, internal audit and other such bodies to assist its work.

  The DFAU now acts as the focus for all Ministry of Defence (MOD) fraud matters including the promotion of risk awareness. It works closely with all MOD authorities in adopting a proactive response to fraud risk.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the targets of the Defence Fraud Analysis Unit for 1999–2000 stating in each case(a) if the target was achieved, (b) the reason for any target not
  20W
  being met and (c) action taken by the Defence Fraud Analysis Unit to improve target achievement performance in 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [123967]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Management of the Defence Fraud Analysis Unit (DFAU) was formed in February 1999 under the Director of Internal Audit (DIA). Targets for the year 1999–2000 included the development of a single fraud reporting point for the department, the creation of an information database, the commencement of a programme of risk awareness presentations, the revision of existing and new guidance on fraud deterrence and detection, the co-ordination of activity with the Ministry of Defence Police Fraud Squad and other related bodies, and the evaluation of suspected cases of fraud or irregularity raised by line management or concerned individuals. All targets were achieved.

  DFAU objectives for 2000–01 reflect the continuing development of the unit and new initiatives aimed at improving performance and service. These include regular contributions to MOD and Police publications and a programme of 'no notice' visits to MOD formations and units as part of a pro-active response to fraud risk.

  Steps being taken to improve performance in the coining year include investment in staff training and the latest data mining and fraud detection techniques.

  Personnel Ratios
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel is in the(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Air Force, (c) Army and (d) Royal Marine. [124477]

  Mr. Spellar
  The ratio of Officers to Other Ranks on the trained strengths of the UK Regular Armed Forces, as at 1 April 2000, were:

  (a) Royal Navy—1:4.46

  (b) Royal Air Force—1:4.23

  (c) Army—1:6.56

  (d) Royal Marine—1:8.93.

  Lynx Helicopter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of the technical fault in Lynx helicopters; who will meet the cost and over what timescale; and if he will make a statement. [124673]

  Mr. Spellar
  The problem with Lynx Main Rotor Heads is currently being managed through better utilisation of our existing stocks of unaffected heads, including faster repair and overhaul times. The cost of this will be contained within existing funds. Urgent discussions are taking place with GKN Westland about buying replacement rotor heads as quickly as possible. It is not yet possible to estimate the cost for these orders, which will be met from the Defence Budget.

  RAF Unguided Bomb Enhancement Programme
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the original planned date of completion of the RAF unguided bomb enhancement programme; what is the current estimated in-service timetable for completion; what effect in-year budget
  21W
  changes have had on the in-service timetable; when he expects to place contracts against the programme; and if he will make a statement. [124224]

  Dr. Moonie
  Staff Target (Air) 1248 seeks to introduce an all weather bombing capability for the RAF. The In Service Date originally assumed in the funded forward programme was 2006. This date has not changed. A contract is expected to be placed in mid-2002.

  Regular Forces
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the UK Regular Forces' (i) trained strength and (ii) trained requirement in(a) 2005, (b) 2010 and (c) 2015. [123979]

  Mr. Spellar
  The long-term aim is to bring the overall trained strength into balance with the trained requirement. By 1 April 2005, both the Naval Service and the Army expect to have achieved this, with their trained requirements anticipated to be about 38,500 and 105,232 respectively. The RAF's forecast trained strength at 1 April 2005 is expected to be about 50,400, against the forecast trained requirement of 50,900.

  Although the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) looked into the future as far as 2015, it is not possible to predict, beyond 2005, the detail of the future framework, owing to the changing nature of the international security environment.

  Defence Procurement
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of overall spending on defence procurement is allocated to companies in(a) England and (b) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [122653]

  Dr. Moonie
  Spending on defence procurement is based on value for money, project by project, and is not allocated to companies on a regional basis. I refer the hon. Member to the publication "UK Defence Statistics, 1999" which details (at Table 1.9) the annual defence expenditure on equipment in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. A copy is held in the Library.

  MOD Police (Policy and Procedures Manual)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministry of Defence police officers will receive the new single source document containing their terms and conditions of service. [124353]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) Policy and Procedures Manual will incorporate MDP terms and conditions of service. Initial chapters of the Policy and Procedures Manual including some on terms and conditions of service were distributed in electronic format on 10 May 2000. Further chapters will be distributed as soon as consultation with the Defence Police Federation has been completed.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124128]
  22W
  Mr. Hoon
  During the period 1 April 1999 to the end of March 2000, special advisers in this Department travelled overseas on two occasions.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when all three of the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers will be operationally available. [121707]

  Mr. Spellar
  The three Royal Navy aircraft carriers, HMS Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal, undertake a rolling programme of operations and maintenance, to ensure that two ships are normally available for operational tasking. On current plans, all three would not be operationally available at the same time.

  Andrew Timothy Lea
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the service record of Andrew Timothy Lea. [123557]

  Mr. Spellar
  In accordance with exemption 8a and exemption 12 of the code of Practice to Government Information, such details are not disclosed without the consent of the individual to whom the information relates.

  RAF Feltwell
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2000,Official Report, column 513W, if he will state the reasons why RAF Feltwell is designated an RAF base. [123778]

  Mr. Spellar
  The designation of any Ministry of Defence site depends on which Service is responsible for its administration. For RAF Feltwell this is the Royal Air Force.

  Departmental Building Costs
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2000,Official Report, columns 162–63W, on the projected costs of reconstructing his Department's building in Whitehall, which five buildings are to be disposed of; and what will be the savings per annum resulting from these disposals. [123586]

  Dr. Moonie
  The redevelopment will allow MOD headquarters activities to be concentrated in Main Building and the adjoining Old War Office, enabling the MOD to dispose of Northumberland House and Metropole Building in Northumberland Avenue, 3–5 Great Scotland Yard, St. Giles Court in Holborn and St. Christopher House in Southwark. Disposal of these properties is estimated to provide savings of £18 million a year in running costs.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2000,Official Report, columns 162–63W, on the projected costs of reconstructing his Department's building in Whitehall, how many staff are to be relocated as a result of the disposal of the five buildings; and to which locations. [123585]

  Dr. Moonie
  The disposal of these five buildings is part of an overall reduction in Head Office staff in central London from 6,000 to 4,300 which fulfils one of the aims of the Strategic Defence Review. Some staff have already been relocated to a number of locations in the UK
  23W
  including Defence Logistics Organisation staff to Bath and Defence Vetting Agency staff to York. Work is continuing on the future destination of the remaining staff.

  Ro-ro Ferries
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what percentage of time the Government expects to use each of the ro-ro ships shortly to be ordered by his Department. [122987]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: The Ministry of Defence requires a Strategic Sealift service which is based on the availability of six ships on graduated notice of call-up for Joint Rapid Reaction Forces (JRRF) operations. The Ministry of Defence cannot predict when this requirement may arise. In addition, during those periods when there are no JRRF operations, the Ministry of Defence will need to employ on average about four vessels to carry out routine tasks such as supporting exercises or transporting freight.

HEALTH

  Influenza
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost to the NHS of(a) a hospital admission caused by influenza, (b) a doctor taking a day off work as a result of influenza, (c) an influenza vaccination and (d) a course of antiviral treatment and protection for influenza. [121963]

  Yvette Cooper
  Costs per finished consultant episode (FCE) for possible treatments for patients with influenza are given as follows. The cost information is based on the 1998–99 financial year and is based on costs for non-elective inpatients. Influenza features in a number of healthcare resource groupings (HRGs).

  Upper respiratory tract disorders (HRG P03)—national average cost per FCE £403
  (relates to ICD10—J101 Influenza with other resp. manifest influenza virus identified)
  (Number of non elective FCEs in 1998–99–70,324—based on fast track data)

  Other viral illness (HRG S14)—national average cost per FCE £611
  (relates to ICD10—J108 Influenza with other manifest influenza virus identified)
  (Number of non elective FCEs in 1998–99–11,802—based on fast track data)

  Lobar, atypical or viral pneumonia (HRG D13)
  (Patient greater than 69 or wcc1)—national average cost per FCE £1,269
  (relates to ICD10—J110 Influenza with pneumonia, virus not identified)
  (Number of non elective FCEs in 1998–99–29.952—based on fast track data)

  Lobar, atypical or viral pneumonia (HRG D14)
  (Patient less than 70 or w/o cc2)—national average cost per FCE £806
  (relates to ICD10—J110 Influenza with pneumonia, virus not identified)
  (Number of non elective FCEs in 1998–99–18,222—based on fast track data)

  1 With complications and co-morbidities
  24W
  2 Without complications and co-morbidities.

  The cost of a doctor taking a day off work is not known. The list prices for influenza vaccines and antiviral drugs are given in the British National Formulary, copies of which are in the Library.

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the organisations that have appealed against the final appraisal determination on the use of taxanes for the treatment of breast cancer in the NHS, indicating the patient groups among them. [122468]

  Yvette Cooper
  Appeals against the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's draft guidance on the use of taxanes for the treatment of breast cancer were received from Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and from the patient group CancerBACUP

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects NICE to publish the guidance on the use of taxanes for the treatment of breast cancer in the NHS; [122469]

  (2) what reasons underlie the length of time taken by NICE to publish guidance on the use of taxanes for the treatment of breast cancer in the NHS. [122467]

  Yvette Cooper
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on taxanes has been delayed because of a successful appeal. The Appraisal Committee will be reconvened as soon as possible to reconsider its guidance on taxanes in breast cancer in the light of the findings of the appeal panel. Interested parties will then have a further opportunity to consider the revised guidance. It is expected that NICE will issue guidance around the end of June.

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the financial impact on health authorities and trusts of NICE guidance supporting the use of taxanes for the treatment of breast cancer; and what plans he has to ensure that sufficient funding is available in the NHS drugs budget to implement such guidance. [122472]

  Yvette Cooper
  We have not received the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's recommendations on the use of taxane for breast cancer. The additional £600 million allocated to health authorities following the recent budget is intended, among other things, to enable health authorities to fund recommendations from NICE.

  Osteoporosis
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals his Department will be making to the World Congress on Osteoporosis to be held in Chicago in June. [122752]

  Yvette Cooper
  Neither Department of Health Ministers nor officials have been invited to contribute to this Congress.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for a hip replacement operation at a NHS hospital in the Greater London area. [123045]
  25W
  Mr. Denham
  The requested information is not collected by local authority area so the information given is that for the health authority areas covered by the London Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive.

  The mean waiting time for a hip operation in a London Hospital in the financial year 1998–99 was 236 days (approximately eight months). The median waiting time for the same period was 191 days (approximately six and a half months).

  Race Equality
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of the London ethnic minority population who will have access to the initiatives introduced by the London NHS Race Equality Unit; [123084]

  (2) how much funding has been allocated to the London NHS Race Equality Unit in the current financial year. [123086]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive London Regional Office has established a London NHS Race Equality Group, not Unit. It will not be funding projects or local initiatives, but through its advice to the regional chairman and director it will promote the adoption of good practice on race and health throughout London's NHS, and ensure that the issue of race equality in health and health services remains high on the agenda. The London NHS Race Equality Group's work will aim to ensure that the appropriate services are in place in every health authority, NHS trust and primary care group across London.

  The NHS Executive London has also worked with the Association of London Government Race, Health and Social Exclusion Commission during 1999, and contributed to their report 'Sick of being excluded' (about to be published). This report made recommendations on:
  Improving access
  Better employment practice
  Clear leadership
  Direct involvement of black and minority ethnic people
  Involvement of community organisations and partnership with communities.

  The London NHS Race Equality Group is being established in response to the 1999 survey of NHS initiatives addressing black and minority ethnic health in London. The funding to support these initiatives is already included in local health authority allocations and the group's role will be to ensure that black and ethnic minority populations are getting a fair and appropriate share of these resources, in relation to their needs.

  Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of existing guidance on the use of not for resuscitation orders; and if he will make a statement. [122794]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: Clear guidelines on Decisions Relating to Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation were first published in 1993 in a joint statement issued by the British Medical Association, the Resuscitation Council (United Kingdom), and the Royal
  26W
  College of Nursing. A revised version was published in June 1999. The joint statement gives general guidelines on the basic principles within which decisions regarding local policies on cardiopulmonary resuscitation may be formulated. It makes clear that all acute hospital trusts should establish local resuscitation policies, a point which was also emphasised by the Chief Medical Officer of the time to all consultants in England in 1991.

  We are committed to ensuring the development of best practice in resuscitation decision-making throughout the National Health Service.

  CJD
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has had with the French health authorities over exchange of information on new variant CJD. [123106]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The Department has regular contacts with the French authorities at European Union meetings of the Health Council and its working Groups, and at meetings of EU Chief Medical officers, at which variant creutzfeldt jakob disease issues are, from time to time, discussed. The National CJD Surveillance Unit funded by the Department takes a leading role in co-ordinating the surveillance of CJD in EU member states, including through the EUROCJD group, of which France is an important member. A principal aim of this group is to ensure systematic surveillance is undertaken so that cases of CJD are identified, and then any variant CJD cases arising as a sub-set of these are picked up. In addition, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee which advises the Government on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and CJD issues has met twice with its French counterpart, the Dormont Committee, in February 1996 and September 1998.

  Trainee Doctors
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether the number of doctors in training will be sufficient to meet NHS needs and Government waiting list targets, with particular reference to the years from 2001 to 2006. [123300]

  Mr. Denham
  We aim to ensure through the national workforce planning processes that there will be sufficient doctors in training to meet the future requirements of the National Health Service. Assessments about future staffing needs, including the implications of waiting list targets and other service initiatives, are reviewed annually and the numbers of doctors adjusted accordingly.

  On 6 April I announced plans to train almost 400 extra hospital specialists. Added to more specialist doctors already in training, the increase of 393 training places means there should be an additional 13,000 fully trained hospital specialists in the NHS by 2006–07. The additional places will take forward our plans to increase capacity in the NHS, so patients have easier access to faster, fairer and more convenient services.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the level of expenditure in each year since 1997 allocated to projects designed to reduce the

  27W
  number of teenage pregnancies and (b) the actual and forecast impact of this expenditure on reducing teenage pregnancies. [123158]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: From 1997 to 1999, funding to reduce teenage pregnancy formed part of the overall allocation to improve the sexual health of young people.

  In June 1999, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a £60 million package over three years, with the goal of halving the rate of conceptions among under-18s by 2010, and getting more teenagers into education, training and employment.

  NHS Walk-in Centres
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS walk-in centres have been established; how many are in the North West Region; and if he will make a statement. [123526]

  Mr. Denham
  A total of 36 National Health Service walk-in centres have been approved nationally; 15 of these were open by the end of May 2000 and the rest by the end of the year. The North West has produced six successful bids, one of which is already open in Liverpool. Walk-in centres are part of a wider plan to modernise and improve access to, and the convenience of,

  Cochlear implant operations performed on under 16-year-olds in NHS hospitals England 1996–97 to 1998–99 by Health Authority of treatment

  Health Authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  QA9 Cambridge and Huntingdon

  8

  9

  10

  QAE East Kent

  —

  1—

  —

  QAH Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

  1—

  6

  11

  QAT Camden and Islington

  20

  23

  30

  QC3 Manchester

  18

  11

  18

  QCE Oxfordshire

  —

  1—

  1—

  QCP Nottingham

  37

  37

  39

  QCR Sheffield

  —

  —

  1—

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  11

  8

  13

  QD6 South and West Devon

  1—

  —

  1—

  QD8 Avon

  1—

  —

  1—

  QD9 Birmingham

  20

  15

  16

  QDD Bradford

  7

  6

  17

  QDP Tees

  5

  8

  1—

  Total

  126

  123

  154

  Cochlear implant operations performed on under 16-year-olds in NHS hospitals England 1994–95 to 1995–96 by District Health Authority of treatment

  District Health Authority

  1994–95

  1995–96

  A32 Tees

  5

  5

  B31 Bradford

  1—

  5

  C08 Nottingham

  13

  33

  D01 Cambridge

  7

  6

  F37 Camden and Islington

  1—

  24

  G26 South East London

  —

  1—

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  7

  8

  L36 Plymouth and Torbay

  —

  1—

  M25 South Birmingham

  11

  18

  P26 Manchester

  12

  15

  Total

  55

  114

  1 For reasons of confidentiality, figures below 5 have been suppressed.

  28W
  NHS services. They are intended to help people make better use of the health service, help professionals make better use of their skills and respond to modern lifestyles.

  Insulin Pens
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many diabetics registered in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire have received prescribed pen needles; and if he will make a statement. [123794]

  Mr. Denham
  Insulin pen needles and certain reusable insulin pens were added to the Drug Tariff with effect from March 2000. Figures are not yet available as to how many pen needles have been prescribed since March 1.

  Cochlear Implants
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the number of cochlear implants for children which have been undertaken in each health authority area for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [123657]

  Mr. Hutton
  The tables show the number of procedures performed on under 16-year-olds who received cochlear implants, treated in National Health Service hospitals in England. This is shown by health authority of residence for the financial years 1996–97 to 1998–99 and district health authority of residence for 1994–95 to 1995–96.

  Notes:

  OPCS4 codes D24.1-D24.2 have been used.

  Totals do not include suppressed figures.

  Data in this table are unadjusted for shortfalls in collection (i.e. they are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospitals Episodes Statistics.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children are waiting for cochlear implants in each health authority area; how many have been waiting for more than a year; and if he will make a statement. [123658]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information on the number of children waiting for a cochlear implant is not available. Information on the waiting times for cochlear implants for children, based on Hospital Episode Statistics, is shown in the table.
  29W

  Cochlear implant operations performed on under 16-year-olds by length of time waited and Health Authority of treatment NHS hospitals England 1998–99

  Number of procedures performed

  Health authority

  Within 3 months

  From 3 to 6 months

  From 6 months to 1 year

  From 1 years to 2 years

  Not known

  Total

  QA9 Cambridge and Huntingdon

  10

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  10

  QAH Lambeth Southwark and Lewisham

  11

  1—

  —

  —

  1—

  11

  QAT Camden and Islington

  9

  6

  1—

  —

  15

  30

  QC3 Manchester

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18

  QCE Oxfordshire

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  QCP Nottingham

  39

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  39

  QCR Sheffield

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire

  6

  —

  —

  —

  7

  13

  QD6 South and West Devon

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  QD3 Avon

  1—

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  QD9 Birmingham

  16

  1—

  —

  —

  —

  16

  QDD Bradford

  12

  5

  —

  —

  —

  17

  QDP Tees

  1—

  1—

  —

  1—

  —

  1—

  Total

  121

  11

  0

  0

  22

  154

  1 For reasons of confidentiality, figures below 5 have been suppressed.

  Notes:

  OPCS4 codes D24.1-D24.2 have been used.

  Totals do not include suppressed figures.

  Data in this table are unadjusted for shortfalls in collection (i.e. they are ungrossed).

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or period of medical/social suspension.

  Source.

  Hospitals Episodes Statistics.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to collect statistics on the reason why individuals leave(a) inpatient waiting lists and (b) outpatient waiting lists, separately identifying those who opted for private sector provisions. [123720]

  Mr. Denham
  We have no plans to do so.

  Beta-interferon
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the Provisional Finding of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in respect of beta-interferon at the same time it is made available to those parties who submitted evidence to the Institute. [123912]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence's guidance on beta-interferon will be placed in the Library once it has been finalised by NICE. Consultation on the draft findings will, as with all NICE' s appraisals, be on a confidential basis. I understand that NICE is planning to disseminate its guidance to the National Health Service during August 2000.

  NHS Messaging Services
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS has spent on its messaging services on NHS net through BT Syntegra. [124089]

  Ms Stuart
  A total of £7.1 million has been spent on messaging services on National Health Service net through British Telecommunications Syntegra in the period 1995 to 2000.
  30W
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the savings to the NHS over(a) one year, (b) five years and (c) 10 years through introducing a messaging service based upon a SMPT Internet Mail system. [124092]

  Ms Stuart
  None; an SMTP (Internet) mail messaging service is already available on NHSnet.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of the recent I Love You virus; and what measures he is taking to ensure that future breaches of NHS messaging services are minimised. [124093]

  Ms Stuart
  The measures taken by the National Health Service net contractors were at no charge to the NHS. Any costs at NHS trust and health authorities would be largely in the time of personnel as a part of their normal duties to manage local e-mail services and have not been identified separately.

  NHSnet provides controls for network access between organisations, including transfer of e-mails between NHSnet and external systems that are passed through a secure gateway between NHSnet and the Internet. Management of the gateway is the responsibility of the NHSnet service providers under the supervision of the NHS Information Authority. The NHS Information Authority maintains close liaison with the service providers and users of NHSnet services to ensure that information about virus attacks and appropriate countermeasures are disseminated rapidly.

  The management teams remain vigilant and will deal with future threats in the same professional manner in which the "I LOVE YOU" incident was handled.

  Forms
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123946]

  Mr. Hutton
  The forms which the Department issues to charities and voluntary bodies are mainly for those who wish to apply for grants, mainly grants under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. For this scheme, the only form required from applicants is the appropriate application for the type of grant being sought. This has not changed since 1997.

  The Department keeps under review the forms it issues to business, charities and the voluntary sector to ensure that they are necessary, easy to understand and as simple as possible to complete.

  GP Practices (Patient Access)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the population lives(a) within one mile of and (b) over three miles from a GP practice in (i) rural and (ii) urban areas. [124530]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the form requested. From the information that is available I can say that:in predominantly urban areas, 99 per cent. of patients live between one and 2.5 miles and 1 per cent. live more than 2.5 miles from a main surgery.
  in predominantly rural areas, the figures are 91 per cent. and 9 per cent. respectively.

  These figures tend to overstate both the numbers living more than 2.5 miles, and understate how many people live within one mile of a general practitioner's surgery because no account is taken of Branch Surgeries. Branch Surgeries are provided to help improve access for patients often in rural areas.

  Waiting Lists (Dorset)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in Dorset died while awaiting(a) surgery, (b) cancer surgery and (c) cardiac surgery in the last 12 months. [124512]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in Dorset there are waiting for kidney dialysis treatment. [124513]

  Ms Stuart
  There is no waiting list for kidney dialysis treatment in Dorset. Patients requiring this treatment are treated immediately.

  Dorset Health Authority has invested an additional £250,000 a year, each year for the last three years in dialysis services.

  Medical Schools
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the decision on the establishment of new medical schools. [124495]
  32W
  Mr. Denham
  Responsibility for the allocation of places to individual medical schools in England lies with the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

  HEFCE have already announced the allocation of approximately 840 new medical school places in England and plan to announce a further allocation of places soon.

  NHS Staff (Occupational Health and Counselling Services)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which NHS trusts provided, as at April, those occupational health and counselling services to their staff which were set out under the White Paper "Working Together—Securing a Quality Workforce for the NHS". [124364]

  Mr. Denham
  All National Health Service trusts now provide staff with access to occupational health services. 60 per cent. of trusts provide services in-house while 40 per cent. purchase them from neighbouring NHS employers. Information about the number of trusts providing counselling services is not collected centrally but may be held locally.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish guidelines on the provision of counselling services for staff in the NHS. [124363]

  Mr. Denham
  Guidance on the provision of counselling services for staff in the National Health Service should be available on the Department of Health website later this year.

  Homophobia in Schools Video
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Avon Health Authority has made a video called Beyond a Phase: A Practical Guide to Challenging Homophobia in Schools available to schools in the area. [123573]

  Ms Stuart
  The video "Beyond a Phase" is available to any school that wishes to purchase it. It is for school governors and teachers, who are responsible for how sex education is taught, to decide whether or not to use material produced by health authorities in a school context. They do so within the framework of guidance (Personal, Social and Health Education) issued by the Department for Education and Employment.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions since 30 June 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124115]

  Ms Stuart
  No departmental or non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 30 June 1999.

  Triple Heart By-pass Operation
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a constituent of the hon. Member for Gosport, whose name has been given to him, can expect to be given a firm date for the triple heart by-pass operation for which the waiting time in January 1999 was estimated to be nine months. [124230]
  33W
  Mr. Denham
  I am advised that the Southampton University Hospitals National Health Service Trust is in the process of contacting the constituent to whom the hon. Member refers, to offer a firm date for the triple heart by-pass operation.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Game Bird Imports
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) pheasant eggs, (b) pheasant chicks, (c) adult pheasants, (d) partridge eggs, (e) partridge chicks and (f) adult partridges were imported into the UK in each year since 1979. [118966]

  Ms Quin
  Statistics for the import into the United Kingdom (UK) of pheasant eggs, pheasant chicks, adult pheasants, partridge eggs, partridge chicks, and adult partridges are not available for the period 1979 to 1995.

  The following figures are derived from the information messages (ANIMO) which European law requires exporting countries to send to the importing country to inform them of the number of animals certified for export in a given consignment. Imports of poultry are divided into the following commodities; day old poultry, hatching eggs, poultry for breeding and production, poultry for slaughter and poultry for re-stocking supplies of game. In European law pheasants and partridges are included in 'poultry'. However, ANIMOS do not give separate commodity codes for poultry species.

  The number of live day-old chicks, hatching eggs and adult poultry imported into the UK in each year since 1996, is given in the tables.

  Imports into UK from European Union

  Number of hatching eggs

  Number of chicks

  Number of adult poultry

  1996

  12,052,072

  4,963,947

  121,163

  1997

  38,458,912

  14,992,038

  586,629

  1998

  19,679,634

  5,182,966

  11,486,664

  1999

  20,549,545

  39,907,011

  596,265

  2000

  5,627,282

  2,075,152

  30,026

  Consignments of poultry from third countries are subject to a MAFF import licence. The following figures are derived from licences issued for consignments of live adult pheasants and pheasant chicks into the UK from third countries. Our records indicate that there have been no imports of pheasant eggs, partridge eggs, partridge chicks or adult partridges.

  Imports into UK from third countries

  Number of pheasant chicks

  Number of adult pheasants

  1996

  0

  26

  1997

  0

  8

  1998

  0

  69

  1999

  3,000

  3

  2000

  0

  0

  34W
  The figures given in the tables are provisional and subject to validation.

  Woodland Grant Schemes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make a decision on the woodland grant schemes amendment applied for by Cotswold Estate Services Ltd., submitted in October last year. [120682]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand Cotswold Services Ltd. submitted on behalf of their clients an application under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme. Processing of the application under the Scheme has been delayed pending approval by the European Commission of the England Rural Development Plan, which is expected in the summer.

  Broiler Chickens
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to commission an independent survey into the incidence of lameness in the United Kingdom broiler chicken flock; and if he will make a statement; [122557]

  (2) what steps he is planning to take to persuade the European Commission to propose a directive to address the health and welfare issues raised by the recent report of the Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on the Welfare of Chickens Kept for Meat Production (Broilers); and if he will make a statement. [122556]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have made clear their wish to improve standards of broiler welfare.

  The report from the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) on broiler chicken production usefully identifies and assesses the issues. It should enable the Commission now to bring forward proposals for EU standards, an approach which we much prefer to acting unilaterally: it should bring real welfare improvements without putting British producers at a competitive disadvantage in relation to their continental counterparts. We look forward to seeing proposals from the Commission in the light of the report. In preparation for this we shall carefully study the content of the report and the papers to which it refers.

  The report recognises, as do the Government, that leg disorders can be a major cause of poor welfare in broilers. A five-year industry survey in this country on broiler leg health should be nearing completion. The Farm Animal Welfare Council to whom the industry is reporting will carefully consider the survey, together with an independent evaluation of the results. I have written to both FAWC and the industry to make clear my concern that this exercise should be swiftly concluded so that we can determine what should be our next steps on leg health and what provisions we should be looking to secure in the EU negotiation. It is essential that we have FAWC's views before we consult on and determine these matters.

  The SCAHAW report also makes clear that the subjective nature of the widely used gait scoring system leads to difficulties in making direct comparisons between different studies employing this technique. As a result, the report suggests the need to develop objective

  35W
  measurement systems and to carry out systematic epidemiological studies. In this context, the Government already have in train a number of research projects on broiler leg health, including the development of other quantitative methods of assessing the extent of lameness in broilers.

  Meanwhile, the State Veterinary Service continues to carry out random visits to broiler units to assess all aspects of welfare including lameness, litter quality, and ventilation. We are also in the process of drawing up a new Broiler Welfare Code, which takes on board a number of the recommendations contained in FAWC s 1992 report. This is not a substitute for necessary EU action, but represents an important step we can take nationally in the meantime.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make the transport of circus animals subject to the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997; and if he will make a statement. [122699]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: The Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 applies to the transport of all animals, including circus animals.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the charge for making a submission on the number of organisations making representations as part of the consultation regarding the addition of Chardon LL maize to the national seed list; [122773]

  (2) what factors he took into account in determining the level of charge levied on those wishing to make representations as part of the consultation regarding the addition of Chardon LL maize to the national seed list; [122774]

  (3) how many representations were received regarding the addition of Chardon LL maize to the national seed list prior to the closing date for the consultation. [122776]

  Ms Quin
  There is a statutory requirement to pay a fee for making written representations (£30) or requesting a hearing (£60) about the proposal to add Chardon LL to the National List. A substantial number of representations (227) and requests for a hearing (68) have been received which will ensure that Ministers receive a wide range of views and evidence about the proposed decision.

  The requirement for these statutory fees is set out in the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended) and the level of fees is set in the Seeds (National List of Varieties) (Fees) Regulations 1994 (as amended). These fees were introduced many years ago, prior to the advent of genetically modified plant varieties, to help meet the cost of running the National List representations and hearings system. The representations fee was increased to its current level of £30 from £25 in 1999, and the hearings fee was increased to its current level of £60 from £55 in 1999, in line with general increases in National List fees. They apply equally to GM or conventionally bred varieties.
  36W
  The National List system does not itself address the safety aspects of GM traits. This is dealt with under quite separate legislation. No GM plant variety may be proposed for addition to the National List until the appropriate GM consents have been obtained and no charge is made to anyone objecting to the DETR or the FSA about the approval of GM crops or foods.

  Green Transport Plans
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the key buildings for which his Department(a) submitted and (b) did not submit green transport plans by March. [122562]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: In line with the target set in the Integrated Transport White Paper for the introduction of green transport plans for key Government buildings, by 31 March we had completed all 16 of our plans covering the following key buildings:
  Government Buildings, Epsom road, Guildford GU1 2LD
  Lion House, Willowburn Trading Estate, Alnwick NE66 2PF
  Wessex Regional Service Centre (RSC), Block 3, Government Buildings, Burghill road, Bristol BS10 6NJ
  Northern RSC, Eden Bridge House, Lowther street, Carlisle CA3 8DX
  North East RSC, Government Buildings, Crosby road, Northallerton DL6 1AD
  North Mercia RSC, Electra way, Crewe CW1 6GJ
  South Mercia RSC, Block C, Government Buildings, Whittingdon road, Worcester WR5 2LQ
  Anglia RSC, Block B, Government Buildings, Brooklands avenue, Cambridge CB2 2DR
  South East RSC, Block A, Government Buildings, Coley Park, Reading RG1 6DT
  South West RSC, Clyst House, Exeter EX5 1DY
  Quantock House, Paul street, Taunton TA1 3NX
  Central Science Laboratories, Sand Hutton, York YO4 1LZ
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Pakefield road, Lowestoft NR33 OHT
  CEFAS, Burnham Remembrance avenue, Burnham on Crouch CM0 8HA
  CEFAS, The Nothe, Barrack road, Weymouth DT0 8UB
  Veterinary Laboratory Agency and Veterinary Medicines Directorate. New Haw, Addlestone KT15 3NB.

  Agri-monetary System
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made in the EU on the replacement of the agri-monetary system with arrangements that protect British farmers from the effects of a strong pound or weak euro on the value of agricultural subsidies. [122989]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 May 20001: In December 1998 I successfully negotiated the new agrimonetary system, which is simpler and more transparent than the previous arrangements.

  By the end of 2000 we expect to have paid around £418 million in agri-monetary compensation under the new system, with a further £44 million to be paid by the end of next year. This is in addition to the £133 million paid in compensation under the pre-euro system, leading to total expenditure since 1997 on agri-monetary compensation of around £595 million.

  Land Values
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes took place in the value of agricultural land between(a) 1989 and 1995 and (b) 1996 and 1999. [123474]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: Data on sale prices of agricultural land in England are published on the MAFF website, at http:/www.maff.gov.uk/esg/statnot/alp.htm. There is a break in the series in 1993 and hence figures before and after that year are not strictly comparable. However, the published series show an increase of 5 per cent. between 1989 and 1995 and an increase of 2 per cent. Between 1996 and 1998 (provisional), which is the latest full year for which data are currently available. A spreadsheet giving all the annual figures between 1944 and 1998 is available on the website.

  Figures for Wales are published by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Hunts (Feedstuffs)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will establish an inquiry into the feeding of specified risk material to the hounds of the Exmoor Foxhounds. [123471]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: No, because these matters are dealt with by the local authorities who have responsibility for enforcing Specified Risk Material Order 1997.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases there have been of hunts being(a) prosecuted, (b) given a verbal warning and (c) given a written warning over feeding specified risk material to packs of hounds in each of the last three years. [123472]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: The feeding of SRM to hounds is classified as a Category 1 failure of the SRM controls. Out of 9802 visits to hunt kennels and knackers yards during the past three years, 43 Category 1 failures were noted. It is not possible to determine how many of these relate to feeding SRM to hounds except at disproportionate cost.

  All such failures would be notified in writing, unless the enforcement authority expressly requested that this is not done. Prosecution is a matter for the appropriate local authority.

  Farming (Diversification)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to promote diversification within farming. [123463]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: The England Rural Development Plan describes how Government intend to use the European Community co-funded measures in the Rural Development Regulation to support farmers wishing to diversity within farming. Of the £1.6 billion seven-year programme, £152 million will fund a new Rural Enterprise Scheme to encourage diversification; £44 million will fund a new Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme to encourage innovation and
  38W
  achieve added value for primary products and £22 million will go towards providing targeted training to support these and other schemes in the Plan.

  In addition, under the Action Plan for Farming, MAFF will be producing a new advisory booklet on farm diversification and farmers who need planning approval for Rural Enterprise Scheme applications will receive free specialist advice.

  The arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are set out in the rural development plans and Single Programming Documents for those countries.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123730]

  Mr. Morley
  The Ministry's records show that the numbers of laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in this Department that have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997 are as follows:

  MAFF laptops

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  Lost

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Stolen

  9

  2

  6

  17

  Total

  10

  2

  6

  18

  The data have been extracted from the Ministry's annual return to the Treasury of actual and suspected frauds. The return for 1999–2000 is currently being finalised so the figure for that year is subject to change.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a reply will be sent to the letter of 14 March from the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford to the Parliamentary Secretary. [124135]

  Mr. Morley
  I replied to the letter from the hon. Member on 25 May 2000.

  Alcoholic Beverages
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department collects on the alcoholic content of beverages. [123597]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: We do not collect specific information on the alcoholic content of beverages. In order to prevent consumers from being misled, all prepacked alcoholic drinks with an alcoholic strength of more than 1.2 per cent. must be labelled with an indication of their alcoholic strength by volume (abv). In addition, minimum alcoholic strengths for specified spirit drinks above 15 per cent. abv, and for wine, are laid down in EC legislation.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 16 May; and if he will make a statement. [124029]
  39W
  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) on 24 May 2000,Official Report, column 551W.

  Regional Network
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to close or restructure his Department's regional network. [123970]

  Ms Quin
  Ministers are currently considering the report of the review of CAP scheme administration, which my right hon. Friend the Minister commissioned from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) last autumn. The report recommends that we should merge the CAP scheme processing functions of MAFF's Regional Service Centres and the Intervention Board Executive Agency to create a new payments agency. taking full advantage of the benefits offered by modern technology. On this basis, PwC consider that it will be possible to deliver a radically improved service for farmers and significant savings to the taxpayer.

  My Department is also drawing up plans to align other aspects of its regional activities with the Government Office network. This will ensure that we can further strengthen our regional policy presence.

  The future of the Department's Regional Service Centres is being considered in the context of these two reviews. Radical restructuring will be possible only if funding can be made available in the Spending Review 2000.

  Right to Roam
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications of a right to roam over enclosed land in Scotland for the policing of the right to roam along the England-Scotland border. [123019]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  Responsibility for the proposed new right of access in Scotland rests with the Scottish Executive. Although the Scottish proposals are still at an early stage, I understand officials from the Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage have recently discussed possible cross-border issues.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chechnya
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his recent discussions with his Russian counterpart in Moscow, covered allegations of war crimes and human rights violations in Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. [123299]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised reported human rights abuse in Chechnya with Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov during his visit to Moscow on 17 May. He also urged that those responsible for investigating reports of abuse be given the necessary resources and powers. The UK remains deeply concerned 40W
  over the situation in Chechnya, and particularly about the human cost of the military campaign. We will continue to raise our concerns with Russia at every opportunity.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to the Russian Federation by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate war crimes and human rights violations in Chechnya. [123301]

  Mr. Vaz
  We welcomed the visit to Moscow and the north Caucasus by Mrs. Robinson from 31 March to 4 April. Her visit, and her report on it to the UN Commission on Human Rights helped to illuminate the deeply disturbing situation in Chechnya. In the light of the visit, the UK, with EU and other partners, co-sponsored a Resolution on Chechnya at the UN Commission on Human Rights, urging Russia to take action to address the reports of human rights abuse in Chechnya.

  European Commission Information Directorate-General
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make a statement on the(a) gender balance and (b) budget and (c) role of the Women's Information Section in the Information Directorate-General at the European Commission; [123624]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the (a) role and (b) current activities of the Head of Sector, Information for Women, in DGX (Information) in the European Commission. [123650]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the office of the Commission in London.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the letter of 4 May 2000 from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), what estimate he has made of the number of Kosovar Albanians killed in Kosovo by forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the year leading up to June 1999; and what the basis is for the figure. [122638]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: We estimate that at least 10,000 Kosovar Albanian civilians were killed in Kosovo between June 1998 and June 1999. This figure is based upon a variety of sources, including debriefing of refugees, eye witness accounts, reports from international and non-governmental organisations and the media.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aspects of the UK's foreign policy relate to the promotion of animal welfare; and if he will make a statement. [124210]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office works to promote British values worldwide. This includes the promotion of acceptable standards of animal welfare. Our overseas posts regularly raise these issues with their
  41W
  host Governments and encourage them to adopt similar standards. We have also taken a number of initiatives such as encouraging agreement at the recent CITES conference on elephant welfare.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he is taking to ensure that weapons supplied to the Sierra Leone army are not used by child combatants. [124444]

  Mr. Hain
  We are very concerned at reports that British weapons may be in the hands of child soldiers. This is why we sought and secured from the Government of Sierra Leone assurances that any UK-supplied weapons will be used only in accordance with established human rights principles and humanitarian law; and why the release programme of light weapons to the Government of Sierra Leone, as announced by the Defence Secretary on 23 May, will be carefully supervised by British military personnel on the ground with a view to ensuring that any British weapons only go to adult soldiers of the Sierra Leone army for training or for legitimate operational requirements.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made in respect of the use of child combatants by the Sierra Leone army; and if he will make a statement. [124445]

  Mr. Hain
  We have raised the issue of child soldiers with President Kabbah. He has assured us that it is not his Government's policy to employ child soldiers, in accordance with Sierra Leonean law and its obligations under the convention of the Rights of the Child, and has issued instructions to his forces to immediately demobilise any child soldiers in their ranks.

  British Overseas Territories Bill
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2000.Official Report, column 496W, if he will list the principles to be addressed in the Overseas Territories Bill. [123507]

  Mr. Battle
  The key principles will amend the 1981 British Nationality Act and build on the provisions made in relation to the Falkland Islands by the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983. They are:the automatic acquisition of British citizenship for existing British
  Dependent Territories citizens (BDTC) from a qualifying territory at commencement of the Act and for those born in an overseas territory after commencement;
  acquisition by discretionary registration for those acquiring BDTC by registration or naturalisation after commencement;
  BDTC status to continue in parallel with British citizenship with provision to renounce British citizenship acquired under the Act in favour of remaining solely a BDTC.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has received from St. Helena proposing changes in the constitution of St. Helena. [123925]
  42W
  Mr. Battle
  I understand that discussion documents are being drawn up in St. Helena to help local consultations about possible changes to the Constitution.

  Our position remains the same as set out in my answer to the hon. Member on 3 March 2000, Official Report, column 441W, namely, that we are prepared to consider their specific, detailed and well argued recommendations for the amendment of the 1998 Constitutional Order.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the checks and accountability in respect of actions taken by the Governor without reference to the Legislative Council or Executive Council under the constitution of St. Helena. [123926]

  Mr. Battle
  Where the Governor is required to consult with the Executive Council and act in accordance with their advice but does not do so, he is required under the provisions of the Constitution to obtain the prior approval of the Secretary of State, unless the matter is of such urgency that it is necessary for him to act before obtaining approval, in which case he must then report his actions and reasons to the Secretary of State. Any Executive Councillor can comment on the Governor's reasons to the Secretary of State. Where the Governor acts at his discretion he remains accountable to the Secretary of State.

  EU Institutions
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will publish the results of the Ministerial meeting held on 22 May to discuss proposals on EU institutions; [123987]

  (2) what items were discussed at the 22 May Ministerial meeting on institutional changes in the EU. [123986]

  Mr. Vaz
  Ministers discussed issues relating to institutions other than the Council and the Commission. This meant principally the composition and decision making powers of the European Parliament and reform of the European Court of Justice and Court of First Instance. Some delegations also touched on the composition of the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee and the Court of Auditors. The meeting did not produce formal results.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many press officers were employed by his Department in(a) May 1997 and (b) May 2000. [124063]

  Mr. Hain
  In May 1997 there were nine press officers in the FCO. In May of this year the number was 13. This represents an increase from 0.07 per cent. of the total FCO staff to 0.09 per cent. over the period. Due to the increasing media interest in world events they are constantly busy.

  EU Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the discussions at the Intergovernmental Conference, the Government have ruled out the introduction of a system of double majority
  43W
  voting in the Council of Ministers as an alternative to a reweighting of votes; and if he will make a statement. [124064]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government's position is clearly set out in the White Paper laid before the House on 15 February.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the Commission's list of the 20 Treaty Articles on which a majority of member states wish to extend qualified majority voting, as stated recently by Commissioner Barnier. [124068]

  Mr. Vaz
  Negotiations at the IGC are still at an early stage. Member states have not yet put forward definitive positions on the range of IGC topics, including extension of qualified majority voting.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made on the Commission's proposal to extend qualified majority voting to Article 13 of the Treaty. [124066]

  Mr. Vaz
  The IGC is a matter for member states to negotiate and decide. The Government have taken note of the Commission's suggestions for discussion. Our own approach is set out in the White Paper "IGC: Reform for Enlargement".

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the five-page document submitted to the IGC Government representatives group meeting on 2 May on the subject of qualified majority voting. [124071]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. The Presidency has also given a commitment to make all discussion documents publicly available on the internet.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made on the Commission's proposals to extend qualified majority voting to the areas not excluded in the Government's White Paper "IGC: Reform for Enlargement". [124069]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Commission's views do not set the agenda for discussions at the IGC. Treaty change is a matter for member states. The Government's approach to the discussions is set out in their White Paper "IGC: Reform for Enlargement". We are in regular contact with partners on the extension of QMV, and the issue has been discussed several times in the IGC Preparatory Group and by Ministers in the margins of the GAC.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions to date at the Intergovernmental Conference. [124065]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government Representatives group has been meeting on a regular basis to discuss the range of IGC issues. A 'Friends of the Presidency' group of legal experts has also met to discuss reform of the Court of Justice. Foreign Ministers have met four times in the 44W
  margins of the General Affairs Council. The Presidency will present a progress report to the European Council in Feira on 19 and 20 June.

  In the meetings, there has been general agreement that the IGC should focus on issues that need to be tackled before enlargement, especially vote reweighting in the Council, the size and composition of the Commission and the possible extension of qualified majority voting.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions to date in the Convention which is drafting the Charter of Fundamental Rights. [124070]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Charter Convention drafting body has now met 10 times, and has completed its first discussion of the full list of rights. A revised draft of civil and political rights is due for a second discussion at the Charter Convention meeting on 5–6 June. A revised draft of economic and social rights and horizontal clauses is due to be discussed on 19–20 June. These drafts are generally closer to the ECHR and the Treaties than their predecessors. But more work needs to be done to ensure that the end product fulfils the remit agreed by Heads of Government at the Cologne European Council last June. The Government believe that to meet its objectives the Charter should preserve legal certainty, stick to existing rights and be consistent with EU policies and objectives. It should be declaratory in form.

  The latest Charter drafts have been placed in the Libraries of the two Houses, together with Lord Goldsmith's comments on the civil and political articles. These papers, as well as contributions from member states' representatives and other interest organisations, are also available on the Charter website (ue.eu.int).

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his answer to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 541W, remains the Government's policy towards the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the EU treaties. [124111]

  Mr. Vaz
  Yes.

  European Political Parties
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the European Parliament resolution of 13 April concerning the state funding of political parties. [124244]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our view on the state funding of political parties was published in July 1999 as Cm. 4413. This was in response to the Neill Committee report (Cm. 4057, October 1998) which came down against any general system of support from public funds for the general activities of political parties. We agree with this conclusion.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the reference to transnational European political parties in the Treaty of Amsterdam. [124245]
  45W
  Mr. Vaz
  We recognise the importance of political representation at European level as a contribution to democratic accountability in the EU. Currently, MEPs elected from national parties can, if they so choose, join trans-national groupings within the European Parliament. We see no reason to change this practice.

  European Judicial System
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the European Commission on the report of the Reflexion Group on the future of the judicial system in the European Communities. [124073]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are in regular contact with the Commission on the full range of IGC issues. The 'Friends of the Presidency' group on reform of the European Court of Justice is not a Commission group. It is part of the IGC and is made up of member states' representatives. But it has provided a useful forum to discuss proposals for reform of the EC judicial system, including papers from the ECJ itself and from the Commission.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" visit to Leeds on 12 May; and what the budget is for the remaining roadshow events planned for 2000. [124067]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have minimised costs for the current series of city visits by inviting local councils to organise the programme. The accommodation and transport bill for the "Your Britain, Your Europe" visit to Leeds came to £1,012. The total budget for the remaining city visits in 2000 is £18,000.

  European Treaties
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Commission on the report from the Florence European University Institute on the reorganisation of the European Treaties. [124072]

  Mr. Vaz
  We are in regular contact with the Commission on the full range of issues that have been raised in the context of the current Intergovernmental Conference.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 24 April 1999,(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124130]

  Mr. Battle
  For the period 23 April 1999 to 31 March 2000, special advisers in my Department have travelled overseas in an official capacity on seven occasions. The special advisers travelled by both commercial means and by RAF charter flights.

  All travel complied with the requirements of the ministerial code and the Civil Service Management code.

WALES

  Sterling
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the value of sterling upon manufacturing in Wales. [124425]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I understand the concerns over the strength of sterling against the euro. But the Government are determined to take the long-term view. The Government's policies are aimed at achieving sustained growth, sound public finances and low and stable inflation. Manufacturers who have suffered from the old boom and bust cycle would not want a return to short-term, quick fixes, which jeopardise long-term stability.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions since 28 February 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124113]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  From 28 February 1999 to 30 June 1999, no departmental or non-departmental special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity on behalf of the Welsh Office.

  From 1 July 1999 to date, one special adviser has travelled abroad twice in an official capacity on behalf of the Wales Office, including a visit to Brussels.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123837]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: My Department does not compile any statistics by parliamentary constituency.

  Water Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when and for what reasons the safeguards to prevent the takeover of the company undertaking water services in Wales in a manner that is contrary to the public interest have been withdrawn; and if he will make a statement. [122685]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Under the Water Act 1989, the appropriate Secretaries of State were awarded a special share in the privatised water companies, empowering them to prevent anyone owning more than 15 per cent. of a company's shares. All such shares, including that held by the Secretary of State for Wales in Welsh Water, were to be redeemed on 31 December 1994, five years after privatisation, and this duly took place.

  In addition, and uniquely, the Articles of Association of Welsh Water plc continued to provide for the 15 per cent. limit on individual voting share rights following redemption of the Golden Share. The removal of this provision required the approval of 75 per cent. of the company's shareholders. At an Extraordinary General

  47W
  Meeting on 21 March 1996, shareholders resolved to remove the 15 per cent. limitation from the company's Articles of Association.

  I note that the Assembly has passed representations and comments on public interest principles to the Office of Fair Trading, who are evaluating bids and advising my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the report produced by Castle Transmission International in respect of increasing the availability of digital terrestrial television in Wales. [121834]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Castle Transmission International were commissioned by the Independent Television Commission (ITC) to research and investigate possible methods of expanding digital terrestrial coverage in the UK. The report was published on 17 March 1999 and is available on ITC's website, www.itc.org.uk.

  New Deal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the New Deal in Wales, with particular reference to(a) the under 25s, (b) the over 25s and (c) the over 50s; and if he will make a statement. [116234]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Secretary and discuss a range of issues including the New Deal.

  (a) The New Deal for Young People (18–24 year olds) has been making excellent progress in Wales. Latest figures show that over 12,700 young people have now secured employment from the New Deal (of which 9,500 have been sustained for over 13 weeks) and nearly 8,000 young people are currently still on the programme.

  (b) The New Deal for 25 plus (Long Term Unemployed) has been making steady progress since its launch in June 1998. At the latest count (end of December 1999) nearly 2,300 people had secured employment and over 4,800 are currently still on the programme.

  (c) The New Deal for 50 plus is currently still in the pilot phase with nine "Pathfinder" areas across the UK (Flintshire and Wrexham in Wales). Full nation-wide implementation is scheduled to start on 3 April 2000.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the prospects for the aerospace industry in Wales, with specific reference to Airbus, Broughton; and if he will make a statement. [116233]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am in frequent contact with the First Secretary on a range of issues and we discuss many aspects of industry in Wales. This has included the BAe facility at Broughton.
  48W
  I was pleased to hear that the first orders have been received for the A3XX Airbus, and also welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that the United Kingdom will be placing an order for 25 A400M aircraft.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he plans with the First Secretary concerning BAe Systems' application for an regional selective assistance grant; and if he will make a statement. [115202]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have raised the issue during my regular discussions with the First Secretary. As I have stated previously, details of RSA applications are treated as commercial in confidence between the Assembly and the applicant. Any decision on awarding RSA grant is entirely a matter for the Assembly, or the First Secretary in cases involving grant of the magnitude sought by BAe.

  Forms
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123941]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Since it was established on 1 July 1999, the Wales Office has issued no forms which charities or other voluntary organisations are required to complete. Figures for Welsh Office forms prior to that date are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Barry Juries
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on youth unemployment in(a) Wales, (b) Flintshire and (c) Deeside. [124424]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Youth unemployment in Wales, specifically North East Wales, has been declining since the General Election. Between April 1997 and April 2000 youth unemployment for Wales as a whole declined by 32.5 per cent., while in Flintshire youth unemployment declined by 23 per cent. over this period. Statistics are not collated on an area basis for Deeside, but for the unitary authority of Alyn and Deeside, youth unemployment declined by 16 per cent. between April 1997 and April 2000.

PRIME MINISTER

  Criminal Assets (Compensation)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 4W, on confiscation of criminal assets, what decisions have been taken following the Performance and Innovation Unit's report on the pursuit and seizure of criminal assets; how the decisions are to be (a) made public and (b) reported to Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [123776]

  The Prime Minister
  No decisions have yet been taken. The report is being finalised and will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Stella Rimington
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2000,Official Report, columns 327–28, if, as incoming Prime Minister, he was informed of Mrs. Stella Rimington's CV; and if he will make a statement. [123625]

  The Prime Minister
  (holding answer 25 May 2000): No. As Dame Stella had retired as Director General a full year before I took office there would have been no reason for me to see it.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister since May 1997 how many laptop computers used by officials in his Office have been(a) lost and (b) stolen. [123667]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: None.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons he has provided no answers to questions due for answer on 28 February (Ref. 112048 and 112049) to the hon. Member for Lewes. [124375]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today. My answers appear below.

  Ministerial Residences
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the residences made available to Ministers in the course of their duties, indicating in each case the location of the residence, the council tax banding and the Minister to whom each residence is allocated; [112048]

  (2) if he will list for each residence currently made available to Ministers the sum spent in 1999 on (a) council tax, (b) rent, (c) repairs and maintenance and (d) redecoration. [112049]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The cost to the Government in 1999–2000 of the routine maintenance and rent of Ministers' official residences is estimated at £1 million. In the last year of the previous administration expenditure was £1.2 million.

  Numbers 10 and 11 Downing street and Carlton gardens have traditionally been the residences of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary. The flats in Admiralty House and the Government House in Pimlico, which have in the past been assigned to a variety of Ministers, are currently occupied by the Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Council, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  All these properties are in council tax banding H. The level and responsibility for payment of council tax is determined on whether the property is the Minister's main or secondary residence. If a main residence, the responsibility for payment of the tax falls to the Minister. If the property is a secondary residence, responsibility for payment falls to the responsible Department. Two Ministers occupying flats in Admiralty House met their
  50W
  own council tax payments, as did I. Departments met the other payments, which were £350 for each property in 1999–2000.

  Rent and capital charges in 1999–2000 on each property were: 10 Downing street (£204,000), 11 Downing street (£287,000), Admiralty House flats (£75,185, £91,013, £94,091), Carlton gardens (£27,300) and Government House in Pimlico (£100,219).

  The cost of routine maintenance and repairs in 1999–2000 were: 10 Downing street (£3,664), 11 Downing street (£32,189), Admiralty House flats (£38,442), Carlton gardens (£24,561) and Government House in Pimlico (£2,055).

  In addition, during 1999–2000 as part of a repair, maintenance and replacement programme, agreed with English Heritage, £341,000 was spent on the roof, windows and external features of Admiralty House, a Grade 1 listed building.

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other Northern Ireland Ministers have use of accommodation in Hillsborough Castle while on duty in Northern Ireland. In 1999, £12,941 was spent on maintenance and minor works on these properties. Other costs are not separately identifiable.

  In addition, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland also have the use of Chequers, Dorneywood, Chevening and Bute House. None of these is owned by the Government.

  The Lord Chancellor has an official residence in the House of Lords which is provided in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Lords. The running costs are met by the House of Lords authorities and do not fall to the Government.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will respond to the recommendations of the Sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [124626]

  The Prime Minister
  The Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which was published on 12 January, concluded that the process of reform of standards of ethical behaviour in public life that had been set in train following publication of its First Report had been a success.

  The Committee made a number of detailed recommendations across a range of issues which the Government are considering. We will present our full response to Parliament in due course.

  Staff (Overseas Travel)
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister on what dates members of the Policy Unit have travelled overseas on official business since 3 March 1999. [124126]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 3 March 1999 members of the No.10 Policy Unit have travelled overseas on official business on 71 occasions. All visits have been made in accordance with the rules set out in the Civil Service Management Code.
  51W
  In addition, members of the No.10 Policy Unit have accompanied me on several of my official visits abroad.

  These arrangements follow the practice of successive administrations.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions his(a) Chief of Staff and (b) Chief Press Secretary formed part of the official party accompanying him on overseas visits since 28 February 1999. [124125]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 28 February 1999 my Chief Press Secretary has accompanied me on all my overseas visits. My Chief of Staff accompanied me on seven occasions.

  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions since 2 June 1999 special advisers of the Chief Whip and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124124]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations Lord Levy has received from Israeli Governmental organisations, indicating the officials and dates concerned. [119675]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Levy has a range of contacts with members of the Israeli government, and with officials in Israeli government organisations.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Rothwell/Desborough Bypass
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to invite tenders for the construction of the A6 Rothwell/Desborough Bypass. [122325]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency will shortly be appointing consultants to complete the final stages of preparation and then oversee the construction of the bypass. Subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures, the Agency expects to invite tenders for the construction contract in Spring 2001.

  Waste Incineration
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the extent to which the application of the EU waste incineration directive complies with the Government's Better Regulation Guide. [122947]

  Mr. Hill
  The Better Regulation Guide was published four years after the waste incineration directive was first proposed by the European Commission. The cost-benefit analysis undertaken on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to underpin the required Regulatory Impact Assessment by Entec UK Ltd. was carried out in accordance with Part II of the Better Regulation Guide, and the structure of the Entec report (copies of which are in the House Library) reflects this.
  52W
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the(a) average cost of a small incinerator and (b) increase in this average cost consequent upon the application of the EU waste incineration directive; [122951]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the average cost to a farm with a small incinerator of the steps needed to comply with the implementation of the EU waste incineration directive. [122950]

  Mr. Hill
  Full information on the purchase cost of small incinerators is not held, but we believe the cost of a new animal carcase incinerated under 50kg/hr capacity is of the order of £2,000–£10,000. Entec UK Ltd., who undertook cost-benefit analysis work on behalf of my Department in respect of the proposed waste incineration directive (copies of which are in the House Library), have estimated on the basis of a 100kg/hr unit that the capital compliance cost in respect of combustion requirements, abatement plant, monitoring equipment and spillage control for incinerators in the under 50kg/hr capacity category would be approximately £230,000 with annual operating costs of approximately £12,000.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of the EU waste incineration directive on UK compliance with the proximity principle of waste disposal. [122948]

  Mr. Hill
  Our policy on waste is set out in the Waste Strategy 2000, published on 25 May. This emphasises the priority the Government place on tough environmental standards for all types of incineration. It also makes clear that wastes should be disposed of as close to the point of production as possible, consistent with the need for effective environmental controls.

  We are looking at ways of complying with the proposed directive which will minimise the burden on small-scale animal carcase incinerators and pet crematoriums while ensuring that there are appropriate environmental safeguards.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the number of small incinerators on farms that will close as a result of the application of the EU waste incineration directive; [122952]

  (2) what plans he has to introduce a compensation scheme for farmers who may have to close their small incinerators following implementation of the EU waste incineration directive. [122949]

  Mr. Hill
  As matters stand, the proposed waste incineration directive will not have effect for existing incinerators until autumn 2005. We are currently looking at ways of complying with the proposed directive which will minimise the burden on small-scale animal carcase incinerator operators, including farmers and others, while ensuring that there are appropriate environmental safeguards.
  53W
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's target is for the amount of residential and commercial waste disposed of through incinerators by 2005. [123501]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: The Government have not set targets for waste disposal by incineration. The waste strategy sets a target to recover value from 40 per cent. of municipal waste through recycling, composting or energy from waste by 2005.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's policy is on the importation of rubbish from outside the United Kingdom to be disposed of in incinerators. [123486]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: Existing policies on exports and imports of waste are set out in the United Kingdom Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste, which came into effect on 1 June 1996.

  The Plan does not permit imports of municipal waste for final disposal. However, to be consistent with the EC Waste Shipment Regulation (EEC No.259/93), the Plan cannot prohibit imports for genuine recovery, which could include incineration where the prime purpose was energy recovery. Any such imports of municipal waste would, though, be subject to a prior informed consent procedure; and the available data for 1996–98 show that no such imports occurred over that period.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the place of incineration in the Government's hierarchy of waste management options. [123517]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The waste strategy set out the Government's view that reduction and re-use of waste should be considered before recovery. It emphasised that recycling and composting should be considered before energy recovery through incineration.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on farm costs of the implementation of the proposed EU waste incineration directive. [123652]

  Mr. Hill
  No assessment has be made of the impact of the proposed waste incineration directive on farm costs in general. The cost implications of the proposed waste incineration directive for the sort of small-scale animal carcase incinerators which may be operated on farms was considered by Entec UK Ltd. as part of the cost-benefit analysis work undertaken on behalf of my Department (copies of which are in the House Library). They have estimated on the basis of a 100 kg/hr unit that the capital compliance cost in respect of combustion requirements, abatement plant, monitoring equipment and spillage control for incinerators in the under 50 kg/hr capacity category would be approximately £230,000 with annual operating costs of approximately £12,000. We would expect farmers to look for alternative options rather than paying such sums. We recognise that this will involve some cost, but nowhere near £230,000.
  54W
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed EU waste incineration directive. [124136]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government are committed to tough standards for incinerators and therefore welcome the proposed waste incineration directive.

  The Council of Ministers is currently considering the European Parliament's amendments to the Common Position agreed in June 1999, including those affecting the scope, at official level. Council's rules of procedure do not allow me to comment on the detail of those discussions. No decisions have yet been taken by the Council in relation to the European Parliament's amendments, and we will keep the House informed in the usual way.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will seek a derogation from the EU waste incineration directive for small incinerators. [124321]

  Mr. Hill
  We have explored during negotiations on the waste incineration directive proposal various issues concerning the scope. The Common Position text includes an exemption for small experimental plant but it is clear that an absolute derogation for small plant is not available.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the likely shift in consumption of fuels in incinerators as a result of the application of the EU waste incineration directive, with particular reference to LPG and small incinerators. [124318]

  Mr. Hill
  No assessment has been made of the implications of the proposed waste incineration directive for the consumption of potential incinerator support fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the compliance with the better regulation test of proportionality of the application of the EU waste incineration directive to small incinerators; [124319]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the compliance with the small business litmus test of the application of the EU waste incineration directive to small incinerators; [124320]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the likely change in emission of pollutants as a result of the application of the EU waste incineration directive to small incinerators. [124317]

  Mr. Hill
  A Regulatory and Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed waste incineration directive was undertaken in accordance with the Better Regulation Guide. Copies of the assessment and the consultants' reports underlying that assessment, undertaken for the Department by Entec UK Ltd., are in the House of Commons Library. Entec carried out small business litmus tests for incineration sectors containing small firms.
  55W
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from pet crematoriums in relation to the proposed EU waste incineration directive. [123777]

  Mr. Hill
  I have received representations originating from six pet crematoriums and one representative organisation expressing concerns about the impact of the proposed directive on their businesses.

  As matters stand, the proposed waste incineration directive will not have effect for existing incinerators (including pet crematoriums) until autumn 2005. We are currently looking at ways of complying with the proposed directive which will minimise the burden on small-scale animal carcase incinerator operators, including pet crematoriums, while ensuring that there are appropriate environmental safeguards.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what investigations the Environment Agency has made into irregular emissions from the incinerator at Northwick Park Hospital; and if enforcement action has been commenced. [123581]

  Mr. Meacher
  Several complaints were made between 1993 to 1995, all of which were investigated by the Environment Agency. Following a complaint in July 1995 the Environment Agency issued an enforcement notice. The operator complied by introducing controls on the blending and checking of waste. These modifications were carried out in November 1998. The Environment Agency is currently investigating a complaint made in April 2000 and will consider appropriate action in line with its Enforcement and Prosecution Policy when the investigation is complete.

  Speeding Vehicles
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data he collects on the percentage of vehicles that break the speed limit in each local authority area; what targets for reducing deaths and serious injuries on roads he sets for each local authority; and if he will make a statement. [123095]

  Mr. Hill
  Information about the percentage of vehicles breaking the speed limit is not available by local authority. National information was last published in "Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain: 1998", a copy of which is in the Library.

  In July local authorities will produce new five-year local transport plans. These plans must include a local target for reducing road accident casualties, set against the national target of an overall 40 per cent, reduction by 2010 for the number of people killed or seriously injured, and a 50 per cent, reduction target for serious casualties to children.

  Leeds Supertram
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's evaluation of the proposals for the Leeds Supertram. [123278]
  56W
  Mr. Hill
  Major local transport projects will be considered by the Department as part of an overall strategy through the local transport plans (LTPs) to be submitted to the Department by the end of July.

  Lifejackets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 326W, if he will list the ships on the UK Register which have not replaced the lifejackets supplied by Bureau Venitas as directed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. [123382]

  Mr. Hill
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) issued a Press Release on 27 January 2000, requesting owners and operators of UK vessels to replace all Artica A and Artica B lifejackets, if carried. These were lifejackets manufactured by Messrs Canepa & Campi of Genoa and in respect of which Bureau Veritas had issued a certificate of Type Approval on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  Owners were further requested to advise the MCA if their vessels carried these lifejackets and that changes had been made. To date no such reports have been received.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the banning of methyl tertiary butyl ether in the United States of America. [123443]

  Mr. Hill
  We understand that the US Federal Government's proposal to significantly reduce or eliminate MTBE in petrol—which had been actively encouraged in a number of US States for air quality reasons—has been made because of concerns about MTBE in groundwater. At the same time, the Federal Government have proposed that air quality benefits gained through use of MTBE—primarily reductions in carbon monoxide emissions—be preserved through the use of alternative, renewable fuel additives such as ethanol. This proposal has been made in the light of circumstances pertaining in parts of the United States and which may differ from those in many parts of Europe, including the UK.

  For example, MTBE has not been actively encouraged in the United Kingdom, carbon monoxide emissions being controlled by other means. MTBE is used in significantly less quantities than in the United States and there is no evidence to indicate groundwater contamination. We are nevertheless keeping the matter under review and the Environment Agency is currently undertaking a study into oxygenates in groundwater.

  Genetically Modified Baculovirus
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government have authorised the environmental release of a genetically modified baculovirus; and what assessment they have made of the risks involved in such a release. [122998]
  57W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) assesses all applications for the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms.

  Following advice from ACRE that there would be no risk to human health or the environment, the Government authorised the environmental release of insect-specific baculoviruses in netted enclosures under a Part B research and development consent. At the end of each release the enclosures were decontaminated and experimental material destroyed in line with the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and the Control of Pesticides Act 1986.

  Post trial monitoring has confirmed that all experimental organisms were destroyed and there was no harm to the environment.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contribution to the cost of the Jubilee line extension has been made by the developers of Canary wharf. [122632]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: The Canary Wharf developers have to date made payments in the order of £150 million towards the cost of the Jubilee Line Extension.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contributions by the developers of Canary wharf towards the cost of the Jubilee line extension remain outstanding; and when they are expected to be paid. [122633]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: Following both scheduled and early repayments made to date, a further, final, payment of £50 million is due on 1 November 2000.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the contribution of the developers of Canary wharf towards the cost of the Jubilee line extension was increased to meet the cost overrun. [122634]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: No.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the environmental criteria to be applied in assessing the Ilisu Dam project. [123827]

  Mr. Meacher
  A round of Ministerial correspondence over whether to provide export credit support for the Ilisu Dam project took place in December 1999. This included correspondence between the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Departmental officials have also been in contact over the issues relating to this project since February 1999. Following Ministerial correspondence, it was agreed, as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 21 December 1999, that export credit support for the project would be conditional on the Turkish authorities agreeing actions to address the concerns we have about the environmental and social impacts of the project. As the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry stated, the areas of concern which need to be addressed are:
  58W
  1. A resettlement programme which reflects international standards and includes independent monitoring;

  2. Provision for upstream water treatment plants capable of ensuring that water quality is maintained;

  3. An assurance that adequate downstream water flows will be maintained at all times; and

  4. A detailed plan to preserve as much of the archaeological heritage of the town of Hasankeyf as possible.

  We are now waiting to see the final Environmental Impact Assessment Report of the project and the Turkish Government's proposed Resettlement Action Plan. Following the receipt of these reports the Government will decide whether our concerns have been adequately addressed.

  Fair Rents (London)
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the average increase in fair rents upon re-registration since 1995 in(a) the Lambeth Rent Office area and (b) London; [123541]

  (2) what was the average increase in fair rents since 1992 in (a) the Lambeth Rent Office area and (b) London [123542]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: Between 1995 and 2000 the average increase in rents upon re-registration was an estimated 16 per cent, in Lambeth Rent Office Area and 18 per cent, in London. These increases relate to the periods of 27 months on average.

  Information on fair rents is collected only when re-registration takes place and comprehensive information on increases in fair rents is therefore not available.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the average scarcity discount used by the London Rent Assessment Committee in calculating fair rents using market rent comparables since 1998 for(a) re-registered rent appeals in London and (b) re-registered rent appeals from the Lambeth Rent Office area. [123540]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: Rent Assessment Committees are required to show for each case they determine the arithmetical calculations used in reaching that determination, including any deduction from the market rent attributable to scarcity of accommodation in the market. However, we do not collect information centrally that would enable the question to be answered. The cost of providing the information requested would be disproportionate.

  Waste Disposal (Agriculture)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to promote the proximity principle for waste disposal in agriculture. [123654]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government made it clear in statutory planning guidance "Planning policy guidance note 10: planning and waste management" that future waste management decisions should be based on the proximity principle, which says that waste should be disposed of as near as possible to its place of production, because the transporting of waste itself has an environmental impact.

  South Atlantic Medal
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will arrange for the South Atlantic Medal to be awarded to those residents of the island of St. Helena who served on board RMS St. Helena in the war zone during the Falklands War. [123655]

  Mr. Hill
  The service performed by St. Helena residents on board RMS St. Helena during the Falklands War is much appreciated. Unfortunately the period served was just too short to meet the criterion for issue of the South Atlantic Medal, laid down in MOD Command Paper 544/82.

  Byker Heat Station
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what materials were released to air from the Byker heat station in 1995; and if the operating licence imposed a duty to record the nature of the releases. [123899]

  Mr. Hill
  The Environment Agency's authorisation for Byker Heat Station prescribes annual mass limits for the releases to air of groups of significant materials: Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, particulate matter, Hydrogen Chloride, Hydrogen Fluoride, certain aggregates of metals and Dioxins. The authorisation also requires recording and reporting of these releases; this information is forwarded to the Agency and is retained for inspection on a public register in Newcastle. The information is also available via the Environment Agency's website.

  Releases of Byker Heat Station, Authorisation AF7690 in 1995

  Substance

  Limit of release (kg)

  Total release (kg)

  Carbon Monoxide

  25,500

  10,160

  Hydrogen Chloride

  14,000

  7,060

  Hydrogen Fluoride

  600

  174

  Metals (CR+CU+MN+PB)

  1,360

  47.72

  Metals (AS+NI)

  240

  4.48

  Metals (CD+HG)

  60

  5.51

  Nitrogen Oxides (AS NO2)

  98,000

  53,580

  Particulates—Total

  8,500

  2,060

  Polychlorinated Dibenzo-P-Dioxin—all Congeners

  0.03

  0.117

  Sulphur Dioxide

  84,000

  42,550

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2000,Official Report, column 701W, if (a) back-up power for controls was required at the Byker Heat Station during the 1995 failure and (b) back-up is required and available now; for what reason the releases to air following the failure cannot be quantified; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which the failure to quantify such releases constitutes a breach of the operating licence. [123922]

  Mr. Hill
  In 1995 electrical power was supplied from the national grid and by the plant's own generator. As power is no longer generated on site, the alternative power source is no longer available. The authorisation issued by the Environment Agency does not specifically require back-up power.
  60W
  The releases could not be quantified, as both the pollutant concentration and their flow rates changed continuously throughout the 15 minute incident. The amount released was non-quantified and did not constitute a notifiable release; the then regulator HMIP took no action. Authorisation conditions normally take account of transient conditions such as unpredicted power failure, and this did not constitute a breach of the authorisation.

  Forms
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123949]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There has been no net change.

  Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury-Chester Rail Line
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress made to make the Wolverhampton-Shrewsbury-Chester rail line a priority Trans-European Network. [123902]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 22 May 2000,Official Report, column 323W.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers are available to planning authorities to regulate the siting, appearance and power of mobile phone transmitter masts. [124098]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Government planning policy for telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised): Telecommunications, and the Department's Circular 4/99 "Planning for Telecommunications".

  The installation of any telecommunications mast in protected areas, such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and conservation areas, and of masts above 15 metres in height elsewhere, is subject to a planning application for determination by the local planning authority. In the case of masts of 15 metres and below in height, local planning authorities are able to consider the siting and appearance of such development by licensed telecommunications code system operators in accordance with the "prior approval procedure" under Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended).

  Under the prior approval procedure, a local planning authority has the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve, within 42 days for ground-based masts and 28 days for masts on a building or structure, details of the siting and appearance of the installation, if an authority considers that the development will pose a serious threat to amenity, it is able to refuse approval, although authorities are advised to explore the scope for modifying its siting and/or appearance before doing so.
  61W
  Planning Authorities are not responsible for regulating the power of mobile phone masts, and have no powers to do so. Telecommunications operators have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Management of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to ensure that their work activities, which would include the operation or their apparatus, do not present a risk to employees and the general public.

  In our response to the report of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, issued on 11 May 2000 and placed in the Libraries of both Houses, the Government said that they were minded to introduce a requirement for an application for full planning permission for all new telecommunications masts, but would need to consult widely before doing so, including on the principle and precise scope of any new arrangements. We shall issue a consultation paper on this and related guidance as soon as practicable.

  Local Government Conduct Guidelines
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, following the recent issue of a public interest report by the District Auditor, pursuant to an objection to the accounts of Sheringham Town Council for 1996–97, he proposes to amend the national guidelines for local Government conduct, with specific reference to the exemptions contained in section 12(b) and to parish or town councillors who have been appointed to a voluntary body or charity; and if he will make a statement on the status of the guidelines. [124134]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under the Local Government Bill currently before the House all local authorities, including parish and town councils, will be required to adopt a new Code of Conduct, in line with a new Model Code to be issued by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. These Codes will replace the existing National Code of Local Government Conduct.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans there are to conduct a criminal investigation into the planting in spring of this year of an oil seed rape variety after it was discovered to be contaminated with GM seeds. [123755]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: The Government are still considering this matter.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the statement by Advanta that cross-pollination between GM and non-GM crops in Canada led to the contamination of rape oil seed planted in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to separation distances between GM and non-GM crops in the UK. [123267]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: We are urgently investigating with Advanta the circumstances in Canada that gave rise to the contamination of oil seed rape planted in the United Kingdom.
  62W
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in other member states of the European Union about the possible contamination of the European conventional maize crop with GM maize. [124342]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have not had any discussions with Environment Ministers of other member states about this issue, but I shall raise this at the June EU Environment Council.

  My officials have been in contact with officials in other member states where Advanta seeds are known to have been sold.

  Coastguards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the industrial tribunal decision in the case of Rigden/Hodgson, when he will issue employment contracts to auxiliary coastguards; if he has paid the arrears owing under the legislation on the national minimum wage; and if he will make a statement about the future employment of auxiliary coastguards. [123969]

  Mr. Hill
  The decision of the Newcastle Employment Tribunal is being considered and legal advice taken on grounds for appeal.

  All serving auxiliaries have been paid the arrears of pay due as a result of bringing auxiliary coastguards wages into line with the National Minimum Wage. There have been problems in getting back pay to those who have left the auxiliary service, but contact has been made wherever possible and the arrears will be paid shortly.

  Council Tax Discounts (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many properties in Herefordshire qualify for 50 per cent, council tax discount for second homes; what is the cost to the Herefordshire Council of this discount; and if he will make a statement. [124536]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Herefordshire Unitary Authority has 2,266 properties in 2000–01 that qualify for a 50 per cent, discount. Not all dwellings that receive the discount are second homes, and the Department does not collect separate information on these dwellings. The 50 per cent, discount applies to all unoccupied dwellings and certain occupied dwellings such as those where all of the residents are disregarded, for example households consisting of someone severely disabled and their carer.

  If a local authority has a reduced tax base because it has dwellings subject to a discount or exemption, it will receive more grant from the Government.

  Aggregates
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the environmental consequences of an aggregates tax. [124442]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  An aggregates levy would help to ensure that the environmental impacts of primary aggregates production not already addressed by regulation
  63W
  are more fully reflected in prices. This would be expected to have the following environmental consequences: a reduction in the amount of primary aggregates extracted—and in the associated environmental impacts; an increase in the use of alternative materials which would otherwise be wastes and disposed of; and less wastage of all aggregates.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the volumes of recycled/secondary aggregates used in the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years. [124439]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  These data are not available. Because of the difficulty in collecting the information, especially information on construction and demolition waste which arises on a very large number of temporary sites, consultants were asked to devise an appropriate collection system. The recommended system is being implemented.

  Included in this is a survey of construction and demolition waste in England and Wales carried out in March by the Environment Agency, supported by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the National Assembly for Wales. The returns are being analysed at present. Data on other material used as aggregate will be published as part of the report on the Aggregate Minerals Survey 1997. The results of both surveys will be published this summer.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the volume of construction aggregates produced in the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years. [124438]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The total volume of crushed rock and sand and gravel produced for construction in the UK for each of the 10 years up to and including 1998, the most recent year for which reliable information is available, is set out in the table. The figures are those compiled by the British Geological Society using data from the Office for National Statistics and the Department of Economic Development (Northern Ireland). The figures for crushed rock used in these totals are for Great Britain only because crushed rock produced in Northern Ireland and used for construction is not specifically identified.

  Thousand tonnes

  1989

  307,170

  1990

  285,631

  1991

  254,371

  1992

  242,879

  1993

  249,593

  1994

  271,176

  1995

  252,570

  1996

  229,271

  1997

  232,170

  1998

  230,031

  Station Platforms
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers the shadow Strategic Rail Authority has to make sure the distance between a railway station platform and a train is at a safe level; which railway stations in England and Wales have a gap between the platform and the train 64W
  exceeding (a) 30 centimetre and (b) 1 metre; what plans have been submitted by Railtrack to re-gauge platform heights at railways stations across Britain; and what action (i) has been taken and (ii) is planned, to implement the proposals. [124455]

  Mr. Hill
  Responsibility for the safe maintenance of platforms and their interface with trains rests with the infrastructure controller and train operators and not with the shadow Strategic Rail Authority.

  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate monitors safety on the railways and enforces safety legislation. LISE has published "Railway Safety Principles and Guidance" (RSPG) which covers the issue of platform gaps for new and altered works. Any infrastructure developed outside this guidance must be agreed with the HSE. Additionally, Railtrack publishes criteria on this subject in the form of Railway Group Standards. Compliance with these Group Standards generally ensures compliance with criteria set out in the HSE Guidance. HSE is aware that historically the stepping criteria set out in RSPG are not complied with at a number of locations. It was this knowledge which led to the HSE criteria being developed. Railtrack is implementing a programme which is intended, among other things, to address the problem of large gaps between trains and platforms at stations. Some work has already been carried out; the programme is risk-based and prioritised. HSE is monitoring progress.

  HSE's records are insufficiently detailed to provide information on locations where gaps may exceed particular dimensions. Railtrack's programme is intended to identify problem locations and to develop an action plan to deal with them.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current limit for the gap between a train and a railway station platform; what representations his Department has received regarding the dangers of large gaps between platforms and trains; what the Government are doing to ensure that the gap between a railway station platform and the train is at a safe level; who is responsible for ensuring that the gap between a train and a railway station platform is at a safe level; and what recent recommendations he has received from the Health and Safety Executive with regard to the distance between a train and a railway station platform. [124454]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack, as infrastructure controller, is responsible for the safety of its infrastructure. There are no regulations which specify a maximum gap at the train/platform interface. However, the Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate has published guidance documents entitled "Railway Safety Principles and Guidance" which provide an accepted standard of good practice for now or altered work within the railway industry. "Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part 2 Section B: Guidance on stations" sets acceptable stepping criteria between trains and platforms, the maxima for these are:250mm vertically;
  275mm horizontally; and
  350mm diagonally

  HSE is aware that historically some platforms exist where these dimensions are exceeded. Railtrack is

  65W
  developing a strategy of identifying and dealing with these on a prioritised basis. HSE is following this initiative closely to ensure that there is a satisfactory outcome.

  These dimensions may only be exceeded when dispensation has been obtained from the Inspectorate. Warning notices reading 'Mind the Gap' with hatching along the platform edge, or other agreed measures for example, public announcements, may be required. HSE considers that to require the infrastructure controller or station operator to carry out work specifically to rectify platform gaps would not be reasonably practicable. HSE would however expect any planned alteration or new works around the train/platform interface to include a reduction in the gaps at interface.

  The Department has received correspondence on this subject from time to time.

  Trees
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's policy is in relation to the country of origin of trees planted on its land and that of its agencies. [124624]

  Mr. Prescott
  My Department follows the guidance in "Towards more Sustainable Construction: Green guide for managers in the public sector" which encourages the planting of native trees and shrubs where this is feasible, and seeks whenever possible to use plants grown in the UK.

  London Transport
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) directors and (b) employees of London Transport receive company cars as a part of their remuneration. [124407]

  Mr. Hill
  London Transport have advised that 22 Directors and 231 employees receive company cars as part of their remuneration.

  Local Authority Funding
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the funds which are available to local authorities on application, indicating those for which the Torbay Unitary Authority has successfully applied in each of the last two years. [124195]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Local authorities may apply to this Department for the discretionary grants listed in the table provided they meet the criteria for the particular scheme. Those grants for which Torbay Unitary Authority has successfully applied for funding since April 1998 are indicated in the second column. The table does not include borrowing approvals for capital expenditure, funding that may be available through private finance initiatives or joint ventures with the private sector, or grants from non-departmental public bodies which are funded by this Department or other minor miscellaneous grants. The Department also administers the European Regional 66W
  Development Fund, for which Torbay Council has received approval for funding in both 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Successful application by Torbay unitary authority

  Discretionary grant available to local authorities

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Disabled Facilities Grant

  Yes

  Yes

  Housing Investment Programme (Private Sector Renewal Grant)

  Yes

  Yes

  Home Improvement Agencies (funding for running costs)

  Beacon Councils Special Grant

  Bellwin Scheme of Emergency Financial Assistance

  Invest to Save Special Grant

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant1

  Rural Transport Partnership Grant

  Public Transport Facilities Grant

  Industrial Development Act 1982 Grant

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  Freight Grant scheme

  1 Torbay Council will receive funding in 2000–01 under Rural Bus Challenge Grant.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124112]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  During the period 1 April to the end of March 2000, Special Advisers in this department travelled overseas on seven occasions.

  New Deal for Communities
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how people from all minority groups will be encouraged to play an active role in the New Deal for Communities; [124383]

  (2) how the New Deal for Communities is affecting (a) Irish, (b) Jewish and (c) traveller communities. [124382]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our guidance for the New Deal for Communities (NDC) places a particular emphasis on involving all elements of the local community from the outset.

  We have issued specific guidance on race equality to NDC partnerships, which highlights the needs of 'White' minority groups such as gypsies (and other travellers), Jewish communities and others. It underlines the importance of including groups within a local community which are seen as different; and offers practical advice on how to ensure inclusion and celebrate diversity.

  We assess proposals from NDC partnerships for evidence of capacity to work with, and involve, ethnic minority and other minority groups in the neighbourhood renewal process. For the early stages of Round 2 of the NDC programme, we have appointed 'community

  67W
  mentors'—independent organisations whose role is to ensure a wide range of community involvement in the process from the start, and allocated funding to support that role. We also encourage partnerships to adopt approaches which build the capacity of different groups within the community to participate actively in the programme. Throughout the lifetime of the NDC, we will offer partnerships a range of support and advice, including help on maintaining the partnership of all sections of the local community.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the planning applications for development on land classified as agricultural by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred to his Department since 1 May 1997; and if he will give for each one the nature of the application and the outcome of the referral; [124139]

  (2) if he will list the planning applications for conversion of farm buildings referred to his Department since 1 May 1997; and if he will give for each one the nature of the application and the outcome of the referral. [124138]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hackney Carriages
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps must be taken by a proprietor in dispute with a hackney carriage driver for whom he holds a duplicate licence; [124559]

  (2) if he will issue guidance to magistrates on the conduct of disputes between hackney carriage drivers and proprietors; [124651]

  (3) if he will issue guidance to magistrates on the steps to be taken by a hackney carriage driver to secure the return of his duplicate licence which has been deposited at a magistrates court by a proprietor. [124558]

  Mr. Hill
  The statutory procedure governing disputes between hackney carriage drivers and proprietors about drivers' duplicate licences is set out in the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843.

  There are no plans to issue guidance on this issue since the interpretation of legislation is a matter for justices in exercise of their judicial discretion.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Social Exclusion Unit will publish the guide to the ethnic minority aspects of the work it has done which was referred to in its National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal framework document. [124772]

  Ms Armstrong
  Tomorrow the Social Exclusion Unit will publish a report that summarises the work it has led to date on minority ethnic social exclusion issues.
  68W
  The Social Exclusion Unit has looked at minority ethnic issues as an integral part of each of the projects that it has done so far, and the 18 Policy Action Teams it commissioned to look at various aspects of deprived neighbourhoods have also done so. The summary brings together the results of mainstreaming those issues. It analyses various aspects of minority ethnic social exclusion; illustrates what the Government are already doing to tackle them and summarises the ideas for further action that are under consideration in the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal and follow-up to the Policy Action Team reports.

  Copies of the report will be available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions following the case in the Queen's Bench Division between L. Benson and Copeland Borough Council, what plans he has to seek to restore the previous position whereby the spouse of a licence holder could use a private hire vehicle for any purpose other than for hire; when the case was heard; and if he will make a statement. [123875]

  Mr. Hill
  I hope to make an announcement soon.

TREASURY

  Job Creation (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new jobs have been created in(a) Lancashire and (b) Burnley in the past year. [123525]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Peter L. Pike, dated 5 June 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on employment changes in Lancashire and Burnley (123525). I am replying in the Director's absence.
  Information is not available for job gains or losses. However the net change in the number of employee jobs in the latest year for which figures are available is as follows.

  Net change in employee jobs (September 1997-September 1998)

  Thousand

  Net change

  Lancashire

  +2.3

  Burnley

  +1.0

  Source:

  Annual Employment Survey (AES), ONS

  Unemployment (Scotland)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the unemployment rate in each of the areas covered by the pre-1997 travel-to-work areas in Scotland. [123578]
  69W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Andrew Welsh, dated 5 June 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question (123578) about the unemployment rate in pre-1997 travel-to-work areas in Scotland. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  ONS produces two measures of unemployment. The first is derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). It is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This counts as unemployed people who are (a) without a paid job (b) available to start work within the next two weeks and (c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.
  The ONS also publishes the monthly number of people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits also known as the Claimant Count.
  The definitions of travel-to-work areas that were used before 1997 are those first used in 1984. LFS data for 1984 travel-to-work areas are not available but figures for the claimant count can be obtained from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff from his Department were seconded to private sector companies in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000; and if he will list in each case the companies to which staff were sent, the names and ranks of the staff involved and the duration of the secondment. [123416]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  The information required is as follows:

  1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998

  1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999

  1 May 1999 to 30 April 2000

  Numbers and grades:

  Range D x 5

  Range D x 4

  Range D x 2

  Range E x 6

  Range E x 4

  Range E x 5

  Organisations to whom secondments were made.

  Business Incubators

  Panel

  Business Incubators Panel

  UK Business Incubation

  Price Waterhouse

  Price Waterhouse

  SIB (now FSA)

  PIA (now FSA)

  PIA (now FSA)

  Ockham Holdings

  SIB (now FSA)

  SIB (now FSA) British

  Cement Association

  EBRD

  Amerada Hess

  HSBC Holdings

  Council of Mortgage

  Amerada Hess

  Ockham Holdings

  Lenders

  Ockham Holdings

  British Cement Association

  Granada

  British Cement Association

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123845]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: The Treasury uses a very wide range of statistics, many of which are collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Collection by the ONS is not specifically designed to produce statistics at the level of Parliamentary Constituencies, though statistics that the ONS can often provide at this level include economic status (employed, unemployed, inactive), the claimant count, employee jobs, average earnings, and Census data. Other government departments can also supply some statistics by Parliamentary Constituency. However, a comprehensive list of all statistics used by the Treasury that can be collated by Parliamentary Constituency is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Commission Grants
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will deposit a copy of the latest Annual report on Beneficiaries of Part A Commission Grants in the Library. [123093]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This report is freely available via the internet web-page of the Commission. The House of Commons Library will be able to obtain a copy for the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what EU funds are distributed to the Christians for Europe Foundation; what assistance has been provided to the organisation by Community organisations for hosting conferences; what is the United Kingdom's share of the costs of such assistance; and if he will make a statement. [123618]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Commission's funding of such grants is published annually in its Report on Beneficiaries of Part A. This report is freely available via the internet web-page of the Commission, Europa, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  European Integration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards continuation of European Community budget line A-3022, European Integration Activities; and if he will make a statement. [123617]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The activities supported by this budget line are financed from the Commission's administrative budget. The UK seeks to keep such expenditure as low as possible.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the long-term consequences of EMU on further European integration in economic areas not presently covered by(a) QMV and (b) European activities; and if he will make a statement. [123621]
  71W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The EC Treaty sets out the legal framework for the operation of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Any changes to the Treaty would require the unanimous agreement of all member states.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic and tax information he will need to offer the EU prior to seeking to join the Euro. [123829]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As underpinned by Articles 99 and 104 of the EC Treaty, the UK once a year submits a Convergence Programme as part of the Stability and Growth Pact, and twice a year submits government debt and deficit data as part of the excessive deficit procedure.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the next phase of the information strategy for the euro, with particular reference to(a) sensitive groups, (b) opinion formers, (c) information multipliers and (d) children. [123628]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the second Outline National Changeover Plan, which was published on 9 March 2000. A copy of the Plan is available in the Library of the House.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 262W, on tax rates, where income tax rates are included in the Table 4.2 on marginal deduction rates in the Budget Red Book (HC 346). [123583]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Table 4.2 of the Budget Red Book contains estimates of the marginal deduction rates faced by working households in receipt of income-related benefits or the Working Families Tax Credit where at least one person works 16 hours or more a week. Income Tax rates are incorporated into the marginal deduction rate for those households where income tax is paid.

  Enterprise Promotion (South-West)
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he proposes to promote enterprise within disadvantaged areas and groups in the South West Region. [122900]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's aim is to help create a supportive environment for entrepreneurial activity in all sections of society. Long-term unemployed people who want to move into self-employment are being helped with support under New Deal options nationally; while the Employment Zone pilot in Plymouth has been helping long-term unemployed adults aged 25 plus to get back into work, including the opportunity to pool benefits, training and job search funds to help with business start-up costs, since April 2000. We will also be offering New Entrepreneur Scholarships in high unemployment areas, to equip potential entrepreneurs with the 72W
  management and business skills needed to turn their aspirations into successful businesses. A pilot programme will be running in Cornwall (and London and Manchester) later this year, before a national roll-out in September 2001.

  Moreover, the Government announced in November 1999 the creation of a new Phoenix Fund. with £30 million to invest over three years in promoting better access to business support and finance in disadvantaged areas. This includes:
  a development fund to promote innovative enterprise support in deprived areas, including incubator units;
  a national challenge fund to help resource community finance initiatives, and to evaluate the variety of approaches and distil best practices;
  loan guarantee support for community finance initiatives borrowing from wholesale sources of finance, so that they can on-lend in disadvantaged areas; and
  a network of mentors to pre and early phase business start-ups through a new Business Volunteer Mentoring Association, being run on a pilot basis until April 2001.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has lead responsibility for the Phoenix Fund, including the disbursal of funding and business support in the South West.

  The Government have also instigated a range of measures in recent Budgets, including cuts in capital gains tax and corporation tax, and enhanced capital allowances, which will benefit many of the 65,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in disadvantaged areas and the wider South West region. Moreover, the Government are currently financing a network of regional venture capital investment funds for early-stage SMEs, and contributing to a regional target of £85 million for the South West. The first steps towards this target are being taken now with the regional venture capital competition being run by the DTI.

  The Small Business Service is also tasked with the brief of reaching-out to start-up and existing enterprises in disadvantaged communities, to increase accessibility of business support. These principles will also shape the selection and operation of local SBS franchises, operational from April 2001.

  We are also bringing schools and businesses closer together, particularly those in high unemployment areas. We have already provided an extra £10 million nationally to boost enterprise skills in our schools. The new National Enterprise Campaign, launched in May, includes a particular focus on our high unemployment areas.

  Investment Services Directive
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 2000,Official Report, column 477W, on an investment services directive, for what reason (a) it is proposed to upgrade the current directive and (b) a Green Paper is considered necessary.
  [123895]
  73W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This is a matter for the European Commission. The European Commission's Communication "Implementing the Framework for Financial Markets: Action Plan" (COM(1999)232) proposes a Commission Green Paper to review the Investment Services Directive as a basis for an efficient market for investment services.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed aggregates tax will apply to imports of secondary/recycled and similar materials imported into the UK for use in aggregates markets. [124430]

  Mr. Timms
  The aggregates levy will apply to imported aggregate at the point of its first sale or use in the UK, on the same basis as domestically produced aggregate. This means that imported recycled aggregate will not be subject to the levy. Certain types of secondary materials—whether imported or of domestic origin—will also be exempted from the levy.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the proposed aggregates tax will apply to imports of products manufactured with aggregate minerals. [124447]

  Mr. Timms
  The draft legislation does not apply the levy to imports of processed products, given the difficulties inherent in establishing the taxable aggregate content of such products.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it will cost to reduce national insurance contributions by 0.1 per cent., using revenue from the proposed aggregates tax, over each of the first five years of the operation of the tax. [124435]

  Mr. Timms
  Budget 2000 announced that an aggregates levy would be introduced from April 2002 with the revenues recycled to business through a 0.1 percentage point cut in employer National Insurance Contributions and a new Sustainability Fund.

  The estimated costs of the reduction in employer National Insurance Contributions is around £0.35 billion in 2002–03, around £0.4 billion in each of the following three years and £0.45 billion in 2006–07.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue will be raised by the proposed aggregates tax over each of the first five years of its operation. [124434]

  Mr. Timms
  Table A1.13 in the FSBR provides a forecast for aggregates levy revenues in 2002–03.

  Future revenues from the Levy will depend on future sales of primary aggregate. This will reflect construction sector demand and the extent to which the levy shifts demand from primary material to recycled and waste materials (which are exempt).

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of the effect of an aggregates tax on the UK's balance of trade in minerals and associated manufactured products. [124431]

  Mr. Timms
  The effect of the levy on the UK's balance of trade in minerals and associated products will 74W
  be minimal. The levy will not apply to industrial minerals. The relief for exports of unprocessed aggregate and taxation of imports will help maintain UK competitiveness. International trade in aggregate products is limited by weight and transport cost.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of imported concrete products upon United Kingdom manufacturers of concrete products, following the introduction of the proposed aggregates tax. [1244481]

  Mr. Timms
  Work by Customs economists suggests that the impact of the levy on UK concrete product manufacturers in terms of the treatment of imports and exports of processed aggregate should be small. This is mainly because there are very few imports and exports of concrete products due to the transport costs.

  Quarrying Sustainability Fund
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what will be the income of the new Quarrying Sustainability Fund for each of the first five years of its operation; [124436]

  (2) if there will be a guaranteed or minimum annual income for the new Quarrying Sustainability Fund. [124437]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government will be consulting all interested parties shortly on how the new Sustainability Fund can best be used to deliver local environmental improvements.

  No decisions have yet been made on the size of the Fund.

  Customs Officers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason he plans to reduce the number of customs officers, with particular reference to the post of intelligence officer; and if he will make a statement. [124374]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs have no plans to reduce the overall number of front line customs or intelligence officers. In fact, Customs are appointing nearly 1,000 more officers at key ports and inland locations to tackle tobacco smuggling.

  Employers National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much it would cost the Exchequer to reduce the rate of employers' national insurance contributions to(a) 10 per cent., (b) 7.5 per cent., (c) 5 per cent., (d) 2.5 per cent. and (e) 0 per cent. for (i) employees aged 16 to 25, (ii) employees aged 26 to 40, (iii) employees aged 40 to 49, (iv) employees aged 50 plus years and (v) all employees. [124523]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full year exchequer costs in 2001–02 for making the various reductions in the rate of employers' National Insurance contributions (NICs) for different age groups are set out in the table.
  75W

  Exchequer cost £ million

  Reduce employers NIC's rate to:

  2001–02

  10%

  7.5%

  5%

  2.5%

  0%

  Secondary Class 1

  Age Range:

  16 to 25

  430

  1,010

  1,580

  2,150

  2,720

  26 to 39

  2,520

  5,830

  9,130

  12,440

  15,750

  40 to 49

  1,810

  4,200

  6,590

  8,980

  11,360

  50 and over

  1,570

  3,630

  5,690

  7,750

  9,810

  Secondary Class 1—all ages

  6,330

  14,660

  22,990

  31,320

  39,640

  Class 1a and 1b all ages

  220

  520

  810

  1,110

  1,400

  Total

  6,550

  15,180

  23,800

  32,430

  41,050

  The estimates are consistent with the March 2000 Budget and rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for class 1a or class 1b by age range.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of raising the basic rate limit by(a) £500, (b) £1,000, (c) £1,500,
  (d) £2,000 and (e) £2,500; and how many people would cease paying any tax at 40 per cent. in each case. [124524]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full year costs of increasing the income tax basic rate limit for 2000–01 are given in the table.

  Increase basic rate limit by:

  Exchequer cost (£ million)

  Number ceasing to pay at higher rate (Thousand)

  £500

  240

  130

  £1,000

  470

  250

  £1,500

  690

  350

  £2,000

  910

  450

  £2,500

  1,110

  540

  Estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes, projected in line with the March 2000 Budget.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer of allowing a married person to transfer a wholly or partly unused tax allowance to their earning spouse(a) if they are in receipt of invalid care allowance, or if their youngest child is under the age of five years, (b) if they are in receipt of invalid care allowance, or if their youngest child is under the age of 11 years, (c) if they are in receipt of invalid care allowance, or if their youngest child is under the age of 16 years, (d) regardless of these or any other responsibilities and (e) if they are in receipt of invalid care allowance. [124522]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated costs for 2000–01 of allowing a married person to transfer an unused personal allowance to their earning spouse are given in the following table.
  76W

  Cost of allowing transfer of unused tax allowances to earning spouses

  Family type

  Cost £ million

  (a) Married couples who are either in receipt of invalid care allowance or whose youngest child is under the age of 5

  850

  (b) Married couples who are either in receipt of invalid care allowance or whose youngest child is under the age of 11

  1,200

  (c) Married couples who are either in receipt of invalid care allowance or whose youngest child is under the age of 16

  1,350

  (d) All married couples

  2,000

  (e) Married couples in receipt of invalid care allowance

  30

  The estimated cost of allowing a married person to transfer a personal allowance in the way most beneficial to the couple, regardless of whether it would be otherwise used, is £4,250 million.

  Taxation (Private Medical Insurance)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the net cost to the Exchequer of exempting private medical insurance, including that provided by employers for their employees, from insurance premium tax, taking into account changes to corporation tax and income tax liability. [124653]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise estimate that the net cost to the Exchequer of exempting private medical insurance from insurance premium tax would be around £140 million in 2001–02.

  Taxation (I-E Formula)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000,Official Report, columns 524–25W, how much tax was paid in each of the years and in relation to each of the types of investment listed in the table. [124456]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested is not available. Corporation tax is charged on a company's total income and gains, less allowable losses and reliefs. It is not attributed to specific sources.

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many members there are of public sector
  77W
  occupational pension schemes; and what is the (a) average and (b) median number of members in such schemes; [124505]

  (2) how many public sector occupational pension schemes are (a) in existence and (b) receiving contributions; [124503]

  (3) how many people transferred out of public sector occupational pension schemes owing to a change in occupation in each year since 1996; [124507]

  (4) what is the (a) average and (b) median length of membership of public sector occupational pension schemes; [124506]

  (5) how many public sector occupational pension schemes are funded (a) on a notional or pay as you go basis and (b) in the sense of holding investments. [124504]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government Actuary's Department estimate that including single-member schemes there may be as many as 30,000–40,000 pension schemes in the public sector. Information is not held centrally on all of these schemes and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Limited Liability Partnerships
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he has had with the DTI about the tax consequences of plcs changing status to limited liability partnerships under the new limited liability partnership proposals; and what is his estimate of the effect on the public revenue. [124429]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As my hon. Fiend is aware, under the proposals in the LLP Bill, the new Limited Liability Partnerships will be taxed as partnerships rather than as companies. I can confirm that the officials at the DTI have been in close contact with Inland Revenue officials who have been reviewing the draft legislation.

  I would also refer my hon. Friend to what was said both in this House, by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs on Second Reading, 23 May 2000, Official Report, column 891, and in the other place by my noble Friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey on Report, 6 March 2000, Official Report, House of Lords, column 870. They both said that, because of the possibility that some LLPs might be set up solely because of their tax status as partnerships, officials at the DTI and the Inland Revenue will jointly be looking into the taxation of LLPs. Part of this work is likely to touch on the subject area of this question. And because this work is ongoing I am not in a position to give a more detailed answer at the moment.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for bringing the tax regime of the proposed new limited liability partnerships into line with that applying to public limited companies; and what estimate he has made of the scale of losses to the Exchequer of public limited companies to register as limited liability partnerships. [124367]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On Report in the other place my noble Friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey recognised—6 March 2000,Official Report, House of Lords, column 870—the possibility that taxing LLPs as partnerships
  78W
  might make them attractive as a vehicle for a wider range of activities than they were intended for. Because of this, my noble Friend Lord McIntosh announced that work would be carried out jointly by the DTI and the Inland Revenue to look into these issues. Depending on what this work finds we will consider bringing forward further tax legislation in due course.

  On second reading of the LLP Bill in this House my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs referred again to this work—23 May 2000, Official Report, column 891.

  Because this work is ongoing I am not currently able to give more detailed information.

  Euro II Committee
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals the French Government have made to him about strengthening the role of the Euro II Committee and increasing its powers; and if he will make a statement. [124347]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has regular discussions with his EU colleagues, and a wide range of issues are discussed.

  PSBR (PFI Projects)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reduction to the public sector borrowing requirement resulted from PFI projects in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and what is his estimate for 2000–01. [124409]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The choice of procurement route is taken only on the grounds of value for money, not on financing arrangements.

  Capital expenditure incurred by the private sector in support of the delivery of services under PFI contracts and estimates of payments to be made are shown in tables C14–16 of Budget 2000 FSBR.

  CITES
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase expenditure on measures relating to the enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species by HM Customs and Excise. [124470]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no plans to increase expenditure on measures relating to HM Customs and Excise's enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The current allocation of resources is proportionate to the illegal trade in CITES goods.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures HM Customs and Excise are taking to ensure that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species is enforced. [124469]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise has primary responsibility in the UK for enforcement of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Customs' anti-smuggling staff maintain checks on imports and exports liable to CITES regulation as part of their normal duties. In addition, there is a specialist CITES Enforcement Team based at London Heathrow
  79W
  Airport and a regional network of CITES liaison officers specifically trained to advise on CITES cases and to work in co-operation with other interested agencies.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many officers Customs and Excise employ whose(a) sole and (b) primary role is to enforce CITES legislation; and what plans he has to increase their number. [124051]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise have eight officers whose sole role, and two officers whose primary role, is to enforce CITES legislation. There are no plans to increase these numbers.

  Films (Writing Down Allowance)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to remove or reform the 100 per cent. writing down allowance for UK films costing less than £15 million. [124044]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have no plans at present to remove or reform the 100 per cent. writing down allowance for British qualifying films before its expiry date of 2 July 2002.

  Intellectual Property (Taxation)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the yield from the proposed abolition of income spreading rules contained in "Reform of the Taxation of Intellectual Property". [124041]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If income spreading were abolished, the additional tax yield would be negligible.

  The Inland Revenue will shortly be publishing a Technical Note on the tax treatment of intangible assets (including intellectual property) and goodwill.

  The Note will include further consideration of the income spreading rules.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which other countries operate a tax similar to the exit charge for owners of intellectual property proposed in "Reform of the Taxation of Intellectual Property". [124043]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A number of countries apply exit charges under certain circumstances.

  The proposal for an exit charge included in the 1999 Inland Revenue Technical Note, "Reform of the Taxation of Intellectual Property", was based on similar provisions which already apply in the case of capital gains tax. It was intended to ensure that existing safeguards against abuse remained in place if intellectual property assets became subject to tax as income instead of capital.

  The Inland Revenue will shortly be publishing, for consultation, a Technical Note on the tax treatment of intangible assets (including intellectual property) and goodwill. The Note will include further consideration of the safeguards that would be needed under a reformed regime.
  80W
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the yield from the proposed exit charge on owners of intellectual property contained in "Reform of the Taxation of Intellectual Property" [124042]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No detailed information is available as to the likely yield from such an exit charge. The aim of the charge would be, to protect revenue by discouraging avoidance rather than to target additional yield.

  The Inland Revenue will shortly be publishing, for consultation, a Technical Note on the tax treatment of intangible assets (including intellectual property) and goodwill. The Note will include further consideration of the safeguards that would be needed under a reformed regime.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representation he has received following the publication of the Inland Revenue paper, "Reform of the Taxation of Intellectual Property";
  [124040]

  (2) which organisations the Treasury has consulted directly with respect to the Inland Revenue paper, "Reform of the Taxation of Intellectual Property".[124039]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's Technical Note, "Reform of the Taxation of Intellectual Property", was circulated widely and more than 80 responses were received. The Inland Revenue also consulted directly with a number of representative bodies and other interested parties.

  The outcome of these consultations will feed into the further Technical Note which the Inland Revenue will be publishing shortly. This further note will seek views on possible reform covering a wider range of intangible assets and goodwill.

  Pensioners (Taxation)
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average cost is to the Exchequer of altering the tax code of a retired individual income taxpayer(a) at the start of the tax year and (b) during the tax year, after the original tax code has been set. [124037]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individual tax codes of people receiving age-related income tax allowances had to be changed by the Inland Revenue in(a) April 1999, (b) May 1999, (c) April 2000 and (d) May 2000. [124036]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Some 2 million notices of coding were issued to people aged 65 or more in May 2000 to reflect increases in their income tax allowances. Separate figures for this age group are not available for the other dates requested.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men over 65, (b) men over 80, (c) women over 60 and (d) women over 80 years completed an Inland Revenue self-assessment tax form for the tax years (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98 and (iii) 1998– 99; and in each case, what proportion of them had a nil liability for income tax and capital gains tax in that year. [124035]
  81W
  Dawn Primarolo
  If a retired pensioner's income was below the level of their personal allowance in the previous tax year then they should fall outside the criteria for issue of a tax return in all but exceptional circumstances.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for simplifying the Inland Revenue's administrative rules and practices as they apply to pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [124038]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are working to ensure that dealing with the Inland Revenue is as simple as possible for taxpayers. That is why last July I announced measures which are taking up to 400,000 people—about half of whom are pensioners—out of self-assessment. The Inland Revenue is committed to supporting pensioners, whether in self-assessment or not, with a high level of customer service.

  This Government are spending an extra £6.5 billion on pensioners across the course of this Parliament. We increased the age-related personal allowances for 1999–2000 by up to £200 above inflation, and for 2000–01 maintained them by increasing them by indexation. We have also introduced the 10p starting rate of income tax, extended it to savings and cut the basic rate to 22p.

  Farm Averaging Rules
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to abolish or reform farm averaging rules. [124045]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no such plans at present.

  VAT (Sports Organisations)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the correspondence between HM Customs & Excise and the European Commission on VAT exemption for sports clubs and organisations. [123053]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Correspondence between the Commission and British officials are not usually placed before the House. In concluding the debate on The Value 82W
  Added Tax (Sports, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1999 in Standing Committee on 26 October 1999, I offered to keep members informed of progress made by Customs and Excise in resolving issues for commercial sports clubs arising from their VAT position under EU law. I will continue to do so.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action his Department plans to take in respect of the recent Deloitte Touche report on VAT in respect of VAT levied on voluntary and community sports organisations and clubs. [123083]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not clear to which report the question refers. However, non-profit making organisations and clubs do not have to levy VAT on sporting services other than those supplied to non-members.

  VAT (British Legion Poppies)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the requirement that the Royal British Legion must pay value added tax on the supply of poppies produced at its poppy factory; and if he will make a statement. [R] [123659]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is no question of VAT being applied to poppies given in return for a donation. Customs are now consulting with the Royal British Legion about extending an existing concession so that it will cover materials bought to make up the lapel badge poppies.

  Heroin
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the amount and (b) the proportion of heroin coming to the UK which originates in (i) Colombia, (ii) Burma, (iii) Afghanistan, (iv) Pakistan and (v) other major supplier countries. [124526]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are currently no generally accepted estimates of the scale of heroin supply. HM Customs and Excise, along with other drugs enforcement agencies, are contributing to a comprehensive research programme to improve our understanding of the supply of drugs to the UK and Europe.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Drug Cultivation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what drug reduction programmes are operated by the World Bank in countries where there is illicit drug cultivation. [118511]

  Clare Short
  The World Bank works in co-operation with the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) in Brazil, tackling prevention of HIV Aids acquired through intravenous drug abuse. Bolivia receives significant World Bank support for infrastructure work in illicit crop-producing regions, where UNDCP is providing support for development of alternative sustainable livelihoods. The World Bank is also working in partnership with UNDCP in Laos on a six-year programme to assist the development of alternative sustainable livelihoods.

  Cancer Care Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government are taking to assist developing countries improve the quality of their cancer care services; and if he will make a statement. [123796]

  Clare Short
  We contribute in assisting developing countries to improve the quality of their cancer care services through our support for the World Health Organisation's work in non-communicable diseases and its global role in standard setting, monitoring disease prevalence and advising national Governments on appropriate care. In addition, as reproductive health and safe motherhood is a priority for DFID, we also directly support research into cervical cancer prevention.

  Fiji
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which projects her Department supports in Fiji. [1239171

  Clare Short
  Our efforts in the Pacific are now concentrated on building up a regional programme focused on the reduction of poverty. This seeks to work with regional organisations and key multilateral organisations, particularly in the areas of education and governance.

  The Republic of the Fiji Islands has received assistance through the Regional. Rights Resource Team (RRRT) Project and the Governance Fund.

  RRRT provides a range of innovative support in legal education, training and technical assistance. A major aim of the project is to have a functional network of Legal Rights Training Officers equipped with participatory teaching and advocacy skills to design and deliver appropriately adapted human rights education and to disseminate information about the law and human rights to women, youth and disadvantaged groups in their communities. RRRT supports two Legal Rights Training Officer positions in the Fiji Islands and has provided
  84W
  technical and training support to the Judiciary, Law Reform Commission, Human Rights Commission, Social Welfare Department and the Police.

  The Governance Fund provides small grants aimed at encouraging the development of a culture for good governance and funds activities that raise public awareness and understanding of governance and which encourage meaningful participation through consultations in policy formulation Assistance has been provided in the Fiji Islands only where activities serve as a model for best practice and have a broader regional impact mainly to Civil Society Organisations and Government.

  The Fiji Islands receive assistance through the Small Grant Scheme which is administered by the British High Commission and enables them to provide small development projects which address one or more of DFID's priority objectives.

  We will be reviewing our programme in Fiji in the light of recent developments.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124109]

  Clare Short
  Special Advisers from my Department have travelled abroad on official business on three occasions since 31 March 1999.

  Ilisu Dam
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she was consulted about human rights and sustainable development issues relating to the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey; and what advice she gave. [124181]

  Clare Short
  We were consulted about this project, as a part of ECGD's wider Whitehall consultation, in January 1999. We commented on ECGD's terms of reference for an independent review of environmental and resettlement impact reports produced by the project sponsors. DFID has no engagement with Turkey other than our support for emergency relief following the earthquake in August and November 1999. We have therefore had no advisory input into the Ilisu Dam project.

  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about her development aid policy towards Ethiopia. [124502]

  Clare Short
  We have reviewed our development relationship with both Ethiopia and Eritrea in the light of the recent renewed conflict.

  We have concluded we should maintain only interventions related to food security and activities with

  85W
  civil society. We are pressing the World Bank and EU to follow suit. Our briefing on the situation in Ethiopia has been placed in the Library.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation of the Eritrean refugees in eastern Sudan. [124075]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees confirms that since 18 May up to 50,000 Eritrean refugees have fled from the conflict with Ethiopia and crossed the border into eastern Sudan near Kassala. 41,000 are already registered. The situation in the refugee camps is not critical, but UNHCR say that water, health and sanitation are the main priorities. The World Food Programme is also engaged on the ground as is the European Commission through Oxfam. Other international non-governmental organisations are carrying out further urgent needs assessments. We are ready to respond to proposals arising from these assessments.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what additional resources she has made available to Mozambique following the recent flooding. [124058]

  Clare Short
  My Department committed £20 million for emergency humanitarian and rehabilitation assistance to Mozambique following the floods. We also provided £10 million of budget support in March 2000 to help counteract the effect of the floods on the Government of Mozambique's budget.

  At the Rome Conference in May this year my Department pledged £6 million so far uncommitted from this year's country development programme for flood reconstruction efforts. We are currently assessing the most effective way to spend this money.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) the projects that her Department is currently funding in Mozambique, (b) their aggregate value and (c) projects postponed or ended as a result of redirection of funding to reconstruction work. [124057]

  Clare Short
  (a) The projects DFID is currently funding in Mozambique are:
  Strengthening of Planning and Budgeting at the Ministry of Planning and Finance
  Enterprise Development Project
  CRESCE Mozambique: Expansion of Microfinance Programme
  Customs Department Reform
  Zambezia Agricultural Development Project
  National Programme for Agrarian Development
  Feeder Roads in Zambezia
  Assistance to the NGOs Forum of Zambezia
  Demining in Zambezia: HALO Trust
  Social Marketing of Condoms
  86W
  HIV/AIDS Strategic Planning
  Support for National Health Planning
  Secondary English Teaching Project.

  (b) The aggregate value is £53 million. In addition we provide support to Mozambique's budget averaging about £10 million per year, and have committed £20 million to flood relief this year.

  (c) No projects have been postponed or ended as a result of redirection of funding to reconstruction work.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the response of the European Community Humanitarian Office to the flooding in Mozambique. [124569]

  Clare Short
  Reports indicate that ECHO projects were able to progress without delay, despite some claims of delays in transfer of funding. My Department is sending a monitoring team to Mozambique in mid-June. One of their tasks will be to liaise with ECHO officials on the ground to assess the effectiveness of their response.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Mozambique. [123918]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Mozambique has continued to improve as the flood waters have receded and road access has improved. However, the continued provision of emergency assistance to those worst affected by the floods will remain essential while longer term rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts get into full swing. For example, the World Food Programme is continuing to make food deliveries to over 500,000 people, which includes some 10,000 still accommodated in displacement camps and unable to return to their homes due to the residual flooding.

  Those who have returned home are beginning to rebuild their houses and plant crops. Many have been provided with materials and tools provided under relief projects. There have been no major outbreaks of communicable diseases and agencies are working effectively with the Mozambican authorities to rehabilitate schools and health units.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to incorporate EU spending on development assistance into her Department's public service agreement figures on the percentage of bilateral programme resources allocated to low income countries. [124562]

  Clare Short
  UK contributions to EU spending on development assistance are classified as multilateral spending. A revised Public Service Agreement will be published in July.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has received from the Nigerian Government about debt relief. [123972]
  87W
  Clare Short
  There have been frequent exchanges over debt relief with the Nigerian authorities. We have made clear our strong support for a generous rescheduling for Nigeria in the context of an IMF-endorsed economic programme. We have also made clear we would be willing to consider partial debt cancellation if a strong record of reform is established and a debt sustainability analysis shows it to be necessary.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's aid to Nigeria in 1998–99. [124060]

  Clare Short
  Health, education, water and sanitation and rural livelihoods were the main sectors for our assistance. In addition, we provided support for economic reform and for the election process in the second half of the year.

  Uganda
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the decision of the Paris Club not to discuss debt relief for Uganda at their meeting on 16 May. [123973]

  Clare Short
  Uganda received debt relief of $347 million in 1998 under the original HIPC initiative, and, earlier this year, qualified for a further $656 million relief under the revised HIPC framework. The Government of Uganda was scheduled to come to a meeting with the Paris Club of official bilateral creditors on 16 May to implement this element of their debt relief. However, in the week before the meeting, we, and a number of other Governments, were concerned to receive reports of Uganda's role in fighting at Kisangani in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It was therefore agreed that the implementation of Uganda's debt relief should be postponed. I am pleased that the Government of Uganda are responding to these concerns. We hope that the Paris Club meeting will be rescheduled soon. Uganda continues to receive interim relief on its debt service payments to the IMF and World bank.

  Departmental Staffing and Costs
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the numbers of staff employed directly by her Department on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 2000. [124571]

  Clare Short
  Our Department employed the following:

  Date1

  Number of staff

  (a) 1 April 1997

  1,001

  (b) 1 April 2000

  1,322

  1The figures are compiled on a quarterly and annual basis. We have therefore quoted the position on 1 April because we do not hold exact figures for 1 May.

  Note:

  These figures do not include staff employed on contract terms in the UK and overseas.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the administration costs of her Department on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 2000. [124572]
  88W
  Clare Short
  Information on DFID's administrative (running) costs for each of the last six financial years is provided in Table 3, page 130, of the latest version of the Departmental Report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many press officers there were in her Department in(a) May 1997 and (b) May 2000. [124570]

  Clare Short
  The number of press officers was four on both occasions.

  British Council
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) British Council grant-in-aid funded by her Department and (b) the value of contracts awarded to the British Council in each year from 1979 to 2000 [124566]

  Clare Short
  (a) in 1998–99 it was agreed that the management of the British Council by two Departments was unnecessarily cumbersome. Responsibility was passed to the FCO along with the funds earmarked for this purpose.

  (b) The total value of consultancy and Technical Co-operation Training contracts that DFID have awarded to the British Council in each of the following financial years are:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  23.3

  1998–99

  52.8

  1997–98

  42.2

  1996–97

  62.0

  1995–96

  27.3

  We introduced a new computerised contract monitoring system early in 1996, and we are unable to provide accurate data prior to this period.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to what extent the supply of arms to the Sierra Leone police and army is funded by her Department. [123971]

  Clare Short
  None of the arms supplied have been funded by my Department.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid programmes her Department is currently funding in Sierra Leone. [123924]

  Clare Short
  DFID has allocated resources in support of the following projects in Sierra Leone:
  Support to the Government of Sierra Leone's National Programme for Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration Emergency support to Lungi Demobilisation Camp Security Sector Project (SILSEP)Support to the Commonwealth Police Development Taskforce (includes Police Humanitarian Fund and Public Order support)Provision of an Inspector General of Police Military Reintegration Plan (MRP)Commonwealth Community Safety and Security Project 89W Support to Civil Society (Campaign for Good Governance)Support for the return of Paramount Chiefs Law Development Project (including Legal Draftsman)Media Development Project Governance Assistance Programme: managed by British Council Support to the President's Office Humanitarian Relief and reconstruction Budgetary Support for essential services/repayment of debts Provision of a ferry DFID is also a significant contributor to the programmes of the World Bank, African Development Bank, European Commission and United Nations.
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the World Food Programme concerning farming and food security in Sierra Leone. [124056]

  Clare Short
  Discussions were held with World Food Programme representatives during a recent visit to Sierra Leone by humanitarian specialists from my Department. They established that there were adequate food stocks available within the country to cope with current needs. Hunger and cases of malnutrition have been reported some two months ahead of the usual pattern. The situation is particularly bad in rebel-held areas of the north and east where food stocks have been severely depleted through looting. Humanitarian agencies are constrained from assisting until access becomes possible.

  Basic Education Projects
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many basic education projects were funded by her Department in(a) Bangladesh, (b) Bolivia, (c) Burkina Faso, (d) Cambodia, (e) Colombia, (f) Ethiopia, (g) Gambia, (h) Ghana, (i) Guatemala, (j) India, (k) Kenya, (l) Malawi, (m) Mozambique, (n) Myanmar, (o) Nepal, (p) Niger, (q) Nigeria, (r) Pakistan, (s) Peru, (t) Philippines, (u) Russian Federation, (v) South Africa, (w) Southern Africa, (x) Sri Lanka, (y) Sudan, (z) Tanzania, (aa) Uganda, (bb) Zambia and (cc) Zimbabwe; and what was the aggregate cost of each one. [124567]

  Clare Short
  Our bilateral aid programme is currently financing the following projects and programmes which support basic education:

  County

  Number of projects

  Aggregate commitment (£ million)

  Bangladesh

  4

  26.8

  Bolivia

  0

  —

  Burkina Faso

  0

  —

  Cambodia

  0

  —

  Colombia

  1

  0.1

  Ethiopia

  0

  —

  The Gambia

  1

  0.6

  Ghana

  2

  61.8

  Guatemala

  0

  —

  India

  9

  129.4

  Kenya

  4

  22.7

  Malawi

  4

  64.4

  Mozambique

  1

  0.1

  Myanmar

  0

  —

  Nepal

  1

  0.2

  Niger

  0

  —

  Nigeria

  2

  4.1

  90W

  County

  Number of projects

  Aggregate commitment (£ million)

  Pakistan

  4

  50.4

  Peru

  1

  1.4

  Philippines

  0

  —

  Russian Federation

  0

  —

  South Africa

  4

  13.4

  Southern Africa (Botswana)

  1

  1.7

  Southern Africa (Namibia)

  1

  5.7

  Sri Lanka

  0

  —

  Sudan

  0

  —

  Tanzania

  5

  11.9

  Uganda

  6

  89.9

  Zambia

  5

  23.7

  Zimbabwe

  0

  —

  DFID also supports the development of basic education in many of the countries given in the table through its multilateral aid programme and grants to UK NGOS.

  Our aim is to help build and sustain effective and equitable education systems which give priority to primary education for all. This requires a shift from the traditional projects-based approach to a sector-wide approach to education, with development agencies working together around a focused, agreed strategy drawn up by the Government of the country concerned. Uganda is a good example. In collaboration with five other donors and the Government of Uganda, DFID has played a key role in the establishment of a sector-wide approach to education, resulting in 1998 in its largest ever commitment to a programme in Africa (£67 million) towards the education sector support programmes. This will provide flexible budget support to the Government for five years.

  Angola
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the current humanitarian situation in Angola. [124563]

  Clare Short
  The situation in Angola is serious. The UN estimate that about 3.7 million civilians are affected by the civil war.

  The UK has provided over £2.5 million bilateral humanitarian assistance since the beginning of 2000. A lasting peace is desperately needed to enable Angolans to rebuild their lives.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list(a) each country that had received 100 per cent. debt relief from Her Majesty's Government by 23 May and (b) how much aid has been cancelled in each case. [124059]

  Clare Short
  The Government announced in December 1999 that they will provide 100 per cent. relief for qualifying HIPC countries on their remaining debts owed to the ECGD. Aid debts have already been cancelled. This relief will be available, on a conditional basis, from Decision Point until Completion Point, when it will become irrevocable. By 23 May, Uganda, Bolivia, Mauritania, Tanzania and Mozambique had reached their Decision Point under the revised HIPC framework, and so qualified for full relief on their debts to ECGD.
  91W
  The amount of debt that will be relieved under the 100 per cent. policy for each country will not be known until it reaches Completion Point. So far, only Uganda has reached Completion Point, and all of its remaining ECGD debt will be cancelled under the HIPC framework.

  This assistance is additional to the aid provided under our existing bilateral programmes with HIPC countries.

  Disaster Response
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to improve the way that the international community responds to natural disasters. [124568]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been working since 1997 to strengthen and improve the three main elements of international disaster response. Firstly, we are working with the Red Cross Societies to improve their preparedness and response to disasters, specifically in poor countries. Secondly, we are working with United Nations organisations such as the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the World Food Programme, United Nations Children's Fund and United Nations High Commission for Refugees, to improve their coordination and improve the speed and effectiveness of their responses. And, thirdly, we are working with the international non-governmental organisations to agree minimum standards of assistance that those affected by disasters can expect to receive.

  Our aim is to build a better international humanitarian system but until that is achieved there is a role for donor Governments, such as the UK, to fill gaps in rapid direct response. Therefore my Department maintains an extensive capacity to respond to emergencies around the clock. The decision on whether an operational response is justified and, if so, in what form, is based on assessed needs on the ground and the operational resources available locally or regionally.

  Seychelles
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 29 March 2000,Official Report, column 185W, on the Seychelles, how financial assistance provided by her Department for the Seychelles was spent in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [123962]

  Clare Short
  Our financial assistance to the Seychelles during this period was as follows:

  £

  1996–l97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Technical Cooperation1

  96,263

  61,038

  37,158

  Heads of Mission Small Projects/Gifts

  283,542

  249,274

  163,717

  Financial Aid2

  22,026

  18,018

  15.449

  Disaster Relief

  4,659

  0

  0

  Total

  406,490

  328,330

  216,324

  1Includes personnel, training awards and scholarships

  2Pensions

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 sponsors of corporate hospitality events at the Dome. [119309]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 April 2000]: In the year to date, the official sponsors of the Millennium Experience account for the majority of bookings (47 per cent.) for corporate hospitality events. The bulk of the remaining bookings (30 per cent.) are made through NMEC's corporate hospitality partners: Business Pursuits; Cavendish Hospitably; Langston Scott Limited; Letheby & Christopher and Mark Butler Associates. A smaller number of one-off bookings (23 per cent.) from within NMEC and from charities and other third parties, such as the TUC, account for the remainder of the total. A significant number of this latter category of clients requested that details of their bookings remained private.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the minutes of the meeting of the Millennium Commission at which it was decided to grant an additional £29 million to the Millennium Dome. [124480]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the right hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of relay stations in Wales which will require conversion to deliver a comprehensive digital terrestrial service; and what estimate he has made of the cost of conversion. [123287]

  Janet Anderson
  The present digital terrestrial television transmitter network comprises 81 transmitter sites, of which nine are located in Wales. The Government will ensure that all viewers in Wales who presently receive analogue television will be able to receive the main free-to-air channels digitally, before the analogue transmissions are fully switched to digital. The ITC, BBC and the digital broadcasters are planning jointly the development of digital terrestrial television coverage across the UK. However, the joint project has not estimated how many analogue transmitters would have to be converted, or the associated cost, to replicate analogue terrestrial coverage in Wales or elsewhere in the UK.

  Tourism (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to promote tourism in East Lancashire. [123523]

  Janet Anderson
  The North West Tourist Board (NWTB) will receive £383,845 for tourism projects in the region from the English Tourism Council in 2000–01—an increase of 32 per cent. on the previous year. These projects include a series of research initiatives at both the regional and pan-regional levels that will provide an enhanced level of intelligence to the tourism industry of the region. East Lancashire, in common with all parts of
  93W
  England, also benefits from the promotion work of the British Tourist Authority (BTA), which promotes Britain as a visitor destination in overseas markets. The BTA is receiving £37 million from my Department this year.

  Tourism and culture in Lancashire have also benefited, both directly and indirectly, from the National Lottery (2,300 projects in the county have received awards totalling £468,716,329 according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's National Lottery Awards Database which uses information supplied by the distributing bodies).

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many staff from his Department were seconded to private sector companies in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000; and if he will list in each case the companies to which staff were sent, the names and ranks of the staff involved and the duration of the secondment. [123429]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The information for staff seconded from my Department to private sector companies for the periods specified is as follows:

  (a) For May 1997 to April 1998, one Grade A (Grade 7 equivalent) secondment since September 1997 which is still on-going.

  (b) For May 1998 to April 1999, two Grade C staff (EO equivalent) secondments since May 1998 for two years and six months respectively.

  (c) For May 1999 to April 2000, one Grade A secondment since May 1999 for a period of 3 years.

  All secondments were to the New Millennium Experience Company.

  Information on secondments of staff into the Department was provided in my answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on 28 February 2000, Official Report, column 100W.

  Dome Loan
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the latest Millennium Commission allocation of funds to the Dome will be repaid. [123849]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Dome Sale
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to which body or bodies proceeds of the sale of the Millennium Dome site will be payable. [123799]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: The proceeds from the sale of the Millennium Dome will be split between the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), as the owners of the Dome structure and
  94W
  contents, and English Partnerships, the Government agency that owns the Dome site and the surrounding land, to reflect the value of the assets for sale.

  Film Classification
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what external legal advice he has taken on the classification of films shown at a cinema as(a) goods and (b) services for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [123871]

  Janet Anderson
  My Department has not sought external legal advice on this issue. The view of the Government's legal advisers is that the films shown in cinemas are not covered by Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA) (the provisions relating to goods, facilities and services). However, cinema proprietors have the same responsibilities under Part III of the Act as other providers of services to the public. These provisions make it unlawful for service providers to discriminate against disabled people by: refusing them service; providing them service on worse terms; or providing a lower standard of service. In addition they must make reasonable adjustments when their services are impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123732]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: Since May 1997, five laptops have been lost. None have been stolen or reported stolen. None of the laptops were used by Ministers or special advisers.

  Free Television Licences
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioners over the age of 75 years are eligible for free TV licences in Cleethorpes constituency, broken down by electoral ward. [123876]

  Janet Anderson
  I would refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, column 350W.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the minutes of the Millennium Commission meeting on 22 May. [124061]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out the distinction between his role as Chairman of the Millennium
  95W
  Commission and his role as Secretary of State, with particular reference to the avoidance of conflicting interests. [124062]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The roles of Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (previously National Heritage) and Chairman of the Millennium Commission are separate and distinct, but have run in tandem since the Millennium Commission was established in 1994. The Millennium Commission is an independent body, with the status of a body corporate. Each of the nine Commissioners, including myself as Chairman, have equal status.

  Both roles are governed by strict rules covering conflicts of interest—namely the Ministerial Code: A Code of conduct and Guidance on Procedures for Ministers; and the Code of Conduct for members of the Millennium Commission.

  Leisure Centres and Libraries (Access)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what definition he uses of a reasonable distance when determining access to(a) a leisure centre and (b) a library. [124644]

  Kate Hoey
  No specific definition of distance is used to determine access to leisure centres. Sport England have established a Facilities Planning Model to help assess the extent of under provision of different kinds of sports facility. That model currently uses driving time rather than distance. It is currently being updated to take greater account of other modes of transport.

  In respect of libraries, there is no generally agreed definition of reasonable distance from a library and information about the distance of people from their nearest library is not available. However, we launched a consultation paper, on 15 May, setting out draft standards for public libraries, and proposed there that
  "all service points (i.e. central, branch and mobile libraries) should be located within reasonable travelling time for the majority of intending users regardless of their method of travel".
  We further proposed as a draft standard that a reasonable travelling time would be 20 minutes. National measurements to assess performance against this standard are not currently available, but we will, during the coming year and drawing on information from library authorities, work towards clarification of a reasonable travelling time, and its assessment.

  Convicted Foreign Sportsmen
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning the consequences for the staging of international sporting events in the United Kingdom of foreign sportsmen and women who have been convicted of a serious criminal offence being refused entry into the United Kingdom. [124460]

  Kate Hoey
  Neither I nor my right hon. Friend have received any representations on this particular matter.

  This Government are committed to attracting major international sporting events to the UK and, in the usual way, we have signed undertakings to a number of international sports governing bodies on the entry of athletes and officials to the UK as part of the bidding
  96W
  process. These undertakings do not offer carte blanche entry to the UK for those associated with events, and cases will continue to he judged on an individual basis.

  National Lottery (Computer Failures)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received from(a) Camelot, (b) OFLOT and (c) the National Lottery Commission on the failure of the National Lottery's computer system to award accurate payouts to prize winners; if he will ensure that the National Lottery operator makes good losses of prize money caused by computer failure; and if he will make a statement. [124358]

  Kate Hoey
  The National Lottery Commission (which took over OFLOT's functions on 1 April 1999) has a statutory duty to ensure that the National Lottery is run and promoted with all due propriety, and to protect the interests of players. It has kept officials and, through them, Ministers informed of the defect in the National Lottery software and of its on-going investigations. It will determine the appropriate course of action once all the facts have been established and fully considered, and make a further statement at that time.

  I understand that Camelot has already said that it will reimburse the full amount not paid to winners. Where it can identify winners it will pay them direct and, where it cannot, it will liaise with the Commission over the best course of action.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund has been allocated to Wales(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of total funding. [124463]

  Kate Hoey
  New Opportunities Fund money is allocated to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland on the basis of population levels and is weighted to reflect the level of deprivation in each country. The total amount allocated to Wales under the Fund's health, education and environment programmes is £91.4 million. This amount represents 6.5 per cent. of all UK funding (with the exception of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) training programmes for teachers and librarians where slightly different proportions are used).

  The Funding available to Wales under each of the programmes is as follows:

  £ million

  ICT training for teachers and school librarians

  12.65

  ICT training for public library staff

  0.870

  Out of School Hours Child care

  14.3

  Out of School Hours Learning

  13.3

  Cancer prevention, detection, treatment and care

  9.45

  Healthy Living Centres

  19.5

  Community Access to Life Long Learning

  13

  Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities

  8.12

  To date, grants totalling £3.795 million have been made to 65 health and education projects applying from Wales. This includes 50 out of school hours child care projects, costing some £670,000 and creating 5,798 new child care places, and 15 out of school hours learning projects

  97W
  totalling £3.125 million. In addition, ICT training to the value of £2.972 million has so far been provided to school teachers and librarians in Wales.

  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the money from the New Opportunities Fund for cancer equipment will be available in Wales. [124464]

  Kate Hoey
  The £9.75 million of Lottery Funding available to Wales under the New Opportunities Fund's cancer detection, prevention, treatment and care programme will be distributed on the basis of applications, which will be invited in the autumn. The Fund's Board will consider these applications in November and the funding should be available to support agreed projects shortly thereafter.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124129]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  During the period 31 March 1999 to the end of March 2000, Special Advisers in this Department travelled overseas on five occasions.

  Lottery-funded Projects
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to encourage lottery-funded projects to use energy from renewable sources. [124679]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued policy directions to all distributors which require them to take into account the need to further the objectives of sustainable development in awarding grants. Distributors therefore expect projects to be sensitive to the needs of the environment and the use of natural resources.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124114]

  Mr. Rooker
  During the period 31 March 1999 to the end of March 2000, Special Advisers in this Department travelled overseas on two occasions.

  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in(a) defined benefit private sector occupational pension schemes and (a) defined contribution private sector occupational pension schemes. [124508]

  Mr. Rooker
  The latest figures that are available are for 1995.98W
  It is estimated that there are 4.7 million active members in defined benefit private sector occupational pension schemes and about 1.1 million active members of defined contribution private sector occupational pension schemes. Additionally, there are about 0.3 million active members of private sector occupational pension schemes which have elements of both defined benefits and defined contributions.

  There are an estimated 5.2 million former members with preserved pension rights in private sector occupational pension schemes. A breakdown between defined benefit and defined contribution schemes is not available. Some former members may now also be active members in another occupational pension scheme.
  Source:
  Government Actuary's Department

  Additional Pension Entitlement
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if additional pension entitlement based on earnings will be calculated automatically; or if each pensioner will be requested to claim individually; [124200]

  (2) how many pensioners in receipt of basic rate state pension are awaiting re-assessment of additional pension entitlement based on earnings; [124199]

  (3) when additional pension processing will be completed; and if there will be retrospective payment of additional pension based on earnings. [124201]

  Mr. Rooker
  The additional pension (SERPS) component of a State Retirement Pension is calculated automatically by the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS) computer. There is no need for a pensioner to request separately payment of SERPS—completion of one claim form suffices for all components which can make up a pension with the exception of a claim for a dependency increase when a separate claim form must be completed.

  Most people who are entitled to both basic pension and additional pension (SERPS) have that entitlement available to receive in time for their first pension pay day. There are however about 60,000 claims a year where NIRS has not been able to supply the SERPS rate. The principal reason for this is the existence on the person's National Insurance account of a discrepancy regarding the time they were contracted out of SERPS. That discrepancy must be resolved before NIRS can provide the SERPS rate. Putting right the discrepancy falls to the Inland Revenue's Contracted Out Employments Group (COEG) but the delayed implementation of NIRS2 has meant they have not until recently been able to do this. As a result the Benefits Agency and COEG have carried out clerical calculations to ensure that as far as possible pensioners receive their SERPS entitlements on time. There are 22,000 claims waiting for a clerical calculation. The Benefits Agency expects to complete its recovery from the effects of the delayed implementation of NIRS2 by the end of this year including cases where there has been a delay in processing the additional pension (SERPS). All clerical calculations will be compared with the NIRS2 calculations. Any which are wrong will be revised and full arrears paid if there has been an underpayment along with any compensation if all the

  99W
  conditions of the DSS Special Payments Scheme are satisfied. Any overpayments incurred will not be recovered although the awards will have to be revised.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of men aged 60 to 65 years in Cleethorpes constituency who are entitled to winter fuel allowance. [123877]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department does not hold sufficient data to enable us to determine the number of men aged between 60 and 64 years in the Cleethorpes constituency.

  We are not able to identify all those people between 60 and 64 who may not have had any need to contact the Department and who are not receiving a Social Security benefit. However, claim forms are in the process of being issued to those people whom we think may be eligible and whom we can identify from the Department's records. A publicity campaign will run to ensure that those people who do not get a claim form are encouraged to claim.

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice leaflets have been issued to (i) DSS offices and (ii) the general public in relation to the operation of the winter fuel scheme as revised by the announcement of 11 April. [123718]

  Angela Eagle
  Departmental local offices have been kept up to date with changes to the winter fuel payment scheme by means of a series of internal bulletins issued between January and May. The public are being kept informed through a number of means. We are in the process of contacting people who we think are eligible for backdated payments, and whom we can identify. In addition, information and advertising started in April and will run until Christmas. The campaign will aim to ensure that newly eligible people know what the arrangements are for claiming backdated payments resulting from the revised eligibility rules. It will also provide information about the operation of the scheme next winter.

  The provision of a leaflet for the general public will be timed to ensure that it has the maximum possible impact on their awareness in the period prior to next winter's qualifying week. Current thinking is that the best time to issue the leaflet will be in either late August or early September.

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which categories of women aged 60 or over during the week ending 24 September 2000 who are living in their own houses and are not subject to immigration control will not be included in the winter fuel scheme. [123719]

  Angela Eagle
  All households where there is someone with the characteristics set out in the question will receive an appropriate payment. For administrative reasons, in the case of older couples receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, the winter fuel payment of £150 is paid to the claimant in the same way as weekly payments of benefit. So partners of Income Support 100W
  or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance claimants who are aged 60 or more do not receive an individual payment. Partners in couples receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance are the only group to whom this arrangement applies.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Crosby received winter fuel payments in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; and how much was paid in total. [123530]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Pensioners in receipt of winter fuel payments in Crosby and Great Britain

  Crosby

  National

  Number of recipients

  Amount (£)

  Number of recipients

  Amount (£)

  1998–99

  14,812

  283,690

  10,191,367

  198,549,440

  1999–2000

  14,892

  1,114,500

  10,224,698

  773,890,550

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners are defined as women over 60 and men either over 65 or over 60 and in receipt of Income Support or Jobseeker's Allowance.

  2. Constituency boundary as at May 1997.

  SEMA
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason the Benefits Agency does not publish the standards and scope of services required in its contract with SEMA. [120694]

  Mr. Bayley
  The contract with SEMA remains confidential for commercial reasons. However, I have placed in the House of Commons Library a document setting out the standards and scope of services required by the Benefits Agency in the contract. A periodic report issued by the Medical Quality Surveillance Group, chaired by the Department's Chief Medical Adviser, will also be published. This report will describe SEMA's performance against these standards.

  State Earnings-related Pension
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of exempting all persons who have already reached pensionable age from the reduction in SERPS entitlements contained in the provisions of the Social Security Act 1986. [123575]

  Mr. Rooker
  The estimated cost of exempting all persons who had reached pensionable age by April 2000 from the change in the rate of SERPS inheritance that was due to have taken effect at that time is estimated at £7,100 million. This excludes the effect of other changes to SERPS also introduced by the 1986 Act.

  The cost was estimated by the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) and is expressed as the net present value of the annual figures from 2000–01 to 2050–51 in 1999–2000 prices, discounted at an annual real rate of 6 per cent. It has been prepared on a basis which is consistent with the latest GAD Quinquennial Review.

  Research Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those research projects funded by his Department at the(a) Bologna Centre, (b) College of Europe and (c) European University Institute; and what the cost of each such project is. [123605]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department is not funding any research projects at the Bologna Centre, the College of Europe or the European University Institute.

  Northern Region (Relocations)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and local public spending bodies for which his Department is responsible that have been transferred since 1992 or are planned to be transferred(a) to and (b) from the Northern Region. [123410]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Headquarters and some central financial/accounting functions of the Child Support Agency were transferred to Newcastle upon Tyne in May 1997.

  The Occupational Pensions Board, based at Newcastle, was dissolved in March 1997 and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) established in Brighton. Responsibility for the Pensions Scheme Registry was transferred to OPRA but remains sited in Newcastle.
  Note:"Northern Region" is defined as the area covering the Government offices for the North-East and Cumbria.

  Pain Management (Funding)
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Heath regarding the impact of pain management funding decisions on social security expenditure. [124359]

  Mr. Bayley
  We frequently discuss issues concerning health and disability with colleagues in the Department of Health and elsewhere as appropriate.

  Single Room Rent
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 14 March 2000,Official Report, column 147W, on the single room rent, when the single room rent was introduced (a) what was the methodology used to estimate the yearly savings, (b) whether these savings have been achieved and (c) what estimate has been made of the likely cost of abolishing the single room rent. [123531]

  Angela Eagle
  The Single Room Rent restriction was introduced in October 1996 by the previous Administration. The reasons, rationale and assumptions for making the change were set out by them in Command Paper (Cm 3225). The estimated savings have been achieved.

  The estimated cost of abolishing the Single Room Rent can only be given as a range, because the figures depend on behavioural changes by young people and landlords which are difficult to quantify. For example we need to include the effects of additional household formation.
  102W
  Subject to these caveats, we estimate it could cost up to £160 million. Based on current data, we estimate that the cost of removing the Single Room Rent restriction in 2001–02 would be £140 million.

CABINET OFFICE

  Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she will announce the membership of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. [124371]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I am pleased to announce that the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) is being launched today with Professor Malcolm Grant, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge as Chair.

  The Commission will provide the Government with independent strategic advice on biotechnology issues that have an impact on agriculture and the environment, including ethical and acceptability issues. It will report to me and to my colleagues in the Devolved Administrations. Its members have a breadth of backgrounds and skills, ranging from experience of consumer and green issues to farming, science, ethics and industry. A complete list of the members and the Commission's terms of reference have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124122]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on 8 May 2000,Official Report, column 315W.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how much her Department spent on opinion research in the financial year 1999–2000; [123073]

  (2) if she will list the opinion research projects undertaken on behalf of her Department in the financial year 1999–2000, broken down by (a) focus group research, (b) quantitative surveys and (c) other market research surveys, listing in each case when and in what form the results were published. [123074]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  During the 1999–2000 financial year, my Department let contracts for opinion research with a total value of £316,000 (excluding VAT). The table gives the subject and publication details of each piece of research.
  103W

  Subject

  Type of research

  Publication date

  Publication details

  Staff survey for the Cabinet Office

  Other market research surveys

  1 July 1999

  Published in booklet form and electronically within Cabinet Office Available on request to those outside the Department

  People's Panel: Public expectations for Service Standards

  Quantitative surveys

  15 July 1999

  Summary of results widely published in newsletter Publication announced by inspired PQ and press release Copies of summary and report placed in House Libraries and published on the Cabinet Office website (www.cabinet.office.gov.uk)

  Government Car Service customer satisfaction survey

  Quantitative surveys

  26 July 1999

  Government Car and Despatch Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1999–2000

  People's Panel: to help prepare a new directory bringing together information for main government help-lines

  Focus group research

  October 1999

  Report published on Cabinet Office website and announced by press release

  Attitudes to public services in deprived and non-deprived areas

  Quantitative surveys

  Not published

  The results are informing the development of a final national strategy for neighbourhood renewal

  People's Panel Analysis of the views of older people from the first three waves of Panel research

  Other market research surveys

  January 2000

  Summary of results widely published in newsletter Publication announced by press release. Copies of summary and report placed in House Libraries and published on the Cabinet Office website

  Central IT Unit Portal Demonstrator

  Focus group research

  April 2000

  CITU website (www.citu.gov.uk)

  People's Panel: To test demand for extended delivery of public services 24 hours a day seven days a week

  Focus group research, Quantitative surveys

  3 April 2000

  Summary of results widely published in newsletter. Publication announced in PQ answer and press release Copies of summary and report placed in House Libraries and published on the Cabinet Office website

  People's Panel: Public awareness of Charter Mark Award Scheme

  Quantitative surveys

  3 April 2000

  Summary of results widely published in newsletter. Publication announced by inspired PQ and press release. Copies of summary and report placed in House Libraries and published on the Cabinet Office website

  Pursuit and seizure of criminal assets

  Quantitative surveys

  To be published

  The results will be incorporated in to the Performance and Innovation Unit report which is due to be published shortly

  People's Panel Recruitment of ethnic minority booster

  Quantitative surveys

  To be published

  Modernising Government research

  Quantitative surveys, Other market research surveys

  Not for publication

  Charter Mark interviews

  Other market research surveys

  Survey not yet completed

  An evaluation of EFQM Excellence Model in UK public sector

  Quantitative surveys

  Survey not yet completed

  Strategic options for the electronic delivery of government services

  Other market research surveys

  Survey not yet completed

  That Completed survey will be incorporated into the final report that is fully expected to be published to the public

  Government Car and Despatch Agency-wide customer satisfaction survey

  Quantitative surveys

  Survey not yet completed

  Research Studies, Audits and Surveys
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the title of research studies, audits and surveys(a) being undertaken and (b) commissioned
  104W
  by her Department for completion within 2000, stating in each case when the results are due to be published; and when she will publish the Government's response to the Sixth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [122116]
  105W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  The information relating to research studies, audits and surveys is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Government's response to the Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is being prepared and will be presented to Parliament before the summer recess.

  Drugs Trade
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has made of the extent to which nightclub security firms(a) are involved in the drugs trade and (b) restrict the trade in drugs; and if she will make a statement. [124099]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has not made any such assessments. The Police Research Group report, "Clubs, Drugs and Doormen" published in 1998, highlighted how serious a problem drugs could be in clubs when door staff are involved in drug dealing. The Co-ordinator has held meetings with parties involved in this sector and has encouraged the work of industry bodies such as the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association and partnerships between local authorities, the police, Drug Action Teams, venue managers and owners to disrupt the selling of drugs in venues, improve the standard of security staff and club mangers, and challenge the corrupting influence which drug dealing can have on door supervision, and supported their efforts to ensure that dance events are as safe and well organised as possible. The Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator supports the Government's proposed legislation to regulate the private security industry, including the licensing of security staff employment in night clubs and similar premises.

  Dismissal/discharge 1994–95 to 1998–99 by cause of dismissal

  Number of staff dismissed/discharged

  Proportion of staff dismissed/discharged (percentage)

  Year

  All

  Inefficiency

  Disciplinary

  All

  Inefficiency

  Disciplinary

  1994–95

  880

  550

  330

  0.18

  0.11

  0.07

  1995–96

  750

  400

  350

  0.16

  0.08

  0.08

  1996–97

  870

  450

  420

  0.19

  0.10

  0.09

  1997–98

  650

  350

  300

  0.15

  0.08

  0.07

  1998–99

  590

  300

  290

  0.14

  0.07

  0.07

  Source:

  Mandate and Cabinet Office estimates

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit on the pursuit and seizure of criminal assets, following the recommendation of the Third report of the Home Office Working Group on Confiscation was completed; what action she proposes to take following the report; what discussions(a) she, (b) Ministers in her Department and (c) her officials have had with (i) the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (ii) the hon. Member for Norwich, South, (iii) the Prime Minister and (iv) officials in the Home Department regarding the report; if she will place a copy of the report in the Library; and if she will make a statement. [123790]
  106W
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has for legislation to(a) vet employees, managers and directors of nightclub security firms in respect of involvement in the drugs trade, (b) require cancellation of their contract if drugs are brought into nightclubs by them or their employees and (c) counter the drugs trade in nightclubs in other ways; and if she will make a statement. [124100]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last year published a White Paper, "The Government's Proposals for Regulation of the Private Security Industry in England and Wales". This proposed that people employed in the private security industry, including those in managerial and supervisory positions and directors, should require a licence from a new Private Security Industry Authority. The licensing process would include a criminal record check. These proposals specifically included security staff employed in night clubs and similar premises. Responses received to the White Paper have been under consideration and my right hon. Friend will announce his conclusions shortly. We have made it clear that we intend to introduce legislation to regulate the private security industry as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Government Service Dismissals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people have been dismissed from Government service in each of the last five years, broken down by principal cause of dismissal; and what proportion of total Government employees this represents in each year. [122514]

  Mr. Stringer
  The numbers and proportion of staff dismissed from the non-industrial Civil Service over the last five years, by principal cause of dismissal are set out in the table.

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Prime Minister commissioned the Performance and Innovation Unit to carry out a study into the "Pursuit and Seizure of Criminal Assets" last year. This was announced on 21 October 1999,Official Report, column 630W, by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office is sponsor Minister for this study.

  The study, which is now nearing completion, has had the strong support of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). Home Office officials have been closely involved, as have officials of other Government Departments.

  107W
  The final report will be published shortly and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Cosmetics (Marketing Ban)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons the UK voted in favour of a postponement of an EU marketing ban on cosmetics tested on animals on 5 May. [124052]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are very serious about animal welfare, and already have a voluntary ban on testing on animals of cosmetic products and cosmetic ingredients. However, Government policy is to ensure not only a strong commitment to animal welfare but that our regulatory framework is in full compliance with our WTO obligations. Internal advice has confirmed the European Commission's assessment that a marketing ban would risk challenge under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. In addition, there were concerns that the 6th Amendment would be legally and practically unenforceable.

  A 7th Amendment to the cosmetics directive has recently been transmitted to the Council and European Parliament by the European Commission. This Amendment aims to introduce a ban on animal testing in the EU rather than a marketing ban and is WTO compatible. The two-year deferment of the entry into force of the 6th Amendment should allow sufficient time to enable the 7th Amendment to be adopted. I believe that the 7th Amendment will offer a better level of animal welfare in the EU as a marketing ban would have offered as it will introduce a total ban in the EU on animal testing (in relation to cosmetic products and the ingredients contained therein).

  On 5 May EU member states voted unanimously (one member state abstained) in favour of deferring the entry into force of the 6th Amendment of the cosmetics directive.

  European Young Consumer Competition 2000
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the(a) purpose and (b) funding of the European Young Consumer Competition 2000. [123604]

  Dr. Howells
  (a) I fully support the purpose of the competition to encourage young people to become more enlightened consumers and communicators so that they can play an effective part in the community at home and abroad. That said, it is up to individual schools and teachers to decide whether to take part.

  (b) The competition is funded by the European Commission.

  Daewoo Technical Centre
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the discussions his Department has had on the Daewoo Technical Centre in Worthing. [124458]
  108W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are keeping closely in touch with developments affecting Daewoo Motors given its significant investment in the UK, in particular at the Worthing Technical Centre. Decisions about the future of the Centre are a commercial matter for the company, but my officials have had regular contact with the Centre as a part of their sponsorship responsibilities.

  Coalfield Regeneration
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will utilise part of the share of surpluses generated by the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, taken by the Government, to help regenerate coalfield community areas. [123461]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: Surpluses in the former British Coal pension schemes are split 50/50 between the membership of the schemes and the DTI, in its role as guarantor to the schemes.

  In accordance with the Coal Industry Act 1994 (Sch. 5, paragraph 2(10)), all surpluses received by the Secretary of State must be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The DTI has no statutory powers to divert pension surpluses for regeneration.

  The Government are already providing substantial funds to meet the commitments made in response to the Coalfields Task Force Report and indeed we announced in December 1998 a comprehensive investment package for coalfield areas worth £354 million over three years. In addition, the Secretary of State announced on 17 April the intention to make substantial sums available to the coal industry in the form of subsidy.

  Ilisu Dam
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to ensure that those people who will be displaced by the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey will be consulted beforehand. [124180]

  Mr. Caborn
  The process of consultation of the local population, by consultants appointed by the Project Owner DSI, commenced in December 1999 and this process is continuing. We await the production of a Resettlement Action plan.

  In order to provide additional professional assistance to DSI in the planning of resettlement and compensation, the Swiss Export Credit Agency, as the leader of the eight agencies involved of which the UK is one, has recruited Dr. Ayse Kudat for an initial period of two years. Dr. Kudat is an eminent environmental sociologist, and was until this month a senior staff member at the World Bank.

  The expertise of Dr. Kudat will help ensure that the resettlement programme will reflect internationally accepted practice, which is the first of the four requirements set out in the announcement made by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 December 1999.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which Departments of Government were
  109W
  consulted on (a) human rights and (b) sustainable development issues relating to the Ilisu Dam; and on what dates; [124183]

  (2) when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was consulted about the human rights implications of providing ECGD cover for the Ilisu Dam in Turkey; and what advice it gave; [124184]

  (3) which Departments of Government were consulted about the advisability of providing ECGD cover for the building of the Ilisu Dam; and on what dates. [124182]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following Departments have been consulted about relevant aspects of the proposed Ilisu Dam project: H.M. Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry, British Trade International, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Department for International Development, Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions and Department for Culture, Media and Sport. These exchanges began in January 1999, although DCMS were not involved until later. ECGD continues to maintain regular contact with FCO, DTI, DETR, DCMS and British Trade International. DFID has not been involved since July 1999, as Turkey is not one of their key partner countries.
  110W
  There were intensive exchanges of correspondence between the Ministers most concerned during November and December 1999 prior to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 December 1999.

  Research Councils
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) for which areas of research covered by each Research Council the budget has contracted in each year since 1994; [122134]

  (2) what the breakdown was of the funding of each Research Council by main programme of activity in each year since 1994. [122132]

  Ms Hewitt
  The evolving nature of the Research Councils' programmes makes it impossible to provide consistent expenditure figures for all programme areas over the period requested. In particular, the Economic and Social Research Council established a new set of themes in 1995–96 and the Medical Research Council made major changes to the structure of its portfolio in 1995–96 and again in 1999–2000. The available information for each of the six Councils is set out, in cash terms, in the table.

  Research Councils: spend on programmes from 1994–95 to 1999–2000

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  BBSRC

  Agri-Food

  35.0

  33.6

  37.0

  34.2

  33.0

  33.1

  Biomolecular Sciences

  19.6

  20.2

  21.3

  24.7

  28.7

  30.2

  Genes and Developmental Biology

  22.6

  24.8

  26.8

  24.7

  27.3

  28.5

  Plant and Microbial Sciences

  26.8

  25.0

  24.4

  26.3

  26.7

  28.0

  Animal Sciences

  17.5

  16.3

  16.9

  25.0

  21.3

  21.5

  Biochemistry and Cell Biology

  20.2

  20.3

  19.2

  18.3

  19.4

  20.4

  Engineering and Biological Systems

  14.8

  16.4

  18.8

  16.1

  14.8

  15.0

  156.4

  156.6

  164.3

  169.3

  171.2

  176.7

  EPSRC

  Engineering

  80.2

  79.8

  85.8

  89.8

  93.0

  96.2

  Chemistry

  32.8

  36.0

  37.8

  37.6

  33.3

  43.4

  Maths

  11.4

  12.0

  13.3

  12.2

  12.2

  14.1

  Physics

  25.6

  22.8

  25.0

  24.2

  25.1

  32.9

  Materials

  56.0

  53.6

  54.4

  49.3

  46.6

  46.4

  IT and Computing

  56.9

  57.0

  60.0

  59.3

  58.7

  59.0

  Other

  85.3

  80.7

  75.5

  87.5

  82.8

  86.7

  348.2

  341.9

  351.8

  359.9

  351.7

  378.7

  ESRC

  Pre 1995–96

  34.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Research Grants

  13.1

  13.7

  14.3

  13.4

  15.0

  13.4

  Innovation

  6.3

  4.9

  5.8

  6.2

  5.0

  6.3

  Economic Performance and Development

  —

  5.6

  5.5

  5.6

  5.7

  6.0

  Environment and Sustainability

  —

  2.6

  2.7

  3.1

  3.7

  3.4

  Globalisation, Regions and Emerging Markets

  —

  3.1

  3.2

  3.1

  3.3

  3.4

  Governance, Regulation and Accountability

  —

  2.9

  3.0

  3.7

  4.0

  4.0

  Technology and People

  —

  3.0

  3.1

  3.3

  2.5

  3.5

  Knowledge, Communication and Learning

  —

  2.9

  3.0

  3.3

  5.3

  3.4

  Lifespan, Lifestyles and Health

  —

  3.9

  4.0

  4.6

  4.8

  5.3

  Social Inclusion and Exclusion

  —

  3.9

  4.1

  4.6

  7.2

  4.4

  Non-theme training, resources and policy

  0.5

  9

  8.9

  8.3

  7.2

  10.3

  Taught Courses

  4.3

  6.1

  6.1

  6.1

  4.6

  6.8

  59.0

  61.6

  63.7

  65.3

  68.3

  70.2

  MRC

  Inheritance and development

  32.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Systems

  36.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Organs and cancer

  15.0

  40.0

  42.0

  40.0

  45.0

  —

  111W

  Research Councils: spend on programmes from 1994–95 to 1999–2000

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Molecules and cells

  57.0

  60.0

  63.0

  61.0

  65.0

  —

  Infections

  54.0

  56.0

  56.0

  59.0

  64.0

  —

  Nutrition and environment

  19.0

  18.0

  12.0

  10.0

  12.0

  —

  Genetics

  —

  37.0

  40.0

  45.0

  47.0

  —

  Health

  —

  11.0

  13.0

  16.0

  18.0

  —

  Neuroscience and mental health

  57.0

  54.0

  51.0

  54.0

  58.0

  63.0

  Cell Biology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57.0

  Genetics, molecular structure and dynamics

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57.0

  Immunology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  65.0

  Medical physiology

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55.0

  People

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40.0

  270.0

  276.0

  277.0

  285.0

  309.0

  337.0

  NERC

  Atmospheric Science

  6.6

  9.3

  8.1

  7.9

  7.2

  7.9

  Earth Observation

  7.4

  9.7

  7.8

  11.5

  10.0

  10.7

  Earth Science

  31.4

  29.8

  35.6

  34.4

  34.7

  36.0

  Marine Science

  36.4

  42.0

  34.6

  35.2

  39.4

  40.9

  Terrestrial and Freshwater Sciences

  32.8

  36.7

  32.6

  34.7

  39.9

  39.3

  Polar Sciences

  24.9

  28.1

  28.7

  28.6

  28.7

  32.0

  Technology Transfer and taught courses

  6.7

  9.3

  7.8

  7.6

  7.9

  8.7

  Other

  1.1

  4.6

  3.2

  2.7

  4.0

  3.7

  147.2

  169.5

  158.5

  162.6

  171.9

  179.2

  PPARC

  Astronomy

  82.1

  90.0

  91.6

  91.5

  90.8

  90.5

  Particle Physics

  80.3

  88.4

  89.9

  81.9

  95.8

  76.2

  Education and Training

  6.3

  7.1

  7.6

  8.1

  7.9

  10.0

  Exchange rate variation and restructuring

  10.4

  17.2

  24.4

  16.4

  14.6

  10.0

  179.0

  202.7

  213.5

  197.9

  209.1

  186.7

  Strictly speaking, there are no programme areas where the expenditure has diminished in each year over the period, although the Councils have increased the budgets for high priority programmes at the expense of certain others. For example, the Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council has significantly enhanced its support for biomolecular science over the period, while keeping some other programmes broadly level in cash terms.

  The uneven spend on PPARC particle physics is largely due to the timing of payments of the UK subscription to the CERN laboratory in Geneva.

  Further details of individual programmes can be found in the Councils' Annual Reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 49W, on ECGD, what types of goods are covered, broken down by category of equipment, by ECGD guarantee issued in respect of a defence-related contract with Saudi Arabia in 1997–98 and 1998–99. [123828]

  Mr. Caborn
  All ECGD guaranteed defence business with Saudi Arabia in these years is included against the "aircraft" heading in the table to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the(a) number of additional jobs created, (b) increase in turnover, (c) increase in profits, (d) grow tit in net assets and (e) growth in exports, as a result of Business Links since 1994. [123536]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The most recent estimation we have of Business Link impact is from the Business Link Value for Money Evaluation, which relates to the period 1994 to 1997. This study was carried out in 1998 by independent consultants, and is available from the House of Commons Library.

  It estimated that, during this period, the support provided by Business Links was responsible for generating more than 8000 jobs, £1 billion extra turnover, £30 million extra profits, £145 million extra net assets and £400 million extra exports nationally.

  Small Finns Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans there are to integrate the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme into the Enterprise Fund. [123551]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The Enterprise Fund consists of a number of discrete individual elements, one of which is the Small Finns Loan Guarantee Scheme. The Scheme, which continues to run as before, became an integral part of the Enterprise Fund when the Fund was launched in December 1998.
  113W
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small loans have been guaranteed by region and as a percentage of all businesses in each region in each year since the inception of the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme. [123549]

  Number of guarantees

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  West Midlands

  East Midlands and East of England

  London and the South East

  South West

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1981–82

  106

  431

  255

  348

  231

  1,268

  306

  211

  185

  10

  1982–83

  269

  887

  451

  513

  385

  2,245

  589

  327

  325

  54

  1983–84

  244

  596

  431

  381

  296

  1,852

  399

  438

  162

  88

  1984–85

  74

  204

  154

  168

  117

  870

  172

  218

  62

  42

  1985–86

  32

  54

  20

  33

  37

  207

  66

  63

  22

  9

  1986–87

  34

  111

  64

  93

  84

  391

  120

  88

  39

  18

  1987–88

  76

  156

  107

  95

  75

  377

  151

  81

  75

  29

  1988–89

  179

  275

  211

  187

  144

  715

  213

  127

  182

  33

  1989–90

  213

  371

  244

  245

  256

  1,064

  350

  152

  204

  24

  1990–91

  207

  389

  248

  228

  338

  1,201

  389

  135

  183

  26

  1991–92

  161

  271

  164

  191

  305

  1,047

  472

  128

  150

  13

  1992–93

  90

  191

  169

  196

  306

  689

  373

  104

  146

  9

  1993–94

  136

  260

  270

  332

  517

  1,240

  617

  245

  205

  29

  1994–95

  204

  496

  458

  496

  799

  2,121

  959

  323

  310

  41

  1995–96

  261

  650

  543

  652

  868

  2,469

  1,156

  464

  347

  74

  1996–97

  278

  584

  498

  672

  1,270

  1,821

  979

  434

  330

  76

  1997–98

  170

  387

  396

  514

  999

  1,222

  685

  440

  227

  41

  1998–99

  190

  370

  386

  458

  831

  1,000

  605

  408

  197

  37

  1999–2000

  169

  371

  361

  416

  770

  897

  529

  526

  218

  22

  Source:

  SFLGS database

  Number of guarantees as a percentage of all VAT registered businesses

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  West Midlands

  East Midlands and East of England

  London and the South East

  South West

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  1981–82

  .27

  .29

  .24

  .30

  .16

  .30

  .24

  .21

  .25

  .02

  1982–83

  .68

  .59

  .42

  .43

  .26

  .52

  .45

  .32

  .43

  .12

  1983–84

  .61

  .40

  .39

  .32

  .20

  .42

  .30

  .42

  .21

  .19

  1984–85

  .18

  .13

  .14

  .14

  .08

  .19

  .13

  .21

  .08

  .09

  1985–86

  .08

  .03

  .02

  .03

  .02

  .04

  .05

  .06

  .03

  .02

  1986–87

  .08

  .07

  .06

  .07

  .05

  .08

  .09

  .08

  .05

  .04

  1987–88

  .18

  .10

  .09

  .07

  .05

  .08

  .11

  .07

  .10

  .06

  1988–89

  .42

  .18

  .18

  .14

  .09

  .14

  .14

  .11

  .23

  .07

  1989–90

  .49

  .23

  .20

  .18

  .15

  .19

  .23

  .13

  .25

  .05

  1990–91

  .45

  .23

  .20

  .16

  .19

  .21

  .24

  .11

  .21

  .05

  1991–92

  .34

  .16

  .13

  .13

  .16

  .17

  .29

  .10

  .17

  .02

  1992–93

  .20

  .12

  .14

  .14

  .17

  .12

  .24

  .09

  .18

  .02

  1993–94

  .31

  .16

  .23

  .24

  .30

  .22

  .41

  .21

  .25

  .05

  1994–95

  .46

  .30

  .37

  .36

  .29

  .44

  .63

  .27

  .39

  .08

  1995–96

  .60

  .41

  .45

  .48

  .32

  .51

  .77

  .39

  .45

  .14

  1996–97

  .65

  .37

  .42

  .50

  .48

  .38

  .66

  .37

  .43

  .14

  1997–98

  .40

  .25

  .34

  .38

  .37

  .25

  .47

  .37

  .30

  .08

  1998–99

  .45

  .23

  .33

  .34

  .31

  .20

  .41

  .34

  .26

  .07

  1999–2000

  .40

  .23

  .31

  .31

  .28

  .17

  .35

  .44

  .29

  .04

  Notes:

  1. Large increases in the VAT registration threshold in 1991 and 1993 mean figures before and after these years are not wholly comparable.

  2. SFLGS figures are financial year, VAT figures are calendar year.

  Regional split reflects reporting requirements for the Industrial Development Act 1982 Annual Report.

  Source:

  SFLGS database; DTI Statistical Bulletin 99/111

  Websites
  Mr Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 21–23W, on websites (1) if he will name (a) the websites delivering the objectives of the Department but run and financed by private sector companies and (b) the companies running those sites; if
  114W
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The total number of loans guaranteed under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme, by region, and as a percentage of all VAT registered businesses in each region in each year since inception are shown in the tables. he will estimate the market value of the services rendered to his Department by the companies running these websites; if the companies running the sites have their services acknowledged on the site; what his estimate is of the market value to the companies of such acknowledgement; and what mechanisms are in place to ensure that his Department does not seem to endorse any inappropriate advertisers on such sites; [122744]
  115W
  (2) if he will name (a) the websites prepared in partnership with private sector organisations in return for acknowledgement of this sponsorship on the site and (b) the companies helping to prepare those sites; and if he will estimate the market value of (i) the services rendered to his Department by the companies in the preparation of these websites and (ii) the acknowledgement of sponsorship. [122745]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry has not entered into any significant partnership or sponsorship deals that part fund or completely fund any DTI websites in exchange for advertising revenue, brand identify or acknowledgement. DTI may consider such arrangements in the future provided they fall within the Central IT Unit's guidance that I quoted in my previous answer on 2 May 2000,Official Report, column 21W.

  There are only three DTI websites that have some element of private sector involvement or presence all of which are of negligible benefit by value to the DTI.

  These sites are:

  1. The Auto Industry website (www.autoindustry.co.uk);

  The TradeUK service (www.tradeuk.com);

  The ISI/Interforum E-Commerce Awards Website (www. ecommerce-awards.co.uk).

  Fuel Market
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who has responsibility for ensuring that fairness and reasonableness pertain in the contractual relationship between oil suppliers and retailers in respect of non-competition issues. [122944]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The general responsibility for all sale of goods legislation in the UK rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In the event that a specific contractual dispute arises between an oil supplier and a retailer which relates to unfair or unreasonable terms, the matter would have to be resolved in a Court of Law.

  RDX Exports
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what decisions have been taken on the applications that were pending on 7 March for the export of RDX in its raw form to(a) Oman, (b) Spain and (c) Turkey. [123725]

  Dr. Howells
  A Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL) was issued in respect of the application covering the export of RDX in its raw form to Oman on 7 March 2000. A decision has not yet been taken on an application for an Open Individual Export Licence covering exports to a number of destinations including Spain. A decision has not yet been taken on the application for a SIEL to Turkey.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate his Department has made of the likely proportion of electricity generated from(a) gas, (b) coal, (c) nuclear power and (d) renewables in (i) 2003, (ii) 2005, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2012, (v) 2020 and (vi) 2030. [120106]
  116W
  Mrs. Liddell
  My Department has recently prepared estimates of future energy use, covering selected years. Estimates have not been made for any other years. These have been made available in the form of a working paper, representing work in progress, entitled: "Energy Projections For The UK—Working Paper".

  Copies of this document have been placed in the Library of the House. The following tables are extracted from Annexe D of the Working Paper. These set out the amounts of generation by type of fuel for two of the six scenarios examined in the Working Paper. As an example, in 2010, coal's share of generation varies between 10 and 22 per cent., that of gas between 45 per cent. and 59 per cent., while nuclear's share varies between 18 per cent. and 19 per cent.

  Electricity generation by fuel type, TWh

  CL

  1990

  1995

  2000

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2020

  Coal

  204

  145

  81

  43

  36

  36

  36

  Oil

  15

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gas

  0

  57

  131

  184

  214

  244

  265

  Nuclear

  59

  81

  93

  87

  66

  40

  27

  Renewables

  5

  6

  11

  22

  37

  37

  37

  Imports

  14

  18

  19

  16

  10

  9

  8

  Total

  297

  315

  335

  352

  363

  366

  373

  CL

  1990

  1995

  2000

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2020

  Coal

  204

  145

  86

  90

  78

  59

  52

  Oil

  15

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gas

  0

  57

  124

  126

  157

  204

  230

  Nuclear

  59

  81

  93

  87

  66

  40

  27

  Renewables

  5

  6

  11

  22

  35

  35

  36

  Imports

  14

  18

  19

  17

  11

  10

  9

  Total

  297

  315

  334

  341

  347

  348

  354

  Note:

  Class "CL" represents a scenario assuming a central view of economic growth, together with low energy prices, while the "CH" scenario is based on central economic growth, together with high energy prices. Further details of the assumptions and modelling basis for these figures can be found in the Working Paper.

  Astra Holdings
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will indicate the chapters in the report on Astra Holdings plc published by his Department to which the contents of file bundles(a) 120, (b) 121, (c) 140 and (d) 141 relate; and whether there is any part of the contents of the bundles which is not dealt with in the report. [123896]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave him on 22 March 2000,Official Report, column 611W, and 13 April 2000, Official Report, columns 273–74W.

  Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the letter from the Minister of State for Energy, of 17 April to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, when he will announce a call for research and
  117W
  development proposals for the stationary and transport applications of work on copper and cerium oxide catalysts for solid oxide fuel cells. [122497]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: A Call for Proposals on the DTI's New and Renewable Energy (NRE) Programme was issued on 17 April 2000. As part of this Call, outline proposals were sought for research and development into fuel cells of all types, and particularly for stationary and transport applications. The Call itself, and guidance for proposers, may be found on the DTI's web pages at www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/renew.htm. The closing submission date for this call was 1 June 2000. Notwithstanding this deadline, potential proposers are welcome to investigate other options for funding research and development projects relevant to fuel cells by contacting the Programme Manager of the DTI's Advanced Fuel Cells Programme (part of the New and Renewable Energy Programme) at ETSU.

  Miners (Compensation)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases have been lodged by former miners living in Amber Valley for compensation for vibration white finger. [123939]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department's claims handling agents have registered 880 claims from former miners living in the Amber Valley region, centring on the towns of Alfreton, Heanor and Ripley, for vibration white finger. Of these the Department has settled 102 claims and made interim payments to a further 80, totalling over £900,000.

  Pylons
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will impose a moratorium on the construction of pylons. [123905]

  Mrs. Liddell:
  Such a policy would not be justified. All but the most minor overhead electric lines already need development consent from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. All relevant matters are considered in this process.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce an employer's charter to assist small businesses to deal with the complexities of employment legislation; and if he will make a statement. [123867]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Small Business Service has been set up, among other things, to help to make regulatory information, including employment legislation, more comprehensible and accessible to small firms. The SBS is looking at a number of ways in which this might be done including the possibilities presented by information technology. For example, they are piloting a new service on the internet called Small Business Start-Up Service (www.sbssonline.org/sbss/) which guides people wanting to start a business to relevant information including employees' rights. They have also recently published a guide to the regulatory requirements relating to employing staff which can also be accessed on the internet (www.dti.gov.uk/COMMS/employ/index.htm). The Department provides a wide range of information and guidance on the requirements of employment law,118W
  including through its website (www.dti.gov.uk/er), and is currently developing further internet and interactive services. These will be made available by a number of routes, including through the SBS general advice and information service (www.businessadviceonline.org).

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to exempt small businesses from(a) new and (b) existing regulations; and if he will make a statement. [123869]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are always ready to consider exemptions as a policy option in relation to or existing regulations, but each case would need to be carefully looked at on its merits.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures are being taken by the Small Business Service to reduce the administrative burden on small businesses. [123868]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chief Executive of the Small Business Service (SBS) is a member of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability which is reviewing new and existing regulations in Government Departments.

  The SBS has a particular duty on behalf of small businesses to examine regulatory proposals put forward by Government Departments to ensure that they do not impose an unnecessary or disproportionate burden on the small businesses community, that compliance is made easier through the provision of comprehensible and accessible guidance, and that the enforcement regime is appropriate.

  The SBS will also undertake research to establish a Regulation Index showing the cumulative burden of regulation on small businesses and to inform priorities for simplifying existing regulations.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in enabling(a) consumers and (b) small businesses to have access to their credit reference files. [123870]

  Dr. Howells
  The rights of individuals and sole traders to access financial information held by credit reference agencies have now been consolidated under the Data Protection Act 1998. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 continues to contain rights to challenge the accuracy of such information. The Data Protection Commissioner is now responsible for supervising these rights. Partnerships and other unincorporated bodies have rights to this information under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Director General of Fair Trading supervises their rights.

  We have also simplified the statement of rights on correcting wrong information which the agencies must provide in the Consumer Credit (Credit Reference Agency) Regulations 2000.

  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures the Government are taking to ensure that Britain provides an environment in which SMEs can flourish. [124406]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have set in place a policy framework, which is delivering macro-economic stability and helping to promote long-term investment and productivity; public finances are under control; inflation is historically low and expected to remain close to target.
  119W
  Following Budget 2000, the business climate has never been better. Since 1997, the Government have cut the average corporation tax bill for small companies by nearly 25 per cent. Britain now has its lowest ever corporation rates for small companies and—with the 10p starting rate from April—the lowest starting rate in the EU.

  We are also looking further to improve the infrastructure and ensure that small firms get the support they need. That is why we established the Small Business Service (SBS)—a key part of our strategy to create an entrepreneurial Britain. The SBS will act as a strong voice for small businesses at the heart of Government; help small firms meet the demands of regulation; and achieve a step change in the quality and consistency of advice and information available to small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to improve(a) access to and (b) the quality of advice services for small businesses. [124684]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Small Business Service, which became an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in April 2000, is undertaking two significant activities aimed at improving access to, and quality of, advice services for small business.

  The first is to provide an internet enabled network of knowledge and information for use by small businesses, business advisers and the local Business Link network.

  The second activity is a radical redevelopment of the Business Link network including refocusing the remit of the Business Links so that they concentrate on delivering high quality solutions to their customers' needs; widening the customer base of the local network to include those who are at a disadvantage, for whatever reason, in starting up or running a business; and a rationalisation from 81 to 45 Business Links. Only organisations which can meet rigorous assessment criteria and successfully complete business plans will be awarded contracts from April 2001.

  Rolls-Royce
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what conditions were attached to the most recent tranche of launch aid for Rolls-Royce; and if he will make a statement. [124097]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In November 1997 the Department agreed to provide launch investment of £200 million to Rolls-Royce to assist with the development of the Trent series of large aeroengines. The conditions attached to the agreement are commercially confidential.

  Launch Investments is a risk and revenues 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 to the Government at a real rate of return, usually via levies on sales of the product developed.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of Rolls-Royce to discuss the aeroengine industry, with particular reference to employment levels. [124096]
  120W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I visited Rolls-Royce's main production facilities at Derby on 9 May 2000 and discussed a range of issues of importance to the competitiveness of the company. We discussed the implications for employment levels of Rolls-Royce's current review of its strategic operations.

  Transatlantic Business Dialogue
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which(a) ministers and (b) officials in his Department are involved in the transatlantic business dialogue; and who was present from his Department at the TABD meeting in Brussels on 23 May. [124048]

  Mr. Caborn
  No officials from this Department attended the TABD meeting in Brussels on 23 May. The European Commission were represented but as this is a business-to-business forum they did not directly contribute. This Department's Trade Policy Directorate is responsible for relations with the TABD and attends the annual conference at the invitation of TABD officials.

  GM Seeds
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received concerning the sale of Advanta Seeds UK's Hyota oil seed rape seeds found to be contaminated with GM herbicide-tolerant seeds; and what action he plans to take. [123756]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 25 May 2000]: The UK Government were informed on 17 April that stocks of oil seed rape seed sold by Advanta might contain low levels of GM material. In line with Government priorities to protect public health and the environment, the Department of Health and the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions sought urgent advice from the Food Standards Agency and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment respectively. The advice was that there were no risks to human health or the environment. Contamination of seed stocks is a MAFF responsibility, and last week the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced measures that the Government will take. DTI has no specific responsibility for any of the issues involved.

  Nuclear Reprocessing
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantities of(a) Canadian-owned and (b) Spanish-owned plutonium are in store at Sellafield. [121982]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In accordance with the internationally agreed format for publishing such information, my Department publishes each year figures for the total amount of plutonium held in the UK in unirradiated separated form as well as the total amount of plutonium estimated to be contained in spent civil reactor fuel. The figures include details of the total amount of plutonium held in the UK in unirradiated separated form belonging to foreign bodies. This total is not further broken down into separate figures for individual countries.

  Details about amounts of plutonium held at Sellafield on behalf of particular customers and about the timing and arrangements for returning the plutonium to the country of origin are commercial and operational matters for

  121W
  BNFL and its customers. I understand from BNFL, however, that there is no longer any Canadian owned plutonium in any form held at Sellafield.

  Oil and Gas
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list by field the number of licences issued by the Government for North Sea and Atlantic oil and gas exploration where no development has taken place; [122832]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the inspection and enforcement in respect of fallow fields in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. [122837]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: The Department of Trade and Industry classifies as "fallow" any block on the UKCS which is currently licensed and not in its initial term but which has seen no drilling activity for six years or more. A "fallow" discovery is one that was made six years or more ago but which has not yet been developed. (Acreage that has been determined as a field would not generally be classified as "fallow".)

  193 significant discoveries made up to 31 December 1999 have not yet been developed. The definition of "significant" discoveries used here is based on flow rates achieved during well tests. It makes no attempt to take account of commercial viability. Work is proceeding on some of these discoveries to bring them to development, but in each case no Development Plan has yet been approved. These discoveries are not necessarily the same as those that are the subject of the Fallow Discoveries Initiative because many are less than six years old. They are as listed.

  Well number

  Licence Operator at the end of 1999

  Licence number

  Date discovered

  48/22–1

  Mobil

  P.697

  November 1966

  48/30–3

  Phillips

  P.028

  June 1967

  53/04–1

  ARCO

  P.039

  July 1967

  48/21–1

  Unlicensed

  P.047

  August 1967

  41/24a-1

  Unlicensed

  P.759

  September 1969

  41/25a-1

  Unlicensed

  P.759

  September 1969

  30/02–1

  Shell

  P.098

  June 1971

  30/13–2

  Phillips

  P.079

  September 1972

  3/25a-2

  Total

  P.090

  July 1974

  49/12a-6

  Conoco

  P.033

  September 1974

  211/13–1

  Shell

  P.296

  November 1974

  16/29–4

  Phillips

  P.110

  February 1975

  21/02–1

  ARCO

  P.244

  June 1975

  211/13–2

  Shell

  P.296

  July 1975

  211/18–9

  Britoil

  P.236

  September 1975

  15/13–2

  Enterprise

  P.198

  October 1975

  211/13–3

  Shell

  P.296

  December 1975

  21/02–2

  Union Texas

  P.244

  December 1975

  9/19–2

  Mobil

  P.103

  May 1976

  14/20–6Z

  Amerada Hess

  P.324

  June 1976

  9/19–3

  Mobil

  P.103

  December 1976

  211/19a-6

  Kerr McGee

  P.104

  January 1977

  16/22–2

  Elf

  P.240

  May 1977

  211/22–1

  Veba

  P.201

  May 1977

  206/08-41A

  BP

  P.165

  July 1977

  210/15–2

  Fina

  P.226

  October 1977

  207/01–3

  Texaco

  P.183

  Oct 1977

  14/18–1

  Elf Caledonia

  P.263

  May 1978

  3/28a–2

  Chevron

  P.234

  September 1978

  21/24–1

  Veba

  P.021

  November 1978

  29/03a–2

  Shell

  P.012

  January 1979

  122W

  Well number

  Licence Operator at the end of 1999

  Licence number

  Date discovered

  2/05–10

  DNO

  P.242

  September 1979

  30/12b–2

  Amoco

  P.185

  February 1981

  20/02–1

  Petrobras

  P.317

  April 1981

  21/19–1A

  Shell

  P.238

  April 1981

  21/15a–2

  Britoil

  P.120

  August 1981

  29/05a–1

  Shell

  P.188

  September 1981

  21/23b–1

  Shell

  P.353

  January 1982

  9/11–2

  Texaco

  P.335

  September 1982

  12/27–1

  Amerada Hess

  P.981

  January 1983

  48/19a–3

  Shell

  P.008

  March 1983

  22/05b–3

  BG E & P

  P.356

  May 1983

  29/09a–1

  Shell

  P.012

  June 1983

  9/24b–1A

  BP

  P.338

  September 1983

  16/18–1

  Britoil

  P.312

  September 1983

  29/08b–2

  Amerada Hess

  P.227

  December 1983

  2/10a–6

  Unlicensed

  P.234

  December 1983

  16/13a–2Z

  Petrobras

  P.219

  January 1984

  22/02–2

  Unlicensed

  P.354

  February 1984

  211/22a–3

  Veba

  P.201

  March 1984

  30/06–3Z

  Shell

  P.011

  May 1984

  29/02a–2

  Conoco

  P.224

  June 1984

  42/15b–1

  Total

  P.137

  June 1984

  214/30–1

  BG E & P

  P.303

  August 1984

  22/19–1

  Elf Caledonia

  P.357

  August 1984

  98/11–2

  Unlicensed

  P.406

  August 1984

  16/03a–4

  Marathon

  P.108

  September 1984

  21/30–12

  Shell

  P.013

  September 1984

  49/04–1

  Centrica

  P.468

  Oct 1984

  16/12a–5

  LASMO

  P.212

  December 1984

  47/10–1

  BP

  P.001

  February 1985

  4/26–1A

  Elf

  P.229

  June 1985

  16/23–4

  Conoco

  P.103

  July 1985

  29/09b–2

  Ranger

  P.227

  September 1985

  16/13a–3

  Petrobras

  P.219

  November 1985

  21/03a–4

  Conoco

  P.118

  December 1985

  48/14–2

  Shell

  P.008

  December 1985

  13/30–3

  Amerada Hess

  P.310

  March 1986

  22/27a–2

  Ranger

  P.114

  March 1986

  49/19–4

  Shell

  P.008

  March 1986

  3/30–3

  Elf

  P.229

  April 1986

  211/14–1

  Shell

  P.296

  April 1986

  15/18a–6

  Veba

  P.233

  May 1986

  30/01c–4

  BP

  P.363

  August 1986

  206/01–2

  Total

  P.911

  September 1986

  22/02–5

  Premier

  P.354

  October 1986

  43/18–1

  Amoco

  P.512

  November 1986

  21/28a–2

  Monument

  P.077

  December 1986

  49/28–14

  ARCO

  P.037

  April 1987

  9/15a–1

  Kerr McGee

  P.090

  June 1987

  47/03b–4

  BG E & P

  P.016

  July 1987

  49/29b–5

  Mobil

  P.105

  July 1987

  29/06a–3

  Elf Caledonia

  P.244

  September 1987

  14/20b–18

  Amerada Hess

  P.324

  October 1987

  44/28–3

  Shell

  P.453

  October 1987

  48/23–3

  ARCO

  P.467

  November 1987

  98/07–2

  BP

  P.534

  November 1987

  48/10b–3

  Conoco

  P.519

  December 1987

  22/12a–1

  Enterprise

  P.077

  December 1987

  3/19b–2

  Total

  P.491

  June 1988

  15/29a–3

  Texaco

  P.119

  July 1988

  110/03b–4

  Kerr McGee

  P.543

  December 1988

  3/20a–1

  Total

  P.239

  December 1988

  43/19–1

  Amoco

  P.607

  January 1989

  44/19–3

  CalEnergy

  P.610

  January 1989

  15/21a–38Z

  Amerada Hess

  P.218

  February 1989

  22/13a–1

  Enterprise

  P.096

  February 1989

  3/03–11

  Kerr McGee

  P.202

  March 1989

  9/14b–4

  Kerr McGee

  P.277

  March 1989

  42/28a–3

  Amoco

  P.016

  April 1989

  21/27–1A

  Fina

  P.595

  April 1989

  43/20b–2

  Amoco

  P.608

  May 1989

  48/09–2

  Conoco

  P.459

  May 1989

  14/19b–23

  Elf Caledonia

  P.250

  June 1989

  123W

  Well number

  Licence Operator at the end of 1999

  Licence number

  Date discovered

  30/14–1

  Fina

  P.255

  August 1989

  53/02–8

  Mobil

  P.025

  September 1989

  48/07b–8

  Britoil

  P.138

  October 1989

  16/22–5

  Elf

  P.240

  October 1989

  42/29–6

  BP

  P.001

  November 1989

  30/03a–1

  Petrobras

  P.111

  November 1989

  22/30a–5

  Shell

  P.012

  November 1989

  16/03a–11

  Marathon

  P.108

  January 1990

  30/13–3

  Phillips

  P.079

  February 1990

  15/17–24

  Elf Caledonia

  P.250

  March 1990

  15/24a–4

  Chevron

  P.209

  May 1990

  44/22b–8

  Conoco

  P.451

  May 1990

  42/28b–5

  Amoco

  P.606

  July 1990

  42/29–7

  BP

  P.001

  July 1990

  15/25b–3

  Unlicensed

  P.417

  July 1990

  13/22b–4

  Talisman

  P.635

  July 1990

  205/26a–3

  Amerada Hess

  P.164

  October 1990

  9/19–8

  Mobil

  P.103

  January 1991

  49/11b–8

  Conoco

  P.130

  February 1991

  48/22–4

  Mobil

  P.697

  February 1991

  21/20b–4

  Shell

  P.421

  March 1991

  16/12a–14

  LASMO

  P.212

  May 1991

  30/02a–2

  Shell

  P.098

  May 1991

  30/07a–10

  Phillips

  P.032

  August 1991

  110/08a–4

  Burlington

  P.251

  October 1991

  3/19a–4

  Total

  P.239

  November 1991

  110/02b–10

  Burlington

  P.706

  January 1992

  44/17–2

  Conoco

  P.691

  January 1992

  44/16–1Z

  LASMO

  P.690

  February 1992

  43/21–2

  Unlicensed

  P.682

  February 1992

  22/29–2

  Shell

  P.012

  March 1992

  15/21a–46

  Amerada Hess

  P.218

  April 1992

  44/23a–10

  Total

  P.452

  April 1992

  205/26a–4

  Amerada Hess

  P.164

  May 1992

  22/22b–2

  PanCanadian

  P.233

  May 1992

  15/21b–47

  Amerada Hess

  P.218

  June 1992

  15/20b–11Y

  Unlicensed

  P.735

  October 1992

  53/03c–3

  Amoco

  P.786

  November 1992

  211/23b–11

  Amerada Hess

  P.721

  December 1992

  16/12a–18Z

  LASMO

  P.212

  December 1992

  113/29–2

  Unlicensed

  P.712

  December 1992

  44/24–4

  Fina

  P.611

  January 1993

  22/25b–5

  Shell

  P.598

  January 1993

  30/11b–3

  Amoco

  P.185

  February 1993

  29/07–5

  Shell

  P.012

  March 1993

  15/21b–50

  Amerada Hess

  P.588

  September 1993

  16/26–25

  Chevron

  P.213

  October 1993

  44/29b–4

  Fina

  P.454

  November 1993

  15/21a–51

  Amerada Hess

  P.218

  December 1993

  110/13–14

  BHP

  P.710

  December 1993

  47/03e–8

  BP

  P.774

  January 1994

  16/29a–11Y

  Phillips

  P.110

  January 1994

  49/09a–3

  Shell

  P.132

  February 1994

  43/22–2

  Unlicensed

  P.683

  April 1994

  15/29a–9

  Texaco

  P.119

  September 1994

  211/23b–12

  Amerada Hess

  P.721

  October 1994

  103/01–1

  Marathon

  P.804

  October 1994

  49/18–5Z

  Amoco

  P.016

  April 1995

  16/03b–8Z

  Marathon

  P.313

  May 1995

  50/26b–6

  Britoil

  P.703

  June 1995

  22/30a–14Z

  Shell

  P.012

  July 1995

  48/20a–7

  Shell

  P.008

  September 1995

  204/19–8Z

  BP

  P.556

  June 1996

  20/05c–6

  Talisman

  P.593

  July 1996

  14/29a–3

  Shell

  P.739

  September 1996

  210/24a–8

  Amerada Hess

  P.472

  October 1996

  11/24–1

  Amerada Hess

  P.807

  November 1996

  22/18–7

  Amoco

  P.292

  November 1996

  14/18b–12

  Texaco

  P.580

  November 1996

  21/19–6

  Shell

  P.238

  December 1996

  49/19–6

  Shell

  P.008

  January 1997

  15/23d–13

  BG E & P

  P.815

  February 1997

  9/11b–11

  Texaco

  P.726

  April 1997

  124W

  Well number

  Licence Operator at the end of 1999

  Licence number

  Date discovered

  22/23b–5

  Shell

  P.233

  September 1997

  211/21a–17

  Shell

  P.296

  December 1997

  14/26a–6

  ARCO

  P.300

  January 1998

  44/17a–4

  Conoco

  P.691

  February 1998

  47/10–6

  BG E & P

  P.776

  March 1998

  49/19–7

  Shell

  P.008

  June 1998

  21/12–3

  Shell

  P.073

  August 1998

  16/21c–32

  Talisman

  P.344

  November 1998

  30/07a–12

  Phillips

  P.032

  February 1999

  29/04d–4

  Elf

  P.752

  March 1999

  211/23a–15Z

  Shell

  P.269

  April 1999

  21/24–6

  Shell

  P.021

  August 1999

  I am withholding details of four recent discoveries at the request of the operators for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Timeshare House Boats
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce a statutory cooling off period for the purchase of timeshare house boats; and if he will make a statement. [124511]

  Dr. Howells
  Implementing a commitment in their Consumer White Paper "modern markets; confident consumers", the Government published a consultation paper on 25 April reviewing whether aspects of UK timeshare legislation need updating. Among the aspects under review is timeshare in floating vessels.

  Copies can be viewed in the House of Commons Library or at the DTI website address: www.dti.gov.uk/cacp/ca/consulta.htm

  The deadline for responses to the consultation is 31 July 2000.

  Post Office Advisory Committee
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the future of local Post Office advisory committees. [124498]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Postal Services Bill is going through Parliament and the new Consumer Council for Postal Services (CCPS) is expected to be in place by 1 January 2001. It has been widely accepted that the existing arrangements for consumer representation in postal services should be reviewed as part of the process of forming the new Council. In April, Peter Carr, Chairman of the Post Office Users' National Council (POUNC) and Chair designate of the CCPS, issued a consultation document that sought views from interested parties on the new regional structure for CCPS.

  It would be premature to make a statement until Peter Carr has had an opportunity to examine all the views he has received and has formally submitted his proposals to the Secretary of State for him to consider and approve.

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce a new programme of support for offshore wind energy projects; and if he will make a statement. [124680]
  125W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government fully recognise the importance of offshore wind in reaching the target of providing 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable energy by 2010.

  As I mentioned in the "Conclusions in Response to the Public Consultation" on renewable energy, the Government are looking at the possibility of some limited additional support for offshore wind (and energy crops). The renewable energy industry has also been consulted as part of the DETR—led consultation on the Energy Efficiency Measures under the Climate Change Levy package, on how a part of the £50 million Levy Fund might be used to promote renewables.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the Foyle Airline's involvement in carrying arms to Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [123555]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: None.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions since 31 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124117]

  Mr. Byers
  During the period 31 March 1999 to the end of March 2000, Special Advisers in this department travelled overseas on one occasion.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the(a) Latvian and (b) University of Berne Schwarzenberg studies on populations residing in the vicinity of radio telecommunications masts; and what is his planned programme for the further review by the Stuart Committee. [123891]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Latvian study is of populations residing in close proximity to a military radio location station that operates a high power pulsed radar installation. The University of Berne study examined the local population residing in the vicinity of a high power short wave broadcast transmitter located at Schwarzenburg in Switzerland. Although the Schwarzenburg installation is also used for air radio and wireless telecommunications, the authors of the study note that these operate at far lower levels and suggest that they can be neglected. Thus neither study is directly relevant to radio telecommunications. I have nevertheless asked the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) for advice about these studies.

  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (IEGMP), chaired by Sir William Stewart, recommended a further review of possible health effects of mobile phone technology in three years time, or earlier if circumstances demand it. The Government response confirmed we are keen to maintain the momentum of reviewing the health effects of mobile phone technologies and recognises that the IEGMP recommends a further review in three years' time. We will be asking for further research in this area to be kept under continual review by the National
  126W
  Radiological Protection Board, and we expect a report on progress with both national and international research activities to be produced in three years' time, or when significant information becomes available.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Early Years Education
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the accuracy of forecasts of pre-school learning places made by(a) his Department and (b) the pre-school Learning Alliance since 1997. [123101]

    Ms Hodge
    My Department collects information about pupils in maintained and independent schools in the Annual Schools Census. Information about Government—funded places in private nursery schools, pre-schools and playgroups, and independent schools, which are registered with Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships, is obtained from the Early Years Census.

    I understand that the pre-school Learning Alliance (PLA) does not collect information about pre-school places, but it does conduct an annual survey of a sample of pre-schools asking whether they think their group is threatened with closure. The PLA's most recent survey published in March was based on a sample of 722 pre-schools and playgroups.

    We commissioned an independent review of pre-schools and playgroups last summer to look at what further steps could be taken to help pre-schools and playgroups play their full part in the expansion of early education and child care services, and have responded positively to its recommendations. We also announced a further scheme to assist pre-schools and playgroups facing financial difficulties.

    Mr. Ashdown
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places in pre-school education for three-year-olds have been funded by the Government in each local education authority; what proportion of this age cohort this represents for each local education authority; and if he will make a statement. [122239]

    Ms Hodge
    [holding answer 16 May 2000]: The Government provided specific funding for new, free early education places for three-year-olds for the first time in 1999–2000, although some local education authorities did provide free places before that. The following table shows the number of free early education places for three-year-olds funded by means of Nursery Education Grant in spring term 2000, the latest period for which figures are available. 65 local education authorities received grants for the spring term. From the summer term 2000, all will do so. In 1999–2000, 80 per cent. of the new Government—funded places were in the private and voluntary sectors. £100 million is being provided for 2000–01 which will fund an additional 83,000 places.

    These figures do not include funding for provision for under-fives in the maintained sector made through the Standard Spending Assessment. We will shortly be publishing data from the annual Schools Census on the

    127W
    number of children receiving free early education places in the maintained sector, and a copy will be placed in the Library.

    Population estimates for individual years of age are not sufficiently robust, at local education authority level, to enable the calculation of participation rates.

    Local education authority area

    Three-year-old places

    Barking and Dagenham

    294

    Barnsley

    226

    Birmingham

    3,487

    Blackburn with Darwen

    438

    Blackpool

    1,271

    Bolton

    796

    Bradford

    805

    Brent

    754

    Brighton and Hove

    712

    Camden

    769

    City of Leicester

    964

    Cornwall

    1,666

    Coventry

    1,047

    Doncaster

    110

    Durham

    357

    Ealing

    555

    Gateshead

    562

    Greenwich

    715

    Hackney

    964

    Halton

    565

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    421

    Haringey

    734

    Hartlepool

    36

    Hounslow

    479

    Isle of Wight

    23

    Islington

    793

    Kingston upon Hull

    460

    Kirklees

    407

    Knowsley

    73

    Lambeth

    1,356

    Leeds

    1,779

    Lewisham

    830

    Liverpool

    1,297

    Manchester

    529

    Middlesbrough

    53

    North East Lincolnshire

    521

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    823

    Newham

    743

    North Tyneside

    54

    Nottingham, City of

    657

    Oldham

    846

    Plymouth

    358

    Redcar and Cleveland

    2

    Rochdale

    885

    Rotherham

    811

    Salford

    147

    Sandwell

    471

    Sefton

    321

    Sheffield

    1,808

    Table 1: Children aged three in free early—years education places1 England and each local education authority in London, 1996–2000 (provisional)

    Position as at January

    LEA name

    19962

    19972

    19982

    19992

    20033,5

    England

    210,075

    214,173

    222,031

    225,669

    266,410

    Barking and Dagenham4

    1,331

    1,332

    1,408

    1,329

    1,630

    Barnet

    1,780

    2,021

    2,010

    2,026

    2,010

    Bexley

    1,009

    1,069

    1,242

    1,300

    1,390

    Brent4

    1,778

    1,712

    1,706

    1,708

    2,380

    Bromley

    111

    107

    197

    216

    240

    Camden4

    765

    802

    890

    928

    1,450

    City of London

    12

    11

    15

    11

    10

    Croydon

    1,420

    1,537

    1,720

    1,859

    1,830

    128W

    Local education authority area

    Three-year-old places

    South Tyneside

    81

    Southwark

    745

    St. Helens

    362

    Stockton on Tees

    67

    Stoke on Trent

    332

    Sunderland

    690

    Tameside

    516

    Telford and Wrekin

    464

    Tower Hamlets

    315

    Wakefield

    478

    Walsall

    102

    Waltham Forest

    773

    Wandsworth

    1,393

    Westminster

    579

    Wirral

    1,206

    Wolverhampton

    135

    Total

    43,012

    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many three-year-olds had free early-years education places providing five or more sessions of education per week(a) in 1979, (b) in 1990 and (c) for each year from 1992 to 1999 (i) in England and (ii) in each local education authority in London. [122709]

    Ms Hodge
    [holding answer 19 May 2000]: The information is not available in the form requested. Up to September 1999, 'free' places for three-year-olds were available only in maintained nursery and primary schools funded directly by local education authorities. Since September 1999 specific funding by the Government for three-year-olds has been extended to private, voluntary and independent providers via the Early-Years Development and Childcare Partnerships in 65 local education authorities, including 18 London authorities. From summer 2000 this extra funding will be available in all local authority areas.

    The available information on the numbers of three-year-olds in early-years provision for England and in each local education authority in London is shown in the following tables. Table 1 gives the number of children in free early-years education places from 1996 to 2000. Table 2 shows the number of new funded places for three-year-olds being created in all sectors over the next year, including projected figures for summer 2000, autumn 2000 and spring 2001.

    The new places are supported by £100 million of funding. Half of all three-year-olds will have access to a free place by spring 2001, and the Government are well on track to meet the 2002 target of expanding overall nursery provision to 66 per cent. of three-year-olds.
    129W

    Table 1: Children aged three in free early-years education places1 England and each local education authority in London, 1996–2000 (provisional)

    Position as at January

    LEA name

    19962

    19972

    19982

    19992

    20003,5

    Ealing4

    2,705

    2,625

    2,692

    2,686

    3,140

    Enfield

    1,110

    1,112

    1,136

    1,235

    1,230

    Greenwich4

    1,785

    1,981

    1,841

    1,889

    2,600

    Hackney4

    1,536

    1,474

    1,543

    1,624

    2,430

    Hammersmith and Fulham4

    1,055

    1,053

    1,055

    1,061

    1,470

    Haringey4

    1,894

    2,004

    1,944

    1,949

    2,210

    Harrow

    489

    451

    588

    576

    620

    Havering

    378

    449

    464

    459

    550

    Hillingdon

    473

    560

    620

    636

    1,360

    Hounslow4

    1,562

    1,563

    1,605

    1,505

    1,990

    Islington4

    1,342

    1,266

    1,256

    1,283

    1,840

    Kensington and Chelsea

    486

    542

    523

    513

    590

    Kingston upon Thames

    931

    888

    892

    892

    930

    Lambeth4

    1,396

    1,462

    1,855

    1,911

    3,150

    Lewisham4

    1,363

    1,412

    1,475

    1,877

    2,560

    Merton

    1,749

    1,644

    1,707

    1,668

    1,670

    Newham4

    2,074

    2,030

    2,103

    3,189

    3,860

    Redbridge

    626

    687

    824

    1,318

    1,600

    Richmond upon Thames

    597

    570

    587

    555

    590

    Southwark4

    2,158

    2,222

    2,290

    2,278

    2,820

    Sutton

    270

    325

    259

    289

    250

    Tower Hamlets4

    2,288

    2,340

    2,264

    2,405

    2,610

    Waltham Forest4

    1,069

    944

    1,209

    1,281

    2,040

    Wandsworth4

    1,590

    1,614

    1,590

    1,584

    2,860

    Westminster4

    737

    727

    794

    824

    1,300

    1 Prior to September 1999, free places for three-year-olds were only available in maintained nursery and primary schools. Since September 1999 funding has been extended to private, voluntary and independent providers.

    2 Headcount numbers collected from maintained schools in January each year as part of the Annual Schools' Census.

    3 Estimates combining Annual Schools' Census data from maintained schools in January 2000 and data submitted by LEAs for Nursery Education Grant purposes relating to private, voluntary and independent providers in spring 2000.

    4 LEAs eligible to provide funding for three-year-olds in the private, voluntary and independent sectors via Early-Years Development and Childcare Partnerships. In spring 2000 there were a total of 65 such LEAs in England.

    5 Provisional.

    Table 2: New funded places for three-year-olds1 in England and in each local education authority in London by sector: projected position as at summer 2000, autumn 2000 and spring 2001

    Summer 2000

    LEA name

    LEA maintained

    Private

    Voluntary

    Independent

    England

    6,067

    25,598

    24,953

    3,344

    Barking and Dagenham

    100

    60

    202

    0

    Barnet

    0

    41

    40

    0

    Bexley

    0

    0

    55

    0

    Brent

    0

    750

    50

    0

    Bromley

    25

    170

    171

    0

    Camden

    0

    0

    0

    0

    City of London

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Croydon

    0

    450

    450

    0

    Ealing

    25

    335

    50

    0

    Enfield

    0

    428

    0

    0

    Greenwich

    10

    205

    273

    186

    Hackney

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    0

    332

    41

    10

    Haringey

    230

    50

    420

    4

    Harrow

    0

    30

    0

    0

    Havering

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Hillingdon

    0

    492

    0

    0

    Hounslow

    146

    417

    78

    0

    Islington

    188

    171

    481

    0

    Kensington and Chelsea

    0

    150

    180

    0

    Kingston upon Thames

    0

    35

    0

    0

    Lambeth

    153

    550

    497

    200

    Lewisham

    0

    411

    423

    0

    Merton

    0

    5

    5

    2

    Newham

    250

    100

    315

    0

    Redbridge

    26

    400

    400

    87

    Richmond upon Thames

    41

    0

    0

    0

    Southwark

    128

    51

    419

    0

    Sutton

    0

    23

    23

    0

    130W

    131W

    Table 2: New funded places for three-year-olds1 in England and in each local education authority in London by sector: projected position as at summer 2000, autumn 2000 and spring 2001

    Summer 2000

    LEA name

    LEA maintained

    Private

    Voluntary

    Independent

    Tower Hamlets

    0

    0

    275

    0

    Waltham Forest

    1,110

    282

    541

    5

    Wandsworth

    282

    600

    250

    366

    Westminster

    107

    188

    251

    60

    Autumn 2000

    LEA name

    LEA maintained

    Private

    Voluntary

    Independent

    England

    11,282

    30,025

    25,941

    4,808

    Barking and Dagenham

    30

    10

    60

    0

    Barnet

    0

    41

    40

    0

    Bexley

    0

    0

    74

    0

    Brent

    0

    750

    50

    0

    Bromley

    0

    170

    171

    0

    Camden

    214

    172

    189

    0

    City of London

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Croydon

    0

    450

    450

    0

    Ealing

    25

    335

    50

    0

    Enfield

    0

    886

    0

    0

    Greenwich

    10

    205

    273

    186

    Hackney

    95

    15

    231

    284

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    0

    329

    41

    10

    Haringey

    650

    25

    25

    4

    Harrow

    0

    300

    0

    0

    Havering

    240

    56

    13

    9

    Hillingdon

    0

    554

    0

    0

    Hounslow

    146

    135

    25

    0

    Islington

    188

    171

    469

    0

    Kensington and Chelsea

    150

    180

    0

    0

    Kingston upon Thames

    0

    35

    0

    0

    Lambeth

    153

    550

    497

    200

    Lewisham

    0

    430

    423

    0

    Merton

    0

    5

    5

    2

    Newham

    250

    450

    450

    0

    Redbridge

    26

    400

    400

    87

    Richmond upon Thames

    4

    0

    0

    0

    Southwark

    128

    51

    419

    0

    Sutton

    0

    23

    23

    0

    Tower Hamlets

    0

    0

    275

    0

    Waltham Forest

    1,110

    282

    541

    5

    Wandsworth

    799

    589

    265

    366

    Westminster

    107

    188

    251

    60

    Spring 2001

    LEA name

    LEA maintained

    Private

    Voluntary

    Independent

    England

    10,673

    30,937

    28,006

    2,569

    Barking and Dagenham

    35

    30

    259

    0

    Barnet

    0

    41

    40

    0

    Bexley

    0

    0

    45

    0

    Brent

    0

    750

    50

    0

    Bromley

    0

    170

    171

    0

    Camden

    364

    311

    222

    3

    City of London

    1

    0

    0

    0

    Croydon

    0

    450

    450

    0

    Ealing

    25

    335

    50

    0

    Enfield

    0

    1,314

    0

    0

    Greenwich

    10

    205

    273

    186

    Hackney

    179

    121

    490

    340

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    0

    327

    41

    10

    Haringey

    120

    50

    430

    4

    Harrow

    0

    300

    0

    0

    Havering

    0

    0

    0

    0

    Hillingdon

    0

    432

    0

    0

    Hounslow

    146

    257

    48

    0

    Islington

    188

    171

    481

    0

    132W

    133W

    Spring 2001

    LEA name

    LEA maintained

    Private

    Voluntary

    Independent

    Kensington and Chelsea

    150

    180

    0

    0

    Kingston upon Thames

    0

    35

    0

    0

    Lambeth

    153

    550

    497

    200

    Lewisham

    0

    430

    448

    0

    Merton

    0

    15

    10

    2

    Newham

    250

    100

    250

    0

    Redbridge

    26

    400

    400

    87

    Richmond upon Thames

    41

    0

    0

    0

    Southwark

    128

    51

    419

    0

    Sutton

    0

    23

    23

    0

    Tower Hamlets

    0

    0

    275

    0

    Waltham Forest

    1,110

    282

    541

    5

    Wandsworth

    297

    629

    265

    366

    Westminster

    107

    188

    251

    60

    1 Estimates based upon an analysis of Early—Years Development and Childcare Partnership Plans

    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Secretary of state for Education and Employment (1) how much his Department has spent on the provision of nursery places; and what estimate he has made of the number of nursery places created by this funding in each year since 1997 and in 2000–01; [122529]

    (2) how much has been spent by his Department on the provision of nursery places since 1997; [122605]

    (3) what estimate his Department has made of the number of nursery places in each year since 1997. [123021]

    Ms Hodge
    [holding answers 17 May 2000, 18 May 2000 and 22 May 2000]: The following table shows the number of early education places for three and four-year-olds that have been taken up in each year since 1997. It also shows the amount of funding the Government have made available to fund these places through either Nursery Education Grant or the Under Five's Education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) sub block, which has been increased by £253 million from £1,089 million in 1997–98 to £1,342 million in 2000–01, and on current plans is estimated to increase to £1,430 million in 2001–02. The 1998 figure represents an increase of 25 per cent. in the number of free, early education places taken up in 1992.

    Estimated take up of 3 and 4–year—old places for each year between 1997–98 and 2001–02 with associated funding

    Funding £ million

    Places

    1997–98

    1,189

    787,976

    1998–99

    1,299.7

    800,560

    1999–2000

    1,441.9

    858,944

    2000–01

    1,567.4

    908,085

    2001–02

    1,805

    1,015,000

    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pre-school learning places have(a) ceased to exist and (b) been created in each year since April 1991. [123100]

    Ms Hodge
    Information is not available in the form requested. The Department does collect information on playgroups and other day care facilities, which is published in Statistical Volume "Children's Day Care Facilities" (as at 31 March) which is available from the Library. This shows that the total number of places in pre-schools and playgroups fell from 383,700 in 1997 to 134W
    347,200 in 1999, a reduction of 36,500. This was due to the introduction of vouchers by the previous Administration. However, since 1999, information from Early Years Development Plans indicates that an extra 33,000 places will have been created in playgroups and the voluntary sector by Spring 2001 as a result of the introduction of early years development partnerships.

    The number of funded early education places for three and four year olds that have been taken up in each year since 1997 are as follows:

    Year

    Number

    1997–98

    787,976

    1998–99

    800,560

    1999–00

    858,944

    2000–01

    908,085

    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reviews he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of the funding mechanism for the provision of pre-school learning places. [123103]

    Ms Hodge
    The independent review of pre-schools and playgroups, commissioned by the Government last year, included several recommendations concerning funding for early years. The main recommendation called for consultation on the feasibility of a funding system to replace the nursery grants and child care grant, which would allow greater flexibility to meet local needs, and greater stability for pre-schools and playgroups. The progress report, published last week, set out the current position: the Department will, as part of its own spending review, evaluate whether changes can be made to the current arrangements to further assist those nursery settings outside the maintained sector. We expect to complete this by the end of the year.

    In response to other funding recommendations in the report, we have announced funding of £500,000 for a further scheme to assist pre-schools and playgroups facing financial difficulties, to give them a further breathing space as policy initiatives work through to individual groups, and £250,000 for projects to help pre-schools and playgroups develop, in partnership with others, as the early education and care places expand.

    Further Education
    Mrs. Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average length of a post vacancy for a further education college lecturer in England; and how many posts are vacant in further education colleges in England. [124176]

    Mr. Wicks
    Each college in the further education sector is responsible for the recruitment of its staff. Information on vacancies and the duration of posts for further education lecturers in England is not held centrally.

    Mrs. Organ
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the reasons why the further education sector has been excluded from the South-West transition group for the local learning and skills councils; and if this is the case in other regions. [124174]

    Mr. Wicks
    The role of the South West task groups is to collect information from current funding bodies (such as TECs, FEFC, and local education authorities) on the range and volume of provision currently being funded in each Learning and Skills Council area. The aim is to ensure that sufficient funds will be available in each area to at least maintain current levels of provision and to avoid any disruption to learners from the introduction of the new arrangements.

    There is no requirement for further education colleges to be represented on task groups since they are not funding bodies. However, a representative of the Association of Colleges is a member of the Regional Transition Steering Group, which oversees the transition to the new arrangements in the South West. Similar arrangements apply in other regions.

    National Curriculum (History)
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the textbook entitled Minds and Machines—Britain 1750–1900, published by Longman, is an approved text for Key Stage 3 of the National Curriculum. [122348]

    Jacqui Smith
    It has always been for governing bodies and teachers to decide which books best meet the requirements of the National Curriculum in their school. In history at Key Stage 3, the curriculum requires the study of Britain 1750–1900 including how worldwide expansion, industrialisation and political developments combined to shape modern Britain.

    Child Care
    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the annual cost of the National Child Care Strategy to date; and what his estimate is of the annual impact of this policy on the provision of child care places in each year since its establishment and in 2000–01. [122530]

    Ms Hodge
    [holding answer 16 May 2000]: The annual costs of the National Child Care Strategy in England and related new child care places are as follows:
    In 1998–99 £46 million was spent and 66,000 new child care places were created; this includes £5 million to the Further Education Funding Council who created 11,000 places for students in Further Education.
    136W
    In 1999–2000 a total of £58.25 million was spent, £17 million of which was from the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) on out of school hours care, and £5 million was through the Further Education Funding Council on places for 0–4 year olds. Forecasts indicate that at the end of March 2000, 120,000 new places will have been created; this includes 5,000 through the FEFC.
    In 2000–2001 £63 million has been allocated to provide 135,000 new child care places; this includes £5 million for FEFC to provide 5,000 new places for 0–4 year olds. NOF do not allocate resources on an annual basis as this is a rolling programme, but £170 million is available from 1999–2003 to support the creation of new out of school places.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. Fallon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many claimants were refused unemployment benefit because they declined to take an available job in 1997, 1998 and 1999. [122389]

    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 16 May 2000]: Unemployment Benefit was replaced by Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in October 1996. The following figures, which we collect on a quarterly basis within operational years, include JSA sanctions imposed as a result of jobseekers refusing offers of employment, and a small number of Unemployment Benefit disqualifications relating to refusal of employment doubts arising before JSA was introduced.

    Operational year

    Refusal of employment disqualifications/sanctions

    1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

    22,738

    1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

    11,442

    1 April 1999 to 31 December 1999

    13,530

    Figures for the final quarter of the 1999–2000 operational year, from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2000, have not yet been published. Information on the numbers and types of decisions given by Employment Service Decision Makers on JSA labour market questions are published in the "Analysis of Sector Decision Making" (formerly known as the "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions"), copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library. The figures for the quarter ending March 2000 will be published by the end of May and placed in the Library.

    PGCE Courses
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the oral statement of the Parliamentary under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment of 16 May 2000,Official Report, columns 252–53, how many applications for PGCE courses in secondary teaching in (a) maths, (b) modern foreign languages, (c) science and (d) technology have been received since 30 March; and how many were received in the corresponding period in the previous year. [123037]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The Government announced on 30 March that training salaries would be introduced for postgraduate trainees starting initial teacher training courses from September 2000. Applications for PGCE courses in England and Wales for secondary teaching in
    137W
    maths, modern foreign languages, science and technology received since 30 March together with comparative figures for the previous year are given in the table.

    Applications from 1 April 2000 to 13 May 2000

    Applications from 3 April 1999 to 15 May 1999

    Mathematics

    208

    209

    Science

    467

    460

    Modem Languages

    385

    268

    Technology

    202

    175

    Note:

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

    Source:

    Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR)

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications have been received for PGCE courses in(a) primary teaching and (b) secondary teaching, broken down by subject, commencing in September 2000 according to the most recent figures available; and how many were received at the same stage the previous year for commencement in September 1999. [123052]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Numbers of applications for postgraduate initial teacher training courses in England and Wales at primary level and secondary level by subject, together with comparative figures for last year are given in the following table.

    13 May 2000

    15 May 1999

    Primary

    11,953

    12,912

    Mathematics

    822

    966

    English and Drama

    2,033

    2,285

    Science

    1,838

    2,060

    Modem Languages

    1,529

    1,529

    Technology

    694

    822

    History

    1,290

    1,425

    Geography

    707

    796

    PE

    1,392

    1,313

    Art

    842

    906

    Music

    416

    462

    RE

    491

    589

    Other

    362

    452

    Total Secondary

    12,416

    13,605

    Total

    24,369

    26,517

    Notes:

    1. For the first time, applications for PGCE primary courses in 1999–2000 had a deadline of 15 December 1998 for guaranteed consideration by their first choice institution. The 15 December deadline has continued for 2000–01.

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

    3. Primary includes Middle (Key Stage 2/3).

    Source:

    Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR).

    The Government announced on 30 March that training salaries would be introduced for postgraduate trainees starting initial teacher training courses from September 2000. Since that date 502 (22 per cent.) more applications
    138W
    have been input on the Graduate Teacher Training Registry computer system than for the equivalent period last year.

    Public Bodies (Relocation)
    Mr. Steinberg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and local public spending bodies for which his Department is responsible that(a) have been transferred since 1992 and (b) are planned to be transferred (i) to and (ii) from the Northern Region. [123409]

    Mr. Wills
    There has not been any transfer of executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies or local public spending bodies for which the Department is responsible to, or from, the Northern Region since 1992. Similarly, there are no plans for any transfer.

    Skills Shortages
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional help has been provided to small and medium-sized enterprises since May 1997 to help them tackle skills shortages. [123460]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 23 May 2000]: Much of the support provided to help small and medium-sized enterprises tackle skills shortages is distributed through Training and Enterprise Councils. In particular, the Department provides the Councils with a flexible local competitiveness budget to help support local firms. In the last three financial years this budget has totalled £180 million.

    In autumn this year, I expect the Government's plans for a university for industry to come to fruition, when learndirect becomes fully operational. Small and medium-sized enterprises are a priority for learndirect, and it will introduce new and more flexible ways for small firms to meet their skills needs, through the internet and a range of high quality on-line learning materials. Last year the Government made some £50 million available to develop this important new initiative and have just announced funding of £84 million for this year.

    The Department also funds the Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative (SFEDI) to share good business practice and to help small firms survive and thrive. It provides support to small businesses from sole traders to companies with up to 20 employees.

    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in the process of establishing a new Small Business Service to provide comprehensive support to small and medium-sized enterprises, including support for the development of their workforces. The full local network is expected to be in place by April 2001.

    Sixth Forms
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent research he has commissioned on pupil performance in small sixth forms; and if he will make a statement. [123508]
    139W
    Mr. Wicks
    Our most recent statistics show that, in 1998–99, average GCE A—level points scores for 17-year-olds attempting 1+ A/AS level (excluding General Studies) in maintained school sixth forms were as follows:

    Point scores

    Average

    15.3

    50 pupils or less

    9.2

    201 pupils or more

    16.6

    Socrates Programme
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the objectives of the youth element of the Socrates Programme in the UK concerning the Building of Europe and Strengthening of Sense of Solidarity; what specific European(a) social and (b) political model is envisaged; and if he will make a statement. [123603]

    Ms Jowell
    The EU Socrates Programme supports education co-operation between member states and does not support youth activities. These are covered by the EU Youth Programme which principally supports exchanges of young people between member states. Article 2.1 (a) and (b) of the European Council Decision1 under which the Youth Programme operates states that the objectives of the programme are:

    (a) "to promote an active contribution by young people to the building of Europe through their participation in transnational exchanges within the Community or with third countries so as develop understanding of the cultural diversity of Europe and its fundamental common values, thus helping to promote respect for human rights and to combat racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia;

    (b) to strengthen their sense of solidarity through more extensive participation by young people in transnational community—service activities within the Community or with third countries, in particular those with which the Community has concluded co-soperation agreements".

    The Council Decision does not envisage or promote any specific European social or political model.

    1 Decision No. 1031/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2000 establishing the "Youth" Community action programme (Official Journal L 117, 18.5.2000, p. 1).

    Education and the Euro
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the(a) mandate and (b) activities to date of the European Community Working Group on Education and the Euro, with particular reference to its planned activities in the UK. [123614]

    Ms Jowell
    This Commission working group was set up to exchange experience and good practice about euro information activities for schools. It has met three times to date. The group does not have the power to propose activity in the UK or any other member state.

    Laptops
    Mr. Keith Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many laptop computers 140W
    used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been (a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123734]

    Mr. Wills
    [holding answer 25 May 2000]: Since May 1997, 17 laptop computers have been reported as stolen in the Department for Education and Employment. None has been reported as lost. In order to counter future incidents of theft, laptop computers are now electronically tagged.

    Student Financial Support
    Mr. Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial support is available to students in the first 28 weeks of leave of absence for the purpose of medical treatment or therapy. [123761]

    Mr. Wicks
    Under the Education (Student Support) Regulations, full-time students in England and Wales who are absent from their course because of illness are entitled to continue to receive student support for the first 60 days of absence. Before academic year 1998–99 this was only 28 days. Local education authorities have the discretion to decide whether such students continue to receive support after the first 60 days' absence. Among the factors they will consider in coming to a decision is the possibility of financial hardship.

    Additional assistance for students studying in the UK who are absent from their course due to illness may be available through the Access Funds. These allow universities and colleges to provide discretionary support for students in particular need; and a total of £76.4 million has been made available in England for the 1999–2000 academic year.

    British Sign Language
    Mr. Coaker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations he has received calling for the official recognition of British Sign Language; and if he will make a statement; [123770]

    (2) what plans he has to grant official recognition to British Sign Language. [123783]

    Ms Hodge
    The Government have received a number of representations about recognition of British Sign Language, particularly since they announced their intention to ratify the Council of Europe's "European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages". The Charter contains what appears to be a fairly specific definition of what constitutes a regional or minority language. It is clear that those who drafted the Charter did not intend that sign languages come within its terms. We understand that of the 22 member states which have signed the Charter, nine have ratified it and none of these countries has specified their indigenous sign language. We have concluded that consideration of sign languages should not impede signature and ratification but the issue should be explored with other parties once we have ratified the Charter. The Charter has been signed and ratification is currently subject to Parliamentary procedures. Our understanding is that, after ratification, representations on sign languages could be considered by the Charter's Committee of Experts in about 18 months' time when the UK would be submitting its report on the implementation of its obligations under the Charter.

    Deaf Children
    Mr. Coaker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of specialist nursery provision for children who are deaf; and if he will make a statement. [123772]

    Jacqui Smith
    Inspection of specialist and mainstream early education provision is carried out by Ofsted. The inspectors check whether staff in the settings are following the Desirable Learning Outcomes (to be replaced with the new Early Learning Goals in September 2000) and are having regard to the Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs (SEN).

    Where settings cater mainly for children with SEN, the inspection is undertaken by an inspector who is specially trained by Ofsted to inspect SEN provision, using additional guidance developed by Ofsted for this purpose.

    Opinion Research
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place copies of the

    Table of New Deal for Schools allocations—Shropshire local education authority

    £

    Project

    NDS 1 1997–98

    NDS 2 1998–99

    NDS 3 1999–2000

    NDS 4 2000–01

    LEA wide ICT package to provide fibre optic spines in 39 schools

    185,000

    —

    —

    —

    Wilfred Owen County Primary School—Replacement of classroom

    —

    37,950

    —

    —

    West Felton CE Primary School—Replacement of classroom

    —

    37,950

    —

    —

    Shrewsbury Severndale Special School—Replacement of classrooms

    —

    89,980

    —

    —

    Bridgnorth Oldbury Wells School—Repairs to concrete framing

    —

    264,000

    —

    —

    Adderley CE Primary School—Recovering of roof to demountable classroom

    —

    1,908

    —

    —

    Broseley the John Wilkinson CE Primary School—Recovering of roof to demountable classroom

    —

    1,908

    —

    —

    Market Drayton Junior School—Recovering of roof to demountable classroom

    —

    1,908

    —

    —

    Shrewsbury Harlescourt Junior School—Recovering of roof to demountable classroom

    —

    7,632

    —

    —

    Woodfield Infant School—Recovering of roof to demountable classroom

    —

    1,906

    —

    —

    Cleobury Mortimer Lacon Childe School—Recovering of roof to demountable classroom

    —

    3,816

    —

    —

    Ellesmere Lakelands—Recovering of roof to demountable classroom

    —

    1,908

    —

    —

    Rhyn Park School—Renewal of roof coverings to demountable classroom

    —

    4,368

    —

    —

    Belvedere School—Renewal of roof coverings to demountable classroom

    —

    3,816

    —

    —

    Meole Brace School—Renewal of roof coverings to demountable classroom

    —

    1,908

    —

    —

    Adams Wren School—Renewal of roof coverings to demountable classroom

    —

    1,908

    —

    —

    Clunbury CE School—Replace outside toilets

    —

    81,186

    —

    —

    Farlow CE Primary School—External WC replacement

    —

    63,250

    —

    —

    Bridgnorth St. Leonards Junior School—Repairs to SCOLA building

    —

    343,750

    —

    —

    Broseley CE Primary School—Repairs to SCOLA system building

    —

    233,200

    —

    —

    Shropshire Music and Arts Centre—Replacement of demountable

    —

    —

    71,991

    —

    Lakelands School—Replacement of dilapidated demountable

    —

    —

    39,176

    —

    Barrow CE School—Replacement of dilapidated demountable

    —

    —

    44,263

    —

    Caynham CE School—Replacement of dilapidated demountable

    —

    —

    45,678

    —

    St. Oswalds School—Replacement of dilapidated demountable

    —

    —

    45,067

    —

    Meole Brace School—Replace leaking roof

    —

    —

    66,000

    —

    Sir John Talbot School—Upgrade specialist accommodation

    —

    —

    49,960

    —

    Package of 4 schools—Improve inadequate fire precautions

    —

    —

    517,200

    —

    Package of 165 schools—Asbestos identification

    —

    —

    317,002

    —

    Condover CE Primary School—Replacement of HORSA building

    —

    —

    —

    265,299

    The Corbet School—Replacement of temporary classroom

    —

    —

    —

    55,780

    Holy Cross CE Junior School—Replacement of temporary classroom

    —

    —

    —

    38,700

    Ludlow School—Fire Precautions

    —

    —

    —

    123,557

    Community College, Bishops Castle—Replacement roof

    —

    —

    —

    175,974

    The Grove School—Replacement roof

    —

    —

    —

    120,765

    Shifnal Primary School—Refenestration

    —

    —

    —

    170,089

    Albrighton St. Mary's School—Refenestration

    —

    —

    —

    138,024

    Severndale School—Refenestration

    —

    —

    —

    119.148

    Radbrook Primary School—Replacement of hard play area

    —

    —

    —

    32,943

    Oldbury Wells School—Replacement of curtain walling

    —

    —

    —

    371,884

    142W
    results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123806]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 25 May 2000]: Results of some of the market and opinion research projects commissioned by the Department since May 1997 are already held in the House of Commons Library. I will arrange for the results of the other projects commissioned in this period to be sent to the Library.

    New Deal for Schools
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2000,Official Report, columns 291–93W, if he will list those New Deal for Schools allocations, about which information is held by Shropshire LEA, which do not relate wholly to Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [123911]

    Jacqui Smith
    The following table shows all allocations made to Shropshire local education authority through the New Deal for Schools programme.
    143W

    Table of New Deal for Schools allocations—Shropshire local education authority

    £

    Project

    NDS 1 1997–98

    NDS 2 1998–99

    NDS 3 1999–2000

    NDS 4 2000–01

    The Grove School—Replacement of curtain walling

    —

    —

    —

    44,053

    Package—Community College, Bishops Castle and William Brookes School Replacement of curtain walling

    —

    —

    —

    89,426

    The Grove School—Refurbishment of CDT areas

    —

    —

    —

    245,338

    Package—Albrighton Junior School, Wilfred Owen School, The Grange School, Bridgnorth Endowed School—Roofing repairs

    —

    —

    —

    216,889

    Bridgnorth St. Mary's School—Roofing repairs

    —

    —

    —

    35,398

    Shifnal St. Andrews School—Roofing repairs

    —

    —

    —

    159,584

    Package—Shifnal Primary School, Shawbury St. Mary's School, Springfield Infants School—Roof repairs and fire breaks

    —

    —

    —

    184,694

    Package—Buntingsdale Infants School, Ludlow Infants School—Roofing repairs to demountables

    —

    —

    —

    18,865

    Package—Beech Grove School, Springfield Infants School—Refenestration to Mk1 SCOLA buildings

    —

    —

    —

    143,106

    Severndale School—Replacement heating system

    —

    —

    —

    65,789

    Worfield Endowed School—Replace boiler

    —

    —

    —

    11,220

    Corvedale CE School—Replace boiler

    —

    —

    —

    11,715

    Bridgnorth St. Mary's—Replace boiler controls

    —

    —

    —

    3,300

    Bridgnorth St. John's School—Replace heating system

    —

    —

    —

    11,154

    The Corbett School—Replace heating boilers

    —

    —

    —

    60,537

    Worfield Endowed School—Replace fire alarm system

    —

    —

    —

    13,298

    St. Oswald's RC School—Replace electrical switchgear

    —

    —

    —

    4,660

    Package—Shawbury Primary School, Bomere Heath Primary School, Newtown School, Bishops Castle Primary School, Whitchurch Infant School, Kinnerley School, Bayston Hill Longmeadow School—Improvement to IT/GP areas

    —

    —

    —

    180,983

    Totals

    £185,000

    £184,252

    £1,196,337

    £3,112,172

    Forms
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123950]

    Mr. Wicks
    In its monitoring of regulatory impact, DfEE does not distinguish the numbers of forms issued exclusively to charities and voluntary organisations which they are required to complete. The collation of this data could be done only at disproportionate cost. However, I am unaware of any requirement placed on charities or voluntary organisations as such, over and above what applies equally to any other providers of education, training or employment.

    Part-time Employees (Pension Rights)
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has carried out of the costs to the further education sector of the recent European Court judgment retrospectively extending pension rights to Part-time employees. [123976]

    Mr. Wicks
    This is a complex ruling which needs careful consideration. It also has to be referred back to the House of Lords for their judgment.

    College Fees
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received in connection with the funding of college fees for graduates in receipt of financial support from a research council. [124538]
    144W
    Mr. Wicks
    The Secretary of State has received no recent representations on this issue.

    Higher Education Research
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued to those conducting the current review of the higher education research assessment exercise in connection with reduction of the administration requirements of the system. [124539]

    Mr. Wicks
    The Higher Education Funding Council for England, in collaboration with the other funding bodies in the United Kingdom, is carrying out its own fundamental review of research policy and funding. This includes an examination of the research assessment exercise and its continuing fitness for purpose. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has given no guidance to the Funding Council on how to carry out this review, which is expected to result in a report for consultation later this summer.

    Investors in People
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which Careers Service contractors hold(a) a Charter Mark, (b) an Investors in People award and (c) an International Standards Organisation registration. [120779]

    Mr. Wicks
    [pursuant to his reply, 5 May 2000, c. 218–20W]: Three of the careers companies were inadvertently omitted. The correct response is as follows.

    The Careers Service accreditations, according to the best information I have available, are contained in the following table.

    145W

    Careers services

    Charter mark

    Investors in people

    International standards organisation

    North East

    Future steps

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    County Durham Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Northumberland Guidance

    No

    Yes

    No

    City of Sunderland Careers

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Tyneside Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    North West

    Lifetime Careers (Bolton, Bury and Rochdale)

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    Cheshire Guidance

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Cumbria Careers

    Yes

    No

    No

    East Lancashire Careers

    Yes

    No

    No

    Career Decisions

    Yes

    No

    No

    Careers Partnership

    Yes

    No

    Yes

    Oldham Careers

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    St. Helens Careers Services

    Yes

    No

    No

    Lifetime Careers (Stockport and High Peak)

    Yes

    No

    No

    CareerLink

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    Wigan Careers

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Career Connections

    Yes

    No

    No

    Yorkshire and The Humber

    Lifetime Careers (Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham)

    No

    Yes

    No

    Careers Bradford

    No

    Yes

    No

    Calderdale and Kirklees Careers

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Humberside Partnership

    No

    Yes

    No

    Leeds Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Guidance Enterprises (York and North Yorkshire)

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Sheffield Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Guidance Enterprises (Wakefield)

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    West Midlands

    Careers and Education Business Partnership

    No

    Yes

    No

    Prospects Careers (Black Country)

    No

    Yes

    No

    Quality Careers

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    Hereford and Worcester Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Shropshire Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Central Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    3S Strategies

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Warwickshire Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    East Midlands

    Derbyshire Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Leicestershire Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Lincolnshire Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Career Path (Northamptonshire)

    No

    Yes

    No

    GuideLine Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Eastern

    CfBT Bedfordshire

    No

    Yes

    No

    Cambridgeshire Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Essex Careers and Business Partnership

    Yes

    Yes

    Yes

    Hertfordshire Careers

    No

    Yes

    Yes

    Norfolk Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Suffolk Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    South West

    Learning Partnership West (Avon)

    No

    Yes

    No

    Cornwall and Devon Careers

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    Dorset Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Learning Partnership West (Gloucestershire)

    No

    Yes

    No

    Somerset Careers

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    Lifetime Careers Wiltshire

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    South East

    CfBT Thames Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Buckingham Careers

    Yes

    Yes

    No

    Sussex Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    VT Southern Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Kent Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Surrey Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    VT West Sussex Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    146W

    147W

    Careers services

    Charter mark

    Investors in people

    International standards organisation

    London

    Lifetime Careers Brent and Harrow

    No

    Yes

    No

    Prospects Careers (North London)

    No

    Yes

    No

    Enterprise Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Futures Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    London South Bank Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Prospects Careers (South London)

    No

    Yes

    No

    Search

    No

    Yes

    No

    CfBT West London Careers

    No

    Yes

    No

    Capital Careers

    No

    No

    Yes

    Connexions Service
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has for the remuneration of learning mentors and Personal Advisers in the Connexions Service. [119266]

    Mr. Wicks
    Connexions Service Personal Advisers will be employed by partner organisations. Appropriate professional structures are being developed to support this emergent profession. As the role develops full account will be taken of the relevant structures, terms and conditions and labour market conditions in allied professions.

    LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

      Northern Ireland Bar
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 639W, on the Northern Ireland Bar, if he will (a) make a statement on dates of correspondence with the Lord Chief Justice and place copies in the Library. [124104]

      Mr. Lock
      Since January 1997 there have been 16 letters between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice about appointments to the Northern Ireland Senior Bar.

      Two letters between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice relating to appointments to the Senior Bar have already been disclosed in proceedings before the High Court in Northern Ireland (in the matter of an application by Seamus Treacy and Barry Macdonald) and will be placed in the Library. All of the remaining correspondence was conducted on a confidential basis and much of it relates to individuals' suitability for appointment to the Senior Bar or ministerial responsibility for such appointments. It will not, therefore, be placed in the Library.

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 640W, on the Northern Ireland Bar, if he will make a statement on (a) consultation procedures, (b) responses made and (c)conclusions reached. [124103]

      Mr. Lock
      This related to the Report of the Committee (the Elliott Committee) established by the Bar Council in November 1996 to investigate and report on all aspects of the appointment of Senior Counsel in Northern Ireland. That Committee reported to the Bar Council the following year and a copy of the Report was provided to the Lord 148W
      Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in May 1997. The Bar Council did not, however, provide a copy of the Report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (who was responsible for matters relating to Queen's Counsel at that time) nor to the Lord Chancellor who subsequently assumed those responsibilities. Copies of the Report were, however, provided to the Northern Ireland Office and the Lord Chancellor by the Lord Chief Justice.

      I am not in a position to know what responses the Bar Council received following publication of the Elliott Report. Although the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor had been invited to comment by the Elliott Committee as part of the Committee's original consultations, neither of them were invited to comment on the recommendations of the final report.

      The Lord Chancellor is presently considering the effect of the judgment in the case brought by Seamus Treacy and Barry Macdonald. It would be premature to comment on the Declaration to be made by new Queen's Counsel and the Lord Chancellor's conclusions concerning the Elliott Report until final decisions have been reached concerning the issues raised in that case.

      Special Advisers
      Mr. Tyrie
      To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions since 24 March 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124120]

      Mr. Lock
      The Special Adviser in the Lord Chancellor's Department has not travelled overseas in an official capacity since being appointed.

      Young Offenders
      Mr. Tony Lloyd
      To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the length of time taken to bring young offenders before the courts in each Metropolitan police authority area; and what were the corresponding figures for 1997. [123802]

      Jane Kennedy
      Information on the time taken in magistrates courts proceedings is collected by the Lord Chancellor's Department's Time Intervals Survey. The accompanying table shows the average number of days from charge or laying of information to first listing for Youth Court defendants in June 1997, June 1999 and February 2000. The only survey to cover all Youth Court defendants in 1997 was the June survey, and the most recent results available are from the February 2000 survey.
      149W

      Average number of days from charge or laying of information to first court listing for all criminal defendants dealt with at Youth Courts in Metropolitan police authority areas1

      June 19972

      June 1999

      February 2000

      Greater Manchester

      30

      23

      12

      Merseyside

      30

      23

      8

      Metropolitan3

      38

      20

      18

      Northumbria

      31

      20

      13

      South Yorkshire

      29

      14

      9

      West Midlands

      29

      16

      13

      West Yorkshire

      29

      24

      18

      1From the start of 1999 analysis of the Time Intervals Survey has included certain longer cases than were previously excluded. In this table however the results presented are calculated on the pre-1999 basis for comparability. On the new basis of calculation the only figure in the table that would be different is the February 2000 figure for Merseyside which would be 9 days.

      2 In the June 1997 survey the sample sizes for Youth Court cases were less than 100 in Merseyside, South Yorkshire, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire and due to these small sample sizes these figures should be treated with added caution.

      3 Includes youths apprehended by City of London Police and proceeded against in London Youth Courts. Youth Courts are not held at the magistrates court in the City of London.

      Source:

      Lord Chancellor's Department Magistrates Courts Time Intervals Survey

      Judges
      Ms Keeble
      To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answer of 12 April 2000,Official Report, column 222–23W, when she will make a further statement on Part-time judicial appointments to tribunals. [124542]

      Jane Kennedy
      On 12 April 2000, the Lord Chancellor announced that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security had agreed with the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, new arrangements for Part-time judicial appointments. Similar arrangements have now been put in place for an additional range of Part-time Tribunal appointments for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible and for appointments made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the President of the Council and the Home Secretary.

      The Lord Chancellor has also agreed with the Lord President of the Court of Session that for those Tribunals which sit in Scotland, but where appointments remain wholly or partly the responsibility of Westminster Ministers, the Lord President will assume the role that the Lord Chief Justices have already agreed to for appointments in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In practice, this will mean that the Lord President will have to concur in all decisions to remove or not to renew an appointment.

      Where Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales are now consulted on appointments to Tribunals in accordance with the relevant Statutory provisions or Devolution Concordats, they will also be consulted on removals from office, and decisions not to renew appointments.

      These changes will come into effect immediately.
      150W
      I am placing in the Library of the House a joint statement signed by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord President setting out the arrangements for the following Tribunals, which may sit in Scotland:
      Part-time Immigration Adjudicators
      Part-time members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal Part-time members of the Income and Corporation Taxes
      Tribunal Deputy Special Commissioners for Income Tax Commissioners
      Part-time members of the unified appeals service
      Deputy Social Security and Child Support Commissioners
      Part-time President and Chairmen of the Transport Tribunal
      Deputy Traffic Commissioners.

      I am also placing in the Library of the House joint statements signed by the specified Minister and by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales covering the following fixed-term appointments to Tribunals:
      Lord Chancellor
      Part-time President and Chairman of the Transport Tribunal
      Part-time President and Vice President and Chairmen of the Rent Assessment Panels
      Part-time Commons Commissioners
      Arbitrators for the Motor Insurance Bureau
      Part-time Agricultural Arbitrators
      Part-time members of the Agricultural Land Tribunals
      Part-time members of the Mental Health Review Tribunals
      Part-time President and Chairmen of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal
      Part-time Chairman and Deputy Chairmen National Health Service Tribunal
      Legal panel Registered Homes Tribunal
      Part-time Chairmen of the Betting Levy Appeal Tribunal
      Part-time Chairmen of the Misuse of Drugs Tribunal
      Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions
      Part-time members of the Transport Tribunal
      Part-time members of Rent Assessment Committees
      Deputy Traffic Commissioners
      Secretary of State for Education and Employment
      Part-time members of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal
      Secretary of State for Health
      Part-time members of the National Health Service Tribunal
      President of the Council
      Part-time members of the Registered Homes Tribunal
      Home Secretary
      Part-time members of the Betting Levy Appeal Tribunal
      Part-time members of the Misuse of Drugs Tribunal.

      I am also placing in the Library of the House joint statements signed by the specified Minister and by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland covering the following fixed-term appointments to Tribunals:
      Lord Chancellor
      Part-time Chairmen and members of the Appeal Tribunals
      Part-time Chairmen of the Fair Employment Tribunal
      Part-time members of the Tribunal established under Section 91 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998
      Part-time members of the Reserve Forces Appeal Tribunal
      Part-time Chairmen and members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal
      Part-time Chairmen of the Registered Homes Tribunal
      Part-time President and Chairmen of the Special Needs Tribunal

      151W
      Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
      Part-time Chairmen and Commissioners of the Sentence Review Commission.

      The First and Deputy First Ministers of the New Assembly for Northern Ireland are being invited to agree that the new arrangements be brought before the Executive Committee with a view to an announcement being made to the Assembly by the relevant Northern Ireland Ministers.

      Kenneth Noye
      Mr. Fallon
      To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason the Lord Chancellor has not replied to the letter of 30 April from the parents of the late Stephen Cameron about the award of legal aid to Kenneth Noye; when he plans to do so; and what the circumstances are in which such an award can be made. [124033]

      Mr. Lock
      The Lord Chancellor replied to Mr. and Mrs. Cameron on 1 June. An award of legal aid is made in a criminal case where the court considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so and that the defendant needs help to meet his or her legal costs.

    HOME DEPARTMENT

      Errol Flynn
      Mr. Cohen
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000,Official Report, columns 76–77W, on intelligence records, if he will make a statement on the timetable for reviewing and releasing historical records relating to the (a) interwar period and (b) Second World War, with special reference to film stars of that era. [123825]

      Mr. Straw
      As stated in my reply of 2 May 2000,Official Report, columns 76–77W, the Security Service is currently reviewing and releasing records from its archive covering the Second World War. The next period to be covered by the review will be the inter-war period.

      This is a systematic process of review and there are no specific procedures for particular categories of people such as film stars.

      Economic Migration
      Mr. Cohen
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on ending specific skill shortages by permitting economic migration; and if he will make a statement. [123728]

      Mrs. Roche
      Equipping people in the United Kingdom through education and training is key to addressing specific skill shortages. Enhancing access for skilled people from overseas is also important. The Home Office's formal aim for immigration explicitly recognises regulation of entry to and settlement in the United Kingdom in the interests of social stability and economic growth. Within the European Union, freedom of movement means that there is in effect a free market for employment. For non-European Economic Area nationals, the Immigration Rules provide for people seeking to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for specified employment and business purposes, subject to the 152W
      conditions in the Rules. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has responsibility for the work permit service which is specifically designed to enable employers in the United Kingdom to recruit skilled people from abroad, and recently announced measures aimed at further developing this service.

      Criminal Cases Review Commission
      Dr. Iddon
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the backlog of cases awaiting examination at the Criminal Cases Review Commission; and what was the backlog on the same date in each year since its establishment. [123602]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      I understand that, at the end of April this year, the Criminal Cases Review Commission had 921 cases awaiting review. The number of cases awaiting review at the end of April in 1997, 1998 and 1999 were 412, 860 and 1,198 respectively.

      Criminal Assets
      Mr. Lidington
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) of 2 February 2000,Official Report, columns 599–600W, on criminal assets, when he plans to publish the White Paper on financial crime. [123774]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      We will announce our plans when the Performance and Innovation Unit report is published.

      ACPO Crime Committee Survey
      Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the forces which responded to the survey by the Association of Chief Police Officers Crime Committee, indicating those which(a) (i) had carried out or (ii) were then carrying out investigations into institutional child abuse during the period covered by the questionnaire and (b) had previously been involved in similar investigations. [123292]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      For operational reasons the information was sought and supplied in confidence and I am therefore not in a position to answer the question to the level of detail requested. The information is now 12 months old and will be out of date because the situation is changing on a daily basis.

      Alcohol Abuse
      Mr. Woodward
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much funding his Department allocated to measures for informing people of the dangers of alcohol abuse in the last three years. [123433]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The Home Office has had no specific funding allocated to informing people of the dangers of alcohol abuse.

      However, the Home Office is active in tackling alcohol-related crime and has in place several measures to do so. A series of seminars on Alcohol and Crime have been established by the Home Office which draw together representatives from other Government Departments, the

      153W
      licensed industry, the voluntary sector and the academic community with the aim of establishing the nature of the problem and developing good practice.

      There is also a programme of research under way examining the policing of alcohol-related crime in city centres, the potential of alcohol interventions in the criminal justice system and the alcohol consumption of young people.

      The Targeted Policing Initiative within the Crime Reduction Programme has funded one project to tackle alcohol-related crime in Cardiff and is expected to fund a further three in its current funding round.

      Kenneth Noye
      Mr. Fallon
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason he has not replied to the letter of 30 April from the parents of the late Stephen Cameron about the award of legal aid to Kenneth Noye; and when he plans to do so. [124034]

      Mr. Straw
      The reason for not having replied to Mr. and Mrs. Cameron's letter of 30 April was because either the letter was not received in the Home Office or it was received and mislaid. I was grateful to the hon. Member for sending me a copy of Mr. and Mrs. Cameron's letter under cover of his own of 23 May.

      My reply to Mr. and Mrs. Cameron will be despatched on 5 June, and will be copied to the hon. Member.

      Asylum Seekers (Voucher Scheme)
      Mr. Gerrard
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those retail firms which have agreed to accept asylum seekers' vouchers as payment. [123901]

      Mrs. Roche
      As of 25 May 2000, in excess of 19,000 retail firms have agreed to take part in the asylum seeker support voucher scheme. This number includes both large retail chains and smaller retailers.

      Forms
      Mrs. Lait
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the net change in each year since May 1997 in the number of forms issued by his Department which(a) charities and (b) other voluntary organisations are required to complete. [123945]

      Mr. Straw
      Charities and other voluntary organisations make an important contribution to many aspects of Home Office work. No central record is kept of all the Home Office's contacts with those bodies and the information sought could be collected only at disproportionate cost. The Home Office remains committed to modernising administration, including making greater use of electronic transfers and seeking to minimise the burdens on charities and voluntary organisations.

      Metropolitan Police
      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers currently serving in the Special Branch of the Metropolitan police have served on the force for(a) less than five years, (b) more than
      154W
      five and less than 10 years, (c) more than 10 and less than 15 years, (d) more than 15 and less than 20 years and (e) more than 20 years. [123959]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The information requested is given in the table provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

      Length of service profile—Special Branch

      Number

      (a) Less than five years

      19

      (b) More than five years and less than 10 years

      71

      (c) More than 10 years and less than 15 years

      159

      (d) More than 15 years and less than 20 years

      126

      (e) More than 20 years

      180

      Mr. McNamara
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers currently serving in the Criminal Investigation Department of the Metropolitan police have served on the force for(a) less than five years, (b) more than five and less than 10 years, (c) more than 10 and less than 15 years, (d) more than 15 and less than 20 years and (e) more than 20 years. [123958]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The information requested is given in the table, provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

      Length of service profile—serving criminal investigation department officers

      Number

      (a) Less than 5 years

      17

      (b) More than 5 years and less than 10 years

      410

      (c) More than 10 years and less than 15 years

      960

      (d) More than 15 years and less than 20 years

      1,067

      (e) More than 20 years

      1,441

      Europol
      Mr. Mitchell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the functions of the(a) board of management and (b) joint supervisory body of Europol; what representation the United Kingdom has on both bodies; and how many of its staff are seconded from United Kingdom police forces. [123893]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The functions of the Europol Management Board and the Joint Supervisory Body are set out in Articles 28 and 24 of the Europol Convention, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The United Kingdom is represented on the Management Board by the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and on the Joint Supervisory Body by the Director and Deputy Director of the Office of the Data Protection Registrar.

      Four members of the National Criminal Intelligence Service are at present on secondment to Europol as Liaison Officers under Article 5 of the Convention. 17 other United Kingdom nationals are employed by Europol on contract terms under Article 1 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol Employees.

      Mr. Mitchell
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the proposed contributions of each member state of the European Union
      155W
      to Europol for (a) 2000 and (b) 2001, indicating the basis for such payments, and the main items of planned expenditure in each year. [123894]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      Europol's draft budgets for the years 2000 and 2001 are in European Union Council documents EUROPOL 41, 11030/99 and EUROPOL 8, 7695/00, copies of which are in the Library. These show that member states' contributions are as follows.

      Euro

      2000

      2001

      Austria

      620,254

      754,533

      Belgium

      759,021

      896,461

      Denmark

      496,349

      594,996

      Finland

      352,936

      431,912

      France

      4,394,707

      5,090,100

      Germany

      6,552,284

      7,571,678

      Greece

      373,967

      426,457

      Ireland

      190,975

      242,432

      Italy

      3,565,922

      4,179,684

      Luxembourg

      54,271

      63,792

      Netherlands

      1,135,079

      1,357,330

      Portugal

      316,943

      377,098

      Spain

      1,668,231

      1,992,532

      Sweden

      681,903

      823,762

      United Kingdom

      4,130,107

      5,134,443

      Total1

      25,292,950

      29,937,207

      1 The differences in the totals in the two tables reflect other revenues and adjustments made to the contributions to finance the proposed expenditures.

      The contributions are based on member states' gross national products.

      The items of proposed expenditure as set out in the budget are as follows.

      Euro

      2000

      2001

      Personnel

      15,254,000

      18,737,800

      Bodies and organs1

      2,007,000

      2,155,000

      Europol Computer System

      7,000,000

      10,724,000

      Other expenditure2

      4,185,000

      4,995,000

      Total3

      28,446,000

      36,611,800

      1 Including the Joint Supervisory Board

      2 The building; information and communications technology; vehicles; communications; other acquisitions and other running costs.

      3 The differences in the totals in the two tables reflect other revenues and adjustments made to the contributions to finance the proposed expenditures.

      Children and Young Persons Act 1933
      Ms Julie Morgan
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were sentenced under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 in each year since 1997; and what were their(a) ages and (b) gender. [123936]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The information is given in the table.156W

      Number of persons sentenced, at the Crown court, under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 by sex and age, England and Wales, 1997–991

      1997

      1998

      19991

      Age

      Males

      Females

      Males

      Females

      Males

      Females

      10

      1

      —

      —

      —

      —

      —

      11

      1

      —

      1

      —

      3

      —

      12

      10

      —

      6

      —

      3

      3

      13

      21

      3

      19

      —

      27

      1

      14

      89

      3

      61

      2

      77

      5

      15

      121

      6

      84

      6

      70

      7

      16

      166

      7

      157

      8

      133

      5

      17

      283

      11

      245

      4

      262

      5

      Total

      692

      30

      573

      20

      575

      26

      1 Provisional

      Ms Julie Morgan
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the number of offences which may attract a sentence under section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. [123938]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      It is essential the courts have the powers they need to deal with children and young persons convicted of serious offences. The Government have no current plans to reduce the number of offences contained in section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

      Correspondence
      Mr. Whittingdale
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 2000,Official Report, column 592W, when a reply will be sent to the letter from the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), of 24 January. [124142]

      Mrs. Roche
      A full reply to the letter of 24 January from the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford was sent on 23 May.

      Mr. Tony Lloyd
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Central of 9 May concerning issuing of letters to asylum seekers notifying refusal but delaying the issue of the removal notice; what consultation he has had with the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding its impact on benefits; if he will make it his policy to discontinue the practice; and if he will make a statement. [123865]

      Mrs. Roche
      I replied to my hon. Friend on 23 May. There was no need to consult the Secretary of State for Social Security about the content of the interim letters to asylum seekers, because the relevant paragraphs were concerned with support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) which is part of the Home Office. There was never any intention to cut off support before the asylum seekers had the opportunity to appeal against the refusal of their claims, but I accept that the wording used in the interim letters may have caused some confusion. In order to avoid this in future, the paragraphs about NASS support have now been removed from the interim letter. Where appropriate, they are now included in the letter which provides full reasons for the refusal of the asylum claim.

      Fire Service
      Mr. Paul Marsden
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each fire authority, grouped into(a) London area, (b) metropolitan areas, (c) shire counties and (d) shire unitary authorities for each year from 1992 to date, (i) the number of fire call—outs, (ii) the average call out time for urban areas and rural areas, (iii) the number of fatalities and injuries, (iv) the number of fatalities and injuries per head of population and (v) the totals of (i) to (iv) for each grouped fire authority (a) to (d); and if he will make a statement. [123903]

      Mr. Mike O'Brien
      Information is not available in the exact form requested as statistics are compiled by brigade area. Tables showing the following information for fires attended by local authority fire brigades in England and Wales during the period 1992 to 1998: (i) the total number of fires and the number of fires involving property and/or casualties (primary fires). The figure for total fires (comprises property fires and those involving casualties (i.e. primary fires), small outdoor fires (i.e. secondary fires) and chimney fires); (ii) the average response time in minutes from receipt of the first call to the brigade to time of arrival, split by urban and rural areas within the brigade; and (iii) the number of fatal and non-fatal casualties involved in fires and rates per million head of the population have been placed in the Library.

      Water Cannon
      Mr. Baker
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 22 May 2000,Official Report, column 656, if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the use of water cannon against crowds (a) comprised entirely of adult males, (b) comprised of adult males and adult females and (c) comprised entirely of adult females. [124361]

      Mr. Straw
      Water cannon are not currently in use for public order purposes in England and Wales.

      The possibility of providing the police with water cannon to deal with serious public disorder was carefully considered by a joint police and Horne Office working party in the 1980s. Tests were conducted into all aspects of the water cannon's operational capabilities. Models in use on the continent were examined and a wide range of tests were carried out using custom—built British prototypes, as a result of which a number of operational problems emerged.

      Water cannons cannot be mobilised quickly in order to deal with spontaneous disorder and when mobilised are slow and difficult to manoeuvre, particularly in narrow streets. When water cannon were used in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s they were not found to be effective and, in fact, they became prize targets for rioters.

      For these reasons, chief police officers in England and Wales have not been persuaded that water cannon would be of operational value in dealing with public disorder in this country.

      Police Service Strength
      Mr. Clappison
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the most recent breakdown of 158W
      the Police Resources Unit projections of total police service strength in England and Wales from 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2003. [123975]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      There were 126,096 police officers on 31 March 1999. On the basis of projections made by police forces earlier this year, total police numbers for 31 March 2000 were estimated at 124,800. Actual figures should be available by the end of June. For projections for 2000–01 and 2001–02, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on 22 May 2000,Official Report, columns 655–58W.

      Police force projections indicate that for 31 March 2003 there would be 125,900 police officers, as cited in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 15 March 2000, Official Report, columns 177–79W. Chief Officer's projections were made on the basis of the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement which extends to 2001–02, but in the absence of any information about funding levels for the police service in 2002–03. Funding levels from 2002–03 will only be known when the outcome of the 2000 Spending Review is announced in the summer, when more realistic projections can be made.

      Child Curfew Orders
      Mr. Fraser
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many local child curfew orders have been issued in Dorset. [124514]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      No applications have been received from local authorities to establish child curfew schemes under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Local authorities should consider the contribution such schemes could make to tackling problems of anti-social behaviour by children identified in their local crime and disorder reduction strategy.

      Police Recruitment (Dorset)
      Mr. Fraser
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had with the Chief Constable of Dorset regarding police recruitment; [124527]

      (2) what share of the Crime Fighting Fund for Police recruits will be allocated to Dorset. [124517]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      I have not had any discussions with the Chief Constable of Dorset Police regarding police recruitment.

      Dorset Police were allocated 46 police officers (29 officers in 2000–01 and 17 in 2001–02) under the accelerated recruitment scheme of the Crime Fighting Fund. The funding for each force will be determined once we have received a profile of their planned recruitment during the first year.

      Persistent Young Offenders
      Mr. Fraser
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in reducing the time taken between arrest and sentence for persistent young offenders. [124516]
      159W
      Mr. Charles Clarke
      I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 12 May 2000,Official Report, column 523W.

      Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
      Mr. Fraser
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug treatment and testing orders have been issued in Dorset. [124515]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      None: the order was piloted in three areas: Croydon, Liverpool and Gloucestershire.

      As announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 15 May 2000, Official Report, columns 63–64W, Drug Treatment Testing Orders (DTTOs) will be rolled-out to all areas in England and Wales from 1 October 2000.

      Dogs (Scientific Tests)
      Mr. Gale
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the oral statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 14 December 2000,Official Report, columns 250–54, on animals, when the Government introduced a ban on the use of dogs in scientific tests; and how this ban was announced. [124422]

      Mr. Mike O'Brien
      Dogs are used in regulated procedures where their use is justified under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. There are no current plans to change the legislation.

      The oral statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 14 December 1999, Official Report, columns 250–54, stemmed from a misleading newspaper report in the Sunday Times on 12 December 1999. This report appeared to be based on a misreading of the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, which came into force on 30 December 1999. The Act tightens controls over commercial breeding establishments supplying dogs for the pet trade. It is designed to raise standards of care in puppy farms and stipulates tighter controls on the sale of dogs by dealers and pet shops and stiffer penalties for breeders who flout the law.

      Establishments breeding animals for laboratory use are exempt from the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 and will continue to be regulated by the provisions of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which requires Home Office inspection and close veterinary supervision.

      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wrote on 2 February 2000 to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) about correcting the error. A copy of his letter was placed in the Library.

      Police Helicopters
      Ms Julie Morgan
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 May 160W
      2000, Official Report, column 62W, on police helicopters, and his letter of 18 May, what is the total cost of the air package; and what items it covers. [124658]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The total contract cost to South Wales Police for the air support package is £542,988 for the financial year 2000–01. The contract is placed with Veritair Ltd. and covers the costs of the provision of a role-equipped helicopter, maintenance, fuel, four pilots, pilot training and base facilities.

      Hunting with Dogs
      Mr. Gordon Prentice
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 217W, on hunting with dogs, what steps the Government plan to take to assist the passage through both Houses of Parliament of a Private Members' Bill designed to secure a ban on hunting with dogs. [124074]

      Mr. Mike O'Brien
      The precise steps which may be needed in terms of Government time and assistance to secure the opportunity of a free vote on a hunting Bill will depend upon the circumstances at the time. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already indicated our broad approach on it.

      Special Advisers
      Mr. Tyrie
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 27 April 1999(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity. [124118]

      Mr. Straw
      During the period 27 April 1999 to the end of March 2000, special advisers in this Department have not travelled overseas in an official capacity.

      2 Marsham Street
      Mr. Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what purposes the former Environment Department building in Marsham street is now used. [124241]

      Mr. Straw
      Pursuant to my reply to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 391W, the only occupier of this otherwise vacant building is a temporary shelter for the homeless, currently scheduled to close on 31 July. Other casual issues are permitted on a short term basis from time to time.

      Mr. Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost of maintaining the former Environment Department offices in Marsham street. [124239]

      Mr. Straw
      Pursuant to my reply to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 391W, the budgeted figure for the financial year 2000–01 is £392,000 excluding VAT.

      Mr. Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the future of the former Environment Department offices in Marsham street. [124238]
      161W
      Mr. Straw
      I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 558W.

      Mr. Loughton
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated value of the former Environment Department site in Marsham Street. [124240]

      Mr. Straw
      The site belongs to Property Advisers Civil Estate (PACE). As it is the subject of disposal action through my Department's Central London Accommodation Strategy disclosure of the current valuation could be prejudicial until the sale is completed.

      North and South Manchester

      Greater Manchester

      1 April 1098 to 30 September 1998

      1 April 1999 to 30 September 1999

      Percentage change

      1 April 1998 to 30 September 1998

      1 April 1999 to 30 September 1998

      Percentage change

      Total crime

      45,676

      46,954

      2.8

      182,433

      185,955

      1.9

      Violent crime

      7,009

      8,540

      21.8

      23,114

      26,428

      14.3

      Violence against the person

      4,897

      6,142

      25.4

      18,368

      21,039

      14.5

      Robbery

      1,781

      2,022

      13.5

      3,611

      4,095

      13.4

      Sexual offences

      331

      376

      13.6

      1,135

      1,294

      14.0

      Theft from the person

      1,044

      1,099

      5.3

      2,232

      2,266

      1.5

      Theft from a vehicle

      5,706

      5,105

      –10.5

      23,477

      22,317

      –4.9

      Theft/unauthorised taking of a vehicle

      4,653

      4,599

      –1.2

      19,237

      19,698

      2.4

      Notes:

      Violent crime comprises violence against the person, robbery and sexual offences.

      Mr. Tony Lloyd
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with Greater Manchester Police on the setting of operational targets with respect to(a) crimes of violence and (b) overall crime. [123801]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      All police authorities in England and Wales have been provided with statutory guidance under the Best Value regime (Section 5 of the Local Government Act 1999) which requires that specific five year targets should be set by all police authorities for domestic burglary and for vehicle crime. In addition, five police authorities, including Greater Manchester, are required to set a target for robbery. The targets are a matter for individual police authorities and those set by each police authority are contained in their Best Value Performance Plan which they were required to publish before 31 March 2000.

      Crime (Greater Manchester)
      Mr. Tony Lloyd
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data he has collated on recent crime trends in respect of(a) Greater Manchester and (b) the centre of Manchester for (i) robbery, (ii) theft from persons, (iii) theft from cars, (iv) theft of cars, (v) total crime, (vi) violent crime and (vii) sexual assaults. [123800]

      Mr. Charles Clarke
      The latest available data on crime trends in the centre of Manchester and Greater Manchester compare the periods April 1998 to September 1998 and April 1999 to September 1999 and are shown in the table.

      The five year targets set by the Greater Manchester Police Authority are:
      to reduce domestic burglary by 25 per cent.;
      to reduce vehicle crime by 34 per cent.; and
      to reduce robbery by 10 per cent.

      Pedlars Act 1871
      Dr. Brand
      To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the outcome of his review of the Pedlars Act 1871. [123582]

      Mr. Mike O'Brien
      The Home Office has considered the scope for reforming street trading and pedlars legislation in the light of the previous Government's deregulation reviews. We intend to discuss shortly with interested parties the deregulatory possibilities for street trading. Reform or repeal of the Pedlars Acts would, we believe, require primary legislation. We are ready to listen to views on pedlars but have no present plans to change the law.

Preamble
Reassembling after the Spring Bank Holiday Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Lord Coe
Sebastian Newbold Coe, Esquire, OBE, having been created Baron Coe, of Ranmore in the County of Surrey, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Strathclyde and the Lord Parkinson.

Sudan
2.36 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the continuing conflict in Sudan, with particular reference to reports of military offensives against civilians in the Nuba Mountains.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government remains clearly focused on achieving a peace settlement that will benefit all Sudanese and allow them to rebuild their lives. We continue to urge all sides in the conflict to pursue a negotiated agreement and to refrain from military offensives. We have, therefore, called on the Sudan People's Liberation Movement to return to the IGAD peace talks, as we have made clear to the Government of Sudan, both bilaterally and through the EU, that we look to them to abstain from the aerial bombing of civilian targets, including in the Nuba Mountains.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which I find a little disturbing. Is the noble Baroness aware that the National Islamic Front regime has broken the cease-fire agreements and carried out systematically scorched-earth policies and massive military operations against civilians in the Nuba Mountains and nearby oilfields, including the deliberate targeting of hospitals, feeding centres and schools? A Catholic school was hit and 14 children were killed and many others maimed by shrapnel wounds. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that the Government's policy to urge the National Islamic Front to engage in dialogue is not allowing that regime to buy time and gain spurious credibility while it continues its self-avowed policy of jihad and genocide against its own people, Muslims and Animists as well as Christians?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are aware of reports of aerial bombings in the Nuba Mountains
916
and elsewhere in southern Sudan. We are also aware of other reports of human rights abuses in the south of the country. It has been as a result of a policy of engagement in dialogue that we have been able to press our concerns about these issues with the Government of Sudan and make clear where we expect to see change. We have done this bilaterally and through the Eli as a result of the re-establishment of the EU-Sudan dialogue, which has human rights issues at its core. In all our contacts we have made clear that we seek action, not just words. We have seen some progress on issues that we have taken up, and we continue to believe that a critical dialogue is the best way to help further change come about.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the relevant distinction between the deliberate bombing of schools and the displacement of whole civilian populations and destruction of their food supplies in southern Sudan, and the situation in Burma where, very commendably, the Government have denounced what is happening and have co-operated with our EU partners to discourage investment and to control the export of repressive equipment?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as regards the critical engagement in Sudan, we have the ability to work with the Sudanese, who have expressed a willingness to participate in the process for change. Noble Lords will know that in Burma, regrettably, that is not the position. There is little light. We are left with no other choice but that of non-critical engagement. The position is, thankfully, slightly different with Sudan, although I do not seek by any means to suggest that there are not real difficulties to face.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what attempts have been made by the European Union missions in Khartoum to visit the area where those atrocities have occurred; and with what result? What applications have been made by British firms for ECGD cover to help develop the oilfields in the Upper West Nile? Do the Government consider that the additional revenue from those oilfields—it is estimated that it amounts to as much as 500 million dollars per annum—will simply help to fuel the war?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course we are pressing the Sudanese as regards the oil. We want to have transparency. Sudan is a very poor country at present. The oil could be of benefit to ease that burden. However, it is important that the oil is put to good effect. That is a matter on which we shall continue to press for greater clarity.
I do not have direct answers in relation to the opportunities to examine on the ground. I undertake to write to the noble Lord on that subject.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am sure the Minister accepts that this is a timely moment for my noble friend Lady Cox to raise the issue of the longest running war in Africa—a continent at present bubbling, over, tragically, with wars. Does the noble Baroness recognise that there may now be a chink of light?

917
The Khartoum regime is particularly nasty; its Christian persecution is revolting. However, it is now quarrelling among itself. Mr Tourabi has been dismissed, although he has not accepted his dismissal. Mr Bashir may be a little more amenable to outside pressures than in the past. Should not we use our best offices in the way the noble Baroness described, but also mobilise some moderate Muslim opinion—for instance, from Egypt and one or two other countries—in order to achieve a change of mood in Khartoum, an end to persecution, and the end of this ghastly and hideous battle, which has claimed over 1 million lives in 20 years?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Lord. We are trying to do that. The noble Lord may know that the Libyans and the Egyptians have started their own initiative. They have indicated that they will work with us to ensure that the IGAD process is given all the support it can be given. We are also garnering support from the USA, the Canadians and others who have their own initiatives in place in order to ensure a united focus for the peace process, and that we give as much support as we can.
The noble Lord is right to say that we have a chink of light. We have to work at it, support it and make sure that it has an opportunity to come to fruition. It has taken 16 long years. The noble Lord will know that over 1.5 million people have died in this conflict. We must seek to do all we can to give this peace process the best chance of success.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the past month there appears to have been an increase in eyewitness accounts of bombing and shooting and that one of the interpretations being placed by people living in Sudan is that that reflects a division within the government between the supporters of President Bashir and Dr Hassan al-Tourabi? Do the Government have information about the truth of that?
Furthermore, following the Easter visit to Sudan of the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for the enthronement of the new Archbishop, do the Government have a view about how Churches and aid organisations can bring increased pressure on the government of Sudan to bring an end to their indiscriminate and wholly disgraceful behaviour?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right in saying that there is conflict between the various factions in Sudan. That is one of the difficulties which we face. Moreover, I warmly welcome the visit of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has had direct conversations about the issue. Others have not had such an advantage and we saw it as being of great benefit. We would encourage the continuation of such initiatives because all those efforts are supportive in terms of trying to garner the most effective support for peace.

World Education Forum, Dakar
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the outcome on education of the World Education Forum in Dakar is satisfactory.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we welcome the progress achieved at Dakar. The forum resulted in a strong political commitment to education for all by governments of developing and donor countries, the United Nations and international financial institutions. Commitments were made to the development of national action plans and there was agreement on the need for significantly enhanced investment by governments and donors in primary education. We will do all in our power to help drive this commitment forward.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging Answer. Given that some of the countries most in need of primary education can least afford it and that our consensus was that they ought to be supported, can he say what the Government will be doing to drive forward the strategy and to mobilise the resources for support?
Perhaps I may trespass on his patience and ask a further question. Does he agree that it would be a great boost to the objective of primary education for all by 2015 for the Prime Minister to put the subject on the agenda for the G8 summit at Okinawa in July?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right to suggest that poorer countries are the worst affected by lack of primary education. Unfortunately, the problem is not always poverty: it is their governments' attitude to primary education and whether they give it enough priority. Therefore, the commitment that we have made at Dakar, and encouraged others to make, is that no government who are seriously committed to achieving education for all will be held back by lack of resources. That has been our policy for a number of years.
As regards the G8 summit at Okinawa, my noble friend is right in saying that the issue should be debated and officials are negotiating with the Japanese hosts about it.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, Thomas Bediako, the NGO representative at Dakar, said that the draft framework falls well short of what we hoped for: that it is short in time-bound commitments; weak in financing; lacks mechanisms for transparency and accountability; is vague; and lacks detail. How can Her Majesty's Government support it and do they endorse that criticism?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is hardly likely that a conclusion from a conference which includes representatives from the governments of

919
118 countries, NGOs and international organisations will reach a full agreement on a strong and unequivocal final communiquéé. Clearly, all such matters are the result of the lowest common denominator and some of the stronger statements must be omitted in order to avoid disagreement. That is universal; it does not happen only at Dakar and only on education. Our policy is to welcome its positive aspects and the commitment that I made in my supplementary answer is the most realistic we can achieve.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most depressing features of such conferences is that nothing appears to happen as a result? Does he accept that this country can greatly benefit from the commitment outlined in his Answer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is important to recognise that the policies that the Government have put forward since publication of their White Paper in the autumn of 1997 have resulted in a more realistic appraisal of the causes of poverty and the need to deal with it in the world. It is also important to recognise the relationship between poverty and education. If we have achieved something in convincing others of that, my noble friend is right.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I appreciate the Minister's reply, but is he aware that during the east Asian financial crisis there was a sharp drop in the recruitment of children to primary schools; for example, in Indonesia by as much as 20 per cent? Can he assure the House that one of the outcomes of the Dakar forum will be that when such countries in financial difficulties approach the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank it will be ensured that the education of their children will not be one of the areas to be cut under pressure to achieve a budget surplus or balance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. It is important to insist on ring-fencing of educational budgets, in particular those for primary and basic education.

National Health Service: Discrimination
2.56 p.m.
Lord Patel of Blackburn Lord Patel of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards eliminating all forms of discrimination from the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, there is no place in the NHS for discrimination.
920
The Government are fully committed to equality of opportunity for all health service staff and patients, and we are taking vigorous action to achieve this.
Lord Patel of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, does my noble friend agree that, despite the Government's positive action policy, the number of people from a minority ethnic background in the NHS trusts who win merit awards, become executive directors or even chief executives is disproportionately very low?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend has undoubtedly identified a challenge which the NHS must face. However, there is no doubt that considerable progress has been made. I can assure him that we have a target to increase the number of black and minority ethnic people as executive directors of NHS boards to 7 per cent by the end of March 2004. Furthermore, since May 1997 more than 12 per cent of non-executive board appointees have come from minority ethnic groups.
Lord Tope: My Lords, we want to express our appreciation to all those from whatever race and origin who work in the health service. However, undoubtedly, discrimination takes place within the health service. The Minister will recall that during the passage of the Health Bill through this House we urged the Government to insert a non-discrimination and equal opportunities clause. They said that they agreed in principle and that in due course they would introduce such legislation. Where does that pledge lie now with only a year or so to go before the general election?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are committed to doing everything they can to remove discrimination within the health service. I mentioned the targets that have been set for executive board directors by 2004. In addition, we have set targets to reduce harassment to staff in the health service; we have signed up to the CR leadership challenge; by April 2001 all NHS organisations must use the Employment Service's two-tick symbol to guarantee interviews to qualified disabled applicants; and we have established NHS equality awards. Our whole approach in ensuring equal opportunities is cohesive.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, my question relates to the north-west area. I believe that it is particularly appropriate in view of the fact that this Question comes from the noble Lord who is from Blackburn. Is the Minister aware—I am sure that he is—that the worst area in the whole of the United Kingdom as regards dental condition is the North West? Three years after this Government came to power, does he not consider that definite discrimination is continuing against the very poorest people in those communities through the failure of the Government to introduce fluoride to the water

921
supplies? That would have reached even the poorest people in that area, who presently are failing to receive satisfactory dental treatment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. She well knows that we have established an expert review to examine the issues of efficacy and safety in relation to fluoridation. When that review reports, we shall of course be able to take forward appropriate policies. The situation with regard to access to NHS dental services is one that we inherited from the government which she supported. Many people were finding it difficult to access NHS services. For that reason, we established the investment in dentistry scheme. We have established dental access centres which have enabled many more people to access NHS services. In the future, we shall develop an NHS dental strategy.
Lord Laming: My Lords, will the Minister note that the very helpful Question of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred to all forms of discrimination? In addition to the schemes and initiatives that he listed, will the Minister agree to keep an eye on discrimination against the treatment of elderly people in the NHS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we return to a subject which is rather familiar to your Lordships. Perhaps I may repeat that there is no place for discrimination against older people in the National Health Service. We established a National Service Framework for Older People in order to guarantee high quality, consistent services for older people throughout the NHS.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, sadly, one of the sources of racial harassment in the NHS is the behaviour of certain patients? Is that not a particularly difficult part of the problem? What can be done to condemn and discourage such behaviour within hospitals and clinics?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl has raised an interesting point. There is no doubt that harassment of staff is a worrying problem. The latest published data suggest that 60 per cent of black nursing staff have had difficulties with patients for ethnic reasons and 58 per cent of Asian nursing staff have experienced similar problems. I believe that we can take a number of actions and we have developed a process of setting targets to reduce harassment. It is most important that individual local employers make it abundantly clear to staff that harassment will not be tolerated and that they have appropriate policies in place to deal with it. However, I agree with the noble Earl that it is also important that we give the message to members of the public that that kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, do the Government agree that any form of discrimination in
922
the NHS is totally unacceptable? A recent survey by Age Concern of a representative sample of GPs demonstrated that the problem is widespread. Seventy-seven per cent of the GPs surveyed felt that age discrimination is unacceptable, as is the double jeopardy faced by growing numbers of older people who are also from ethnic minorities. Sixty-four per cent of the GPs surveyed supported the case for a full-scale government inquiry into discrimination in the NHS. Is it not now time for such an inquiry to take place?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not agree. The most appropriate action for dealing with discrimination is to have clear policies, which the Government have, and a strong performance management framework to ensure that those policies are delivered. So far as concerns older people, I believe that the national service framework is the right way to go forward.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there can be few organisations in the world more weighed down by and bombarded with targets, requirements and advice, very little of which achieves any useful purpose? I wonder whether Ministers and their advisers might give careful thought to stemming this useless tide?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, when it comes to paperwork, bureaucrats and accountants, I suggest that the noble Lord looks no further than the internal market which his own party introduced and which we have abolished. Of course, it is important that the NHS has room to develop and to make decisions at local level. However, that must be done within the context of it being a national health service. Most of the issues raised in your Lordships' House with regard to the NHS have been complaints about the inconsistency of service throughout the NHS. We are committed to tackling that. That is why we are developing a national plan.

National Health Service: Specialised Treatments
3.6 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the replacement of extra-contractual referrals (ECRs) by out-of-area transfers (OATs) has been successful in making highly specialised treatment in the National Health Service available to those in need.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, extra-contractual referrals were abolished because they encouraged ad hoc provision of varying standards. In their place, new regional arrangements and long-term service agreements are being established to enable fair access to clinically effective and cost-effective services.

923
Out-of-area treatments have been introduced mainly for emergencies. Therefore, out-of-area treatments are not intended as a direct replacement for ECRs.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that one of the great strengths of the National Health Service, in which I used to work, was the fact that people who required highly specialised treatment could be referred to centres of excellence without constraint? That possibility declined sharply under the system of extra-contractual referrals. We now have evidence that out-of-area treatments or transfers are failing to satisfy the need for such specialist treatment in special cases. I give as an example the case of a young boy, aged 12, with cerebral palsy. On medical recommendation, he needed an intrathecal transplant. He was refused such a transplant because he could not be referred from his own health authority to the appropriate centre of excellence. The money was found by a charity and eventually the transplant was carried out privately.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I wish to make two points. First, in 90 per cent of cases the extra-contractual referrals have been replaced by long-term service agreements. I believe that more stability is achieved through long-term service agreements than through a system of one-off extra-contractual referrals, in which there was great instability.
So far as concerns the need for special services, I very much agree with the noble Lord that it is important that we invest in those services. Equally, we need a rational system of decision-making as to how they should be funded and to what extent. I believe that the new speciality commissioning that we have introduced at national and regional levels allows for that.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister will recall that the department published new guidance on out-of-area treatments only two weeks ago. Despite its incredibly opaque language, it is clearly designed to discourage referrals to specialist out-of-area hospitals. Yet, can the Minister confirm that GPs still have absolute discretion to refer their patients to the hospital that they believe is best for the treatment involved? Will the Minister undertake to amend the circular to that effect?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord uses the term "opaque" when referring to a Department of Health circular. So far as concerns the substantive points that he raises, of course, clinical freedom remains as it always has done. The point about out-of-area treatments is that they are concerned mainly with out-of-area emergencies. We are developing a system of long-term service agreements which will ensure that stability, certainty and agreement exist among health authorities and primary care groups as to which
924
specialist services should be funded and by how much. I believe that that is a much more effective system for the future than we ever had in the past.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, given that the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, have been levelled by many more professionals in the health service and the Government have been in power three years, why do they find it necessary to have a summit? What will that summit do?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords., the summit is meeting at this very moment and I am sure that it will have important discussions about the future development of the NHS. Surely it is better that decisions about specialist services and their funding are made in regional specialty groups and by the national specialty commissioning process, so that proper choices are made about where resources should be spent and services developed. That is a much better, more rational system than the ad hoc arrangement we inherited.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is not one problem with the new payment system that some specialist hospitals that were particularly reliant In the past on the ECR arrangement now find that their income lags behind their activity by as long as three years. As a result, they face considerable financial instability. Does not that pose a significant risk to the continuation of some specialist services and the development of new services?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in the first year of operation there were problems with some specialist centres that were, perhaps, over-reliant on out-of-area treatment income, where the time lag was clearly a factor. We have given clear instructions to regional offices that they are to manage the situation effectively. As the system develops, less and less of that resource will come from out-of-area treatment because centres will be covered by long-term service agreements. That is the most appropriate way forward for the centres.

Transport Bill
3.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the first comprehensive transport Bill that the House has had the opportunity to consider since my noble friend Lady Castle was Transport Secretary in the late 1960s. I am conscious of the great store of experience available in the House since I believe that more than 20 noble Lords have had ministerial responsibility for transport issues. I am sure they would readily agree that many of the problems and some of the solutions in prospect are not in essence ideological and can command widespread support.

925
We all know that this country faces serious transport problems. For years our public transport system has suffered from under-investment. Road traffic levels have risen faster than predicted, leading to increasing congestion. Road maintenance in particular has deteriorated while many potentially useful road schemes have yet to be built. Altogether, that is bad for the environment and business and a continuing source of exasperation for too many motorists and passengers.
Our transport system, for whatever reasons—lack of foresight or lack of resources—has been allowed to decline too long. We have to sort that out—and soon. The Government have a clear view of where we should be going and of the integrated transport system required. We also have a strategy on how to get there. We are putting in place by virtue of this Bill the legislative powers to make it all happen.
Following the vision set out in our integrated transport White Paper, the building blocks for a new transport system are properly funded means of delivering improvements, such as the Strategic Rail Authority, bus quality partnerships and local transport plans; innovative forms of finance, including public private partnerships and hypothecation of taxes and revenues specifically to improve transport—something no British Government have done before—combined with continued increases in public investment; and a renewed commitment to safety across all transport modes. All of that lies behind the radical Bill we have brought before the House today.
The Bill contains proposals for air traffic services, local transport services, road user charging and workplace parking levies, and railways.
Part I covers air traffic services and provides powers to proceed with a public private partnership for national air traffic services, NATS. Certain documents relating to that partnership have been placed in the Library. They are the draft licence under which the new company would operate; draft articles of association; a draft partnership agreement; and draft heads of terms of the NATS/Ministry of Defence contract.
NATS at present provides a reassuringly professional service in increasingly crowded skies. We believe that NATS would now benefit from access to private investment funding and project management expertise so that it can sustain safety and upgrade its systems to the standards demanded by ever-increasing levels of air traffic. It will cost approximately £1.3 billion over the next 10 years to develop new systems which we believe will be world class.
Part I will enable large-scale investment in NATS without adding to pressure on public sector borrowing or being subject to its vagaries. Through the public private partnership—PPP—we intend to secure a long-term strategic partner that will commit to investing in and to delivering on time and on budget, air traffic control systems that will offer the technology and capacity required to cope with this inexorably expanding industry.
926
Under the PPP, NATS will be owned by the Government, with a 49 per cent shareholding, a strategic private sector partner, with a 46 per cent shareholding, and an employee trust with 5 per cent. It will be designated a private sector operation, as are the existing air traffic operations at many UK airports, including East Midlands, Bristol and Liverpool.
We do not believe that a 100 per cent sell-off of NATS—its privatisation, as proposed by the Official Opposition—would provide an appropriate option, given the complexity and sensitivity of the business. Under our proposals, the main strategic decisions of the NATS board would require the unanimous vote of all directors—including those appointed by the Government under the PPP arrangements. Moreover, by retaining a substantial shareholding, we can ensure that the Exchequer and hence the taxpayer share in the future success of the company, which could be considerable, given the potential for international consolidation being driven by technological advances and the commercial imperatives of an ever-expanding global aviation industry.
In any such global consolidation of air traffic services, our PPP will ensure also that Britain's national security interests are safeguarded. The Bill has been carefully prepared in close liaison with the Ministry of Defence, so that there can be no doubt of the Government's power to step in at any stage should they deem it necessary to do so in the interests of national security. Our proposals ensure that NATS will continue to provide, in conjunction with others, a safe, efficient and secure service for all civil and military users.
It has been said that our proposals compromise safety. I shall deal with that concern in some detail, given its overriding importance. First, I repeat the Government's commitment to safety. Your Lordships may be assured that safety will continue to be paramount. We do not accept that the PPP would jeopardise safety in any way. Neither do British airline operators who told a Select Committee in the other place that our proposals would enhance aviation safety. Would any of us suggest that the 13 major UK airline operators are indifferent to the future safety of their passengers and the reputation of their companies? Please be clear: the function of safety regulation will remain in the public sector in a reformed Civil Aviation Authority. Our proposal that safety regulation should rest with a public body and be separate from the company that is responsible for operations is now widely accepted. The CAA, shorn of NATS, can more single-mindedly continue to set and monitor standards. We have made it abundantly clear that standards will not be reduced in any way. It is true now—and it will continue to be the case—that no one can provide air traffic control services in the UK unless the CAA safety regulation group is satisfied that they can do so safely.
The CAA will continue to conduct regular inspections and audits. The competence and medical fitness of all operators will be tested annually. Procedures and equipment used by air traffic controllers will have to be approved by the CAA.

927
It will also control maximum working hours and no company will be able to make air traffic controllers work undue hours since shifts will continue to be controlled by regulation.
None of the existing safeguards will be weakened. Staffing levels and the type of equipment used will be controlled by the CAA. Again, nothing changes in respect of the complement of controllers and the efficiency of their equipment.
Safety will be entrenched in the strategic partnership agreement which will be a legally binding contract between the Government and our partner. A main board director of NATS will have specific responsibility for safety. A safety monitoring committee will be established within NATS, most likely to be chaired by a government-appointed director.
The safety management system of NATS which presently includes elements that exceed statutory minimum safety requirements will remain in place. The CAA's monitoring procedures will be extended to ensure that an audit of safety management is conducted annually. Finally, training and development standards will be further enhanced.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the Minister develops his argument in another direction, perhaps he will deal with this. His officials have met the representatives of the three trade unions concerned. They remain dissatisfied with the provision of safety. They are not compelled by the Government's argument. If the three trade unions concerned are not satisfied, will the Minister take the opportunity to meet them again before discussion of the Bill is completed in this House?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. Given his past experience in areas of transport, I am very respectful of his intervention.
For the past six months, we have worked with interested parties to identify their specific concerns. If there is more yet to be done in that area, then I am certainly very ready to continue the dialogue, as my noble friend requests. I trust your Lordships will agree that we have taken appropriate action to address concerns with regard to safety procedures. First, we have separated the public safety regulator from the service operator, as everyone wants us to do. Secondly, we have a rigorous selection process which will ensure that the strategic partner shares our commitment to safety. Thirdly, there will be a main board director of NATS who has specific responsibility for safety.
For those reasons, I cannot agree with critics who assert that strategic partners from the private sector would, through undue emphasis on profit, put passengers at risk. Your Lordships can be assured that this will not be a "sale without safeguards". This PPP is a specific solution for a special company. It is calculated to provide future benefits to air traffic users, both airlines and passengers, military and leisure fliers, as well as the country as a whole.
928
Part II of the Bill includes our proposals to improve local transport services, particularly buses. Local authorities have a unique role to play in delivering integrated transport since we believe that they are best placed to provide local solutions for local problems which they best understand.
The Bill will require local authorities to publish local transport plans setting out their policies for the promotion of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities in their area. We have made clear that these policies should give a high priority to road safety schemes in order to deliver our new road safety targets. Local authorities are already producing local transport plans on a non-statutory basis. This Bill, by putting them on a statutory footing, will reinforce their importance.
Local transport plans, or LTPs, will ensure that local authorities take a comprehensive look at their transport powers and breadth of objectives for urban and rural transport, capital and current expenditure and public and private transport. These LTPs are also the basis on which public funding is now allocated.
The local transport settlement for 2000–01 was some £755 million. This is 20 per cent up on the previous year and will rise by a further third to £1 billion next year, demonstrating our determination to deliver integrated transport across England for pedestrians and cyclists as well as for passengers and motorists.
In the settlement for the financial year 2001–02, following the next spending review, SR2000, to be announced next month by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we will indicate the likely funds available for the full five years of the local transport plans. Local authorities can then invest with greater certainty to deliver the integrated transport system that they have long argued for and communities have long deserved.
We see better bus services as a key to local transport solutions. The Bill therefore requires authorities to develop a bus strategy as part of their local transport plan. Our proposals also give local authorities new powers to put in place good quality bus services tailored to local circumstances. The Bill introduces a package of enabling powers relating to partnerships between bus operators and local authorities. These draw on practical experience of more than 150 quality partnerships already working on a voluntary basis around the country. After decades of decline, these partnerships have been instrumental in increasing bus patronage in many areas.
Putting quality partnerships on a statutory basis will allow all parties to invest with confidence. Local quality standards can then be imposed and enforced for the benefit of the passenger; for example, to provide more accessible and comfortable buses. For the benefit of the wider community, partnerships can help meet traffic reduction and air quality objectives. Existing voluntary schemes which are working well can be subsumed into the new contractual arrangements.

929
Integrated ticketing and better passenger information are particularly useful in making bus travel a more attractive alternative to the private car. The Bill introduces powers for local authorities to require bus operators to participate in joint ticketing schemes, and it places a duty on authorities to secure the provision of bus passenger information in their area.
We are also taking powers in the Bill for local authorities to enter into "quality contracts" for bus services if required. Under quality contract schemes, local authorities would determine networks and service levels and let exclusive contracts for them.
We do not see quality contracts as the norm but believe we are right to provide for this option. The extent to which we need to resort to it will depend greatly on the bus industry's continued willingness to work in partnership. However, the imposition of quality contracts will be subject to a strict "public interest" test and to prior consent of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
We are also honouring the promise to introduce a national minimum standard for local authority concessionary fares schemes. This will guarantee all pensioners a cheap bus fare scheme which is at least as generous as half-fare. Further, in future they will no longer have to pay £5 or indeed anything at all for the concessionary bus pass. This will benefit around 3 million pensioners.
A number of local authorities—in London for example—already offer more generous or even free bus travel for pensioners. The measures in the Bill will not affect those schemes. What the Bill will offer is a guaranteed half-fare as a minimum across England and Wales.
We recognise that many local authorities also allow concessionary travel for blind people and/or half fares for disabled people. I am pleased to announce that we intend to bring forward amendments to the Bill to extend the minimum half-fare scheme to disabled people in all localities.
Part II also strengthens the powers of traffic commissioners to fine bus operators for running unreliable services. The Bill provides the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales with the power to make grants to local authorities for general transport purposes and also contains a power to amend the current fuel duty rebate scheme. Both those powers are simply to provide proper flexibility for the future.
Part III of the Bill contains our proposals for road-user charging and the workplace parking levy. As your Lordships will be aware, we have already made those powers available to London's mayor and boroughs as part of our Greater London Authority Act 1999. The Transport Bill will grant similar powers to local authorities outside London.
930
New charging powers can help local authorities to tackle the problems of congestion and pollution. Less congestion means faster and more reliable journeys for motorists, more punctuality for bus passengers and reduced costs to businesses.
In addition, the Bill provides that net revenues raised from such local charging schemes will be retained locally and ring-fenced for spending on improvements to local transport for at least 10 years. Our proposals therefore ensure that new charges will be invested to tackle the problem of traffic congestion and help fund improved alternatives to car travel where needed.
I should like to make it clear that the Government are not imposing charging on local authorities. Some will not charge; some will. This Bill simply gives local authorities powers to tackle traffic problems by introducing charging where it is judged appropriate.
However, local authorities which want to charge will have to submit their plans for raising and using revenues to improve local transport to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, or to the National Assembly for Wales, for approval. Your Lordships may be assured that we do not currently envisage that any scheme will be approved by the Secretary of State unless and until some public transport improvements are made before charging starts; all proceeds are apportioned to fund further improvements to local transport; and adequate consultation has taken place with local people and businesses. For electronic charging schemes, the appropriate technology must be in place to make the scheme effective. Finally, the scheme must be judged fair and proportionate and calculated to make a contribution to integrated transport at the local level.
We have not set deadlines for the introduction of charging schemes. Those involving new technology will take time to test. I can report, however, that 25 local authorities in 12 areas have expressed interest in using the road-user charging and the workplace parking levy powers contained in the Bill.
Local authorities will also be able to ask my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, to introduce charging on specific trunk roads, but only if that is necessary and complementary to their local scheme. The Bill will also allow large trunk road bridges and tunnels—that is, of at least 600 metres in length—to be subject to charges. Those might be introduced to promote our objectives of tackling congestion and pollution, or to provide additional funding to build costly infrastructure. However, your Lordships should be aware that we have no plans to charge for existing tunnels and bridges that are currently free from tolls.
I now turn to Part IV of the Bill—our proposals to improve the railways. The Bill establishes the Strategic Rail Authority—the SRA—and sets out its powers to improve services for the travelling public. The primary purposes of the SRA will be to promote the use of the rail network; to secure its development; and to contribute to the evolution of an integrated transport system. In other words, it will give the industry a long-term strategy for integrated growth.

931
The authority will have a general power to enter into agreements for the purpose of securing the provision, improvement or development by others of the railway. This includes a wide power to give financial assistance. For example, the SRA's powers would enable it to fund the integration of tramways with the main rail network, but not to assume prime responsibility for funding such light rail networks, which will remain a responsibility of the DETR.
The SRA will take over consumer protection functions from the rail regulator. The SRA and rail regulator will have enhanced powers to deal with poorly performing companies. The rail regulator will also have a new power to require facility owners, such as Railtrack, to enhance facilities or to provide new facilities, subject to the owner being adequately rewarded. I am pleased to announce to your Lordships that we shall be bringing forward an amendment at Committee stage to ensure that where rail services have been interrupted—for example, because of engineering work—the substitute services by road must be suitable for disabled passengers.
The rail users' consultative committees the passengers' watchdogs—will have new duties to keep under review matters affecting the interest of rail users and a power to make representations about these matters. Re-named as rail passengers' committees, they will also have a statutory basis for encouragement of better bus-rail links and interchanges. The passenger representative now appointed to the Strategic Rail Authority will mean that the passenger's voice is ever present in its counsels.
The SRA will be able to retain penalty income from enforcement action, including that taken by the rail regulator. Naturally, we expect companies to improve their performance so that enforcement is not necessary. But where it is, penalties will go towards investment in the railway.
The measures in this Bill bring greater public accountability to the railway industry. The Bill will allow the SRA to plan for an expanding and safer network. It will require those who own the network or run trains on it to meet their obligations. The SRA will have the capability to take over franchises "as a last resort"; for example, if a franchise were terminated or if there were no acceptable private bids.
The railway industry has had more than its share of criticism. No doubt some of it was deserved; some of it inescapable given the fragmentation of the industry in the recent past. But there are now positive signs of increasing cohesion, indeed, a revival, of Britain's railways with growth in patronage, new investment in rolling stock and infrastructure, and a large number of safety initiatives.
The Government take rail safety very seriously. That is why we have set up several inquiries to review safety systems and regulation. As an interim measure, Railtrack's current functions in respect of the safety cases of train operating companies are being transferred to the Health and Safety Executive. Additionally, Railtrack is being required to separate its safety functions from its commercial interests in a new independent company called Railway Safety.
932
Further measures must await the results of Lord Cullen's inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash and the joint inquiry on train protection systems to be undertaken by Lord Cullen along with Professor Uff, who conducted the Southall inquiry. It would not be appropriate to take steps now that would pre-empt that advice. However, by increasing investment with the help of this Bill, we invest too in greater safety.
The National Rail Summit, on 25th May, pointed the way for more investment to improve performance and increase capacity. The Bill will help deliver a modern railway capable of meeting the growing needs of passenger and freight customers by providing safe, punctual, reliable services.
The Bill also contains powers for the Vehicle Inspectorate to impound heavy goods vehicles found to be operating illegally. I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for bringing forward these measures in the last Session.
Illegal lorry operators are a small minority in a very responsible industry, but by flouting the law on goods vehicle operator licensing they avoid the checks on professionalism, safety and pollution which are vital to the licensing system. We are determined to act against operators who choose to bypass the licensing system and we believe that the measures in the Bill will enable us to take action against these cowboy outfits.
The Bill will allow school crossing patrols to cover all pedestrians rather than just school-age children by extending the existing powers so that patrols can assist anyone crossing the road. It is also our intention to bring forward amendments at Committee stage to remove the restrictions on times when school crossing patrols may operate. This will complete the package of measures, promised by Government in the 1998 integrated transport White Paper to widen the operational scope for school crossing patrols.
This is a large and complex Bill, and it will come as no surprise to your Lordships to hear that we intend to table a series of government amendments. I reassure your Lordships that they will be limited in number and, when marshalled together, will cover a dozen or so issues. These amendments will be largely technical or drafting amendments which do not raise new policy issues. Other amendments are being tabled to respond to issues raised during the passage of the Bill through the other place or in response to representations made to us from interested parties.
Our amendments to Part I of the Bill are largely of a technical nature, aimed at facilitating the details of the sale of NATS and to ensure effective regulation of the air traffic services provider. As I have indicated, we shall be tabling amendments to Part II of the Bill relating to concessionary fares.
The amendments we propose to introduce on road user charging and the workplace parking levy will be limited to technical amendments. The amendments to the railway clauses will again be mainly technical in nature but, as stated, we shall also be tabling an amendment to ensure that where rail services have been interrupted, a substitute service by road must be suitable for disabled passengers.

933
Amendments to Clause 245 concerning school crossing patrols will complete the package of measures on this matter promised by the Government in the integrated transport White Paper.
All the amendments will be tabled in Committee. I can assure your Lordships that the amendments will be tabled in good time before the start of Committee to ensure that the House has sufficient opportunity to consider them.
We believe that the Bill will help to reverse years of decline and will ensure that all concerned work together to give Britain a transport system fit for the 21st century. This country needs and deserves a safe, modern, integrated and efficient transport system that offers people real choice. Already there is evidence of real improvement. Private investment by the rail industry has doubled since 1996–97, upgrading stations and rolling stock. One thousand three hundred extra train services are running each day to meet growing demand which is now at its highest for half a century. There are 150 bus quality partnerships in towns and cities, increasing bus usage and halting decades of decline. Bus industry investment has doubled and is now running at £380 million annually, providing around 8,000 new buses a year, greater travel choice for the disabled and almost 2,000 new or enhanced services in rural areas.
Trunk road maintenance is now properly researched and its condition is stabilising. Local road maintenance is being tackled through substantial increases in local transport plan budgets. On top of that, and much more, an extra £280 million for transport spending this year was announced in the Budget, funding the start of new rapid transit links in Manchester and London, as well as many other welcome initiatives.
Much has been done in the past three years to upgrade and integrate our transport network, but clearly there remains a great deal more to do. Later this summer we shall publish our 10-year plan which will set out the transport outcomes the Government want to see over the next 10 years, together with the investment strategy—for both public and private sectors—needed to create more choice and more opportunity for more people to travel in safety and comfort at affordable prices and to get to their destination in good time.
The Bill is about delivering the powers that are needed to transform our transport system into one that begins to rival the best in Europe. It provides a constructive, responsible statutory basis for the long-term future of transport in this country. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill now be read a second time.—(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)
3.43 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the long and detailed explanation of what is, after all, a long and detailed Bill. We have many
934
speakers to listen to this afternoon. I look forward, in particular, to the three maiden speeches we shall hear later.
It is with a somewhat heavy heart that I rise to speak on yet another Bill when the Government already have a huge backlog of legislation before this House. However, we are really speaking about four Bills rolled into one. It has been said that the Government's transport policy has been modelled on the buses: you wait for three years with no transport legislation and then it all comes along at once.
The Bill is also growing at a disturbing rate, suggesting that the Government published the Bill first and thought about what should be in it later. We remain concerned that after 18 years in opposition and three years in power in which to construct their transport policies, the Government still do not really know what they think about transport.
The Bill began life in another place at an already hefty 258 pages, 231 clauses and 26 schedules. A couple of thousand amendments in Committee later it was reported back to the other House, where yet another ream of amendments was suggested. It has now reached us as a strapping Bill of 330 pages, 253 clauses and 30 schedules. I have no doubt that by the time we have finished with the Bill it will be so large and unwieldy that we will thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for permitting 44 tonne trucks so that we can send it back to another place.
Seriously, I had hoped for an assurance from the Minister this afternoon that we would not have a repetition of the Greater London Authority Bill. This time last year, that Bill was virtually redrafted in this House with nearly 1000 government amendments. I have to say how disappointed I was to hear the section of the Minister's speech in which he seemed to promise us something which is more or less along the same lines. That is not to say that we do not welcome some of the amendments he foreshadowed this afternoon.
We have a huge advantage over our friends in another place. The Government have appointed the two most senior transport Ministers from among our ranks. Our colleagues in another place had to contend with the Bill being argued, albeit admirably, by a Minister whose brief did not even include transport. We will take full advantage of our position to question fully the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald and Lord Whitty, on the more baffling, incredulous and downright dangerous aspects of the Bill.
We have many objections to this legislation. Instead of far-sighted measures that will improve investment capability, expand passenger choice and grant people more freedom to travel, the Bill is all about allowing more taxation, more regulation and more control by central Government.
This country needs action and policies rather than consultations, focus groups and endless leakages to the media. As the Minister mentioned, I understand that the Government will shortly publish their 10-year plan for transport. But the question must again be asked why the Government have taken three years to come

935
up with such a plan. Action is needed to get the country moving. Some elements of the Bill offer that sort of action. However, there are others, particularly the botched privatisation of National Air Traffic Services and the new stealth taxes, that we shall oppose.
The sale of NATS on the cheap provoked the most controversy when it was debated in another place. Ninety MPs signed an Early Day Motion condemning the partial privatisation. Forty-five Government Back-Benchers disobeyed their Whips and opposed the clause at Report stage. The Labour-dominated Select Committee dismissed the Government's plans as being,
"the worst of all possible options for the future structure of the company".
Clearly, there are many on all sides of Parliament who see problems with the Government's choice of partial privatisation. Like their PPP for the tube, it is botched and is neither the most efficient nor the most sensible thing to do.
The Select Committee also admitted that the status quo was not beneficial for air traffic safety. We welcome the separation of the provider, NATS, from the regulator, the CAA. We do not believe that full privatisation would cause any threat to safety, particularly in an industry where safety is the main function. But, unlike the Government, we have been listening to people's concerns and will seek to raise these matters and the vital issue of national security as the Bill makes progress through this House.
As the Minister pointed out, our airlines and airports are already in private hands and part of profit able enterprises, and civil aviation just happens to he the safest form of transport. A sensible privatisation scheme would present no safety threat at all.
As is known, we on this side of the House proposed a full flotation of NATS to create a great new British company with effective golden share arrangements that would protect the business from unwelcome foreign take-over and provide the widest possible share ownership among the British public. The Government's proposed public/private partnership, however, is something of a mess. The Secretary of State has many friends, but not I fear on this issue. Although, as I said, we reject the notion that safety is incompatible with private ownership, we have several concerns in relation to the proposed scheme.
This public/private partnership provides poor value for the taxpayer. National Air Traffic Services is probably worth between £1 billion and £1.5 billion, and the PPP offers release of loans of about £300 million and net proceeds of £15 million from the sale of operational control of the business. A straight flotation would raise considerably more for the taxpayer, especially if sold in stages rather than in one go. Furthermore, sale proceeds are likely to be significantly enhanced after 2002 when the new Swanwick centre becomes operational.
936
The Government's PPP will not extend share ownership. It is a complex, part-trade sale forced on NATS to try to disguise the reality that it is just privatisation by another name. A straight flotation would create thousands of new shareholders. But this way the strongest bidders appear to be either foreign companies, some perhaps partly or wholly state owned, or others which are already key suppliers to National Air Traffic Services. The only UK bidder appears to be the Airline Group, but there is no guarantee that its bid will be successful. The PPP will create not a new British company, but probably a foreign-owned subsidiary, and that does not appear to us to be in the national interest.
Sale of control to a trade bidder carries extra risks. A straight flotation provides for continuation of the same business, but under the same management; a trade investor offers the downside risk of adverse interference in the management of the company and, in particular, in procurement issues. NATS could finish up tied to a less satisfactory supplier of equipment and there are also risks of transferring control to a state-owned entity in another country. Moreover, the shareholding structure of the PPP creates its own uncertainties about who will be in control of the business. The Government intend to hold more shares than the so-called "strategic partner" and the draft articles of association for the partnership company and the draft strategic partnership agreement are both complex documents. In this privatisation, confusion about who is responsible for safety could give rise to safety concerns. NATS management is excellent and has no need of outside expertise from a trade investor.
Why do the Government continue to talk about the retention of 49 per cent when Clause 48 specifically spells out that the Government's shareholding could be reduced to 25 per cent? What will happen if there is a rights issue then? What is Clause 48 worth when it has a Henry VIII provision stuck in it so that, at the stroke of a pen, the Government can, at a later date, tear up the golden share and the share restriction provisions in the clause? It is incumbent on the Minister to tell us exactly what the golden share is for, given that the European Commission made it clear that it regards it to be illegal under European Community law. The Government's PPP is a bad privatisation that we cannot support.
The Conservative Party invented privatisation, but we have never been the party of privatisation for its own sake. Privatisation should be a means of improving efficiency and effectiveness, but the Government's privatisation carries risks and disadvantages compared to our scheme. The Deputy Prime Minister brought this so-called PPP to Parliament only because the Treasury is forcing him into the privatisation against his will. It is flawed by the Government's attempt to pretend that they are not privatising something when they are. Having promised before the election that,
"Our air is not for sale",
Labour is now promising a back-door privatisation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before the shadow Minister completes his remarks in relation to privatisation, will he indicate whether any of the trade unions concerned support his idea?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I doubt that they do, given their lack of support for the Government's partial privatisation. I have been in discussion with one of the trade unions in relation to this Bill, and the noble Lord will be aware of the line that we on this side of the House took in another place. No doubt we shall be taking the same line, when we come to it, in this place.
To continue, we will argue for the privatisation of NATS, which we believe is the solution the aviation industry would truly prefer, once national security issues have been resolved.
Turning to Part II of the Bill concerning the bus services, we believe that those schemes are also botched. We support non-statutory bus quality partnerships, although we do not see why there should not be an arrangement for including requirements on frequency or timing of services. But quality contracts are just designed to reregulate the industry and reestablish the local monopolies that failed in the past, and that is opposed by the bus industry.
We are also concerned that hidden away at the end of Clause 142 of this huge Bill is a subsection that gives Ministers power to remove the fuel duty rebate currently given to bus operators. The industry predicts that fares would have to rise by 15 per cent to compensate. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain how that will encourage more people to use public transport. By contrast, we made it policy to extend the rebate to community transport schemes. That is a common sense move that will help local transport.
Part III of the Bill—"Road user charging and workplace parking levy"—returns to a familiar government theme; that of more stealth taxes. The Government already take £36 billion a year from the road user. Now local authorities will be given the power to charge people to enter town centres and business will be taxed for each employee car parking space. Studies suggested that the congestion tax would have to be nearly £10 a day to have any deterrent effect on reducing congestion. The workplace parking tax is just a new tax on business and proposed charges include £250 per space per year in Birmingham and as much as £5,000 in London. The workplace parking tax is vehemently opposed by industry, which points out that if the tax is paid by the employer, it is just another tax on business and will not stop anyone using their cars; if it is paid by the employees, it will fuel demands for inflationary pay rises as they will no doubt wish to recoup the money immediately.
Many questions are still unanswered in relation to how the schemes will be operated, who will be exempted and where the money will go. But my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith will be concentrating particularly on this part of the Bill. We will be specifically interested to learn why the Government,
938
having forced through the legislation that allows congestion charging in London, now seem opposed to it in the capital. If they made a U-turn in London, why have they not changed their mind for the rest of the country?
The final part of the Bill is to do with the railways. The Government introduced draft legislation for creating a Strategic Rail Authority in the last Session. We do not need a Bill to give Ministers more power over rail; we just need a Secretary of State who knows how to do his job. It is one thing to call rail industry figures together once a year and shout at them for the sake of a good headline; it is another to have intelligent discussions that help to deliver investment incentives for the industry and real benefits for passengers and freight.
We do not oppose a SRA in principle, which can act as persuader and facilitator for increased investment in the industry. However, the railways provisions in the Transport Bill have been described as "renationalising the railways by the back door". No wonder rail company share prices have slumped. Not only is the rail regulator being politicised, but the powers given to Ministers and the SRA threaten to bring more bureaucracy into decision making. The danger is that every major rail investment decision will become subject to Treasury control—just what privatisation was intended to remove. The Minister mentioned how successful privatisation has been in bringing much increased new investment into the railways. Once more, the rail industry will be spending more time in negotiation with Treasury Ministers than in creatively improving the railway.
The whole Bill is full of measures for increased taxation, regulation and control. It shows that the Government do not have a clue about the concerns of the travelling public. Britain needs a modern, forward-looking, safe and efficient transport network, and this Bill fails to contribute much to that objective.
There are several questions that the Minister should be answering. Has there really been a U-turn in government thinking on transport, as recently reported? Are the Government going to revive the Conservatives' plans to give more communities the bypasses they need? Are they going to deal with the bottle-necks and road improvements that have got worse over three years of stagnation? Are they going to restore the cuts in the trunk road and motorway network? Are they going to start reducing fuel duties to make our transport industries competitive once again? Are they going to see sense and not impose any more taxes on the road user? Are they going to stop legislating for restrictions and controls on our railways and buses so that they are free to invest and develop their services for their passengers? Will they go for a common-sense and straightforward flotation of NATS to create a free-standing British company that will act in the national interest?
This Bill is a resounding "no" to all those questions. The whole thrust and tone of the Bill is wrong. It is based upon the belief that Whitehall and the town hall knows best and that ordinary people will welcome

939
ever-higher taxes and incursions upon their freedom to travel. The Bill takes us only a short way down the road to a first-class transport network. While the Prime Minister can travel down the M4 bus lane in his limo, the rest of us will have to wait for some time yet in the jams. We look forward to debating this Bill and hope that the Ministers in this House will see some sense and work with us to return this Bill, substantially altered for the better, to another place.
4 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, in introducing this Bill, the Minister reminded us of how long it has been since a comprehensive transport Bill went through our Parliament. My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, who was sitting next to me, remarked that he had only dealt with "little" transport Bills. That reminded me of how often one finds oneself sitting next to, behind, or in front of someone who has been a Minister of Transport.
My first purpose today is to welcome those parts of the Bill—broadly, Parts II, III and IV—which give partial legislative expression to the concept of integrated transport and to ideas of sustainability that were expressed in the transport White Paper. Fears were widely expressed among the NGC)s and by those active in the transport industry that the Government are less committed than before to practical implementation of integrated transport. I hope that that is not true.
In the past, investment in transport infrastructure, particularly in roads, has been a stop-go affair varying with the strength of the national finances. I hope that the Government are not slipping back, as the purse strings are slightly loosened, into governments' old habits of promoting an unbalanced boom in road-building once again, just as the population at large is beginning to resign itself—even to accept—a need to use existing road space better and to invest in public transport. In Committee we shall be putting forward amendments to various parts of the Bill. Such amendments will have at their core a desire to improve the Bill in respect of better integration.
Another general concern in the Bill is that of road safety. We welcome the inclusion in Clauses 241, 242 and 243 of the provisions to tighten enforcement of licensing of HGV operators. If the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, decides to bring forward the provisions of his Bill, which do not appear in this Bill, I believe we shall be minded to support him. I also note and welcome the Minister's assurance of the importance of safety as an element in local transport plans.
I noted with pleasure the inclusion of Clause 245 during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons. The Minister has already referred to this clause, which relates to school crossing patrols. I welcome his indication that further amendments to complete that process will be brought forward in Committee. This reflects one of the Government's commitments in the road safety strategy which was issued in March of this year. But the Government made other commitments in that strategy that we
940
believe could, and should, be added to this Bill. After all—I refer again to the Minister's opening remarks—this may be the only opportunity for many years to give legislative effect to those recommendations of the safety strategy that the Government wish to introduce "as soon as the legislative timetable permits".
We shall be bringing forward amendments to that effect, as I indicated during the debate on the road safety strategy in your Lordships' House on 13th March of this year. In responding to my comments and to those from Conservative speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, seemed willing to accept that approach. Therefore, I hope that our objectives can be achieved by agreement. I shall also be writing to the Minister to see what progress has been made with the next tier of important actions deriving from the safety strategy that are currently under consultation.
In tackling this Bill, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, observed, has considerably increased in both length and weight during its passage through the other place, we shall also have to give clue attention to the many government amendments, especially those passed without discussion during the Report and Third Reading stages in the House of Commons, as well as those that are about to reach us. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I believe that at least some of those mentioned by the Minister seem welcome.
I turn to Part I of the Bill. The Government will not be surprised to know that we oppose their plans for the part-privatisation of NATS. Of course, we are not alone in opposing them; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has just indicated that the Conservatives oppose them. However, I suspect that our agreement will end there. The airline industry and airline pilots have expressed concern in this respect, and the RAF is reported to be apprehensive at the possibility that air traffic controllers employed by a non-British company could be sharing tasks and expertise with them.
The Minister made much of the large government holding of shares in NATS under the PPP. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, pointed out, that share could be reduced to as little as 25 per cent. Air traffic controllers themselves oppose the part-privatisation and, when polled, the British public has shown itself to be overwhelmingly against the idea. The House of Commons Select Committee was scathing in its condemnation and large sections of the Labour Party and of the parliamentary Labour Party still adhere to the policy that the party held before the last general election. Their feelings showed in the results of the votes on 9th May in another place.
It is all for nothing. We, and many other objectors, accept that a division between the regulatory and service delivery functions is desirable. We also accept that the Government, whether or not we agree with them, are committed to seeking to fund investment in NATS outside the public sector borrowing requirement. But there are alternative options for achieving those objectives without losing the public sector safety-first ethos, which has given NATS its unrivalled position as a world leader in air traffic

941
control and created a sense of confidence among users and the general public. We shall be tabling amendments to express our views in that respect.
Turning to the railways, I start by noting that there is considerable concern in the industry about the potential for legalistic dispute between what are in effect two regulators—the Office of the Rail Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority. An interesting comparison can be made with the gas and electricity industries, which, under the Utilities Bill, will have a single regulator, as compared to one industry having two regulators as proposed in this Bill. Following changes in the regulatory framework as proposed in the Bill, I hope that the Government can convince us that the ORR and the SRA will not be encouraged to waste time or become diverted from their main purposes by technical inhibitions to collaboration or by positive disagreements about mutual boundaries.
A linked problem is derived from the structure of the rail industry as it emerged from the process of privatisation. The premise behind the structure was that there would be more than one train operating company competing on a single route. In fact, this is not the pattern that has generally emerged. The result is a rather artificial separation of track owner from train operator, which does not necessarily lead to the best outcome for users. It will be interesting to know whether the suggestion that Scotland provides a perfect test bed for experimenting with a different and more productive sort of relationship could find favour with the Government.
Of course, such matters are well beyond the remit of the Bill—or, rather, we shall be unable to amend it in order to encompass all the issues that I have raised. Nevertheless, the Government's attitude to these problems, and to their solutions, will form the context for the development of rail transport under the legal framework provided by this Bill over the next 10 to 15 years. I should welcome a response from the Government on these matters. Looking at the clock, and taking into account the number of speakers on the list, I estimate that the Government have six or seven hours in which to bring forward such a reply. However, if that is not possible, I should be glad to receive a letter in response.
As regards Part IV, we shall seek to clarify and expand the purposes of the SRA. We shall also move, or support, amendments to secure the expansion of rail freight. We shall test the commitment of the Government to review the position of the railway police. I welcome the Minister's comments on changes in Railtrack's responsibilities for safety. I shall read that part of his speech with great care.
Finally, I thank in advance my noble friends who will test and, if we can persuade the Government, improve the Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Smith of Clifton, Lord Bradshaw, Lord Addington and Lord Methuen, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, will address different aspects of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market will make her maiden speech today.
942
I am sure that it will immediately become apparent why she is so welcome on our Benches. This is an important Bill. We on these Benches will approach it with a due sense of its importance and with a determination to improve it through the process of scrutiny in which this House excels. I look forward to that process.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships' House for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I must first, however, thank all noble Lords for their kind reception. Members of this House, noble Lords and noble Baronesses, attendants and staff have received me with the greatest kindness and courtesy. I must have sorely tried their patience. Lacking any sense of locality as I do, my brief sojourn here has been marked on my side by a series of daft questions and, what is worse, repetitive daft questions, addressed to anyone unwise enough to hesitate in the corridors for one moment.
I have been successively unable to find the Attendants' Office, the Peers Lobby, the Library, and even on one particularly bad day, the Chamber itself! But everyone I appealed to has stopped whatever they were doing and helped with very real kindness. I have also received a good deal of encouragement and help in speaking today.
I particularly wanted to speak on the public/private partnership proposed by the Bill for National Air Traffic Services. In 1970–30 years ago—I was a young principal in the Board of Trade with responsibility for the newly constituted British Airports Authority, and all the implications that that carried for what we then called Air Traffic Control. It was a simpler world. There were many fewer flights to control and the investment needed to keep the United Kingdom at the forefront of safe air traffic control was not then so great as to be unaffordable from the public purse.
After 1973 when I moved from civil aviation, I and my colleagues spent the rest of the 1970s and early 80s under Labour and Conservative governments in increasingly urgent debate on the best ways to harness private sector managerial and financial expertise for the benefit of public sector activities. I was in the thick of this, being concerned successively with shipbuilding, aircraft manufacture and steel, culminating in 1981 with the setting up of the series of joint ventures between the British Steel Corporation and the private sector, which probably preserved much of the United Kingdom's steel industry.
Even after I left the public service in 1982 to join a merchant bank, I was still concerned with the same issues. The Treasury rules on what constitutes public expenditure drove the debate for more than 10 years and all suitable concerns—and some that were not really suitable at all—were exported into the private sector lock, stock and chief executive. At the same time, however, some innovative thinking was being applied to public sector activities, such as the

943
construction of roads and other major projects, which were increasingly expensive and inefficient, but which could not be moved wholesale out of the public sector. As a banker I was involved at an early stage in advising the Department of Transport on getting contractors to design, build, finance and operate selected roads. It was not, alas, until many years later that this thinking, refined and much improved by others, spawned the successful range of public projects built under the private finance initiative.
I believe that we now need further financial innovation. Privatisation and the private finance initiative have transformed much of the public sector, but they do not constitute a full hand of cards. There are public sector concerns, such as National Air Traffic Services, where the public interest is so dominant as to make them unsuitable for wholesale privatisation. Nor is the private finance initiative the right way to finance the two new control centres with their high technological content that National Air Traffic Services will require. I believe that what is needed is the new form of financing proposed in the Bill where a major private sector partner is brought in, but the public sector retains a very large shareholding.
I should also like to address the question of safety. Whenever bringing in private sector cash and expertise is proposed, great anxiety is always expressed about decreasing standards of safety. I suggest to your Lordships' House that this concern is misplaced. Safety at work is not a matter of ownership, nor even primarily of regulation. It is a function of management, of the persistent, patient maintenance of a safe system of work. A safe system requires three things, of which the most important is commitment from management from top to bottom, with an acceptance that safety is everyone's business, not just that of the safety officer. Transparency is the next most important—everyone has to be trained, to know the rules, to measure performance and how to put things right when they have gone wrong and improve performance. A system of monitoring and auditing to keep everyone up to the mark is also essential—that is the third most important matter.
I believe that the Bill provides for those three conditions to be achieved. The management of National Air Traffic Services has always been committed to the maintenance of safety standards; and the Bill provides for the appointment of government directors, one of whom will be specifically charged with leading the work on safety, including training. Transparency will be greatly facilitated by the separation of National Air Traffic Services from its regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority. It is always difficult for a regulator also to be an owner. The Bill provides for rigorous monitoring and auditing which my right honourable and noble friend the Minister for Transport has undertaken will include auditing of safety procedures.
In much of the public debate the fear seems to be that a private sector owner will be tempted to cut corners, sacrificing safety in the pursuit of profit. I suggest that that is nonsense. No manager in his right mind would court the possibility of a serious
944
accident. The human consequences are dreadful for the managers of any business, be it public or privately owned. The administrative consequences, including ruined careers and years spent in courts are terrible for any organisation. I suggest that private sector concerns have, if possible, even more to lose from a serious accident than the public sector because of the damage done to their profitability that results from the loss of reputation involved. A crash is any airline's worst nightmare, not only because of the terrible human price but also because of the direct consequences for its market share.
I remember when the sale of British Airways was first proposed how many people prophesied that safety procedures would be abandoned in the search for profit. Of course that did not happen because safety is an airline's prime business asset, as it is for National Air Traffic Services. Safety is what they do, and their fine record and reputation are the principal assets that any private sector partner would want to preserve.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their patience. I hope that we shall support the Bill, that we shall welcome the future participation of the private sector, and that we shall accept that the private sector has no less an interest than the public sector in the maintenance of high standards of safety in National Air Traffic Services.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen of Pimlico, on her maiden speech. It was a refreshing, clear and interesting speech delivered by a welcome, youthful new contributor to our debates. The noble Baroness has a long and distinguished career in banking, the Civil Service and the public service, and as a novelist and academic. We look forward to hearing many contributions from her. We shall always pay great attention to what she has to say.
I declare an interest as the director of a French public company, Thomson CSF, which has an interest in supplying services to National Air Traffic Services in this country.
I wish to direct my brief comments to Part IV of the Bill. I am pleased that in his opening speech the Minister said that it was the intention of the Government to improve the railways. As the Minister of State for Public Transport between 1990 and 1994, working very closely with my noble friend the shadow Minister on the Front Bench in the Department of Transport, I have never believed that any legislation introduced by any administration was incapable of improvement. I welcome Part IV of the Bill; I welcome in principle the creation of the Strategic Rail Authority; and I support what Sir Alastair Morton has already said as its shadow chairman. The SRA has a key role to play in encouraging extra investment in the railways. That is the only way in which we will reduce congestion and improve and expand the railways.
Since privatisation was completed in 1997, both passenger and freight patronage has increased by about one-quarter. I fully admit that I and most of my

945
fellow Ministers in the previous administration did not forecast such a welcome increase. I am glad that it has occurred. It has come about for a number of reasons, but it has brought a number of problems, principally those of overcrowding and congestion. It has happened because of continued economic growth in the economy and the reaction to growing road congestion; it has occurred because of the reduction in real passenger railway fares where there is a monopoly supply of service, which has encouraged patronage; and it has also come about because of the innovation of management in the private sector in introducing new services and new fare structures, and in capturing new markets.
Those who study the railway industry and have its best interests at heart forecast a 50 per cent increase in passenger rail traffic over the next decade, and perhaps a 100 per cent increase in the amount of freight carried. These are very welcome but daunting figures. They will bring great environmental benefits but, without new investment of substantial sums, such predictions will not be accomplished. They certainly will not be accomplished comfortably for the passenger and speedily for the freight shipper.
The Strategic Rail Authority has a key role to play. Railtrack estimates the investment requirements in the infrastructure of the railways over the next 10 years at something like £50 billion. This, of course, must include—in my judgment at least—£4 billion to £5 billion specifically to assist the freight industry alone to take heavier and longer trains. I look forward to the contribution in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I support very much what the Rail Freight Group—and he in particular—have already achieved in encouraging our interest in the growth of rail freight.
How is this £50 billion to be financed? We know that Railtrack forecasts that it can probably finance £25 billion under the current track access charging regime; and the estimates are that the train operating companies could provide about £10 billion. Both sources, incidentally, are in the private sector and therefore unrestricted by the Treasury's rules of annuality and control of public expenditure. The doubling of railway investment, which the Minister rightly referred to in his opening speech, has come about because of the freedom that those bodies have to borrow and to invest their cashflow without restriction from the Treasury.
Unfortunately, there is a gap of £15 billion. Where is this money to come from? Probably, only from two sources. If he has time, it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, could comment on this issue when he responds to the debate. Otherwise I look forward to following the progress of the Bill in Committee and in detail.
The first source is Railtrack. The track access charging regime—which is controlled by the regulator and limits what Railtrack can charge the train operating companies—is under review. I welcome that. It is timely and necessary. A key problem that the regulator needs to address is that Railtrack is not
946
compensated for growth in the volume of rail traffic. That may have been an error in the original architecture of the track access charging regime. No one forecast such a substantial increase. But, under the new regime, Railtrack should be able to recover more from the train operating companies, and therefore the passenger, the more use is made of the infrastructure. I hope that the new track access charging regime—a draft is due very shortly—will provide greater flexibility and allow Railtrack to recover more moneys from the train operating companies. The second source, of course, is the train operating companies and the state as subsidiser.
It is sensible to assume that fare revenues will rise as the industry expands to provide sufficient cash to pay Railtrack. It would be helpful if the Minister who is to respond to the debate could indicate that the Treasury is prepared to look more favourably than it has in the past on the recycling of the premium payments being made in later years under current franchises by train operating companies to the Treasury. In his opening speech, the Minister spoke about hypothecation recycling. The same principle could apply in decades to come. The many billions of pounds that the franchisees of passenger rail services will provide to the state could be recycled.
I am sure that all sides of the House welcome the imminent arrival of the Government's 10-year strategic transport plan. After the spending review figures are settled in July, it will provide an indication of how much money is due for the railways. We look forward to the regulator's review of the track access charging regime. But the SRA has a key role to play in bringing all this together, in co-ordinating it and in setting, if you like, a vision of where the railway industry should be in a decade's time. I hope that the important responsibility placed on the SRA by the Bill will not disappoint the House.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to make my maiden speech to this House so soon after my introduction. It is a great honour for me to have been chosen to become a Member of this House, and for my family and for my home town of Needham Market.
The fact that I have so enjoyed my first few weeks here is due in no small part to the many gestures of friendship that I have received from all sides of the House, and to the unfailing courtesy and efficiency of the people who work here. I fully empathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, as she struggles to come to terms with the geography of this place. On my first day I found a room in which I knew I could work comfortably. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find it again. I am beginning to wonder whether, like something from Gulliver's Travels, it is a room that moves around the Palace of Westminster.
I have served on a local authority since 1991; first of all on Mid Suffolk District Council and then on Suffolk County Council. That county council has a proud tradition of innovative transport policies, which

947
have been recognised nationally. For the past three years I have been vice chairman of the Local Government Association Transport Committee. It seems particularly appropriate that I should make my maiden speech on the Second Reading of this important Bill.
I intend to address my remarks to what is described as the centrepiece of the Bill—the local transport plan. I fear that this aspect of the Bill will suffer rather and receive less attention than NATS, buses, trains and charging schemes. Nevertheless, a new framework for transport planning is the key to developing a modern transport system which is fit for the new century.
There is a growing consensus that this country has been poorly served by its transport planning system in the post-war period. A lack of national strategic vision, fragmentation of policy making, underinvestment and political opportunism have all played their part in creating the transport system that we have today. All too often it is inefficient, expensive, overcrowded and environmentally damaging.
Under the provisions of the Bill, local authorities will have a statutory duty to prepare local transport plans in which they will set out how they intend to develop safe, sustainable and integrated transport facilities in their areas, along with proposals for spending both government capital grant and their own revenue resources.
In the past, local authority transport policy was outlined in a less than exciting annual bidding document, known as the "TPP". Submitted each year to central government, it ostensibly provided the foundation for capital grant decisions, but the system led to progressive overbidding and the development of wish lists. Worse still, they were often created in a vacuum—hermetically sealed from other policy areas such as environment, economy and accessibility.
A mini breakthrough occurred in the early 1990s as the so-called "package approach" to transport planning was developed. Package bids encompassed, for the first time, a wider range of policies and bids which placed more emphasis on safety, sustainability and integration. An urban package approach recognised the limits of local authority boundaries in strategic transport planning and therefore encouraged co-ordination across authorities in sub regions.
Building on the success of urban packages, the local transport plan approach, as outlined in the Bill, has much to commend it. A five-year plan with an emphasis on consultation, the inclusion of strategies to promote walking, cycling and public transport, along with green travel plans, is a major step forward. But perhaps the most important aspect is the recognition that transport policies exist in order to promote other objectives.
It is hardly rocket science, but I feel that sometimes transport professionals can lose sight of why we actually need transport—the mechanics and economics of mass movement have become objectives in their own right and the needs of individuals are often forgotten.
948
A survey of local authorities after the first round of provisional LTPs indicated that the process had involved their taking a genuinely corporate approach, involving professionals from fields such as social services and education—and not before time. Today's transport planners need skills in areas such as public participation, community development and economic regeneration to augment the more traditional disciplines.
It is worth emphasising that this is only part of the systemic reform which is necessary if we are to achieve an improved transport system. There is still little sense of an overall national transport strategy, given that press releases are no substitute for policy. I am sure that the Minister is looking forward to using the forthcoming 10-year plan as an opportunity to give shape and clarity to the Government's transport priorities.
Transport is one of the many policy areas which benefits from a regional perspective and the current development of regional transport strategies will be helpful. Rail infrastructure investment should be considered alongside major road schemes on a regional basis for both impact and prioritisation purposes. The complex relationships between urban centres and their rural hinterlands might become better understood in a regional context. Coherent regional strategies for parking and charging schemes will help to prevent unhelpful rivalries between neighbouring urban centres. However, it is far from clear how local transport plans will fit into such regional frameworks and into the emerging 10-year plan.
Local authorities will continue to produce development plans at county, district and unitary levels and perhaps we can look forward to a system in which the LTPs are integrated into all of these so that the artificial divide between transport policies and land use is finally eliminated.
The Local Government Bill promotes the development of community plans. How will those relate to LTPs and what do we do to reconcile the competing demands of those who live in a community, the people who come into the area to work or to shop and those who simply want to pass through at maximum speed, unhindered by road humps and bus lanes?
As far as concerns finance, the LTP system links government capital and local authority revenue spending on transport and provides a five-year planning framework, both of which should be welcomed. Nevertheless, urgent consideration should be given to reforms to allow local authorities to borrow in order to provide alternatives before they put in road-user charging or workplace parking levies. To do otherwise would be municipal highway robbery and would meet with massive opposition.
Revenues generated by such schemes must be truly additional so that those faced with the charging schemes can see very clearly how their money is being used and what benefits they are receiving as a result.

949
I fear that in the highly complex and occasionally murky world of local government finance, it will be hard to tell.
In conclusion, local transport plans are based on a proven concept and should be welcomed. But they are only part of the picture and need to be clearly one part of an overall strategic approach to transport planning. I look forward to the debates on the Bill in this House over the coming weeks.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, to the House of Lords "transport club" and to congratulate her on a speech which demonstrated very clearly her considerable interest in and experience of the world of local government in general and transport in particular. I can quote that she also has,
"a particular interest in European issues".
Indeed, the list of UK and European organisations in which she plays a major role, while in the process of bringing up two children—it is hoped with more success than I had some years ago—is impressive.
Many in this House share the noble Baroness's interest in European issues, but I doubt whether I could guarantee her the same degree of enthusiastic unanimity which greeted her speech today. Indeed, perhaps I may issue a warning that it is highly unlikely, if her next speech addresses European affairs, that it will be greeted with similar unanimity—whichever side she is on. We are pleased to welcome her to the House, whether she makes controversial speeches—it happens; whether she is rude to the Whips—that is highly desirable; or whether she becomes involved in European issues. She will be a much-valued colleague and we wish her well.
As the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, one has only to look at the list of speakers in today's debate to see that, once people become involved in the multi-faceted problems of moving people and freight in an affluent country such as ours, they tend to become hooked on the subject. I confess that I am in that group. I spent seven increasingly fascinating years, first, as Minister of Transport in a Labour Cabinet and, immediately after that, as chairman of the British Railways Board under a Conservative government who—to add to the fun—were replaced by a Labour government halfway through my contract. From that experience I can say only that if all Ministers knew, at the beginning of their period of office, that they would have to live with the consequences of what they had done, there might be better legislation and certainly far less of it.
I propose to speak about the transport implications in the Bill, but before doing so perhaps I may register a small whinge. In many ways it is a pity that the proposal for NATS has been incorporated in the Bill because it is a major issue in its own right and does not—strangely enough—fit in naturally with surface transportation matters, which form the main part of this legislation.
950
The Minister mentioned the Transport Act 1968 and his remarks brought my memories of it flooding back. Like the Minister I, too, find it interesting to note the similarities between this measure and that Act. They are roughly the same enormous size. I hope I can say that that Bill contained fewer government amendments—perhaps, when the Minister winds up the debate, he could indicate how many have been produced so far; that information will help some of us to plan our summer holidays. Nevertheless, it is significant that the key issues addressed in the Transport Act 1968 and the objectives then set out to tackle them are almost identical to those set out here.
First, 32 years ago no one argued against the fact that it had become necessary to exert some control over the growth of private car ownership and the ever-increasing mileage driven. The impact that was having on society was clear. Secondly, in addition to trying to control the growth of car use, we sought to transfer more travellers from private vehicles to public transport. Thirdly, after deep research we decided that it was necessary to transfer more freight from road to rail. Our fourth objective was to face the problems that were directly attributable to inadequate railway investment over many years. That was the nature of the 1968 Act. Plus ca change …!
In support of those objectives we examined a raft of options for road pricing. At that stage, all kinds of electronic devices were becoming available which made increasingly possible, whether in terms of tolls, a tax on business parking or whatever. We decided that buses were a key part of public transport; therefore, we set up the National Bus Company. Then, turning our attention to the problems of freight on the roads, we set up the National Freight Corporation. Finally, we reorganised the management structure of the British rail network. We faced a complex matrix of problems and sought solutions; and we threw the full weight of the government machine behind that task. To make our intentions clear, we described our approach as "an integrated transport policy".
Only two transport initiatives from that time survive today having proved their worth and made a massive and obvious contribution to road safety. Neither was in the Act. I refer to the compulsory use of seatbelts and the drink-driving legislation which have had a major impact, while the original provisions in the Bill have had no lasting effect. In case there is any misunderstanding—because neither of us has been invited to set up the other's fan club—the credit for those two measures is directed entirely at the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, who promoted them personally.
I outline this past experience not because I take a negative view of the Bill—indeed, quite the opposite; the Bill provides the opportunities to rescue the situation from some of the damage that has occurred, particularly in the railway system over recent years. The problems addressed by the Bill are faced by all affluent industrial nations, and they have not found the answers either; they have similar problems of traffic congestion and pollution. But they share a key feature with the UK: traffic congestion, whether in

951
Tokyo, São Paulo, London or Paris, never brings a city to a standstill. That is significant, and there is a simple reason for it. Congestion is the only thing that controls the private motorist and has a considerable effect on his behaviour. Motoring is not price sensitive. For years this country has imposed some of the highest taxes on the motorist, through fuel policy and other measures, in Europe and through most of the world—and they have had no impact at all. All the motorway programmes of the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated that, as fast as road surface was provided, it filled up to an acceptable level of congestion. I do not see a simple solution to that problem. The answer may be to come to terms with seeking to ameliorate the problems of motoring in towns with considerable investment and research in traffic management schemes which have much greater effect.
I turn to what I regard as by far the most important part of the Bill. I refer to the clauses relating to a strategic rail authority. For a variety of reasons, I was strongly in favour of the injection of private capital into the nationalised railway—not for any doctrinal reasons, but primarily because I thought that it would provide some sort of discipline for the investment programme and the fiscal management of the railway and ministerial interventions.
At that stage, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and I moved a number of amendments to the Bill because we were extremely worried by the proposition that was being put. Nothing that has happened since leads me to suppose that the changes that were made have produced anything other than a managerial monstrosity. One has only to sit down and draw up a simple structural reporting chart to see the situation. There are 25 separate operating passenger companies, each with different shareholders, each with a different business plan, each with different franchises. On top of that, there are the separate freight organisations, and so on. It is an impossible organisation to co-ordinate in any serious way in the long term. I believe that the Strategic Rail Authority can provide the basis of a much more rational structure, which could last a long time.
I should like to make three further points. First, the present situation is untenable and unmanageable. I hope that the considerable powers that will be available to the Strategic Rail Authority can be used in some way to reduce the numbers of companies involved by means of merger or whatever way possible to begin to move towards a more rational, sensible structure. No board could successfully manage the present structure.
Secondly, it is crucial that the post of chairman of the authority should be a full-time position. The sheer scale of the operation will keep the CEO fully occupied. The chairman needs to maintain close relationships not only with the Minister and his officials but also with the Opposition, industry and consumer organisations, to name but a few. Above all, he must understand and become a part of the culture of the railway industry. This is not a part-time job. Some of the safety problems that have arisen have
952
done so precisely because the culture of the organisation and the inter-relationships within it have been neglected.
Finally, there must be long-term investment plans, guaranteed over seven to 10 years. Nothing better could happen for the taxpayer and the travelling public than to have some security as regards the adequate funding of railway investment. However, during the five years when I was chairman of British Rail, there were seven major changes in the investment programme. I see no reason to suppose that that will be different in the future. Possibly in five years, certainly in 10 years, Lord Prescott will have become chairman of Jaguar Europe, having lost the leadership to Sir Ken Livingstone, and the Treasury will have intervened at least half a dozen times. It is a feature of our system which requires some new initiative, possibly between the parties, with some guarantees.
I do not know how that can be achieved, but drawing up the investment programme is the easy part. Unless the integrity of the investment programme can be protected, at least within some parameters, we shall have missed another opportunity. That would be a tragedy. I cannot believe that we cannot deal with that problem, and I wish the Bill well.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, in this my first speech to your Lordships' House I wish to place on record my thanks for the kindness and courtesy shown to me by all sides of the House since my arrival on 15th May feeling very much the new girl in school.
Like others before me, I have had difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, explained in his maiden speech why he had not been able to use one of the tools of his father's trade—a police whistle—to help him find his way around the House. But he had used a pocket compass. The tools of my father's trade would also be of little use to guide me. He was a butcher. On reflection I do not think that arming myself with a meat axe would endear me to your Lordships. And., as I do not possess a pocket compass, I am deeply grateful to Members, officers and staff who have advised and guided me with humour and patience when I have been found wandering many steps from where I was supposedly heading.
Prior to entering your Lordships' House I was a senior trade union official in the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union, the union in which my noble friends Lady Turner of Camden and Lord Hoyle have played such important roles over the years. I regarded it as an honour to work for the members of MSF, who were from all walks of life, with many different beliefs, needs and aspirations.
I am equally proud to speak here today on working issues, conscious of the history of this House and its role in the affairs of our nation.
I wish to concentrate my remarks on health and safety in the railway industry, because in any discussions on transport, health and safety must play a vital role. Here I declare an interest. I am a serving

953
Health and Safety Commissioner, having been appointed to that role in 1996. Together with nine other commissioners, I oversee the work of the Health and Safety Executive, the expert, independent safety body in this country. Its role is to identify hazards, assess risks and apply appropriate control to protect both workers and the public—and, of course, its remit includes transport.
Although the Bill is primarily about delivering a more efficient transport system, that does not mean that we should not be concerned about safety. We owe that both to the passengers who use the transport system and to those who work in the industry. Efficient, safe transport is a must; a safe railway is essential.
The Bill covers issues of key importance in the railway health and safety field: the need for increased investment to improve safety, comfort, reliability and speed; the need for new rolling stock in many areas; and the need for an efficient enforcement system which will allow poor performance by rail operators to be effectively tackled. Additionally, consideration must be given to providing enough health and safety inspectors to enforce health and safety law on the railways and elsewhere; and there is certainly a need for a rail consumer body which will put the passenger's voice at the heart of decision-making.
Of course, we have to put our health and safety record in its proper context. The UK's record on health and safety is a strong one compared with that of other developed countries. Our systems are greatly respected, and indeed replicated elsewhere. This is in no small part due to the work of the Health and Safety Executive and its dedicated staff, who earn a great degree of credibility and respect from employees, employers and organisations at home and abroad.
However, there is no room for complacency. Serious accidents continue to occur, and they are what register in people's minds. We all remember accidents such as the Southall train crash, the sinking of the riverboat "Marchioness" and the recent Ladbroke Grove disaster, the deaths and the injuries received and the aftermath for families and organisations alike.
The railways are places of work for many thousands; and in the railways, as in other workplaces, I am anxious to see better health and safety standards.
I understand that shortly the Deputy Prime Minister and the Health and Safety Commission chair, Bill Callaghan, will launch a new 10-year strategy for better health and safety. No longer can we allow hundreds of people to die each year as a result of work. No longer can we allow £18 billion to go down the drain every year because of health and safety lapses.
I am sure that those involved in our transport system are well aware of the need for constant improvements and constant vigilance. Obtaining a balance between business drive and care for employees is a challenge to all employers, large or small. A company's culture—how things are done within the company—is of crucial importance to the healthy progress of any organisation. If, for example, senior management does
954
not believe that health and safety matter, it is unlikely that employees will take the care or pay the attention needed to create a risk-free environment.
Over recent years the development of the role of health and safety representatives, men and women who are alert in their workplaces to risks which may be encountered, has worked well. They discuss with their employers how such risks can be overcome before a risk becomes an accident or, worse, a fatality.
Currently a number of well-known companies are working with unions to co-ordinate safety improvements, and this is of paramount importance in the transport industry. Indeed, recent trade union research has shown that in companies where employers and safety representatives work together to tackle safety issues accidents can be substantially cut. Such partnerships show the way forward.
Finally, I am well aware of a number of respected health and safety experts in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lady Whitaker being one, and it is a pleasure for me to be working alongside them. I am not a health and safety expert, but I am a firm believer in the importance of health and safety. When the chair of the Health and Safety Commission asked me recently what qualities I believed I brought to the work of the commission, I replied that I tried to bring common sense and an open mind to issues before us. I hope to bring these qualities to this House also.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, the whole House will wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, on her cogent and well delivered maiden speech. The Bill before us provided her with an excellent opportunity, because her expertise is well known. I hope that we shall hear much more from her, not only on this Bill, but on others in years to come.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, whatever happens, this Bill will have a great long-term effect on the motorist and motoring. As we have a long list of speakers, I shall confine my remarks to congestion taxes and workplace levies.
We have all sat in traffic jams, and it is a very boring process, but when we think about it do we not see that sometimes the problem is slightly exaggerated? I say that because in the 24-hour day even the worst roads are congested for only about two hours; most of the time there is no problem. Therefore, the motorists ask themselves, "Is this congestion really necessary?" They ask what research has been done to discover the causes.
The motorist has always been blamed, is blamed and will always be blamed. But if I were to show the House some photographs of the traffic in London in 1900 your Lordships would see that traffic congestion was far worse. In fact, 350 people were being killed by horse-drawn traffic every year in London alone. But, unfortunately, in line with the policy followed by successive governments of blaming the motorist for

955
everything, when governments talk about congestion they seem to forget about such matters as roadworks, badly timed traffic signals, trucks unloading at traffic lights, coach traffic, inadequate and incomplete roads and so on. That is not to forget such other matters as IRA bombs and the widening of pavements, with a consequent reduction in the size of roads.
The motorist is used to being blamed for everything. The trouble with finding solutions to the problems I have outlined is that they cost money. It is much easier not to spend money and to make the motorist pay. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that solutions exist, but the lack of good traffic management is very conspicuous in our cities. For example, it is well known that if there was more manual control of traffic intersections in rush hours, as happens in cities on the Continent, there would be far less congestion and traffic flow would improve. However, manpower costs money. Instead of taking measures to relieve traffic congestion, what is the workforce doing? It goes round the residential squares of London harrying the inhabitants—and, of course, makes money for the local authority.
What is welcome in this Bill is the very important consultation outlined by the Minister. However, one is not concerned solely with consultation. Perhaps I am wrong, but there is a great lack of research opportunities in the programme. More independent and open research must be conducted into the causes of congestion. The case must be made out before more taxes and levies are imposed as a last resort.
As to the proposed workplace levy, I remember a time when a developer could not build an office block in the City of London unless it included a car park for the staff. Now a fine is to be imposed for the provision of a car park, which is quite illogical. As a result, there will he increased staff and bureaucracy in local authorities. I ask the Minister to look at experience in America where similar schemes have been tried. They have resulted in what is called "the decayed tooth" syndrome where everything has gone outside the city and the centre is dead. We must be very careful to ensure that that does not happen here.
Motorway and trunk road charging causes me great worry. To divert traffic onto inadequate and less safe roads will create more congestion. More importantly, the Government must face the fact that because the motorways are the safest roads in Britain their proposal will cause more accidents. What research has been done? How many more accidents will be caused by diverting cars off motorways and on to inadequate roads?
Successive governments have aggravated the situation by lack of investment in motorways and so on. However, the present Government must take some blame because when they came to power they cancelled a considerable number of important bypasses, the completion of the M40 and so on. Not all of the problems can be laid at the door of past governments.
I hope that there will be more independent research and better presented cases. I hope that a co-operative effort will remove the "them and us" situation as
956
between motorists and the authorities. Unless we approach the problem together, we shall never reach a solution.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord who has just spoken. He did not refer to air traffic safety and my remarks are concerned exclusively with that matter. I hope that I make sufficient declaration of my interests if I say that I am President of the British Airline Pilots Association and am a former aviation Minister and member of the European Commission with responsibility for transport and the environment.
I am largely in favour of the radical transformation of our transport system which is envisaged by the Deputy Prime Minister not only in this Bill but in the year or two—perhaps longer—that he remains in that office. However, I demur very strongly from the proposal set out in the Bill to set up a public/private partnership to run National Air Traffic Services. I am against it, as were the Conservatives when in office. They consulted upon it and discovered that the vast majority of consultees were against a change in the status quo, which they had endorsed in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The Conservatives did not have the political courage then to swim against the tide of informed opinion. Today, we have heard the mealymouthed attack on the proposal by the Shadow Transport Secretary, or whatever his title is, but the Conservatives have given no indication about that with which they had 18 years to deal but refused to repair the neglect.
The fact of the matter is that the then Shadow Secretary of State for Transport made it clear that an incoming Labour government would stand by a nationalised industry. What happened? The newly elected Labour Government, with a vast majority, contrary to their declarations while in opposition, supported the restructuring of air traffic control services to include a strongly commercial component. The Government's proposal supports the retention of 49 per cent of the company. Five per cent of the shares are to go to NATS employees and the remainder are to go to the private sector. Why have they added to the present complexity which the proposal demands? They have not begun to advance a proper argument for that case. We are told by the Conservatives that we should support their idea. Why? They had 18 years to do something about it but chose not to do so.
The Government have made it clear that they will never sell their shares, although an amendment to the Transport Bill makes a mockery of that by allowing, if necessary, for the company to be floated on the Stock Exchange. A resultant increase in overall share capital could dilute the Government's holding to as little as 25 per cent. Why have the Government done that without any explanation—if one has been given; perhaps I missed it—from the Minister today?
I know IATA very well. It has been claimed by IATA, which represents airlines and not the consumer, that,

957
"the industry needs a much more flexible and robust approach to investment that only the private sector can provide".
That is a fine assertion but it is not backed by any evidence. Why not? Over the years NATS has established a reputation as being effective, efficient, safe and second to none. Why should this now be put in jeopardy? Why did my colleagues in the Labour Party only a short time ago dismiss completely the idea of the proposed restructuring? The present structure of NATS has served the country, industry and passengers well. To compromise that for the sake of savings in cost, given that they could be achieved as predicted, is insupportable, the more so when there are viable alternatives to attract inward investment which have been tried and tested elsewhere in other contexts.
The case for retaining NATS in public ownership has been argued persuasively by my own union, BALPA. It has serious reservations about the means proposed for providing NATS with the investment funds required, particularly in relation to safety and service quality. Should not the pilots know? Are not they the best people to form a judgment about the matter? In this connection, I do not care that I am president of BALPA. I am concerned about the safety of the people who fly in aircraft; and the pilots have come unequivocally to the conclusion that the system which has served them and the public well should be retained.
The three unions which serve the public in this respect should know. They have the right to know. BALPA feels that it has made its representations very clear and, along with others, has, in response to the Government's invitation, suggested some creative forms of financing—highlighting non-recourse debt as used in overseas infrastructure projects such as Denver airport. It also pointed out opportunities for generating capital internally, such funds to be channelled back into the industry for reinvestment and not siphoned out to shareholders. It also believes that the Canadian trust approach could work well here.
It is worthy of consideration that all the unions share that point of view. The Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists submits that there is no political case, and no business case—all NATS costs are covered by charges to airlines. There is no industrial case. Above all, there is no air safety case for the Government's proposed alteration. There is also a defence case for not privatising a service in which there are vital defence implications. Currently, civil and military controllers work side by side, flexibly, without the necessity for contractual and bureaucratic arrangements.
Together with the Public and Commercial Services Union, they represent 95 per cent of the NATS staff. All stress that under the strategic partnership agreement, the management and control of the organisation will be the sole responsibility of the private directors, not the government directors whose shareholding could be considerably diluted following a flotation.
958
What is the Airline Group? It is a consortium of nine United Kingdom airlines. It may consider putting itself forward as a strategic partner which would be committed to run NATS on a non-profit-making basis but no decision has yet been taken as to whether it will become a bidder. Therefore, until it makes a decision we are not entitled to consider the group.
The in-depth report of the House of Commons committee into this aspect of transport reflected the serious doubts expressed by those working in the aviation industry, not only in relation to safety but also the possibility of increased costs to airlines, and thus customers, in the drive to push up profits. It suggested possible ways in which the Government could achieve their objective for NATS without recourse to private profit motive. I am glad to say that the chairman is with us today listening to every word spoken, in particular my speech which supports her. It cited the positive advantages of independent public corporations and the trust model, as adopted by NavCanada which, in its view, met concerns about rising charges, lower safety standards, national security and so on. Why have the Government dismissed those concerns?
There is bound to be an increased risk to safety, however small and albeit with stringent regulation, where private profit is a prime consideration. We have only to note the recent tragic outcomes of the decline in safety affecting our railways to vouchsafe what I say. A fully nationalised service would have as its primary duty the elimination of all foreseeable risk. It would continue to provide vital non-profit-making services without which safety could be threatened. In any event, a commercial company would tend to favour its major customers at the expense of the rest in the provision of these services.
This Bill has nothing to do with enhancing air safety. But, as I said at the outset, apart from these proposals, the Bill is to be welcomed, and I am proud to have once been a member of the Government who have introduced them, along with many other measures which will enhance the quality of life for many more of our citizens.
The standards of our air traffic control are respected world wide. Complexity is not to be confused with cogency. I beg the Government Minister to understand that. There is still time for the Government to rethink their ideas about NATS. It is in all our interests that the Government should do so.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I shall confine my remarks to air traffic control although without his relentless logic.
As my noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood made abundantly clear, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are totally opposed to the Government's intention to part-privatise the national air traffic control service. I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that it would have been better to have considered this matter in a separate Bill.

959
The country is faced with a quite bizarre situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, remarked, in the last Parliament the Labour opposition were adamantly against privatisation while the Conservative government were fully in favour of it. The positions are now reversed, at least in so far as the Conservatives oppose the Government's PPP. One of the alleged virtues of the so-called two party system is that it gives voters a choice between competing policies. The chance would be a fine thing! In fact what has happened is that there seems to be a consistent government line on NATS privatisation, whatever party happens to be in power. Thus the will of the people, the majority of whom oppose such a privatisation, is contemptuously thwarted. I cannot resist making the point that voting reform is vital to offset such abrupt barefaced U-turns in policy.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting but I feel I must. We should be quite clear that the reason my party oppose what the Government propose in this Bill is because we do not consider it to be full and proper privatisation. My party's policy has not changed. We still favour that as the correct and best solution.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I pointed out that while his party is still fully in favour of privatisation it is against this particular form of part-privatisation.
The only consistent party line is that of the Liberal Democrats, who have always opposed the privatisation of air traffic control whenever the issue has been raised. Why the Government have changed their tune so flagrantly and gone out of their way gratuitously to antagonise majority public opinion is inexplicable. After all, after three years in office they are having enough trouble convincing the electorate that they are delivering on their manifesto pledges for education, health and road and rail transport, without courting massive disfavour by totally reneging on their policy for air traffic control for which they have absolutely no popular mandate. Perhaps there is some deeply dark Freudian sado-masochistic explanation for this self-inflicted injury, but, if so, it escapes me. The privatisation of NATS will be seen to be as politically inept as the Chancellor's curmudgeonly decision to raise the state pension by a measly 75p this year. The public are utterly opposed to it.
Liberal Democrats oppose this privatisation measure for five fundamental reasons. First, as I said, the Government have no mandate—indeed, quite the reverse. Constitutional convention should not be flouted quite so cavalierly. Secondly, the proposals are finance driven, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, frankly admitted, when they should be safety driven. That is the most serious objection to the proposals.
A commercially oriented public/private company, with shareholders seeking a maximum return on their investment, means but one course of action; cutting costs. As there is little possibility of market expansion, the only way of improving profit margins would be to
960
reduce manning levels and to shorten the safety distances between airborne planes. That would be folly, particularly at the present time. Air traffic control over Britain is growing in volume at a rate of 6 per cent per annum. British airspace is already one of the most densely crowded in the world. And when Swanwick kicks in, 18 months hence, there will be a need for a further 100 air traffic controllers. Furthermore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that the Government's PPP project is hopelessly complex, although I reject his alternative of full privatisation.
Thirdly, the argument that NATS needs an injection of private-sector management discipline is far from obvious. NATS currently makes a surplus of some £55 million a year, which goes directly to the Exchequer. More importantly, it has a safely record second to none and it is expertly managed. What "added value", to use the current cant, will private sector techniques bring, apart from the absurd potentially dangerous cost cuttings to which I referred?
Your Lordships will doubtless recall that a captain of industry, a chairman of ICI no less, was called in by government to sort out a transport problem. Dr Beeching's savage surgery was applied to the railways with disastrous results. At enormous cost, attempts are now being made to reverse its worst excesses. Like Captain Boycott a century earlier, his surname became a reviled verb. Beeching was not a happy precedent and we should beware the blandishments of any would-be emulators.
Fourthly, NATS would become the only privatised air traffic control agency in the world. Not even President Reagan endeavoured to privatise American air traffic control, which remains in federal hands. This would make it much more difficult: to harmonise with the state-owned systems of the member states of the European Union. Collaboration, not competition, is what is needed in the move towards a European "single sky", which most experts agree is the desired goal.
Fifthly, the smooth interface between civilian and military air traffic control may well be compromised by privatisation, no matter what government directives are issued. This would be very serious at times of increased military activity, thereby endangering national security.
It is for those reasons that we on these Benches are implacably opposed to privatisation. We go along with the need for more capital to keep NAT'S fully modernised to meet the growing demands it is facing, but we are not convinced that a PFI or a PPP scheme is either necessary or desirable. Quite frankly, the Treasury could afford to provide the necessary money to be repaid over time. That would be a much cheaper option and could be facilitated by the recent changes to resource accounting and capital charging that enable costs to be apportioned and recouped over the lifetime of the project. That is the conclusion of a recent study by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.

961
However, for reasons best known to themselves, the Government are very unlikely to provide Exchequer moneys for the future funding of NATS and it is only realistic, therefore, to consider other feasible options apart from privatisation. During the passage of the Bill in another place, my honourable friends supported the proposal put forward by the honourable Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, Dr Gavin Strang—who at least has the great virtue of sticking to the principles which his own Government have so cynically abandoned—for a public, not-for-profit trust with bond issuing powers.
The model for that is NavCanada, which was created in 1995 with a board representative of airlines, staff and government. After an extensive analysis, the Canadian innovation was the option favoured by the Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee when it reported last February. Accordingly, Liberal Democrats will be tabling amendments to the Bill to enable an independent public trust to assume responsibility for NATS in place of the Government's policy of privatising a vital asset whose sole concern should be safety in the air rather than the price of a commercial share.
5.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, the Second Reading debate on the Transport Bill might not be seen to call for the use of apocalyptic language or imagery, but the fact is that the human race is threatened by two enormous and terrifying problems. The first is the relentless growth in population in the developing world and the second is the very serious damage which we in the developed world in particular are inflicting on our fragile environment.
It is not the business of the Transport Bill to inhibit the processes of procreation, but it is its business, among other things, to tackle some of our most pressing environmental problems. I warmly welcome the steps which the Bill takes in that direction, although I fear that they are more faltering steps than some of us would have wished to see.
I welcome the move towards something which at least begins to resemble an integrated transport policy. I welcome the emphasis on local transport plans. I welcome the creation of a definitive strategic rail authority. I welcome the provision for congestion charging and the workplace parking levy. All those developments offer significant environmental benefits, at least potentially. I hope very much that the Government will not be deflected from their originally declared objective of significantly reducing car use, promoting better public transport and moving large volumes of freight from road to rail.
I therefore want to speak entirely about the provisions of the Bill which have environmental implications, so my few words may be seen in that context perhaps as a trailer for what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, will be saying later in the debate. The Bill would have provided the ideal vehicle for such a
962
development, but local transport plans can and should be as much concerned with making it safer and more attractive to walk or cycle as with the management of motorised traffic and the introduction of better public transport.
I was pleased to see the support of the Minister in another place, Mr Keith Hill, for the "walking bus" method of getting children safely to school as part of the "Don't Choke Britain" campaign. The enthusiastic introduction of that method right across the country could make a significant difference to car use and road congestion.
In all our attention to environmental concerns, we have to pay proper attention to the competitiveness of UK industry. Increased charges of any kind must be watched very carefully from that point of view. But it is in a sense fortunate that congestion, for example, has an enormous financial price tag as well as an environmental one. Congestion currently costs us a huge amount, variously estimated at between £19 billion and £23 billion each year. Compared with that, the necessary expenditure which we foresee on the enhancement of rail freight infrastructure of £5 billion over 10 years begins to look more like peanuts.
The Strategic Rail Authority has a very important role to play in achieving the development of rail freight infrastructure and the transfer of more traffic from road to rail. The past five years have seen a very encouraging growth in rail freight traffic under the completely transformed management of English, Welsh and Scottish Railways, Freightliner and, now, GB Railfreight. From an all-time low of 5.7 per cent of market share in 1995, the figure this year has risen to something like 8 per cent of the market share for rail traffic. However, when one reflects that rail's market share was 42 per cent in 1950, it becomes clear that we still have a long way to go to recapture that lost ground.
I believe that congratulations are very much in order on the achievements of the rail freight companies and on the efforts of the Rail Freight Group, so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. However, the real constraints now are on capacity. Significant infrastructure improvements are extremely costly. The return on capital investment of this kind is a long-term business and Railtrack has made it clear that it is not prepared to make that kind of investment.
That is one of the worst dilemmas to result from the bizarre processes of privatisation. Clearly it calls for the development of new and imaginative ways of funding major infrastructure improvements, such as the proposed special purpose vehicles which have been mentioned by Sir Alastair Morton. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that such measures will have enthusiastic government support.
I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said about the financing of the enormous gap in the infrastructure costs for rail freight because the environmental advantages of rail freight are very great. CO2 emissions for an electric freight train are 23 grammes per tonne/mile; for a diesel train they are

963
70 grammes per tonne/mile; and for a heavy goods vehicle on roads, as much as 450 grammes per tonne/ mile. The differences are colossal and it is extremely important that we achieve the transfer from road to rail.
However, even in an ideal world with 50 per cent of freight carried by rail, a great deal will still have to go by road. I believe that it is very encouraging that the CBI and the Freight Transport Association have joined with the rail freight companies in a combined campaign to improve rail freight so that it can properly serve the national interest and complement road freight services. Those services suffer appallingly from congestion costs, and I believe that targeted congestion charging makes economic as well as environmental sense. If we could reduce significantly the number of private cars on the road, the necessary road freight would travel more quickly, more efficiently and more economically.
The workplace parking levy, with all the proceeds hypothecated for public transport improvements (I hope not simply for 10 years but indefinitely) would reduce considerably car use and hence atmospheric pollution. As a member of the All-Party Motorcycling Group, I must declare an interest and plead for an exception to be made for motorcycles, which are so much more environmentally friendly than cars as well, of course, as much more fun. There are already examples of large companies which have introduced excellent green transport policies for their employees, such as Boots in Nottingham and Pfizer, the pharmaceutical firm, in Kent. Those examples could and should be followed.
However, I believe that there is a serious flaw in the provisions for the parking levy. The Bill specifically excludes retail and leisure locations and I believe that that is a mistake. It is significant that the Local Government Association, among other bodies, wants to see the parking levy introduced also at out-of-town supermarkets and retail and leisure facilities, where free parking at present seriously disadvantages town centres and their shops and businesses. The huge proliferation of out-of-town shopping centres has been an important contributory factor in the growth of car use, not to mention the aesthetic impact of their hideous buildings and sprawling car parks.
A flat-rate compulsory car park charge of, say, £3 for every visit to such a place may be a useful deterrent. However, as other noble Lords have said, I recognise that car use is not as price-sensitive as one would like to believe. But I believe that it may achieve something and it may also do something to help our declining market towns. If the supermarkets complain, too bad. They have already inflicted far too much damage on our landscape, our environment, our town centres and our farming industry.
In general, I welcome the Bill. It promises some important environmental benefits. In introducing the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said that the Government plan further amendments. Perhaps he will think of others in response to some of the points that I make. If the Government really wanted it to, the Bill could deliver even more environmental benefits.
964
I fear that I must end on a slightly sour note with regard to another important omission. The Bill has much to say about air traffic control and many noble Lords have spoken wisely and knowledgeably about that. However, it has nothing to say about the volume or levels of air traffic and their catastrophic environmental impact. Friends of the Earth has calculated—I recognise that this is perhaps an impressionistic rather than a precisely verifiable statistic—that one return flight from London to Miami generates more C02 pollution than does the average private car in this country in a whole year.
I believe that there is a dawning awareness of the danger of the pollution caused by road traffic. That is one of the reasons for congestion charging and the parking levy. So far there appears to be little or no awareness of the appallingly damaging effect of air traffic. What do the Government think about CO2 pollution? Do they care or not? Do they realise that soon we shall have to meet much more demanding targets for CO2 reduction than those set at Kyoto? If they do care, why have they allowed the extraordinary expansion of so-called low-cost airlines with more and more flights to what Mr Chamberlain, were he living at this hour, would no doubt have called "little-known airports in faraway countries"?
Of course, this is an international problem and it needs an international solution. However, I believe that we could at least give a lead.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, together with other noble Lords all across the House, I pay tribute to the three maiden speakers and look forward to hearing all of them again on many future occasions.
I have two reasons for speaking in this debate. First, I want to acknowledge the Government's major new investment in the Greater Manchester Metrolink. As a Member of Parliament for Manchester for 33 years, I was much involved in securing the funding to get this project, which today is so hugely important to the conurbation, off the ground.
The Government have now allocated no less than £250 million to the expansion of our Metrolink and it will benefit not only my former constituency, Wythenshawe, which includes Manchester Airport, but also Oldham and Rochdale, Ashton and Trafford Park. It will be a major influence on the regeneration of Greater Manchester and reflects high credit on the passenger transport authority and executive. Thousands of new jobs will be created and, once finished, Metrolink will carry around 50 million passengers, some 10 million of them—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford will be glad to hear—attracted from the private car.
The biggest single investment in a public transport scheme outside London made by any government in 30 years, it gives the lie to those who complain that Ministers have not fully committed themselves to investment in the transport infrastructure. For this I extend warm appreciation to my noble friend the Minister, whose personal links with Greater

965
Manchester are close and of long standing. In my view, my noble friend was already well entitled to call himself an honorary Mancunian: now no one anywhere can question that entitlement.
My second reason for speaking today is to congratulate the Government on this Bill. For 18 years in another place I was forced to witness the progressive disintegration of public transport wrought by bus deregulation and rail privatisation. Passenger numbers fell by over 30 per cent in metropolitan areas and fares increased in similar proportion. Socially, environmentally and economically the effects were disastrous. The Bill heralds change for the better with its emphasis on integrated transport, land-use policies that favour public transport as a viable choice for the car owner and the injection of some order into the chaos that followed rail privatisation.
But there is no Bill that cannot be improved—I speak as a former Minister who took many wide-ranging new measures to the statute book—and I have some suggestions for my noble friend to consider.
At the heart of the Bill is the obligation that Local Transport Plans will place on local transport authorities to produce a strategy for a bus quality partnership between the public and private sectors. In advance of the Bill's enactment, many authorities, including Greater Manchester— which the Deputy Prime Minister has designated a "centre of excellence"—have already been hard at work forging such partnerships. In general, the local authorities will invest in bus priority and improved bus facilities and ensure that information and ticketing schemes are developed. Those efforts will be developed in partnership with bus operators, who are investing heavily in new, cleaner and accessible vehicles. As drafted, however, the Bill forbids any prescription of timing or frequencies.
To many of us that seems odd. If local transport authorities have gone to the trouble of providing improved facilities, it is not unreasonable for bus operators to be asked to guarantee a minimum level of service. In another place the Government expressed fear that such powers might be used by over-zealous authorities to place a burden of service upon operators beyond what is commercially tolerable, resulting in wholly prescriptive bus franchising. Yet such powers are available in the Bill if quality partnerships fail. I understand that Ministers have suggested that similar arrangements might be entered into voluntarily; but the trouble here is that they would not enjoy the partial protection offered by the Bill's competition test applicable to statutory quality partnerships.
Operators have the genuine anxiety that if they enter into such arrangements they will be exposed to the full rigours of the Competition Act 1998, with no protection from the Bill's competition provisions. To meet the legitimate concerns of all parties, my suggestion—to which I hope my noble friend will accede—is that voluntary arrangements, once made, should have the same protection as that afforded to statutory partnerships. That would allow authorities
966
and operators to negotiate minimum frequencies which, while not statutorily prescriptive, would be judged by the same competition criteria as those set out in the Bill. My contacts with people of differing interests suggest that this compromise could meet the concerns of all parties. I know that my noble friend will want to respond to me about it as helpfully as he can.
I turn now to integrated through-ticketing, the ultimate test for any scheme of integrated public transport. As the Bill stands, there is an obligation on local transport authorities and bus operators to formulate a scheme of through-ticketing for buses. There is also an obligation on the Strategic Rail Authority to collaborate with such schemes. I see two weaknesses in this approach. First, there is no obligation whatever on bus operators to collaborate with the SRA; and, secondly, there are public transport modes other than bus and rail. I spoke earlier of my delight at the expansion of the Greater Manchester Metrolink. Elsewhere in the country there are other light rail systems, ferries, metro systems and so on. None of these other forms of public transport is addressed by the Bill and I feel this should be reconsidered. The Secretary of State might, for example, take power to require local transport authorities and operators of all modes to collaborate on multi-modal through-ticketing. Without that power, a splendid opportunity to guarantee fully-integrated public transport might be lost.
As your Lordships know, the problems and needs of frail elderly and severely disabled people have been my special parliamentary interest over many years, including my five-and-a-half years as the first Minister for Disabled People. Thus I welcome the introduction of minimum fares for elderly people and the new help for disabled travellers that my noble friend the Minister announced in opening the debate.
I have often had the pleasure of welcoming innovative new facilities in Greater Manchester for blind and other disabled people. They have ranged from free or flat fare concessions, grants toward accessible buses, door-to-door transport across the whole county and taxi vouchers for people whose disabilities are such as to require the use of taxis. I am glad to say that concessionary facilities in all metropolitan counties exceed the statutory minimum. While some use flat fares and in others fares are free, they are all uniformly generous. But a statutory scheme is made essential by some local authority schemes that vary, in terms of practical help, from the pathetic to the non-existent.
I must, however, enter the plea that where a concessionary scheme for the elderly is demonstrably more generous in the round than the minimum, some discretion should be afforded to the Secretary of State to exempt it from the minimum. I say that not merely on account of administrative difficulties or expense, both of which will occur, but because of the confusion and anxiety that two schemes, or a hybrid of two schemes, will cause both to drivers and the elderly people whom the minimum is designed to help. And here, in parenthesis, I make one more plea of special importance to many frail elderly and other disabled

967
people: namely, that steps will be taken to ensure that rail substitution services are by wheelchair-accessible vehicles; and that licensed taxis, all of which will be required under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to become wheelchair accessible, are guaranteed access to railway forecourts.
Finally, I want briefly to comment on the proposed Strategic Rail Authority, whose purpose of introducing some order into chaos I wholly applaud. I trust that we can now look forward to stability and investment in the rail network on a scale not hitherto seen. There is concern, however, that a London-based SRA will not be able, by the very nature of its strategic and national responsibilities, to take into account local and regional priorities. I am pleased that the Government have, to a considerable extent, protected the powers of passenger transport authorities and executives in metropolitan areas to fix service levels and standards, a power they have exercised since 1968 with enormous benefits to local people and with higher levels of investment than can be found elsewhere in this country.
The Bill sets out matters that the SRA should have regard to in discharging its functions. But there is one curious omission: the Local Transport Plans of local transport authorities. This Bill stands or falls on its ability to deliver fully integrated public transport and the Government's chosen mechanism is the Local Transport Plan. Whether in metropolitan or shire areas, rail services will be an essential constituent of these plans; yet the body charged with responsibility for rail services is not given, on the face of the Bill, a duty to take Local Transport Plans into account.
I gather it is felt that to list every matter to which the SRA should have regard would be impossible and that this should be left to guidance from the Secretary of State. I accept that that may be the case for a wide range of matters, but Local Transport Plans are so central to the Government's whole strategy that their omission from the SRA's stated duties seems frankly illogical. I urge my noble friend to reconsider this constructive criticism of the Bill and I know he appreciates that it comes from people who both welcome the Bill and wish him all possible speed in achieving its enactment.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I suppose it was inevitable that this debate would be wide ranging, as the Bill contains complicated provisions relating to so many aspects of our transport industries. I shall resist the temptation to go down all the routes that the Bill opens up and which other speakers have covered and concentrate mainly on the aspect I know best and talk about Part IV, which formally establishes the Strategic Rail Authority.
Before I do so, I must comment on the Government's proposals for the National Air Traffic Services. Some years ago, I was employed as an adviser by the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA was then—and remains today—an effective and efficient
968
regulator. It is vital that nothing is done which diminishes that role or in any way compromises the CAA's absolute commitment to air safety.
In my view, the Bill passes that test. It also addresses the issue of investment funding in air traffic control. With air traffic levels throughout Europe growing by 6 to 7 per cent a year, long-term investment in NATS is not only desirable but essential. I am aware that there are differing views here and outside about the model the Government have chosen to resolve this.
I am puzzled by the tactics which the two Opposition parties apparently plan to adopt in your Lordships' House when we reach later stages of this Bill. The Conservatives are in favour of total privatisation of NATS. The Liberal Democrats are totally against. This point of view was helpfully clarified and confirmed by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Smith of Clifton, just a few minutes ago. Yet I read in the press that they are apparently planning to vote together in the hope that they will embarrass the Government. If they do decide to go down that route, do they not think that this would be regarded as cynical and as a blatant piece of opportunism?
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in full flow, but I assure him and the House that, as far as I am aware—and I am leading on this Bill—there have been no discussions of any description between the noble Lord sitting on the Conservative Benches and myself.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am naturally delighted to be corrected by the noble Baroness. I was going on what press reports were indicating; if they are inaccurate and the two parties do not intend to come together in the way that I have described, I shall be very happy to be proved wrong on this.
Safety is absolutely paramount but I take the view that the combination of the CAA safety locks, the power under Clause 35 of the Bill given to the Secretary of State to issue a direction to NATS licence holders in the national interest and the "fit and proper person" selection criteria for the strategic partner, provide the necessary safeguards.
I turn now to Part IV of the Bill and specific ally its proposals to remove the "shadow" from the SSRA and to establish the Strategic Rail Authority as the body to replace the British Railways Board; to take over the functions of the franchising director; and to make a number of changes to the regulatory arrangements for the railways.
It is important that we understand how much the railway has changed in the past five years. Some of these changes have been for the better and a number, I readily admit, have followed from privatisation. Most of the improvements stem directly from the new approach which this Government have adopted towards the railways. The sea change is that the industry is now planning for growth and not for contraction.

969
Not very long ago, I recall a very senior official from the Department of Transport being seconded to the British Railways Board and telling his colleagues in the first week that he was there "to preside over the orderly run-down of the railway". Faced with attitudes like that, it was little surprise that the industry was starved of investment and received less subsidy support than any comparable railway system in Europe. These are facets of railways at that time which the noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Marsh, will recall from their own experience only too well.
The railway is now growing fast. Train miles have grown by 16.1 per cent in the past five years and passenger miles by 30 per cent. Further growth of between 30 and 60 per cent is forecast for the next 10 years. Freight tonne miles are also up one-third against a background of decline over the previous 50 years. Much new investment is coming on-stream: 2,350 new coaches have been ordered since privatisation and more are in the pipeline; 300 new locos are on order for the freight companies; and 2,500 new wagons are coming off the production line at York and going into service. All these developments are heartening to those of us who are committed to the expansion of rail travel and long for it to be given the chance to contribute more in the national transport scene.
In our transport debates, I hope that we continue to remind ourselves that a twin track railway has the same capacity as a six lane motorway and accounts for one-quarter of the land take. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, in what I consider to be a very sensible speech, spoke eloquently about the environmental benefits of rail freight as well.
The growth in demand for rail travel brings with it new challenges and problems for the industry. Compare just two of the figures I have mentioned: train miles up 15 per cent and passenger miles up 30 per cent over the past five years. Even though there are 1,500 more trains running now than there were in 1995, services are more congested and more people are inconvenienced if the trains run late or are cancelled. In the old BR days—I hesitate to say "the bad old days"—when the emphasis was on contraction and there was little investment in capacity, the solution dictated by the Treasury was simply to push up the fares and price people off the trains. Happily, that is no longer seen as an acceptable option and the task for the new railway is to plan for growth and at the same time invest in new infrastructure to provide new capacity and replace equipment which is outworn and life expired.
That provides a huge challenge for the SRA, the train operators, the regulator and Railtrack. In creating the SRA, the Bill provides the necessary focus and sense of direction. It also allows the present inadequate short-term franchises to be replaced with longer ones. They must bring with them new investment and increased and more reliable train services. Six franchises are already in the replacement process. The study for a Wales/borders franchise is proceeding well, with a report due next month.
970
Schemes have already been authorised for a new cross-London service, a park-and-ride scheme in Edinburgh, a new fast service from Sheffield to Hull and schemes to provide more capacity in Bristol, Leeds and Newcastle.
The SRA has been in business in shadow form only since July last year, but the new organisation is already providing the necessary new leadership for the rail industry and encouraging the development of a better railway. Its main task is to offer a real alternative to road for more passenger journeys and freight movements.
Like the SRA, most of the train operators are aware of what is expected of them under the new regime. I agree very much with Mr Giles Fearnley, the chairman of the Association of Train Operating Companies, when he says in introducing the new summer timetable:
"the rail network urgently needs large amounts of investment from the industry and Government to provide passengers with the modern and efficient rail system that they want and deserve".
I wish that all train operators could strive to be as good as the best because that is not the case at present.
It is important that the Bill clarifies and strengthens the role of the rail regulator. He has an essential part to play in these new arrangements. The Bill gives him new duties to facilitate the execution of the SRA's strategies; to contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport of passengers and goods; and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. To do his job effectively, he must have proper powers of enforcement, particularly as that affects Railtrack's network licence and how the company delivers on reliability, in minimising delays, and on investment. He must also be independent of Government and not be deflected by political pressure.
I was disappointed to read that, during the Report stage of this Bill in another place, there were attacks on Mr Tom Winsor by Conservative members for the action which he very properly took after the Ladbroke Grove accident. Happily, I am pleased to say they were not repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, this afternoon. Contrary to what Mr Bernard Jenkin alleged in the other place, Mr Winsor did not threaten to revoke Railtrack's network licence—he does not have the power to do that. Section 4(5) of the 1993 Railways Act requires the regulator to consult the Health and Safety Executive when there is prima facie evidence of a breach of railway group standards and of the Railways (Safety Case) Regulations. I hope that Ministers will continue to give their full support to Mr Winsor who is doing the best he can to deliver stable, predictable, transparent, fair and proportionate regulation. That is in the interests of the whole industry including its customers.
That brings me finally to Railtrack and to the crucial role that it has to play in delivering the new railway. It has clearly found it hard to come to terms with the new approach which the Government are bringing to transport, and this is not surprising. The previous regulator and the Conservative government gave

971
Railtrack an easy ride. It took some time for the company's shortcomings to be identified and it has taken longer than it should to put them right.
I am still concerned about some aspects of its operations, particularly its property division. In that regard, the objective of making money from selling station sites to non-rail related interests such as supermarkets seems to take precedence over the need to plan for the future use of assets by the passenger or freight railway or by other prospective developers who aim to add new dimensions to railway travel. I suspect that we may hear more about that during later stages of the Bill as I hear whispers of amendments being drafted elsewhere.
Overall, the prospects for rail have never been better at any time during the past 25 years. I take the view that this Bill is essential to ensure that the industry can make the most of those new opportunities and I welcome it with enthusiasm.
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for long this evening. In general, I welcome the Bill. In particular, I welcome the placing of local transport plans on a statutory footing. However, I hope that, in preparing local plans, note will be taken of national transport systems so that the two will be properly integrated. It would be useless if local bus services, according to the local plans, are due to arrive at railway stations catering for long-distance trains a few minutes after those trains are due to leave.
The Bill gives us the opportunity to ensure that local public transport can be enhanced for the benefit of elderly and disabled people, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester.
I welcome the fact that the needs of pedestrians are to be taken into consideration when preparing local transport plans. In time, that will produce a safer environment for elderly and disabled people, as well as children. Pedestrian routes must be wheelchair-friendly.
Although I started by welcoming the Bill, it needs some improvement and I intend to table amendments for your Lordships' consideration at later stages. In recent years, on other Bills, the House has accepted amendments designed specifically to cater for the transport needs of people with disabilities.
Before the Minister spoke introducing the Bill, I was going to say that it was disappointing that the Government, their advisers and the Bill's draftsmen did not bear that in mind in preparation of this legislation. It would have saved the time and hard work of your Lordships and, indeed, of Members of another place. However, the Minister has indicated that some account has been taken of that but, in my view, more will need to be done.
Local transport plans should be drawn up in consultation with disabled people and with organisations of and for people with disabilities. Those plans should be available in alternative formats, if required, at no additional charge.
972
I welcome the national concessionary fare scheme and the Minister's announcement this afternoon that it will be extended to help disabled people Will that include disabled people in work? I am concerned that the scheme is limited by the expression "relevant time"; in other words, as I understand it, between 9 a.m. in the morning and 11 p.m. in the evening. In my view, that scheme should apply to all journeys in the local area as that would promote social inclusion and independence and would also help disabled people to work unsocial hours if they wish to do so.
Finally, I make a brief mention of two other points. First, there should be concessions for people with disabilities on the road-charging schemes and in workplace levies. They are the people who most need to use private transport.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that where railway services are temporarily interrupted or discontinued, the strategic authority must ensure that the alternative carriage for passengers is fully accessible to people with disabilities. I look forward to seeing the amendments which the Minister said he would bring forward in Committee to give effect to that. I had already planned to table amendments to deal with that point. I shall bring forward amendments to deal with other matters connected with disability at later stages of the Bill.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, in the integrated transport White Paper, this Government put the principles of sustainability and integration at the heart of their transport policies. The Transport Bill before this House aims to put those principles into practice at local and national level by building an integrated transport system which meets our economic and social needs but does not threaten the health of our environment. That is why one of the Government's key aims is the reduction of road traffic and pollution from road vehicles.
As this Bill has progressed through Parliament, we have heard much about the Government's proposals on road congestion charges and workplace parking levies as tools for tackling road congestion. We have heard also at length about the proposed private-public partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
One area which has hitherto received little attention is the movement of goods by rail and sea. As an adviser to Clydeport plc, I declare an interest in that area and I also declare some experience in those matters which I hope to add to this debate.
Clause 182 sets out the purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority, which include the promotion of the railway network for the carriage of goods as well as passengers and to contribute to the development of an integrated system of transport for goods as well as passengers.
The encouragement of the transfer of freight from road to rail is therefore central to the purposes of the Strategic Rail Authority. Perhaps I may say to the

973
Minister that the omission of short sea freight from the Bill is a missed opportunity which I hope he will address in Committee.
The movement of goods by rail and sea within the UK has generally been held to be uneconomic, insufficiently flexible and useful only for the very longest journeys and for high volume, low value goods. That is no longer the case. Rail freight and freight by short sea shipping can now offer industry an increasingly competitive and flexible alternative to moving goods by lorries which are destined to sit in queues on the M25. Rail freight allows industry to move goods at speed at night to road-rail hubs from where lorries can distribute the goods to their final destination.
Recognising the strategic demand for change, organisations currently involved in rail freight distributions are committing multi-million pound investments into new locomotives and rolling stock to satisfy the increased market demand.
Advances in technology are also making ships faster. Their increase in speed and the impact of congestion on road haulage has made short sea shipping more competitive and reliable. It is no longer the mode simply for coal and timber, although those goods are still important to rail and sea freight.
The fast-moving goods consumer industries are now taking advantage of short sea shipping. Distillers of whisky are dependent on the deep-sea terminals for exportation of their product and take advantage of those new routes; for example, United Distillers uses feeder services to access deep sea ports. Manufacturers of paper use short sea distribution of timber from Argyllshire to Ayrshire and Cumbria. And it is better for the environment as it relieves road congestion and reduces the pollution that comes from road vehicles.
I am not anti-lorry nor anti-road. I have a car and I buy goods from shops which rely on lorries to bring them their stock. But I am pro-integration. I believe that there is a place for road haulage, for rail freight and for short sea shipping. But I do not believe that the potential of rail and sea freight is being fully realised or fully integrated into our transport system. I would like the Government to give much more encouragement to both users and operators of those two important modes of transport and to ensure that there is genuine integration into the transport system.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the device of using local government as the mechanism to introduce the new taxes in Part III, following the precedent of the Greater London Authority Bill last year, gives this House a rare opportunity to discuss finance and supply matters.
I welcome what the Minister said in his opening remarks about those new taxes and the way in which he hopes they will work. But he did not go far enough. Taxes are no less taxes for being collected, kept, used and accounted for locally.
974
In order to sensibly discuss Part III of the Bill, it is first necessary to discuss Part II. The reason for that concerns the content of the local transport plans and, more importantly, the meaning of the words in the Explanatory Notes concerning Part II of the Bill. Paragraph 84 concerns the duty of local authorities to create local transport plans. It states that local transport plans "must" provide a framework for the promotion of improvement to buses under Part II and, most importantly, the introduction of charges under Part III. That wording is not consistent with that of the Minister's introduction, and the words on the face of the Bill are different. The Bill states:
"a … local charging scheme may only be made if it appears desirable"
for the purpose of achieving the policies in the local transport plan. Perhaps in his reply the Minister could resolve that inconsistency in presentation.
In addition, in his opening remarks the Minister appeared to state that such charges will not be introduced until after bus and other transport systems have been sufficiently improved. That may be welcome, but if the charges are not to come into effect until after the necessary improvements have been made it could be argued that they are no longer necessary and that the huge revenues that the road users already pay in that situation will have been properly and well used to bring about any necessary improvements. That may be a perverse interpretation but it seems very real.
It is not surprising that on this side of the House we have had representations from the CBI, the Engineering Employers' Federation, the Food and Drink Federation and many others regarding these charges. This country is a trading nation. Its competitive position in international terms is essential to everyone's wellbeing. The new charges have the potential to raise transport and other costs at a time when manufacturing and other industries, particularly in the field of export, are already under extreme pressure.
Part of the purpose of the Bill is supposed to be to encourage freight transport to transfer away from roads. That is welcome. However, we need to recognise that the railways, which are the alternative, currently take only around 6 per cent of freight moved. Doubling that capacity will take care of only a very short time of growth in the economy. Imagine an economic growth of 3 per cent per annum—would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer be pleased with that? In two years' time the increased capacity of the railways to move freight would be absorbed. We have always needed, and always will need, a well-diversified transport system.
In addition, because of their impact on business costs, the new taxes—that is what they are; not charges and levies—could have a damaging effect. This is not simply a question of road freight costs—all retailing activity depends upon road freight—but labour costs also could be put under great pressure.
If ever there was a view that the roads are jammed because people drive around for pleasure, current costs of driving should be enough to exorcise it from

975
anyone's thinking. Car drivers are on the roads from necessity. However, it must be said that convenience and time are both factors in such necessity.
I well remember how things worked when I was young and the country was emerging from the war. All movement was dominated by the rail and bus systems. Everything was much slower. It took far longer to do anything or to get anywhere. I do not think we could afford to go back to that. In the Bill, however, the Government appear to be introducing specific additional taxes on movement by road.
We know that the road user charges are to be paid by the registered owner of a vehicle, for that is what the Bill states. I suppose that the driver will be deemed to have been authorised by the registered owner. Increased driver costs, therefore, will almost inevitably impact upon wage cost pressures. It will not be more than a few months before wage demands are inflated as workers affected by such costs take steps to defend their relative prosperity.
In the case of the workplace parking levy, matters are not so clear. The levy falls on the provider of the space in the first instance, but the Bill is not clear about whether that should be passed on to the user of the space. If it is not, it is a straight additional tax on business and commerce. If it is, I have already said what will happen to wage cost pressures. Whichever is the correct answer—perhaps the Minister will provide clarification in his reply—the impact will be the same: business costs will increase and competitiveness will be put at risk.
Many figures have been bandied about to interpret what that might mean. For the sake of simplicity, I take two figures which have been discussed in the context of London: £5 per day for the road user charge, and £5 per day for a workplace parking levy. Those two figures have the capacity to increase the tax burden on an affected road-using employee of any business by £2,500 per year. When one thinks of the annual Budget debate in another place where the minutest tax increase can be extremely controversial, I am bound to say that I find it fascinating that these new taxes have caused so little fuss.
There are many other points of detail which we shall want Ito discuss with greater care than is appropriate at this stage of the Bill. However, perhaps some are worth noting. The Government suggested that they should exempt hospitals from the workplace parking levies because hospital staff work at night. In this modern, high-pressure age, so do many other businesses. Should they be exempt? What about businesses which operate park-and-ride systems or other co-operative transport systems, which are in the community's interest? Should they be exempt? What of the problems of businesses which operate continuous processes and are therefore required to have double the number of parking spaces so that two shifts can park at the same time? If a business is operating a commercial process, a shift coming on cannot wait until the shift which is already working has left its place of work and, more importantly, left its place in the car park. How do we cater for that problem?
976
Those are all points which will unquestionably have to be debated at future stages of the Bill. However, there are two other matters which must be mentioned tonight. First, the Bill as drafted contains what can only call the sop of hypothecation; that is, 10 years for transport improvement purposes for the new taxes, after they are introduced. That is supposed to make the taxes acceptable. I wonder. Almost exactly one year ago in this House we spent many hours discussing the Greater London Authority Bill. I remain firmly of the view that 10 years is too short a timescale for this hypothecation—I wholly support the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford in that regard—particularly now that the taxes are to be spread across the whole country. So that debate must be reopened.
But there is a second matter, which I choose to describe as the "big" word that must be the companion word to "hypothecation"; that is, "additionality". That is all too familiar a word to local government. They have bitter experience of seeing funds, originally intended to be additional, absorbed and disappear into the Treasury maw.
The question is whether the unacceptable can be rendered more palatable. What is certain is that yet another tax imposed on road users will not be acceptable in any way if the funds it produces are not seen to be additional to those provided for maintenance and improvement of the transport system. Will the Minister, in his reply, strengthen the assurance given by his noble friend in his opening remarks that, if this matter is ever mentioned in the discussions on finance that must take place annually between central and local government, it will he taken as an entirely separate item, purely to ascertain that the money is being well and appropriately used? Most importantly, will he assure us that it will never affect the existing levels of transport support? Without such an assurance, we are looking at a poll tax on wheels.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, this has been a well-informed debate and a credit to the House. I support integrated transport and congratulate my noble friend on what he said in relation to the help being given to pensioners in regard to travel and bus passes.
However, perhaps I may turn to the one point which particularly bothers me and about which I want to speak tonight; that is, NATS. I know that both my noble friends on the Front Bench will give way to no one in relation to safety, and the same applies to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. That is why, despite all the explanations given, I am still extremely puzzled as to why we are throwing away NATS, which is a world leader in relation to public safety. Indeed, the Minister has said on occasion that the world looks to us in this particular field.
It appears that the explanation being given involves the question of investment in NATS over the next 10 years. The investment in NA TS over the past 10 years was £1.2 billion and, as I understand it, the investment

977
over the next 10 years will be just £1 billion. That can be broken down into only £100 million per year. We can also take into account that NATS will generate profits, part of which will go towards that investment figure. For the life of me I cannot see why the rest cannot be borrowed from the Treasury as loans and be repaid, as it has been in the past, with an interest rate of around 8 per cent. Why, therefore, are we destroying a world-class organisation?
My second point is that, if we cannot keep NATS, I would prefer a free-standing company like the privatised Post Office which can raise finance independently, if necessary, though the Treasury may not agree. I would also support a model such as that being advocated in Canada, which is a non-profit-making trust. The advantage of those systems is that they put safety foremost. That is my problem with the solution put forward in the Bill.
Air traffic control is quite different from airlines and airports, whether British Airways or the CAA. NATS is concerned only about air traffic control, and therefore primarily with the safety of its operations. What happens if it becomes a public-private company? There must be a return for the shareholders. Where will it come from? That is the dilemma I face. Will it come from cutting the operators or from increasing charges to the users? It must be one or the other. That is a particular problem.
Having said that, there is no doubt about the cynicism of the arrangement when the two opposition parties come together. When one prefers the trust model—for which I have a preference—and the other complete privatisation, one can only conclude that the object of the exercise is to defeat the Government. It will be viewed therefore as a purely political manoeuvre.
When we examine the proposals before us in this Chamber, like my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis I hope that the Government will think again. If we retain the present model, are there ways in which it can be improved? For instance, why cannot there be an employee representative on the board? It may be said that the interests of the shareholders have to be put first. But surely those interests will be primarily linked to safety. And the employees must have just as great an interest as the shareholders in seeing an efficient and safe company. Their being represented on the board would ensure that safety was kept right at the forefront.
My noble friend may say: what about the strategic partnership? That is all very well, but it must be remembered that it is only a consultative body, due to meet biannually. It is said that it can demand other meetings. But that cannot make it an effective watchdog.
My other anxiety relates to the government shareholding. At the moment it is to be 49 per cent, with 46 per cent owned by the new partner or partners and 5 per cent by the employees. But we also learn that it can be floated on the Stock Exchange and the Government's share can then be reduced to 25 per
978
cent. What control will we then have? Surely we do not intend to rely on a golden share, or special share. That has never been effective. Indeed, it never prevented the sell-off of other companies that possessed such a "special" share.
Further, can my noble friend the Minister say whether this has been cleared with Europe? In other words, has the issue of whether we can even have a golden or special share been discussed with the Commission? Surely we must clear the matter with the EU. I know it is said that it may be cleared because security comes into the matter, but could not this also lead to problems with the MoD? We have already heard that there are some misgivings on the part of the RAF; indeed, there are certainly murmurings in that respect. It seems to me that we must retain some public control if security matters come into the equation.
I know that the document spells out the fact that training will be paramount and that there will be no dilution in the training offered. However, we must ensure not only that the standard is maintained but also that it is improved. We shall need better training because, whatever the right reverend Prelate would like to see, the amount of air traffic will grow. It is estimated that it will grow by at least 3 per cent a year. That means more congested skyways. I hope that my noble friends will consult with the unions in this respect. I also hope, like my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, that they will have further talks with the pilots who have expressed grave concerns about the safety issues that could arise.
There is one further issue that I should like my noble friends to consider both now and in Committee. I refer to the level of pensions now paid. Could we not have the same safeguard that was offered to London Transport workers by such provision being written into the legislation?
Unless there is a change of mind, I know that at the end of the day the present pattern that we have of a public/private partnership will be maintained. However, I ask that we look again at strengthening the public control in relation to it and that we also ensure not only that safety is paramount but also that such provision is written into the Bill.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, speaking at the bus summit on 9th November last year, the Deputy Prime Minister said that,
"the bus holds the key to improving public transport locally".
He said that,
"in many people's minds it is not even today's product, let alone tomorrow's",
and that,
"we need to break through that way of thinking, if we are to see a progressive, forward looking industry seizing the challenges which lie ahead".
On these Benches we endorse those sentiments but believe that, as this Bill is the only piece of legislation affecting buses which the Government have or are likely to table in this Parliament, the great transformation will not take place. This is a great pity

979
and a great waste, as buses are the cheapest, most readily available means of changing people's travel habits.
Above all, to be efficient, bus services need a clear highway along which to drive. We look for two changes in legislation to achieve this aim. First, we need the extension nationwide of enforcement by camera technology of the law relating to the abuse of bus lanes, yellow box junctions and banned right-hand turns. It is no use giving offenders the option of a £20 fixed penalty ticket, which was last reviewed in 1992. Government must prevail upon the police so that officers are available to review camera records and institute prosecutions. Local authorities should keep the revenue raised to fund better enforcement. We seek an immediate extension from London of the use of enforcement cameras and look to the Government to bring forward the necessary amendments at Committee stage. This requires a simple amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1991, Schedule 3 of which gives the Secretary of State wide powers only in respect of stationary vehicles. These powers need to be extended to include moving vehicles.
Secondly, we must protect marked bus stops from illegally parked vehicles. Several noble Lords have spoken about the needs of disabled people. It is absolutely no use the bus industry buying accessible buses if they cannot pull into the kerb. The daughter document to the transport White Paper, From Workhorse to Thoroughbred, held out the prospect of action in this area. Have the Government come to any conclusions in their consideration of designating bus stops as urban clearways and of an effective means of enforcement? At the bus summit the Deputy Prime Minister said that,
"when road space priority is designated it must be respected".
We look for delivery against that commitment.
The Bill makes many references to the traffic commissioners. They will have the responsibility for an extension of the scope of traffic regulation orders and for enforcing quality partnerships. In his reply, I should be grateful if the Minister could explain how the commissioners are to deal with an operator who is excluded from a quality partnership and to whom an excluded operator might appeal. Would this be to the traffic commissioners? The traffic commissioners need adequate resources, not only to carry out any new tasks that come to them as a result of this Bill but also in order to discharge their existing duties. Operators pay for this enforcement through their operator licences. We should like to see the powers of the traffic commissioners extended.
I asked someone in the Library of the House to conduct a small exercise for me comparing the resources available to those regulating safety and the railway generally—the rail regulator and the railway inspectorate—with the resources available to those involved in regulating road traffic. I found that although the tasks to be carried out by the traffic commissioners have increased, their resources have not. Conversely, the number of staff employed by Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, referred to by the
980
noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, in her maiden speech, has greatly increased since the old railway inspectorate was replaced by the staff of the Health and Safety Commission. Therefore, we are looking for some evening-up of this use of resources.
We shall move amendments to extend the powers of the traffic commissioners in three areas. First, we believe that they should have the power, not to reject a registration of a bus operator, but to vary this when, in the opinion of the commissioners, this is intended to disrupt the business of another operator—the old tactic of registering a departure two or three minutes ahead of that of a rival. When a similar amendment was moved in Committee in another place, the Minister said that the traffic commissioners' existing powers, coupled with the safeguards provided in competition law and the possibility for the Office of Fair Trading to intervene—now enhanced in terms of speediness—were sufficient.
We are not satisfied that the OFT will move speedily; it has never done so before. We also believe that some simple guidelines can be drawn up to assist the traffic commissioners in exercising judgment which, if published, would act as a guide not only to them but also to bus companies in making registrations. It would be much less bureaucratic and expensive than involving the OFT. Of course, any decision by the traffic commissioner could go to appeal. I shall return to the traffic commissioners in the few remarks that I wish to make about lorries.
When he concludes the debate, can the Minister give the House any news as to when the Government intend to table amendments to the relevant regulations to abolish the five-minute rule and to extend the existing period of notice of de-registration of bus services from 42 to 56 days? These changes were promised in Committee in another place. Both of those changes would be welcomed by those who have to provide timetable information and by local authorities that have to let tenders to replace services which are withdrawn.
Like many other noble Lords, I have read the draft consultation document circulated by the Office of Fair Trading on 8th May on a block exemption order relating to public transport ticketing schemes. This proposes a block exemption for a limited selection of tickets sold under statutory quality partnerships. In our view, the approach of the OFT is too narrow in being limited to ticketing schemes, and I understand that it does not apply retrospectively to voluntary quality partnerships or to other arrangements in respect of tickets, including road/rail tickets. Similarly it does not apply to joint co-ordinated timetables, joint publicity or shared routes. Unless the scope of the block exemption is widened considerably, there is the real prospect of various existing arrangements which benefit passengers being struck down because they offend the purity of the theory of competition law.
Again I quote the Deputy Prime Minister:
"We have also got to see transport marketed more effectively as a single product regardless of operator. That means ticketing that meets the needs of users rather than operators".

981
Can the Minister assure the House that the genuine concerns of the industry and of users are appreciated and that urgent discussions are taking place with the DTI and the OFT to preserve the degree of integration which has already been achieved and to extend that?
There is a strong wish on these Benches to see the market for the provision of bus services being contestable. That involves taking strong action to prevent predation and the abuse of dominant positions. This is necessary so that the tendering process will work. But contestability does not require the outlawing of sensible co-operation, marketing and ticketing which benefit the consumer.
We warmly welcome the provision of half fare passes to pensioners and particularly the extension to the blind and the disabled announced this afternoon. However, we believe that the Government should go a little further. We do not believe that this will cost much when the generation factor—that is, the extra people who use bus services because fares are lower—is taken into account. We very much hope to hear from the Government that all persons over 60, men as well as women, will benefit. For example, I received a letter offering me a winter fuel rebate although I am not yet a pensioner. It appears that the Government can change the rules about age limits to suit a particular case. Our greatest wish is to see the concession for buses extended to those in full-time education up to the age of 18. Often young people buy old cars and increasingly are driving them to school. Travel costs bear heavily upon them. We believe that government could and should negotiate a good deal with bus companies in introducing this change.
Quality partnerships as envisaged in the Bill will not cover frequencies and fares. These are important features of any service. We have noted statements that these issues might be addressed in a non-binding codicil to quality partnerships. The issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. I suggest to Ministers that our misgivings might be assuaged if it were possible to include a kind of passenger service requirement as is found in railway franchises—a kind of baseline level of service—and that fare rises should be limited to a special bus industry cost index; that is, there would be no real fare rises except rises in costs specific to the industry.
I conclude with a couple of references to road haulage. As a member of the Commission for Integrated Transport I was disappointed by the announcement that 44 tonne lorries were to be introduced without the accompanying package of measures. I am pleased that work is going on within the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to put together schemes to facilitate the use of rail by customers who might be attracted to using that mode. I hope that the necessary funding will be made available. I was also pleased to see as part of the Bill the proposals on impounding vehicles introduced in this House in the previous Session of Parliament by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
982
However, further changes are needed. These include—as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, proposed—the fact that a lorry driver stopped for exceeding hours should be obliged, on the spot, to take a full period of rest before proceeding. It is wrong that in any field of transport a driver or a pilot should be permitted to remain in control when he has been found to be exceeding permitted hours. For the Government even to consider bringing charges of corporate manslaughter against directors of transport companies while this lacuna in the law continues, with ministerial indifference, is unacceptable. I have the word "connivance" in my notes, but I shall refer rather to ministerial indifference. As the Minister said in relation to NATS, safety in transport is a paramount interest.
We shall seek to move two amendments to protect those living on estates and weight restricted rural roads from "rat-running" by large lorries. We shall seek to make it much easier to prosecute drivers of lorries using prohibited routes. The present system does not work. We shall seek to extend the authority of traffic commissioners in granting a licence for the establishment or expansion of vehicle operating centres to have regard to the suitability of the highway network in the area and to provide that the commissioners should approve centres of bus operations. When an operator is called before a traffic commissioner on a disciplinary matter it is often the case that undertakings are given concerning future behaviour. We are not satisfied that these are enforceable and hope that the Government will be persuaded to bring forward an amendment to remove the doubt which exists.
The road haulage industry will benefit substantially from the introduction of 44 tonne lorries. I and many colleagues on the Commission for Integrated Transport believe that it is time that those whose lives are put at risk or those whose lives are blighted by heavy lorry activity deserve the protection which would be afforded by these minor amendments to the Bill. We believe that we are asking only for what the Deputy Prime Minister promised when he said:
"Any drivers and operators who persist in using unsafe vehicles or breaching drivers' hours legislation can expect to be dealt with severely by the Traffic Commissioner or by the Courts".
Many such people never appear before any court, let alone face meaningful penalties. This must change. I look forward to supporting most of what is in the Bill. However, I shall do so more gladly if we see some of the amendments I have mentioned.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate. Transport has been an interest of mine for a long time and throughout my parliamentary life. At one stage I was chairman of the all-party Road Passenger Transport Group. Therefore I am delighted that transport is such a high priority of the Government.

983
An efficient transport system is vital not only for the economy but it is essential also for the environment. That is why I am pleased that the Government have introduced the Bill that is before the House. It is the right Bill at the right time.
The Bill is a comprehensive measure. That fact alone has attracted criticism, but not criticism that I feel able to echo. If we are to create a fully integrated transport system across the UK, that objective is bound to be reflected in the enabling legislation; hence a large Bill.
I wish to concentrate on a single area of the Bill, that which deals with buses. Here I must declare an interest. I have just been appointed chairman of the Bus Appeals Body. That is the independent body set up by the bus industry in conjunction with bus passengers to arbitrate on passenger complaints. It is a good example of the increasing customer focus of today's bus industry. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who preceded me in that office and served the body with great distinction.
A key element of the Government's transport strategy is to give people more choice. No one needs to be persuaded of the benefits of more people choosing to leave their cars at home and use public transport. But people cannot be forced to do that. People must make that choice because public transport is a better option. It has to be reliable. They must choose it because it will not get caught in congestion; because highway authorities have given it priority road space; because it is clean; because it is accessible; and because you do not have to park your car at the other end—in short, because it is in every way convenient. In towns and cities across the UK the bus is uniquely positioned to provide the service I have just described. The message I hear from bus operators is: "Give me the operating conditions and I will invest and deliver a high quality service".
The 1985 Transport Act brought about significant changes in bus operations in the UK. Not surprisingly, the results were mixed. The aim of this legislation should be to build upon the positive results of that legislation. There are many positive results, not least in record levels of investment in new vehicles. This Bill seeks to remove only the negative results of the 1985 Act. The Government have got that right.
The Bill will put in place measures which ensure that bus operators and local authorities work together on a formal basis using their respective expertise to the best effect. In the first instance, local authorities are required to produce bus strategies as part of their local transport plans—a sensible measure in my view. But I have two pleas to make.
First, the Government's guidance must be strong. The Bill as it stands allows for the imposition of a quality contract where a local authority feels that it is the only practical way to meet its bus strategy. Many interested parties—not least passenger groups through the National Federation of Bus Users—along with the industry itself, feel that bus services would suffer as a result of these contracts. Some local authorities have made it plain that they are keen to go straight to contracts, which is a clear departure from government
984
policy. It is vital therefore that firm, clear guidance is given to guard against quality contracts introduced by the back-door.
My second plea relates to consultation. The Bill compels local authorities to consult when developing their strategies. This is a welcome move. Bus operators in particular have built up great expertise over the years in providing services—a positive aspect of deregulation. They have also shown innovation in the services provided.
While the Bill compels consultation, it does not compel local authorities to heed that consultation. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will say that this is implicit in the clauses, but I should value his reassurance from the Front Bench when he responds to the debate.
This brings me to quality partnerships. The Government have stated that the quality partnership approach will be the corner-stone of their proposals for bus service provision. This is something else that I welcome. Voluntary quality partnerships operating throughout the country have shown impressive increases in passenger numbers. Placing these partnerships on a statutory footing is the next logical step. This will allow local authorities to invest in highway schemes secure in the knowledge that bus operators will provide quality services to run on them. Similarly, bus operators will be able to invest in new, high-quality vehicles that they can run reliably in a congestion-free environment.
These partnerships must not be too prescriptive. They must be flexible enough to meet differing needs in different areas. A rural quality partnership will be different from one in an urban area.
They must be partnerships in the true sense of the word. Quality partnerships are a marriage of different areas of expertise, including road planning, service provision and enforcement. Care must be taken to ensure that local authorities do not become too prescriptive in the conditions that they set. It is unlikely that bus operators would be willing to continue their present high levels of investment if control of their assets lay elsewhere. Conversely, it would be quite wrong for bus operators to lake the lead on infrastructure planning. Consultation and partnership must be the bywords for a successful quality partnership.
I have followed the remarks of Ministers in another place during the passage of this Bill, and I fully agree that voluntary agreements on service provisions such as frequencies should run alongside statutory provisions. This will guarantee partnerships in the true sense.
I know that anxieties have been expressed about the effect of the Competition Act on partnership arrangements. It has been said that this Act legislates against integration and co-operation. Ministers will need to ensure that this does not prove to be the case. I welcome therefore the new schedule added to the Bill by the Government. This sets a firm competition test for the statutory aspects of quality partnerships. I note what the Government said on the need to consult the

985
OFT on the non-statutory aspects of quality partnership arrangements. I hope that my noble friend can join me in urging the OFT to do everything that it can to facilitate agreements, both voluntary and statutory, which are made in the public interest.
I must tell my noble friend that I have some difficulties with quality contracts. I have studied the proposals carefully and share the views expressed by the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the National Federation of Bus Users. Quality contracts will not provide passengers with the best services. I have looked at the report of NERA (the National Economic Research Associates) into the franchising of bus services—and franchising seems to me to be the effect of quality contracts. NERA believes that franchising would result in more public expense, less investment and less flexibility. I have some sympathy with that point of view.
The imposition of a quality contract would be most unfair on the bus operators, large and small alike. They would lose business as a result. As I say, the large operator would see his ability to invest diminish, and there are serious implications for the workforce. The problems would be worse for the many small, family-run businesses. For this group, losing out on a franchise would mean relocation—an impractical solution. Going out of business seems much more likely. There would be no compensation, and the Government may like to address that issue when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill.
I understand why proposals for quality contracts have been included in the Bill; they are intended as a safety net. However, they should never be a last resort. I hope that I shall receive some assurances about this when the Minister responds to the debate.
I do not wish to end on a negative note. I am a strong supporter of this Bill. A high quality, fully integrated public transport system, backed up by strong investment, is vital for the United Kingdom in the 21st century. I believe that this Bill will go a very long way towards achieving that for our people.
6.56 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on two issues, the first of which relates to congestion charging. I shall focus on London because it is the area that I know best. It is probably my simplistic attitude, but I admit to being somewhat puzzled. We seem to have a straightforward logistical problem but we do not seem to be able to find a straightforward answer.
We know that we have run out of road space in London and, therefore, in order to give people the mobility that they need, we have to make better use of the road space that we have. Already 85 per cent of commuters come into central London on public transport, but we still want to get people out of their cars and into the centre by public transport. We have to get people to make the change onto public transport, and we have to decide what they should
986
travel in or on to get into central London if they make that change. Obviously other major cities have similar problems but they are perhaps most acute in London.
We know that the Underground system is running above its capacity during certain parts of the day. It is very difficult to get more people onto a service which is already over full. It would be a marvellous solution if we could run longer trains—but we cannot make longer platforms in our deep tube system to allow people to board longer trains. That is rather sad.
We could do many other things which I feel your Lordships would not appreciate. For instance, we could take out all the seats on the Underground and get many more people onto the trains, but that is not something we would consider. We know that the new signalling systems will allow trains to run safely at closer intervals to each other, but that will not do a great deal to increase capacity. We could do other things which I think would be undesirable. For example, we could encourage trains to stop at every two or three stations instead of at every station, but I do not think that passengers would want that.
So we are left with one resource in the centre of the city—that is, buses. I think most people see them as being unattractive and unreliable in many ways. We need to address those issues if we are to make proper use of our buses.
We need, first, to aim to speed them up. Secondly, they should arrive at frequent, proper intervals, not all together. Only congestion charging will achieve those aims. However, we face a problem because many people have put forward persuasive reasons for delaying the imposition of congestion charging until an adequate public transport system is in place.
However, it is difficult to understand how a proper, efficient bus service can be introduced unless a form of congestion charging is introduced first in order to facilitate better public provision. We shall not be able to make the patient better until we adopt the only realistic alternative option; namely, congestion charging.
The enforcement of bus lanes will help, but such lanes cover a fraction of most bus routes and are operational for only short periods of the day. We need only to step out of this building to see that traffic jams build up throughout the day, as well as through much of the evening. If bus lanes are extended and their hours of operation lengthened, enforcement would soon become impossible. It is not easy even to enforce the bus lanes already in place. For those reasons, the problems will remain unless charging is imposed quickly.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to the issue of concessionary bus fares for pensioners, who will increasingly use the improved bus services. However, first I should like to echo the pleasure expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for the new provision announced earlier by the Minister which will benefit disabled people of all ages. However, I am concerned about the discrimination that currently applies to men aged 60 to 64. The situation is unfortunate and may result in further legal action against the Government

987
because, for the first time, a requirement is to be placed on local authorities to offer transport concessions. Given that, at one of the two levels of the European courts, this anomaly could lead to further action following the failed earlier case. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether the Government are now considering proposals to equalise the concessionary age, preferably at 60 years, although it is most important that equal treatment should apply to everyone.
Another point to bear in mind as regards the concessionary scheme is that it is not national; rather, it is a nationally set minimum standard. Many pensioners think that they will be able to get half-price travel wherever they go. However, that of course is not the case at the moment. The concessions will apply only to transport within people's own local authorities. They will be very disappointed if they find that they cannot travel out of their local area to visit a doctor or to go shopping unless all local authorities reach agreements with each other. Rather than waiting for reciprocal deals to be made between local authorities, perhaps the Minister would consider providing for pensioners automatically to receive the minimum standard wherever they go. That would be simpler and would avoid disappointment.
7.4 p m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I welcome the Bill, especially because it aims to bring about a more integrated transport policy. For many years that has been the principal aim of those interested in transport. It locks like some progress is about to be made in that regard. The key to establishing an integrated transport system lies not so much in regulation and introducing different schemes but in ensuring that sufficient money is invested in the system. The key lies in adequate investment.
A little over a decade ago I was the Front-Bench spokesperson for the Labour Party looking at integrated transport policies. One of the principal points of discussion was how to get around the Treasury rules. As a former chairman of British Rail, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will recall the mechanism called the external financial limit which allowed the government of the day to determine each year how much a publicly owned industry could spend. The question of how money was raised was not at issue; the limit covered only how much could be spent. At the time British Rail was experimenting with private finance initiatives on a small scale for privately owned sidings allowing provision for privately owned rolling stock. That did not give British Rail more money to spend on its day-to-day objectives; in Fact, it meant that it could spend less. The system was ludicrous. The problem with the Treasury rules is that over the years they have interfered far too much with the implementation of government transport policies.
I believe that there will be a general welcome for the mandatory travel concession system set out in the Bill. Again, the establishment of a countrywide minimum standard is something that we have long sought to achieve. However, I accept that there may be problemsas
988
regards cross-authority agreements. Nevertheless, I welcome in particular the announcement made today by my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston concerning the extension of the concessionary fare scheme to the blind and the disabled. That is very welcome.
It has been clear from the contributions made in our debate that the Bill is not without controversy. No doubt those issues will be discussed in great detail both in Committee and on Report. I am sure that the clauses in Part III dealing with road user charges and workplace parking levies will not receive universal approval. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has made his position clear. However, I suspect that in this, as in many other areas, a certain degree of "Nimbyism"—not in my back yard—may have been evinced. The theory is all well and good, but in practice individuals will object to paying congestion charges or contributing to workplace parking fees. Indeed, I receive frequent press notices from private companies declaring that congestion is costing the taxpayer dear and is expensive for the consumer. However, once a solution is suggested, that is another matter. Congestion is rather like sin—everyone is against it. And, of course, as far as congestion is concerned, it is always someone else's car that is causing the problem, not the car being driven by oneself. A little humility is called for in this area.
Without doubt, the most controversial proposals in the Bill are those covering the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services. M y noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis made a powerful case, as did my noble friend Lord Hoyle. I suspect that others will also put forward their views. I have great respect for my good and noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis. We served together in the House of Commons for a period. He was a distinguished Transport Commissioner in the European Commission. I respect his views very much. From time to time we even used to play golf together. By the time my noble friend is once again fully fit, I may even have been able to save up enough money to buy a golf ball as a side stake when we play one another. I look forward to that.
As regards NATS, the issue is not so much one of ownership but rather of how sufficient finance can be injected into the system. The issue is also primarily one of safety. How can we ensure that safety remains paramount? Basically, there are two sides to this equation. Let us take, first, the position of the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority. I am sure that everyone will have received a letter from the chairman of the CAA stating that he believes that safety will be guaranteed under the provisions of the Bill and that the separation of powers between the CAA and the newly formed NATS will be sufficient to guarantee continuing high safety standards. However, the trade unions have argued that the safeguards are insufficient. Oddly enough, they say that NATS currently operates to a higher standard than allowed for by the CAA. There is something curious about that. If that is the case it may well be that stronger provisions in terms of safety are needed on the face of

989
the Bill. But there is a dilemma as to how far we regulate each time standards change. We need the highest standard of safety.
I used to take the absolutist view that "private sector" equalled bad safety and "public sector" equalled good safety. I recall the argument at the time when British Caledonian Airways was to be set up. Routes were stripped away from the British Overseas Airways Corporation to set up the new private company in the interests of competition. Incidentally, that took place under a Labour government. One of my noble friends on this side of the House was a Minister at the time. British Caledonian no longer exists—but not because it had a bad safety record. The company no longer exists because it was effectively going bankrupt; there was no safety issue was involved.
I have scars on my back from defending to the hilt Dounreay as a place of the greatest safety. Sadly, I have been proved wrong. I recall vigorously defending the people at Sellafield and saying how safe it was. Now we find that there was systematic falsification of documents. That is a public sector company, and always has been. However, I do not now take the opposite view that public ownership means bad safety and that the private sector automatically means good safety. I have not yet crossed that line or made that 180 degree turn. I still believe that we need absolutely stringent standards.
I am interested in one of the dilemmas that may be resolved at a later stage. There remains confusion as to the views, in terms of voting, of the Liberal Democrats on the one hand, who have said that they are in favour of a trust and are opposed to any privatization—incidentally, a trust would mean moving out of public ownership—and the Tories, who have stated their belief in full privatisation. We have heard from the Liberal spokesman, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, that there has been no collusion between the two parties—and Members opposite are vigorously shaking their heads. But as my noble friend Lord Hoyle said, it is not collusion—
Lord Hoyle: It is a marriage made in hell!
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I was not about to be so provocative as to describe it as a marriage made in hell—but that is what it would have been. I am interested to know what the amendment will be. Is it to be, as would not be allowed in another place, a wrecking amendment to remove the clause? Will it propose a change of ownership? If so, how would that apply?
I do not want to dwell too long on the matter. I shall merely say that this House is a revising Chamber. It is not a Chamber in which Opposition parties should seek, in collusion, to embarrass the Government and elevate that approach to an issue of high principle, which it is definitely not. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I feel that we are going down some very strange paths in this
990
debate. I do not know what is the origin of all this speculation. I have already told the House that we shall table amendments that conform to our view of a better alternative to the Government's proposals. That is all that we plan to do. From then onwards, we shall follow the normal processes of Committee, Report and Third Reading.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I accept that. Indeed, I stated clearly that there were two different points of view. The view just stated reveals a remarkable innocence; namely, that no responsibility can be taken for what happens as a result of one's own actions. It is a point that should be examined.
My final point relates to the question of pensions, which has already been touched on by my noble friend Lord Hoyle. Concern has been expressed by those in NATS about their pension rights. The Government have stated their clear belief that the Bill contains enough protection and there is nothing to worry about. I can understand the concern that people have in regard to their pension rights. One point that the Government must answer is why it is necessary to write on to the face of the Bill protection for workers in London Underground and why it is not necessary in this case. That issue must be examined at a later stage of the Bill.
That said, I give the Bill my full support. In terms of ownership the Government's choices are ones that I should not necessarily by instinct have followed. But we have moved on. I do not believe that my noble friends Lord Macdonald of Tradestone and Lord Whitty, my right honourable friend John Prescott and the Minister for Aviation, Chris Mullin, would embark on a course that would lead to unsafe skies over and around this country. Therefore, I am prepared to trust their judgment. If there is a need to write greater safeguards into the Bill, we must examine that. However, the Bill takes matters forward a great deal and I wish it good speed.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I should like briefly to turn the attention of the House to parts of this large Bill which have received less attention than they might merit. The noble Lords, Lord Hoyle, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Hogg, have raised my spirits in the past hour with regard to buses. While the future status of NATS and workplace parking levies are important, it is the quality of bus and rail services that is often of greater concern to the man, or more often the woman, in the street on a day-to-day basis.
If we are to tackle congestion and pollution, so eloquently described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, I suggest that the nub of the issue is the need to provide the high-quality, reliable public transport services that can convince drivers like myself that there is sometimes an economic, efficient and effective alternative. The structural reforms contained in Parts II and IV of the Bill should make a difference. We shall see. But I am particularly anxious that the

991
needs, views and preferences of the passenger—or consumer—of local transport services are put at the heart of policy-making.
The Bill devotes a couple of clauses to this matter. I note that rail passengers are to have a new watchdog—the rail passengers' council and regional rail passenger committees were launched last month, replacing the old CRUCC and RUCCs. But it is worth recalling the comments of the Transport Sub-Committee in another place on initial provisions included in the Railways Act, the forerunner to Part IV of the Transport Bill. The committee argued that,
"significant changes must be made if the Rail Users' Consultative Committees are to become influential and effective representatives of the interests of rail passengers".
That ought to include a name change, adequate funding and more freedom to run their own affairs.
True to form, the Government have since adopted the suggestion of a name change and a re-branding exercise. But aside from that, there are only some rather modest extensions to the powers and duties of the new RPC. It is not clear to me that that constitutes the kind of significant changes referred to by the committee.
A successful system of consumer representation requires not just the setting up of a new body and the usual group of dedicated but overstretched staff, important though that all is. The RPC also needs to be granted appropriate powers and duties and sufficient resources to exercise those powers effectively and carry out those duties.
A blueprint recently produced by the National Consumer Council provides us with a very useful guide. Based on its considerable experience, and following consultation with existing consumer bodies, it identifies key characteristics which identify a good consumer body. Top of the list is independence—independence in their governance and their management, and
"from the industry, the regulator, and central and local government, particularly in their choice of work and in the views that they express."
So it is with some concern that I note that it is proposed that the Strategic Rail Authority should sponsor the rail passengers' council. The Strategic Rail Authority will act as a funding channel for the RPC, will have administrative responsibilities for the RPC, and will even appoint some of the RPC's members. Yet the authority is taking on regulatory powers and could even potentially become a service provider in its own right. There are circumstances under which, given its remit to represent the passenger interest, the RPC might wish to take a different stance from that of the authority. It might even wish to be critical of the authority's overall performance. Strategic Rail Authority sponsorship has the potential to compromise the RPC's ability to do this. The Minister may wish to reassure me in that regard, but I may seek at a later stage to introduce amendments to test the extent of the Government's commitment to establishing a more effective and independent consumer voice for rail passengers.
992
I would like to be more certain that the rail passengers' council will have the resources it needs to conduct its own quality research and to lobby effectively. The Bill's silence on information is not particularly encouraging either. Without the power to access and publish industry information, the RPC's ability to champion the passenger interest could be seriously undermined. The Utilities Bill and the Postal Services Bill, currently being considered by the House, both establish new consumer bodies. They contain clauses which establish direct rights of access to regulatory and company information, and the right to publish advice and information supplied to public authorities. While far from perfect, the gas and electricity consumer council and the consumer council for postal services will have much clearer and stronger statutory rights than the rail passengers' council will have.
The GECC and the CCPS are also required to have particular regard to the needs of disadvantaged consumers, such as elderly or disabled people. It is a good principle, which should be extended to this Bill. The interests of such groups, as we have heard today, are of particular importance with regard to bus services, acting as they do as a lifeline for many. Those on low incomes and elderly people depend on buses to get them to work, to visit relatives or go to the local shops. We must make sure that we have regard to their interests.
In terms of consumer representation, circur istances are somewhat different from those of the railways, given the very local nature of bus services. But, while a statutory national body may not be appropriate, buses need a higher profile, and I am unclear how the Government intend to carry out their stated intention of strengthening the voice of bus users.
Research for the Cabinet Office people's panel—that fast-disappearing body of volunteers—has found higher dissatisfaction with bus services than with train services. There are significant concerns regarding reliability, frequency and personal safety. Indeed, a recent Welsh Consumer Council survey found that only 43 per cent of passengers feel safe on a local bus at night.
As we have heard tonight, buses do matter to consumers. I am concerned, therefore, that bus services do not receive the attention that they justify, given that they make up two-thirds of all public transport journeys. I sometimes wonder whether their low profile reflects the fact that there are not too many politicians, national or local, or indeed journalists, to be found on the local No. 39 or No. 73 bus.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to my concerns, and, if I remain worried, to bringing forward amendments during the further stages of the Bill.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, first, I congratulate the three noble Baronesses who made an outstanding series of maiden speeches: Lady Cohen of Pimlico; Lady Scott of Needham Market; and Lady

993
Gibson of Market Rasen, with whom I worked closely on this and other matters for many years in the TUC. They will all be making a notable contribution over the coming years. I simply add that we look forward to the day when noble Baronesses outnumber us noble Lords in the House.
I shall be giving strong support to the Bill, with one exception—aspects of the air traffic control proposals, on which I shall in due course raise some issues, partially in the context of European air traffic congestion. My noble friend, Lord Whitty, may wish to respond to some of those points, even though he may not wish to buy me a drink afterwards.
In broad terms, the Bill's logic as regards road, rail and local transport plans, road user charging and the workplace parking levy is first class. It represents the culmination of a radical rethink of transport policy in recent years. That rethink began, it is fair to say, in the period of the previous administration, but we have seen under the present Government a bold implementation of new ideas which would have been unlikely without a Labour administration. The main Opposition party's approach to congestion charges is, in the light of the background, regrettable.
One has only to go round those parts of northern Europe with the population density of England—I say "England" advisedly, because population density is the key to much of the debate—to observe that a high degree of social and environmental planning is essential. Market forces in the conventionally understood sense do not "rule, OK", so we have to construct markets that actually work with the difficult realities of what economists call market externalities. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that the Bill addresses these matters more effectively than we did in 1968.
The Government are to be congratulated on getting the transformation of transport policy overwhelmingly right, notably in the innovation of congestion and parking charges and hypothecation. Here the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, may have got his comments out of balance. The money will be recycled, and it is not an on-cost to industry in quite the way in which he portrayed it; if we look at the arithmetic we see that it is not an on-cost to industry if it is to be recycled through hypothecation. That is the whole idea behind hypothecation. Maybe that will come out in more detailed debate.
We now have a large investment plan for the next three to four years, with the comprehensive spending review to 2004–05 and the 10-year planning horizon to 2010. That is extremely welcome. On the question of the public finance initiative and the public-private partnership, if I am reading the auguries correctly, the fashion for PFI has somewhat receded, notably for county roads. In the case of major road projects, we have seen all the difficulties of shadow pricing and so on, and I do not think that the fashion now is quite to go the whole hog to PFI as a subset of PPP in order to deal with it.
994
We have also passed a high water mark in the fashion for saying that just because Treasury rules are restrictive—true—we have to privatise everything that moves—not true. We should change the Treasury rules and, for example, agree to adopt the European benchmark which is less restrictive.
It is common ground that the decision about a public/private partnership for air traffic services was taken at a time when the need to raise revenue was the Treasury's paramount consideration. It is now said that management expertise was the starting point. That was not how the document read a year ago. Let us remind ourselves of why NATS is not a sensible candidate for what might be termed whole hog privatisation, which the Opposition now apparently advocate. NATS is not at present subject to any formal regulatory regime but sets its charges and recovers its costs in accordance with Eurocontrol charging principles. The Secretary of State proposed in the 1998 consultation paper that, since NATS was a monopoly provider of en route air traffic services, those and any other monopoly part of its business should be subject to statutory economic regulation when it came into the private sector.
It is clear that, as revenues are to be controlled, the privatisation will operate in a rather unusual context, in that the only profit-related side of the equation subject to management control will be costs, which are overwhelmingly staff costs. That is where control will lie on a day-to-day basis, even though outside the core business, which must be traffic control, there are no doubt very imaginative schemes to look at world markets and so on.
I notice that the Airline Group, which includes British Airways, British Midland, Virgin and so on, is considering making a bid to be the PPP strategic partner. That appears to be very odd. It is a bit like the regulated rail operating companies making a bid to run Railtrack's signalling operations. It is all very well for the airlines and IATA to welcome involvement in air traffic control, but do they really want to have responsibility effectively at both ends of the safety equation? Have they looked at the due diligence side of it? Will we not introduce one of the ambiguities that we have experienced in the case of Railtrack? Even at this late stage I believe that there is scope for Ministers to allow themselves greater latitude. On that basis some constructive amendments—I emphasise "constructive"—will need to be considered.
As to safety and conflicts of interest, it is all very well to say that each of the locks will be in place, but what will be the pressures if, say, the Airline Group is the preferred bidder? Of course airlines have an enormous vested interest in safety. It is not a question of the airlines as an interested party making the ultimate decision as to landing intervals at Heathrow Airport or who is to land first. That is a caricature and it will not happen. However, in this situation perception is extremely important and one must be seen to be Caesar's wife. Many people have qualms about an airline consortium controlling air traffic control. There are alternatives which are not necessarily any

995
better. For example, one can think of Lockheed Martin, or almost any other company, putting up a proposal for consideration. It is a bit like expecting the French Government to suggest that French airspace should be controlled by British Aerospace or Lockheed. I doubt whether they would even let it be controlled by Thomsons.
Sir Roy McNulty, Chairman of NATS, has written to everyone to draw attention to the fact that Europe is still divided into a multitude of national air services. He remarks that,
"The airlines are crying out for reform and more aviation experts are speculating that some form of consolidation [in Europe] will happen, another factor being pressure from the European Commission for a single European sky".
That is another piece of Brussels-speak which no doubt we shall learn to love.
Does all of this lead to a single European private monopoly? Surely not. Perhaps the Minister can elucidate exactly what the scenario will be. Given that it is notoriously difficult to break down the national governmental defensiveness of the French, the Spanish and so on, are Ministers satisfied that other countries are ready to privatise the European sky? How can we negotiate on a privatised basis if the rest of Europe sees a single European sky as an intergovernmental exercise? Will they have the power simply to override the Bill at that stage, or is it so flexible that we can make it up as we go along? How can BT, or whoever, commit its capital on that basis?
To summarise, is there agreement on the following points: first, that skies are a natural monopoly as far as concerns air traffic control; secondly, that revenues are determined in detail by Eurocontrol; and, thirdly, that that control means that the company will not be able to maximise shareholder value as regards the core business? After all, the CBI and others have always claimed that detailed regulation of prices is incompatible with the competitive market. That was always said at the time of prices and incomes policy, and I have the scars to prove it. Price controls do not operate in that way in the privatised utilities. Within a legislative framework they have scope to change their pricing structure. In the case of airspace, it is an external body, Eurocontrol, that sets the actual price with a degree of rigidity.
I believe that in due course Eurocontrol should run the lot. As that is where we are heading, why do we not recognise it? I am not sure whether due diligence will throw up difficulties for potential bidders given the inevitable constraints. Surely, the biggest question is how European airspace is to be controlled when it reaches full capacity. The delays, which increase exponentially, can to an extent be dealt with by greater integration, which I advocate. However, to an extent delays are a consequence of peak period congestion. How can we possibly visualise a single European airspace without it being derived essentially from an intergovernmental agreement? Watch this airspace!
I predict that, whatever emerges from this Bill, we may have to unscramble it in two or three years. At Committee stage the question will arise how the legislation can be amended when very few of these
996
matters are dealt with in the Bill, which is itself hard to follow. Unless we consider those matters now, including the balance of shareholding, I am not sure when they can be debated and be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I very much associate myself with similar questions raised by my noble friends Lord Hoyle, Lord Hughes, Lord Clinton-Davis and others. In particular, I support the proposition of my noble friend Lord Hoyle that there should be some employee representation on the board of any new operating company concerned with air traffic control, as opposed to the stakeholder council which is one stage removed. Air traffic controllers enjoy a very high reputation in Britain. One of the casualties of the present debate is that, at a time of growing pressure upon air traffic controllers, their perception is that a cold wind is beginning to blow, as my noble friends have already attested. It is essential to retain the goodwill and confidence of pilots and controllers, who form a key relationship, in the system.
I am sure that we can find solutions to the problems. For their part the unions have entered into a serious dialogue. I hope everyone accepts that they are motivated by the public interest as well as the legitimate concerns of their members who are engaged in an exacting profession. I join my noble friends in saying that this has been a very constructive debate, and I trust that the Minister will be able to take on board some of the points that have been raised in it.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, this is where I came in! Three months after entering your Lordships' House I was a Front Bench spokesman for the Liberal Party on the last inch-thick transport Bill. Before that Bill came to this House I knew nothing about transport; and a month after it passed front your Lordships' House I knew nothing about transport However, for a couple of months in between I knew almost everything there was to be known about transport. I do not know whether the same will be true of this Bill. It is true that I know a little more about transport than I did then. It is also true that I hope to forget a great deal about transport after the Bill is passed. In the meantime, I shall do my best to learn from noble Lords.
The Bill, introduced so ably by the noble Lord. Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, has four parts. Much attention has been paid to the first part on air traffic control. That is the part which least affects ordinary people in their ordinary lives. It is the part to which I shall pay least attention. I do not propose on behalf of my party to table any amendments to it. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, devoted 50 per cent of his speech to the first part of the Bill. Given his ancestral inheritance, that is not surprising. However, I believe that it was somewhat more than that part of the Bill deserves.

997
Local transport is the issue which affects many of us most of the time. I shall seek to persuade your Lordships to set as many traffic reduction targets as possible. I am not sure that the Government are as committed to the reduction of traffic as they often say they are. In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said that many road systems have yet to be built. I hope he did not mean that he hoped they would be built.
We believe that it is right to introduce targets for traffic reduction. There are obvious practical objections to a national target. However, there is a need to set targets: by the Mayor of London; by all unitary authorities; and within all local transport plans. There should be a special mention of targets in rural areas to be agreed with the Countryside Agency.
On buses and quality contracts, local authorities need more powers to set quality standards, avoid wasteful competition on routes, set frequencies of services and require inter-ticketing, bus/rail integrated ticketing and much better information. We shall support any noble Lord who tables amendments on that point.
Local authorities should retain responsibility where possible. We plan to amend Clause 134 in order to encourage local transport authorities to remove the age discrimination inherent in current pension legislation. That may be by the way but one should not miss the opportunity when it arises.
Part III relates to road user charging and workplace parking levy. It provides legislation to allow councils to introduce road user charging and the workplace parking levy. I believe that that is right. We shall do our best to support that part of the Bill.
As regards railways, the Strategic Rail Authority should be given as much power as possible. I have received briefing which suggests that British Rail is resisting that point. I believe that British Rail's position should be resisted. The Strategic Rail Authority provides a way of achieving a sensible setup.
I revert for a moment to the issue of air traffic control. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, explained why we should not go along the route suggested by the Conservatives. I go along with that. However, he never explained why that part of the Bill exists. The noble Baroness, Lady Cohen of Pimlico, made an absolutely first-class maiden speech. If I had realised that I was listening to the maiden speech of Janet Neel, I should have known that it would contain the ingenuity, wit and style that it did. The noble Baroness explained somewhat more fully than the Minister the reason for Part I of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, put his finger on why Part I should not be encouraged. I do not think that Part I should be encouraged.
On the whole, the Bill is very good. Responsibility should be spread more locally, with the needs of individual members of the public being looked after. At present they want to use public transport as much as possible but are often frustrated in doing so. I wish the Bill well.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this important Bill—a debate which has included notable maiden speeches from three noble Baronesses. Whether or not we have some specific expertise, it is a subject which is of great concern to everyone. I am glad that the Government are making an attempt to deal with some of the problems involved which sometimes seem so intractable. I am sure that all of us want to see an integrated transport system and we hope that the Bill will prove a major step along that road.
Sections of the Bill are highly controversial, none more so than the first part dealing with National Air Traffic Services Limited (NATS). I have read most of the material available and the Minister will not be surprised to learn that, with my trade union background, I have grave concerns about the proposals in the Bill. In opposition, my party was opposed to the privatisation of NATS. A former transport Minister famously told a party conference that "our air is not for sale"—and that has been thrown back at us from the Opposition Benches in the debate today.
Now we have the so-called public private partnership, with 45 per cent to be sold off to a trade partner and a further 5 per cent to staff, with the Government retaining the rest, including a "golden share". That is likely to be a partial sale, with the likelihood that, as with other privatisations, the rest will eventually be sold.
Of course safety is the key issue. That has already been dealt with adequately by other noble Lords, notably by my noble friends Lord Hoyle, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Lea of Crondall. Privatisation is not now exactly popular with the public, particularly in the light of the problems and justified criticisms of the privatised railway service. What concerns me most is that the staff who operate NATS and the pilots who obviously have a professional concern are unhappy about the proposals in the Bill. The pilots have serious reservations. They have said that the proposals will have many of the deficiencies of outright privatisation in, as they put it, distorting investment, penalising long-term projects and placing insufficient weight on factors such as user time savings and safety, exerting undesirable pressure upon operational safety and service quality, focusing instead on profitability and shareholder value, and rendering it more difficult for the Government to plan and implement their airspace policy effectively.
Furthermore, the unions representing 95 per cent of NATS staff have been outspoken in their opposition. They believe that there is no political case and no economic case either. NATS, they say, does not cost the taxpayers anything. All its costs are covered by charges to airlines. Nor is there a business or industrial case. NATS' standards of service are respected worldwide, a point repeatedly made in the debate. Charges to airlines have fallen in the past six years.
Alternatives have been suggested; for instance, NATS could be run on a non-profit-making basis as an independent, publicly owned corporation, or it

999
could be turned into a trust. Selling half of NATS would bring in around £350 million—not much compared with the recent mobile telephone bonanza of £22 billion. The small concession of turning outright sale into a partial one has not set public fears at rest.
The safety issue may well be overstated. I welcome the assurances given by the Minister today that that has a high priority as far as the Government are concerned. However, it is a very large issue in the minds of the public, and the opposition of the very people who run the present system, which is widely respected, does little to allay those fears. I urge the Government to think seriously about what is proposed and in particular to enter into further consultations with the people closely concerned with the running of the present service.
Parts II and III of the Bill refer to duties imposed on local authorities and give local traffic authorities the right outside London to introduce user charges and workplace parking levies to help tackle congestion in towns and cities. Presumably London is to be dealt with by the new Mayor, who has already indicated that he favours congestion charges. I understand that the Government are not in favour until public transport has been substantially improved.
I must say that, unlike some noble Lords who have spoken, I am in entire agreement with that. I live in London but outside the main centre. Everyone knows that traffic in London is now appallingly congested. But it is far too easy to blame the motorists. Actually, congestion in London and other major towns is due not so much to the private motorist—few use their cars nowadays to drive through London during the week unless they have to—but to the proliferation of commercial vehicles, some of them enormous. Why they cannot be compelled to deliver at night instead of during the day I cannot imagine. That is the situation in many Scandinavian countries.
Let us hope that local authorities use the powers which the Bill gives them to prevent the appalling disruption of traffic such as has taken place in London during the past weeks. Camden High Street, for example, is alleged to have been dug up 85 times during the past year. Large stretches of London have been rendered impassable. That simply will not do. It must be possible to organise road maintenance, repairs or cable laying with less inconvenience to the public.
I welcome those parts of the Bill which give local authorities powers to take steps to assist the disabled. I recently became partially disabled and it was a salutary experience. I have a mobility problem at the moment; I cannot walk very well and stairs are a nightmare. But our Underground stations have been constructed by people who believe that it is absolutely necessary to have some stairways—mostly with steel-tipped stairs—before the unfortunate passengers reach the escalator, if such exists. For quite a while the authorities responsible at my local Underground station apparently believed that they were doing their duty by the public if they kept the "up" escalators going, but the passengers had to walk down. It is a very
1000
deep station. Going downstairs for someone who cannot walk properly is more of a hazard than going up, as a fall can result in very nasty injuries.
Therefore, I want to make a plea for the partially disabled—and there are many of us about. Many local authorities believe that they have fulfilled their obligations if they have made arrangements simply for severely disabled people. If you are partially disabled and can hobble about a bit, well, you can get on with it. And if you happen to fall down and injure yourself, that really is too bad. I hope that local authorities will address that serious problem which affects not only the likes of me in this House but many elderly people. Looking around the streets one can see a large number of people who have such a difficulty.
Congestion charges, without substantial improvements in public transport, will simply make the situation a great deal worse. In London people will park their cars near Underground stations, adding to the congestion in the streets around and of course to the numbers travelling in the appallingly overcrowded trains during the rush hour—although rush hour now seems to extend almost throughout the day.
Those who are well off will continue to use their cars and pay the charge. People who are less well off will feel themselves victimised. New charges for motorists, on top of the current tax burden, will be deeply resented. Somehow or other, the Government and local authorities must come to terms with living with the car—at least for a long time to come, I fear. I am not at all certain that some of the propositions in the Bill will deal adequately with that situation. However, in general, I support the thrust of the Bill. I welcome the desire to introduce integration into our transport system and, generally speaking, apart from the reservations I have made, I wish the Bill well.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as has already been said, this Bill does not affect London. But that, as your Lordships know, is because powers contained in the Bill have already been given to the Mayor and to the Greater London Authority, which becomes the first strategic local transport authority. It also becomes the body responsible for London's concessionary fares scheme, which has been funded by the London boroughs for many years and which is now being extended to the rest of the country.
However, no mention is made in the Bill of where the extra resources to pay for that will come from. Will the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions fund the scheme? It will cost most local authorities many millions of pounds. We are not talking about small sums but about considerable sums of money. Is it intended that such funding should be part of the SSA settlement or, perish the thought, that it should come from congestion charging? It is an important question which needs a response.
The measures in the Bill which are germane to London were discussed in detail during the progress of the Greater London Authority Bill, but some bear repeating, but repeating briefly after the noble

1001
Baroness, Lady Turner, who raised them in her speech. They have a wide effect elsewhere. Perhaps fortunately in tune with the Minister's comments today, the new Mayor for London made it clear that he has decided to take no action on congestion charging for at least the next two years or until he is satisfied that proper alternative transport systems are in place and that there is a satisfactory method of identifying vehicles when charging for congestion.
That is self-sacrificing on his behalf as the money from congestion charging is the only way in which he will raise resources, apart from a small precept upon Londoners. But it is also wise as there is already ambivalence in the Government and from the Prime Minister—it was well expressed during the London local elections—over the whole question of the electoral popularity of the scheme and workplace charging in particular. We need to ensure that the population and the people who are to pay the charging are happy about it. In London, as elsewhere, a great deal of breath is expended on lamenting the problems of congestion and air pollution. The only result is these proposals to fleece motorists again for using their cars.
The corollary is, of course, whether motorists should be terrorised or financially penalised for using their cars unless and until each one is satisfied that there are proper alternative forms of readily accessible transport. In London this means a Tube that is reliable, clean, safe and frequent, and a bus service which is comfortable, frequent, reliable and which goes where passengers want to go. If co-ordination of services is inadequate, it will be neither just nor practical to imagine that people will abandon their cars and leave them elsewhere.
A problem also arises as to where the congestion charging starts. If one takes as an example the London boroughs, wherever that boundary is, there is a boundary outside it. The authority outside the boundary will be badly affected by people leaving their cars and jumping over the fence into the congestion charge area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, raised the question of the co-ordination of roadworks. We have recently discussed that matter many times in the House. In my view, it causes more congestion than many thousands of motorist journeys on roads which are not held up by vast building programmes.
Co-ordination with the Strategic Rail Authority must also be carried out. The authority will work with Railtrack and influence the work that needs to be done on track and signalling to enable more cross-London commuter trains to enter the network. Where new services are being developed and infrastructure is required, it is imperative that there should be a clear understanding that those should not be delayed because there is a disagreement between authorities over who pays for maintenance and who pays for new structures. Theoretically, Railtrack is responsible for the first and the Strategic Rail Authority will be responsible, by investment, for the second. I am
1002
particularly concerned about that because in this respect the western London line badly needs new capacity to improve commuter services.
The setting up of the Strategic Rail Authority is most significant. In London its relationship with the Greater London Authority will be crucial for the strategic planning of the Underground, as well as much needed new lines, such as CrossRail and the Chelsea-Hackney line. As I have already said, investment, co-operation and co-ordination will be absolutely vital.
I return to the subject of congestion charging and the introduction of workplace taxes. As many noble Lords have said, they will have a far-reaching impact on the free movement of residents in and around the place they live and on the viability of business. Sterilising areas of the capital city could have a far more serious effect on its future viability than any congestion, perceived or real. I believe that that will apply also to any other metropolitan area in the rest of the country that introduces congestion charging.
With regard to the introduction of the strategic transport plans and bus strategic plans, I note and hear today that particular attention is being paid to the elderly and those with mobility problems. Much work has already been done on this in my part of London by another government initiative, Better Government for Older People. Recently, bus drivers on routes through the borough were faced with clipboard-bearing pensioners who took up their seats and settled themselves behind the drivers to gauge their driving styles. Bad marks for hard braking, fast cornering, lack of courtesy and speeding off at bus stops were all noted and reported to the drivers at feedback sessions in the garage. Who needs transport Bills? Let us ask the passengers.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, this has been a long but high quality debate. Many excellent contributions have been made, notably by our three maiden speakers and by many other noble Lords with experience and expertise. I should perhaps make two declarations of interest. First, I am leader of a local council which soon will be responsible for implementing the local transport plans. Secondly, I am a director of Manchester Airport, which is still (perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara) in public ownership.
On the whole, the Transport Bill is to be welcomed. However, to be effective the Bill will need to change both attitudes and behaviour. First, there is a need to change perceptions of public transport—a difficult task to achieve. The car is seen as a status symbol rather than as a means of transport. The impact of our experience of journeys is that we forget the ones that go well but always remember vividly the ones that do not. As a frequent user of the West Coast main line, I say that with some feeling. In addition, the perception of transport time is somewhat different. I understand that people perceive waiting time as three times as long as moving time. I believe that many of us do a lot of waiting on public transport.

1003
It is a difficult but not impossible task. Manchester Airport has begun to tackle some of those issues in a green commuter plan that it introduced in 1998. I am relieved that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford is not here to hear me say that in 10 years' time it is expected that Manchester Airport will grow to deal with some 30 million passengers and that employee numbers will rise to some 30,000. Of course, an airport is a 24-hour operation. We must give consideration and find imaginative solutions to the problems, otherwise transport will not move around the airport. However, after two years we have already seen a 15 per cent reduction in the number of staff who travel alone to the airport by car.
Changes can happen. How do they happen? I believe that first we need to understand the lesson of shared responsibility. Everyone is part of the problem and everyone is part of the solution. I believe that we need to ensure that people understand the range of travel options and that those options must be explained fully. We need to provide quality facilities and services. At the airport we have a new bus service—Skyline— which offers frequent services operating both early and late in the day. We provide cycle parks, and soon a new cycle centre will offer maintenance and shower facilities. We offer discounts for employees on all forms of public transport.
I believe that the message that we must get across to people is that small changes in behaviour make a difference. In addition, as my noble friend Lord Whitty is well aware, having been invited a month ago to Manchester Airport to cut the first sod, the airport is planning a new £60 million ground transport interchange which will integrate buses, trains, the Metrolink and coaches. The airport is proud of its initiatives on transport but, as both Ministers are aware, it is concerned about its ability to continue them under the restrictions that will be imposed by vires issues. I believe that the airport authorities are in correspondence with both my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lord Macdonald with regard to this matter.
As a local politician, I certainly welcome the increased responsibility that we have to bring forward local transport plans. To my mind, that fulfils the powers provided by Part I of the Local Government Bill to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of communities. The Transport Bill achieves all three at the same time.
There has been reference in the two speeches preceding mine to congestion charges. I shall therefore pass over what I was going to say about that. I regard it as a problem that has been passed to local authorities to deal with. It would be described m the rugby-playing circles of Wigan as "a hospital pass"; that is, something that is quite difficult to get away with. However, we shall do our best.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester outlined some of the issues relating to Greater Manchester, and I feel bound to support his comments, particularly in one respect. Ministers will be aware that my local councillor is the chairman of
1004
the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority. He is well known not only to present Ministers but also, I believe, to a number of past Ministers who have felt the need to talk to the chairman of the Greater Manchester PTA.
As my noble friend Lord Morris explained, we are proud that we are a centre of excellence. Greater Manchester has pioneered many initiatives on improving bus services in partnership with the more enlightened bus operators throughout Greater Manchester. That involves improving quality bus corridors with current investments of over £6 million. One such corridor operates at the end of my road. I believe that noble Lords will realise that it has now been renamed the "Road to Wigan's Pier".
A more ambitious plan has been put forward to introduce a guided bus link from Leigh—probably the largest town in England without a rail link—into the centre of Manchester. All those schemes involve considerable public investment—some £53 million in the case of Greater Manchester—and create not a little local opposition when people learn about changes that will affect the way they live their lives. It is disappointing that the proposals for quality partnerships contain no provision for frequency and timing. I hope that that aspect can be reviewed. One understands the problems of competition, which my noble friend Lord Hogg explained in detail, but we do not want something that is already part of voluntary arrangements to be lost by the Bill.
The Bill does much to redress the balance in favour of public transport. The Bill creates possibilities for local authorities to improve the quality of life for local communities and I am glad to support it.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I begin by reminding the House that I live in the one Scottish local authority area—Clackmannanshire—with no railway services, at least at present. My contribution hopes to reflect on the Scottish aspects of the Bill. Scotland's devolved position as regards transport is complicated. Transport in its many forms is partially devolved and partially reserved. We will become increasingly familiar with that situation.
The Bill concerns Scotland only in respect of air traffic, which is almost a wholly reserved matter—and sensibly so; the goods vehicles operators licence amendments; and railway improvements. The latter will be partially devolved, with Scottish Ministers having a duty to give direction, guidance and advice.
The Bill is silent in Scottish terms about roads, cycleways, footpaths, waterways and, significantly, ferries.
There is clearly reorganisation in the measures for the future governance of air traffic but I wonder whether there will be improvement. One outcome for which I am looking but doubt that I will find is a reduction in the price of air travel within Scotland—especially within the islands and remoter parts of the mainland and with respect to the Central Lowlands

1005
and the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not see the same duty to develop air services as is placed on the Strategic Rail Authority with regard to railways.
The goods vehicle regulations are probably only technical amendments but I see them as levelling up the playing field by dealing with recalcitrant small operators. If only the Bill gave the same levelling effect to fuel prices and ferry fares in remote areas.
The railway changes introduce a clear duty for the SRA to promote the rail network and passenger and freight services, and to contribute to an integrated transport system. I hope that the SRA can deliver on that by finding co-operation with other transport operators. While the SRA will normally deliver passenger services by franchise, it has the power to procure rail services by other means. Although that will be used, I presume, as a last resort, I admire the flexibility granted by that measure.
I hope that we shall soon see positive confirmation of the re-establishment of goods services between Stirling and Kincardine-on-Forth, and of passenger services between Alloa, Stirling and Glasgow; the return of the Waverley route servicing the Borders, Edinburgh and Carlisle. That route has distinctly strategic potential and probably should never have been closed. Congestion on the West Coast main line should be reduced by that re-opening. I hope to see soon the extension of passenger services from Glasgow to Larkhall and Stonehouse, which should reduce commuting on the M74 into Glasgow.
The reopening of railways will be a major mark of progress in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom and a tribute to acceptance of the need for forward-looking investment. I congratulate ScotRail on its new long-distance routes. The summer timetable introduces through passenger trains from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Wick and Thurso and to the Kyle of Lochalsh. That certainly contributes to the perception that the remoter areas are being recognised in a small way. Glasgow Queen Street will despatch trains to Oban for the southern Hebrides, Mallaig for Skye and the Small Isles; Kyle for Skye and the Outer Hebrides; Thurso for the Orkney islands; and Aberdeen for the Shetland Islands—although Bergen continues to be their nearest mainline railway station.
Only the Ullapool ferry to Stornoway and the Isle of Lewis and Tarbet for Islay and Jura are not served by rail. I doubt that they ever will be. All that is good but journey times remain substantial, as do ticket prices.
Transport is an essential element of any policy for remote areas. I see Scotland as 10 per cent urban, 45 per cent rural and 35 per cent remote in land area terms. The state should enable people to live and work—and have an economy—in remote areas and to share many of the benefits enjoyed by the urban majority. Remoteness and peripherality cannot be abolished but the state can help to mitigate the costs. People who live and work in remote areas have to do the travelling.
I end with this question: will the proposed disabled travel concession scheme extend to Scotland?
8.7 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, the noble Earl gave a most interesting and well-researched summary of the problems facing Scotland, to which I shall refer later. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and an adviser to Adtranz.
I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his introduction to the Bill, which comes from a White Paper on transport integration that itself resulted from a major, extended consultation exercise. If it has taken three years to get this far, one can argue that the proposals have been signed up to by a large number of people involved in the consultation. Some of the ideas have already been implemented in the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
It has been commented that congestion charges should not be introduced until alternative transport schemes have been introduced. Let us not forget that 40 per cent of the population do not have access to cars anyway, so the sooner we can make buses run more reliably, flexibly and comfortably—and the sooner we can introduce better cycling and walking routes—the sooner more people will use them.
I am keen to see walking and cycling made safe, comfortable, convenient and integrated. Some people comment that cycling should not be encouraged because more cyclists will mean more accidents in which they get killed. It is the role of integrated transport to give the unprotected users of our highways as much thought and consideration as those who are safely cocooned in their metal boxes.
Turning to railways, I welcome the creation of the strategic rail authority and its objectives. I shall be suggesting a few minor changes in Committee, but the principle is excellent and it must be the only way of putting forward what I see as the rough legislation of the previous government.
The SRA must be strategic. It may seem obvious to say so but it is very, very important. It must be visionary and it must be proactive. It must know more about the railway business than those with whom it deals and it must know what its customers—passenger and freight—want. I suggest that, most of all, it must provide the policy leadership within which the industry must operate. It must work seamlessly with the rail regulator. It is encouraging that the rail regulator is now beginning to take action to ensure that the railways give value for money, performance and growth as well as encouraging competition. It is rather sad that it has taken five years to get this far, but at least it is happening.
At the moment I see the SRA as having to fulfil the important function of the refranchising process as well as encouraging freight. I hope that this is being undertaken within a strategy for developing all the passenger services, as well as freight, and that in the future the process will be a little more clear and transparent. The SRA has to give a lead to the industry and promote best practice and value for money as it will be spending large sums of taxpayers' money.

1007
I shall be proposing an amendment to bring station services within the regulatory framework. I would like briefly to explain this. Railtrack owns all the stations. However, except for some of the larger ones, most are leased to the train operating companies. The Association of Train Operating Companies is concerned that Railtrack does not have to lease stations again when the franchises are re-let and has indicated it would like to take some or all of the stations back as it could make more money on them. The train operators feel that they are closer to the customer and that they can better judge customers' needs at a station. Of course, they are going to be there for up to 20 years and so there is a great deal of logic behind that.
Another problem with passenger trains at the moment is the delays in introducing new rolling stock, and many ministerial words have been said on the subject. There are still thousands of new coaches parked up while commuters endure cattle-truck conditions. It is not good news for the industry.
My noble friend Lord Macdonald stated that there were interim proposals to alter the structure of the safety organisation on railways. I suggest that he takes the Government's example of a regulatory body separate from the operator, as is proposed for air safety. At the moment, thousands of trains are built to the same standards as operate at the moment in many other European countries, and there are no problems outside the UK with track circuits and interference with signalling. Railtrack seems to be so concerned about possible electrical interference from these trains that it cannot accept the trains with continental specifications, even though the new trains create only one-tenth of the interference of the existing trains, which of course had what are called grandfather rights. The same can be said about the size of trains going through tunnels and over bridges. Trains have been built to the existing size specifications and these have also been rejected.
The problem is that Railtrack is playing safe because, after five years of owning the company, it still does not know what it owns. It does not know the height or width of bridges, the loading gauges, the details of signalling or safe interference levels. This is exemplified by the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, which recently sent out inquiries for 1,500 new trains to replace the Mark 1 slam-door stock. In its inquiry document, the SSRA said that it could guarantee the technical accuracy of only 75 per cent of the infrastructure; it could not say which 75 per cent it was guaranteeing. It is difficult to build trains to that specification.
I am sure the House will agree that this is not the way to get trains on the line on time, at the cheapest possible price. Indeed, there are those who suggest that the whole process is designed to reduce Railtrack's risk to a minimum rather than create a safe railway within the guidelines set by government through the Health and Safety Executive and the Railway Inspectorate.
I believe operators and manufacturers need clear specifications for the infrastructure—the heights of bridges, signalling and power supply—if, with
1008
Railtrack, they are to provide the best and safest value for money. Transparency and complete separation of safety regulation from Railtrack must be the long-term aim. I hope that a start will be made soon in setting up proposals for an overall transport safety body, judging road, rail, air and sea by the same criteria. My noble friend will be pleased to hear that I shall not be putting down such an amendment to the Bill as it is much too early, but it needs to be considered.
Turning briefly to freight, I was heartened that the CBI, the Freight Transport Association and the rail freight industry have come together to demonstrate the need for the industry to have efficient choices between road and rail for freight. The industry is committed to improving services and, with proper investment, it can double its traffic within 10 years, alongside the growth of passenger traffic, which will probably be around 50 per cent. That will have a significant effect on the number of lorries and, more importantly, will provide choice for the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said that rail freight growth was insignificant and that it would be more than overcome by the growth in road freight over a few years. If I remember correctly, this goes back probably 20 years to the time when the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, was Minister of Transport. He said that, even if rail freight were doubled overnight, it would take up only two years' growth in road freight. The fallacy there was that he was including milk floats in his definition of road freight, and one does not want to take milk floats as part of what could be diverted to rail—unless it is new deliveries for United Dairies.
I support the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to complete the work that was not finished last year of bringing in enforcement measures for the lorry regulations in his Bill. I would certainly welcome similar penalties for overweight lorries coming into the ports. There is a well known story that the first lorry over the new weighbridge in Southampton last year weighed in at 60 tonnes and broke it. I know that that is apocryphal, but the situation still needs to be looked at. There is great support from the road freight industry for such moves. I shall support such an amendment if it is tabled.
Another matter to be considered is extending the rail freight grants and maintaining them until the new ones are in place. We need more flexibility so that operators can develop turn-up-and-go services without having contracts in place. There is an argument for extending the same grant for short sea freight.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, started discussing reserve and non-reserve matters in relation to Scotland. It was interesting because I have recently been involved in trying to re-open a service between Menstrie, Alloa and Stirling for some important rail freight business. The British Rail Property Board, now called Rail Property Limited, owns the first part of the track and Railtrack the rest. Unfortunately, the property board will only sell it to Railtrack at the same price as it wanted for a supermarket development which the Government thankfully stopped. If any money is to go to Railtrack to help it to do that, it has

1009
to go to the SRA. But I believe that the money has to be voted from the Scottish Executive rather than from the department here. We need to do some work to see whether a simpler scheme can be devised.
Another matter which I would like the House to consider is the idea of a rail freight committee to match the rail passenger committee. Many people will say that the industry can look after itself, but it is not always consulted on closures. There was a serious closure proposal in Holyhead. It was proposed that the last possible terminal for rail freight in the town was to be sold off as a compulsory purchase deal to the local authority. But at the same time the Welsh Assembly has a policy of encouraging rail freight. It was for a new road into the port. But it would have been nice to have been consulted about that rather than having to rely on passenger colleagues telling us about those matters.
The major problem for rail freight and passengers is land. I have talked about passenger and freight growth. If they are to increase by 50 or 100 per cent in 10 years, there must be land for car parks at stations and for rail freight terminals. The British Rail Property Board has been selling off land for years. Many colleagues here have helped to slow down the process. But there is still a risk that land which could be used for car parks and terminals will be sold off for commercial developments. If there are no car parks, there will be no passengers. If there are no freight terminals, there will be no freight.
My honourable friend the Minister with responsibility for railways, Keith Hill, said in another place that the Government believe that strategic sites could be retained for up to 20 years by the Strategic Rail Authority. I am not sure that that message has finally got through to the SRA and the rail property board. We must explore that in Committee. It is extremely important that terminals, car parks and occasional land re-opening—such as the Menstrie branch which I mentioned earlier—should not be sold off for supermarkets but should be retained for future use by rail passengers or freight.
In conclusion, I welcome this Bill. It is long overdue. I am sure that it will do what is required of it. If it does, its length is immaterial. I shall certainly play my part in seeking to bring it to a positive conclusion.
8.31 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, after some 30 authoritative speeches, I shall restrict my comments to two particular aspects of the Bill; namely, that in relation to air and that in relation to local authorities and charging. I want my comments to reflect the impact which the provisions of the Bill will have on those living and working in rural areas.
Environmental considerations are high on the list, especially as regards air quality and noise pollution. The steady increase in both commercial air traffic and private flying is not compensated for by the drop in military traffic. I am concerned that this Bill, from a Government who invoke a mantra of "joined-up" in a
1010
variety of circumstances, has done nothing to advance the progress of meeting their obligations arising from Montreal and Kyoto. For example, there are no constraints on the NATS replacements to ensure that they function to standards which reduce the amount of time that aeroplanes spend above our airports, doing circuits or stacked in columns miles high. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the Bill which ensures that airlines using our air space must adhere to minimum seat occupancy rates or freight densities. I do not know whether the Government have considered that and perhaps the Minister will clarify that issue when he winds up. That is particularly surprising when one contemplates the wealth of detail contained in Schedules 4 and 5 as they rule on everything from compulsory lands to new towns and planning to water and drainage.
I am sure that I shall be told that our friend "competition" will take care of all that. If one could only be certain that competition is ever the bringer of unalloyed benefit. There is always someone who suffers. I fear that the unregulated increase in air traffic, which other noble Lords have indicated will continue, will cause massive damage to our environment. It may be that in 20 or 30 years' time, our grandchildren will be cursing us for not making better use of this Bill.
Local transport authorities will have many duties and already the detail of potential conflicts is reaching my in-tray. However, I note that Clause 100(3) lays down a statutory duty for the LTAs to have regard to education transport requirements—mainly school buses. So far, I am not aware that the Government will require the local transport plans or either of the quality initiatives to cover specialist, abnormal or innovative transport ideas. We have spoken of many of those in recent debates. Those are particularly important for rural dwellers, low earners everywhere and for those who are still in full-time education. They need to attend classes, go to interviews and take further training at times and in places which do not necessarily match up to publicised public transport schedules.
The provision of information would also be helpful to them. That would be strengthened were a statutory duty to be placed upon the providers of bus services, for example, to publish information about interconnecting services with rail links. I gave one example; namely, that the 7.8 a.m. from Middle Puddle arrives at 7.58 a.m. at Lutterworth Station Road and connects with the 8.7 a.m. to Leicester and London and the 8.11 a.m. to Nottingham. That is a small example but it would help enormously.
Many noble Lords have spoken this evening about their concerns in relation to the charging system and workplace charges. Road-user charging schemes may be applied to many a busy and overcrowded route. I am concerned lest they encourage cars, lorries and other vehicles to divert down country lanes and through villages and market towns. That must not happen.
I hope that in Committee we shall be able to devise a method of ensuring that all charging schemes are monitored and allowed to continue only when they

1011
have reduced the volume of traffic in absolute terms and without having adverse effects elsewhere. Not only should they be monitored but they should be assessed also to see, for example, the impact on local businesses in neighbouring local authorities, one of which has charges and one of which does not. Such businesses may move from one authority to another in order to avoid the charges.
The Bill requires the local transport authorities to consult a variety of interests in the production of their local transport plans. Many of the county councils involved will doubtless "copy" the parish councils in their areas. But I have searched in vain for anything in the Bill which can be interpreted as new statutory powers for parish councils to deal with transport matters in their own territory. Again, perhaps the Minister will comment on that in his response. Rural communities may find themselves disadvantaged and with no adequate means to counter it.
I turn to the theme about which other noble Lords have spoken earlier; that is, the economic impact of the workplace parking levy on business. I do so in the knowledge of the figures produced by several numerate firms within the engineering community.
Let us assume, for argument's sake, that the level set is £250. That is a cautious assumption. It may be much higher in many regions and perhaps as high as £3,000 per space in London. For a large company with 2,000 to 2,500 car parking spaces throughout the UK, the cost would be in the region of £500,000 to £625,000 per annum. The burden of those charges on that business will be massive.
Let us take, for example, a certain large engineering company with a number of sites throughout the UK. It has said that the additional cost of the levy will put pressure on the business's profitability and may lead to employment cut-backs. That particular company has already taken steps to reduce its staff's dependency on cars for getting into work by introducing special bus services and car-share schemes. It seems that regardless of its efforts, because the company has 23,700 spaces, the result of the workplace parking levy will be a bill for that company of nearly £6 million.
Another large national company believes that the levy will lead to job cuts and has already taken steps to encourage its employees to consider other forms of transport with the introduction of free minibuses, cycle racks, showers and car-sharing schemes. The company also operates shift working and flexible starting times. Overall, the firm has some 6,500 car parking spaces throughout the UK which would cost it some £1·6 million.
Other noble Lords, and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, said quite clearly that the move is a tax on business. Indeed it is. Given the examples which I have outlined of the effect on big business, what will be the effect on small and medium-sized businesses? Many are based rurally and have no alternative. At present, bus services, if they exist, are infrequent, so cars have to be used. That is not a choice but a fact of life. Not only is that a necessity; it is convenient and enables small businesses to do more business.
1012
If a local authority introduces the new user charges and a neighbouring one does not, I fear that we will see businesses, especially the smaller ones, move to the area in which the authority does not charge. That could put greater pressure on rural communities at a time when many are struggling to survive.
We welcome the concept of better integrated local transport systems. I, too, follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and include walking and cycling, which are important. However, in Committee we on these Benches will look carefully at the detail and the practical implications of the Bill for the consumer, the user and particularly those in rural areas who are solely dependent upon their car for getting to work and doing business.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Elder: My Lords, I believe that the Bill represents a major advance in the development of an integrated transport policy in this country. It is over 30 years since such a decisive step has been taken to revitalise our public transport services and initiate a comprehensive modernisation of transport services across the board, coupled as it is with a great deal of new investment.
During the course of the debate we have heard of a number of possible amendments. I should certainly like to add my support to one; namely, the extension of a freight facilities grant for coastal and short sea shipping. That has been a declared policy objective of the Government. I very much hope that this opportunity to put that into effect will not be missed and that support for an amendment might be forthcoming from all parts of the House.
There has been broad-based support for the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority. Recently, one or two contributions have been made commenting on aspects of how these matters affect Scotland. During the course of detailed discussion of the Bill, I hope that it will be possible for the Government to give reassurance that what is contained in the Bill does not change the agreement reached during the passage of the Scotland Act and set out in what has become known as the "McLeish Settlement" and regarded rightly as an important matter in Scotland. It relates to the role of Scottish Ministers in giving direction and guidance to the SRA in relation to Scottish services and the circumstances in which it might be proper for the SRA to disregard that guidance in the light of other guidance received.
To ensure clarity in this area and avoid any possible recourse to law when disagreements arise, it might well be that having this settlement built into the Bill rather than based in a ministerial statement would be preferable. After all, Ministers change. More permanence might be more reassuring.
The part of the Bill which has attracted the most comment is Part I, which relates to the proposals concerning the restructuring of NAT'S. First, I wholeheartedly welcome the Governrnent's commitment to the two-centre strategy and the building of the new facility at Prestwick. This has been

1013
keenly sought and will greatly benefit the economy of Ayr and Ayrshire. The overriding factor in all the discussions and for all those involved in the debate has been safety. At the heart of the issue are fears that a private sector company cannot provide the necessary guarantee of safety. I find that argument rather curious.
I have heard rehearsed before, not least by the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to Sellafield, in terms of the argument of safety in the public and private sectors, that it might be possible to dispute whether or not recent discoveries of problems there were due to a move towards privatisation or whether such problems came to light when the pre-privatisation audit was undertaken. What is beyond dispute is that Dounreay, which has never been considered for privatisation, has a record which, although improving, has been far from exemplary and is still far from perfect. Being in the public sector is no guarantor of safety.
If, indeed, the link between the pilots and ground staff is key, it seems extraordinary that this should work well when the pilots are in either the private or public sectors, but only if NATS staff are wholly in the public sector. The provision of ground services, perfectly satisfactorily, by the private sector in a number of UK airports is deemed to be irrelevant by most critics.
I have no doubt that the ethos that has built up in NATS is of great importance; perhaps even more important than the rules that apply. I dispute that all that must change on the introduction of a PPP. The unions have expressed their concerns. I hope that they will continue to press for any sensible improvements in the proposed regime. Ministers have again made clear that they would be prepared to listen to such suggestions, but I do not believe that the basic scheme should be substantially altered.
I understand also that doubts might emerge when a company is seen to cut staff to boost its profits or its Stock Exchange position. But I really doubt that the Stock Exchange would take kindly to a company, part of which had as its prime purpose safety, compromising that safety for short-term financial reasons. That seems an unusually unsophisticated view to take of the stock market. Would institutional investors really be happy to see a company in which they held shares taking steps to undermine its ability to deliver on its core business? Of course not.
Profits can come from a variety of sources, not least from growing the company. The proposed PPP enables NATS to obtain the funding necessary to ensure that the system in the future is as up to date and sophisticated as the increase in traffic which we all expect will demand. No one should underestimate the scale of that task or the potential benefits of remaining ahead of the field in this very competitive market.
I am wholly in favour of the public sector doing and being encouraged to do what it does well. But however strongly that view is held, we have to face up to the fact
1014
that there are some things which the private sector does better. It is a recognition of that reality which is behind the Government's proposals.
The Government have sought to combine the very real expertise in operational matters that NATS has with private sector managerial standards which NATS equally clearly lacks. There is nothing intrinsically wicked about that; quite the contrary. It is plain common sense.
For those opposing the Government, a search has been on to find a proposal, not because it is best and nor, indeed, because the individuals support it, but because it might maximise opposition to the PPP scheme. I fear that maximising opposition will mean there will be some very odd bedfellows indeed. Those in favour of the complete privatisation of NATS will find common cause with those who oppose the introduction of the private sector at all. That is not a sensible way in which to proceed.
Perhaps even more importantly, I doubt whether it will be in the long-term interests of this House if we are seen as the place where a battle can be taken when it has been lost in another place. There is a world of difference between the second Chamber amending and improving and providing the time for consultation and reflection, and the second unelected Chamber overturning a clear government proposal backed by the other place by a clear margin. I very much hope that will not happen and that the proposals charting the way forward for NATS will be supported here as they were there. I wholeheartedly welcome and support the Bill.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the debate has been marked by a length and range matching those of the Bill, and particularly by three maiden speeches, different in content but similar in the authority of the speakers. I am delighted that we have another three effective women in the House with a great deal to offer. The congratulations of this House sometimes smack of protesting too much because we are flowery in our language. I hope that the three maiden speakers will accept the sincerity of the congratulations which have come from all quarters.
The Minister described the Bill as the first comprehensive Transport Bill for over 30 years. It has been said to me that the only thing integrating the Bill is a set of staples. That is a little harsh. As stated by my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market, transport is a facilitator not an objective in its own right. It is important for achieving economic development, including access to jobs; in land use planning, housing and health. We have talked often in this Chamber of the problems of children with asthma.
I welcomed the context in which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford put the Bill. He suggested that it cannot address the growth of population, but I join him in pausing for a moment over the Minister's description of air traffic as, "inexorably expanding". The Government seem to be in danger of taking the slightly defeatist, weary view of

1015
air traffic that they do of road traffic. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will take the opportunity to explain the Government's attitude to traffic volume and growth and their effect on the environment. As we know, the Government pledged to reduce the rate of growth, rather than an absolute reduction in levels. That reminds me a little of the claim of the Conservative government that they were being successful when they were reducing the rate of growth of inflation rather than reducing inflation itself.
Sustainability is mentioned in the Bill, but not as an overarching objective. I believe the Government said that they will keep under review the contribution of the railways to sustainable development objectives. That made me wonder which comes first, the cart or the horse—no transport pun intended. Nor is there an overarching objective of equality of access. Those who have, for instance, mobility problems, have a specific interest in integration.
A thread which ran through the debate is that of safety, particularly commented on by the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. On that note, I am sorry that the opportunity has not been taken in this Bill to address the question of speed limits on roads.
Safety is of course particularly important in the context of NATS. The Minister told the House that this not a sale without safeguards; that there will be a legally-binding contract. Speaking as a solicitor, I would prefer to see statutory provision rather than a reliance on contract. We are told that the government director on the board of the company will have a special responsibility for safety. I shall be interested to know whether the Minister can tell the House, particularly in the context of plans for an offence of corporate manslaughter, whether or not there will be Crown immunity.
One only needs to travel on a plane which loses its take-off slot to realise how fine is the timing; how delicate is the task of air traffic control, although I am sure other noble Lords have noted that the blame is always placed on Belgian air traffic control. One only needs to read reports of what is termed rather euphemistically as an "air miss", (in my language almost a collision) or of airlines which cut very fine the amount of fuel they carry, relying on not being stacked over airports, to realise the problems involved.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Government have not begun to justify the proposed share structure and the possible dilution of the Government's interest in the plans contained in the Bill. Is it not true that, yet again, the PSBR rules are obstructing investment, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, hinted (perhaps more than hinted) and that accountancy is obstructing the best decision making? Of course I appreciate the need for investment, but I worry about some of the arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Elder, repeated the argument of NATS that profitability can be increased by growing the business and exporting know-how. I do not deny that that may be a possibility, but I suspect that the opportunities for doing so must be limited. I note also in the Bill that the general duty on the Secretary of State puts airlines and airports before customers.
1016
Members of the Benches opposite have had some fun about the co-operation (or otherwise) between the Opposition parties in relation to these proposals. It was said that we are just playing politics; that we will have talked about whether and how we will oppose the Government. Thanks for the idea; perhaps now we o will. As my noble friend Lady Thomas of Williswood said twice during this debate—it did not stop the accusation continuing—there has not been discussion. Perhaps there should be, because politics is about real aims and outcomes and not about playing. But I am puzzled that, given the less than wholehearted support of the Government Back -Benchers for NATS, one might have thought that they would not play politics but would look for a way of persuading the Government to think again. I do not know whether their approach is their search for an excuse for not having to vote where their mouths are.
I turn to local transport plans and parts of the Bill that we welcome far more. I welcome the acknowledgement of the role of local authorities, although I confess that I should like to see them set more in the context of regional policy as well as other areas. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw talked about the enforcement of bus lanes. That leads one on to arguments about resourcing the police or possibly transferring the responsibility for enforcement. But I accept that the Bill cannot cover everything.
With regard to buses, as my noble friend Lord Bradshaw illustrated, integration and competition do not lie easily together. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, said that through ticketing on a multi-modal basis is the ultimate test of integration. I suggest that so too is integration of information; for example, being able to find out before one gets on a train what is happening with the bus service at the other end of the line. I trust that local authorities will share their customary enthusiasm for innovation in the use of new technology in providing information. They have certainly shown an innovative approach in the use of "old" technology—that may not be the right description when one talks about "walking buses" to which the right reverend Prelate referred. But I too am aware of schemes which have been very successful.
I look forward to the discussion in relation to the scope of quality partnerships, and agree with those, including the Local Government Association, who argue that they should extend to fares and frequencies. Also, during the course of the Bill, I shall seek assurances that standards include the standards of driving buses and the training and retention of drivers. I am sure noble Lords will be aware, either through experience or through the media, of the real danger in which some passengers are placed through sloppy driving.
By definition, quality partnerships should include everything that the partners wish to include, subject perhaps to legislative minima. I am puzzled as to why the Bill limits the criteria. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, rightly spoke of the specific needs of rural communities, to which partnerships should have regard. And we will also be discussing the issue of equality in the area of concessionary fares. The noble

1017
Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned those and the Liberal Democrats support equality in that area. I would prefer to see the Bill deal with that rather than a legal challenge to the unequal provision currently on offer.
I turn now to congestion and workplace charging. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and other Members of the Conservative Benches described them as taxes. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, spoke of congestion charging being a "last resort". I believe that we need now to look for the solution of last resort, given the problem of congestion. We also need to be clear whether congestion charging is about dealing with congestion or about raising money. I believe it is the former. I agree with Members on the Conservative Benches about the importance of hypothecation and additionality. Those are matters which will assist public confidence in congestion-charging schemes.
Throughout the Bill the Secretary of State needs the consent of the Treasury—the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, referred to this—and one wonders whether joined-up government might now allow a Secretary of State not to have the statutory constraint of having it spelt out that he needs to go to the Treasury. I feel that we would accept that as a way of governing generally rather than having to have it spelt out on the face of the Bill. We on these Benches will also be tabling amendments, as we did in connection with the London scheme, to allow local authorities to borrow against the income stream from these schemes.
We want to see local authorities have maximum autonomy and discretion in dealing with such schemes, including charging at out-of-town retail and leisure sites. We also think it is important—I am sure local authorities will be able to work out suitable mechanisms for this—to be able to link workplace charging with green travel plans, as has been mentioned. I must confess that I have some doubts about the likely effectiveness of workplace charging, which I believe will have no effect on through traffic, but that may be because of my experiences in London. I shall willingly accept the judgment of local authorities in that respect.
I utterly agree with other noble Lords who have mentioned the need for charging to follow public transport improvements. That is why, in our view, it is necessary to allow local authorities to borrow in order to invest in public transport. In a briefing that many of your Lordships will have received, the AA says that such schemes,
"must have an honest framework".
We must take seriously the concerns that are expressed about the mechanisms and the detail involved. The CBI has also expressed some concerns. It is because it supports congestion charging in principle that one must take such concerns most seriously.
I turn finally to railways. The Strategic Rail Authority, if not the strategic transport authority, is required because of the tangle of provision⁁or failure
1018
of provision—which was so roundly condemned by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and others. I confess that I am not satisfied with the separation of, on the one hand, its purposes and, on the other, the duties regarding the exercise of its functions. That seems to me to make both sustainability and integration with other modes of transport secondary issues.
I also note that the franchise director has been set an objective of increasing the number of passengers travelling by rail. That seems to me to miss the point to some extent. Would it not be better to increase the percentage, as absolute numbers are dependent on other factors such as the success of the economy? I should like to see a formal relationship between the work of the SRA and local transport plans. Issues such as safety at stations require a close relationship. I should also like the SRA to have regard to regional transport strategies and, indeed, to contribute to their development.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, referred to the Metrolink service in that city. To a large extent, that service uses existing track that is no longer used by heavy rail traffic. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, referred to non-operational land. I share the concern that land which might be used, for example, for modal interchange should not be lost and that the role of the British Rail Property Board and Railtrack should not be allowed to be that of a commercial property developer. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, the real problem is land.
In conclusion, it was not only the beady eye of the indomitable chair of the Transport Committee of another place that led to such opposition being expressed during the course of today's debate to a major part of the Bill. We on these Benches support much of the Bill—the parts which, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said, affect most people. But we shall want to tweak those. However, we do not support the proposals for NATS.
9.4 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to wind up this interesting and good-humoured debate on the Bill, although I suspect that there will be many long nights ahead of us before the Bill is passed. We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I now have little idea of how long my speech will take—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Attlee: Noble Lords need not worry too much about that. However, before saying anything of substance, I should remind the House that I have an interest to declare as I am president of the Heavy Transport Association. I also have some other minor interests, which I shall draw to your Lordships' attention when appropriate.
When the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, introduced the Bill, he referred to the 1968 Act of his noble friend Lady Castle. But I do not believe that this Bill is as significant. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, also referred to the 1968 Act. He

1019
mentioned seat-belts and the drink and drive laws that we still enjoy. Although the law has been amended since that time, the Act also introduced our present regime of goods vehicle and HGV licensing.
In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, said that there were no plans to introduce charges for existing untolled tunnels and bridges. What assurance can the Minister give me about the future of tolling on the Dartford river crossing when the franchise period ends? The Minister will have several minutes to consider his answer; and I shall remind him if he looks in danger of forgetting it.
I should like to take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I must remind her that my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara welcomed some of the amendments announced this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald; he just disagreed with the volume of amendments and the other amendments that will no doubt be tabled in due course.
My noble friend Lord Freeman made some interesting comments regarding the track access charging regime and the need to identify sources of finance for Railtrack. I hope that he will table some interesting amendments for us to debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, declared an interest as a director of Clyde port. My understanding is that the port could be highly successful if the continental railways caught up with the UK and became rather more commercially aware. Containers could then be sent by rail from Clyde port directly to southern Europe. Railtrack may also need to make some improvements to the loading gauge. I know that that is a major concern of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, skilfully teased noble Lords on this side of the House about the differing views of the two opposition parties regarding NATS. The noble Lord would like the Government to think again about NATS. Perhaps it is worth remembering that without some form of alliance on this side of the House the Government will not be obliged rethink the matter at all.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Smith of Clifton, and others, that our policy is exactly as outlined by my noble friend Lord Brabazon. We are in favour of a full-scale privatisation by means of a public offer for sale. This was contained in our previous election manifesto. My noble friend Lord Brabazon made clear our objections to the Government's plans, which are neither one thing nor the other. At later stages of the Bill we shall move amendments to include our proposals in the Bill. If, however, those amendments do not find favour in the House, we shall support amendments that propose something better than the Government's proposals; for example, the Canadian trust model that has been mentioned and was recommended by the Transport Select Committee of another place. This is exactly what we did at Report stage in another place, so there is no inconsistency in our approach. We want the best future for NATS.
1020
I enjoyed listening to the thoughtful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. She referred to the problems of the partially disabled on the Underground. However, if escalator failures make it impossible for the partially disabled to use the Underground, they also make it deeply unattractive even for reasonably fit people carrying luggage. It will be interesting to see whether the Mayor and the GLA can secure any improvements in that regard.
I listened with care to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, with much of which I agreed. I shall have to reserve my position on the station services argument that he articulated but I believe that his amendment will lead to a useful debate. His comments about new rolling stock always cause me alarm. One has to ask who is paying for the loss of use of this new rolling stock? What is the Secretary of State doing about that?
I am grateful for noble Lords' support for my tachograph provisions in the Road Traffic (Enforcement Powers) Bill that the Minister unfortunately accidentally left out of the Brill we are discussing! Noble Lords should be aware that I intend to table numerous other amendments aimed at raising the standards, safety and profitability of the road haulage industry. My aim is to reduce or eliminate unfair and illegal competition while avoiding excessive regulation.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon summed up most of our objections to the Bill. I should like to add my comments on some of the more undesirable clauses and their likely effect. The Bill is partial privatisation by stealth, centralisation by stealth, re-regulation by stealth and taxation by stealth. It is renationalisation of the railways by the back door. The Bill does nothing to address the crisis in standstill Britain that the Government are creating.
Many noble Lords will be particularly concerned about the plan to levy yet more taxes on motorists. We have read recently that petrol has reached nearly £4 a gallon. However, I wonder how many noble Lords remember that just three years ago the price of petrol was about £2·65. Many unsophisticated motorists believe that the marginal cost of using their car comprises only the fuel. As noble Lords will be aware, 80 per cent of this cost goes directly to the Chancellor. The Chancellor now takes £8 billion more per year than he did in 1997. The average British motorist spends £270 more per year for petrol and diesel fuel than he did three years ago. I am sure that the Minister is considering carefully the electoral consequences of this policy.
On top of that, the Government now want to levy more taxes on motorists who drive into town centres or who park at work. However, I am not clear how motorists will be deterred from using their cars if the already high taxes—which comprise 80 per cent on the cost of fuel alone—do not do so. I believe that these new taxes will result in a short-term reduction in traffic, but those people who are deterred from travelling will be replaced by more affluent motorists taking advantage of less congestion on the roads.

1021
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, pointed out that traffic congestion has never brought a city grinding to a halt, occasional gridlock excepted. I think that he was suggesting that congestion itself limits traffic growth. I have some sympathy with that view. Noble Lords should not misunderstand me. I fully recognise the need vastly to improve the utility and the effectiveness of buses but I do not believe that the new taxes will achieve that. Ministers have to realise that one cannot begin to have a debate about congestion taxes when fuel taxes are so high and so little is being spent on roads and public transport—far less than the previous government spent.
For instance, noble Lords will be alarmed to discover that in this year's local transport settlement the Government allocated just £18 million to towns that had expressed an interest in introducing congestion charging to enable them to provide improved public transport in advance. There is not much incentive to put the horse before the cart.
The Minister stated that hypothecation was a new development for the UK. However, many noble Lords are concerned about additionality. In being so concerned, they have no doubt studied the history of vehicle excise duty. When that was introduced it was supposed to be hypothecated; indeed, it was called "the road fund licence". Now it is just another tax and a valuable source of income for the Chancellor.
But who will be exempt from these new charges? Cases can be made for many essential road users. What about emergency vehicles; motor-cycles; disabled cars; school vehicles; cars driven by doctors on call; cars driven by volunteer workers on their way to work; cars driven by teachers; taxis; and rescue and recovery vehicles? And what about Ministers and parliamentarians? Will they have an exemption?
The Government's plans for the railways are simply based on a desire to control the railway centrally. The Secretary of State wants to be able to interfere with the train-set rather than let the industry get on within a suitable regulatory environment. It is worth remembering that since the 1993 Act, both passenger and freight activity has increased significantly, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, waxed lyrical about the increase in investment post-1993.
Since privatisation, managers in the railway industry have ceased complaining so much about a level playing field with regard to road haulage. They are now much more concerned with the availability of train paths from Railtrack and rolling stock from industry.
No one is saying that the 1993 Act was perfect. There is indeed a role for the SRA to help the industry develop, but not for the rebirth of the old British Railways Board in a new form. We are opposed to the Secretary of State having new powers to direct investment; we are opposed to him being able to interfere in access agreements; and we are opposed to unlimited fines. Noble Lords must remember that Railtrack is a commercial organisation and that recent activity by the Government and the regulator has
1022
damaged its share price and hence its ability to raise the necessary finance on the market. We are opposed to the other measures in the Bill that will allow more political interference and less enterprise. On the railway, as in all other transport areas, passengers' needs must come first, but this Bill seeks to delay improvements while the Government play ideological politics.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, stated her concerns about the proposed new structure of the rail industry. We have sympathy with some of what she said, but not everything.
Much has been said about the safety of the railway industry. Can the Minister say whether any safety performance indicators have shown a sustained negative trend since privatisation?
With one notable exception, the Bill does little about road safety. I am extremely grateful for the kind comments made by Ministers about my efforts with my impounding Bill. I am very pleased that the Minister has included it in the Bill.
In the United Kingdom we have a relatively good safety record, but there is room for considerable improvement. The Minister's road safety strategy document usefully identifies a number of requirements for primary legislation. We shall be helping the Minister by tabling suitable amendments. He should he aware that there is considerable cross-party support for many of them. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, has already indicated support for my tachograph amendment.
In addition, I and many noble Lords from all sides of the House will be tabling numerous and, I fear, technical amendments. For instance, how many convictions must an operator of goods vehicles collect before he automatically loses his "good repute"? There is considerable uncertainty in the road haulage industry as a result of badly drafted legislation. This issue must be cleared up. I suggest that this Bill is an ideal opportunity to do so.
Section 33 of the Immigration and Asylum Act covers the issue of illegal immigrants entering Britain by lorries. It seems to me grossly unfair and I shall be tabling amendments to the Act by means of this Bill. As I understand it, the Secretary of State sets the £2,000 fine, determines guilt and then hears any appeal. I am not going soft on illegal immigrants, but I do not think that this is the right approach. First, it conflicts with ECHR; secondly, it sets the rate for bringing an illegal immigrant into the country at about £2,500—£500 for the driver and £2,000 for the fine if he gets caught; and, finally. I do not think it solves the problem.
I turn now to a couple of general points about the Bill. This is a huge Bill that will occupy the House for many hours, many of them late or very late at night. It would have been better to have had three or four Bills. Indeed, the rail proposals were already submitted in last year's Railways Bill, but such is the Deputy Prime Minister's lack of influence that his Bill did not reach the Commons until far too late in the legislative timetable and so failed due to lack of time. We are glad

1023
to see that those proposals have been included in the Bill because we will now have a chance to show how misguided they are.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara mentioned the vast number of amendments that were tabled in another place. I have no doubt that noble Lords will prepare a similarly impressive array of alternative wordings. Furthermore, the Minister has already identified a number of errors and omissions. I am tempted to organise an opposition sweepstake for the number of government amendments. My guess is that there will be around 500. Indeed, would the Minister like to join us in our sweepstake? I do not think that there will he any conflict of interest as probably he, too, does not know how many government amendments will be required. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, appears to have succeeded in his tough negotiations with the Government's business managers to find space for some of his own amendments.
Transport is a vital issue that affects us all and it should not he forgotten that it constitutes a major part of our economy. At the moment, people and businesses are getting a raw deal from the Government. The Prime Minister realised that when he demoted the Deputy Prime Minister and promoted the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston. The Government would like us to believe that this has brought great benefits, but in reality all that has changed is the rhetoric. The Government pretend that they are now the motorist's friend, but the facts show that taxes are rising and investment is falling. In the meantime there is standstill on the roads, standstill on the railways, standstill or stand-up on the Tube and standstill in the air. The only area where there is no standstill is in the ever-growing number of leaked stories about the Government's so-called 10-year plan, which in reality is only a measure of their lack of progress.
We look forward to seeing the final format of the Bill once our work in this House has been completed. We shall look carefully at the existing small print and address any omissions. On the evidence of the Bill, however, it is clear that the Government are still stuck in the slow lane.
9.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate—at least so far. I have the task of responding as best I can to the many contributions and wide variety of points that have been made about the Bill. We have heard a broad range of speeches, including contributions from at least two former Ministers of Transport and three maiden speeches. From the remarks that others have made, I do not think that I would be wrong to say that I am not merely observing protocol when I observe that they were among the best speeches made in the course of our debate.
1024
I was grateful to hear from my noble friend Lady Cohen of Pimlico. Those who have been Members for some time would not assume that asking daft and repetitive questions is entirely confined to the first few weeks of membership of this House. I was interested to learn of my noble friend's early career in which, many years ago, she developed public/private partnerships, possibly even before those set up by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. That will stand her in good stead, as will her experience and knowledge of safety management. I hope to see her as a regular contributor to transport debates in this House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, is known to me when wearing her road safety hat in her position on Suffolk County Council. She has been a leading light on road safety matters, as well as on other transport issues. I agree totally with her observation that the local transport plan is the main motor driving a great deal of our transport policy., but that it needs to link in with regional and national transport plans, as well as with wider issues such as land use planning and environmental policy. Indeed, her speech could well serve as an advertisement for my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister's department. I shall commend her words to him.
I was also grateful to hear the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, who is a long-term acquaintance through the trade union movement and the Labour Party. Her role as a commissioner on the Health and Safety Commission has been extremely important. Furthermore, her knowledge of rail safety and transport safety in general is very helpful to our debate. It is no doubt partly due to her influence that we have seen an increase in resources for rail safety and other areas related to transport, a point that was referred to earlier in the debate. I am very pleased to welcome her presence in this House and I look forward to her involvement in transport debates.
A number of themes were introduced during the debate. A major theme referred to by my noble friend Lady Cohen is that of innovative ways in which to mobilise resources for transport. It runs through the whole debate. There are knee-jerk reactions against it from all sides of the House, but we are looking for new ways in which to bring income resources and capital, and indeed management expertise, into the transport field. At the same time, we are deeply concerned about safety on the roads and railways and in transport generally. It is important that the effective regulation of safety is separate from operations.
It is important, too, that transport solutions are addressed in a local context. Local transport plans are the dynamo of this whole approach. The broader environmental dimension is also important, as the right reverend Prelate drew to our attention, and it runs through much of what we propose in the integrated transport White Paper. It is the result of the powers in the Bill; and the means of delivery of the provisions in the Bill is through local transport

1025
plans. The establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority provides for far more effective regulation in that field.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, attacked the putative introduction of a public private partnership in air traffic control as a "botched privatisation". We are, however, dealing with the legacy of a botched privatisation of the rail industry. I was grateful, therefore, for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who said that we need a strategic authority: whatever the ownership of the railways, we need a rail strategy and we need to ensure that we can enforce it. Therefore, the introduction of a Strategic Rail Authority is an important facet of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to the Bill's length—despite the fact that almost every other contributor was attempting to add to its length! It is indeed a large and complex Bill. The noble Lord also complained that it has taken us three years to produce it. That is not entirely true. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, admitted, a large part of the Bill was before the House of Commons last year. The noble Lord complained also that it has taken us three years to produce a 10-year transport plan. That follows on 18 years when there was neither a comprehensive legislative framework for transport, nor sufficient resources, and when there was no transport strategy. We have been left with a deeply fragmented, internally inconsistent approach to transport ever since. Therefore, I do not think that the Opposition Front Bench can criticise us too much for taking the past two or three years to get this right.
I should refer also to potential collusion between the two Front Benches. I should like to exempt those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Hughes referred to their innocence in these matters and I am prepared to go along with that. Nevertheless, we have some track form in this matter: we have the vote in another place. The Conservative Front Bench voted for a Liberal Democrat amendment put forward in good faith which was totally contrary to its own position. In a sense it does not matter in the House of Commons; they can play games there. Here, it does matter, and I hope that we shall not see that degree of cynicism from the Conservative Front Bench in this place. I shall try to refrain from making further party-political points.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, asked about amendments to the Bill. There will be some amendments. My noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston spelt out clearly the scope of the amendments that we intend to bring forward—subject to any arguments that convince us in Committee—and that they are limited. At most, they will apply to 12 main areas. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that they will be significantly fewer than 500. I am not prepared to place a precise bet on these matters, but I suspect, given what the noble Earl said, that they will probably be considerably fewer than he himself proposes to pursue. So if we sit late hours during the passage of the Bill it will be a matter to lay at the noble Earl's door rather than the Government's.
1026
I now turn to individual subjects, beginning with the public/private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Limited, NATS, which probably attracted most contributions.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, in his intervention in the speech of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston and subsequently, made clear the concerns on safety and other grounds. I take those concerns seriously. I take seriously in particular the need to address the safety issues. But we also have to face the fact that everybody is agreed that safety should be separated out from operation. The Bill provides for that very clearly. The present situation does not. Everybody is agreed that we need substantial investment in air traffic control over the next few years. Everybody agrees that we need better management and a higher degree of expertise in project management. The Swanwick project is hardly a great example in that respect. And everybody agrees that we need to be in a powerful leading-edge position in order to engage in the Eurocontrol developments that are likely to follow.
All of those matters require a change in the manner in which we manage air traffic control. The Liberal Democrats want to put it in a trust. The trade unions by and large want to keep it in state ownership. The Conservatives want it totally privatised. We have a fourth way. We want to take the positive elements of all approaches and put them together in a partnership approach. The imaginative nature of our proposals has escaped some noble Lords, because they are stuck, thinking of things in a very narrow and ideologically determined way.
Our solution will mobilise private capital, not primarily through the sale, but through the ability to tap into the capital markets over time, for huge investments are needed. It will separate out safety and make it clear that there is a major safety responsibility on management at the same time. It will provide a stable framework, which air traffic control has not had, because of variable funding, over the years. It will put us at the cutting edge of technology and give us a lead in Europe.
We can argue among ourselves about the exact structure and ownership of the financial organisation of the future NATS. But let us not use safety as an argument about financial structures. As my noble friend Lord Elder spelt out very clearly, there is no intrinsic difference between the private and the public sector on how safely they can deliver an operation. We have poor examples in the private sector and we have poor examples in the public sector. Safety in our regime will be paramount. That is the essence of air traffic control. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely committed to that. A structure of safety will therefore be effected. There will no doubt be arguments in Committee about the precise financial structure, but let us not confuse the two issues.

1027
We are not doing the PPP solely for financial purposes. We are also doing it in order to mobilise expertise. But even on the money side we are not just talking about the sale; we are talking about mobilising long-term capital support for the project. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, said that this was not value for money. Clearly, if it were not value for money we would not be proposing this course of action. But it is a way of mobilising money which is not likely to be available from public or limited trust company sources. The safety regime is set down and enforced by air navigation orders made under the Civil Aviation Act. That gives the CAA as regulator wide-ranging powers and it can tighten the regime further.
All respondents to the PPP consultation have been asked how the existing safety regime may be improved, and in that context a number of detailed suggestion have been made. In response to my noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Hoyle and other noble Lords, we are considering all of these issues together with the NA TS trade unions, other aviation professionals and the safety regulators to see what further measures are desirable in order to entrench the very high safety record of NATS and, if possible, enhance it. I give noble Lords the assurance that those discussions will continue and elements of them can be put in place to enhance safety. I hope, therefore, that the trade unions recognise that the discussions are by no means at an end; they continue. We shall ensure that any ideas on safety that emerge are taken fully into account.
I say to my trade union colleagues that the staff are absolutely key. The future of NATS depends on the quality and commitment of its staff. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred to the possibility of staff cutbacks. That is not in the plan and is not the intention; indeed, it can hardly be the reality whoever manages the air traffic control system. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle suggested, there is also a requirement for improved staff training.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether safety would rely on a contract to enforce it. No, it will not. Safety will rely on all the existing safety regulations which will remain intact. The noble Baroness asked whether NATS would have Crown immunity. The PPP will itself be designated as a private sector company and will not have Crown immunity in any sense, whatever other discussions on Crown immunity in the wider context of health and safety may produce.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I was interested in the position of any government nominee or representative on the board.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that raises the wider question of the responsibilities of directors and others in terms of immunity. No Crown immunity applies here. The responsibility of the directors will be no different from that of directors of other companies, but in the context of health and safety further discussions are to be pursued—an announcement as to that will be made in a couple of days—in a
1028
consultation paper issued by the Home Office. The government director will be in no different position from others in that respect.
My noble friend Lord Hoyle, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and other noble Lords asked about relations with the Ministry of Defence, in particular the RAF. The MoD fully supports the PPP. The department has been part of the steering group from the outset and has been very much involved. It is fully content that the PPP will deliver what it needs from the air traffic control system. NATS will be under a licence obligation to continue to collaborate with the MoD. There is nothing in those rumours. We are working very closely with the RAF and others on the military side.
My noble friends Lord Clinton-Davis and Lord Hoyle and the Select Committee in the other place have referred to alternatives. It is suggested that the Post Office model should be used rather than the one we have chosen. The Post Office and NATS are very different businesses and each requires a different solution. The Post Office is much bigger and has a higher turnover than NATS but its investment relative to its business is small. The Post Office is increasingly doing business in a competitive situation as compared with UK air space, which is a monopoly that is not exposed to competition. I do not believe that the Post Office model is appropriate. Further, we do not believe that the model of the Canadian trust company advanced largely by the Liberal Democrats can be immediately read across to the UK situation. That model deals with considerably more air space but much lighter traffic. Therefore, that is a much smaller and less complex organisation which does not have assets or income, or at least capital backing; it has mainly debt. We are looking, therefore, for a more stable financial situation for what we propose under our PPP.
My noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall raised a number of issues relating to the European aspect and was almost as nostalgic as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in relation to the 1968 Bill. My noble friend and I probably have our initials on the TUC document on integrated transport, circa 1972. At the time it was the last word on this subject. I did not return to the subject for about another 28 years. On the European dimension, we believe that the PPP will place us in a better position to play a key role in the future of air traffic control in Europe. We also believe that there is a trend towards more efficient commercialised air traffic control providers in Europe. We are aware of investigations by the Dutch who are looking at a similar structure to our own. We believe that, if anything, the remainder of Europe will follow us down the road to a more commercialised or joint public/private approach which will have access to greater capital than a purely state-provided air traffic control in Europe would do. That is part of the European Commission's approach to ideas for a single sky for Europe where it will clearly want efficient national service providers and a more integrated and harmonised approach to air traffic control across the European air space. It is an important area.

1029
Perhaps I may correct the position implied by my noble friend Lord Lea on charges. Eurocontrol does not set charges. However, it has a set of principles on which they can be set. Those were changed last year to provide incentives for commercialised providers which would include organisations like the NATS PPP.
The noble Lords, Lord Brabazon of Tara, Lord Clinton-Davis, and Lord Hoyle also referred to the nature of the government share in this context. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, raised the issue of the golden share, or the special share. He queried, as did other noble Lords, whether this was being challenged at European level. The special share offers a way to safeguard the essential public interest directly through equity in the company. It does so in a way which does not unduly interfere with day-to-day operational control but it supports the Government's position. Although it is true that the European Commission has objected to special shares in certain cases, those cases do not seem to us analogous with this position. Therefore we are reasonably confident legally that we can go down this road.
In relation to the size of the shareholding, we are starting from the position of a 49 per cent government share in the PPP in addition to the golden share. The legislation provides for the possible dilution of the proportion. However, that would not be possible without a clear government decision. The company itself could not do it. It cannot fall below 25 per cent without a legislative change put to Parliament. In no way is this reducing the value of the government share. It would be simply a reflection of additional capital coming into the company were that to take place. However, there are safeguards over the circumstances in which any reduction can take place.
I was grateful for the words of my noble friend Lord Elder in relation to the two centre strategy and the support that has within Scotland. I can assure him that the PPP company will continue to be committed to that strategy.
In relation to NATS staff pensions, the Government recognise that the staff still have important concerns. They have decided that NATS staff who were in the employment of the company at the time the PPP was established should be entitled to remain in the Civil Aviation Authority's pension scheme. The company would participate in the scheme as a non-associated employer. Existing pensioners' positions would remain unchanged, therefore, in accordance with the undertaking given. They continue to belong to the CAAPS and receive the benefits that the scheme offers.
Clearly, we shall return to many of the air traffic control issues and I have taken 20 minutes explaining the position. However, the core of the Bill rests elsewhere. The Committee will look in detail at air traffic control, but it also needs to look in detail at some of the other areas.
1030
As regards local transport plans, which are the central part of the Bill, I can underline the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Morris about their importance. My noble friend referred in particular to Manchester; to the role of quality partnerships and the support given to the Metro in Manchester. I can assure him a similar step in improvement in local transport plans will be welcome and will no doubt be referred to in the 10-year plan of my noble friend Lord Macdonald. I can also assure my noble friend Lord Berkeley that walking and cycling are still key components of local transport plans and safety in general is a major part of the guidance to local transport authorities in drawing up those plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to road traffic reduction targets in this context. We issued a detailed document in reaction to the national road traffic reduction legislation in January. It indicated that the national volume of traffic was probably not a useful indicator, as he accepted. We will be looking at objectives, targets and benchmarks related to congestion and pollution and will expect authorities to develop their own particular types of target to reduce the volume and congestion element of traffic within their areas.
The main area of concern about local traffic plans related to buses. They are an important part of our integrated transport policy, as my noble friend Lord Hogg underlined. The aim is to accentuate the positive parts of the earlier legislation, but also to eliminate its negative effects. I can assure him and other noble Lords that the difficult and delicate relationship between the local authorities and operators will be preserved through the system, but we need to move from the status quo, which is restrictive on what can be done between local authorities and the operators, to a system where quality partnerships are the norm and in some cases quality contracts will need to be entered into.
I also note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about buses in general and about bus lane enforcement in particular. We will consider that, together with his points in relation to the powers of the traffic commissioner. We are keen to learn lessons from the London pilot schemes in relation to bus lane enforcements and regard that as a particularly important part of ensuring that public transport gets through and an important part of improving traffic flows in general.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and others referred to the suggested need for bus quality partnerships to include timetables and frequencies. There is an important distinction between quality partnerships and quality contracts. Quality contracts give local authorities detailed controls over timetables and frequencies. It would not seem right to blur the distinction between two separate legal concepts and, in partnership terms, much give and take can be undertaken between operators and local authorities. However, in terms of legal enforcement of timetables and frequencies, that would only be in the context of quality contracts.

1031
I can assure my noble friend Lord Hogg that quality contracts will not be the norm. That would be a major departure from the current arrangements because they would give operators exclusive rights for up to five years to run services to a local authority's specification and performance criteria. In general, that can be done through partnership, but in order to encourage those partnerships it is important that the power to move into quality contracts exists.
However, we shall ensure that moving into quality contracts is subject to a strict test. The Bill as amended in another place provides that the local authority must be satisfied that quality contracts are the only practical way to deliver the local authority's bus strategy. I hope that that gives my noble friend Lord Hogg the reassurance that he required.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and others raised the issue of competition and competition powers. We have made a number of changes to the Bill in another place to ensure that the new powers of local authorities are subject to a tailor-made competition test. Clause 141 and Schedule 10 will ensure that the powers cannot be used to favour particular operators but can be used to benefit passengers, even though otherwise the OFT may judge them to have adverse effects on competition. I believe that that is a major move which recognises the reality of the type of arrangements which must be made in the relationship between the local authorities and the operators.
It was also made clear in another place that the OFT is at this moment consulting on a draft block exemption for ticketing schemes. That is very important and we hope that some way may be found, either under Clause 124 of the Bill or quite independently, to decide whether such arrangements are exempt from the Chapter I prohibition in the Competition Act. I believe that that matter is still under discussion, and I hope that your Lordships will regard this as a commitment on that front.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested that there should be a much wider exemption for bus operators from the provisions of the Competition Act. I believe that we shall probably debate that issue at some length in Committee. We want to maximise the benefits of an integrated approach but, on the other hand, competition also provides a way of getting benefits to the consumer. Therefore, we need to find a balance. We believe that broadly the position is right but we shall consider further arguments in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly referred to the fact that sharing of information is probably the most important aspect of co-operation between operators and between operators and local authorities. Our initiative on Transport Direct helps to deliver many of the benefits of an integrated information system which will be developed not only for bus timetables but also for train and other public transport provisions. Therefore, through-ticketing arrangements are reflected also in the through-information system.
1032
In relation to buses, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, also suggested that there was a hidden power in Clause 142 to abolish fuel duty rebate. So far as that is concerned, I believe that to some extent he has the wrong end of the stick. Fuel duty rebate is being examined because it may not be the best way to subsidise the bus industry. Possibly we need to look at a more flexible approach to the way in which we subsidise and provide grants to the bus industry. At the moment, it tends to benefit particularly the least fuel-efficient buses. Therefore, we are examining that matter. However, it is not a way of abolishing fuel duty rebate altogether, as he seemed to suggest in his earlier remarks.
With regard to concessionary fares, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given both to the basic provision and to the extension for the disabled, which my noble friend Lord Macdonald introduced. With regard to the further concerns in relation to the question of whether or not there should be a national system, I can see the attraction of such a system. On the other hand, it would represent a major departure from the present position in which schemes are local authority-based and it would be quite bureaucratically complex. We recognise that a national bus pass is an attractive idea and we have suggested to the bus industry that it might look at industry-based schemes which in effect would deliver a voluntary industry-based scheme. I shall be glad to discuss that further, both in Committee here and with the industry.
The suggestion was also made that we should look again at age discrimination between men and women. We debated that matter at some length during the GLA Bill. Veterans will recall that I insisted that the concession relates to retirement age. Although eventually there will be some harmonisation of retirement age, at the moment we see no reason to depart from the provision that bus passes come with retirement age.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked how the concessionary fares scheme would be paid for. In the announcements made earlier in the year, it was made clear that the scheme would be met from public expenditure. Therefore, the minimum concessions would be met centrally by provisions through the rate support grant. I believe that that is the information the noble Baroness sought.
Road-user charging is perhaps the other main controversial part of the Bill. I was challenged by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to say whether that is a revenue-raising or transport management measure. It is both. We require revenue as hypothecation backing to transport schemes but it is also a means of demand management. The noble Lords, Lord Montagu and Lord Marsh, said that congestion rations itself and the motorist has had a rough time. The real cost of motoring from 1975 to 1999 did not increase, whereas the real marginal cost of public bus transport rose 80 per cent. We must do something to change the marginal costs and reduce the attractiveness of using cars, particularly in congested urban areas.

1033
The Bill provides for local authorities to introduce road-user charging schemes and workplace parking charges. It requires that all proceeds will be directed into real improvements to local transport, so they are not taxes in the normal way that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, refers to them. Nor are they stealth taxes. We are pretty up front about that. The Bill also requires that local people are fully consulted, particularly the business community, and that some public transport improvements be made before charging starts. Schemes will be well researched—to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu—to ensure that they have a real impact on solving congestion and do not just raise revenue.
Because of all the pre-requisites, we expect that charging schemes will take four or five years to implement, although there may be small-scale schemes before that. In London, the introduction of such a scheme comes under Greater London Authority legislation and relates to the mayor's own strategy. Again, full consultation will be required by the mayor. He has clearly indicated that he will consult widely and take business interests into account. In his case, the scheme will need to be seen in conjunction with improvements in public transport in London. Although London may be slightly ahead of the game, it is not treated differently from other areas except that it is the mayor's decision.
Workplace parking is our other measure for altering the marginal costs of motoring relative to public transport and providing additional resources. Local authorities will be given the power to introduce workplace parking areas. There will be national exemptions for emergency vehicles and disabled persons and exemptions or concessions for parking at NHS hospitals—the details are still being worked out. Exemptions can be introduced at local level and could include concessions where employers introduce green travel plans on the lines to which the noble Lord, Smith of Leigh, referred in respect of Manchester airport. We are not necessarily promising that to Manchester airport—it will depend on local decisions. That is another means of ensuring that local employers develop green transport plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others referred to such schemes as taxes on employers. The main expense to employers is precisely the huge costs that congestion in urban areas and inter-urban networks impose on business. The schemes will partly offset congestion costs, reduce delay, cut the cost of goods being on the road, and reduce the expense of managers and sales people being on the road. The proposed costs are nothing compared with the huge costs imposed on business by failing to tackle congestion in the past 20 years.
We do not expect any generalised charging on trunk roads for many years. We will use the interim to promote debate on how trunk road user charging could be introduced and to develop a better understanding of problems such as diversion—which
1034
the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised in relation to small towns and rural villages. We need to examine the technology of possible charging and other means of traffic management on the motorway network. Therefore, we are not providing general powers within the Bill until we have had that debate and are clear what we want to do. The powers in relation to trunk road networks relate only to the situation where local transport schemes cover an area which is a highways authority road and the powers to charge on bridges and tunnels.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked specifically about the Dartford crossing in this context. It will come as no great surprise to noble Lords—I seem to remember an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, a few months ago on this very issue—that we will be continuing to consult on the continuation of road user charging on the Dartford crossings. I do not wish to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation in this debate.
There has been reference to hypothecation. The hypothecation guarantee is not indefinite because, in the medium to long-term, reserving all charging revenue for local transport may not enable value for money criteria to be met. Nevertheless, the 10-year minimum hypothecation is in the Bill. Longer periods of hypothecation can be agreed at the outset on a scheme-by-scheme basis if it is justified; for example, by the need to finance a longer-term PFI deal. There will also be a general review of hypothecation arrangements before the first 10-year period has elapsed so that future arrangements can be decided.
I say to my noble friend Lord Hughes that we have already circumvented the Treasury rules in this context with the very full and vocal support of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury itself. This is a new way of mobilising more funds into public transport and into road improvements in a way which also has the beneficial effect of improving the traffic management in the area concerned. That seems a sensible relaxation of Treasury rules and one which could be applied in transport generally. We are certainly keen to see local authorities taking up the options under these provisions.
Somewhat surprisingly, there were only two brief references to the issue of streetworks in this debate. My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden referred to them. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was in his place at the beginning of this debate and will doubtless be promoting his own Bill in this respect shortly. There is clearly deep concern in this House. Your Lordships will be aware of the action that we have currently put in hand to use the powers under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to provide for charging for streetwork overruns. We will be introducing regulations under that provision later this year. We have not ruled out further action but we will no doubt have a serious debate on this matter later during the passage of this Bill.

1035
I move on now to rail. Clearly, the creation of the Strategic Rail Authority provides a new sense of direction for the rail industry to face up to the challenges of this century. It is important that the SRA works very closely with Railtrack and with the operating companies and indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, indicated, with consumers. It is important that the rail passenger council has an independent view on these matters and is built in to the decision-making.
The SRA provides a new start for the rail industry. It has already started, in its non-statutory form, to develop strategic priorities. The ability to provide longer franchises through franchise replacement will enable train operators to offer far more long-term investment and long-term commitments.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, the Government's contribution will be known when the current spending review is completed. We shall publish that in the context of our 10-year investment plan. Clearly, public and private resources will be needed. I was grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Marsh, for bringing their experience to register at least some degree of support for the Strategic Rail Authority's role. I do not necessarily follow the precise arithmetic of the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, in relation to the gap to which he alluded, but provision will be made through the activities of the Strategic Rail Authority directly under the new franchising arrangements. Other public money may well be provided through the 10-year plan. I fear that the noble Lord will have to wait until at least July or possibly slightly later in the year for the details. But we recognise a resourcing problem.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, it is extremely important that we secure new investment; that we secure a long-term framework for that investment; and that we secure a new partnership between government and industry in the railway industry.
It is important that all the regulating authorities work together. It is important that it is seen as a cooperative exercise and not, as noble Lords have implied, as a threat of back-door nationalisation. The SRA will have stronger powers. I was distressed to hear the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, put on record that some of those stronger and more effective powers will be opposed by the Opposition. That is not a constructive and sensible approach even from the perspective of the Opposition. Certainly, we shall defend rigorously our commitment to more effective regulation within that area.
Safety on the railways is a very important part of our consideration. Lord Cullen has started his inquiry and we expect his report by the middle of next year. All of his recommendations will be considered and dealt with urgently and seriously. To answer my noble friend Lady Gibson and others, where immediate improvements to rail safety can be made without preempting the report of Lord Cullen, we are making
1036
them. We are taking measures to change Railtrack's safety responsibilities so that responsibility for accepting railway companies' safety cases will transfer from Railtrack to the HSE, and the Safety and Standards Directorate will, as my noble friend Lord Macdonald said, be removed from Railtrack's direct control into a subsidiary company with a separate chair and board. Those changes will be implemented immediately.
I welcome the reference by my noble friend Lord Berkeley to the increased co-operation between the CBI, the Freight Transport Association and the rail freight industry to try to create a cross-modal approach to freight. The SRA will have a key role in developing rail freight. There are naturally concerns about what has been the past attitude of Rail track and what we need to do now. I understand the concerns also about property sales referred to my noble friend and others. But we are in a new area with a statutory strategic rail authority which will have the power to improve the facilities for rail freight. The shadow SRA has already begun to develop the strategy which will be incorporated into the 10-year plan as and when it has statutory powers.
My noble friends Lady Goudie, Lord Berkeley and Lord Elder all referred to freight grants for short sea shipping. At this stage in my speech, I have to he a bit careful how I say that! Certainly it was in the integrated transport White Paper and we are looking at means of introducing grants to short sea shipping in that context or another. Therefore, I hope to give the assurance sought on that.
Finally, I turn to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in relation to HGV impounding, about which I underline the appreciation of my noble friend Lord Macdonald for the noble Earl's earlier efforts in that respect. There is no reason to delay further the introduction of impounding schemes. I know that the industry has been looking for that for some time. We need VI examiners to be able to check quickly at the roadside that a vehicle is operating illegally. The new computer system which we are introducing will enable them to do that and allow operators to contact the traffic area offices by all means of communication.
We shall introduce the impounding provisions when the IT systems are in place. I note the concerns of the noble Earl and his intention to table further amendments in that respect, particularly relating to drivers' hours. No doubt we shall have interesting discussions in Committee on that matter. He also promised or threatened further provisions on road safety. As the noble Earl knows, he and I see eye to eye on a number of such issues. I believe that the majority of our road strategy can be delivered without further new powers and mainly through the local transport plans. Nevertheless, I shall consider positively any constructive ideas he has in that respect.

1037
This has probably been the longest winding up that even I have done. I apologise to noble Lords who should not have had such an interesting debate to which I have had to reply! I suspect that this is a portent of the long nights which await us and will keep us awake for some months yet. I commend the Bill to the House.
1038
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Colchester Borough Council Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  Appointment of Governors by the FCO
  Appointment of Governors by the FCO
  UNAMSIL Mandate
  UNAMSIL Mandate
  Liberia: Transportation of Released Detainees
  Liberia: Transportation of Released Detainees
  Burma: EU Sanctions
  Burma: EU Sanctions
  Zimbabwe: Elections
  Zimbabwe: Elections
  All-Party Parliamentary Groups
  All-Party Parliamentary Groups
  Prison Overcrowding
  Prison Overcrowding
  Prisoners: Purposeful Activity Statistics
  Prisoners: Purposeful Activity Statistics
  Mechanically Powered Vehicles: Off-road Use
  Mechanically Powered Vehicles: Off-road Use
  Police Officer Numbers
  Police Officer Numbers
  A.14 Huntingdon: Weight Limit
  A.14 Huntingdon: Weight Limit
  ECHR, Protocol 12
  ECHR, Protocol 12
  Railtrack and the Freedom of Information Bill
  Railtrack and the Freedom of Information Bill
  Asylum Seekers: Acceptance Statistics
  Asylum Seekers: Acceptance Statistics
  Terrorism Bill: Proscribed Organisations
  Terrorism Bill: Proscribed Organisations
  Terrorism Bill: Cyber-terrorism
  Terrorism Bill: Cyber-terrorism
  Animal Liberation Groups: Incidents and Arrests
  Animal Liberation Groups: Incidents and Arrests
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Lieutenant Governors
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man: Lieutenant Governors
  Security Service Directors: Publication of Memoirs
  Security Service Directors: Publication of Memoirs
  Voluntary Sector: Criminal Record Checks
  Voluntary Sector: Criminal Record Checks
  Criminal Justice System: Situation of Victims
  Criminal Justice System: Situation of Victims
  Access to Government Information: Training of Civil Servants
  Access to Government Information: Training of Civil Servants
  Translink Corporate Plan
  Translink Corporate Plan
  Northern Ireland Railways: Safety
  Northern Ireland Railways: Safety
  Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
  Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
  RAF Recruitment
  RAF Recruitment
  RAF: Glider Instruction
  RAF: Glider Instruction
  Flying Clubs: RAF Support
  Flying Clubs: RAF Support
  Flying Clubs: Membership
  Flying Clubs: Membership
  RAF Little Rissington: Glider Flights
  RAF Little Rissington: Glider Flights
  RAFGSA: Membership Qualification
  RAFGSA: Membership Qualification
  RAF Menwith Hill
  RAF Menwith Hill
  Gulf War Veterans: Defence Select Committee Report
  Gulf War Veterans: Defence Select Committee Report
  Defence Housing Executive Properties: Gas Safety
  Defence Housing Executive Properties: Gas Safety
  Protection of Military Remains Act
  Protection of Military Remains Act
  E-commerce: Government Statistical Data
  E-commerce: Government Statistical Data
  E-mail: Employment Law and Human Rights Act
  E-mail: Employment Law and Human Rights Act
  Part-time Workers Regulations
  Part-time Workers Regulations
  Merrywood School Closure
  Merrywood School Closure
  New Deal: Benefit Sanctions
  New Deal: Benefit Sanctions
  Benefit Sanctions and Criminal Activity
  Benefit Sanctions and Criminal Activity
  New Deal Evaluation Database
  New Deal Evaluation Database
  Genetically Modified Food: OECD Report
  Genetically Modified Food: OECD Report
  Wards of Court: Social Services Applications
  Wards of Court: Social Services Applications
  Hospital Beds and Non-specialist Nurse Training: Costs
  Hospital Beds and Non-specialist Nurse Training: Costs
  Child Prostitution
  Child Prostitution
  Teenage Pregnancy Advisory Group
  Teenage Pregnancy Advisory Group
  BSE: French Slaughter Policy
  BSE: French Slaughter Policy
  Part-time Judicial Appointments
  Part-time Judicial Appointments
  Judges' Lodgings
  Judges' Lodgings