Sitting of 14 June 2000

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Wednesday 21 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—

  Drug Addiction
  Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): What estimate she has made of the economic costs of addiction to hard drugs in respect of (a) the national health service and (b) police forces in England and Wales. [124262]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): Drug misuse costs Britain more than £4 billion each year in crime, sickness and absenteeism. The Government are fully committed to tackling this problem. That is why we pledged an additional £217 million as part of the 1998 comprehensive spending review for anti-drugs activities. We are currently finalising the spending for the next three years and will announce details of future funding in support of the Government's drugs strategy very shortly.
  Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. First, in view of those remarkable figures, does she agree that the importance of treatment for addiction is becoming even more important? What steps are being taken to improve facilities for treatment?
  Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that the control of drugs is not something which can be dealt with purely within national borders? What steps are being taken internationally to stop the flow of drugs? Are there any lessons that we can learn from other countries' drugs policies?
  Marjorie Mowlam: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, more than £70 million of the sum that I mentioned was allocated to health and local authorities to fund new treatment services. We fundamentally believe that treatment works; we have the research and the figures to show it. A further £133 million was allocated to the criminal justice system to help to break the links between
  924
  drug misuse and crime. We have also advertised for an extra 300 counsellors, and we hope shortly to start training them. Treatment is one of our areas of focus.
  The second part of my hon. Friend's question was about the international front. He is right to suggest that drugs do not recognise national boundaries. We are working effectively across the services within the United Kingdom to stop drugs entering the country, and we are working in co-operation with Europe and OECD countries to maximise the effectiveness of international groups. Last night, I returned from Colombia, from which 80 per cent. of the cocaine consumed in this country comes. I went there to see what we could do to work with the Colombians to help to decrease the flow of drugs.
  Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): Will the Minister tell us whether the strategy is yet scoring any successes in reducing the amount of drug use? As police resources become ever more stretched, police forces often do not pursue drug offences. They follow up other offences that are more likely to be reported to them. Drug offences tend not to be reported to the police, so they have to take a proactive approach to such offences.
  Marjorie Mowlam: There are signs that we are making progress slowly. We have a 10-year strategy because, as we have frequently said, we shall not be able to deal with the problem overnight. Referrals in the prison system for offences and some of the figures—the figures in different reports often contradict each other—show that, overall, the trend is that we are making progress in dealing with the problems of young people and reoffending in prisons. Police forces are doing a good job in focusing on the killer drugs—heroin and cocaine—so I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the evidence that I have suggests that we are making progress. However, we have a 10-year strategy because dealing with the problem will take time.

  Drugs (Confiscation of Profits)
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will make a statement about her plans to improve the system of confiscation of the profits accruing from drug-related crime. [124263]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this morning in response to a question for written answer from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), we have today published the performance and innovation unit report on "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime". Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and Libraries of the House.
  The report sets out the Government's rigorous new approach to attacking crime through its finances. The measures that we are announcing will improve the confiscation process for all crimes, including those related to drugs. We will draw up the first ever cross-cutting strategy with annual reporting on progress; we will set up a new national confiscation agency containing a centre of excellence in financial investigation to drive through the new strategy and deliver increased levels of training;

  925
  and we will work with our international partners to drive up standards of financial regulation and to bring pressure to bear on the non-co-operative jurisdictions.
  Mr. Dalyell: Can that strategy deal with the problem of drug traffickers who have managed somehow to dissociate themselves directly from drug trafficking itself?
  Mr. McCartney: Yes, absolutely. First, in criminal law, those on indictment for serious crimes will, for the first time ever, be obliged to put details of their assets before the court, which will then determine the process for seizing or freezing those assets before any trial.
  Secondly, the use of means other than the criminal law, such as taxation and other forms of confiscation, will improve the situation dramatically, as people will have to prove that their assets have been gained legally, and not through illegal activity. When illegal activity has occurred and has been proven by the courts, those assets will be liable to confiscation.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: We welcome moves to improve the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. Surely, however, we are not talking just about the profits of crime. Is the Minister aware that substantial powers already exist under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995? As courts already have those powers, is the reason why more confiscations are not being made that there is insufficient funding for the extensive financial investigations required?
  Mr. McCartney: It is typical of the party of Michael Ashcroft that Conservative Members cannot give an absolute commitment to deal with the return of resources. Those powers are available to the courts at present. However, the problem is that the law is complex and is located in three separate legislative processes. We are bringing those processes together in a single process. In addition, we are giving the courts new powers and there will be a new organisation to seek out and to seize those assets, which is a major improvement. We are resolutely committed to disrupting, undermining and closing down criminal enterprises, unlike the previous Government.
  Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): Is it not the case that the Inland Revenue has powers to enforce the removal of assets? As long ago as 1996, the Office for National Statistics estimated that the income generated from drugs, prostitution, the sale of stolen goods and illegal gambling was in excess of £11 billion. Could we not do more to rationalise the tax legislation, to make those powers more effective and to encourage the Inland Revenue to work more closely with the law enforcement agencies?
  Mr. McCartney: The report makes recommendations, along the precise lines mentioned by my hon. Friend, which deal with money laundering and the role of the Inland Revenue in working with our criminal intelligence organisations and our law enforcement agencies. Nobody—but nobody—who has an income should fail to pay tax on it. The reality is that the Mr. Bigs of crime normally have assets involving huge sums of money and other resources gained from criminal activity, but they do not pay tax on them. The system will change radically.
  926
  Action in civil and criminal law will feature, as will action in the tax system. We should remember that Al Capone eventually came to his end through non-payment of tax.

  Rural Affairs
  Miss Anne McIntosh: If she will make a statement on her role in co-ordinating Government policies on rural affairs. [124264]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): I chair the ministerial rural affairs group, which co-ordinates Government policy on rural issues. I have no direct responsibility for any specific area of rural policy, but my Committee co-ordinates the work of other Departments to ensure that the policy is fully implemented.
  Miss McIntosh: Following the Prime Minister's famous speech to the Women's Institute, in which he did not once refer to farming or the countryside, will the Minister instigate a review of Government policies on the countryside, those who live there and rural affairs in general? What future can the Government offer to those who live in the country? What will happen about the high cost of petrol and the crisis in farming? What future is possible for village shops and rural post offices?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Many of the topics covered in the Prime Minister's speech inevitably affect rural areas. There are no separate policies for rural and urban areas: all our policies, including the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, are for urban and rural areas. I therefore deny the hon. Lady's point. She asked for more work to be done on rural areas. A rural White Paper is being drawn up and is being consulted on. It will shortly be published, along with the urban White Paper.
  I find it difficult to take lessons from Opposition Members on dealing with rural areas, considering what we inherited. When we came to government, 30 small schools in rural areas closed every year and only one in four parishes had any transport at all. Since then, we have put in £40 million so that small schools can stay open. We have put more than £100 million into improving rural transport, and 1,800 new rural routes have been created since we came into government. We are also ensuring that the new deal offers alternative training and employment. I can therefore guarantee that what the hon. Lady has asked for is already happening and is much more than what we inherited from the previous Government.
  Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): Is my right hon. Friend aware of the scale of the task that confronts the Government in regenerating rural communities? Is she aware that, under the Conservatives, between 1982 and 1997, 450 village schools closed, and that our record in government is the closure of six schools since 1997? Is she aware that the deregulation of buses led to 86 per cent. of my parishes in Shropshire being deprived of a daily bus service? Is she aware that privatisation of the railways led to the deletion of the Shrewsbury-Telford to London intercity service in 1992? Is she aware that nine cottage hospitals closed in Shropshire and that 18 rural—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman applied for an Adjournment debate on this

  927
  subject. It is for that reason that I gave him an opportunity to ask one question. I think that he has done rather well and I must ask for a response now.
  Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing with his Back-Bench committee on rural affairs. Its members have brought a number of specific best practices from their constituencies that we as a Government have considered. I hope that they will see many of the results that they are looking for in the rural White Paper. We are making an effort to join up Government Department's initiatives to make a real difference in rural communities.
  Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Will the Minister deal with specific questions in relation to organic food production? Can she give an undertaking on behalf of her group that, across government, there will be positive action to deal with the potential contamination of organic crops by genetically modified crops? Can she give an undertaking that she will tackle the trade imbalance? She will be aware that three quarters of the organic food available to consumers in this country is imported. Can she give an undertaking that that situation will be addressed and that specific targets will be included in the rural White Paper?
  Marjorie Mowlam: The comments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment yesterday were a straightforward, clear statement of the nature of the risk and how it operates. I fully concur with those comments.
  As for organic farming, we inherited a difficult situation. It is all very well for Opposition Members to say what we should be doing. It would have been much easier if we had inherited a better based policy. In 1998, only £1 million was available to help farmers become organic. Last year, we put £11 million in. We are looking in the rural development plan to spend £140 million over the next seven years to help the transformation to organic farming. So an effort is being made to help farmers who want to join the organic farming scheme. We are clearly working towards an increase in organic farming.
  Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that what is important—
  Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. I insist that Ministers as well as Members make it a brisk exchange. That is really what it is all about.
  Tony Wright: Everyone in rural areas and elsewhere will have welcomed the Government's decision to ask the performance and innovation unit to have a look at the future of the Post Office. Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to tell the House when the report is likely to appear?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific date, but I can assure him that, alongside what my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness has done, we will look carefully at the PIU report. In view of previous reports, I hope that some constructive suggestions and lateral thinking will come out of it to help post offices. We are determined to do all that we can in addition to the 50 per cent. rate relief that we already offer
  928
  and all the other efforts that we are making, including extra money for e-commerce and financial services, to ensure that post offices stay open in rural areas.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Lady accept that in some areas, especially hill areas, there is a real rural crisis? Subsistence farmers have negative incomes and many small businesses have suffered the knock-on effects. Can she confirm that, in her role as co-ordinator of Government policy, she will co-operate with Ministers in the National Assembly for Wales to produce an integrated policy to tackle those problems?
  Marjorie Mowlam: As I said, we are more than willing to work alongside Ministers from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises that it is a two-way street.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): Does the Minister realise that the role of sub-post offices in rural areas is vital, that 383 of them have closed in the past financial year and that, as chairman of the Rural Affairs Group, she has a classic opportunity to bang heads together in the Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, of Trade and Industry and of Social Security? Will she therefore pledge today that the rural White Paper will include a commitment to maintain the network of rural sub-post offices?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I pledge today that we will work as hard as we are doing—not, as the hon. Gentleman's party suggested, to privatise post offices, but to support them. We have already given them 50 per cent. rate relief. We are committed to protecting the rural network, even though, as I readily acknowledge, some sub-post offices have closed. We regret every one that closes because that limits the possibilities for rural communities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness has made it clear that we are committed to ensuring a future for the post offices and, at the moment, we are providing access to financial services, e-commerce and Government services. We are investing a lot to ensure that the Post Office network is viable in future.
  Mr. Bill Olner: When my right hon. Friend looks into rural affairs, will she ensure that the truth is told about how many jobs may be lost if hunting is banned?
  Marjorie Mowlam: The Burns report did exactly that. The facts are there; we hope that hon. Members read them. There will be a free vote so that hon. Members on both sides of the House may vote the way that they want.

  Criminals (Confiscation of Assets)
  Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): What representations she has received from the performance and innovation unit on proposals to confiscate the assets of criminals. [124265]
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr. Ian McCartney): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
  Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister now answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for

  929
  Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and confirm that powers to confiscate the assets of drug dealers were introduced under the previous Government by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and that the Prime Minister's recent pronouncements on the subject, before the PIU had reported to the House, were just a cynical and desperate attempt to seize back the agenda from the Conservative party, which has tough and common-sense policies on law and order, by a Government who talk tough on crime but act weak?
  Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman's comments show just how out of touch the Conservative party is. If he had read the report, he would realise that we are going further than the previous Government ever attempted. We are interested not just in drugs barons, but in all big-time criminals. The proposals will lead to the confiscation of their assets, whatever the crime—whether it is their house, cars, antiques, money or resources that they try to siphon off to members of their family. At last, the Government are on the side of the citizen and not, like Conservative Members, on the side of the criminal.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister might withdraw that last remark.
  Mr. McCartney: I withdraw it, but it was in the context of the final comment made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton). His party could have dealt with the matter but refused to do so.
  Mr. Jim Murphy: In considering the seizing of criminal assets, will my right hon. Friend ensure that tough action and suspension of assets occur not at the end of a court case but at the beginning? Further to that, will confiscation of drug dealers' assets apply not just to drug dealers themselves, but to close family and close acquaintances, to whom money might have been siphoned off?
  Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The issue is whether the assets are gained from illegal activity. Whatever assets criminals attempt to hide will not matter; if it is proven that they are the ill-gotten gains of criminal activity, we will seize them.

  Knowledge Network
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: If the information held on the knowledge network computer system will be available to the public on the internet. [124266]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer): My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has made it clear in written answers to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire
  930
  (Mr. Lansley) that as much information as possible that is held on the knowledge network will be made available to the public.
  Mr. Grieve: I understood the right hon. Lady to tell the House on 8 March that all the information on the knowledge network would be put on the net. Indeed, she provided a precise reassurance to hon. Members to that effect. What or who has made her change her mind?
  Mr. Stringer: All the information that it is possible to put on the net will be put on the net. Clearly, some of the information that will be held on the knowledge network will be commercially confidential, and it would be wrong of this Government or any other Government to make that information available on the net.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): The hon. Gentleman has not answered my hon. Friend's question. The right hon. Lady said:
  All the work done in that unit will be put on the net so there will be no question of work being done that even the hon. Gentleman—
  that is a reference to me—
  will not see.—[Official Report, 8 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 993.]
  Why cannot the hon. Gentleman simply restate what his right hon. Friend said: all the work that is being done will be put on the net? Otherwise, the House and the wider public will know that, as in so many other respects, the work being done inside government is being used for party political purposes, for the Labour party's gain.
  Mr. Stringer: The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly wish us to put commercially sensitive information on the net. The Government whom he supported did not do that. In his evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration, Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, made it clear that the knowledge network would not be used for party political purposes. [Interruption.] I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman gets it wrong and carries on chuntering. He supports a party that left the Government's IT in the neolithic age. When the Conservative Government left office, it was not possible for Departments even to communicate with one another by e-mail, so it is not surprising that the hon. Gentleman is ignorant of what is going on.

  Drugs Action Teams
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of drugs action teams in shire counties. [124267]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The effectiveness of drugs action teams is measured by an annual planning and reporting process based on plans and reports submitted by each drugs action team. The analysis of this year's plans and reports is currently under way and will be published shortly.
  Mr. Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is extremely difficult for a single anti-drugs co-ordinator to drive forward multi-agency work across a large shire county where the main population centres are spread around? Does she agree that we need additional sub-co-ordinators in population centres such as Lowestoft

  931
  in Suffolk to spearhead local action? Drugs are still a huge problem in town and country. Do we not need to do even more at local level, including allocating more money for treatment?
  Marjorie Mowlam: As I said in answer to Question 1, we have already increased this year's spending, particularly for treatment. From the reports of the drugs action teams in my hon. Friend's constituency, it is clear that increased provision for treatment is desperately needed. That is in hand. Whether the local drugs action teams decide to have regional co-ordinators is a decision for them. What we are doing is joining up government nationally, but not telling the teams what to do locally. We are recommending various methods that have been shown to work in some districts, and letting them choose.
  Mr. John Bercow: Is not the effectiveness of drugs action teams' work in shire counties indirectly but inextricably bound up with the deterrent impact of successful police investigations? To that end, what assessment has the right hon. Lady made of the criteria for and the resources available to surveillance operations?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Co-ordination in large shire counties is not always difficult. I visited two recently, and both were excellent examples. If the hon. Gentleman has identified specific problems in his own county, I am most willing to look into them. On his final point, we are co-ordinating across security, police and other groups whose task is to stop the drugs coming in. We are also co-ordinating on prevention, education and more education in schools to make sure that we attack drugs from every possible angle.

  Drugs (Rural Areas)
  Charlotte Atkins (Staffordshire, Moorlands): What progress is being made on combating the increase in illegal drug use, with particular reference to rural areas. [124269]
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Marjorie Mowlam): The Government's 10-year strategy, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", is designed to combat drug misuse in all parts of the United Kingdom, urban or rural.
  Charlotte Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety in rural areas about the increase in drug abuse? Will she outline the measures that she is taking to ensure the expansion of treatment centres in rural areas?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I am well aware of the anxiety in rural areas. Again, the problem is both urban and rural. Drugs are not confined to the urban or the rural communities. We are doing our best, through the central direct treatment agency, to ensure that the need in urban and rural areas is fulfilled. We have advertised for 300 additional counsellors, whom we shall train, initially to make it possible for treatment to increase.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  [124291] Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 June.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be hold further such meetings later today.
  Mr. Atkinson: Does the Prime Minister recall the letter that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I sent him last month to seek his personal interest in the anxieties of resort authorities, such as those in our constituencies, that wish to play their part in the national dispersal scheme for asylum seekers but are experiencing specific problems with their placement in our core tourist areas? Will the Government respond positively to the representations that they have received from the Local Government Association to give local control to local authorities for placing asylum seekers in their areas? That would also be in the best interests of the refugees, because it would mean the efficient provision of the education and social services that they need.
  The Prime Minister: It is precisely for that reason that we are working closely with the Local Government Association. We must have a proper system for dispersal. However, it is important that we do it in consultation with the local authorities. We are doing that.
  [124292] Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West): Is the Prime Minister aware that when the Minister with responsibility for pensions addressed the Scottish Pensioners Forum, he received a similar reception to that of the Prime Minister at the Women's Institute? Bearing in mind the fact that many pensioners view the 75p increase as an insult, will the Prime Minister try to ensure a fairer deal for all pensioners by restoring the link between pensions and earnings, which was introduced by the last Labour Government and abolished by the Tories?
  The Prime Minister: I hope very much that my hon. Friend—the hon. Gentleman—takes account of the fact that we have given pensioners the winter fuel allowance, which will be £150 this autumn, that 1 million pensioners will be better off by £20 a week through the minimum income guarantee, that we are providing free television licences for the over-75s and free eye tests for pensioners, and that the cut on VAT in fuel also helps pensioners. Yes, we have much more to do, but we will have spent £6.5 billion on pensioners in this Parliament. When pensioners realise that, they will know who the true friends of pensioners are, and who are their true enemies.
  Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): Now that we have one faction of the Cabinet—the Trade Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Agriculture Minister and the Northern Ireland Secretary—who want the Government to campaign for joining the euro now, and another faction—

  933
  the Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Education and Employment Secretary—who want to keep it quiet and join by stealth, when will the Prime Minister get a grip, end the Cabinet confusion and stop his Cabinet Ministers fighting like ferrets in a sack?
  The Prime Minister: On the idea that we intend to join the single currency by stealth, the Labour party promises a referendum—that is a curious form of stealth. The policy has been set out on numerous occasions by me, the Chancellor and the other Ministers: in principle, we are in favour a successful single currency; in practice, the economic conditions must be fulfilled.
  Mr. Hague: Everyone else in the country knows that the Cabinet is divided. This Cabinet is out of date. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not know that times have changed; it is this Cabinet that is divided. We knew that the right hon. Gentleman was out of touch with the country; now he is even out of touch with his own Cabinet. The Trade Secretary said:
  We have to be putting the case for the euro.
  The Northern Ireland Secretary said:
  As long as we're outside the euro, there's little we can do to protect industry—
  to which the Chancellor's response was to send out his spin doctor to say:
  The Northern Ireland Secretary has the economic intelligence of a pea …
  Do not tell us that they are not divided. The factions are at each other's throats. Which faction will the right hon. Gentleman follow?
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from the Trade Secretary's speech, let me quote it in full if I may. He said:
  We will judge if the five tests have been met early in the next Parliament. If the economic tests are satisfied, then we should join the single currency—if that is what the Government, Parliament and the people decide.
  That is the policy of the Government. It is entirely consistent with what the Chancellor said:
  The potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency are obvious in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability.—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 583.]
  The two are entirely consistent. If we are dealing, however, with divisions on the single currency—and not just on the single currency, but on Europe—let me quote what the former Prime Minister, my predecessor, said the other day:
  Sadly, the basic case for being in the EU once again needs making. To be pro-European does not mean being anti-British—indeed I would argue the precise reverse.
  It is a pity that because the right hon. Gentleman wants to get cash out of a few donors for the Conservative party, those sentiments are no longer shared by him.
  Mr. Hague: Our policy on the euro is settled— [Interruption.] That is because I lead my party and the right hon. Gentleman now follows his. The Prime Minister wrote yesterday that he thought that the euro was a great success. He now courageously uses articles to say things because people cannot slow handclap an article. He is spending tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money preparing to join the euro. He is telling business
  934
  to spend hundreds of millions preparing to join the euro. He obviously wants to join the euro, so when will he put his mouth where he puts other people's money and risk his own capital campaigning to join the euro?
  The Prime Minister: First, the money that has been spent—the majority of it—has been spent on preparing British business for the fact that the euro will be a fact and that the notes and coins will be in circulation, but, as I understood it, the Opposition's policy was to rule it out in principle, but only for a Parliament.
  Mr. Sykes said today that he was in the "never" camp on a single currency, and that was where the majority of Conservative MPs were. I believe that it is sensible to keep the option open for this country and give people a choice in a referendum. That is different from a political party that has now been bought by someone who wants to take this country to the margins of Europe, because the right hon. Gentleman does not have the strength to stand up to his Euro-sceptics.
  Mr. Hague: Is not the real reason that the Government are in such chaos on the euro spelled out in the memo written by the right hon. Gentleman's chief guru, Philip Gould? It reads:
  From Philip to Alastair.
  Once again TB is pandering, lacking conviction, unable to hold to a position for more than a few weeks, lacking the guts to be able to tough it out …
  [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen; the Labour party spent a lot of money on that advice. It says:
  TB … lacks conviction, he's all spin and presentation, he just says things to please people not because he believes them. TB has not delivered. He is out of touch.
  Does TB agree with that, or is it just the rest of us?
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is not careful, I shall read out what focus groups say about him. [Interruption.] I shall spare him that. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Valuable time is being used up.
  The Prime Minister: I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would like to congratulate the Government on delivery. Under this Government, there are now 978,000 more jobs in the economy—210,000 of them under the new deal, which he is committed to scrapping.
  Mr. Hague: Change the subject when one is losing—we all know that tactic. We would be delighted if the Prime Minister read out the comments of his focus groups because we could then ask for the whole document to be placed in the Library, and that would be very interesting.
  Is not the truth now coming from some of Labour's own Back Benchers? The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent. Central (Mr. Fisher) said that
  this Government is arrogant. It's all glitz.
  The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said that
  the Government's all presentation, it's missing the big picture.

  935
  They have joined the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in accurately describing the Government.
  The Prime Minister started with every political advantage, and now he has squandered that advantage with spin, gimmick and a failure to deliver. Is it not the case that he has run out of steam and is running out of time, and if he carries on like this he will be run out of office?
  The Prime Minister: Let us compare records on delivery. I have referred to the 1 million more jobs. We have halved long-term unemployment, 1 million people have been lifted out of poverty, there are 5,500 more nurses, and £6 billion has been spent on school buildings. What did the right hon. Gentleman do in office? The national debt doubled, crime doubled, child poverty trebled and pension poverty doubled.
  The right hon. Gentleman challenged me to read out the comments of the focus groups, so I shall read their comments about him. They say he is "boring", "false", "he irritates me greatly", "pathetic", "drip", "non-entity", "no substance", "no personality", "no stage presence", "complete waste of time", "no policies" and, at the end,
  very unimpressive team, particularly William Hague.
  Hon. Members: More.
  Madam Speaker: Order. We shall proceed. I call Mr. Rammell.
  [124294] Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister share my genuine horror at yesterday's UNICEF report, which showed that, in 1995, 20 per cent. of British children were living in families below the official poverty line? That report also highlighted the importance of policies such as the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and the new deal, which the report's authors independently acknowledge will lift 1 million British children out of poverty by 2002. Would not the liberation of those children from poverty be put most at risk by a return of a Conservative Government, because it was Conservative policies that put them into poverty in the first place?
  The Prime Minister: The UNICEF report said that the independent study confirms the Government's estimate that the measures currently being implemented will lift 1.2 million British children out of poverty by April 2002. That is through the increases in child benefit, the working families tax credit, the minimum wage, the new deal and the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. The Conservative party is committed to reversing every one of those policies. Everyone now knows that the Labour party exists to lift children out of poverty, and the Conservative party exists to put them in it.
  Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): Is the Prime Minister aware that among the many problems suffered by the children and the families of children who are victims of NHS vaccine damage, perhaps one of the most galling is that they do not receive one penny in payment if they are assessed as having under 80 per cent. physical or mental incapacity as a result of
  936
  that damage? More than three years ago, he and his party, in opposition, promised a review. That review has been under way for three years. When will it report?
  The Prime Minister: It has not been under way for three years, but it is true that we are reviewing the position and we will be able to make a statement on it shortly. We are aware of the huge concern on this, but we have had to deal with many other priorities, too. We have tried to deal with those priorities, but we are reviewing the situation in respect of vaccine damage. As I say, we hope to make an announcement shortly.
  Mr. Kennedy: Surely it does not take three years of a Labour Government to recognise a basic injustice and to put it right. Is there any truth in the idea that the Chancellor and the Treasury have been blocking other Ministers' desire to come up with a full and fair settlement? Is it not about time—three years later—that a Labour Government should be delivering what Labour put its name to in opposition?
  The Prime Minister: No, it is not true to say that, but we have done many other things—for example, in respect of the health service—that we did not even promise before an election. The accident and emergency departments of all the hospitals that want to be renovated will be refurbished by the end of this year, there are 5,500 extra nurses, and the health service has the largest settlement in its history. I hope that by the time we publish the NHS plan in July people see that we have a truly radical and progressive future for the health service guaranteed.
  Vaccine damage is of course important. We have not been looking at it for three years; that is simply not true. We have been studying it, however, and we will make an announcement shortly.
  [124295] Mr. Barry Gardiner (Brent, North): Why is it that, according to the House of Commons Library, my right hon. Friend's Government are spending £4.1 billion on providing for some of the poorest people in our community? Could it be because today's unemployment figures show a decrease of more than 500,000 in the number of people unemployed and an increase of almost 1 million new jobs in the economy and because this Government are creating pathways out of poverty for the people of this country?
  The Prime Minister: In fact, as a result of the measures that the Government have taken and of the falls in unemployment and the rise in employment, which is also very important, there is a welfare saving of some £8 billion over the Parliament. Indeed, if we take out the increases for pensioners, child benefit and the working families tax credit, which are deliberate increases in the social security budget, it is falling in real terms whereas under the Conservatives it rose by an average of 4 per cent. in real terms every year. The reason it is important is not merely to make sure that we get more people into work, but because, with the money saved from the welfare costs, we can put additional resources into schools and hospitals, which the Conservatives could not.
  Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): Would it help to resolve the difficult dispute in the Government on the euro if the Prime Minister told his

  937
  Ministers simply to tell the truth—namely, that since Britain decided not to join and despite the Government's damaging policies, the British economy has done particularly well and that despite our being told that the euro would go like a rocket, it has gone forward as a damp squib?
  The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for two things: first, for saying that the British economy is doing particularly well and, secondly, for reminding us of the state of the Conservative party and what used to happen in the days when it was in office. I disagree with him about the euro; but, more important, one thing that has not emerged from our exchanges today is that the Conservative party is now committed to a referendum on any change whatever from the Nice treaty. That is part of the deal with Mr. Sykes. What is more, the Conservative party has now said that it would revisit any treaty signed by this country and subject it to a referendum. The effect of that would be to stop the whole enlargement process in Europe. We have only to have the hon. Gentleman up on his feet to know what life used to be like when we were at the margins of Europe and the Conservative party was split asunder.
  [124298] Mr. John Heppell (Nottingham, East): Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming yesterday's announcement that Capital One was doubling its work force in Nottingham, thus creating an extra 1,200 jobs in my constituency, in which unemployment is still double the national average?
  As the Government have got unemployment down to its lowest level in 20 years, can the Prime Minister confirm reports I have heard today that the shadow Chancellor is now a supporter of full employment—and that Hannibal Lecter is now a vegetarian?
  The Prime Minister: I welcome the announcement of jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency. Of course, there is a lot of industrial restructuring at present, which means that jobs change a lot; but we very much welcome the new jobs that there are, and of course we welcome the great fall in unemployment. As for the shadow Chancellor's comments, they would be more credible were it not for the fact that he is committed to scrapping the new deal, which has helped more than 200,000 people into work.
  Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire): As the Liberal Democrats fight such scurrilous personalised campaigns, what is the moral justification for the Prime Minister's love-in with them?
  Hon. Members: Tory gain.
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry; I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Madam Speaker: Let us hear the question again. I did not hear it either. [Interruption.] Order. Let us all hear it.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I may have forgotten it.
  938
  As the Liberal Democrats fight such scurrilous personalised campaigns, what is the moral justification for the Prime Minister's love-in with them?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has a problem with Liberal campaigns, he should take it up with the Liberal party, but I have always thought it sensible to work with people when there is agreement on certain issues.
  [124299] Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will recall the Conservatives' prediction that 2 million jobs would be lost if we introduced the national minimum wage Despite what they said, we introduced it, and every Labour Member of Parliament is particularly proud of what we did. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what the level of unemployment was on 1 April last year, when we introduced the national minimum wage, and what it is today?
  The Prime Minister: Unemployment has, of course, fallen, but, perhaps more important, employment has increased by more than 300,000 since the introduction of the national minimum wage. The Conservative party predictions on the minimum wage were wrong; the Conservative party predictions on the recession were wrong; and I think that some of the other Conservative party predictions being made at the moment about Tory gains are probably wrong too.
  [124300] Mr. Nick Gibb: Can the Prime Minister confirm that 2,700 convicted drug dealers, 2,500 violent criminals and 1,800 convicted burglars have been given early special release from prison by his Government? Many of those people have since reoffended. Is not this revolving-door policy proof that the Prime Minister's pre-election claim to be tough on crime is nothing more than another example of his tendency to say one thing and do another?
  The Prime Minister: First, the prison population has increased, not diminished, under this Government. Secondly, it is we who introduced tougher penalties for rape, violent crime and burglary. Those whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned are on licence in any event, and the proposal had until recently won support across the House.
  Mr. Roger Casale: Is it not rather offensive that the multimillionaire business man Paul Sykes should be wheeling and dealing with the Conservative party in order to lock in its extreme position on Europe? Furthermore, is there not a crass contradiction when someone who purports to lead a democracy movement wants to win influence on the strength of his pocket book rather than his arguments? Will the Prime Minister join me in saluting the hundreds and thousands of people across Britain, whatever their political persuasion, who make small donations to political parties and help to pay the cost of our politics without paying the price of undermining our democracy?
  The Prime Minister: As I say, Mr. Sykes is entitled to spend his money in any way that he wants; but the price of his money has been the proposals on referendums made over the weekend by the shadow Foreign Secretary

  939
  and the Leader of the Opposition. Those proposals would mean that a referendum would be held on literally any change whatever in Europe. That policy could not possibly withstand sensible scrutiny.
  I hope that one is still to allowed to quote the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Deputy Prime Minister. He said:
  A motley crew of "Britain's outers" and "wholesale renegotiators" devote their extremist energies to the one more heave … that they believe will reverse what they see as the wrong-headed judgments of all recent Conservative Prime Ministers.
  The truth is that the Conservative party has moved further away from any position adopted by any previous Conservative Minister. [Interruption.] Conservative Back-Bench Members shout back at me, but some Conservatives at least must see what has happened to Conservative policy in the past few days and worry for the future of the Conservative party as a sensible party with sensible policies on Europe.
  [124301] Sir Archie Hamilton: Now that, the Prime Minister's official spokesman has let it be known that he will be working part-time so that he can concentrate on developing policies for the Labour party, will his civil service salary of £96,000 be cut, pro rata?
  The Prime Minister: First, people complain about too much spin, then they complain that my spokesman is snubbing the media. I have the figures for special advisers, as I thought that I might be asked about them by the Conservative party. It is correct
  that, since the election, an additional £2 million has been spent on advisers in Downing street. An additional £2 million has also been given to the Conservative party, so I think that we are about even.
  Mr. Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend will be aware that hon. Members have recently had the opportunity to visit the millennium wheel, but he may not be aware that that magnificent showcase of engineering and manufacturing was constructed in my constituency of Corby. Whereas the Conservative party continually carps about and runs down British workers and manufacturing, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to join me in congratulating the work force, engineers and designers in Corby who have built this world-famous showcase of British manufacturing?
  The Prime Minister: I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on their magnificent effort, and British manufacturing on its success in that regard. What manufacturers remember is what happened in the early 1990s, when the very economic policies that the Conservative party espouses today were tried. We had 1 million manufacturing jobs go, interest rates at 10 per cent. for four years, a national debt double what it is now, and we had—
  Mr. Bob Russell: Boom and bust.
  The Prime Minister: We had boom and bust.
  [124302] Mr. Tony Baldry: The Prime Minister has had the proposals from. Lord Wakeham's commission on the House of Lords before him for some
  940
  considerable time, but nothing has happened. Will he give an undertaking to the House and to the country that, well before the next general election, the Labour party will come clean about what it intends to do by way of long-term reform of the House of Lords? It seems rather strange that the Government can bring forward proposals on matters such as fox hunting, yet do not seem to have time to bring forward sensible, long-lasting proposals on reform of the upper House.
  The Prime Minister: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. There is a debate on that matter on Monday, and the Labour party will of course make its position at the next election clear in its manifesto.
  Angela Smith: The Prime Minister may not have had the opportunity to read the Basildon Evening Echo, but will he take a look at it, as the Tory-led Essex county council is currently reviewing its meals on wheels service? It proposes that two weeks' worth of food should be delivered, frozen and in advance, to pensioners whom it has deemed are unable to cook meals for themselves or are a danger to others if they do so. Will he suggest to Essex county council that, even though it is Tory-led, it has a responsibility to put the needs of the vulnerable first? Will he also suggest that it might cut its budget for the chairman's champagne reception before it cuts pensioners' meals?
  The Prime Minister: That is the real face of the Conservative party—no one should ever forget it. The Conservatives cut money and services going to the poorest people in our country. The Tory party has always stood for the few and not the many, and it always will.
  [124304] Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): Is the Prime Minister aware that Cornish schoolchildren receive £250 a head less under the existing formula than the average for England, despite the need to provide services across scattered rural communities? When will the funding formula for local authorities properly reflect the special needs of rural areas, especially areas such as Cornwall?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the particular statistic that the hon. Gentleman has just given me, but he will be aware that, as a result of the additional money that we have given to schools, the amount of funding per pupil in Cornwall—as elsewhere in the country—will have risen considerably under this Government, having been cut under the previous Government.
  I understand that each part of the country argues about the fairness or unfairness of its settlement, and we have to balance those competing claims. However, what cannot be disputed is that under this Government the funding per pupil and the extra money going into school buildings is rising, but under the previous Government it was cut. There is a lot more still to be done, but we at least have never returned to the days of the Conservative party in government.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Damian Green: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Yesterday afternoon, while the House was discussing the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the Government issued a press release that gave details of significant changes to the Bill in the context of the protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty—a subject that was discussed at length in Committee. They further announced to the press that they would not bring those amendments before this House, but would table them in the other place. Even by the standards of this Government, that is breathtaking contempt for the House and a clear sign of the Government's desire to avoid democratic scrutiny of their legislation. Have you been given any indication of how the Government intend to rectify this latest insult to the House of Commons?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order, but I do not think that the matter about which he has complained to me calls for a ruling from the Chair. Nothing irregular has occurred and the House will have an opportunity, in due course, to consider the amendments that will be tabled in the House of Lords.

BILLS PRESENTED
  INVALID CARE ALLOWANCE
  Mr. Paul Burstow, supported by Dr. Jenny Tonge and Mr. Tom Brake, presented a Bill to establish a commission of inquiry into whether carers' entitlement to invalid care allowance should continue to be determined by reference to the benefit entitlement of the person cared for and whether persons who have attained the age of 65 should be entitled to receive the allowance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 141].
  DISCIPLINE OF HOSPITAL MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS
  Mr. Jim Cunningham presented a Bill to make provision for new procedures for the discipline of hospital medical practitioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 142].

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Railtrack (Waverley Station) Order Confirmation Act 2000

Representation of Overseas Territories
3.33 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the representation of Gibraltar by a Member of Parliament, subject to limitations, and for limited representation of other overseas territories at the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; to include Gibraltar within a European parliamentary constituency; to confer upon Chief Ministers the right to petition the House of Commons at the bar of the House; to improve for elected members of the Legislative Councils access to and communications with Members of the House of Commons; and for related purposes.
The Bill would remedy a democratic deficit that diminishes our capacity to scrutinise the role of the Foreign Office and other Government Departments in relation to overseas territories and denies to people who are British citizens, or who have been promised British citizenship but have yet to have it delivered, the right to be represented in their national legislature. It is important to bear in mind the fact that while overseas territories have local legislatures for their domestic matters, ultimately this is their Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is their Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is their Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is their Secretary of State for Defence, and they have the right to be heard in this place in respect of the competencies of those Ministers and to be able to complain.
The overseas territories are now small in number. They pepper the globe, and their populations are also relatively small. However, there is no reason why they should not have access to this place and be represented. That is what parts I and II of my Bill seek to achieve. I want to give the opportunity to representatives of those overseas territories to able to come to this Parliament and probe the Government, to table parliamentary questions, to seek Adjournment debates, to request statements and to complain. It is time we enabled them to do that.
I know that the Minister will be persuaded by the argument that such facilities for overseas territories are provided by democracies comparable with the United Kingdom. In its Congress, the United States allows a non-voting delegate for the smaller territories of Guam, the United States Virgin islands and Samoa, and it makes similar provision for larger territories under its jurisdiction, such as Puerto Rico.
France makes similar provision for its territories in the Pacific and in the Caribbean. People from those territories are represented in France's National Assembly. Spain makes similar provision, as does the Netherlands. We really do have to recognise that we are failing those to whom we owe British citizenship.
The House will recall that, not long ago, a volcano blew up in Montserrat, and that there was great controversy about whether the British Government's stewardship and response to it were fair or appropriate. Although I do not wish today to trespass on that matter—indeed, I am not qualified to make a judgment on it—I believe that the people of Montserrat had the right to come to this place and to be able to complain. My Bill would give them that right. It would also provide Ministers with the ability to use the appropriate forum for answering the questions of the representatives of our territories.

943
The injustice is not limited to our relations with Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Falklands, Turks and Caicos, St. Helena and Montserrat—the treatment of Gibraltar stands out as a glaring injustice and anomaly. Although Gibraltar is within the geographical jurisdiction of the North Atlantic treaty and of the European Union, it is frequently traduced by Spain and by other parties. Even in this place, one occasionally hears informal, unfair complaints about Gibraltar's competence. It seems to me not only that such complaints should be uttered on the Floor of the House, but that a Member of Parliament from Gibraltar should be able to respond to them.
I am seeking not a representative who can table questions about Sedgefield or Thurrock, but people who would be able to table questions on Gibraltar or on other overseas territories defence issues, foreign affairs issues and other issues that have demonstrable ramifications for them all.
Those of us who have been privileged to go to Gibraltar or to other overseas territories as guests of the domestic parliament or Government have been impressed by the loyalty that they show to the United Kingdom. It is important to remember that, if and when the United Kingdom goes to war, those territories' local legislatures cannot pass a resolution saying, "If you don't mind awfully, we'll sit this one out." They are locked in: they have to go to war. They do go to war. Funnily enough, when we go to war, British Governments suddenly decide that our territories are important. Recognition of our territories is long overdue.
My Bill will also enable Chief Ministers to be able to petition the House at the Bar. Such a right is not unprecedented. The old Dublin corporation was allowed to make use of it, as I believe the City of London corporation is still allowed to do. I would not be happy if the City of London exercised the right, but I would certainly be pleased if the Ministers of overseas territories—particularly the very small ones, with a population of a few hundred people—not only felt able to come to the House, but had the right to send a representative here.
My Bill also addresses the important issue—its importance was recently impressed on the Minister in a recent debate in Westminster Hall, as it was on all of us who visited and were hosted by Gibraltar on its national day—of the need immediately to extend to Gibraltar the franchise for European parliamentary elections. It is an issue which the House needs to address not just before the next European elections, but now.
I remind Ministers that, after the Government were elected, we had a debate in which I argued that the franchise should be extended to Gibraltar. Ministers made a twofold reply to my argument: first, extension was not necessary; secondly, extension was not possible in law. Of course, as so often happens, Ministers were proved wrong in the courts. They have now altered their tune, saying that the time is not right to extend the franchise and that they have to consult Spain and the European Union on it. That reply is not good enough.
944
Although I am described as what I believe is called a Europhile, one belief that I share with hon. Members on both sides of the House who hold differing views on Europe is that the power and duty to decide whom we should include on our electoral roll are exclusively for this House. That is not a matter for consultation with Spain or the European Union. It is well within our competence to put it on our statute book now that the people of Gibraltar shall be included in the electoral roll of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in time for the next European elections.
Dodging and ducking the issue causes irritation, doubt and suspicion. It is time the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary said at the Dispatch Box either that they will implement this Bill or that they will introduce their own measure swiftly, to underscore the fact that these people will get their vote at the next European elections.
For those reasons, I hope that I can interest all corners of the House in supporting this measure. I hope that my few remarks will persuade the Government to address themselves to the representation of overseas territories, to the right of the people of Gibraltar to have the franchise at the European elections, and to the access of legislators in such places to a useful dialogue with Members of the House of Commons. I think that otherwise it is a case of "out of sight, out of mind".
We have a responsibility for the administration and good governance of these places, yet we have no way of knowing whether the governors are good, bad or indifferent. We do not know about the conduct of these people, particularly in the faraway stretches of the globe where there is often no airstrip—in St. Helena, for instance.
My Bill would provide for greater intercourse and dialogue between Members of the House of Commons and members of the local legislative councils. That is not instead of, but in addition to, its other provisions.
Therefore, with some pride and uncharacteristic humility, I seek the support of the House to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Brian Cotter, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. John Austin, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Christopher Gill, Sir Teddy Taylor and Mr. Syd Rapson.

Representation of Overseas Territories
  REPRESENTATION OF OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the representation of Gibraltar by a Member of Parliament, subject to limitations, and for limited representation of other overseas territories at the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; to include Gibraltar within a European parliamentary constituency; to confer upon Chief Ministers the right to petition the House of Commons at the bar of the House; to improve for elected members of the Legislative Councils access to and communications with Members of the House of Commons; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 140].
Orders of the Day
  Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
    Clause 43

      REDESIGNATION OF ROADS USED AS PUBLIC PATHS
      3.42 pm
      Mr. David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 24, line 41, after "path", insert—
      'and every way which was shown in any definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and which was subsequently reclassified under Schedule 3 to the Countryside Act 1968 or section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as a bridleway, and every way which is shown on any definitive map and statement as a carriage road footpath or CRF, or as a carriage road bridleway or CRB,'.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 34, in page 24, line 42, leave out—
      'expression "road used as a public path"'
      and insert—
      'expressions "road used as a public path", "carriage road footpath", "CRF", "carriage road bridleway" and "CRB"'.
      Government amendments Nos. 291 to 296.
      Government new clause 25—Extinguishment of unrecorded rights of way.
      Government new clause 26—Excepted highways or rights of way.
      Government new clause 27—Bridleway rights over ways shown as bridleways.
      Government new clause 28—Cut-off date for extinguishment etc.
      New clause 13—Definition of legally relevant objection—
      '.—In paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act, after the definition of "council offices" there is inserted—
      "duly made' means an objection or a representation which—

      (a) is made within the time and in the manner prescribed in the notice that was published by the authority on making the order in accordance with paragraph 3 to Schedule
      15; and

      (b) states the grounds on which it is made, being a matter which is capable of affecting the decision whether or not to confirm the order".'.

      Mr. Heath: One of the great disappointments of the Bill for a particular group of people who wish to have access to the countryside is its inability to meet the demands of recreational riders. There was considerable expectation, before the Bill's publication, that it would contain moves substantially to extend the number of routes that are available for recreational and carriage riding. However, that has not been the case. The new status of restricted byway is a welcome change, but it does not extend the amount of path available for riding or carriage riding.
      946
      Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 re-examine the position of the roads used as public paths—RUPPS—which have been reclassified as a result of the Countryside Act 1968 to become bridleways or footpaths. The reason for that reclassification was the inability or lack of desire to prove that there was vehicular use of those roads. When there was no variation between the rights of a horse-driven carriage or cart and of a motorised vehicle, there was every reason not to pursue that course of action.
      As the restricted byway is now an available road category, there is every reason to consider whether there have been cases of incorrect classification or whether roads currently classified as bridleways or footpaths could easily take horse-drawn carriages. That would mean a substantial increase in the number of roadways that could be used for such a purpose. That form of recreation is growing; it is one that the House should support.
      The proposal would also help to correct the anomalies in the categorisation of CRFs—carriage road footpaths—and CRBs—carriage road bridlepaths. I am informed, in a helpful letter front the Minister for the Environment, that such phrases should not be used because they have no legal significance. That may be so, but they appear on many definitive maps; they are in common usage. One effect of my proposals would be to remove anomalies and to ensure that we have a proper classification. That seems sensible.
      If the Government are minded to take action on that matter, they would receive the thanks of the many people who want an extension of the bridleway system to take account of carriage driving—the disabled, for example, for whom carriage driving is often an effective means of access to the countryside and who are making increased use of it. Furthermore, such action would resolve many anomalies and difficulties in respect of a definitive map.
      A bizarre feature of the measure is that those authorities that have not reclassified or which are tardy in doing so will still have RUPPs on their books that have not been downgraded, and those RUPPs will become restricted byways. Only authorities that have addressed these matters expeditiously will experience difficulty. That too seems anomalous. The people who have been most active will pay a penalty in respect of the road network in their area. I therefore commend the amendments to the House.
      New clause 13 deals with the definition of legally relevant objections. The Minister will remember our discussions of that matter in Committee. The more I consider the arguments on that matter, the more I become convinced that our proposal offers a win-win solution to many of the problems of the current objection process. It would get rid of objections, which, even though they are well meant and sincerely made, are based on grounds that cannot be considered by the authority or by the Secretary of State. It is in no one's interest to pursue objections—clogging up an already congested system—that have no chance of success because of the way in which the legislation is framed.
      Since I tabled an amendment on the matter in Committee, I have received communications from the Local Government Association—of which I suspect I am a vice-president, so I should declare an interest—
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman should be able to remember.
      Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman is correct: I should be able to remember. However, the role is only an honorary one. I am pleased that the LGA supports the aims of the new clause. It states:
      The legal burdens on local authorities in relation to rights of way orders and maps are considerable and complex. Proposals, such as this, to reduce unnecessary burdens are to he welcomed.
      That is obviously true.
      I have also received support from associations representing rights of way officers, who have told me that the provision offers a clear and simple mechanism through which many of the burdens could be removed—resulting in a much more satisfactory position.
      I commend new clause 13 to the House. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and accept that we need to take action to speed up the process to everyone's satisfaction.
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I oppose Government new clauses 25 and 26. This is a very disappointing bit of the Bill. It is a very poor piece of legislation that provides that the historic records should be closed off after 25 years. I can understand its attractions for Ministers, down there on the Front Bench, in that it is most unlikely that they will have to answer for it to the House in 25 years' time.
      Mr. Terry Rooney (Bradford, North): Do not bet on it.
      Mr. Bennett: I was just about to say that the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who likes his job so much, may hope that he will still be there as a Government Whip; but I believe that for the other Ministers there will be no accountability to the House on this matter. It is a fudge, and a very unsatisfactory fudge.
      Landowners have brought pressure to bear to close off the historic records much sooner, and the ramblers have objected that until this situation has been sorted out, the closing off of records should not even be considered. The clause should contain a way forward. perhaps Ministers will explain the way forward. We should complete this task, which has been under way for more than 51 years—since the 1949 legislation—and has not been satisfactorily completed. We should not be setting a deadline 25 years away; we should be getting to grips with the problem now.
      According to information that I have, at the present rate of progress Suffolk might complete the process in about another 200 years. The picture seems to be very similar for other counties—such as Lancashire or Lincolnshire, which expect to take nearly as long. It is totally unsatisfactory. It would be far better for the Government to make a clear commitment to ensuring that the resources will be there to allow the matter to be dealt with. If the Government were proposing in the legislation that the resources would be there, we would not need this very unsatisfactory fudge.
      The fudge is unsatisfactory in that it gives voluntary groups no incentive to get a move on and ensure that all their claims are in, and gives county council surveyors no incentive to ensure that footpath measures are given real priority. We need the resources to complete the task and to get a move on.
      948
      I have a question for the Minister. As I understand it, at the end of 25 years, public rights of way would not be claimed in this way. However, a very large number of rights are conferred on specific groups of people by private Bills that pass through this House. As I understand it, Government new clauses 25 and 26 do not deal with individual rights conferred by private legislation—mainly enclosure Acts—which did not confer a public right of access but conferred a right on the commoners or the people who lived within a particular village at the time. Instead of solving the problem, we shall simply deny the public the right to make claims, but the right of particular groups of individuals specified by some of this historic legislation will run on, so landowners will not have the certainty that they desire.
      I hope that, at this stage, the Government will consider whether it would be better to drop new clauses 25 and 26, and that if they cannot do so now, they will come up with a better solution in the House of Lords. A better solution would be to ensure that the resources are available to make it possible for the claims to be sorted out quickly.
      Mr. Wigley: I shall come to the comments of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) shortly, but first, I wish to express my support for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The issues that have been raised would ring a bell in most rural areas where there has been an immense tangle and problem with regard to footpaths, bridleways and roads. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish touched on an important point when he referred to resources. Many local authorities, including my own, have immense burdens placed on them when they try to deal with these issues, but they do not have adequate resources to do that. Fundamental reviews will be necessary in some areas, so I hope that the resources will be available to carry them out.
      The pattern of footpaths that we have inherited does not follow any rhyme or reason. Many of the footpaths that developed in the last century followed the route that the postman took from farm to farm. There is no great logic in keeping footpaths that have no merit, but there is every logic in protecting and developing those that play a significant role in allowing people access to the countryside. We should do that in a way that is consistent with the interests of agriculture.
      Equally, some bridleways exist only because the horse was the mode of transport used. By now, many of those bridleways are less relevant, but we should consider how we organise the bridleways that are used by people who ride horses for recreational reasons. Organising them may not follow the same logic as was used for the bridleways that have existed historically. A root-and-branch review is necessary and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister presents the Government new clauses and describes the relevance that they will have to such developments.
      The one thing that the Government must take on board—I am assured that they will—is the wish of local communities as regards footpaths, bridleways and roads with a lower classification. The views of community councils in Wales and of parish councils in England should be central. They understand the real needs of their areas and understand which historical provisions may no longer be required. I hope that the Minister will be able

      949
      to tell us what help will be given to local authorities so that they can deal with the issue in a consistent and thorough manner—and can do so without taking too long.
      The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): Before I turn to this important set of Government amendments, I shall deal with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I have much sympathy for his aim of extending the ways used by horse-drawn carriages. I appreciate their social value to the disabled and to the other groups that he mentioned.
      I must resist amendments No. 33 and 34 not because we have a different purpose, but because there is a difference between us on how to reach our aim. The amendments do not accord with the policy objectives that we have set out in clauses 43 and 44. It is not our intention to overturn the outcome of individual reclassifications that have been completed. Rights of way that have been reclassified as a result of reviews carried out under section 54 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or before that, under schedule 3 to the Countryside Act 1968, have already been considered on a case-by-case basis. As part of those reviews, evidence as to the status of each way would have been taken into account. That may have involved the detailed examination of evidence at a public inquiry.
      Moreover, the amendments would require that any right of way shown on a definitive map which happened to be marked with the annotation CRF or CRB—for hon. Members who are unfamiliar with the terms, I must explain that they stand for carriage road footpath and carriage road bridleway—would be treated as a restricted byway irrespective of whether it had previously been a RUPP, which stands for a road used as a public path. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome realises, the terms CRF and CRB have no legal significance. We do not intend, through the Bill, to revisit past decisions. The objective is to provide greater clarity over the rights that exist over those remaining RUPPs and to remove the burden of individual reclassification of all RUPPs from local highway authorities. On that basis, I hope that the hon Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
      The hon. Gentleman also tabled new clause 13, which, as he said, gives a definition of the term "duly made" in relation to objections or representations about definitive map modification orders. Certainly, there have been a great many problems associated with those in the past. The new clause's primary purpose is to ensure that when there are irrelevant objections to an order, a surveying authority can go ahead and confirm the order—in other words, treat it as an unopposed order.
      4 pm
      As I said in Committee, I have a lot of sympathy with that objective. However, since Committee stage we have found that the matter is not as straightforward as it may appear. I am afraid that we need a little more time before deciding whether to introduce proposals. However, I remain sympathetic to the new clause. If, having taken account of all the detailed considerations, we can overcome the difficulties, we shall introduce proposals. The hon. Gentleman may not find that satisfactory, but it is all that I can offer now. I hope that he will trust my bona fides and be prepared not to press the new clause.
      950
      I shall move on to Government amendment No. 291, a technical amendment that is necessary to ensure that commencement orders can be made under clause 71 to safeguard the effect of orders reclassifying RUPPS. Government amendment No. 294 arises from an amendment tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and places an obligation on surveying authorities to keep an up-to-date record of applications for orders modifying the legal record of rights of way that local authorities are required to maintain—in other words, the definitive map and statement. We have accepted that idea from my hon. Friend.
      Government amendment No. 296 arises from another amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, and will make existing footpaths, bridleways and BOATs publicly maintainable. The term BOATs does not mean what one might think, and for hon. Members who are not familiar with it, I shall explain that it stands for byways open to all traffic. BOATs were reclassified from RUPPs, which are roads used as public paths; that is the last acronym that I need to explain before proceeding in this complicated area. BOATs did not become publicly maintainable under the Countryside Act 1968 because the special review under which they were reclassified was abandoned. The amendment is line with the intentions of the 1968 Act and the Bill's provisions for restricted byways.
      Government new clauses 25 to 28, amendment No. 295 and consequential amendments Nos. 292 and 293 fulfil the commitment that I gave on Second Reading to introduce proposals to encourage completion of the historic record of rights of way within 25 years, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) expressed displeasure. Together with the requirements in clauses 51 and 52 for local authorities to prepare rights of way improvement plans, the new clauses are a key part of our drive to secure a more complete and up-to-date network of rights of way throughout England and Wales.
      Despite progress over the last few years, few definitive maps on which local authorities are required to record rights of way are genuinely definitive. It is important to set a target date for recording historic rights of way, the provenance of which may go back hundreds of years and the existence of which may not always be known to the owner of the land that they cross, or to the public who could want to use them. The current system absorbs significant resources, and after 50 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish said, it has still not provided—indeed, it is still some way from providing—a comprehensive network for all.
      My hon. Friend argued that at the current rate of progress, it might take some 200 years to complete the process, but the whole point is that the reason why there has been so little progress until now is that there has been no concentration of minds on this objective and—I agree that this is a very important point—little or no resources have been put behind it. We intend to address both those points.
      In our consultation paper we proposed a 10-year period for recording historic rights of way. Many respondents argued that that was not long enough, and on further reflection I agree. We have therefore extended the period to 25 years, with provision for conditional extensions beyond that. There are also further safeguards to ensure

      951
      that important rights of way are not lost. I shall briefly explain, because this is important and the House needs to have a clear statement about what is intended.
      The new clauses apply to rights of way created before 1 January 1949, the date of the legislation that first introduced definitive maps. That is broadly in line with the proposal in our consultation paper. The main elements of the provisions are as follows. Local authorities' duties to record all pre-1949 footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and byways open to all traffic will continue until 1 January 2026.
      After the deadline has been reached, any footpath or bridleway created before 1949 which is not recorded on a definitive map and for which no claim has been submitted will, with certain exceptions, be extinguished. The exceptions are set out in new clause 26. They include savings for the effect of a diversion order or other legal event that occurred after 1 January 1949 and as much of the original footpath or bridleway as necessary to connect it with another highway. There are also savings for any pre-1949 footpath or bridleway which passes over a bridge or through a tunnel and for footpaths and bridleways at the side of carriageways. There are regulation-making powers to exempt other footpaths and bridleways—for example, those that provide access to premises.
      After the deadline, any unclaimed higher rights created before 1949 over footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways already shown on the map will also be extinguished. We do not see a need for as many exemptions in those cases, but we cannot rule out the possibility that, for example, evidence of likely hardship might arise as the deadline gets nearer. We believe it prudent, therefore, to have a regulation-making power to exempt rights of way of particular descriptions from extinguishment.
      Mr. Damian Green: Before the Minister moves on to completely new footpaths, does he have any idea of the likely number of footpaths or bridleways that would be covered by the exceptions in new clause 26? Are we talking about a very rare phenomenon, or might many hundreds of footpaths need to be exempted from the extinguishment?
      Mr. Meacher: That is a fair question, but I cannot answer it. I will ensure that those who can, give me the information, and as soon as I have it I will repeat it to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that the number is large, but I will confirm that.
      Completely new footpaths and bridleways created after 1 January 1949, either by use or by a legal event such as a creation order, would continue to be eligible for recording. There is no deadline for submitting claims for those. A footpath that is wrongly shown on a definitive map as a bridleway at the beginning of the 25 years and is still shown as a bridleway on the cut-off date will have bridleway rights created over it. There are savings for applications to have the way shown as a footpath so long as they are made before the cut-off date.
      The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales will have power to make regulations extending the deadline for a maximum of five years for any local authority area in which definitive maps have been made since the 1949 Act. Some areas were excluded from the
      952
      requirements of the 1949 Act and therefore have had less time to record historic rights of way. In many cases, the duty to prepare maps for those areas was first imposed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The areas concerned include the Isles of Scilly and the former county borough areas. In addition, county councils were able to exclude built-up areas from their maps. The five-year upper limit on extending the deadline does not apply in any of those areas.
      Where a highway crosses the boundary between two areas with different cut-off dates, the later date will apply. The provisions do not apply in the 12 inner-London boroughs, which have never been required to prepare definitive maps. The cut-off date will not apply to any highway that crosses the boundary into inner London. I apologise for the complication and detail, but I thought that the House needed a clear statement of intention.
      Vehicular rights of way are treated differently from footpaths and bridleways. Restricted byways will not be caught by the deadline because initially all restricted byways will be created from ways already shown on a definitive map. Byways open to all traffic are a little more problematic. Subject to any statutory exceptions, any pre-1949 vehicular rights over a footpath or bridleway shown on the map will be extinguished if not claimed by the deadline. However, extinguishing any hitherto undiscovered BOAT that is not shown on a definitive map in any form is, obviously, more difficult. A BOAT is a full carriageway. Solely for the purposes of being recorded on definitive maps, a BOAT is expressly defined by reference to the degree to which it is used by walkers or horse riders, as well as the rights over it.
      Without such a condition, all unclassified roads would have to be researched and recorded on definitive maps, whereas only highways that meet the definition of a BOAT are recordable. There are more than 160,000 miles of such highways in England alone—many more than the 10,000 or so miles of unclassified roads or "green lanes" that people normally think of in terms of vehicular rights of way. We have thought long and hard about the matter but cannot find a satisfactory way of clearly distinguishing BOATs from the many thousands of miles of minor routes that are important to local traffic but were never intended to be recorded on definitive maps. The most pragmatic solution is simply to stop recording previously undiscovered BOATs that have not been claimed before the deadline.
      As a category of right of way, BOATs were developed from roads used as public paths—an invention of the 1949 Act primarily aimed at recording ways that were useful to walkers and horse riders. Remaining RUPPs will have restricted byway rights under clauses 43 and 44. We see no case for continuing to record BOATs after the deadline, except for any arising from the creation of vehicular rights after 1949 over any footpath, bridleway or restricted byway that is shown on a definitive map on the cut-off date. I hope that that is totally clear to every hon. Member. I am sure that you did not mean to shake your head, Madam Speaker.
      The main objective is to secure completion of as much of the historic record of rights of way as is reasonably possible. We shall use the regulation-making power in clause 59 to require regular progress reports from local authorities, and we envisage a monitoring role for the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales.

      953
      4.15 pm
      I now come to the key point—resources—which was mentioned with such conviction by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. We are committed to providing local authorities with the additional resources which the regulatory impact assessment estimated would arise from the proposals. Although I cannot anticipate the outcome of the current spending review, I can say that we are also examining the possibility of providing additional funding for research by non-governmental organisations into the existence of rights of way.
      It is our intention to concentrate on that because it is sensible to bring definitively to a close the exercise of determining the rights of way network. However, we do not intend to do that without ensuring that there are adequate resources to make it possible for all existing paths that can reasonably be found to be found.
      Mr. Bennett: My right hon. Friend spoke of adequate resources. Will he put a figure on that?
      Mr. Meacher: I cannot disclose the bid that we made in the spending review that is currently proceeding. The Chancellor will make a statement next month. However, I assure my hon. Friend that it is quite sufficient to achieve the purpose that I outlined.
      We believe that those provisions will lead to a more accurate and more complete record of rights of way, and, together with the new rights of way improvement plans, to a network that is more in tune with modern recreational demands and the needs of land managers. I apologise for the length of my remarks and hope that the Government proposals are acceptable to hon. Members in all parts of the House, especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who I know has such a strong interest in the subject.
      Mr. David Heath: With the leave of the House, Madam Speaker, may I say that we have just had an illustration of the morass of acronyms and technicalities into which we stray as soon as we start to contemplate rights of way legislation? It may be an eye-opener to hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee.
      I am grateful to the Minister for the care with which he replied. It is only because of the enthusiasm with which I embrace his new concept of a restricted byway that I want it to be applied to paths that have been reclassified in other forms before. That is the essence of amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
      Once vehicular traffic of a motorised variety is differentiated from horse-drawn traffic, roads that are suitable for bridleways will almost all be suitable for horse-drawn traffic, and those which are not will be self-evidently unsuitable because of the size restrictions on them. People can take their own decisions about whether a path is a suitable one down which to drive a cart.
      There is a risk that there have been wrong classifications, not because of any intended sleight of hand, but because of the classification system. My amendments would have helped in that respect, but I understand the Minister's argument.
      New clause 13 contains a sensible suggestion, and the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he was sympathetic to the objectives and has undertaken to
      954
      consider it further. I know from experience in Committee that he is as good as his word: several suggestions that I made in Committee have come back as amendments to the Bill. New clause 13 would assist a wide variety of people—those who objected, as well as those who took the opposite view—and would save local authorities a huge sum. I therefore believe that even before the idea behind the new clause reaches another place, it would be right to reinforce the right hon. Gentleman's intention to reconsider it by dividing on it later this evening.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 44

      RESTRICTED BYWAY RIGHTS
      Amendment made: No. 291, in page 25, line 35, at end insert—
      '(7A) Where—

      (a) by virtue of an order under subsection (3) of section 71 ("the commencement order") containing such provision as is mentioned in subsection (6) of that section, an order under Part III of the 1981 Act ("the Part III order") takes effect, after the commencement of section 43, in relation to any way which, immediately before that commencement, was shown in a definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path,

      (b) the commencement order does not prevent subsection (1) from having effect on that commencement in relation to that way, and

      (c) if the Part III order had taken effect before that commencement, that way would not have fallen within subsection (1),

      all rights over that way which exist only by virtue of subsection (1) shall be extinguished when the Part III order takes effect.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

    Schedule 5

      PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY: DEFINITIVE MAPS AND STATEMENTS AND RESTRICTED BYWAYS
      Amendment made.
      No. 292, in page 45, line 30, at end insert—
      '( ) In subsection (3)(c)(i) for "a right of way to which this Part applies" there is substituted "a right of way such that the land over which the right subsists is a public path or, subject to section 54A, a byway open to all traffic".'.
      No. 293, in page 45, line 41 after "ought", insert—
      ', subject to section 51A,'.
      No. 294, in page 46, line 50, at end insert—
      'Register of applications under section 53
      53B.—(1) Every surveying authority shall keep, in such manner as may be prescribed, a register containing such information as may be prescribed with respect to applications under section 53(5).
      (2) The register shall contain such information as may be prescribed with respect to the manner in which such applications have been dealt with.
      (3) Regulations may make provision for the register to be kept in two or more parts, each part containing such information relating to applications under section 53(5) as may be prescribed.
      (4) Regulations may make provision—

      (a) for a specified part of the register to contain copies of applications and of the maps submitted with them, and

      (b) for the entry relating to any application, and everything relating to it, to be removed from any part of the register when the application (including any appeal to the Secretary of State) has been finally disposed of (without prejudice to the inclusion of any different entry relating to it in another part of the register).

      (5) Every register kept under this section shall be available for inspection free of charge at all reasonable hours.
      (6) In this section—
      "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;
      "regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument;
      and a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.
      No. 295, in page 47, line 13 at end insert—
      '3A. After section 54 of that Act there is inserted—
      "BOATs not to be added to definitive maps
      54A.—(1) No order under this Part shall, after the cut-off date, modify a definitive map and statement so as to show as a byway open to all traffic any way not shown in the map and statement as a highway of any description.
      (2) In this section "the cut-off date" means, subject to regulations under subsection (3), 1st January 2026.
      (3) The Secretary of State may make regulations—
      (a) substituting as the cut-off date a date later than the date specified in subsection (1) or for the time being substituted under this paragraph;
      (b) containing such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the operation of subsection (1), including in particular its operation in relation to—

      (i) an order under section 53(2) for which on the cut-off date an application is pending,

      (ii) an order under this Part which on that date has been made but not confirmed,

      (iii) an order under section 55 made after that date, or

      (iv) an order under this Part relating to any way as respects which such an order, or any provision of such an order, has after that date been to any extent quashed.

      (4) Regulations under subsection (3)(a)—

      (a)may specify different dates for different areas; but

      (b) may not specify a date later than 1st January 2031, except as respects an area within subsection (5).

      (5) An area is within this subsection if it is in—

      (a) the Isles of Scilly, or

      (b) an area which, at any time before the repeal by section 73 of the 1981 Act of sections 27 to 34 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949—

      (i) was excluded from the operation of those sections by virtue of any provision of the 1949 Act, or

      (ii) would have been so excluded but for a resolution having effect under section 35(2) of that Act.

      (6) Where by virtue of regulations under subsection (3) there are different cut-off dates for areas into which different parts of any way extend, the cut-off date in relation to that way is the later or latest of those dates.
      (7) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that any provision of this Part can by virtue of subsection (1) have no further application he may by order make such amendments or repeals in this Part as appear to him to be, in consequence, necessary or expedient.
      (8) An order or regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.
      No. 296, in page 47, line 13, at end insert—
      '. In section 55 of that Act (no further surveys or reviews under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949), after subsection (6) there is inserted—
      "(7) Every way which—

      (a) in pursuance of an order under subsection (5) is shown in a definitive map and statement as a byway open to all traffic, a bridleway or a footpath, and

      (b) before the making of the order, was shown in the map and statement under review as a road used as a public path,

      shall be a highway maintainable at the public expense.
      (8) Subsection (7) does not oblige a highway authority to provide, on a way shown in a definitive map and statement as a byway open to all traffic, a metalled carriage-way or a carriage-way which is by any other means provided with a surface suitable for the passage of vehicles.".'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: I beg to move amendment No. 304, in page 47, line 15, at end insert—
      '(1A) In paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), the words from "so however" to the end of the paragraph are omitted in each case.'.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 305, in page 47, line 18, leave out from '(b)' to "'together' and insert—
      'for the words from "so however" to the end of the paragraph there is substituted'.
      No. 302, in schedule 7, page 75, line 12, leave out from "is" to first "to" in line 13.
      No. 303, in page 75, leave out line 14.
      No. 45, in page 75, line 14, leave out "prima facie".
      No. 135, in page 75, line 32, at end insert—
      '(5A) A person shall be deemed to have and to always have had lawful authority if that person is driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on to or upon a way or track across common land in order to gain access to or egress from a dwellinghouse where the access is across that common land.'.
      No. 136, in page 75, line 32, at end insert—
      '(5A) Where a way across a common has been used as the vehicular access to a dwellinghouse as of right and without the access having been called into question by proceedings for 20 years prior to 3rd November 1999 then any person shall have lawful authority to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle to and from the dwellinghouse.'.
      Mr. Hunter: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 304, 305, 302 and 303, which were tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I added my name to two of them, but it was an act of incompetence on my part that I did not sign all four; I overlooked two. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire is understandably absent, and I send my best wishes to Mrs. Barnes for a full and speedy recovery.
      Amendments Nos. 304 and 305 relate to schedule 5(4). The schedule amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Amendments Nos. 302 and 303 relate to

      957
      schedule 7(5) and would amend the Road Traffic Act 1988, albeit in a slightly different form from the substitution that the Bill proposes. The amendments arise from the long-standing, increasing and much-publicised problem of the abuse of rights of way by motorised vehicles. I have raised the subject twice in Adjournment debates, as well as on Second Reading.
      The heart of the problem is the reclassification of RUPPs under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is generally agreed that that Act has, sadly, failed to provide the necessary protection for our green lanes. It is also a legal minefield. Vast tracts of our green lanes are extensively damaged by abuse by motorised vehicles. Agricultural vehicles cause some damage, but the root cause of much of the abuse by motorised vehicles is the limitation of the reclassification process under the 1981 Act.
      I share the opinion of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire that the Bill does not fully and adequately tackle the problem, hence the amendments. If the hon. Gentleman were here, he might have chosen to illustrate his general argument by referring to a specific episode, which happened in his constituency. Eight defendants appeared at Chesterfield magistrates court in November 1999, charged with driving on a bridleway—Grimsell lane, Holmesfield in Derbyshire. The case lasted for three days, and the defendants were acquitted.
      Sergeant Harwood, who was involved in bringing the case to court, shared his thoughts on the subject with the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire. He also wrote to me at some length; I greatly appreciated hearing from him. He argued that the Grimsell lane case clearly illustrates the problems of prosecuting illegal vehicular use of bridleways. The words "but no other" in the definition of bridleway in section 66(1) of the 1981 Act and section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 constituted the sticking point.
      The three words "but no other" put the onus on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that no vehicular rights exist. That applies to every route on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, the prosecution of a relatively minor offence requires a disproportionate amount of time and effort, and detailed research into every route.
      It is not surprising that the stipendiary magistrate at Chesterfield magistrates court lamented in his judgment on the Grimsell lane case:
      If the Definitive Map were indeed definitive, that would be an end to the matter.
      The same legal obstacle does not appear in the definition of footpath in the Road Traffic Act 1988.
      The Grimsell lane case, and others, have shown that it takes considerably less evidence to introduce doubt into a criminal trial, and so win an acquittal, than it does to prove that vehicular rights exist. I am told that Derbyshire county council was aware of no evidence to prove vehicular rights on Grimsell lane even after extensive research in preparing for the case, which nevertheless went against them. The Chesterfield judgment is likely to prevent further prosecutions under existing legislation. It is that scenario, and others like it, that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire wants to address under the amendments.
      958
      As hon. Members know, schedule 5 will make procedural changes to the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on the circumstances in which the definitive map and statement can be modified when an illegal event has occurred. Reduced to simplicity, amendment No. 304 would add a new section that would further amend section 56 of the 1981 Act. Whereas the definition of bridleway under the Road Traffic Act 1988 assumes that there are "no other rights"—a tag that appears in section 192 without qualification—the same tag is qualified in the 1981 Act by the words
      without prejudice to other rights.
      Therefore, a prosecution that relies on reference to the definitive map, as distinct from section 34 of the 1988 Act alone, runs the risk of an even more uncertain platform. I was prompted to make that point by Mr. Graham Plumbe, who briefs me in detail on such issues.
      Amendment No. 304 would provide an alternative and firmer foundation. It would tighten the inherited definition and remove the element of ambiguity. Amendment No. 304 is wholly consistent with the intentions stated in the Bill. Much the same argument can be applied to amendment No. 305, the purpose and effect of which would be to define further when a right of way is not open to mechanically propelled vehicles. It follows naturally from the previous amendment and is also consistent with the Bill.
      Amendments Nos. 302 and 303 relate to schedule 7, which deals with the driving of mechanically propelled vehicles elsewhere than on roads. Their purpose and effect would be to promote the status of a definitive map and statement. That would be done by removing the let out
      without prejudice to section 51(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
      and its fellow traveller
      unless prima facie evidence is adduced to the contrary,
      both of which are further enshrined in section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
      The intention is simple: to make the definitive map definitive, and I have already referred to the uncertain platform for prosecution provided by section 34 of the 1988 Act. In other words, these amendments would make the definitive map and statement the deciding factors. It should be an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a way shown on the definitive map as a bridleway, unless public rights for that purpose were shown to exist at the time of such use.
      In short, all four amendments would provide essential protection for rights of way, facilitate enforcement against unwanted and illegal use by motorised vehicles and promote the intentions stated in the Bill. I commend the amendments to the Minister, and I hope that he will respond positively.
      On amendments Nos. 135 and 136, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I have no intention whatever of stealing his thunder. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt fully present the arguments for them. All that I wish to do in advance of his contribution is to declare my support for them. They deal with a problem to which I referred on Second Reading, when I drew the Minister's attention to the practice of common owners charging residents for access to their homes if their driveways pass over common ground. I encountered

      959
      that practice in the village of Newnham in my constituency, where it causes some concern. The owners of common land demanded a charge of several thousand pounds, which the vendor of a house felt obliged to pay so that the purchaser could be assured of rights of access and egress.
      On Second Reading in March, I was aware of only three or four similar instances in other parts of the country, but more have come to light since then. I warmly endorse the arguments that I anticipate my right hon. Friend will make in due course.
      4.30 pm
      Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for his remarks. Perhaps he was the lightning before the thunder.
      I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 135 and 136 in my name and in the names of some of my hon Friends and my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The background to these two amendments is an Adjournment debate on 3 November last year. In a nutshell, a group of my constituents who have been living peacefully on or around Newtown common—one for 60 years and several others for more than 40 years—awoke up to find that a company called Bakewell Management had acquired ownership of Newtown common.
      One resident received a letter dated 6 October 1999 from chartered surveyors acting for Bakewell. It said:
      As it appears that you and your visitors are driving over our client's land to reach your house, we are offering you an amnesty whereby you can come to a settlement with our clients at a favourable rate.
      That rate turned out to be 6 per cent. of the open market value of their home, provided agreement was reached before 15 November 1999. The letter helpfully added that, without agreement, it would be impossible to sell the property, and mentioned a figure in excess of 10 per cent. as being achievable.
      In many cases, 6 per cent. could be £30,000. In a few, it would be a lot more. Many of my constituents are retired and cannot easily find such sums. They cannot sell their houses because they are, in effect, blighted until this problem is solved.
      These constituents have had uninterrupted access from the main road to their houses for time immemorial. They bought their houses through solicitors to whom they paid professional fees, and the solicitors had done the searches with the local authority. None had revealed any problem, and nor was there a problem until two things happened. First, a court decision in 1993 and, secondly, the subsequent acquisition of the common by Bakewell, with a view to exploiting that decision.
      I shall distil a complex problem into a sentence or two. A Court of Appeal decision in 1993—Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group—gave a fresh interpretation of the law on vehicular access over common land. The court decided to deny access over a common to business premises by double-decker busses. Private cars and private houses were not considered, but are assumed to be similarly precluded from access by those who have studied the case.
      The court decided that, because it had been illegal since 1925 to drive over urban and certain other common land, householders who had enjoyed free access could not
      960
      acquire a prescriptive right through an illegal activity. Driving over the remaining common land was banned in 1930. The only way that a right to drive from a public road to one's property over common land can be secured is by getting an easement from the owner of the common. Bakewell bought Newtown common, and is now seeking to exploit the court decision by charging my constituents for something no one dreamed of charging them for before.
      The Law of Property Act 1925 was never meant to stop people driving over a common to their home. It was intended to restrict members of the public from driving on commons while others were on the common for "air and exercise". Indeed, no one was prevented from driving to their houses across a common from 1925 until 1993, but this is the interpretation that we are now stuck with.
      Initially, I pursued this matter with the president of the Law Society to see whether there was a way through, short of changing the law. In a letter dated 24 November 1999, he said:
      If the solicitors carried out all the normal searches and no problems with access were revealed, then the solicitors would not have been negligent.
      If there is not clear negligence and they are simply the victims of one of the more arcane aspects of our legal history, ie laws concerning common land, they may be left without redress. If that is the situation, then they have to look to Parliament to amend the appropriate law.
      That is what hundreds of people are doing.
      Since that debate, it has become clear that Newtown common does not represent an isolated incident. I have had many letters from colleagues and members of the public. My hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) have been active in Surrey, and the Runton and district residents association, from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), has written. My hon. Friend supports the amendments. Constituents in Pirbright, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), have also written. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) has a constituency issue, as has my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) in Chorleywood common. My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) are all concerned.
      Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): As you cannot do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that I recollect that the same problem arises in an area in your constituency, which I represented in local government in Suffolk.
      Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. No doubt the debate will take place in an even more respectful atmosphere.
      I raised the matter in a debate last year, in response to which the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), could not have been more helpful. He said:
      The situation that the right hon. Gentleman has described seems, on the face of it, to be outrageous.

      961
      He was kind enough to add:
      Were our roles reversed, I might well have made a similar speech.
      He went on to say that
      although Bakewell may well have the letter of the law on its side, I wonder whether it is able to defend its position morally, as well as legally.
      He agreed that
      in some ways, common land law is ripe for review
      and went on to suggest that
      there may well be a case for placing some reasonable limit on the charge that the owner is entitled to make.
      In connection with that, he said:
      I shall watch with interest the level of charges that Bakewell imposes and compare them with the reasonable charges for similar access made by county councils and the National Trust.—[Official Report, 3 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 271–74.]
      In fairness to the Minister, although he said that the law was ripe for review, he made no commitment to legislation, but offered to meet me to discuss the matter further. I met him on 14 December, with members of the Newtown residents association, and again he could not have been more sympathetic. He made the valid point that any solution must deal with the problem not just at Newtown common, but elsewhere. He advised my constituents not to waste money on barristers at that stage because there was sufficient expertise in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for free.
      The Minister offered a further meeting with officials, which took place in my room at the House on 20 January. A number of possible amendments were discussed. We were told that he remained keen and sympathetic, but we got a clear message that options that involved no payment at all risked running foul of the European convention on human rights. That strikes me as a pessimistic interpretation of the ECHR, and one of my hon. Friends who knows more about the law than I do may develop the point.
      Rights can of course be acquired by long usage. Generally, if a person uses a route to get to his house without the permission of the landowner for 20 years, he has an easement. The Court of Appeal case that stops that on commons was concerned not with protecting landowners' rights, but with enforcing the public law on commons. The partial reversal of the Hanning principle, which I propose, would allow normal land law principles to apply. It is not apparent that human rights problems will occur.
      The discussion with officials was helpful and, without commitment, they identified a number of possible solutions, on which I and my constituents have done further work. As recently as 14 April, a senior official in the Minister's countryside division wrote to one of my constituents, Mrs. Ponting, saying:
      In the meantime, you may like to be aware that, following discussions between Chris Mullin and Sir George Young, the department is investigating how we might curb the ability of landowners to make excessive charges for the grant of easements to allow vehicular access over common land.
      We have identified a range of options which may achieve this objective, but have not reached any firm conclusions yet on the best way forward.
      962
      Against that background, the House might hope that the Minister will smile on the amendments. However, more recently, the Department's tone has changed from, "How can we help?" to, "I am sorry, it is all too difficult." Less than a month after the letter from which I have quoted was written, the deal was off.
      The Minister wrote to me on 10 May saying:
      Given that the issues will be explored, in due course, in the context of the consultation paper on common land I do not propose to ask my officials to do any more work on the options at present, although they remain "on the table."
      He went on to say that, although it was open to me to table an amendment to the Bill,
      it would be misleading of me to suggest it is likely to receive Government support.
      That is disappointing against the background of the supportive remarks that were made earlier. While the proposals remain on the table, my constituents remain on the rack. The consultation paper that the Minister refers to, in the words of a letter that he wrote to me on 17 February,
      does not deal with the problems of vehicular access.
      The negative message in the Minister's letter obscured some helpful passages, which indicated the sorts of solution that would be acceptable to him:
      A reasonable capital charge would be no more than 5 per cent. of the value of the property.
      Discounts for those who could show long use.
      The option of payment now or at a time of sale.
      Provision for those who could show financial hardship.
      No question of vehicular access being denied whilst negotiations take place.
      That forms the foundation of an acceptable solution to the problem, but we should tackle the problem here and now. The Bill already makes substantial changes to the law on commons: it provides a right of public access to rural commons; it amends provisions on vehicles on commons. The Minister wants me to wait, but Bills on commons are a rare species—rarer even than nature conservation Bills. There were only three in the past century. No way should my constituents have to wait for a legislative bird in the bush when there is one in the hand. Therefore, I want to build on the principles in his letter and to come to a legislative solution to the problem in the context of the Bill.
      Amendment No. 135 simply restores the position to what it was thought to be before Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group—in other words, nothing is payable and people have the right that they all thought they had. Amendment No. 136 adopts the conventional 20-year rule for establishing rights of access. From the date of my Adjournment debate, anyone who had been driving backwards and forwards would continue to have that right.
      The present position is wholly indefensible, as the Minister has conceded. A third party, using a loophole in the law, can claim part of the equity of someone else's house. That is feudal, with overtones of the sheriff of Nottingham. A Government who have abolished most of the hereditary peers should be able to take removal of that relic from the middle ages in their stride. They should certainly be able to back the many against the few.
      My amendments are in order; they have been selected; they are urgent. We know that they have the Minister's sympathy. I am prepared to accept that they may not be

      963
      the last word in technical perfection—they are from the do-it-yourself school of drafting, rather than the traditional parliamentary draftsman. I am prepared to consider withdrawing them and to share the credit for putting the anomaly right with the Minster in return for undertakings that the Government will come up with their own solution in another place. If the Government were able to do that, it would represent an acceptable outcome of today's debate, but, if no undertaking were given, I regret that I would feel obliged, out of commitment to my constituents, to divide the House.
      Dr. David Clark: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 304 and 305, which were so eloquently introduced by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but, first, I compliment the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). He has raised an issue that has much wider ramifications than Ministers or even other Members realise. It is not confined to the leafy south. A major problem of that nature is emerging in the north of England, where, traditionally, village greens are surrounded by artisans' houses.
      Often, there is a strip of green between the road that goes around the village green and the egress from the properties. The problem is that, although that has not been challenged for perhaps two or three centuries and although there is not the threat from commercial ventures, as there is in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, there is now a legal problem. Lawyers are coming to people who are selling their houses and saying, "There is a problem. Do you realise that you have no vehicular right of access to your house? The two-yard stretch of green over which you and your predecessors have crossed for two or three centuries is not actually a right of way." That causes a great deal of difficulty. I assume that amendment No.135, which relates to common land, includes village greens, but that is a technical point that we need to consider.
      4.45 pm
      Anyway, the only way of getting round the problem is for the vendor to take out a large insurance bond to cover a future buyer in the light of the potential threat. The position is clearly not satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that returning to the position that obtained before an earlier judicial decision would solve the problem. That is a simple solution, although I do not know whether the Bill is the right vehicle for it. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a difficulty that is much more widespread than people realise, and is causing anguish throughout the country.
      Let me return to amendments Nos. 304 and 305, which, as I have said, were presented elegantly by the hon. Member for Basingstoke. I join him in sending good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), whom I know would have liked to be here to move his amendment.
      The amendments raise issues that have wide ramifications. The hon. Gentleman mentioned an incident that took place largely in his constituency, involving vehicular rights over various types of path covered in the Bill. As chair of the all-party national parks group, I plead with the Minister to see if there is any way of tackling the problem affecting national parks. By definition, they are special places where people go for quiet enjoyment.
      964
      The Bill recognises that but it is far from perfect, as has been pointed out by the Association of National Park Authorities, which represents all the statutory national parks.
      There is a particular difficulty in some of the busiest parks, which have already tried to address the problem of vehicular access to various country byways. The park authorities believe that the powers in the Bill are not sufficient to enable them to tackle the problem and to fulfil their remit. I know that they have met Ministers, and that Ministers have been concerned and conciliatory. They are trying to find a way to help, and we all appreciate that.
      Amendments Nos. 304 and 305 raise the question whether further traffic regulation orders could be available to national park authorities, enabling them, for instance, to create zones within which such orders would apply to specific routes, and to erect barriers across routes subject to the orders or, perhaps, voluntary restraint agreements to facilitate effective management.
      There might be a facility for the revising and designing of materials used for the erection of signs, acknowledging the existence of special landscape requirements on some of the routes involved. It could, perhaps, be recognised that bona fide users of those routes—mainly local people—may want vehicular access in order to go about their daily business. There might be a licence system giving specified users defined routes to use, subject to the traffic regulation orders and within defined traffic regulation zones.
      Finally—I think the amendments try to lead us towards this—the Association of National Park Authorities could be empowered to make enforced traffic regulation orders in regard to unsealed, unclassified county roads and byways open to all traffic, roads for public paths, bridleways and footpaths.
      The Minister may not be able to give us a definitive answer today, but there are real problems with which the Bill does not quite come to grips. I believe that the Minister and his officials are working on them, and that we are nearly there. If the Minister does not feel able to accept the amendments, perhaps he will seek ways in another place to meet the legitimate concerns of the national park authorities. Those authorities are trying to perform the difficult task of balancing people's wish to go to rural areas, especially national parks, for quiet recreation with the legitimate right of local people to go about their daily business.
      Mr. David Heath: Before I speak to amendment No. 45, I wish to say that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made an extremely persuasive case for his amendments. I had a similar case in the village of Long Sutton in my constituency, where a redundant school bordered a village green. There was no vehicular right of access, even though people had gained access across the green for very many years. That proved to be a substantial difficulty when the county council tried to dispose of the property for residential use. I therefore have sympathy with the amendments, and look forward to the Minister's reply.
      Amendment No. 45 also deals with the vexed question of the Grimsell lane case, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). I shall not rehearse those arguments, save to say that there is clearly a problem in enforcing section 34 of the Road Traffic

      965
      Act 1988. The prosecution in the Grimsell lane case was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that no higher vehicular rights existed than those that were marked in the categorisation of the road. The Minister has moved to address that matter, which we discussed in Committee. He tabled amendments in Committee, providing that a court would consider categorisation as a bridleway or footpath as substantial unless prima facie evidence were adduced to the contrary.
      In Committee, I pointed out that prima facie evidence is the lowest level of evidential burden. As a result, any prima facie evidence given to the court by the defendant when a prosecution is brought immediately reverses the burden of proof. The prosecution then must prove beyond reasonable doubt that no higher rights exist. That seems to me to be wrong.
      Deleting the words "prima facie" would mean that a more substantial burden of proof would be required. That would assist the court and the prosecuting authorities, but it would not deny anyone the right to prove substantively—if they can—that a vehicular right exists. The amendment would simply make the process more transparent, and that seems a worthwhile objective.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. John Maples: I support amendments Nos. 135 and 136, which are in my name as well as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). The legal situation in Claverdon, a village in my constituency, is very much the same as the one described by my right hon. Friend, except for the fundamental difference that the common is now owned by the parish council.
      About 20 houses were built on the common in the latter years of the 19th century. The manor and the common were sold in 1876, at which time the landowner gave the people who lived in those houses the option to buy. By 1880, all had done so.
      Some of the houses have been added to since they were bought 120 ago years, with planning permission in many cases. By the time the Law of Property Act 1925 became law, the owners had probably established an easement or right of way across the common land to the houses. However, that is impossible to prove, as the houses have had many owners since.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said, the section of the 1925 Act that creates the problem was intended to keep vehicles off commons when those commons had been dedicated to public use. The aim was to allow people to use and enjoy the commons without others driving vehicles across them. It was never intended to deprive people who had a right of way to their homes of that right of way, but that was the effect.
      The 1925 Act creates a criminal offence that is also included in the various Road Traffic Acts. After section 193 of the 1925 Act came into operation, it was impossible to acquire a right of way by claiming prescriptive use over 20 years. Therefore, the technicality means that one can prove 20 years of continuous use only before 1925.
      That problem did not bother anyone for years, certainly not in Claverdon. In 1950, the then lord of the manor gave the common to the parish council. People continued to
      966
      use the common to drive to their houses and back, and indeed the parish council, when asked its opinion on various planning applications to build garages alongside the houses, raised no objections. Therefore, no problems had arisen since the parish council acquired title in 1950.
      Two years ago, a firm of solicitors from Swansea, Edward Harris and Son, entered on the scene. I know that lawyers have to make a living and I made one myself as a lawyer for a while, and benefited from many of the restrictive practices with which that profession is endowed. However, ambulances must be in short supply in Swansea, because in 1998 the firm advertised its expertise on this issue and invited the owners of commons to contact them, which Claverdon parish council did.
      The solicitors pointed out the anomaly in the law and the fact that the home owners did not have rights of way and, therefore, the parish council could charge them for rectifying the situation. The parish council, instead of approaching all the home owners and offering to accept £1,000 or £2,000 to cover the documentation and provide some benefit to the community, waited until the first house came up for sale. It used an estate agent in Stratford-on-Avon to watch the market until one of the houses came up for sale. The house in question was being auctioned, and the owner was desperate to sell it, for various reasons. The parish council managed to extract—should I say, extort—£30,000 from him, on the basis that that was one third of the development value of the land or roughly 10 per cent. of the value of the house and the land.
      Another constituent, a Mr. Baker, came to see me with a similar problem. His house was up for sale and the parish council had waited to contact him until he had advertised it. His negotiating position must have been slightly stronger, because he managed to negotiate the sum down from £30,000 to £2,000. Therefore, a wide range of prices has already been accepted and, indeed, the parish council settled with someone else for £1,000. However, now it has written to all those involved and suggested that the right value is a third of the development value of the land, which in many cases is probably around £20,000 to £25,000.
      The parish council is in a difficult position because it is under an obligation, under the Local Government Acts, to extract best value for property that it sells. The parish council would probably prefer to be more reasonable, but it cannot, given the aggressive legal advice that it has received. Most owners would probably pay a small sum of money to sort out the position.
      I suggest to the Minister that the situation constitutes a manifest injustice. As a result of an anomaly in the law, people are being asked to pay 10 per cent. of the value of their properties, at a vulnerable time—perhaps they have already bought another house and need to complete a chain—and many of them simply cannot afford to do so. They cannot prove that they acquired prescriptive rights by the time the Law of Property Act 1925 came into operation and they know that the parish council never previously challenged their rights to pass over the land. An outrageous injustice is being perpetrated on people in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire. I suspect that many other hon. Members will find a similar situation in their constituency.

      967
      The problem can be resolved only by the Government. The amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend would resolve it, as he explained, and there may be other ways to solve it that might be more acceptable to the Government. For example, the House could fix the price or provide that the price should be fixed by the Lands Tribunal. We could also provide that if any of the properties came up for sale, some percentage of the value would apply, according to the length of time that the owners could prove that they had exercised the right of way. That has happened with some National Trust properties, which have a sliding scale from nothing to 5 per cent. If there is a problem with the European convention on human rights and some compensation for the loss of rights has to be paid, those options may be more acceptable. Whatever happens, we must resolve the issue quickly because it is causing great difficulties for many people.
      As the common in my constituency is owned by the parish council, there is another way out of the problem and I hope that the Minister will address the possibility of dealing with the issue under the Local Government Acts. Section 127 of the Local Government Act 1972 requires a parish council to obtain best value for any property that it sells, unless it receives the consent of the Secretary of State to sell for less.
      In 1998, the Secretary of State published regulations entitled "The Local Government Act 1972 General Disposal Consents 1998". Regulation 6 states that consent is given to a disposal of land by way of the grant of a right of way where the difference between the market value of the property and the price charged is less than £10,000. In this case, I do not know whether the difference is more or less than £10,000. If the proper value is £25,000 or £30,000, clearly it is more; if the value is 2 or 3 per cent, it would be less.
      5 pm
      Would the Minister consider, in the case of commons owned by parish, district or county councils, amending regulation 6 of the general disposal consents regulations to raise the value in the case of rights of way over commons being sold by parish councils that own those commons when clearly they have been in use as a right of way for more than 20 years?
      I hope that the Minister will be able to accept amendments Nos. 135 and 136. If not, I hope that he will be able to say that he might accept other, similar amendments in another place and during our further consideration of the Bill. I should be grateful also if he would deal with the specific matter of whether, in the case of commons owned by parish or district councils, the general disposal consent regulations could be amended in such a way as to allow the grant of those rights of way for a relatively modest sum.
      Mr. David Prior: It is a great privilege to support amendments Nos. 135 and 136, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), other colleagues and me. This debate provides us as Members with an opportunity to right a wrong that anyone with common sense would think was an injustice.
      We would not be having the debate were it not for the fact that there was a loophole in the Law of Property Act 1925 which has come to light because of a 1993 Court of
      968
      Appeal case, Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group. I suspect that, initially, like many other hon. Members, I thought that that case dealt only with an arcane legal point that would have no specific or important ramifications. However, the case's implications for householders and owners of common land have been profound.
      At a stroke, householders have discovered that they no longer have vehicular access to their homes which many of them have enjoyed for many years or, in some cases, for generations. Landlords have suddenly discovered that they now have an economic interest that they had not known about before. It was a windfall for landlords, but a financial disaster for a great many householders—I imagine many of them still do not know about the financial disaster.
      I heard about the issue only at the end of last year, when my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire initiated an excellent Adjournment debate on it. However, the full seriousness of the issue did not come home to me until I came across a case in my own constituency, in East Runton and in West Runton, where a landlord owns the common land and has written to all the householders around it, of whom there are a great many. The common land is held within a trust.
      I should quote to the Minister exactly what the landlord said in his letter—which is instructive—to the householders. He said:
      The trustees have recently been made aware, by their solicitors, that there are new legal guidelines about vehicular access over common land following … (Hanning v. Top Deck Travel Group.) In simple terms the court decided that because it has been illegal since 1925 to drive over common land then householders could not acquire a prescriptive right through an illegal activity …
      Recently mortgage lenders have become reluctant to provide finance for purchasers of this type of property unless an express right of way has been granted. This has meant that some people were experiencing difficulties in selling their properties. So the Gresham Estate—
      which is the owner of the common land—
      now has to find a way for homeowners selling their properties to obtain a formal easement … The District Valuer has indicated that he considers, that a reasonable charge for this type of right of access is 10 per cent. of the property value. Other owners of common land charge much more than this figure (up to 30 per cent.) … As trustees we have a legal duty to obtain "best value" for any assets that we sell so it would not be possible to charge less than the 10 per cent. mentioned above.
      I accept that there are various types of landlords—be they like Bakewell Management, in North-West Hampshire, the Gresham estate, in Norfolk, the National Trust, parish councils or county councils. Some of these people will have fiduciary responsibilities, but I hope that none will seek to hide behind a legal structure to avoid what is clearly a moral responsibility.
      I have spoken with Runton parish council, the Runton residents association and the Runton commons management group. They all believe that an injustice is being perpetrated in North Norfolk. Very few households can face a potential liability, coming out of the blue, of up to 10 per cent. of the value of their house. The chairman of the residents association made this comment:
      Others including ourselves who have retired here will have to use our savings that was for our old age but some of our residents may not even be in a position to do this.
      In addition, this has cast a blight over many properties that would otherwise have been sold in the area, and it will continue to do so until the position is satisfactorily resolved.

      969
      No one is saying that there should be free car access or vehicular access over the commons, nor that the commons should not be properly managed. We are talking about an established access to a dwelling house. The amendments are about fairness, common sense and justice.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I agree with an awful lot of what my hon. Friend has said, but I have been asking myself this question: why is the amendment confined to access to or egress from a dwellinghouse? Should it not apply to land generally? I can imagine, for example, agricultural holdings that are in the same position as a dwelling house. I am not sure why we should confine the proposal to a dwelling house and not extend it more generally.
      Mr. Prior: I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend made that point. The proposal could apply to a market garden or an agricultural holding. Whether or not the Minister decides to accept the amendment today, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire made it clear that this was from the DIY school of drafting amendments. We hope that we might clarify the proposals in further discussions with the Minister. The point made by my right hon. Friend is valid, and we will want to take it further.
      I am sure that the Minister would like to accept the amendment—I noticed that he smiled during my right hon. Friend's speech. I hope that the Minister will be moved by the plight of many ordinary householders who are extremely worried about the situation.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I, too, support amendments Nos. 135 and 136. I, too, have constituents who have a similar problem. In Gerrard's Cross in my constituency, there is a common. Its ownership, in terms of the lordship of the manor, passed by purchase in the 1940s to a solicitor, for the sum of £100. His son is also a solicitor, and appears to enjoy his title of lord of the manor. When he realised and appreciated the benefits conferred on him by the 1993 case, he started to demand from householders with homes around the common extortionate sums to grant them easements and rights of way over the common land. I am quite satisfied, from looking at the properties, that most of them date from the 19th century and earlier, and that the occupants therefore almost certainly had rights of way over that land prior to the implementation of the Law of Property Act 1925, with its unintended consequences.
      I have only one disagreement with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who made a slight complaint at the end of his speech about a feudal system. In fact, the irony of the situation is that the old law, being the common law tempered by equity, worked perfectly well to give rights of access. A piece of unintended statutory interference has deprived these people of rights which they would normally have had.
      It beggars belief that the lord of the manor said in a recent comment in the local press about demanding this money:
      It is a fact of life. I think people should pay. I don't think people should have something for nothing.
      970
      It appears that the person who is getting something for nothing is the lord of the manor, who is making these extortionate demands.
      It is on that simple point that I base my contribution. I understand that the Minister has been advised—or that he is concerned—that the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 might prevent an amendment of the law unless compensation was paid in such cases. I appreciate that the point is important and that he will want to take advice, but it seems that, if anyone were to be entitled to compensation—if the passage of the Law of Property Act had taken place yesterday—it would have been the householders involved, who would not have acquired a 20-year period in which to obtain their easement.
      In those circumstances, I am by no means convinced of the necessity to make payments to the property owners or to the lords of the manor just because they have benefited from a wholly unintended windfall. It is surprising that they should be paid for the removal of that windfall, which was not apparent when the legislation came into being.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a serious point about compensation. Another approach might be that, as the windfall is the unintended creation of statute, if compensation has to be paid by reason of the convention, it should be paid by the taxpayer to the person who is trying to obtain payments from the householders.
      Mr. Grieve: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point. However, it is one that I skated over, because the mere suggestion of that idea to the Minister—and certainly to his advisers—might create even greater difficulties.
      The matter is urgent. Every day, householders on Gerrard's Cross common face a severe financial problem. Some of them might be wealthy, but although many of them occupy properties that have a substantial value, their liquid assets do not—that is often true of elderly people. They face real problems.
      We cannot merely say that we will leave the matter for three or four years. The situation existed for only 12 months before lords of the manor began to cotton on to the financial possibilities. Considerable chaos will be created by delay. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the problem will be addressed—in some form—in the Bill.
      Mr. David Rendel: I start by declaring an interest; I am a member of GLEAM—the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement—an organisation that campaigns in favour of green lanes. I support the attempts of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) to ensure that green lanes are not constantly destroyed by motorised vehicles, as has happened all too often in the past.
      Like many other Members, the main thrust of my remarks is to support amendments Nos. 135 and 136. The first instance of this problem may have occurred in my constituency—at Bucklebury common. The common has been in the ownership of a well-known local landowner for a long time. However, back in 1929, his predecessors set up a special commons scheme, under which the management of the common and all the worry of looking

      971
      after it were transferred to the local council. Since then, the owner and his family have had no involvement with the common except ownership.
      Unfortunately, as the local council discovered, although the worry and problems of upkeep of the common were transferred to the council, the right to grant easements and access over it was not. Over the years, easements were granted by the current landowner's predecessors to those who own dwellings on or around the common. During the early years, the sums were in the tens or the low hundreds—only occasionally rising to about £1,000.
      The current landowner inherited the property in 1993 and immediately changed the policy. Instead of charging comparatively small sums for the access required by those who own dwellings on the common, he asked for tens of thousands of pounds. The highest sum paid over so far is more than anything that has been mentioned in the debate: one owner was forced to pay as much as £50,000 for access to his property.
      5.15 pm
      As was mentioned in the Stratford-on-Avon case, these demands are usually made at the very last moment, when the dwelling owner is on the point of selling a property—perhaps under difficult circumstances, in which they simply cannot afford not to go ahead with the sale. That puts them in an extremely difficult position; in effect, they are being blackmailed by the landowner.
      It will come as no surprise to some of those who know the case, and may be a disappointment to some hon. Members, that the landowner concerned was at the time a Conservative district councillor. However, to be fair to the Conservatives—I do not like being fair to the Conservatives, but on this occasion I will be—all the other Conservative district councillors involved were horrified at the actions of that gentleman. They very strongly supported the view of the whole council that what he was doing was thoroughly immoral and totally unexpected, and that if any action could be taken to stop what he was doing, it certainly should be taken—to the extent that the council unanimously, except for the one gentleman concerned, decided to take out a case against him and see whether, as a result of their management of the common, they could find a way of ensuring that these payments should no longer go ahead. Unfortunately, the district council lost the court case, in 1995. As a result, the payments are still being demanded.
      As other hon. Members have said, this situation arises only because the land is common land. If we were looking for access over any other type of land, access would by now be permanent owing to the length of time for which it had been allowed. However, the value of the ransomed strips to the landowner is now enormous. I believe that that is unfair—indeed, immoral.
      In some cases, as we have heard, there may be some legal difficulty with charging less than the maximum possible. In the case that I have described, there is certainly no legal difficulty; the landowner could, if he wished, choose to charge a much smaller sum for access, but he chooses to go for the maximum amount that is available to him.
      I hope that the Government will use this opportunity to bring this situation to an end. They have a chance in the Bill to do so, and I hope that they use their opportunity.
      Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I have listened to the debate with great interest because some of my
      972
      constituents have a slightly different problem, more similar to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), in that the landlord of the common across which they seek access to their properties is Surrey county council. In correspondence, the Minister has referred to the good practice of Surrey county council, which has drawn up a table of charges for owners of houses, depending on how long they have lived in the house and on the assurances that they have received from the council in previous years.
      The difficulty in that situation arises from the Local Government Act 1972. I wrote to the Minister on this point as recently as 23 May, and no doubt it is in his mind, as we speak this afternoon, that while endorsing in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) the practice of Surrey county council, he did not deal with the problem that it faces—as do parish councils and other councils—that when it is operating a reasonable system of discounts, charging a maximum of, say, only 5 per cent., it does so in the knowledge that it might have been able, if it had been a more rapacious landlord, to extract 10 per cent. or more; and under the current regime put in place by the Minister's predecessor in the present Government, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), the limit of its discretion to be reasonable is £10,000. If a property is worth more than £200,000, and the council's discretionary cut from 10 to 5 per cent. is therefore more than £10,000, the discretion comes to an end. The table that Surrey county council sent my right hon. Friend the Member for North—West Hampshire contains the following footnote:
      Subject to a maximum discount of £10,000 on the Council's valuation of the right of access.
      That limit to the reasonableness, or sense of fairness, of Surrey county council—a Conservative council, which does not wish to impinge on the rights of the people whom it represents—is being placed on it by the Minister and his Department.
      I support the amendment, but I accept that the Minister may have problems with the European Court of Human Rights and with the human rights legislation if a wider discretion is entrenched in law. Clause 123 is relevant in this context, and there is no constraint on the Minister's saying that, with regard to the Local Government Act 1972 and the county council, reasonable charges are the proper way to proceed; and that the discretion of the council should be unlimited, provided it is reasonable and does not charge extortionately and unreasonably. If he were to do that, he would deal with the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon about his parish council and with the problem of Surrey county council to which I alerted him again.
      I would be grateful if the Minister made some progress on this issue. If he did, he would relieve some of the problems that many hon. Members have described.
      Mr. Green: There are two equally important sets of amendments in this group. The first is amendment No. 304, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and the consequential amendments to it. He will be aware that these issues were discussed in long and complex debates in Committee that covered the Grimsell lane case and in which Mr. Plumbe was quoted extensively. Many of us on both sides of the Committee said that the Government

      973
      needed to take action to clarify the position with regard to byways. However—to reduce their case to a short phrase—they said that that was unnecessary and that the Bill as it stood, along with existing legislation on transport, was sufficient to deal with the issue. I did not find the Government's explanation in Committee particularly convincing, so I look forward to hearing whether the Minister will take this opportunity to come up with a more convincing explanation. If he does not, the other place will wish to return to this issue.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) spoke to amendments Nos. 135 and 136, and several important issues have been raised. The House will recognise the catalogue of manifest injustices that we have heard from hon. Members from across the country. I am surprised that I have not yet had similar cases in my constituency, but I like to think that that is because of the essential and universal reasonableness of landowners in Kent. I shall cling to that faith until it is proved misplaced.
      One side issue of this urgent and important problem is compensation. Today's debate and the advice that the Minister gave my right hon. Friend have suggested that it would be improper, under the terms of the European convention on human rights, for landowners to receive no compensation if their right to charge people who cross their land were taken away. So why is the Minister so sure that it is against the convention to take away the rights without compensation in this case when he is equally sure that it is correct to do that for general access land? It appears on the surface that the Government are facing in diametrically opposite directions in the advice that they gave my right hon. Friend and in their advice that the Bill is consonant with the European convention on human rights. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point when he replies.
      Several key issues need to be set in the wider context of the Bill, the Government's other environmental policies and, in particular, their consultation on the law relating to commons. Because the problem is so urgent—for the individuals involved, a delay of even a few months, let alone many years, will be a matter of difficulty—the essential message to the Minister is that it is entirely appropriate to use the Bill as a vehicle to resolve it.
      There are several arguments to support that contention, the first of which is that the Bill already makes substantial changes to commons. It provides a right of access to rural commons and amends provisions on vehicles on commons. Its rights of way and nature conservation provisions will have a significant effect on commons management, which is clearly central to the areas that it covers. Many new issues on commons management and access have arisen which, presumably, is why the Government have issued a consultation paper.
      Most importantly, however, those of us who have been involved with the Bill's progress know that wildlife protection and nature conservation Bills come along once every 20 years or so. Bills affecting commons are even less frequent. I think that I am right in saying that there were three Acts relating to commons throughout the twentieth century. So if the Minister says that the Government are holding a consultation and must delay, I suspect that there will be delay of many years and perhaps even decades before this urgent issue is resolved.
      974
      The Government have given no indication that there is a legislative slot for a commons Bill. They find slots for new, unnecessary Bills, but it would be cloud cuckoo land to think that there will be a commons Bill before the next election—and who knows what the priorities of the next Government will be?
      In short, the Minister is faced with an urgent problem and must find a legislative slot to solve that problem. I therefore join my right hon. and hon. Friends in urging him to take the opportunity to use the legislative powers available to him in the Bill to solve a deep, urgent problem for many people throughout the country.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The amendments deal with two separate issues, and I shall start with the issue of driving motorised vehicles on bridleways.
      Amendments Nos. 304, 305 and 302 would affect schedule 7, especially the amendment to section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which would make it an offence to drive on land which does not form part of a road. In Committee, I explained that new subsection (2) of section 34, which was added by Government amendment in Committee, is designed to improve the enforcement of section 34 and address in particular the problem of large numbers of motor bike riders who believe that they may ride with impunity on bridleways and footpaths, regardless of whether there is any evidence of vehicular rights over them.
      Amendments Nos. 304 and 305 would make the definitive map conclusive evidence of the rights shown on it alone. However, they could have the effect of making it no longer possible to record higher rights which may subsequently be discovered over a footpath, bridleway or, as the definition is amended by the Bill, a restricted byway. So, for example, if bridleway rights were shown to exist over a way shown on a definitive map as a footpath, it might not be possible to upgrade the footpath to a bridleway, and the outcome would be inaccurate maps.
      The effect of amendments Nos. 303 and 45 would be that a person prosecuted for driving on a way shown on a definitive map as a bridleway, for example, would have to produce evidence of full vehicular rights on the basis of the balance of probabilities. That is a higher test than that which may be required to put a new right of way on a definitive map. Amendment No. 302 would make the definitive map conclusive for the purposes of a prosecution. However, the level of evidence required to put a new right or way on a definitive map is much lower than that required for a criminal prosecution.
      In view of the concern expressed by a number of hon. Members that the Government amendment made in Committee did not go far enough, I agreed to consider this matter further. We are still considering it. A key question is whether a person should be deprived of exercising rights over a highway merely because those rights have not been recorded on a definitive map. It is not a constraint, for example, which applies to walkers or horse riders.
      5.30 pm
      I accept that Parliament has provided the definitive map process as a means of recording public rights of way,

      975
      and there are arguments that, in general, people should not try to bypass that process. In part, those arguments are reflected in the new subsection (2) in section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which removes the obligation on the prosecution to prove its case from the very beginning. Instead, the defendant has to produce prima facie evidence as to possible vehicular rights. If he cannot, the prosecution is not obliged to prove that vehicular rights do not exist. We need to think carefully about the implications of going beyond that. It is right that Governments should be cautious before deviating from the general principle of criminal law that the prosecution should prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
      I am afraid that I cannot say more than that today. I repeat that we are considering the matter, but I cannot give any commitment that we will introduce amendments at a later date, although I acknowledge the problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) have said, we have recently been in discussions with the Lake district national park authority about the difficulties. I am sorry that I cannot go further today.
      Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 relate to the problems of common land, which were clearly outlined by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I do not resile from the statement that I made in an Adjournment debate a while ago. The situation that he described, and the situation elsewhere, as described by other hon. Members, is outrageous. I am afraid to say that they are not the only examples of such spivvery that I have come across. Many of my constituents have started receiving large bills from companies, usually based in the south of England, that have bought the freehold at an auction somewhere. The bills are not for the freehold money, which would be a small sum, but for retrospective consent for putting in a sliding door, making some minor extension to the house or putting up a conservatory. My constituents face exactly the same kind of blackmail. That is another problem that needs to be resolved. I mention it to show that the problem is not confined to the constituencies that Conservative Members represent. Such behaviour is, unhappily, all too common in this day and age.
      The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire described very fairly the efforts that I made to assist with the problem at Newtown, but he missed out one stage. I went one stage further than he said, and arranged a meeting with Mr. Farrow of Bakewell Management and pressed on him the need to reach a reasonable settlement with the right hon. Gentleman's constituent. We should not get involved in the details of the negotiation here, but from that meeting, rightly or wrongly, I formed the view that some form of compromise acceptable to most of those involved might be achievable.
      At the time of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman described me as a hero. I never allowed that to go to my head, because I am aware that the line between being a hero and being a traitor to the people is wafer-thin, and one can stray across it at any moment. It may well be that in the light of my response I shall have strayed across it by the end of this debate. The difficulty with introducing legislation that meets all the different circumstances affecting commons is that there are many different sets of circumstances. Other hon. Members have described how in some cases the National Trust was the landlord; in other
      976
      cases Surrey county council was the landlord. As the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said, Surrey county council has behaved very responsibly, as does the National Trust. It is therefore quite difficult—desirable though it is—to come up with a solution that meets all possibilities.
      I turn in detail to amendments Nos. 135 and 136. The unfortunate situation has arisen because driving on common land can be a criminal offence. That has been so on some commons since as long ago as 1926. Rights of vehicular access through long use can be acquired only where no criminal offence is committed. For some reason that I cannot explain—there are a number of such aspects—that often seems to have been overlooked when a house with access over a common was built or sold and the deeds made no mention of access rights. I think that I am right in saying that in no single case in Newtown did lawyers discover such rights when houses were sold.
      As a result, a number of people whose sole means of vehicular access is over common land owned by someone else have no legal right to use the access. Recent court cases have highlighted that problem, and drawn attention to the value of vehicular access in today's context and the high charges that can be made for acquiring such access.
      When the issue was raised in the House last year, I undertook to investigate the situation and to see whether Government action would be appropriate. With officials in my Department, I have gone over a number of options for overcoming the problem. Our objective was—and, indeed, remains—to try to find a way to ensure that the charges made by landowners for easements are reasonable. However, we have so far concluded that none of the options is straightforward, and that they are all likely to have serious implications elsewhere.
      The principal effect of amendments Nos. 135 and 136 would be to make it lawful to drive over common land to access a dwellinghouse—and not only that: amendment No.135 states that it has always been lawful to do so, and amendment No. 136 would make the activity lawful, in certain circumstances, over at least the past 20 years. As it is currently a criminal offence to drive on common land without the owner's permission, I am not clear what the amendments' effect might be on someone who was convicted in the past. What would happen to their conviction? Similarly, could action be taken against a landowner who had, quite lawfully at the time, denied access? [Interruption.] I am sharing with the House the advice that I have been offered.
      There is one quite serious general point. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire spent longer in government than I spent in opposition, and he will know that Governments do not lightly engage in retrospective legislation. I do not say that that is the end of the matter, but his amendments do not overcome that problem, whatever he thinks about the points that I raised a moment ago.
      Mr. Hogg: I shall make two points to the Minister. First, the legal advice that he is receiving about previous actions or convictions can be met simply by stating in the Bill that any amendment such as amendment No. 135 does not affect the validity of actions taken under the old law. That can be stated in statute. Secondly, when he is reviewing the matter, I hope that he will not confine himself to dwellinghouses. I make the same point to him

      977
      as I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) with regard to the rights of access to other land: agricultural holdings, commercial property, horticultural holdings and so forth are just the same for such purposes.
      Mr. Mullin: That final point makes me a little nervous. The more that one broadens the matter, the more complications can be discovered. I am not sure whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point—I note his first—is entirely helpful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). To judge by the expressions on their faces, they may share my view on that point.
      Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire): If a council or a landowner enforces the rights, the person in question is aware of them. The problem for so many of us on the Opposition Benches is that our constituents bought homes in good faith when unaware—as was the council—of such rights, but are to be caught by retrospective action that is untenable. The Government should do something about it.
      Mr. Mullin: I share the hon. Gentleman's view of the unfairness of it all. It is possible that when the houses were last conveyed, lawyers acting for the individuals concerned should have spotted such rights. I do not make that point too strongly because none of the lawyers in any case spotted it—so the rights may have been buried quite deeply.
      Mr. Page: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. Most lawyers make local authority searches, and the local authority should record the existence of a right of way and draw it to the solicitor's attention. The fault is not the solicitor's, but the local authority's.
      Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not want to get too deeply involved in where the fault lies. We all acknowledge that there is a serious problem, and one way or another, a solution must be found—not necessarily a legislative solution; in some cases, particularly in Newtown, a negotiated solution may be possible.
      The hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) mentioned the Local Government Act 1972. I cannot give them an answer off the top of my head, but I will take advice. I am told that it is open to councils to apply to the Secretary of State for variation of the disposal consent. That route may be helpful, though not necessarily in all cases.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: The Minister may not be aware that his predecessor was approached by Surrey county council, which asked her to give a broader remit so that the council could deal with the problem in a fair and reasonable way. At that time, the Department's policy was not to give any further discretion to the council. However, as the Minister said in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire on 10 May, that
      a reasonable capital charge would be no more than 5 per cent.,
      978
      and as the relevant section of the Local Government Act 1972 states:
      Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a council shall not dispose of land … for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained
      it seems that his wording is close to giving the remit that reasonable landlords want in order to proceed in a way that is fair to my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Mullin: I do not recall the detail of the 1972 Act, but I undertake to consider whether that provides a possible route. There are various suggestions on the table, and we need to consider them. However, neither of the amendments meet the situation. They seek to rectify the situation retrospectively, which is extremely difficult for any Government.
      Mr. Maples: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Mullin: Yes, but this must be the final time.
      Mr. Maples: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has rejected the two amendments, but as he knows, there are other possible solutions that would set out a value in the legislation—,£1,000 or £2,000—or set out a formula or give the valuation to some third party. Will he consider one of those options as an acceptable solution?
      Mr. Mullin: We have heard a list of such suggestions, and I undertake to consider them. I acknowledge the seriousness of the problem. If I could think of a solution to it now, I would offer it. I know that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire tabled other amendments—which, regrettably, were found to be outside the scope of the Bill. Perhaps a solution could be found along those lines. All I can tell the House is that the two amendments will not achieve the intended purpose.
      Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend does not seem to have convinced anyone in the House, even himself. Will he give us an undertaking that the matter will be sorted out in the other place?
      Mr. Mullin: I have no difficulty in convincing myself; I cannot speak for anyone else. It should not be difficult to convince my hon. Friend that because the amendments are retrospective, they do not do the job that is required. I have no difficulty with that idea, and if hon. Members think about it, most of them will recognise it. I acknowledge that there is a difficulty. If there is a legislative solution, as opposed to a negotiated one—I still think that in the particular case, there is scope for negotiation—we must try to discover it.
      5.45 pm
      Sir George Young: I remind the Under-Secretary of his words about the current position: "outrageous", "spivvery", "blackmail", "unfairness". He used those words a few moments ago. He wants to find a solution; we have proposed a vehicle. Does he genuinely claim that it is beyond the Government's resources between now and the Bill's consideration in another place to find a solution to the problem that so many hon. Members have brought to his attention this afternoon?
      Mr. Mullin: I did not claim that it was impossible to find a solution before the Bill goes to another place, but

      979
      I make no commitment to doing that. In the nine months during which we have considered the Bill, no one has proposed a solution that deals with all the problems, give or take one or two suggestions this afternoon. I do not recognise the word "blackmail"; I believe that the right hon. Gentleman used it. However, I own up to the other three words.
      I am afraid that I must ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.
      Mr. Hogg: I shall make three observations. First, I would not want to depend on a negotiated settlement. When there are unequal strengths, such a settlement is not necessarily just. I would not wish my constituents to depend on such a settlement.
      Secondly, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is right. The argument that the Under-Secretary advanced about the legal difficulties does not stand up. It is true that there is a disadvantage associated with the amendment because people will say, "What about decisions that were made in the past—for example, on criminal convictions or actions by a landlord?" The amendment could deal with that difficulty by stating that the provision would not have a prejudicial effect on decisions made under previously existing law. Parliamentary counsel can deal with the legal language.
      My third point—I am sorry to distress my right hon. and hon. Friends—is about the attempts to distinguish between a dwellinghouse and other landholdings That important problem troubles my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) My hon. Friends made compelling speeches, but there is no distinction in principle between a dwellinghouse and any other form of landholding. I hope that the problem will be tackled. If so, I hope that the Under-Secretary will also consider access to and egress from other holdings of land—agricultural, horticultural and commercial—as well as the dwellinghouses that my hon. Friends have discussed.
      Mr. St. Aubyn: My right hon. and learned Friend is missing a point. The other landholdings to which he refers have experienced development, whereas most of the dwellinghouses have existed and remained the same sometimes for more than 100 years. The scale of the problem is different. Development on other landholdings may create other problems and obligations for surrounding residents; they may well be grateful for obstacles in the way of further development.
      Mr. Hogg: I do not recognise that distinction. If I were the proprietor of a small butcher's shop that had existed for a long time, and suddenly found that the owner of the common land was seeking to charge for access to my shop, I would be as angry as if I were the owner of a small dwellinghouse. If I were the proprietor of a small horticultural holding of the sort that exists in my constituency, or a small landholding of a few acres, I would not accept a distinction between me as the small landowner and the large householder in another constituency. There is no difference. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider all the problems. The problems exist, but let us not make false distinctions.
      Mr. Hunter: I speak only to amendments Nos. 304, 305, 302 and 303; other hon. Members can speak to the
      980
      others in the group. I listened carefully to the Under-Secretary. He did not go as far as I would wish. He said that the Government were considering the matter further, but he made no promises, and gave no commitment to action. That does not amount to much. However, I am in a charitable mood, and, as I acknowledge that the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire would not have pressed his amendment, I am prepared to follow suit.
      Sir George Young: The Under-Secretary's natural decency clashed with the harshness of the brief; he was visibly uncomfortable with what he had to read out. I am afraid that his response was unsatisfactory. He should assume ownership of the problem and undertake to provide a solution; it is not enough to invite Back Benchers to go away and try again, leaving the Government free simply to shoot down amendments at a later stage because they are incorrect.
      Mr. Green: The Under-Secretary said that other amendments were out of order, including those containing solutions suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). That is not correct. Those amendments appear on the amendment paper, so they are in order; they were simply not selected for debate. Therefore, they could constitute a legislative route that the Government could take in another place.
      Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but my point is that, unless the Under-Secretary gives an undertaking that he will assume ownership of the problem and that he will table amendments in another place, I am afraid that I find his reply disappointing and unsatisfactory and, at the appropriate time, I shall seek leave to divide the House.
      Mr. Hunter: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 227, in page 50, line 14, at end insert—
      'The Highways Act 1980 (c. 66).
      . In section 116 of the 1980 Act (power of magistrates' court to authorise stopping up or diversion of highway) in subsection (4), for "or bridleway" there is substituted ", bridleway or restricted byway".
      . In section 329(1) of the 1980 Act (interpretation) after the definition of "reconstruction" there is inserted—
      "restricted byway" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;"'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 190 to 193, 264, 273, 225 and 226.
      New clause 15—Amendment of sections 116 and 118 of the Highways Act 1980—
      '.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 116 of the 1980 Act, for the words "or a special road" there shall be substituted ", a special road, a footpath or a bridleway".

      981
      (2) In section 118 of the 1980 Act there shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
      "(3A) A public path extinguishment order may provide for the stopping up of a bridleway subject to the reservation of a footpath.".'.
      Mr. Mullin: Government amendment No. 227 arises from amendments tabled in Committee by the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) It will enable a magistrates court, when closing or diverting a carriageway under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980, to reserve restricted byway rights over the line of the old highway. That will complement existing powers under that section to reserve footpath or bridleway rights over an extinguished or diverted highway.
      Government amendment No. 226 is a consequential amendment, which will delete the definition of "restricted byway" in clause 54. That definition is superfluous because it already appears in clause 44, where it is applied to all of part II.
      Government amendments Nos. 225, 264 and 273 are minor consequential and technical amendments. Government amendments 190, 191, 192 and 193 are essentially technical amendments to the regulation-making power in clause 48, which relates to restricted byways.
      Government amendment No. 190 will clarify the intention in clause 48, which is that regulations made under it should enable changes to be made not only to legislation directly applying to highways, but to the vast body of legislation that regulates what is done on highways or in connection with them. It will make it clear that clause 48 may be used to amend provisions on the creation, diversion or stopping up of highways.
      Government amendments Nos. 191 and 192 are drafting amendments. Government amendment No. 193 sets out that clause 48 may be used to amend legislation that is inserted into other Acts under the Bill. For example, schedule 6 contains many consequential amendments to highways legislation as a result of the substantive provisions that it contains. Other substantive amendments may need to be made, which would require further amendments to those consequential amendments.
      Mr. Paice: Although we are disappointed in the Government's response to several of the major issues that we have raised in Committee and on Report, it would be churlish not to acknowledge our gratitude that Government amendment No. 227 is their response to the persuasive arguments that my hon. Friends and I marshalled in Committee. We are always pleased and happy temporarily to pick up the crumbs from the Under-Secretary's table, and I thank him for listening on that occasion.
      Mr. Bennett: I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would continue all the good news by telling us that he was prepared to accept new clause 15, which deals with a long-running issue. I argued a similar case during consideration of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Just before that Act was introduced, changes
      982
      were made under the Highways Act 1980. As a result of that and the 1981 Act, rights of way can be closed in two ways—through a procedure in the magistrates courts and through the planning process. Whatever party has been in power, the Government have never claimed that they encouraged local authorities to use the magistrates procedure. It is clear that the intention was to use the planning process to decide whether a right of way could be closed or diverted.
      Government guidance on the magistrates court procedure states:
      the Secretaries of State consider that authorities should make use of the other powers available unless there are good reasons for not doing so.
      Over the years, most local authorities have accepted that advice and have normally used the planning process, which contains a series of safeguards. There is a need to put notices on footpaths and to notify various bodies that a proposal for a closure or diversion will take place. The process is well understood, and volunteers for groups, such as the Ramblers Association, the Open Spaces Society and the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society, have coped with it very efficiently. They can send someone to an inquiry and make representations.
      What appears to happen is that, every so often, local authorities decide that they would prefer to go the magistrates courts. In the past, they had to come up with a good reason. The good reason increasingly seems to be that that procedure is cheaper and quicker. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will tell us that that anomaly will be cut out altogether and that the planning process will be used rather than the magistrates courts. If he insists that we need to keep both processes, will he make it clear which of the good reasons to use the magistrates courts procedure listed in Department of the Environment circular 2/93 will be acceptable?
      Mr. Mullin: New clause 15 is similar to one tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). I acknowledged at the time that in our consultation paper, which was issued last year, we proposed removing from magistrates courts the power to close rights of way. I said that we decided not to proceed with the proposal because of the mixed response that we received. Many local authorities apparently prefer the existing arrangements because they are flexible. The current provisions contain safeguards. For example, users of the highway involved have a right to be heard by the magistrates court and parish councils have a power of veto.
      On the second part of new clause 15, an order is made under section 118 of the Highways Act 1980 if a right of way is not needed for public use. For example, another right of way might serve the same purpose. However, if one bridleway performs the same function as another, it will be open to people on foot as well. So if there is a case for closing the first bridleway, it is not immediately clear why the right of way on foot should be saved. I therefore ask my hon. Friend not to press new clause 15 to a Division.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 48

      RESTRICTED BYWAYS: POWER TO MAKE CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION
      Amendments made: No. 190, in page 27, line 2, leave out from beginning to first "to" in line 4 and insert—
      '(a) provide for any relevant provision which relates—

      (i) to highways or highways of a particular description,

      (ii) to things done on or in connection with highways or highways of a particular description, or

      (iii) to the creation, stopping up or diversion of highways or highways of a particular description,

      not to apply, or to apply with or without modification, in relation'.
      No. 191, in page 27, line 6, leave out from beginning to "make".
      No. 192, in page 27, line 9, leave out "that paragraph" and insert "paragraph (a)".
      No. 193, in page 27, leave out lines 13 to 15 and insert—
      '(3) The powers conferred by this section may be exercised in relation to a provision contained in an Act falling within subsection (2)(a) even though the provision is amended or inserted by this Act.'.—[Mr. Mullin.]

    Schedule 6

      AMENDMENTS RELATING TO CREATION, STOPPING UP AND DIVERSION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
      6 pm
      Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 50, line 26, at end insert—
      '.After section 26 of the 1980 Act there is inserted—
      "Application for a public path creation order
      26A.—(1) Any person may apply to a council for the area in which the land is situated for the making of a public path creation order to create a footpath or bridleway over the land.
      (2) An application under this section shall be in such form as may be prescribed and shall be accompanied by a map, on such scale as may be prescribed, showing the land over which the public right of way would be created, and by such other information as may be prescribed.
      (3) An application may be made by the owner, lessee or occupier of any land used for agriculture, forestry or the breeding or keeping of horses for a creation order concurrently with an application under section 118ZA or 119ZA for a public path diversion order or extinguishment order, and such an application is referred to in this section as a 'concurrent application'.
      (4) Regulations may provide—

      (a) that a prescribed fee is payable on the making of a concurrent application under this section, and

      (b) that further prescribed charges ale payable by the applicant if the application is granted.

      (5) An application under this section is not to be taken to be received by the council until the requirements of regulations under section 121A below have been satisfied in relation to it.
      (6) A council which receives an application under this section shall, after consulting such persons as may be prescribed, determine the application as soon as reasonably practicable.
      (7) Before determining to make a public path creation order on a concurrent application under this section, the council may require the applicant to enter into an agreement with them to
      984
      defray, or to make such contribution as may be specified in the agreement towards, any compensation which may become payable under section 28 below.
      (8) Where—

      (a) an application under this section has been made to a council, and

      (b) the council have not determined the application within twelve months of receiving it,

      the Secretary of State may, at the request of the applicant and after consulting the council, direct the council to determine the application before the end of such period as may be specified in the direction.
      (9) As soon as practicable after determining an application under this section, the council shall—

      (a) give to the applicant notice in writing of their decision and the reasons for it, and

      (b) give a copy of the notice to such other persons as may be prescribed.

      (10) This section has effect subject to the provisions of sections 121A and 121C below.
      (11) In this section—
      'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations;
      'regulations' means regulations made by the Secretary of State.".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 99, in page 50, line 31, after "agriculture", insert ", land management".
      Amendment No. 86, in page 50, line 31, leave out "and forestry" and insert—
      ', forestry and the breeding and keeping of horses'.
      Amendment No. 100, in page 50, line 45, at end insert—
      (3) In this section "land management" means—

      (a) any activity associated with agriculture or forestry;

      (b) any activity to improve or maintain habitat for wildlife and biodiversity;

      (c) any activity to maintain, improve or use sporting opportunities on the land;

      (d) pest control; or

      (e) any other activity undertaken by or on behalf of the owner in furtherance of earning an income from the land.'.

      Amendment No. 90, in page 51, line 21, leave out from "section" to end of line 24.
      Amendment No. 88, in page 51, line 21, at end insert—
      '( ) that where any prescribed fee exceeds the costs actually incurred by the council, the fee payable shall not exceed those costs, and
      ( ) that prescribed fees may be reduced or waived by the council in recognition of any benefit to the public if the application is granted, and'.
      Amendment No. 73, in page 51, line 41, leave out "four" and insert "twelve".
      Amendment No. 91, in page 54, line 35, leave out from "section" to end of line 38.
      Amendment No. 89, in page 54, line 35, at end insert—
      '( ) that where any prescribed fee exceeds the costs actually incurred by the council, the fee payable shall not exceed those costs, and
      ( ) that prescribed fees may be reduced or waived by the council in recognition of any benefit to the public if the application is granted, and'.
      Amendment No. 74, in page 54, line 48, leave out "four" and insert "twelve".

      985
      Amendment No. 87, in page 64, line 12, after
      "forestry", insert—
      ',the breeding and keeping of horses'.
      Government amendments Nos. 271 and 214.
      Mr. Bennett: This is a matter of natural justice. The Government are providing a right for the landowner to propose a procedure to close or divert rights of way. We are simply asking that the general public should be able to press councils to create new footpaths. It is a matter of balance, and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
      Mr. Paice: I shall speak to the amendments that my hon. Friends and I have tabled. Amendments Nos. 99, 86 and 100 go hand in hand. Amendment No. 99 would introduce the concept of land management, so that councils would have to have due regard not only to agriculture and forestry but to land management. Amendment No. 100 would add the definition of land management that we discussed last night in a different context. Amendment No. 86 would add the need to have due regard to the interests of the breeding and keeping of horses.
      The reasons for the amendments are self-explanatory. In principle, we appreciate the fact that councils will have to have regard to agriculture and forestry, but in today's world it is important to think about wider aspects of land management, including other activities that landowners, occupiers or tenant farmers may wish to carry out on their land that may not necessarily be classified under the headings of agriculture and forestry.
      On the issue of horses, I again draw the House's attention—as I did last night in a different context—to the document "An action plan for farming", which the Government published on 30 March. It refers to the fact that a
      significant rural-based industry centres upon horses … The Government has assigned the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food responsibility for working with the horse industry to help develop its potential for rural-based employment.
      It goes on to refer to changing the planning guidance and to the possibility of rate relief.
      In addition to that policy, there seems to be a contradiction in schedule 6. Line 31 on page 50 refers
      to the needs of agriculture and forestry,
      but line 11 on page 51 refers to
      agriculture, forestry or the breeding or keeping of horses.
      If it is right in that sense, and it certainly is, it should also be included in the earlier paragraph about the duty of councils to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry.
      This groups of amendments includes our amendments to curtail charges made by councils. Much discussion was held in Committee about how much people will be charged under the schedule for the making of applications and what is described in the Bill as "further prescribed charges". We are concerned that the term "further prescribed charges" is too open and wide. It would allow a council to make a charge that was beyond the special nature of the particular application, and included an element of margin or profit, call it what you will.
      986
      The purpose of our amendments is to curtail those charges to no more than those incurred by the council, and to give councils the power to waive charges if there is a public benefit in the extinguishment order that the council is considering. We think that it is right and proper for the council to have that level of discretion. The other two amendments make the same points for diversion orders as opposed to extinguishment orders.
      Our amendments are small but important. I commend them to the Minister, and I trust that he will respond constructively.
      Mr. Mullin: I shall do my best. Amendment No. 72, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), would give a right for anyone to apply to a council for an order under section 26 of the Highways Act 1980 to create a footpath or bridleway.
      As I said in Committee, I agree with my hon. Friend that local authorities should be more willing to consider making use of their powers to create footpaths and bridleways by agreement with landowners or by order. We are keen to promote the joining up of missing links in the rights of way network, and we want to encourage a more proactive approach by local highway authorities to meeting modern day recreational needs. However, we are not convinced that giving a person a right to apply for creation orders over someone else's land is an appropriate way of achieving that.
      In the consultation paper issued last year, we explained that it would not be appropriate for people to have an express statutory right to apply for creation orders. Highways exist for the wider public benefit, and we believe that the responsible public authorities should determine whether, and if so where and when, to initiate specific proposals for creating new highways. It is for them to decide whether a new footpath or bridleway is needed.
      The public will be able to influence local authorities' strategies towards the creation of new rights of way during consultations on the improvement plans that authorities are required to prepare under clauses 53 and 54. Landowners who are willing for a path to be created over their land have no need to apply for an order. For example, the Highways Act 1980 already enables them to enter into an agreement with their local authority for the creation of public paths. Therefore, I am afraid that, once again, I have to ask my hon. Friend not to press his amendment.
      Amendments Nos. 88 to 91 would modify new sections 118ZA and 119ZA of the Highways Act 1980, which are contained in schedule 6, and would require that, if any prescribed fees exceeded the costs actually incurred by the council, the fee payable should not exceed those costs, and would allow prescribed fees to be reduced or waived by the council in recognition of any benefit to the public if the application were granted.
      Those amendments would also remove new section 118ZA(3)(b), which provides the power to make regulations relating to further charges on top of an application fee and in relation to public path extinguishment orders. The regulations will provide that fees and charges do not exceed the costs that they are intended to cover.
      It is common practice for authorities to charge administration fees for the work done in considering applications for consent to do something—for instance,

      987
      planning applications. They have some limited discretion as to whether to waive fees, but there appears no good reason to make an exception for applicants for public path orders, even if public benefit may result. In many instances, applicants will be seeking orders because it is in their interests to do so.
      Amendments Nos. 86 and 87, tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), would require councils to have regard to the keeping and breeding of horses. We believe that that would be consistent with new sections 118ZA and 119ZA. These would introduce a right for owners and occupiers of land used for, among other things, the keeping and breeding of horses to apply for footpaths and bridleways to be diverted or closed. We are therefore willing to consider them.
      However, I am afraid that I cannot accept amendments Nos. 99 and 100. Their collective effect would be to extend the duty under section 29 well beyond its current scope. The definition of land management in amendment No. 100 is extremely wide. For example, it includes any activity undertaken in furtherance of earning an income from the land. That could mean almost anything. Arguably, it could cover development—for example, if a farmer were diversifying—and only a short step would be needed to take account of the potential for building housing estates or out-of-town shopping centres.
      Mr. Paice: The Minister may be technically right, but clearly that is not part of the impact that we would expect. I take him back to the welcome news that he is prepared to consider amendments Nos. 86 and 87. For the purposes of how we proceed, did he say that he will accept them?
      Mr. Mullin: No. I said that we will consider them, without commitment, at this stage. However, the hon. Gentleman knows that we have a good track record of taking on board points made by Conservative Members. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he comes to consider how he should proceed. It is our view that the amendments would be consistent with the new sections on the breeding of horses.
      In so far as the amendments relate to nature conservation, section 29 will be amended by the Bill so as to require authorities to have regard to the conservation of nature and landscape. That complements section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968, which requires public bodies to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside in the exercise of their functions. Natural beauty is defined as including nature conservation. There has to be a limit on the number of matters that councils are required to consider when making public paths. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with that when he reflects on it. We are almost at that limit and, although I am willing to consider amendments Nos. 86 and 87, I hope that he will not press amendments Nos. 99 and 100.
      Amendment No. 214 is essentially a technical amendment that forms part of the mechanism for determining appeals arising from the new right of landowners and occupiers to apply for orders to divert footpaths and bridleways that pass over their land and for school proprietors to apply for diversions of rights of way that cross school grounds to protect staff and pupils.
      Amendment No. 271, which arises from an amendment moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), would ensure that charges cannot
      988
      be imposed under current legislation for members of the public to inspect registers of applications for certain stopping-up and diversion orders, which councils will be required to keep under new section 121B(5) of the Highways Act 1980.
      Mr. Hogg: I want to comment briefly on amendment No. 72 as nothing has been said about it from the Conservative Benches. I am as much a walker as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but I am wholeheartedly against the amendment for three reasons. First, it would not prevent frivolous and vexatious applications. Secondly, landowners would have to respond to such applications. That would cost them money and I am thoroughly against imposing new charges on farmers and landowners. Thirdly, I find it incompatible with my concept of private property, which we sometimes seem to be in danger of losing sight of in these debates.
      I say to the Under-Secretary that, although I do not always agree with him—indeed, I usually do not agree with him—I robustly endorse his rejection of the amendment.
      Mr. Bennett: I am not particularly happy with the Minister's reply, but perhaps we can pursue the matter further when we discuss new clause 2. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 228, in page 51, line 2, leave out from "(f)" to first "a" in line 4.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 229.
      Amendment No. 59, in page 52, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 53.
      Government amendment No. 230.
      Amendment No. 113, in page 52, line 19, leave out "footpath or bridleway", and insert "relevant highway".
      Amendment No. 39, in page 52, line 19, leave out from "is" to second "area" in line 20 and insert "in their".
      Amendment No. 114, in page 52, line 19, leave out "both".
      Amendment No. 115, in page 52, line 20, leave out—
      'and in a designated urban area'
      Government amendments Nos. 231 and 232.
      Amendment No. 116, in page 52, line 24, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Government amendments Nos. 233 to 235.
      Amendment No. 117, in page 52, line 35, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Amendment No. 118, in page 52, line 36, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Government amendments Nos. 236 to 238.
      Amendment No. 119, in page 53, line 27, at end insert—
      '(8A) In this section "relevant highway" has the meaning given in section 119D(2).'.
      Government amendment No. 239.

      989
      Amendment No. 77, in page 53, line 29, leave out from "State" to end of line 30 and insert "under section 121F below".
      Amendment No. 60, in page 53, line 31, leave out "118C" and insert "118B".
      Government amendment No. 240.
      Amendment No. 120, in page 53, line 34, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Government amendment No. 241.
      Amendment No. 121, in page 55, line 28, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Amendment No. 92, in page 55, line 28, leave out from "footpath" to "that" in line 32 and insert—
      ', bridleway or restricted byway which is in their area, it is expedient, in the interests of preventing or reducing crime,'.
      Amendment No. 41, in page 55, line 28, leave out from "is" to second "area" in line 29 and insert "in their".
      Amendment No. 122, in page 55, line 28, leave out "both".
      Amendment No. 123, in page 55, line 29, leave out—
      'and in a designated urban area'.
      Government amendments Nos. 242 and 243.
      Amendment No. 124, in page 55, line 35, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Government amendments Nos. 244 to 246.
      Amendment No. 125, in page 55, line 49, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Government amendment No. 247.
      Amendment No. 126, in page 56, line 3, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Government amendments Nos. 248 to 250.
      Amendment No. 75, in page 56, line 20, at end insert—
      ', and which is substantially as convenient to the public'.
      Government amendments Nos. 251 and 252.
      Amendment No. 76, in page 56, line 54, at end insert—
      '(e) the relative convenience to the public of the existing path or way and the proposed new right of way, and
      (f) the effect which the diversion would have on public enjoyment of the path or way as a whole.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 253 to 255.
      Amendment No. 127, in page 57, line 17, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Amendment No. 128, in page 57, line 21, at end insert—
      '(12A) In this section "relevant highway" has the meaning given in section 119D(2)'.
      Amendment No. 42, in page 57, leave out lines 22 and 23.
      Amendment No. 78, in page 57, line 23, leave out "118B(9) above" and insert "121F below".
      Government amendment No. 256.
      Amendment No. 129, in page 57, line 27, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      Government amendment No. 257.
      Amendment No. 130, in page 57, line 30, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "relevant highway".
      990
      Government amendments Nos. 258 to 262, 265 to 270 and 272.
      Amendment No. 79, in page 69, line 17, at end insert—
      'Designation orders
      121F.—(1) The Secretary of State shall have power to make an order (in this section referred to as a "designation order") designating an urban area as an area in which sections 118B and 119B for the time being apply.
      (2) A designation order may be made only on the application of the local highway authority for the area which is the subject of the order.
      (3) Such an application must be made in such form and accompanied by such information as shall be prescribed.
      (4) Before submitting an application the local highway authority shall—

      (a) give notice of its intention to submit an application;

      (b) permit inspection free of charge of the application and supporting information;

      (c) provide the opportunity for objections and representations to be made; and

      (d) consult such bodies as may be prescribed;

      in such form and manner as may be prescribed.
      (5) In his consideration of the application and any objections and representations made to the local highway authority the Secretary of State—

      (a) may hold a public inquiry;

      (b) shall be required to satisfy himself that the proposed designation is consistent with any strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder prepared under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;

      (c) may reject the application or approve it in the terms of the application or such varied terms as he shall think fit but so that in the case of variation the area referred to in the order may not be greater than that referred to in the application.

      (6) An order made by the Secretary of State under this section shall be accompanied by a plan showing the designated area and the routes of all the footpaths and bridleways within the area.
      (7) An order made by the Secretary of State under this section shall be for a period not exceeding five years, and the Secretary of State shall have power to make one or more further orders for subsequent periods, but only upon receipt of further application.
      (8) Where an order has been made by the Secretary of State the authority shall—

      (a) publicise the making of the order; and

      (b) keep available for public inspection free of charge a copy of the order and of the plan referred to in subsection (6) above in such a manner as shall be prescribed.

      (9) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.
      Mr. Meacher: I shall try to make the length of my speech inversely proportionate to that of the list of amendments. Government amendments Nos. 228 to 262, 265 to 270 and 272 arise from commitments that we gave in Committee to consider amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), for Ashford (Mr. Green), for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown)—in other words, a wide range of interests—that related to the provisions in new sections 118B and 119B for the closure or diversion of footpaths and bridleways to prevent crime in certain areas and to increase school security.

      991
      The core amendments have four main effects. First, amendments Nos. 230, 235, 241 and 246 deal with the powers to close rights of way in certain areas to prevent or reduce crime. In Committee, Conservative Members argued that those powers should not be confined to designated urban areas but should be available throughout England and Wales. As I made clear in Committee, the principal threats that the powers are intended to counter arise from the use of back alleys in built-up areas to gain access to premises. However, we accept that confining those powers to urban areas could exclude any smaller settlements in rural areas where there may be a case for them to be available. The amendments would therefore remove the word "urban", enabling the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to designate any area in which it appears to them that the powers should be available.
      Mr. David Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, but he has hurt my feelings by not mentioning the many amendments to which I spoke in Committee on closing footpaths to prevent crime. The piece de resistance concerned the process of designating an area in which closures and diversions could take place. From my initial reading of that great list of Government amendments, I cannot see how my right hon. Friend intends to go about designating areas Will he refer to that?
      Mr. Meacher: I certainly will, and I apologise to my hon. Friend because, entirely as he said, he did a great deal of work in Committee, particularly on that issue, and I am grateful for it. Indeed, the Government amendments reflect his input and I shall immediately explain what we are doing to designate.
      Secondly, the same amendments clarify the grounds on which orders in designated areas may be made. They make it clear that these powers are intended to be used only where persistent and high levels of crime against properties next to a right of way are being generated by the access that the right of way gives. The powers to close or divert rights of way through school grounds to protect children and staff already apply to all schools in England and Wales, but, by their nature, these powers are site specific.
      Thirdly, in line with the sites of special scientific interest provisions, the amendments provide that the powers under new sections 118B and 119B should lie with local highway authorities. Schools will also be able to apply for orders in respect of restricted byways and byways open to all traffic just as the Bill will enable them to make applications in respect of footpaths and bridleways. The remainder of the Government amendments in the group that I mentioned are consequential, or make minor drafting improvements.
      Amendments Nos. 39, 41, 114, 115, 122 and 123 would make the powers to close or divert rights of way to prevent crime available throughout England and Wales. The key question is whether closing a right of way is an effective way of tackling crime in an area where criminals have a variety of means of gaining access to premises. That is the central issue with which we should be concerned. The public interest in reducing crime, which is considerable, has to be weighed against the public interest in losing a right of way. It is assessing that balance that has weighed with us.
      992
      It is worth noting that a consultation paper on road traffic law that was issued by the previous Government expressed the view that
      it is neither desirable nor appropriate for crime prevention to become a reason in itself for the permanent closure of rights of way.
      That is an important statement. By contrast, we have accepted that there may be a case for doing so in certain circumstances, but there needs to be strict safeguards and that is why we are insisting on a targeted approach—that is, a designation of areas.
      Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 would remove the power to close rights of way to prevent crime and to protect children and staff in schools. The Bill already requires that, before closure should be contemplated, the local authority should consider whether there is a reasonably convenient alternative route and, if not, whether it would be reasonably practicable to divert the right of way. There may be cases—for example, in densely populated areas—where diversion is not an option.
      We have introduced those crime-prevention powers only because we are persuaded that it is necessary for them to be available in certain circumstances as an additional weapon against crime. The provisions have been tailored to ensure, as far as it is possible to do so, that the powers are not abused and will not lead to widespread loss of rights of way, which are important to law-abiding people who use them.
      Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 would introduce additional conditions to the making of a diversion order. Those reflect similar conditions relating to the convenience of the public and their enjoyment of the right of way in question. The tests would make it more difficult to divert a right of way to prevent crime or to protect a school. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) had that in mind, but there are associated problems.
      One problem is whether, in view of the reasons for the diversion powers, it is appropriate to have additional tests. The second is that, given our view that there should also be powers to close rights of way for those purposes, we do not want to make it more difficult to divert a right of way. If we raise the tests on a diversion, a local authority may feel that it has no option but to go for closure. I am sure that that is not what my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend intended.
      Amendments Nos. 79, 77 and 78, which are consequential, would introduce an additional layer into the decision-making process, to consider whether a right of way should be closed or diverted to prevent crime. As I said in Committee, such additional procedures are not necessary.
      We shall be consulting widely with local authorities and other bodies in designating areas in which the new powers are to be available. Given our additional amendments to the grounds on which orders may be made, I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the system to ensure that thorough scrutiny will be undertaken before a right of way is closed or diverted for crime prevention purposes. I have carefully considered what my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend said, but I hope that, in the light of the reasons that I have given, they will not press their amendments.
      Mr. Green: It would be churlish of me not to welcome the Minister's conversion. Therefore, I do so. It is a

      993
      genuine step forward. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), made the point that the Government have accepted many of the minor improvements that we have suggested, but that is the most significant change in the Bill so far. We should welcome it and we do.
      The Minister was slightly scraping the barrel in going back to a consultation document on transport that was issued by the previous Government. We do not have to go that far back to find some interesting views. We have merely to go back to the Committee stage, when he said in opposing the amendments that we tabled to bring about this happy coincidence:
      There is no case for the powers to apply beyond urban areas … It is a question of targeting: we do not have the resources that we would all like to put into the police force. Risks of vandalism, burglary and vehicle-related theft were also lower for retail and manufacturing premises in rural locations. Burglary forms a smaller proportion of crime in rural areas than it does elsewhere.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, s16 May 2000; c. 663.]
      Not just I and my hon. Friends but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) thought that the Minister was wrong. I am glad that he has joined us in rejecting those arguments, effectively saying—as the Government amendments, as well as our own, do—that rural crime is every bit as important as urban crime and that, even though the incidence in terms of the sheer quantum may be less—fewer people live in rural areas, which is what makes them rural, so fewer crimes are committed there—crime can be equally distressing to those who live there.
      I will not attempt to deal individually with all the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. There are 20 of them in the group. Essentially, they seek to equalise action to prevent rural crime and urban crime—the Government have accepted that—and to improve the definitions in the Bill by replacing the phrase "footpath or bridleway" with "relevant highway".
      The Minister did not particularly deal with that. We are seeking simply to add consistency. In the Bill's provisions dealing with SSSIs, "relevant highway" is the definition that is used. We think that that would be the most appropriate definition to use in this part of the Bill, too. The Minister may believe that the Government amendments cover that. If so, I would welcome some indication of that when he responds to the debate.
      I make two final points on what is an important group of amendments and an important concession. I note that amendment No. 239—which stands not only in my name and in those of my hon. Friends, but in the names of the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake)—has been expropriated by the addition of the Deputy Prime Minister's name to it, turning it into a Government amendment. That not only creates one of the most diverse group of bedfellows ever to appear on a Commons amendment paper, but shows admirable economy of effort on the part of the Government: they have stolen our amendments, rather than merely accepting them. However, in the interests of promoting better legislation, we are happy to lend our amendments, and our efforts to draft them, to the Government.
      994
      The Minister has already asked the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) not to press his amendments. There is a wider point. The Government are, I think, rejecting one of the bad arguments presented by the Ramblers Association, which, in its briefing, expressed concern about possible moves to extend provision for the extinguishment and diversion of footpaths beyond urban areas. I think that the association was wrong about that, and I am glad that the Government now agree with us.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Bennett: I think that the Government are misguided. If we want to stop crime, why is it logical to specify footpaths rather than roads? In the area that I represent, far more burglars arrive at premises by road than arrive by footpath. Surely, if we want to reduce the incidence of crime, it is logical to close roads as well as footpaths—but, of course, it would be considered outrageous to give in to crime in that way.
      When people have been burgled, they feel helpless. They want to blame someone, and they cannot necessarily kick the cat. The police tend to send an officer round—perhaps a crime prevention officer, and often a young officer. That officer will of course be tempted to agree with the distressed householder, and say, "Isn't it terrible—the burglars climbed over the back fence from the footpath." The blame is somehow shifted from the criminal to the footpath.
      The Government are raising people's hopes by suggesting that closing footpaths will cut crime. That is nonsense. It is possible that, when a footpath is closed, a criminal will go to a different house, or will enter through the front rather than the back door; but I do not believe that closing footpaths will reduce crime in most instances. Indeed, in my area and, I suspect, that represented by the Minister, it may make life easier for criminals. In the case of many closed footpaths, there will not be barbed wire everywhere making access impossible.
      Sometimes foot patrols are introduced. It does not happen often, but it happens a little in my constituency and the Minister's. The other day, a young officer told me that one way of cutting crime is to walk down unattractive passageways. Officers on the beat are looking for crime, but when the passageways have been closed they will have to obey the law that says that they cannot go on to private property unless they are invited, or can prove that a crime is occurring. They will no longer be able to nip along the passageway to see what mischief is going on; they will have to be certain that some mischief is going on before they can investigate the problem.
      If we are to do anything at all, we should concentrate on diversion. In particular, we should consider diversions where new housing estates have been built. I can think of two cases in my constituency, and one in the Minister's, in which, to get the maximum number of properties on to new sites, builders arranged for footpaths to be diverted so that they went in at a right angle, went along behind some of the houses, and went out again at a right angle. That meant that there was a small area at the back that no one could look through—not a nice area for people to walk through when going to and from the shops. It is a pocket in which crime can occur.
      I hope that the Minister will consider both the points that I have made. First, closing a footpath makes it even less likely that a police officer will go along it, secondly,

      995
      in the event of a diversion, it should be incumbent on the local authority agreeing to that diversion to take crime prevention measures to ensure that, once diverted, the footpath is less likely to encourage crime than it would have been if diverted in a slightly different way.
      The Minister is raising expectations that, by taking away rights to footpaths, he will somehow have a significant impact on crime. He is giving way to pressure—to the suggestion that it is not possible to tackle the real issue, which is the criminal, so something should be done about footpaths. In practice, that will not work.
      Mr. David Heath: I, too, welcome the Minister's conversion to the cause. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) drew attention to amendment No. 239. I was not remotely miffed to find that he and his hon. Friends had added their names to our amendment, and I am even more pleased to see it nationalised, although perhaps without compensation. I may have to look to my lawyers, if yesterday's debate is anything to go by.
      The most important thing is the loss of the urban designation, which I think discriminated against rural areas. The Minister met with something of a rural backlash in Committee. The argument with which he was provided—that because there was a lower overall crime rate in rural areas, measures that might help to fight crime should not be applied there—was not entirely convincing. I am glad that he has seen the strength of the opposing argument.
      Let me give at least a partial answer to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). As I said in Committee, I hope that the power will be used sparingly. There will be few occasions on which it proves to be the right answer. The Government have seen the wisdom of requiring its use to comply with the locally derived crime and disorder strategy, which is a strong point in its favour. If it can help at all, let us support it.
      I thank the Minister for his helpful letter about the definition of "school". I understand that there is a provision to enable the definition of a primary school to encompass nursery schools, although it does not encompass the pre-school facilities, playgroups and other nursery provision with which I was concerned in Committee.
      I accept what the Minister said in his letter about why it would be difficult to formulate legislation encompassing all the different species. I understand that alternative arrangements can be used, and I am grateful to the Minister for taking the trouble to cover the points that I raised.
      Mr. Meacher: It is always a cause of concern when changes made by the Government are solidly welcomed by the phalanxes of the Opposition, and rejected only by our own side. However, I believe that the welcome is justified. I shall try to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) of that, or at least to placate him a little.
      The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) asked about the meaning of "relevant highway". The Government
      996
      amendments extend the provisions to cover restricted byways and BOATs; the effect is the same as that of the Opposition amendments. My hon. Friend asked whether the closure of footpaths would be affected in combating crime. I went to great lengths to make it clear that any diversions should be carefully restricted. I repeat that the powers are intended to be used only where persistent and high levels of crime against properties next to a right of way are being generated by the access that that right of way gives. Those are quite limiting conditions: they are not at all the basis for widespread diversions.
      I also said that the Bill requires that, before closures are contemplated, the local authority should consider whether there is a reasonably convenient alternative route. If there is no such route, the authority must consider whether it would be reasonably practicable to divert the right of way.
      My hon. Friend laid down two conditions for me. In answer to his first point, it seems slightly odd and rather double-edged to argue that footpaths assist burglars and criminals but that we ought to keep them open so that police officers can get to areas where they are likely to find and arrest burglars.
      However, I was also asked to consider whether footpaths should be diverted only where there is good reason to believe that to do so would be likely to reduce crime. I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend that the power that we are giving should not be used to provide indiscriminate opportunities for the closure of footpaths for other reasons that may be convenient to other parties. Use of the power has to be justified on the basis that it would have—or could reasonably be expected to have—a significant impact on crime.
      Mr. Bennett: How do we reverse the process if crime is not reduced?
      Mr. Meacher: If use of the power does not reduce crime, and there is a strong wish to restore a right of way or footpath, there is no reason why it cannot be restored. Local highways authorities are expected to make available plans for improvements to rights of ways. It is unlikely that the problem described by my hon. Friend would occur. However, if it was decided that an unwise decision had been made, that decision is certainly not irreversible.
      Mr. Green: I am slightly worried that the Minister may be falling into a trap laid for him by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. It would be extraordinary if crime in rural areas were reduced by this measure. Crime is rising so fast in rural areas that any reduction in the increase would go against the trend of the past three years and would be an achievement in itself. The measure would be a success if it did no more than contribute to such a reduction.
      The Minister should not be required to defend a non-reduction in crime. Policies for which he has no responsibility are contributing to the rise in crime in rural areas.
      Mr. Meacher: Virgil wrote:
      Timeo danaos et dona ferentes.
      That can be translated as, "I fear the Greeks even when they are bearing gifts." The hon. Gentleman should not over-egg his argument. As I said in Committee, the level of burglaries in rural areas is only about a third of that in urban areas. It is true that the crime rate continues to rise in some areas, but it is doing so more slowly than over the past two decades.
      The question is whether this is a sensible anti-crime measure. If it is not and does not meet the strict criteria that I have laid down, I do not believe that it will be pursued. It is certainly my intention that it should not be.
      Amendment agreed to.
      6.45 pm
      Amendments made: No. 229, in page 51, line 6, after second "of" insert—
      'a special diversion order or'.
      No. 230, in page 52, line 19, leave out from "that" to "of' in line 21 and insert—
      'as respects any relevant highway for which they are the highway authority and which is in an area designated by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of this section, the conditions in subsection (1B) below are satisfied and it is expedient, for the purpose'.
      No. 231, in page 52, line 23, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 232, in page 52, line 24, leave out—
      'footpath or bridleway in their area'
      and insert—
      'relevant highway for which they are the highway authority and'.
      No. 233, in page 52, line 26, leave out "in the interests" and insert "for the purpose".
      No. 234, in page 52, line 34, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 235, in page 52, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—
      '(1A) In subsection (1) above "relevant highway" means—

      (a) any footpath, bridleway or restricted byway,

      (b) any highway which is shown in a definitive map and statement as a footpath, a bridleway, or a restricted byway, but over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, or

      (c) any highway which is shown in a definitive map and statement as a byway open to all traffic,

      but does not include a highway that is a trunk road or a special road.
      (1B) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are—

      (a) that premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway are affected by high levels of crime, and

      (b) that the existence of the highway is facilitating the persistent commission of criminal offences.'.

      No. 236, in page 52, line 41, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 237, in page 52, line 45, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 238, in page 52, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of page 53, line 19 and insert—
      '(6) The Secretary of State shall not confirm a special extinguishment order made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, and a council shall not confirm such an order as an opposed order, unless he or, as the case may be, they are satisfied that the conditions in
      998
      subsection (1B) above are satisfied, that the stopping up of the highway is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to—

      (a) whether and, if so, to what extent the order is consistent with any strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder prepared under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,

      (b) the availability of a reasonably convenient alternative route or, if no reasonably convenient alternative route is available, whether it would be reasonably practicable to divert the highway under section 119B below rather than stopping it up, and

      (c) the effect which the extinguishment of the right of way would have as respects land served by the highway, account being taken of the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 above as applied by section 121(2) below.

      (6A) The Secretary of State shall not confirm a special extinguishment order made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above, and a council shall not confirm such an order as an opposed order unless he or, as the case may be, they are satisfied that the stopping up of the highway is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to—

      (a) any other measures that have been or could be taken for improving or maintaining the security of the school,

      (b) whether it is likely that the coming into operation of the order will result in a substantial improvement in that security,

      (c) the availability of a reasonably convenient alternative route or, if no reasonably convenient alternative route is available, whether it would be reasonably practicable to divert the highway under section 119B below rather than stopping it up, and

      (d) the effect which the extinguishment of the right of way would have as respects land served by the highway, account being taken of the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 above as applied by section 121(2) below.'.

      No. 239, in page 53, leave out lines 28 to 30.
      No. 240, in page 53, line 31, leave out from "council" to end of line 35 and insert—
      'for the making by virtue of section 118B(1)(b) above of a special extinguishment order in relation to any highway for which the council are the highway authority and which—

      (a) crosses land occupied for the purposes of the school, and

      (b) is a relevant highway as defined by section 118B(1A) above.'.

      No. 241, in page 55, line 28, leave out from "that" to "of' in line 30 and insert—
      'as respects any relevant highway for which they are the highway authority and which is in an area designated by the Secretary of State by order under section 118B(1)(a) above, the conditions in subsection (1B) below are satisfied and it is expedient, for the purpose'.
      No. 242, in page 55, line 32, leave out "path or way" and insert—
      'highway, or part of that line'.
      No. 243, in page 55, line 35, leave out—
      'footpath or bridleway in their area'
      and insert—
      'relevant highway for which they are the highway authority and'.
      No. 244, in page 55, line 37, leave out "in the interests" and insert "for the purpose".
      No. 245, in page 55, line 45, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".

      999
      No. 246, in page 55, leave out lines 48 to 50 and insert—
      '(1A) In subsection (1) above "relevant highway" means—

      (a) any footpath, bridleway or restricted byway,

      (b) any highway which is shown in a definitive map and statement as a footpath, a bridleway, or a restricted byway, but over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, or

      (c) any highway which is shown in a definitive map and statement as a byway open to all traffic,

      but does not include a highway that is a trunk road or a special road.
      (1B) The conditions referred to in subsection (1)(a) above are—

      (a) that premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway are affected by high levels of crime, and

      (b) that the existence of the highway is facilitating the persistent commission of criminal offences.'.

      No. 247, in page 56, line 3, leave out from "such" to "as" and insert—

      '(i) new footpath, bridleway or restricted byway, or

      (ii) in a case falling within subsection (1A)(b) or (c) above, new highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic,'.

      No. 248, in page 56, line 7, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 249, in page 56, line 13, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 250, in page 56, line 16, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 251, in page 56, line 31, leave out "and" and insert "or".
      No. 252, in page 56, leave out lines 33 to 57 and insert—
      (9) The Secretary of State shall not confirm a special diversion order made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above, and a council shall not confirm such an order as an opposed order unless he or, as the case may be, they are satisfied that the conditions in subsection (1B) above are satisfied, that the diversion of the highway is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to—

      (a) whether and, if so, to what extent the order is consistent with any strategy for the reduction of crime and disorder prepared under section 6 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998,

      (b) the effect which the coming into operation of the order would have as respects land served by the existing public right of way, and

      (c) the effect which any new public right of way created by the order would have as respects the land over which the right is so created and any land held with it,

      so, however, that for the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c) above the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the council shall take into account the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 above as applied by section 121(2) below.
      (9A) The Secretary of State shall not confirm a special diversion order made by virtue of subsection (1)(b) above, and a council shall not confirm such an order as an opposed order unless he or, as the case may be, they are satisfied that the diversion of the highway is expedient as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above and that it is expedient to confirm the order having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to—

      (a) any other measures that have been or could be taken for improving or maintaining the security of the school,

      (b) whether it is likely that the coming into operation of the order will result in a substantial improvement in that security,

      1000

      (c) the effect which the coming into operation of the order would have as respects land served by the existing public right of way, and

      (d) the effect which any new public right of way created by the order would have as respects the land over which the right is so created and any land held with it,

      so, however, that for the purposes of paragraphs (c) and (d) above the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the council shall take into account the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28 above as applied by section 121(2) below.'.
      No. 253, in page 57, line 5, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 254, in page 57, line 9, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "highway".
      No. 255, in page 57, leave out lines 16 to 23 and insert—
      '(12) Section 27 above (making up of new footpaths and bridleways) applies to a highway created by a special diversion order with the substitution—

      (a) for references to a footpath or bridleway of references to a footpath, a bridleway, a restricted byway or a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic,

      (b) for references to a public path creation order of references to a special diversion order, and

      (c) for references to section 26(2) above of references to section 120(3) below.

      (13) Neither section 27 nor 36 above is to be regarded as obliging a highway authority to provide—

      (a) on any highway created by a special diversion order, a metalled carriage—way, or

      (b) on a restricted byway so created, a carriage—way which is by any other means provided with a surface suitable for the passage of mechanically propelled vehicles."'.

      No. 256, in page 57, line 24, leave out from "council" to end of line 28 and insert—
      'for the making by virtue of section 119B(1)(b) above of a special diversion order in relation to any highway for which the council are the highway authority and which—

      (a) crosses land occupied for the purposes of the school, and

      (b) is a relevant highway as defined by section 119B(1A) above.'.

      No. 257, in page 57, line 30, leave out "footpath or bridleway" and insert "highway".
      No. 258, in page 57, line 47, leave out—
      'where the council are the highway authority for the path or way'
      and insert—
      'to the extent that the council are the highway authority for the highway'.
      No. 259, in page 57, line 49, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 260, in page 57, line 51, leave out "where" and insert "to the extent that".
      No. 261, in page 58, line 3, after "substitution" insert "(a)".
      No. 262, in page 58, line 4, after second "order" insert "and
      (b) for references to a footpath or bridleway of references to a highway'.—[Mr. Meacher]
      Mr. Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 58, line 16, leave out "significant damage" and insert "damage or disturbance".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 263.

      1001
      Amendment No. 44, in page 58, line 22, after "damage", insert "or disturbance".
      Government amendment No. 213.
      Amendment No. 80, in page 59, line 39, after "that", insert—
      'the path or way will not be substantially less convenient to the public in consequence of the diversion and that'.
      Mr. Brake: The amendments have two main purposes—to ensure that disturbance to birds caused by people walking down highways can be a reason for making a site of special scientific interest diversion order, and to ensure consistency between schedules.
      I shall take the second purpose first. Paragraph 28F of schedule 8 refers to "damage", whereas paragraph 119D of schedule 6 refers to "significant damage". The amendments would ensure that the reference in both cases would be to "damage".
      I turn now to the first purpose of the amendments. A briefing from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds gives three specific examples of the impact that disturbance can have on birds. It reports that a footpath runs along the top of a flood defence bank by the Ouse washes in Cambridgeshire, and that people on the bank are clearly visible to wintering, passage and breeding waders and wildfowl. A local tourism group proposes to use the bank as part of the Black Fen path. The RSPB believe that walkers on the bank who appear above the skyline will disturb birds on what is a site of special scientific interest.
      A similar problem is reported at a place called Deadman's Grave, situated near the Norfolk/Suffolk border. The RSPB states that a footpath running through the area is likely to cause disturbance to breeding birds.
      It is clear from case studies provided by the RSPB that birds can be disturbed at the sites mentioned in the briefing. There is therefore a need to ensure that the Bill takes account of both damage and disturbance. The RSPB states that, unless the amendment is accepted and the word "disturbance" is included in the Bill, it will not be possible to provide the special protection areas for birds required under the EU birds directive.
      If the Minister does not accept the amendments, I hope that he will explain why he is happy with the discrepancy between schedules 6 and 8 that I have already described. If the word "disturbance" is not included in the Bill, will he say whether the Government will be able to comply with the EU birds directive?
      Mr. Kidney: I wish to raise the issue of the convenience of walkers in connection with amendment No. 80. Will any alternative route that is the result of a diversion be as convenient for walkers as it can be, bearing in mind the need for the diversion in the first place?
      Mr. Mullin: Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would modify the new section 119D(1) in schedule 6 so as to enable highway authorities to make SSSI diversion orders in cases where "disturbance", as well as "damage", is resulting or is likely to result from use of a right of way.
      1002
      While I am sympathetic to the concerns about species being disturbed, we are not willing to accept the amendments.
      The rights of way network and the SSSI regime have co-existed for a considerable period of time and—the two examples mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) notwithstanding—we do not believe that the use of rights of way causes significant problems in terms of disturbance to SSSIs. We see no grounds for including that as a reason for diverting a right of way to protect an SSSI, nor do we believe that it is necessary to meet obligations under the EC birds and habitats directive. In our view, the current test for a diversion, which is that use of the right of way is causing or is likely to cause significant damage to the site, provides all the protection needed.
      It might be possible to argue that there are cases in which disturbance to the protected features of an SSSI is of such a type, or such a degree, that it would amount to "significant damage". The examples cited by the hon. Gentleman might come into that category. In such cases, the test would be met and a diversion order could be made. However, I have to stress that we think that such cases are likely to be very rare indeed.
      Where the disturbance is temporary—for example, during the breeding season—it might be more appropriate to make a traffic regulation order rather than a diversion order. Again, we think that the powers should be used only rarely for this purpose.
      Amendment No. 80 would prevent a right of way from being diverted to protect an SSSI if the diverted way were substantially less convenient to the public. The amendment closely resembles one tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), along with others that also sought to introduce a similar test of convenience for special diversion and special extinguishment orders for crime prevention and school security. The amendment goes in the opposite direction from those tabled by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Carshalton and Wallington. Taken together, the amendments are a clear illustration of the conflicting objectives that we have to reconcile.
      As we explained in Committee, we believe that in order to ensure against a possible breach of our obligations under the EC birds and habitats directive, the making of SSSI diversion orders cannot be made conditional on the diverted way being as convenient as the existing way.
      Mr. Green: In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked how many traffic regulation orders had been made in the past three years. I believe that the Minister promised to let my hon. Friend and the Committee know. Is that information yet available?
      Mr. Mullin: It is not available at the moment, but should it become available in the course of my remarks I shall ensure that it is smuggled to the hon. Gentleman. It may be that in some cases, in order to prevent significant damage to an SSSI, a right of way may have to be diverted in a manner that is less convenient than the existing right of way. As I have said, we believe the powers should be used only rarely, but if it is necessary to use them, we must be sure that they are effective in meeting EC obligations when those are involved. I hope that my hon.

      1003
      Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
      Government amendment No. 213 will remove the need for an SSSI diversion to be as substantially convenient to the public. It is necessary to ensure consistency with subsection (9) of new section 119D which, unlike section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, does not require that, before a diversion order can be confirmed, the confirming authority must be satisfied that the diversions will not be substantially less convenient to the public—that is for the reasons I have explained in relation to amendment No. 80. Government amendment No. 263 is a minor technical amendment which ensures that, in line with existing diversion powers, the SSSI provisions relate to the line or part of the line of a right of way.
      News has reached me in relation to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), but I would not wish to raise the hopes of the hon. Member for Cotswold, because it says only that a letter is on its way. I am sorry to have to keep him in suspense.
      Mr. Brake: I am happy not to press the amendments to a vote, but I shall provide the Minister with some additional information on disturbance for him to consider before the Bill goes to the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 263, in page 58, line 19, leave out "highway" and insert—
      'line of the highway, or part of that line'.
      No. 213, in page 59, line 6, leave out from "it" to end of line 7.
      No. 264, in page 60, leave out lines 8 and 9.
      No. 265, in page 60, leave out lines 35 to 40.
      No. 266, in page 61, line 52, leave out ""to 119B"' and insert—
      '", 118A,, 119 and 119A"'.
      No. 267, in page 61, line 52, at end insert—
      '(2A) After that subsection there is inserted—
      "(1A) Where a council are the highway authority for only part of a highway, the powers conferred on the council by sections 118B, 119B and 119D above are exercisable with respect to the whole of the highway, but subject to subsection (2) and only with the consent of every other council which is a highway authority for any other part with respect to which the powers are exercised."'.
      No. 268, in page 62, line 32, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".
      No. 269, in page 63, line 44, after "order"" insert "wherever occurring".
      No. 270, in page 64, line 5, after "to" insert—
      'special extinguishment orders, special diversion orders and'.
      No. 271, in page 66, line 5, after "public" insert "free of charge".
      No. 214, in page 67, line 46, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where an appeal to the Secretary of State is brought under section 121D(1) above, the Secretary of State may not make or confirm a public path diversion order or special diversion order if it appears to him that—
      (a) work is necessary—

      (i) to bring the new highway created by the order into a fit condition for use by the public, or

      1004

      (ii) to provide necessary facilities for the convenient exercise of the new public right of way,

      (b) if the order were made, the work could not be carried out by the highway authority without—

      (i) the consent of another person, or

      (ii) any authorisation (however described) which is required by or under any enactment, and

      (c) the consent or authorisation has not been obtained.'.
      No. 272, in page 69, line 11, leave out "path or way" and insert "highway".—[Mr. Meacher
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 215, in page 69, line 17, at end insert—
      '. After section 135 of the 1980 Act there is inserted—
      "Temporary diversion for dangerous works
      135A.—(1) Where works of a prescribed description are likely to cause danger to users of a footpath or bridleway which passes over any land, the occupier of the land may, subject to the provisions of this section, temporarily divert the footpath or bridleway.
      (2) A person may not under this section divert any part of a footpath or bridleway if—

      (a) the period or periods for which that part has been diverted under this section, and

      (b) the period or periods for which any other part of the same footpath or bridleway passing over land occupied by him has been diverted under this section,

      amount in aggregate to more than five days in any one calendar year.
      (3) Where a person diverts a footpath or bridleway under this section—

      (a) he shall do so in a manner which is reasonably convenient for the exercise of the public right of way, and

      (b) where the diversion is by means of a temporary footpath or bridleway, he shall so indicate the line of the temporary footpath or bridleway on the ground to not less than the minimum width that it is apparent to members of the public wishing to use it.

      (4) This section does not authorise a person to divert a footpath or bridleway on to land not occupied by him without the consent of the occupier of that land and of any other person whose consent is needed to obtain access to it.
      (5) The person by whom a footpath or bridleway is diverted under this section shall—

      (a) at least fourteen days before the commencement of the diversion, give notice of the diversion in accordance with subsection (6) below,

      (b) at least seven days before the commencement of the diversion, publish notice of the diversion in a local newspaper circulating in the area in which the footpath or bridleway is situated, and

      (c) displays such notices as may be prescribed at such places, in such manner and at such times before or during the diversion as may be prescribed.

      (6) Notice under subsection (5)(a) above shall be given—

      (a) to the highway authority for the footpath or bridleway,

      (b) if the footpath or bridleway is on or contiguous with access land in England, to the Countryside Agency, and

      (c) if the footpath or bridleway is on or contiguous with access land in Wales, to the Countryside Council for Wales.

      (7) A notice under subsection (5)(a), (b) or (c) above shall be in such form and contain such information as may be prescribed.

      1005
      (8) If a person—

      (a) in a notice which purports to comply with the requirements of subsection (5)(a) or (b) above, makes a statement which he knows to be false in a material particular,

      (b) by a notice displayed on or near a footpath or bridleway, falsely purports to be authorised under this section to divert the footpath or bridleway, or

      (c) in diverting a footpath or bridleway under this section, fails to comply with subsection (3) above,

      he shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
      (9) In this section—
      "access land" has the same meaning as in Part I of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000;
      "minimum width" in relation to a temporary footpath or bridleway, means the minimum width, within the meaning of Schedule 12A to this Act, of the footpath or bridleway diverted;
      "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
      Temporary diversion for dangerous works: restrictions
      135B.—(1) The person by whom a footpath or bridleway is diverted under section 135A above shall, before the diversion ceases to be authorised by that section, make good any damage to the footpath or bridleway resulting from the works mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and remove from the footpath or bridleway any obstruction resulting from those works.
      (2) Any person who fails to comply with the duty imposed on him by subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
      (3) The highway authority may make good any damage, or remove any obstruction, in respect of which any person has failed to comply with that duty and recover from that person the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by them in or in connection with doing so.
      (4) Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 12A to this Act does not apply in relation to any disturbance of the surface of a footpath or bridleway which subsection (1) above requires any person to make good; but paragraphs 7 and 8 of that Schedule apply for the purposes of subsection (3) above as if—

      (a) references to the authority were references to the highway authority,

      (b) references to the work were references to work carried out under subsection (3) above in relation to a footpath or bridleway, and

      (c) references to the relevant land were references to the land over which the footpath or bridleway passes.

      (5) The diversion of a footpath or bridleway under section 135A above does not—

      (a) affect the liability of any person for anything done in relation to the path or way otherwise than for the purposes of or in consequence of the works mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, or

      (b) authorise any interference with the apparatus or works of any statutory undertakers.

      (6) Without prejudice to section 130 (protection of public rights of way) above, it is the duty of the highway authority to enforce the provisions of section 135A and this section.".'.
      Government amendment No. 215 gives effect to the commitment that we made on Second Reading to introduce provisions enabling land managers to divert rights of way temporarily for exceptional land management operations. Generally, we believe that temporary diversions to rights of way should be avoided as far as possible, because the public is entitled to reasonable certainty that a public right of way will be
      1006
      available for them to use. However, we accept that there may be instances when a diversion for a very short period—such as five days—would be a practical way to enable land managers to carry out certain operations with minimum inconvenience to the public, in particular when such operations are likely to cause danger to users of a right of way.
      The new provisions would enable an occupier of any land over which a footpath or bridleway passes to divert it temporarily for up to five days a year. It would not be possible to divert a right of way on to another person's land without consent. The occupier would be required to notify the local highway authority in advance, advertise the intention to divert in a local paper, and place notices showing where the diversion would run. Those are obvious, common-sense requirements. Where the right of way passed over or adjoined land to which the public would have a right of access under part I, the occupier would also have to notify the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales. This is a limited but sensible amendment and I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Green: I have no wish to add to any problems that the Minister may have with his hon. Friends, but we think that this is a sensible improvement to the Bill. It was, as he said, raised in Committee, and it seems a sensible and practical way to deal with what could otherwise be a serious problem.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 273, in page 69, line 32, at end insert—
      '( ) after the definition of "cycle track" there is inserted—
      '"definitive map and statement" has the same meaning as in Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;";'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

    Clause 51

      RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS
      Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 28, line 5, at end insert—
      (za) the desirability of ensuring that the overall length of local rights of way is increased during each consecutive period of 12 months beginning with the date of publication of the rights of way improvement plan'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 53, in page 28, line 5, at end insert—
      '(za) the creation of new public paths (footpaths and bridleways) to link with other rights of way in the network or to avoid walking or riding on roads;'.
      Amendment No. 54, in page 28, line 5, at end insert—
      '(za) the re-creation of historic routes so that they can be more closely followed by people using rights of way on foot or on horseback;'.
      Amendment No. 55, in page 28, line 5, at end insert—
      '(za) measures to make it easier, safer and more enjoyable for people on foot or on horseback to use those carriageways which provide links between footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways, including (but not limited to) the exercise of traffic calming powers and powers to make traffic regulation orders;'.

      1007
      Amendment No. 56, in page 28, line 5, at end insert—
      '(za) the creation of safe and convenient means for people on foot or on horseback to cross roads and railways;".
      Amendment No. 57, in page 28, line 5, at end insert—
      '(za) the creation of new public paths (footpaths and bridleways) where by virtue of their location on a riverbank or otherwise, such paths are at risk of ceasing to exist if the land over which they run is lost due to erosion;'.
      Amendment No. 35, in page 28, line 11, leave out second "and" and insert—
      '(ca) the effect of the local rights of way network on the conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features, in particular in sites of special scientific interest; and'.
      Government amendments Nos. 297 and 298.
      Amendment No. 36, in clause 52, page 29, line 9, leave out "and" and insert—
      '( ) in relation to section 51(2)(ca), the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales (as appropriate): and'.
      Amendment No. 37, in page 29, line 9, leave out "and" and insert—
      '( ) organisations prescribed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to receive public path and definitive map orders; and'.
      Government amendments Nos. 299 to 301.
      New clause 2—Duties relating to rights of way improvement plans—
      '.In delivering rights of way improvement plans it is the duty of every local highway authority other than an inner London authority to seek to ensure that action is taken to make it easier, safer and more enjoyable for people to use the local rights of way network on foot or on horseback, by means that include (without prejudice to the exercise of other powers)—

      (a) the creation of new public paths (footpaths and bridleways) to link with other rights of way in the network or to avoid walking or riding on roads;

      (b) the re-creation of historic routes so that they can be more closely followed by people using rights of way on foot or on horseback;

      (c) measures to make local rights of way more accessible to blind or partially—sighted people and others with mobility problems, including (but not limited to) the removal of stiles or their replacement by gates;

      (d) measures to make it easier, safer and more enjoyable for people on foot or on horseback to use those carriageways which provide links between footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways, including (but not limited to) the exercise of traffic calming powers and powers to make traffic regulation orders;

      (e) the creation of safe and convenient means for people on foot or on horseback to cross roads and railways; and

      (f) the creation of new public paths (footpaths and bridleways) where by virtue of their location on a riverbank or otherwise, such paths are at risk of ceasing to exist if the land over which they run is lost due to erosion.'.

      7 pm
      Mr. Bennett: Although I would like to think that Ministers will accept either our amendments or our new clause, I would be surprised if they did. Nevertheless, I hope that rather than leaving the Bill as it is, they will come up with a map or a set of signposts explaining how rights of way improvement plans will work. That is really the purpose of our amendments and new clause in this
      1008
      group. I also hope that they will give us some reassurance about the Bill's provisions on rights of way, which seem to be weighted heavily towards reducing people's right to use rights of way, rather than towards promoting that right.
      Amendment No. 5 provides for increased rights of way. The first argument for increasing rights of way is based on the fact that the popularity of walking as a recreational activity is increasing yearly. Currently, almost half the British population list walking as an enjoyable recreational activity. It is only logical that if ever more people are participating in walking as a recreational activity, we should provide more facilities for them to do so.
      Part I of the Bill makes very important provision for access to large tracts of mountain and moorland. However, although very many people enjoy walking, they want to walk only short distances. Many of those people live in urban areas, and an increasing proportion of them are elderly. Increasing the number of footpaths in urban areas is therefore an extremely important issue for those people. I hope that the Minister will consider the issue solely on the basis of demand—the number of people who walk on footpaths.
      Walking is also good for people's health. The Stockport health authority has even been encouraging doctors to prescribe walking and other exercise for their patients. For many people, walking is probably far more useful than the drugs that are often prescribed at considerable expense. Therefore, if we are going to encourage people to walk for their health, particularly those who are not used to walking, we will have to increase substantially the number of footpaths, especially in urban areas. That would enable people to get out and enjoy themselves.
      The Government have introduced an initiative to encourage schoolchildren to walk to school. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has even undertaken one or two pilot projects—perhaps the Minister will tell us a bit more about them—in which new routes will be created to enable children to walk safely to school. That type of project is very important.
      Additionally, particularly on the urban fringes, an increasing number of people are participating in horseriding. That fact strongly supports arguments for increasing the number of bridleways. In short, therefore, we need to include in the Bill a bold statement to local authorities that we expect there to be more rights of way.
      New clause 2 deals with the overall issue of creating new public footpaths, so that people are not forced to walk on roads. I remember that when I was a child, at school half terms, my mother took us out to walk in Cheshire, where there were some very fine rambles. Every Saturday, the Manchester Evening News recommended various walks. Now, with the number of cars on those country lanes, some of those old walks are almost impossible to do. My mother also took my young sister, who was then in a pushchair, on those walks. Now, walking on those roads would be a horrendous experience. Walkers have lost very many safe countryside walks to the motor car.
      In many cases, landowners can very simply solve the problem of road dangers by creating a footpath along field boundaries near roads. I can think of several examples in the Lake district where the National Trust has done an excellent job of creating paths just along field boundaries,

      1009
      enabling people to walk safely, rather than dangerously in the road. A key aspect of rights of way improvement plans should be to provide a real impetus to create new roadside footpaths.
      We also have to address seriously the issue of improving access for people with disabilities, such as those who are blind or partially sighted, or who have problems with mobility. We need to do much more work on that.
      We also need to examine the best way of linking up some of the traffic-calming schemes. It is logical to build new routes, especially in urban areas, to enable people to move safely from one traffic-calmed area to another. Additionally, it is often possible to include safe footpaths on the edges of new motorways and railways, so that people can cross areas safely.
      In our amendments in this group and the new clause, we are really pressing the Government to say not only that rights of way improvement plans are desirable, but that pressure can be applied to local authorities to ensure that rights of way are useful, and not just something mentioned in a rarely read Act.
      Mr. David Heath: I tabled three amendments in this group—amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 37. The Minister can very easily satisfy me about the matters that they deal with—nature conservancy, the particular requirements of SSSIs, and consultation with English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales—simply by telling me that they will be dealt with in the advice to local authorities. However, they must be dealt with in that advice, because they are very important aspects of drawing up rights of way improvement plans.
      On amendment No. 37, concerning organisations prescribed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Minister can reassure me by telling me that the substance of the amendment will be dealt with under Government amendment No. 298, and that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales will prescribe those organisations in regulations. I expect that he will be able to give me that assurance, and I shall be pleased if he does. I welcome Government amendment No. 298.
      Finally, I should like to say a few words about the comments made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I entirely agree with him that if we are to have rights of way improvement plans, the Government have to give clear guidance on what is intended in the legislation, and provide some real impetus. There is a desperate need to improve the rights of way network for walkers and cyclists, and particularly for equestrians, who have very few safe places in the countryside to ride. Not only do they have to contend with traffic, but the bridleway system is lamentably poor.
      If rights of way improvement plans are to be effective, not only must the intentions of the legislation be clear, but there must be resources to back up those intentions. Over the years, there have been good intentions towards rights of way, but local authorities have not had the money to pay for the work to implement them. Unless the Government come forward with the money—either in local authority standard spending assessments, in stewardship schemes or in modulation directly to
      1010
      landowners—those intentions will not be realised. We have to have those assurances if our intentions are to be anything more than pious hopes.
      Mr. Kidney: I welcome Government amendment No. 297—which, astonishingly, represents another success for yours truly. Although it is a seemingly modest amendment—
      Mr. Heath: More modest than the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Kidney: Perhaps. Nevertheless, I believe that the amendment will have very far-reaching effects. I think that it might also help to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), because it will ensure that the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales are consulted on every local authority's rights of way improvement plan.
      It is important to ensure that there is a consistent approach between different authorities. More importantly, the amendment will enable the Countryside Agency to monitor each area. That will be a useful power for Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales. They are alert to the dangers of losing parts of the network and to the need to expand the network in the way described by my hon. Friend. In being able to draw attention to the worst performers, and with the assistance, I hope, of public disapproval, they will be able to ensure that matters improve, or that the Government do something about authorities that perform badly. On the brighter side, the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales will be well positioned to ensure that best practice is disseminated, so that all authorities can perform to the standard of the best.
      I am pleased that the Government have introduced this amendment as a result of the argument advanced in Committee.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: I shall speak briefly in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Astonishingly, clause 51 contains no definition of "improved network". It may be self-evident what an improved network is, but the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend flesh it out and give some guidance.
      I am particularly interested in the re-creation of historic routes. I cannot remember whether I mentioned this in Committee, but in my constituency there is a holloway—a mediaeval road—which runs from Bracewell church to a deserted mediaeval village. The holloway has been there for about 600 years, until the present generation. It is overgrown and neglected now, and I should like local authorities to treat these historic routes seriously and open them up so that people can enjoy them again.
      New clause 2, also tabled by my hon. Friend, refers to the desirability of creating new public footpaths where the old one, running along a riverside or a cliff top, has been swept away or eroded.
      I hope that the Government will look favourably on this group of amendments. They are sensible, and would give local authorities the steer that is required.
      Mr. Mullin: I regret that once again I have to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). It grieves me that I have had to

      1011
      do this so often during today's proceedings, because he has a long-standing and honourable record on campaigning for access to the countryside. I hope, however, that he will acknowledge that although the Bill does not go quite as far as he would like, it represents a substantial advance for the causes that he and I, along with many others, care about. As he has also campaigned for improvements in the regime affecting footpaths and bridleways, I hope that he can take some comfort from what I say, although I cannot satisfy him on everything.
      Amendment No. 5 would require local highway authorities to include in their rights of way improvement plans an assessment of the desirability of ensuring that the overall length of local rights of way is increased each year. Amendments Nos. 53 to 57 would require assessments of a range of other matters, each worthy in its own right.
      I sympathise with the intention of those amendments, in so far as we would expect local authorities, where appropriate, to include proposals in their plans for extending their networks if there was a case for doing so, and for addressing the other points—although some aspects of road safety, for example, in amendment No. 55, are covered in the Government's road safety strategy, which was published on 1 March.
      The key point, however, is that the proposals relating to creations and other relevant matters will flow from each authority's assessment, which clause 51(2)(a) requires it to undertake, of the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public. This is purposely a broad objective, because there are many factors to be considered in deciding what improvements to local rights of way should be made for the benefit of the public as a whole. We do not want to pre-empt the assessment process by requiring in the primary legislation that particular weight be attached to certain narrowly defined matters as opposed to others.
      7.15 pm
      I see no advantage in identifying specific individual factors in the Bill. Indeed, there could be disadvantages; it would encourage people who believed that their interests were not represented to seek to add to the list as the Bill continues its passage through Parliament. For example, some might argue that if there is to be a separate assessment of the case for increasing the overall length of local rights of way, there should also be an assessment of the need to reduce or rationalise the network. One can foresee a longer and longer list, with some items perhaps cancelling out others.
      We believe that clause 51 provides all that is needed to ensure that each authority undertakes a fair and rigorous review of the current state of its local rights of way network and, on the basis of that review, identifies priorities for action to improve it for the wider public benefit.
      New clause 2 would place a duty on local highway authorities to take reasonable steps to implement proposals made in their plans as a consequence of the assessment of the matters listed in amendments Nos. 53 to 57. There is no reason why authorities should be required to implement certain proposals and not others. Moreover, we take the view that a specific duty to implement could be counter-productive, in that authorities
      1012
      might decide that a prudent course would be to make few specific proposals in their plans. We want to encourage a more ambitious approach.
      Highway authorities have never previously been required to take a strategic overview of their rights of way networks, and we are keen to see a more creative and positive approach to making rights of way more accessible and convenient, and to having fewer gaps. Local authorities are best placed to judge, in the light of local circumstances, what the range and timing of those improvements should be. They will be required to report on the action that they have taken, and will be accountable to the public if they drag their feet.
      As for amendment No. 35, the Bill already contains a number of measures to improve nature conservation and protect sites of special scientific interest. For example, new section 28E of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which is inserted by schedule 8, requires local authorities, among others, to further the conservation and enhancement of the special flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features of SSSIs. Together with other measures—such as section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968 and the complementary amendment to section 29 of the Highways Act 1980 introduced in schedule 6, requiring councils to have due regard to nature conservation in the exercise of their functions—we consider that sufficient.
      We are sympathetic to amendment No. 36, in the name of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). It would give local authorities a duty to consult the Government's statutory advisers on nature conservation in preparing and reviewing their rights of way improvement plans, and we will consider that. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the regulations would cover organisations such as English Nature. I am told that they will. I hope that he and my hon. Friend will agree not to press the amendments and the new clause.
      Amendments Nos. 297 to 301 arise from amendments tabled earlier by Opposition Front-Bench Members and by my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). They will give the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales a power to make regulations prescribing whom, in addition to those already set out in the Bill, local highway authorities must consult when drawing up their rights of way improvement plans. They will also require every local highway authority to consult the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales on their rights of way improvement plans, irrespective of whether a national trail passes through their area—a limitation currently in the Bill.
      We expect local authorities to consult widely in the preparation of their plans. In Committee we considered a range of options for prescribing who should be involved. Our initial view had been to set out who else should be consulted in the statutory guidance under clause 52(4), but we were persuaded of the merits of a regulation-making power to prescribe consultees on improvement plans. In part, that was because current legislation on changes to rights of way and the recording of rights of way contains provisions requiring consultations with various organisations. It would be useful for other key consultees

      1013
      to be identified in secondary legislation, while local authorities retain a discretion over who else to consult. I commend the Government's amendments to the House.
      Mr. Bennett: I shall not say that I am disappointed in the response of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, because I have long appreciated that he is under close control, if not actually on the lead—[Interruption.] If it was for only four months of the year, perhaps we could escape fairly soon. However, I wish he could have shown a little more enthusiasm for our improvement plans and given local authorities a little more of a steer towards what we expected.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 52

      RIGHTS OF WAY IMPROVEMENT PLANS: SUPPLEMENTAL
      Amendments made: No. 297, in page 29, line 7, leave out from beginning to "the".
      No. 298, in page 29, line 9, after "appropriate)," insert—
      '(ea) such persons as the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may by regulations prescribe in relation to the local highway authority's area;'.
      No. 299, in page 29, line 10, leave out "they" and insert "the local highway authority".
      No. 300, in page 29, line 36, at end insert—
      '( ) Regulations under subsection (1)(ea) shall be made by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containing such regulations made by the Secretary of State shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
      No. 301, in page 29, line 39, leave out from "1988" to end of line 42.—[Mr. Meacher.]

    Clause 54

      ENFORCEMENT OF DUTY TO PREVENT OBSTRUCTION
      Amendments made: No. 225, in page 31, leave out lines 19 to 21.
      No. 226, in page 31, leave out lines 25 and 26.—[Mr. Meacher.]

    Clause 55

      POWER TO ORDER OFFENDER TO REMOVE OBSTRUCTION
      Dr. David Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 33, line 15, at end insert—
      '(5) It shall be the duty of the local highway authority to monitor from time to time the compliance with any order made under subsection (1) above, and to bring proceedings under subsection (4) if the obstruction is not removed within the time specified in the order.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 24—Overhanging vegetation obstructing horse-riders.
      Dr. Clark: Clause 55 is a welcome addition to the armoury of those fighting for footpaths and for footpath
      1014
      freedom. It will enable the magistrates courts, on conviction of a person for wilful obstruction of a highway, to order that person to remove the obstruction. That may be in addition to, or instead of, a fine. The key point is that failure to comply with the decision of a magistrates court is an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000.
      That may seem strange. However, many people have experienced great frustration, after taking time and trouble and raising money to fight a footpath blockage case, on finding that, even though their case was verified and justified in the magistrates court, they were unable to have the blockage removed.
      The classic example is the infamous van Hoogstraten case, when the magistrate ordered that there was an obstruction and that it should be removed. The company was fined £800 on each of two separate charges and the Ramblers Association was awarded costs of £3,500. Even after all that, the footpath remained obstructed, because the magistrates court does not have responsibility for clearing the obstruction—that is the responsibility of the highways authority. Clause 55 puts the matter right. We very much welcome it.
      Amendment No. 71 is modest. It would put a duty on the relevant highways authority to monitor compliance. We are concerned that, although the magistrates court may assume responsibility for insisting on the clearance of a blockage, it will not be able to monitor compliance. That will remain with the highways authority; it would not be an onerous burden and would be of great assistance to the magistrates court. That would ensure that obstructions along the Queen's highway were actually cleared.
      In that spirit, we move the amendment. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will look on it favourably. We welcome the provisions included in the clause; this small, fine-tuning amendment will ensure that obstructions do not remain undetected and uncorrected in future.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Many hon. Members are asked a question that is impossible to answer without sounding pompous or slightly self-righteous. It is: "Why have you become a Member of Parliament?" When one sits on the Opposition Back Benches, listening to thousands of words that seem to have no particular purpose, one sometimes comes to the conclusion that one agrees with the questioner that there may be no purpose in it. However, occasionally, one's confidence in the world is reasserted, when, for example, one tables in Committee an amendment that was proposed by the British Horse Society and one finds on Report that one's name has been removed from the amendment and replaced with that of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. That reassures one that one is doing something slightly useful.
      The next time I am in Wiltshire, relaxing after a tough week in this place, riding down a bridleway whose overhanging branches have been lopped back, or on my way to the opening meet, next season, of my local hunt—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I shall be glad that I took

      1015
      the trouble to propose the amendment. I am glad that the Minister for the Environment has turned up today to accept it.
      Mr. Mullin: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his comments on clause 55.
      Amendment No. 71 repeats one tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) in Committee. The amendment would require a local highways authority to police any orders made by magistrates courts under the new section 137ZA of the Highways Act 1980 and to prosecute any breach of an order. Although I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of ensuring compliance with orders of the court, I stated in Committee that there are several reasons why we cannot agree to his amendment.
      First, not all prosecutions under section 137 of the Highways Act will be brought by a local highways authority. Members of the public may bring prosecutions and so may the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not clear how, in practice, a local highways authority could monitor all such orders.
      More fundamentally, it is not appropriate that a local highways authority should always be obliged to prosecute the offence of breaching an order. Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides a discretion to local authorities to prosecute where they consider it appropriate in the interests of the inhabitants of their area. We see no reason to remove that discretion in the particular case of highway obstructions.
      Moreover, in exercising their discretion to prosecute, local highways authorities, like any other local authority, should have regard to the CPS code of practice. That advises that the decision to prosecute an individual is a serious step, and that fair and effective prosecution is essential to law and order. Each case is unique and must be considered on its own merits.
      Mr. Gordon Prentice: The van Hoogstraten business still worries me. He is also known as Adolf von Hess, I believe. He was fined £1,500 by the magistrates court. The Ramblers Association was awarded £3,500. The man is a multimillionaire. What happens if he refuses point blank to remove the obstruction? He seems determined not to do so.
      Mr. Mullin: As a result of the Bill, there will be powers to require the removal of the obstruction. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in celebrating that fact.
      Before a prosecution is taken, it must be decided whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and whether it is in the public interest to do so. If the amendment were passed, those factors would not be taken into account.
      7.30 pm
      Therefore, although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields on the importance of effective enforcement, I do not believe that we can approach it in the way that his amendment proposes. I believe that, in practice, a local highway authority that has spent time and money on bringing a successful prosecution will keep an eye on what happens
      1016
      afterwards—and I am sure that, if it does not, others will tell it what is happening. Authorities will then have to decide whether, if an order has not been complied with, there is a case for further prosecution. I hope that, in the light of these remarks, my right hon. Friend will not press his amendment.
      New clause 24 arises, as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) modestly suggested, from an amendment that he tabled in Committee. It would modify section 154(1) of the Highways Act 1980 so that a highway authority may, under that section, require the removal of vegetation overhanging a bridleway up to a height convenient to horse riders. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take some satisfaction from having made a small footprint on the sands of time.
      Dr. David Clark: I listen to my hon. Friend with some disappointment, although I know his good intent. The point of the amendment was not only to restrict the monitoring of cases that had been brought by the local authority, but to monitor those cases that had been brought under a private prosecution, and which had been upheld in the magistrates court. Therefore I am disappointed by what my hon. Friend has said, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 56

      MAKING OF TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDERS FOR PURPOSES OF CONSERVING NATURAL BEAUTY, ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 194, in page 33, line 27, leave out from "(viii)" to end of line 30 and insert—
      'a site of special scientific interest (within the meaning of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981)'.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

    Schedule 7

      DRIVING OF MECHANICALLY PROPELLED VEHICLES ELSEWHERE THAN ON ROADS
      Amendment proposed: No. 136, in page 75, line 32, at end insert—
      '(5A) Where a way across a common has been used as the vehicular access to a dwellinghouse as of right and without the access having been called into question by proceedings for 20 years prior to 3rd November 1999 then any person shall have lawful authority to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle to and from the dwellinghouse.'.[Mr. Clifton-Brown.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 276.

      Division No. 231]

      [7.32 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Boswell, Tim

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Brady, Graham

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Brake, Tom

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Baker, Norman

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Baldry, Tony

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Beggs, Roy

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Bercow, John

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Burnett, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Burns, Simon

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      1017

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Cash, William

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Madel, Sir David

      Clappison, James

      Maples, John

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Collins, Tim

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cotter, Brian

      Moore, Michael

      Cran, James

      Moss, Malcolm

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Norman, Archie

      Day, Stephen

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Öpik, Lembit

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Paice, James

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Paterson, Owen

      Evans, Nigel

      Pickles, Eric

      Faber, David

      Prior, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Randall, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Rendel, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Robathan, Andrew

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Robertson, Laurence

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Ruffley, David

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gibb, Nick

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gidley, Sandra

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gill, Christopher

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gray, James

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

      Green, Damian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Greenway, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spring, Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Streeter, Gary

      Hammond, Philip

      Stunell, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Swayne, Desmond

      Heald, Oliver

      Syms, Robert

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Taylor, John M (solihull)

      Horam, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor Sir Teddy

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Townend, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Tredinnick, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Trend, Michael

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tyler, Paul

      Tyrie Andrew

      Keetch, Paul

      Waterson, Nigel

      Key, Robert

      Webb, Steve

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Wells, Bowen

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Whittingdale, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Leigh, Edward

      Willetts, David

      Letwin, Oliver

      Willis, Phil

      Lidington, David

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Loughton, Tim

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Luff, Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ainger, Nick

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      1018

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Foulkes, George

      Benton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Best, Harold

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Betts, Clive

      Goggins, Paul

      Blizzard, Bob

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Borrow, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Grocott, Bruce

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Grogan, John

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gunnell, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Burden, Richard

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hanson, David

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Healey, John

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Casale, Roger

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Caton, Martin

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hill, Keith

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Chaytor, David

      Hoey, Kate

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hope, Phil

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clelland, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hurst, Alan

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hutton, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Connarty, Michael

      Illsley, Eric

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jamieson, David

      Corston, Jean

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cousins, Jim

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cox, Tom

      Cranston, Ross

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Darvill, Keith

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davidson, Ian

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kidney, David

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

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dawson, Hilton

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Lepper, David

      Denham, John

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dobbin, Jim

      Levitt, Tom

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Doran, Frank

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Dowd, Jim

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Drew, David

      Linton, Martin

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lock, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ennis, Jeff

      McCabe, Steve

      Etherington, Bill

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Fisher, Mark

      McDonnell, John

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McIsaac, Shona

      Flint, Caroline

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      McNulty, Tony

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      MacShane, Denis

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McWalter, Tony

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      1019

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Salter, Martin

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Maxton, John

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Meale, Alan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Merron, Gillian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Miller, Andrew

      Snape, Peter

      Mitchell, Austin

      Soley, Clive

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morley, Elliot

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mountford, Kali

      Stringer, Graham

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Mudie, George

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Morris Dan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Olner, Bill

      Todd, Mark

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Trickett, Jon

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Truswell Paul

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pearson, Ian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pendry, Tom

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pike, Peter L

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Plaskitt, James

      Tynan, Bill

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Pollard Kerry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pond, Chris

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pope, Greg

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pound, Stephen

      Watts, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      White, Brian

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Wills, Michael

      Rammell, Bill

      Winnick, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Wood, Mike

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Woolas, Phil

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Worthington, Tony

      Rogers, Allan

      Wray, James

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roy, Frank

      Mr. Graham Allen and

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Mr. Don Touhig.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 23

      EFFECT OF PART I ON POWERS TO STOP UP OR DIVERT HIGHWAYS
      '.—(1) This section applies to any power to stop up or divert a highway of any description or to make or confirm an order
      authorising the stopping up or diversion of a highway of any description; and in the following provisions of this section—

      (a) "the relevant authority" means the person exercising the power, and

      (b) "the existing highway" means the highway to be stopped up or diverted.

      (2) Where the relevant authority is required (expressly or by implication) to consider—

      (a) whether the existing highway is unnecessary, or is needed for public use,

      (b) whether an alternative highway should be provided, or

      (c) whether any public right of way should be reserved,

      the relevant authority. in considering that question. is not to regard the fact that any land is access land in respect of which the right conferred by section 2(1) is exercisable as reducing the need for the existing highway, for the provision of an alternative highway or for the reservation of a public right of way.
      (3) Where—

      (a) the existing highway is situated on, or in the vicinity of any access land, and

      (b) the relevant authority is required (expressly or by implication) to consider the extent (if any) to which the existing highway would, apart from the exercise of the power, be likely to be used by the public,

      the relevant authority, in considering that question, is to have regard, in particular, to the extent to which the highway would he likely to be used by the public at any time when the right conferred by section 2(1) is not exercisable in relation to the access land.
      (4) In this section—
      "access land " has the same meaning as in Part I;
      "highway" includes part of a highway.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 24

      OVERHANGING VEGETATION OBSTRUCTING HORSE-RIDERS.
      '. In section 154 of the 1980 Act (cutting or felling etc. trees etc. that overhang or are a danger to roads or footpaths) in subsection (1) after "public lamp," there is inserted "or overhangs a highway so as to endanger or obstruct the passage of horse-riders,".'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 25

      EXTINGUISHMENT OF UNRECORDED RIGHTS OF WAY
      '.—(1) Subsection (2) applies to a highway if—

      (a) it was on 1st January 1949 a footpath or a bridleway, is on the cut-off date (in either case) a footpath or a bridleway, and between those dates has not been a highway of any other description,

      (b) it is not on the cut-off date shown in a definitive map and statement as a highway of any description, and

      (c) it is not on the cut-off date an excepted highway, as defined by section (Excepted highways or rights of way)(1).

      (2) All rights of way over a highway to which this subsection applies shall be extinguished immediately after the cut-off date.
      (3) Where a public right of way created before 1949—

      (a) falls within subsection (4) on the cut-off date, and

      (b) is not on that date an excepted right of way, as defined by section (Excepted highways or rights of way)(5),

      that right of way shall he extinguished immediately after the cut-off date.
      (4) A public right of way falls within this subsection if it is—

      (a) a public right of way on horseback, leading a horse or for vehicles over the whole or part of so much of a way as is shown in a definitive map and statement as a footpath;

      (b) a right for the public to drive animals of any description along the whole or part of so much of a way as is shown in a definitive map and statement as a footpath;

      (c) a public right of way for vehicles over the whole or part of so much of a way as is shown in a definitive map and statement as a bridleway; or

      (d) a public right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles over the whole or part of so much of a way as is shown in a definitive map and statement as a restricted byway.

      (5) Where by virtue of subsection (3) a highway ceases to be a bridleway, the right of way created over it by section 30 of the Countryside Act 1968 (riding of pedal cycles on bridleways) is also extinguished.
      (6) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether a highway or any part of it was at any time a footpath or a bridleway, any diversion, widening or extension of the highway after that time (and not later than the cut-off date) is to be treated as having occurred before that time.
      (7) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3) whether a public right of way over a highway or over any part of it was created before 1st January 1949, any diversion, widening or extension of the highway on or after that date (and not later than the cut-off date) is to be treated as having occurred before 1st January 1949.
      (8) Where a way shown on the cut-off date in a definitive map and statement has at any time been diverted, widened or extended, it is to be treated for the purposes of subsections (1) to (5) as shown as so diverted, widened or extended, whether or not it is so shown.
      (9) In this section—
      "cut-off date" has the meaning given in section (Cut-off date for extinguishment etc.), and
      "mechanically propelled vehicle" does not include a vehicle falling within paragraph (c) of section 189(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
      (10) In this section and section (Excepted highways or rights of way) expressions used in Part III of the 1981 Act have the same meaning as in that Part, except that "highway", "footpath" and "bridleway" mean the whole or part of a highway, footpath or bridleway (as the case may be) within the meaning of that part.'—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 26

      EXCEPTED HIGHWAYS OR RIGHTS OF WAY
      '.—(1) A footpath or bridleway is an excepted highway for the purposes of section (Extinguishment of unrecorded rights of way)(1) if—

      (a) it is a footpath or bridleway which satisfies either of the conditions in subsections (2) and (3),

      (b) it is, or is part of, a footpath or bridleway any part of which is in an area which, immediately before 1st April 1965, formed part of the administrative county of London,

      (c) it is a footpath or bridleway—

      (i) at the side of (whether or not contiguous with) a carriageway not comprised in the same highway, or

      (ii) between two carriageways comprised in the same highway (whether or not the footpath or bridleway is contiguous with either carriageway),

      1022

      (d) it is a footpath or bridleway of such other description as may be specified in regulations made (as respects England) by the Secretary of State or (as respects Wales) by the National Assembly for Wales, or

      (e) it is a footpath or bridleway so specified.

      (2) A footpath or bridleway ("the relevant highway") satisfies the first condition if—

      (a) it became a footpath or bridleway on or after 1st January 1949 by the diversion, widening or extension of a footpath or, as the case may be, of a bridleway by virtue of an event within section 53(3)(a) of the 1981 Act,

      (b) it became a footpath on or after 1st January 1949 by the stopping up of a bridleway,

      (c) it was on 1st January 1949 a footpath and is on the cut-off date a bridleway,

      (d) it is so much of a footpath or bridleway as on or after 1st January 1949 has been stopped up as respects part only of its width, or

      (e) it is so much of a footpath or bridleway as passes over a bridge or through a tunnel,

      and it communicates with a retained highway, either directly or by means of one or more footpaths or bridleways each of which forms part of the same highway as the relevant highway and each of which either falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (e) or satisfies the condition in subsection (3).
      (3) A footpath or bridleway satisfies the second condition if—

      (a) it extends from a footpath or bridleway ("the relevant highway") which—

      (i) falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2), or

      (ii) is an excluded highway by virtue of subsection (1)(c),

      to, but not beyond, a retained highway, and
      (b) it forms part of the same highway as the relevant highway.
      (4) A retained highway for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) is any highway over which, otherwise than by virtue of subsection (1)(a, section (Extinguishment of unrecorded rights of way)(1) does not extinguish rights of way.
      (5) A public right of way is an excepted right of way for the purposes of section (Extinguishment of unrecorded rights of way)(3) if—

      (a) it subsists over the whole or part of a way over which there subsists on the cut-off date any public right of way created on or after 1st January 1949 otherwise than by virtue of section 30 of the Countryside Act 1968 (riding of pedal cycles on bridleways),

      (b) it subsists over the whole or part of a way any part of which is in an area which, immediately before 1st April 1965, formed part of the administrative county of London,

      (c) it is a public right of way of such other description as may be specified in regulations made (as respects England) by the Secretary of State or (as respects Wales) by the National Assembly for Wales, or

      (d) it subsists over land so specified.

      (6) Regulations under subsection (1)(d) or (e) or (5)(c) or (d) shall be made by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containing such regulations made by the Secretary of State shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 27

      BRIDLEWAY RIGHTS OVER WAYS SHOWN AS BRIDLEWAYS
      '.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the public shall, as from the day after the cut-off date, have a right of way on horseback or leading a horse over any way which—

      (a) immediately before the commencement of this section is, and

      (b) at the cut-off date continues to be,

      a footpath which is shown in a definitive map and statement as a bridleway.
      (2) Subsection (1) has effect subject to the operation of any enactment or instrument (whether coming into operation before or after the cut-off date), and to the effect of any event otherwise within section 53(3)(a) of the 1981 Act, whereby a highway is authorised to be stopped up, diverted, widened or extended; and subsection (1) applies accordingly to any way as so diverted, widened or extended.
      (3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any way which is, or is part of, a footpath any part of which is in an area which, immediately before 1st April 1965, formed part of the administrative county of London.
      (4) Where—

      (a) by virtue of regulations under section (Cut-off date for extinguishment etc.)(2) an order under Part III of the 1981 Act takes effect after the cut-off date in relation to any footpath which, at the cut-off date was shown in a definitive map and statement as a bridleway,

      (b) the regulations do not prevent subsection (1) from having effect after the cut-off date in relation to that footpath, and

      (c) if the order had taken effect before that date, that footpath would not have fallen within subsection (1),

      all rights over that way which exist only by virtue of subsection (1) shall be extinguished when the order takes effect.
      (5) In this section—

      (a) "cut-off date" has the meaning given in section (Cut-off date for extinguishment etc.), and

      (b) expressions used in Part III of the 1981 Act have the same meaning as in that Part.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

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

    New Clause 28

      CUT-OFF DATE FOR EXTINGUISHMENT ETC.
      '.—(1) The cut-off date for the purposes of sections (Extinguishment of unrecorded rights of way) and (Bridleway rights over ways shown as bridleways) is, subject to regulations under subsection (2), 1st January 2026.
      (2) The Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales) may make regulations—

      (a) substituting as the cut-off date for the purposes of those sections a date later than the date specified in subsection (1) or for the time being substituted under this paragraph;

      (b) containing such transitional provisions or savings as appear to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales (as the case may be) to be necessary or expedient in connection with the operation of those sections, including in particular their operation in relation to any way as respects which—

      (i) on the cut-off date an application for an order under section 53(2) of the 1981 Act is pending,

      1024

      (ii) on that date an order under Part III of that Act has been made but not confirmed, or

      (iii) after that date such an order or any provision of such an order is to any extent quashed.

      (3) Regulations under subsection (2)(a)—

      (a)may specify different dates for different areas; but

      (b)may not specify a date later than 1st January 2031, except as respects an area within subsection (4).

      (4) An area is within this subsection if it is in—

      (a) the Isles of Scilly, or

      (b) an area which, at any time before the repeal by section 73 of the 1981 Act of sections 27 to 34 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949—

      (i)was excluded from the operation of those sections by virtue of any provision of the 1949 Act, or

      (ii)would have been so excluded but for a resolution having effect under section 35(2) of that Act.

      (5) Where by virtue of regulations under subsection (2) there are different cut-off dates for areas into which different parts of any highway extend, the cut-off date in relation to that highway is the later or latest of those dates.
      (6) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containing such regulations made by the Secretary of State shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 13

      DEFINITION OF LEGALLY RELEVANT OBJECTION
      '.—In paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act, after the definition of "council offices" there is inserted—
      "duly made' means an objection or a representation which—

      (a) is made within the time and in the manner prescribed in the notice that was published by the authority on making the order in accordance with paragraph 3 to Schedule 15; and

      (b)states the grounds on which it is made, being a matter which is capable of affecting the decision whether or not to confirm the order".'.—[Mr. David Heath.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 276.

      Division No. 232]

      [7.45 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

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

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Baker, Norman

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Beggs, Roy

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Moore, Michael

      Öpik, Lembit

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Rendel, David

      Burnett, John

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Sanders, Adrian

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

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

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Cotter Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Tomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Tyler, Paul

      Webb Steve

      Gidley, Sandra

      Willis, Phil

      Harvey, Nick

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mr. Andrew Stunell and

      Keetch, Paul

      Mr. Tom Brake.

      1025

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ainger, Nick

      Ennis, Jeff

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Etherington, Bill

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Fisher, Mark

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Flint, Caroline

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Flynn, Paul

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Benton, Joe

      Foulkes, George

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fyfe, Maria

      Best, Harold

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Betts, Clive

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Blizzard, Bob

      Goggins, Paul

      Borrow, David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Grogan, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Gunnell, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Burden, Richard

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Hanson, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Healey, John

      Casale, Roger

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Caton, Martin

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hesford, Stephen

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hill, Keith

      Chaytor, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hope, Phil

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hurst, Alan

      Coleman, Iain

      Hutton, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Corston, Jean

      Jamieson, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cox, Tom

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cranston, Ross

      Crausby, David

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Davidson, Ian

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Khabra, Piara S

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

      Kidney, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Denham, John

      Lepper, David

      Dobbin, Jim

      Leslie, Christopher

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Levitt, Tom

      Doran, Frank

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Dowd, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Drew, David

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Linton, Martin

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      1026

      Lock, David

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      McCabe, Steve

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Rowlands, Ted

      McDonnell, John

      Roy, Frank

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Salter, Martin

      McNulty, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      MacShane, Denis

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McWalter, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Martlew, Eric

      Maxton, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Soley, Clive

      Merron, Gillian

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Miller, Andrew

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stringer, Graham

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mudie George

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mullin Chris

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Timms, Stephen

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tipping Paddy

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Todd, Mark

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Trickett, Jon

      Norris Dan

      Truswell, Paul

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Olner, Bill

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Tynan, Bill

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pearson, Ian

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pendry, Tom

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watts, David

      Pike, Peter L

      White, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Pollard, Kerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Pond, Chris

      Pope, Greg

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Pound, Stephen

      Wills, Michael

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Winnick, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wood, Mike

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Woodward, Shaun

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Woolas, Phil

      Purchase, Ken

      Worthington, Tony

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Wray, James

      Rammell, Bill

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Rapson, Syd

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Mr. Don Touhig and

      Rogers, Allan

      Mr. Graham Allen.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 60

      SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 274, in page 35, line 11, at end insert—
      '(3) After section 15 of the Countryside Act 1968 there is inserted—
      "Compulsory purchase
      15,A.—(1) The Nature Conservancy Council may in circumstances set out in subsection (2) acquire compulsorily all or any part of the land referred to in section 15(2).
      (2) The circumstances are—

      (a) that the Nature Conservancy Council are satisfied that they are unable to conclude, on reasonable terms, such an agreement as is referred to in section 15(2), or

      (b) that they have entered into such an agreement, but they are satisfied it has been breached in such a way that the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features referred to there are not being conserved satisfactorily.

      (3) A dispute about whether or not there has been a breach of the agreement for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) shall be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
      (4) Where the Nature Conservancy Council have acquired land compulsorily under this section, they may—

      (a) themselves take steps to conserve the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features in question, or

      (b) dispose of the land on terms designed to secure that those flora, fauna or features are satisfactorily conserved.

      (5) In this section, "Nature Conservancy Council" means the Nature Conservancy Council for England as respects land in England, and the Council as respects land in Wales."'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 46, in schedule 8, page 77, leave out line 18.
      Amendment No. 47, in page 77, line 44, at end insert—
      '; or
      (c) where subsequent notification under section 28(1) has been given and confirmed under section 28(5) in relation to an area of land previously notified under section 28(1) then the previous notification shall cease to have effect.'.
      Government amendment No. 216.
      Amendment No. 95, in page 84, line 31, leave out "them to".
      Government amendments Nos. 282 and 217.
      Amendment No. 96, in page 87, line 6, leave out "them to".
      Government amendment No. 290.
      Mr. Meacher: I shall deal first with the Government amendments. Amendment No. 274 parallels the changes that we have made in clause 60 to enable the conservation agencies compulsorily to purchase land that is outside a site of special scientific interest for the purposes of conserving the site's special features. However, the power cannot be exercised unless the agencies have tried, and failed, to make an agreement as to the management of the land or there has been a breach of such an agreement. An example might be the need to protect a water source that feeds an SSSI habitat.
      1028
      As with compulsory purchase order powers generally, we would expect these powers to be used only in exceptional circumstances, where other avenues have failed. Their use will follow extensive discussions with the owner or occupier of the land to secure the action necessary to protect the SSSI and, if agreement cannot be reached, there will be a voluntary offer to purchase the land. Only if that process fails, and only where action is essential if an SSSI is to be appropriately conserved, may the agencies take compulsory purchase proceedings. There is a full and appropriate balance between private and public rights.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: Will the Minister confirm that the reference in subsection (5) of the amendment to
      the Council as respects land in Wales
      refers to the Countryside Council for Wales? If so, the amendment should state that.
      The amendment applies to clause 60, which brings into effect schedule 8. I may be ignorant and innocent, but I have read the Bill closely over the past two days, and I cannot see in the clause a reference to the powers of the Countryside Council for Wales as regards SSSIs. It appears that the Nature Conservancy Council will report to the National Assembly; surely that cannot be the case. Will the Minister reconsider the drafting of the Bill to ensure that CCW's legal remit is fully taken into account?
      Mr. Meacher: On the first point, the wording is a reference to the Countryside Council for Wales. If I can give more precise information about the second, technical point during the debate, I shall certainly do so.
      Government amendment No. 216 ensures that parts I and III are consistent. This matter was discussed in Committee, and we agree that there is a case for removing the unilateral test of reasonableness—which members of the Committee will remember having anguished debates about—which is implied by the inclusion of the words "to them". We also want to ensure that both parts use similar terminology.
      Government amendment No. 282 addresses the situation where an SSSI is landlocked, by which I mean that there is no access to it by routes that are open to the public. However, if the agency needs to take action in relation to that SSSI for its statutory purposes—in this case to carry out works in a management notic—it cannot do so without the agreement of the owner of that adjoining land. The land adjoining the SSSI may be in the same ownership, or it may be in other ownership or occupation, in which case the SSSI owner will no doubt have negotiated formal or informal access arrangements with the adjacent landowner, in order to enjoy rights of ownership.
      Government amendment No. 290 deals with compulsory purchase and Crown land. The Bill extends the circumstances in which the agencies can, exceptionally, exercise powers of compulsory purchase of land, to include the acquisition of land notified as an SSSI.
      8 pm
      I shall deal equally briefly with the Opposition amendments. I am happy to say that we are prepared to consider further amendments Nos. 46 and 47. Amendment No. 46 would allow the conservation agencies to vary the

      1029
      area of an SSSI, using the procedures of notification under section 28A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It should be noted that they have already been given power to denotify a site or decrease the area, where the special features no longer exist, and to vary the matters mentioned in the notification, including a list of operations likely to damage the site, and a statement of the council's views about management.
      Amendment No. 47 attempts to deal with renotification of sites. I was aware that the agencies would welcome a facility to vary, by increasing, SSSI boundaries. Perhaps surprisingly, that is not at present specifically allowed for in the Bill. My officials have been actively discussing this situation with the agencies, and exploring how it could be achieved. We said that we would do that, and I am about to explain why were are still doing it. Again, it is not as simple as it looks. We need to ensure that the procedures allow for the right people to be notified of the changes, and that there is proper publicity and the opportunity to make representations. Provided that the arrangements prove workable, the intention is to return with an amendment in another place, but we do not believe that the proposed amendments fully meet the requirement. They have some technical deficiencies and, if we can overcome them, we will introduce an amendment in another place. I trust that that is acceptable to hon. Members.
      Mr. Paice: I shall be brief because I am pleased to note that the Minister has heeded the advice that we gave him in Committee. Government amendments Nos. 216 and 217 achieve exactly the same result as we were trying to achieve with amendments Nos. 95 and 96. I could chide the Minister slightly. I seem to recall that, in Committee, he was adamant that it was perfectly reasonable that it should be up to the authority to decide whether something appeared to them to be reasonable. By making the changes that he has now made, he has, I am pleased to say, accepted the advice that we proffered him. I am grateful to him for taking the matter away and having a rethink about it. Therefore, we shall support his amendments.
      Mr. David Heath: I shall continue with the good wishes. I am grateful to the Minister for the consideration that he has given to amendments Nos. 46 and 47, which are in my name. They deal with an issue of some concern to the conservation bodies. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman has the matter in hand. He is looking carefully at it. On the basis of his assurances that the matter will be dealt with again in another place, there is no need for me to pursue the matter further.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
      Mr. Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 281, in page 81, line 16, leave out from "functions" to end of line 17 and insert—
      'so far as their exercise is likely to affect the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which a site of special scientific interest is of special interest.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 48, in page 81, line 17, at end insert—
      'and in relation to land not included in a site of special scientific interest where the exercise of its functions would affect such land.'.
      No. 49, in page 81, line 41, after "functions,", insert—
      'any operation specified in a notification made under section 28(1) and any'.
      No. 94, in page 81, line 41, leave out "operations likely to" and insert—
      'any operation specified in a notification made under section 28(1)(b) or which may'.
      Mr. Mullin: Government amendment No. 281 imposes a duty on public bodies in exercising their functions to take reasonable steps, consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of special features of the SSSI.
      Amendment No. 48, tabled by the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), would achieve the same effect, and we ask that they do not press it.
      Mr. David Heath: I am most grateful to the Minister for his response to amendment No. 48. I agree with him that Government amendment No. 281 deals with the issue that I sought to address. I am grateful for the fact that he has listened to what we have had to say.
      Amendment No. 49 deals with a slightly different issue. It would ensure that all operations carried out by section 28E authorities listed on the notification of the SSSI as well as those that, in the opinion of the agency, are likely to cause damage are first referred to English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales. The Minister will remember that we discussed the matter in Committee. He stated that the Bill already caught operations listed on the notification as, by implication, they will be operations that might damage the SSSI. However, that misses the point slightly. There is no duty on section 28E authorities to inform the council if, in their view, the operation is not likely to damage the site. The point is that there is a difference between section 28E authorities and what is required of private landowners. It begs the question whether those authorities are in a better position to judge what may be damaging to an SSSI than a private individual. I see no inherent reason why they should be. It seems better that there should be a safeguard that requires the nature conservation bodies to be aware of what is to be done and enables them to give appropriate advice, or take appropriate action if need be. That is what my amendment would provide.
      Mr. Green: I wish to speak to amendment No. 94, but all the amendments are pointing in the same direction. We are grateful that the Government are moving along with those of us who have sought to equalise an imbalance between the obligations that the Bill places on private landowners and those that it places on public bodies. That was a matter of some debate in Committee. We argued strongly that private landowners were treated unfairly as compared with public bodies—those laid out in new section 28E in schedule 8. Our amendments would restore that balance.
      The thought behind our amendment and other amendments is that schedule 8 should be tightened up considerably to ensure a number of things. It should

      1031
      ensure that the duty on public bodies to further the conservation of SSSIs applies to activities that public bodies may undertake not on the site but in an area that will affect the site. The most common example used is off-site abstraction of water by water companies. Clearly, sources of water are important. I am sympathetic to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that, on a separate issue, English Nature or the Countryside Council for Wales should be consulted and informed if public bodies are planning potentially damaging operations, just as they would expect to be consulted if private landowners intended to do something potentially damaging.
      Another point covered by the group of amendments is that there should be restoration orders for offences by public bodies, including their operations away from SSSIs. Those various loopholes were subject to amendment in Committee. I am glad that the Government have acknowledged the general, genuine concern. If it is addressed properly, it will alleviate one of the Bill's remaining unfairnesses.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 216, in page 84, line 30, leave out—
      'terms appearing to them to be reasonable'
      and insert "reasonable terms".
      No. 282, in page 84, line 51, after "land" insert—
      ',and any other land,'.
      No. 217, in page 87, line 6, leave out—
      'terms appearing to them to be reasonable'
      and insert "reasonable terms".[Mr. Pope.]
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 283, in page 87, line 47, at beginning insert "subject to subsection (4A),".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it Will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 284 to 286.
      Amendment No. 50, in page 88, line 5, after "interest", insert—
      'or the habitats or species upon which the notified interest depends in so far as such destruction or damage is likely to be significant in relation to the interest notified under section 28(1).'.
      Amendment No. 51, in page 88, line 5, at end insert—
      '( ) intentionally or recklessly disturbs any of the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which land is of special interest, in so far as such disturbance is likely to be significant in relation to the notification under section 28(1).'.
      Government amendment No. 287.
      Amendment No. 138, in page 88, leave out lines 18 to 20.
      Amendment No. 137, in page 88, line 22, at end insert—
      '(10) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
      (11) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members, subsection (10) above shall apply in relation to the acts or defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 288 and 289.
      Amendment No. 52, in page 88, line 38, at end insert—
      '(2A) Subsection (1) applies even if the operation in respect of which a person is convicted of an offence under section 28M(2) or (3) did not take place on land included in a site of special scientific interest.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 277 to 280.
      Mr. Meacher: Government amendments Nos. 283 to 285 relate to the question of a defence against prosecution for failure to follow procedures in section 28C of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended in schedule 8: notifying and obtaining the consent of the Nature Conservancy Council when proposing to carry out operations that are likely to damage the special interest in circumstances where those operations have received the permission or authorisation of a public body. A similar issue was debated in Committee, which I promised to consider. I have done so and the amendments are the result. They tackle a similar question, but we have approached it from a different angle.
      Where a public body has issued a consent for works after fully involving the conservation agency, as required under section 28G, it is wholly appropriate that the recipient should be able to proceed with the activity without delay. We have already acknowledged in section 28M(4) that a planning permission will constitute a reasonable excuse to carry out the operation authorised by it. Indeed, that has been so for many years. Amendments Nos. 283 and 284 cover a section 28G consent, but amendment No. 285 ensures that, where both a planning permission and the permission of a section 28E authority are required, there is no reasonable excuse or defence if work commences before both have been obtained.
      On Government amendment No. 286, I undertook in Committee to re-examine the effectiveness and proportionality of offences under section 28M(5) in relation to damage of the special features of SSSIs, but I emphasised that we did not want to create disproportionate offences. I remind the House that section 28M(5) introduces a wholly new offence to apply when any person intentionally or recklessly damages or destroys the special interest feature of an SSSI. That is intended primarily to catch third parties, with the proviso that they should be aware that the land is notified as an SSSI. In response to revisiting the offence, Government amendment No. 286 and consequential Government No. 287 seek to extend the offence to include intentional or reckless disturbance of fauna.
      8.15 pm
      Government amendments Nos. 288 and 289 would extend the courts' powers to order restoration of an SSSI. We discussed the issue of restoration extensively in Committee. I emphasised strong support for the general principle that damage should be subject to reinstatement. I confirmed that I would look further at whether a restoration order could be made in other circumstances—where the damaging activity has taken place on land that is not within the SSSI.
      The provisions already allow the courts to order restoration where the damaging operation takes place on the SSSI. The amendments extend that to damaging

      1033
      operations away from the SSSI that nevertheless have an effect on the special features. In such circumstances, there may he a requirement for restoration either within or both within and outside the SSSI in order to restore the special features. I think that that meets the wishes expressed in Committee, and I ask, for that reason, that amendment No. 52 should not be pressed to a vote.
      Government amendments Nos. 277 and 278 affect the exercise of powers of entry by conservation agencies. That is a sensitive issue. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is not present to hear me register my appreciation of his anguish over it. We heard in Committee examples of insensitive exercise of powers of entry to private land—I am speaking somewhat euphemistically; I cannot imitate the hon. Gentleman's purple prose—by other public bodies.
      No examples—I checked this—have been brought to my attention of any insensitivity on the part of the conservation agencies, but we of course expect them, as we do any public body, to behave with propriety and, wherever possible, to act with the agreement of the owner or occupier of any land in which they have a statutory interest.
      Government amendments Nos. 277 and 278 address the issue of a landlocked SSSI—where there is no access to it by routes that are open to the public. Other public bodies exercising powers of entry are able to enter adjoining land on the sole basis that it is necessary to do so in order to get to the landlocked land and carry out their functions. Government amendment No. 277 delivers that, and Government amendment No. 278 makes a minor technical amendment.
      Government amendments Nos. 279 and 280 address some of the concerns expressed. It is difficult—I said this in Committee—to conceive of a body that is charged with the conservation of the natural environment causing damage in entering land, but should it inadvertently do so, it is of course wholly appropriate that the agency should compensate any person who has sustained damage. It may also be necessary to emphasise that land should be left as secure following entry as it was previously.
      I hope that what I have just said demonstrates that amendment No. 137—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who tabled it, is present-is unnecessary. There should be no question of corporate bodies seeking to evade their responsibilities, either collectively or individually. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will feel able not to press his amendment to a vote.
      On amendment No. 138, I cannot accept that the decision on whether to prosecute should be removed from the hands of the statutory nature conservation advisers. Their posts have been specifically established to carry out nature conservation functions on behalf of the Government. They have specific powers and duties in relation to SSSIs, including the identification and notification of sites, the granting or withholding of consent for operations likely to damage the features and the preparation of, and support for, management schemes that will identify how best to maintain the features that make the site special. If they have those functions, they should also have the means of enforcement. I should add that other persons may prosecute, providing that the
      1034
      consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been obtained. Again, I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central will not press his amendment to a vote.
      Amendment No. 51 applies intentional or reckless disturbance to the general offence where it is significant in relation to the special interest feature. This applies disturbance more widely than the Government amendment, but qualifies the offence with a test of significance. How is the assessment of significance to be made?
      Perhaps I am being a little cheeky when I say that I remember having lengthy discussions in Committee about what we meant by predominantly". Now the boot is on the other foot. Perhaps I will be told what is meant by "significant". The Government's approach to disturbance will be more readily enforceable, and more robust, than a test of significance in wider circumstances.
      Amendment No. 50 may be based on a misapprehension about the SSSI citations—that is, the lists of the fauna or flora or geological or physiographical features, by reason of which the site is of special interest. The Bill includes a provision for the conservation agencies to amend the details of notification, including the list of features by reason of which the site is of special interest. I give an assurance that I will encourage English Nature to look carefully at any citations that do not fully reflect the features of interest on the SSSI, to ensure that they are appropriately updated, with the necessary opportunity for consultation, so that they fully reflect, and protect, the scientific importance of the site. On those grounds, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will not press the amendment.
      I apologise for speaking at such length, but I hope that I have explained the Government amendments and our position on the others.
      Mr. David Heath: As the right hon. Gentleman said, I tabled amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52. I acknowledge that amendment No. 51 is largely covered by Government amendments Nos. 286 and 287, for which I am grateful, and that amendment No. 52 is largely covered by Government amendments Nos. 288 and 289, for which I am equally grateful.
      That leaves only amendment No. 50 to be discussed. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it refers to a test of significance. Why is the test of significance there? It is simply because the right hon. Gentleman told me in Committee that the amendment that I had tabled previously was insufficiently specific and would catch too many people. Because of the test of effectiveness and proportionality that he required, I introduced that qualification. However, the Minister and I are clearly working to the same ends, and I do not intend to press the amendment.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: I am reassured by my right hon. Friend the Minister, but for the record I shall set out the basic arguments.
      Amendment No. 137 would bring the Bill into line with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and make company directors, not just companies, personally liable for offences. According to the Department, more than 3,000 English and Welsh SSSIs are partially or wholly owned by commercial operations, and many more are

      1035
      subject to the actions of corporations such as utility companies. Company directors would take their responsibilities towards SSSIs more seriously if they were personally liable. Under other environmental legislation, where offences are committed directors are subject to legal redress.
      There are case studies, including one on the acid spill in the Tees estuary in 1999. A massive spill of acid polluted Greenabella marsh, which is a roosting site for over-wintering birds and a habitat for seals. The company responsible for the chemicals is now subject to legal action by the Environment Agency. Individual directors would also be subject to action.
      Had the damage occurred not as a result of pollution but as a result of mismanagement such as ploughing or building, directors would not be liable. In the case of SSSIs, directors may be less likely to consider the implications of breaking the law if they were not personally accountable. Ultimately, it is an empirical question whether there are disparities in the behaviour of companies. I have been reassured by my right hon. Friend that the Bill's provisions are sufficient and that my amendment may not be necessary. I shall keep an eye on the situation.
      The purpose of amendment No. 138 was to bring SSSI prosecutions in line with species offences. In the case of such offences, prosecutions can be taken by the wildlife agencies or by third parties, with the consent of the Crown Prosecution Service. The Law Commission recommended in its 1998 report "Consents to Prosecutions" that such consents should be abolished.
      Some 45 per cent. of England's 4,000 SSSIs are in an unfavourable condition, and every year hundreds suffer loss and damage. According to the information available to me, English Nature has taken only one prosecution for an SSSI offence—in May 1997—and papers were laid before the courts in four other cases. English Nature may be unwilling to take prosecutions from the wildlife agencies, which have been anxious to build positive, not punitive, relationships with landowners. There is a danger, therefore, that neglect of SSSIs could become commonplace. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I am reassured by my right hon. Friend's words.
      Mr. Meacher: I believe that my hon. Friend is reaching the end of his comments and may helpfully ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Before he does so—if he does so—may I say that he is right: neglect is the major problem with SSSIs, but damage is done by commercial and other interests. I assure my hon. Friend that section 69 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 already applies a provision in relation to offences by bodies corporate in virtually the same terms as his amendment No. 137. That will apply in relation to offences under new section 28A.
      What my hon. Friend seeks to achieve is already in statute. I support his view that there are insufficient prosecutions, although the number is gradually increasing, and that where convictions are secured, the penalties are not adequate to provide an effective deterrent. I support my hon. Friend, but the objective is already covered by existing statute.
      Mr. Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Other parties should have the right
      1036
      to take a prosecution where the wildlife agencies fail to do so. Although they have the teeth, the question is whether they will bite. I hope that we will keep a monitoring brief. When public attention is focused by the enactment of the Bill, I hope that the wildlife agencies will act through the courts to bring offenders to justice. If not, we can return to the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw, because at the head of the group is a Government amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 284, in page 87, line 49, after "1990" insert—
      'or permitted by a section 28E authority which has acted in accordance with section 28G'.
      No. 285, in page 87, line 54, at end insert—
      '(4A) If an operation needs both a planning permission and the permission of a section 28E authority, subsection (4)(a) does not provide reasonable excuse unless both have been obtained.'
      No. 286, in page 88, line 5, after "interest," insert—
      'or intentionally or recklessly disturbs any of those fauna.'.
      No. 287, in page 88, line 6, leave out "or damaged lay" and insert—
      ', damaged or disturbed was'.
      No. 288, in page 88, line 33, leave out—
      'the land on which it was carried out'
      and insert—
      'a site of special scientific interest'.
      No. 289, in page 88, line 37, leave out from "operations" to end of line 38 and insert—
      '(whether on land included in the site of special scientific interest or not) as may be so specified for the purpose of restoring the site of special scientific interest to its former condition."'.
      No. 290, in page 89, line 11, at end insert—
      '.In section 67 of the 1981 Act (application to Crown), after subsection (1) there is inserted—
      "(1A) An interest in Crown land, other than one held by or on behalf of the Crown, may be acquired under section 28L, but only with the consent of the appropriate authority."".—[Mr. Meacher.

    Clause 62

      RAMSAR SITES
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 275, in page 35, line 28, at end insert—
      '(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), upon receipt of a notification under subsection (1), each Council notified shall, in turn, notify—

      (a) the local planning authority in whose area the wetland is situated;

      (b) every owner and occupier of any of that wetland;

      (c) the Environment Agency; and

      (d) every relevant undertaker (within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991) and every internal drainage hoard (within the meaning of section 61C(1) of the Land Drainage Act 1991) whose works, operations or activities may affect the wetland.

      1037
      (1B) The Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales may agree that in a case where the Secretary of State notifies both of them under subsection (1)(c), any notice under subsection (1A) is to be sent by one or the other of them (and not both), so as to avoid duplicate notices under that subsection.'.
      The amendment responds to a particular point that the Opposition made in Committee. They said that we should ensure that the relevant owners and occupiers, local authorities, the Environment Agency, relevant undertakers and internal drainage boards should be properly informed of the designation of Ramsar sites.
      Mr. David Heath: I do not want to put the Under-Secretary off his stride, but I want to ask a simple question. Proposed new subsection (1A)(a) mentions "the local planning authority". Should I be concerned that that is expressed in the singular? In Somerset, a site could fall under the jurisdiction of several local planning authorities.
      Mr. Mullin: All planning authorities are covered. The hon. Gentleman should not be concerned; I do not like him to be concerned.
      The amendment would achieve its objective by placing a duty on the conservation agencies to carry out the same procedures to inform relevant parties as those that already exist for sites of special scientific interest—and are reflected in schedule 8—when they are notified by the Secretary of State of the designation of a Ramsar site. We have used that approach, which is the same as for sites designated under the European birds and habitats directives, because the detailed information on owners and occupiers will be held by the conservation agencies in connection with SSSI notification.
      Several queries were raised in Committee about Government policy on Ramsar sites. We have concluded that we should publish a policy statement to set out our commitment to the Ramsar convention and explain how it will relate in future to our obligations under the European directives and the Bill as it applies to all SSSIs. The statement is in preparation, and I hope that we shall be able to publish it later during the Bill's passage.
      Mr. Green: I am glad that the Government took some notice of the amendment that we tabled in Committee on the importance of Ramsar sites and the way in which they should be recognised. However, the amendment is inadequate and does not cover our concerns and those of many knowledgeable bodies, including, most notably, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
      The Under-Secretary knows that amendment No. 275 is not as strong or wide ranging as the amendment that we tabled in Committee. It will not fulfil the aspirations, which I hope that the Government will outline in their policy statement. I am glad that such a statement will be produced soon. I am sure that we all look forward avidly to reading it. However, the information is not new. In Committee, the Government said that they intended to publish a
      policy statement highlighting their commitment to protecting and managing Ramsar sites on a par with sites that form part of the European Union's Natura 2000 network…—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 2000; c. 741.]
      They may not be the same words as the Under-Secretary used tonight, but I suspect that they are startlingly similar.
      1038
      The Under-Secretary argued, especially in Committee, that most but not all sites are already protected under the European birds and habitats directives and that most Ramsar sites in this country will be SSSIs and will therefore benefit from the existing provisions of the Bill. He said that additional regulations were unnecessary, but he promised to give the matter further thought. I assume that the amendment is the fruit of that thinking.
      To some extent, the Under-Secretary's analysis is correct. Most Ramsar sites are designated as special protection areas under the birds directive, or special areas of conservation under the habitats directive. That means that they are already subject to a high degree of protection. However, that applies only to the Ramsar interest, which is also the designated interest of the SPA or the SAC.
      The interest leading to designation as Ramsar sites may be different, and regulations may be necessary to establish, for example, how that special interest should be judged in terms of the planning system and how it should be balanced with other special interests of sites that have more than one specific interest. Relying on SSSI provision fails to recognise the international importance of Ramsar sites. We believe that only the introduction of regulations such as those that we proposed in Committee will achieve the Government's stated aim that Ramsar sites should be protected on a par with the Natura 2000 network.
      Let us consider a specific example. The north Norfolk coast is internationally important for a range of coastal and freshwater wetlands. It is home to globally important populations of nesting terns and the bittern, which is increasingly scarce. Those species and the habitats on which they depend are protected by SPA and SAC designations. However, there is a wide range of other habitats and species, such as the plants and invertebrates, associated with the wet flushes along the spring line. They are part of the notified Ramsar site.
      Those marshes are threatened by permanent tidal flooding as sea levels rise. The shingle bank that currently protects them will not be sustained for much longer. The Environment Agency plans to build a new sea defence, which will result in a loss of some freshwater wetlands, which will become brackish. Since the site is an SPA and an SAC, the Environment Agency intends to recreate it nearby. No such requirement exists for the Ramsar interest, which, despite being of international importance, is wholly dependent on the SSSI provisions for protection. We need an amendment that recognises international obligations under the Ramsar convention and elevates them to equal status with SPAs and SACs.
      There are 136 designated Ramsar sites in the United Kingdom, of which 66 are in England and 10 are in Wales. Many important sites need and deserve greater protection than they will receive, even under the amendment, from the Government. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider yet again before the Bill goes to another place.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 276, in page 35, line 40, leave out "this Act" and insert—
      'the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

    Clause 64

      POWERS OF ENTRY
      Amendments made: No. 277. in page 36, line 44, after "(1A)" insert—
      'The power conferred by subsection (1) to enter land for any purpose includes power to enter for the same purpose any land other than that referred to in subsection (1).
      (1B)'.
      No. 278, in page 37, line 8, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) For subsection (3)(b) there is substituted—

      "(b) the purpose of the entry is to ascertain if an offence under section 28M, 34 or 42 is being, or has been, committed on or (as the case may be) in relation to that land."'.

      No. 279, in page 37, line 18, at end insert—
      '(3B) If in the exercise of a power conferred by subsection (1) a person enters land which is unoccupied or from which the occupier is temporarily absent, he must on his departure leave it as effectively secured against unauthorised entry as he found it.'.
      No. 280, in page 37, line 18, at end insert—
      '( ) After subsection (4) there is inserted—
      "(5) It is the duty of a relevant authority to compensate any person who has sustained damage as a result of—

      (a) the exercise of a power conferred by subsection (1) by a person authorised to do so by that relevant authority, or

      (b) the failure of a person so authorised to perform the duty imposed on him by subsection (3B),

      except where the damage is attributable to the fault of the person who sustained it; and any dispute as to a person's entitlement to compensation under this subsection or as to its amount shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the Secretary of State."'.—[Mr. Meacher.]

    Schedule 10

      WILDLIFE: AMENDMENTS OF PART I OF THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move amendment No. 218, in page 92, line 43, leave out from "In" to "after" in line 44 and insert—
      'section 1(5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (offence of intentional disturbance of wild birds)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 219.
      Mr. Meacher: The Bill includes new provisions developed from recommendations by the partnership for action against wildlife crime. They will provide new protection from reckless disturbance for protected species. I refer specifically to new protection from reckless disturbance for birds listed in schedule 1 and animals listed in schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, while they are in their nest or place of shelter or protection.
      However, some protected marine species do not have readily identifiable places of shelter, and for those species it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to apply the current provisions of the Bill. Concerns were expressed in
      1040
      Committee that some of those species, namely the cetacean family, such as dolphins, whales and porpoises, and the basking shark are vulnerable to disturbance.
      In Committee, hon. Members drew my attention to the disturbance of these species, especially the bottlenose dolphin, by fast, personal, motorised leisure craft, such as motor boats and wet bikes or jet skis. I agreed that the issue of disturbance by motorised leisure craft should be addressed, and that I would table a suitable amendment on Report.
      Some concern has been expressed about the potential effect of the amendment on commercial fisheries. As I pointed out, the concerns about disturbance to these species relate to motorised leisure craft. The 1981 Act provides a defence if the disturbance is an incidental result of a lawful activity and could not reasonably have been avoided. Responsible commercial fisheries will no doubt want to rely on that defence.
      I believe that the amendments are necessary. They will address the perceived loophole in the Bill with respect to these marine species and the practical issue of reckless disturbance by motorised leisure craft, without having an unfair impact on commercial fisheries. I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Green: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about new subsection 4A in amendment No. 219. It seems on the face of it that it protects the species that he mentioned—dolphins or whales and basking sharks. I wondered whether that was indeed the case, and whether a provision is needed to extend the list of species in the future. Is there any provision, perhaps by regulation, for Ministers to do that? It would be a shame to introduce these welcome extensions of protection and then find at some stage in the future that they were not entirely adequate to deal with other species that may need to be included in schedule 5 of the 1981 Act.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I welcome the Government amendments. They will be welcomed along the west and north coasts of Wales, where we have a particular problem with jet skis. There is anecdotal evidence from wildlife wardens of jet skis buzzing bottlenose dolphins. The only conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that people are doing that for fun and to provoke a reaction in these sensitive and intelligent mammals. We must draw a line under such practices, much of which is due to ignorance. The insertion of this new subsection in the Bill will help to underline the need for people to learn a little more about these animals.
      The Cardigan bay has the only resident population of bottlenose dolphins in England and Wales, although they visit the coast of other areas of the country. The bay has also been designated a special area of conservation, the official title of which is Penllyn ar Sarnau—I look forward to the note from the Official Report asking how to spell that. Penllyn ar Sarnau covers a huge area from the Llyn peninsular in north Wales down to the north of my constituency. A range of management devices are now being used, and the amendment will be an extremely useful addition to the management of that area.
      I was grateful for the remarks about commercial fisheries, and the reassurance that the amendments should not affect them. Small shellfish fishing takes place from the coast in Ceredigion. I am sure that those fishermen will be grateful that they will not be included for any unintentional actions that they may undertake.

      1041
      We also have a growing tourism industry. People come to observe these mammals, especially the dolphins. The boats that go out to observe the dolphins do so peacefully and should not come under the new subsection.
      I welcome the new provisions. They are an essential part of extending wildlife protection to the extremely intelligent, sensitive mammals that are a great addition to the biodiversity of the west Wales coast.
      Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for the recommendation of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). He is right; the amendment will be valuable and widely welcomed for dolphins at least. However, I am not sure about the basking shark, although its name belies its rather mild habits.
      8.45 pm
      The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made a fair point—the amendment mentions only two species—but I am assured that the reason for that is that primary legislation would otherwise be required. I am a little surprised at the explanation I have been given, because I thought that that is what we are debating. However, there should be the capacity to extend provision further, and I shall take the point away to see whether we can find the means to achieve that.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 219, in page 93, line 21, at end insert—
      '. In section 9 of that Act (protection of certain wild animals)—

      (a) in subsection (4) after "intentionally" there is inserted "or recklessly", and

      (b) after that subsection there is inserted—

      "(4A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person intentionally or recklessly disturbs any wild animal included in Schedule 5 as—

      (a) a dolphin or whale (cetacea), or

      (b) a basking shark (cetorhinus maximus), he shall be guilty of an offence."

      .In section 16(3) of that Act (power to grant licences) for "and (4)" there is substituted ", (4) and (4A)".".'.—[Mr. Meacher.]
      Mr. Green: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 93, line 21, at end insert—
      '4A. For section 14(2) of that Act (introduction of new species) there is substituted—
      "(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person plants, releases or otherwise causes to grow in the wild any plant which is included in Part II of Schedule 9 he shall be guilty of an offence.
      (2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person—

      (a) sells, offers or exposes for sale, or has in his possession or transports for the purpose of sale, any living wild plant included in Part II of Schedule 9, or any part of such a wild plant; or

      (b) publishes or causes to be published any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that he buys or sells or intends to sell, any of those things,

      he shall be guilty of an offence.".'.
      This is the time at which we must discuss the giant hogweed, which represents an important issue that we have not yet properly addressed. I hope to deal with it and
      1042
      other similarly invasive plants. The simple purpose of the amendment is to ban the sale of non-native invasive plant species, which are listed in schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We often discuss animals—we did so in our previous debate—and for some reason there is a feeling that plants are less important and less emotionally involving. I disagree with both propositions. Indeed, at the last meeting of the World Conservation Union there was consensus that the biggest threat facing biodiversity this century will come not from habitat destruction, but from non-native invasive species. These alien species come in all shapes and sizes, but have one thing in common—they threaten our wildlife and, in particular, our wild plants.
      In a sense, the amendment would not be an add-on to Government policy because, as signatories of the Rio convention, they are legally obliged to
      prevent the introduction of, control and eradicate alien species …
      Ministers should be aware that they are under a legal obligation backed by an international treaty to achieve the ends set out in the amendment.
      The 1981 Act is good in many ways, but I am afraid that it has proved unenforceable in this area. A law governs the prevention of release of non-native invasive species into the countryside, but to date there have been no successful prosecutions for illegal release of listed schedule 9 plants. Yet the relatively few species that are supposedly controlled, including the Japanese knotweed—the Minister, I think, said in Committee that it was a problem for him—and the giant hogweed are still causing havoc.
      A number of other species are causing problems, many of which are associated with aquatic habitats. An unfortunate side effect of the recent massive growth in the trendiness of gardening—in particular, gardening promoted by Charlie Dimmock—is that aquatic gardening is much more popular than ever before. At least three species of non-native aquatic plants—New Zealand pigmyweed, parrot's feather and floating pennywort—cause significant environmental damage. They are widely sold to garden pond enthusiasts, but unfortunately, the plants grow so rapidly that purchasers soon have too much of them and they often end up being dumped in the wild, where they swamp native plants.
      New Zealand pigmyweed is pushing one of our rarest plants to the brink of extinction. Starfruit is highly threatened; it was once relatively common. It is now found in just nine locations in the UK. On at least five of those sites, the growth of New Zealand pigmyweed threatens its survival.
      The only efficient way to prevent the release of those non-native invasive plants is by imposing a ban on the sale of schedule 9 plants. In that way, well meaning gardeners will be able to choose alternative plants that are less likely to cause problems if they end up in the wild.
      It is worth emphasising that the ban would apply only to schedule 9 species and therefore to a relatively small number of plants. It is already accepted that those plants cause problems, yet the law is powerless to prevent their spread. The Government have pledged to review the list of plants in schedule 9. Only subsequent to full consultation will new plants be added and, therefore, be subject to a ban. The ban would not work on its own, but it would be an important first step.

      1043
      Many bodies back the idea. Non-governmental organisations such as Plantlife want it. Experts including the Institute for Aquatic Plant Management want it. The gardening industry appears to want it. A consultant to the Garden Centre Association Ltd. has been quoted on television as saying that a ban would make it easier for everyone, including garden centres. Even the Government's own advisers want it: this year, the Joint Nature Conservation Council advised the Minister that a ban was necessary to prevent further damage to our native species.
      It is a real case where prevention is much better than cure. Imposing a ban on the sale of those invasive plants would not only save the Government millions of pounds, which they could spend to control problem species, but even more important, it would prevent threatened species from being pushed to the brink of extinction. It is a simple, common-sense amendment that would modernise the legislation and safeguard our plants from an increasing and insidious threat. I commend it to the House.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I make a very late contribution to the proceedings on the Bill; I make my maiden speech on it. I should declare an interest. I have been a member of the all-party group on conservation since the 1970s. I am now its vice-chairman. I am glad to see its secretary, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), in the Chamber.
      I am, perhaps slightly more surprisingly, the parliamentary vice-president for my party in the London Wildlife Trust. Given the nature of my constituency, the provenance and pedigree are not automatically obvious, but I once had to make the keynote address at an international conference on the royal parks, which are significantly in my constituency. It was on the strength of that that I earned my place as parliamentary vice-president.
      As the other two parliamentary vice-presidents are, for the Labour party, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and, for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who obviously have Front-Bench roles too, I have an enviable independence as a Back Bencher in that regard.
      I shall make the briefest of speeches in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). I was the Whip on the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Bill. I think that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is the only other Member in these debates who served on that Committee. I understand my hon. Friend's concerns about the Bill's lack of efficacy with regard to the subjects that we are discussing. I am sorry about that.
      Plantlife, which is located in my constituency, brought the New Zealand pigmyweed, the parrot's feather and the floating pennywort into my life via its briefing in advance of Second Reading. Having played no part in the proceedings on the Bill until now, I am delighted that my hon. Friend should have tabled an amendment at this late stage, which enables those of us who have taken an interest in the New Zealand pigmyweed, the parrot's feather and the floating pennywort to have the opportunity to express our support.
      Mr. David Heath: I wonder whether it might be helpful to Members to make the point that the New Zealand pigmyweed and the Australian swamp stonecrop are the same plant: crassula helmsii.
      Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His constituency is more rural than mine, and it is approaching a quarter of a century since I was last in Australia and more than 40 years since I was last in New Zealand; so I am not surprised that the confusion has been introduced to my mind.
      As I was saying, the basic point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford is eminently sensible. If plants such as this run riot, they have a stifling effect on certain natural habitats. They are hazardous invasive species.
      Mr. Meacher: One nice consequence of the moving of amendment No. 97 at this late stage was hearing the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) make a passionate case for the need to deal with New Zealand pigmyweed—or whatever its Australian name may be—and floating pennywort. However, this is a serious issue, and both the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made a relevant case that needs to be addressed.
      The amendment seeks to tackle the important issue of the effect of invasive non-native plant species on native fauna and flora. A number of recent articles have highlighted the problem that can be caused by such species, such as Japanese knotweed. It was not I but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who admitted that he was concerned because there was a considerable problem in his neighbour's garden, which might affect him as well. We are talking about non-native invasive species with the ability to oust native species, to damage crops, and to be a public nuisance all round.
      I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendment, but there are arguments against it. They are the same as those that were advanced in the case of a similar amendment tabled in Committee. I think that it was amendment No. 361. We need to deal with the issue in a co-ordinated way, taking account of the many varied factors arising from the introduction and spread of non-native species, animals as well as plants. I repeat—the hon. Member for Ashford mentioned this—that early next year we will undertake a full review of policy on non-native species that can present an ecological threat to the United Kingdom's indigenous wildlife, taking account of the work already done by the JNCC.
      As I have said, this is a serious issue, but it is also complex. As former Ministers and current Opposition Front Benchers will be well aware, Government must consider such matters in a structured way, taking account of the implications of any policy changes for various parties. I should add—although it may be a less important point—that the amendment would introduce differences in the treatment of the sale of plants and animals under schedule 9, which is difficult to justify.
      Mr. Brooke: I intervene because I have a sense that the Minister is bringing his speech to a conclusion. I take his point about the review that he expects to take place early next year; but given that 19 years have passed between the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Bill, and given the amount of literature that we have received from wildlife organisations during those 19 years

      1045
      stressing the need for an update, will he tell us something about the possible legislative consequences of the review, and about the possible timetable?
      Mr. Meacher: That is a fair question, although I am tempted to say that during 16 or 17 years of the 19 that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, his own Government—
      Mr. Brooke: I was not making a political point.
      Mr. Meacher: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was not. His point is that countryside Bills, or Bills dealing with wildlife, are relatively infrequent.
      I obviously need to look at how far the matter can be dealt with through secondary legislation. If it requires primary legislation, for the reasons that I have given I do not see how I can advance the issue in the course of proceedings on this Bill, which are due to move to another place, or in the course of the year.
      9 pm
      I do not think that a gap of some 20 years between Bills such as this is inevitable. For example, a general Bill on the environment might well be able to deal with the matter, even though it would not be directly concerned with the countryside.
      I do not say that in order to kick the matter into the long grass, which I think was the fear of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. I intend to deal with it, but I cannot do so before next year's proper and balanced review is complete.
      Mr. Green: I cannot say that I am heartened by the Minister's response, which closely resembles his response to a similar amendment in Committee.
      I take his point that animals and plants are both included in schedule 9, but I urge him not to let the best be the enemy of the good in this matter. If complications arise owing to the existence of separate regimes for plants and animals, then so be it. The problem is clearly defined, and the Bill could deal with it, so this seems to be the optimal time to make it do so.
      Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and, I suspect, the Minister, I think that it may well be another couple of decades before a Bill such as this comes along again, regardless of what happens to party politics in the meantime. I hope that the Minister is right and that a proposal such as this can be added to another, more general Bill.
      The Minister's argument about the review was not desperately convincing in Committee, and time has not improved it. The review will be based on the recommendations of the Joint Nature Conservancy Council, and will be conducted by the same people who conducted the previous review.
      That review recommended the ban, so it seems overwhelmingly likely that the next one will too. All that will have happened in the intervening period is that a Bill that could have introduced the ban will have been passed, and we will have neglected to take the opportunity to do so. That does not seem an especially sensible way to proceed.
      1046
      The Minister said that he did not intend to kick the matter into the long grass. If he fails to seize the opportunity presented by the Bill, he will be kicking it into the giant hogweed.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      LOCAL SITES
      '.—(1) It shall be the duty of every local authority to adopt and maintain a scheme for maintaining a series of sites in their area (in this section referred to as "local sites"), to ensure the conservation, restoration and enhancement of species, habitat, geological and geomorphological features of substantive nature conservation value.
      (2) The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales shall from time to time give guidance with respect to the exercise of the duty of a local authority under subsection (1), and a local authority shall, in adopting and maintaining such a scheme, have regard to that guidance.
      (3) Such guidance shall—

      (a) specify standards for the identification of sites, notification of owners, occupiers and others and the provision of adequate information and advice as to the management of local sites;

      (b) provide for the involvement of voluntary organisations, landowners and others in the adoption and maintenance of the scheme.

      (4) It shall be the duty of the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Countryside Council for Wales periodically to report on the operation and effectiveness of each scheme.
      (5) In the formulation and exercise of their functions relating to land under any enactment every Minister, government department, local authority and public body shall further the conservation, restoration and enhancement of local sites.'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Species Action Plans and Habitat Action Plans—
      '.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales to ensure the preparation, maintenance and revision of lists of species and habitats in respect of which special measures shall be taken to monitor their population status in view of their vulnerability or international importance, and to determine—

      (a) which species listed are priority species and require the development of Species Action Plans; and

      (b) which habitats listed require the development of Habitat Action Plans.

      (2) It shall be the duty of every Minister, government department, local authority and public body, so far as it is consistent with their primary functions, to further the objectives of Species Action Plans and Habitat Action Plans.'.
      Miss McIntosh: New clause 4 would give local authorities a duty to adopt and maintain a scheme for maintaining a series of sites in their areas. The corollary of the duty is that they would be provided with the means and resources to do so.
      Sites of special scientific interest are covered at some length in this Bill and other legislation, but areas of outstanding natural beauty and other wildlife sites are not. The new clause would promote the better protection and management of wildlife sites outside the SSSI network.

      1047
      In managing, maintaining and resourcing such sites, local authorities should have regard to striking a balance between visitors' enjoyment of the sites, the interests of members of the farming community, and those of others on whose land those sites are situated. The interests of the farming community need to be recognised, given the depths of the crisis in which its members still find themselves.
      Is it not surprising that at present there is no statutory provision covering such sites, not even in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981? The Minister may be surprised to hear that until now there has been no legal definition of what constitutes a wildlife site. I can see that the Minister shares my amazement and is hearing that fact for the first time. There is currently no legal definition of what constitutes a wildlife site, and that is a serious omission from the Bill and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
      The aim of the new clause is to oblige all local authorities to ensure that they maintain a wildlife site system that follows common standards. The processes are in place in most of England and Wales already, but they need to respect commonly laid down standards. Wildlife sites would not create the equivalent of more SSSIs, because they would not have the same legal status.
      Although I welcome the fact that the Bill makes improvements to rights of way legislation and wildlife protection, it fails adequately to protect those local wildlife sites. Such a scheme would not be too onerous for local authorities, or for the owners of the land on which the wildlife sites are situated. Local authorities could include policies to protect wildlife sites in all local plans, and advise on the effective implementation of the policies. Adverse development proposals would not be allowed or approved if they would damage or destroy the wildlife sites. Advice and support should be made available to the owner or manager of every wildlife site, and incentives should be offered to owners of such sites to maintain and enhance their value.
      When common standards for wildlife site systems are recognised, sites should be identified using locally determined criteria, developed within a national framework. All wildlife site systems should be operated to common standards, and sites should be selected on the basis of sound adequate information. The owners and managers of sites should also be kept well informed of all stages of the process of identifying and protecting sites.
      The common standards should be agreed by statutory environmental organisations, local authority bodies, relevant Government Departments and voluntary bodies. The conservation of local sites is crucial if declining wildlife trends are to be reversed and national biodiversity action plan targets are to be achieved.
      The creation of a framework in law under which a local system of conservation is implemented will help to alleviate regional differences that currently exist. A legal framework should also reflect adequate resourcing for the system and provision of information and advice to landowners and the public.
      Late last year the Government established the local site review group, which reported to Ministers in March this year. The new clause would directly enact the recommendations of that group and would deliver a concrete conservation gain for endangered species and habitats on the ground.
      1048
      In moving new clause 4, I recognise that my constituency has only six SSSIs, because so many special sites have already been lost to agriculture, which is the most important industry in Vale of York. Areas of outstanding natural beauty, such as the Howardian hills, are also not adequately covered by the Bill. Therefore the best places for wildlife in Vale of York are local sites, which need better protection. A system such as I have outlined in new clause 4 needs to be developed, with common standards for local authorities. It should be backed by the Government so that local authorities know where the sites are and have a presumption against developments that would destroy their interest.
      The Government recognised the issue by referring to the importance of local sites in its consultation paper on SSSIs, which led to the Bill, and by setting up the local sites review group. Will the Minister agree this evening that the issue will be rigorously pursued by the Government so that we will see action to protect wildlife sites properly in the future, and will he accept the new clause?
      Mr. Brake: I speak in support of new clause 6, in my name. The Minister will know that the proposal to place biodiversity action plans on a statutory footing is a much debated subject. It has been one of the key topics of debate during the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee inquiry into biodiversity. I am sure that when he appears in front of the Select Committee, he will already have prepared and rehearsed his answer to the question whether BAPs should be put on a statutory footing.
      So far, the view of the non-governmental organisations that have given evidence to the Committee is that BAPs should be provided for in legislation. The Government, however, continue to believe that they should not be. The Government's principal argument against doing so is that it would destroy existing partnerships and voluntary agreements. I do not, however, understand why legislation should necessarily have that effect.
      The NGOs' argument—that biodiversity action plans are not always implemented—is more convincing. In Northumberland, for example, although the county council is pushing ahead with work on biodiversity action plans, district councils do not think that they are a priority. Across Yorkshire, progress on BAPs has been slow because no public body has taken a lead on them.
      Another reason why BAPs should be provided for in legislation is that the Government are relying very heavily on them not so much to feed the world as to save it. In Committee, in replying to the debate on an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Under-Secretary of State said:
      the best route for dealing with the issue is to use the current biodiversity action planning process.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 2000: c. 720.]
      In response to another amendment moved in Standing Committee, the Minister reaffirmed that the best route is through the biodiversity action planning process.
      The Government are therefore relying heavily on BAPs. However, I think that they may have some unrealistic expectations about what BAPs can achieve without being provided for in legislation. There is no point in heaping responsibilities for the environment on to BAPs when, as we have heard, they are not being implemented in places such as Northumberland and Yorkshire.

      1049
      I urge the Minister to grasp the opportunity provided by the new clauses.
      Mr. Kidney: I recognise the wording of new clause 4, because in Committee, I moved an amendment containing the self-same wording. On that occasion, the Minister, having listened to the arguments, gave a most encouraging reply—saying not only that there should be action, but that the Government, with some time to reflect, would act. I therefore did not seek to table an amendment similar to new clause 4 or to support the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) in tabling it.
      Mr. Green: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that clear. May I therefore assume that he will be supporting new clause 4 in the Lobby?
      Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman would have had to wait only another 30 seconds to hear me say that—for the reasons that I have given, and such is my faith in the Minister to deliver on his word—I shall not vote for new clause 4.
      A great network of systems of local wildlife sites has been established in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Vale of York said, that network has developed entirely in the absence of supporting legislation. Great thanks are owed to landowners, the Wildlife Trust, local authorities and others who, through their own efforts, have created the network.
      I am indebted to the Wildlife Trust for providing me with some information on a survey that it is conducting, before it has completed or published the full results. The emerging results of that nationwide survey show that the Wildlife Trust is the lead partner in more than half the current systems of wildlife sites. The system is so extensive that throughout the whole country only about 10 local authority areas are not already covered by some kind of system. In total, there are more than 100 systems of wildlife sites, incorporating an astonishing 40,000 or so sites.
      9.15 pm
      That would not have been possible without the dedication and application of people of good will, especially among local authorities, the Wildlife Trust and landowners. Great thanks are due to landowners who co-operate and become involved in the selection, assessment and management of sites.
      I am sure that all those people would agree that the protection of biodiversity outside protected areas—sites of special scientific interest, for example—is essential. Wildlife sites need to be identified and maintained at local level. They host some internationally and nationally important species and habitats, and contribute to biodiversity action plan targets.
      The development of the systems that I have described has depended on voluntary effort. It is all going in the right direction—advisory services are being developed, links to agri-environmental and grant schemes are being developed, and some limited monitoring has taken place. It is exciting that so much has already been done through
      1050
      voluntary partnerships. I hope that the Government keep their word and give the support necessary to ensure that that commendable effort is sustained in the long term.
      Mr. Paice: I rise to speak briefly to the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), to which I have added my name. As the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, he put forward a similar proposal in Committee. We want to give the Government another opportunity to tell us what they are planning to do.
      The Minister said in Committee:
      the Government are prepared seriously to consider placing biodiversity action plans on a statutory footing.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 May 2000; c. 820.]
      He went on to say that he gave no commitment, but on that basis he wanted the new clause withdrawn, which it duly was.
      How long do the Government need to consider a number of matters? It is true that they were generous in Committee in agreeing to consider a whole range of issues that we proposed. I am the first to accept that yesterday and earlier today, the Government have moved a small number of amendments that met some of our concerns. We will cover some of the other areas on Third Reading.
      This is a big issue. Local wildlife sites and the habitat action plans proposed by the Liberal Democrat party in new clause 6 are very important, and the Government should know by now what they intend to do. It is not as if they have had the opportunity to consider the matter only since the Bill's Committee stage—it came up in their documents published last year. They have been thinking about it for a long time.
      It may be argued that it is unusual for my party to recommend a statutory basis instead of a voluntary approach. I am sure that the Minister would normally have pointed that out, as he did occasionally in Committee. However, this is an important pair of new clauses. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, there is no doubt that many local councils are not doing the work that we wish them to do. Not all of it is their fault; they simply do not have the resources. That is why we believe that a statutory basis would mean not only that they had an obligation to do it but that they had a far better argument when asking the Government for the extra money.
      I was astonished to read that only one person in this country has any legal responsibility for ensuring that biodiversity action plans are drawn up for the long-term survival of threatened or vulnerable species. That person—God help us—is the Mayor of London.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Newts, newts
      Mr. Paice: Indeed, that will probably ensure the survival of newts, although I was not aware that they were a threatened or vulnerable species.
      Mr. David Heath: What about the great crested newt?
      Mr. Paice: The great crested newt is certainly a threatened and vulnerable species—it holds up many planning developments.

      1051
      More seriously, if it is right for the Mayor of London to be given that statutory obligation—the Government included it in legislation—why should it not be given to every local authority?
      My final point is about credibility. The Government and their supporters have tried to portray my party as looking after only the interests of landowners. However, both the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union oppose the new clauses. I make that point not because I agree with them, but to emphasise the fact that we do not always agree with them. We support the new clauses because of out real commitment to try to improve wildlife conservation both in local sites and under our national treaty obligations.
      Mr. Brooke: I strike my second London note in our proceedings by speaking to the new clause so admirably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) reminded the House of the role of the Mayor of London. In an admirable Adjournment debate two nights ago, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) provided a harbinger for the Mayor's role.
      I claim dual, if vicarious, credit for that development. First, I served last year on the Standing Committee dealing with the Greater London Authority Bill, whose section 352 confers that unique power on the Mayor of London. That development was encouraging, not only to members of the Committee but to people outside, because I had seen minutes by members of Wildlife and Countryside Link that indicated concern that environmental considerations were fairly low in the priorities of the regional development agencies. That is a little surprising given the fact that the RDAs and this Bill emerge from the same Department.
      Secondly, I am the parliamentary vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust, and played a reasonably significant role in securing the first tranche of £125,000 from the Bridge House Estates trust fund, in the City of London in my constituency, to launch the London Wildlife Trust's own biodiversity action plan. I am delighted to say that the same City of London source provided more than £200,000 in each of the following two years, making a total of more than £500,000.
      That made a significant contribution. The transition from the biological recording project to local records centres is the next stage in the creation of a sustainable, long-term picture of London's natural heritage. Work is going on to ensure that a partnership approach is pursued, involving all organisations and individuals who generate data, and who need co-ordinated information on London's wildlife. Indeed, the trust has commissioned an independent study of the issues relating to a local records centre for London. That will be vital if the Mayor of London is to fulfil the statutory duty that has been bestowed on him.
      I warmly support the new clause. More than 100 plants that had never been seen before in London appeared as a result of the second world war—frequently on bomb sites—which had a broadly beneficial effect on London's habitats. However, other global forces have the potential to cause an adverse effect. That is why statutory responsibilities—not least those in the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York—should be enshrined, to ensure that a notable cause is further advanced.
      Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall speak mainly in support of new clause 6, but in doing so I shall mention many of the virtues of new clause 4, which was moved by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). On biodiversity action plans, from the Welsh perspective I cannot paint a picture as optimistic as that painted by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). As I understand it, the plans are the Government's main method of delivering conservation measures for endangered species and habitats outside sites of special scientific interest.
      Unfortunately, in Wales there is a clear example of things not going right, and in that respect new clause 6 has a lot of virtue in it. We have 222 species and habitat action plan areas that are relevant to Wales; in other words, there are about 222 species and habitats in Wales that could be considered rare or endangered, and they are in need of urgent conservation action. The implementation of the action plans for these areas and these species would be the main contribution of the Countryside Council for Wales—the leading body in Wales on this—to the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan.
      However, the Countryside Council for Wales, like other publicly funded bodies, has—or claims that it has—a chronic shortage of money. In a council meeting last December, setting the budget for this financial year, it made a commitment only to work on 120 of the 222 action plan areas. Therefore, hon. Members will understand why I do not take as optimistic a view as does the hon. Member for Stafford.
      For the foreseeable future, all work on the 102 remaining biodiversity action plan areas is suspended. Although the staff of the Countryside Council for Wales obviously recognise the importance of those plans to Welsh biodiversity, resources are scarce and they prioritise their statutory duties, so what is discretionary goes by the board. I feel that that reveals a certain lack of joined-up thinking on biodiversity by the Government, when so much emphasis is placed on the voluntary side of things and so little is therefore placed on the Bill. New clause 6 provides an excellent opportunity to insert that legal underpinning into the Bill.
      The result is that Welsh wildlife and habitats remain in danger, and that little or no action is being taken to conserve at least the majority of them. The individual species and habitat action plans will implement the UK's commitment under the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan and under the convention on biological diversity—the overall convention which, I believe, the Government are ratifying. The current approach to that ratification is based on voluntary and participatory methods, both of which are very welcome—they build partnerships, and I can concur with other hon. Members' views that such partnerships often work. However, in the long term they cannot sustain the whole process, especially in the light of the experience of the Countryside Council for Wales.
      We must have a legislative foundation for biodiversity action plans. I understand that the Government want to preserve the voluntary approach and I believe that new clause 4 retains some of that approach, but it is important that the process has a legal underpinning.

      1053
      I hope that the Government will consider new clause 6 and how it might be implemented, so that we may improve both the UK's and the Welsh aspect of implementing biodiversity action plans.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I support new clause 4, which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). If we take recent history in the New forest in, let us say, the last 30 years, in every issue of development versus conservation, one or other of the local authorities—the county council, the district council or its predecessors—has been on the side of development, and conservation has been championed by the commoners of the New forest, especially the Court of Verderers. I do not necessarily criticise the local authorities for that; after all, local authorities do have priorities with respect to housing, traffic management, tourism management, jobs, development and so on, but this new clause strikes me as a powerful corrective to that, so that a new responsibility is laid upon them that might have changed the history of the last 30 years in the New forest.
      9.30 pm
      Equally, the Minister's intention is to turn the New forest into a national park shortly and he will know that the proposal has not been universally welcomed. In particular, it has not been welcomed by existing local authorities, which are not keen to see yet another precepting and planning authority created on their doorstep. Has the Minister considered that, with a little creative thought, he could use the provisions in new clause 4 to develop all the responsibilities that he seeks to lay on a new national park authority without creating yet another administrative authority? The new clause seems to be the solution to the problem. I hope that he will consider it.
      Mr. Mullin: Let me make the position on new clause 4 clear. The Government are firmly committed to action on local sites, whether we decide to use legislative means or not. The Government's framework for action on sites of special scientific interest emphasised the commitment to developing proposals on locally important sites in consultation with local authorities and other parties. We set up the local sites review group and the group agreed on the need for action, but views differed on the means of delivering the recommendations.
      There is enormous scope for action. Local authorities are already incorporating local wildlife sites into their biodiversity action plans and I believe that this is the best way of delivering them in a coherent way.
      I can give the House a firm commitment that we will take forward work on local wildlife sites, seeking to progress the general thrust of the group's recommendations and drawing in other interests to the extent that that is necessary. The issue to be resolved is whether delivery is more appropriate through legislative or other non-statutory mechanisms. As I said, however, the local sites review group was not unanimous on that point.
      On new clause 6, the Government are sympathetic to the intention to provide a firm statutory basis for the UK biodiversity action plan. The new clause would require all
      1054
      public bodies to further the objectives of the action plans for individual species and habitats in carrying out their functions. We understand fully that the aim is to ensure that the biodiversity process continues with a firm basis into the future.
      It is very important for action on biodiversity to be taken at the local level through local action plans. It is important, however, that action is not seen as something separate from the day-to-day work of local councils. The Government want the work to be fully integrated into councils' wider responsibilities. The importance of biodiversity, including local wildlife sites, should inform the full range of a council's activity. However, that may not happen if we treat biodiversity as a discrete and separate function. There are many examples of service and specific local plans which, although they look good on paper, lead to little action on the ground or which remain at the periphery of what the council does.
      Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Mullin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I think that everyone is anxious to make progress and to move to Third Reading. He has not been with us much this evening, although I welcome his attendance now. Those Members who have been with us will confirm that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I have been generous in giving way, but I detect that the mood of the House is to make progress. That is what I propose to do.
      The Government propose that local biodiversity action plans, incorporating local councils' work on wildlife sites, should be integrated within the wider strategies that are being put in place in the current Local Government Bill. Part I of that Bill will require local authorities to prepare community strategies that contribute to sustainable development by promoting the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas.
      Draft statutory guidance published last week makes clear the Government's view that the strategies should become the overarching framework for other service or theme-specific plans, and that the priorities and activities in the community strategy should influence the range of actions of the council and its private, voluntary and community sector partners.
      The strategies should bring coherence to service and specific plans, establish the links between them and the rest of local activity and, as far as possible, rationalise the number of plans, processes and partnerships that exist locally. There are already many of those, so the burden on local authorities is already considerable. We will make it clear in further statutory guidance that biodiversity should be an important element in community strategies, in delivering local authorities' new obligations on sustainable development and in improving local quality of life.
      The conservation of biodiversity in the wider countryside is very important. We agreed in Committee seriously to consider whether any statutory underpinning would be appropriate. The Government's main objective is to ensure that the biodiversity process continues and effectively delivers the protection of our threatened habitats and species, using locally protected sites and other means. However, we have reached the conclusion that the commitments that we have given to take forward

      1055
      the agreed recommendations of the local sites review group and the statutorily based community strategies give a strong basis for securing that objective at local level.
      By making biodiversity an explicit factor in the new strategies, we will be giving substantial new impetus to the good progress that many local authorities have already made in protecting and enhancing local wildlife. We are firmly committed to implementing the biodiversity action plan at national level, and we have a solid and effective policy process in place which would not benefit from legislation. I hope that hon. Members will not press the new clause.
      Miss McIntosh: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are disappointed. I am grateful to the colleagues who supported the new clause, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friends the Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). The Government will not extend to authorities throughout the country the statutory duty imposed on the Mayor of London, although I specifically said that no onerous burdens will be placed on local authorities. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 288.

      Division No. 233]

      [9.37 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Day, Stephen

      Allan, Richard

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Amess, David

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Evans, Nigel

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Faber, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baker, Norman

      Fallon, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bercow, John

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fraser, Christopher

      Body, Sir Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Boswell, Tim

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gibb, Nick

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Gidley, Sandra

      Brady, Graham

      Gill, Christopher

      Brake, Tom

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Gray, James

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Green, Damian

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Greenway, John

      Burnett, John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bums, Simon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Burstow, Paul

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hammond, Philip

      Harvey, Nick

      Cash, William

      Heald, Oliver

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Clappison, James

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Horam, John

      Collins, Tim

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Key, Robert

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      1056

      Kirkwood, Archy

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lansley, Andrew

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Leigh, Edward

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Letwin, Oliver

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lidington, David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

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

      Loughton, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spring, Richard

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Stunell, Andrew

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Swayne, Desmond

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Syms, Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Madel Sir David

      Talyor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Townend, John

      Moore, Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trend Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Tyler, Paul

      Norman, Archie

      Tyrie, Andrew

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Waterson, Nigel

      ÖOpik, Lembit

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Paterson, Owen

      Whittingdale, John

      Pickles, Eric

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Willetts David

      Prior, David

      Willis, Phil

      Randall, John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rendel, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Robertson, Laurence

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ruffley, David

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Ainger, Nick

      Casale, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Caton, Martin

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chaytor, David

      Austin, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Barron, Kevin

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Battle, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clelland, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benton, Joe

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Coleman, Iain

      Best, Harold

      Colman, Tony

      Betts, Clive

      Connarty, Michael

      Blackman, Liz

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Cooper, Yvette

      Borrow, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Corston, Jean

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cousins, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Cox, Tom

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cranston, Ross

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Crausby, David

      Browne, Desmond

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Burden, Richard

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Darvill, Keith

      1057

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davidson, Ian

      Kemp, Fraser

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Khabra, Piara S

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

      Kidney, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Denham, John

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Dobbin, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Leslie, Christopher

      Doran, Frank

      Levitt, Tom

      Drew, David

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Efford, Clive

      Linton, Martin

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lock, David

      Etherington, Bill

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      McCabe, Steve

      Fisher, Mark

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McDonnell, John

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Flint, Caroline

      McIsaac, Shona

      Flynn, Paul

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McNulty Tony

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McWalter, Tony

      Foulkes, George

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Fyfe, Maria

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Goggins, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Maxton, John

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Meale, Alan

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Grocott, Bruce

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Grogan, John

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Gunnell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hanson, David

      Morley, Elliot

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Heppell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Hill, Keith

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hoey, Kate

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hope, Phil

      Norris, Dan

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Olner, Bill

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Hurst, Alan

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Hutton, John

      Pearson, Ian

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Pendry, Tom

      Illsley, Eric

      Pike, Peter L

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jamieson, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pond, Chris

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pope, Greg

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      1058

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Rammell, Bill

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Rapson, Syd

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Timms, Stephen

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Todd, Mark

      Rooney, Terry

      Touhig, Don

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Trickett, Jon

      Rowlands, Ted

      Truswell, Paul

      Roy Frank

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ruddock Joan

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Ryan Ms Joan

      Turner, Neill (Wigan)

      Salter, Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Tynan, Bill

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Vaz, keith

      Sheerman, Barry

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Ward Ms Claire

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wareing, Robert N

      Skinner, Dennis

      White Brian

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wills, Michael

      Snape, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wood, Mike

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wray, James

      Stringer, Graham

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 11

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 220, in page 97, column 3, leave out lines 8 to 42 and insert—

      'Sections 61 to 63. Section 88(1)(c).
      In section 111A(3)(a),the words "61 to 63,".'.

      No. 221, in page 97, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of page 98, line 17.
      No. 222, in page 98, line 20, column 3, leave out "paragraphs 6 and 7" and insert "paragraph 6".
      No. 223, in page 98, leave out lines 23 and 24.
      No. 224, in page 98, line 27, column 3, leave out "paragraph 1(8) and (9)" and insert—
      'in paragraph 1(8), the words "62(1) and".'.—[Mr. Meacher]
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
      9.51 pm
      Mr. Meacher: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      As we come to the end of our debates on the Bill, may I say again how much I have enjoyed them? Our debates have, on the whole, been positive and constructive, and all parties have improved the Bill in the process. I should like to thank the Clerks, the Hansard staff, and all the other staff of the House on whom we rely so much. I should like to thank parliamentary counsel, who have produced some complex provisions in a short time. I should also like to thank my Department's officials, who have dealt, as I well know, with amendments extremely promptly and efficiently and have provided comprehensive back-up support.
      Making the provisions work well will involve a wide range of people, including the staff of the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales, and I am grateful to them for all the work that they have been doing to advise on the provisions and to prepare for their implementation.
      My thanks go wider. There has been a tremendous input to the Bill—I cannot remember a similar impact on any recent Bill in my experience—from a large number of non-governmental organisations representing a wide range of interests concerned with the use, protection and enjoyment of our wonderful countryside. Even without the massive amount of correspondence with which members of those organisations have flooded my postbag, I know full well how strongly people feel about the issues dealt with by the Bill.
      I pay a warm and genuine tribute to my colleagues, and extend that to right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches for the balanced and thoughtful manner in which they have represented their views and for the generally constructive approach taken throughout our debates.
      It would, of course, have been impossible to satisfy everybody on every issue on which strong and opposing views are held, but I believe that we can claim that we have been a listening Government and that we have considered the issues carefully.
      The Bill is, by any standards, historic. It increases everyone's ability to enjoy the countryside and enhances the protection of our hugely valuable natural heritage. Our debates have inevitably concentrated largely on areas of controversy, but there is a great deal in the Bill that is supported by everybody. This is a good Bill. It has something in it for everybody who loves our priceless countryside and wants to enjoy the many benefits that it brings to the nation. In that inclusive spirit, I commend it to the House.
      9.54 pm
      Mr. Green: I beg to move,
      That this House declines to give a Third Reading to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill because the Government has rejected proposals which would reduce the impact of the proposals for a right of access to open country upon land management and other users of the land, because the liability placed upon land owners arising from any man-made features of that land contains no exclusions for ancient or historical features, because there are no provisions for compensation for those affected by the Bill in this way, and because, whilst there are welcome improvements to rights of way legislation and wildlife protection, the Bill fails adequately to protect biodiversity. Special Protection Areas and local wildlife sites.
      1060
      Let me start by being as generous as possible to the Government. The Bill is not as bad as it was when it started its journey from Second Reading. In a few particulars, it is less messy than it was when the Minister, incautiously but with devastating candour, so described it in Committee. While I am being generous, I thank the Minister and his colleagues for their unfailing courtesy and apparent willingness to listen to the many deficiencies that we pointed out during the Bill's progress.
      Having said all that, I must also say that the Bill falls lamentably short of the Minister's desire, which he expressed on Second Reading and again tonight, to enact an historic measure. Its three parts contain serious deficiencies. I shall spend a short time detailing them.
      On the access provisions in part I, let me say that we oppose unrestricted compulsory access to private land, but we recognise the reality of the Government's majority. We have therefore sought to make the regime as practical as possible. In doing that, we are selflessly trying to prevent the Government from digging themselves ever further into the hole of profound unpopularity in rural areas. However, the Government are determined to resist our efforts.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: Last night, we discussed one of the holes in the measure and in the Government's thinking: the complete absence of provision for proper compensation for those who will be adversely affected by the Bill. The Minister regrettably failed to understand, or respond to the arguments that we presented—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot make a meal of an intervention. That is my way of saying that he has finished.
      Mr. Green: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his brief intervention. He is right about compensation. That affects not only those who own land in the countryside, but poses the question whether the Bill breaches the Human Rights Act 1998. I suspect that the measure will be tested in the courts before long.
      The Government have determinedly resisted our efforts to stop them becoming ever more unpopular. Despite our efforts, part I constitutes further confirmation that those who live and work in rural areas are no priority for the Government. I shall list part I's manifold failures in no particular order. It is unfair. The penalties for transgressions by farmers and landowners are wildly out of kilter with those for walkers. Walkers can become trespassers, who are taken off land for a few hours, whereas farmers and landowners can be criminalised.
      The Bill is impractical. The Government have insisted that access can be restricted for only 28 days and that the restriction cannot apply to weekends. We will therefore have to breed new sheep, which know not to have lambs at weekends. After we get used to that, we will have to train them not to lamb on bank holidays. I look forward to hearing the Government's strategy for achieving that.
      The Bill is confusing for farmers. For what are they liable if walkers injure themselves on their land? If a walker is injured climbing over or through a hedge, the occupier is not liable. However, if a walker is injured while climbing over a wall, there is liability. Indeed, if a walker damages a wall when climbing over it, the farmer

      1061
      is responsible for repairing not only the wall but the walker. That is not sensible proposed legislation. NFU News stated:
      Gilbert & Sullivan would have enjoyed writing a satirical operetta about the absurdities … including the charming point that an occupier will not owe a legal liability to a visitor who falls in a natural lake—but would do so if it was a reservoir!
      The restrictions on dogs are wildly inadequate. Dogs do not have to be kept under proper control for the right amount of time. That poses a severe threat to ground-nesting birds. Part I contains many other examples of the Government's signal failure to take the advice given in Committee, notably by several of my hon. Friends who have great experience in country matters, to make practical improvements to the Bill.
      Part II, which deals with rights of way, is not as bad. However, although it has been radically revised, it still contains glaring errors. Members of the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement—GLEAM—who wish to protect green lanes from the inappropriate use of motor vehicles, will be unhappy about the Government's rejection of the cross-party amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) moved. I think Ministers will also find that the horse world is not happy with them.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Question agreed to.
      Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Mr. Green: The many people who have problems driving to their own front door across a common will be fearful that the Minister's failure to give any commitment to rectify that problem in the other place will condemn them to years of uncertainty and misery.
      Part III on wildlife protection should be the heart of the Bill. For many months, we argued that we would give a fair wind to a decent wildlife protection Bill. The SSSI protection is welcome, but it is not enough. We should have better protection for local wildlife sites, and proper backing for biodiversity action plans. We should also have proper protection for our wildlife outside the SSSIs. There should be better protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty. That is in many ways the most important area for Government action. The Government's response was to issue a press release yesterday.
      While our deliberations on the Bill have been going on, I have been able to read on the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions website what the Minister proposes, and I have been able to read in the press what he proposes, but the one place I have not been able to get any information about what he intends is on the Floor of the House of Commons when we debate the very Bill in which he proposes to introduce these measures. That is a scandal, and it is not the way to promote decent legislation.
      1062
      I am not clear why the Minister is so afraid of the House. On Second Reading, he referred to additional funding for areas of outstanding natural beauty and said:
      I promise to make a statement soon about further measures.—[Official Report, 20 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 731.]
      He has made that it statement, but he has deliberately chosen not to make it to the House when we discuss the Bill. That is regrettable.
      The Bill misses its most important targets. It is too timid when it should be bold on wildlife protection, and it is too dogmatic when it should be practical on access measures. If it is in any way historic, it is an historic missed opportunity.
      10.2 pm
      Dr. David Clark: I am pleased to take part in the Third Reading of this historic Bill. It may not be the Bill that certain Conservative Members would like, but it is historic because it charts new waters for this country and its people. I am indebted to the Minister for the Environment and to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), for all their work and for the way that they have kept an open mind on many of these issues.
      Everyone in this country who is interested in outdoor recreation, nature conservation or wildlife feels that the Bill is a step forward. Every 20 years or so we have such a Bill, we move forward and then events in nature overtake us and we have to take action once again. The measure in the Bill that pleases me most is that on access to open spaces.
      Ever since I entered the House, almost 30 years ago to the day, alongside my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I have been pressing for such a measure. It was not only me: I was just one of a long line of socialist politicians. I am a politician, and I do not think that any of us, in this Chamber of all places, should apologise for being politicians. We believe in this measure, and, ever since the Labour party's inception, people have been striving to achieve it. We finally have a Labour Government who have done so. I am proud of the Labour Government and of the fact that they have delivered this manifesto promise. I am conscious of the fact that, in my constituency stretching back over 70 years, its three Labour Members of Parliament have all introduced private Members' Bills to achieve this measure. We all failed, but it looks like the Government may now be succeeding.
      I shall move on from that issue to make a point about national parks, which were discussed by Conservative Members. I recognise that many of them have experience of the countryside, but I hope that they will recognise that many Labour Members have equal experience. Indeed, I might even suggest that our experience is more relevant than that of many Conservative Members as we live in, and represent, the upland areas, which will be particularly affected by the Bill's access arrangements.
      I look forward to national park status being extended to the New forest, and perhaps to the downs, but we must take local people with us if we can. National parks have many pluses for them as well as for business and we must build a consensus and co-operation in that respect. National parks are not only areas of outstanding natural beauty, but places to go to enjoy quiet recreation. That makes them stand out. However, because of the

      1063
      development of the internal combustion engine and of four-wheel drives, motorised vehicles represent an increasing threat to rural Britain, especially national parks and affluent areas.
      Speaking from experience of the Lake district and with the consent of the Lake district planning board, I plead with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment: I hope that we will reconsider whether we can do anything to alter the traffic regulations to allow us to control the use of motorised vehicles off the metallic roads in the national parks. That is very important, as is the issue of quietness in this modern world. Only last weekend, I came down off Helvellyn, looked over Ullswater to see the sailing boats there and quietly blessed the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South, for his decision to ban speedboats on Windermere.
      The 10 mph speed limit on Windermere was long overdue. It was introduced by the local authority and the planning authority and then considered by the planning inspectorate, which upheld it. The previous Government could not go along with it, but my right hon. Friends called it in again and reconsidered. Most of those who know the Lake district will applaud that example of trying to get a bit of quiet in these areas.
      During these two days of debate, it has been interesting to hear Conservative Members make a case against access, but they did so as if there was no previous experience. I do not want to repeat what I said yesterday, but there is 75 years of experience of open access in that huge area, the English Lake district. Of course there have been difficulties. The Lake district planning board has had problems, but it has learned to work with the farmers who keep the landscape as we want it. I shall not pretend that things will be easy, but we have to learn from that experience and transfer it to other parts of the country in which we have access.
      In our debates, we inevitably cite extreme cases to make our points, but I say to Conservative Members that the situation will not be anywhere near as difficult as they think. I believe that, if we can work one side with the other, we can achieve what we all want: allowing all our citizens to enjoy more and more the beautiful countryside in our United Kingdom.
      10.9 pm
      Mr. David Heath: I join the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and others in thanking everyone connected with proceedings in Committee, including the Clerks, our four Chairmen and the members of the Committee. It was a delight to serve because the Committee handled its business constructively. Most importantly, Members from both sides of the House engaged in the debate. Sometimes, Government Back Benchers do not have the opportunities, to express their views. That did not happen in the Committee. They played an important and constructive role. I am grateful to them for that.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a good and perhaps historic Bill. I agree. It is potentially historic. It is certainly important. It is, in essence, a good Bill, but it is flawed. That has been my concern throughout the proceedings.
      We have an important vehicle for conservation legislation. As has been said many times, such Bills do not come along very often, yet some areas of conservation
      1064
      reform have not found their way into the Bill. We have discussed biodiversity action plans, which are an essential element. No one is looking for a uniformity of approach, but we are looking for a commonality of intent. That is missing.
      We still await the proposed changes on areas of outstanding natural beauty. I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green): we in the Chamber should have been told what the Government intended. By all means let it then be considered in another place and returned to us, but the announcement should have been made here during consideration of the Bill.
      There have been less important—although they are still important—areas of consideration, such as the hon. Gentleman's amendment on invasive aquatic species. That should be in the Bill.
      Again, the provisions on rights of way are important. There are important improvements, but there is a lack of provision for recreational riding, which is a missing component. The proposals lack clarity. The most important element of all is the resources that will underpin effectiveness of the rights of way improvement plans, which we hope will succeed.
      On access, the thing that has bedevilled the Bill is the expression "right to roam". It has raised the expectations of both those in favour of the Bill and those against—expectations that it does not for one moment meet. People have the idea that, as a result of the Bill, they will find people with bobble hats in their chrysanthemum beds. They will not. It is essentially a modest move to increase access to upland areas and open countryside. We wholeheartedly support that.
      Where we differ from the Government is that we see that there are difficulties with the definitions within the Bill; with the effect on agriculture—there is an apparent lack of understanding of agricultural practice—and with clarity, which will be essential if the thing is to work properly in practice, so that walkers, landowners and those who work the land know what their rights are. The provisions on liability and compensation lack clarity. All those are essential elements that will need to be debated in another place. They will have to be resolved before the Bill comes back to us.
      We have ranged wide in our discussions on the Bill. We have gone from the floating pennywort to the prevalence of llamas in Llanberis. It has been an interesting journey. We must decide today whether, on balance, the Bill sufficiently covers the various points that we have raised to give it support. The view of the Conservative Opposition is that it does not. They have tabled a reasoned amendment stating some of the deficiencies of the Bill; I agree that there are deficiencies. In their view, on that basis, they should reject the Bill tonight.
      I do not take that view and will advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Bill. However, that does not alter the fact that substantial improvements need to be made in another place before the Bill becomes law. We will seek those amendments elsewhere and when the Bill returns to the House.
      10.14 pm
      Mr. Kidney: I realise that the Bill has reached the halfway point, in that the whole process will now be repeated in the other place, but I think that I am entitled to talk of successes at this stage.

      1065
      There is the success represented by Labour's delivering on a manifesto promise, and translating the right of access to open countryside into legislation. There is the success involved in the attempt to modernise our complex law of rights of way, and the delivery of new entitlements for which landowners have waited for many years—entitlements to divert and close rights of way that, over many years, have become out of date and inconvenient, and have got in the way of businesses that want to make money. All those developments are welcome, although the subject is so complex that further refinements will be needed before the Bill completes its passage.
      The Bill has achieved a further success in protecting wildlife. It has strengthened the protection of sites of special scientific interest, strengthened police powers to gather evidence of crimes against wildlife, and strengthened the powers of the courts to punish those who are caught committing such crimes. Nevertheless, I hope that there will be further developments in part III before the Bill returns to the House of Commons.
      The final success that I want to cite is one that many Members have already mentioned: the success of the parliamentary process. In that context, the Bill has given us a model to follow in future. Even before its publication, there was full consultation. As all Members who have taken part in our deliberations know, the Government received many responses, and responses of good quality. I think it fair to say that they developed policy and changed decisions as a result of some of those responses. We also conducted ourselves well in Committee. The official Opposition had a forceful, although principled, objection to part I. They presented their arguments with reason and certainly with vigour, but never with excess verbiage. I congratulate them on that.
      Let me also draw attention to the contribution of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Acting single-handedly on behalf of his party, he not only followed proceedings throughout the Committee stage but was one of the main movers in Committee. Despite having no support, he tabled detailed amendments, to the extent of proposing improvements in the wording of parts of the Bill. He spoke with authority about his amendments and those of others. I think that he can claim credit for improving the legislation.
      The Government also deserve credit for the number of promises made in Committee that were redeemed on Report. That is thanks to the Ministers who have seen the Bill through this part of the parliamentary process.
      Lastly, I give a pat on the back to myself and to my Labour colleagues who took part in the Committee stage. As both the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we were not silent. We were not mute. We did not simply vote at the right times when required to do so. We contributed fully to the debate; we spoke, and moved amendments. I have been pleased to note the number of amendments proposed and spoken to by me which, yesterday and today, have been translated into the Bill as a result of Government amendments.
      So far, the whole thing is a success, although it has some way to go in the other place. I hope that Members of the other place will take account of the detailed process that has already taken place. I hope that they will respect
      1066
      what has happened so far, that they will interpret the clues they have been given about ways in which the Bill can still be improved, and that we shall end up with an Act of which the House of Commons can be proud and which will survive for many years.
      10.18 pm
      Miss McIntosh: Let me, in the same spirit as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), congratulate those on both Front Benches on having conducted the Committee proceedings with such good humour. At least we all know now where Somerton and Frome and Merionnydd Nant Conwy are.
      There is a certain irony in today's debate. In a week in which the introduction of the right to roam was introduced, it was also announced that the ancient right to hunt was to be abolished. There is a further irony. Why—the Minister has not satisfied me in this regard—is it appropriate to provide a statutory right of access when it is thought that a voluntary arrangement is not appropriate, when the Government fall short of providing statutory protection for local wildlife sites? There is a certain lack of logic in the Government's thinking.
      I shall certainly find it very difficult to justify to my constituents night-time access, which will be the most difficult part of the Bill to administer. Equally, the lack of compensation for those who will be adversely affected will detract from the many positive elements of the Bill. I shall therefore support the reasoned amendment.
      10.20 pm
      Mr. Hogg: I support the reasoned amendment and shall concentrate on part I of the Bill, for whose provisions I very much doubt that there is a need.
      I have been a walker all my life. Walking is my chief recreation. I have never felt constrained in my access to the countryside. The existing network of footpaths is largely adequate for the purpose. Where it is not, it can be improved by Voluntary agreements.
      Part I of the Bill is cavalier about private property. I deeply regret that. The business of the House is in part to defend private property, on which the Bill intrudes to an unwarranted extent. Moreover, the Bill imposes unreasonable costs and obligations on landowners and farmers. That is wrong in principle, and especially wrong at this time.
      I deeply regret the absence of proper compensation. The Minister for the Environment yesterday referred the House to clause 33, but I shall remind him of what I told him last night. The compensation payments under clause 33 depend on the existence of a voluntary access agreement, in the absence of which there would be no payment. In any event, clause 33 does not entitle the landowner or of hers affected to require provision of payment to be incorporated into an access agreement. In reality, therefore, there are no statutory rights to compensation.
      I am against part I of the Bill. It is wrong in principle, and I am sorry that it will become law. I hope that it is looked at further in the other place.
      10.22 pm
      Mr. Swayne: The reasoned amendment is cogent and sums up my feelings about the Bill, but I want to air one other issue very briefly—namely, the opportunity missed by the Bill in respect of national parks.

      1067
      Under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the Minister has power to create a national park without creating a national park authority at the same time. Ministers have received representations from the local authorities in the New forest asking for him to do precisely that. The Minister could have used the Bill to lay new responsibilities on local authorities to discharge the duties otherwise discharged by the national parks authority.
      When I asked the Under-Secretary whether new clause 4 offered the appropriate vehicle for that, I did not even get an answer. I intervened on him later, and his response then was that I had not been in the Chamber for the debate. Perhaps he suffered a momentary lapse of attention when I made my contribution, or perhaps it was so unmemorable that he missed it. Strange though it may seem, he is uncharacteristically absent from the Chamber at the moment. However, I hope that the question will be revisited in the other place, as I think that it deserves proper attention.
      10.23 pm
      Mr. Gray: Those of us who live and work in the countryside, and who love it, have always been keen that as many people as possible can be found room for to enjoy the countryside as we do. It is for that reason that many people have worked so hard for so many years to arrange managed access to the countryside.
      That was achieved successfully on the Templars Firs estate, just outside my constituency. Over a number of years, everything possible has been done—including redirecting rights of way and promoting horse riding—to encourage people from Swindon and Bristol to visit the estate. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Ramblers Association have acknowledged the estate as an exemplar of all that should be done to open up access.
      However, the Templars Firs estate has succeeded because it has achieved a balance between, on the one hand, the rights and interests of the landowner and of the farmers who grow our food, and of the walkers on the other. That is a very delicate balance and only by getting it right could the Bill possibly work. In a variety of areas, the Bill fundamentally upsets that delicate balance.
      Instead of providing a way in which landowners and walkers can get together to arrange proper access to the countryside, the Government have set up a confrontational approach. The walkers' approach is to say from the start that they believe that landowners will prevent access, and the walkers want access despite the fact that landowners have their farming interests at heart. What is more, the walkers want that right by law.
      There is no requirement for a provision that will allow walkers to do what otherwise they would not do. I am not aware of vast hordes of walkers ready and determined to go on to the moorlands, uplands and commons mentioned in the Bill and I would be very surprised if they existed.
      Mr. David Lepper: If there are no vast hordes, why have Opposition Members made such a fuss about the provision on access?
      Mr. Gray: If there are no such vast hordes, why are we wasting parliamentary time passing a law to allow them access? There is no demand for that right. The Bill
      1068
      is more about ideology. It is about saying, "These landowners will not give us what we want, so we will show them." This week, the Government have taken steps towards banning fox hunting, but that has nothing to do with animal rights or the countryside. It is about saying, "We are going to show the landowning classes that we are still the old Labour party." That is also what lies behind the Bill. If that were not the case, the Government would have considered various issues more carefully, such as the 28-day exceptions, which appear wildly inadequate to anyone who knows anything about the countryside. They would take the lambing season more seriously, but they have dismissed it airily. It is in fact vital, but it will be disrupted in the areas involved. The Government would also consider how we can keep our uplands going through shooting. They do not understand shooting, but it is the only way to preserve the uplands as they are at the moment. [Interruption.] Labour Members find that humorous, and the Minister laughs, but it is true.
      The Government do not understand the countryside. They do not understand the areas to which they will give people access. The Bill is driven by ideology. For example, several hon. Members have described this as a historic day. If what we were talking about was a few people going for a walk in the countryside, it would not be historic. Labour Members say it is historic because they view it as an ideological triumph of the left over the landowner.
      The Bill is badly drafted and the Government have missed opportunities in what has been the first countryside Bill for many years. The Minister has also admitted on several occasions that much more work needs to be done on the Bill, and I hope that that will happen in the other place. The reasoned amendment makes sense because it shows up the Bill for what it is. It has nothing to do with encouraging people to enjoy the countryside and much to do with an ideological hatred of those of us who are lucky enough to live there.
      10.28 pm
      Mr. Paice: I am always pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), because it makes me seem so moderate. However, I do not disagree with some of his views. I concur with all the thanks and plaudits that have been expressed, but nobody has yet mentioned the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who astounded me and many others in Committee with his incredible knowledge of countryside issues and legislation. He was of great benefit to the Committee.
      From the outset, we have welcomed the changes to the rights of way legislation, and I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) referred to outdated legislation and the need for the ability to divert footpaths. I agree with him, although his view was not shared by all his hon. Friends or the organisations which have supported the Bill. They feel that every footpath should be sacrosanct for ever and a day, and that no account should be taken of changing needs.
      As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, it is part I that has caused immense concern in the countryside.
      I suspect that the Minister for the Environment regards the Bill as his big political memorial, but I do not criticise him for that. The Bill is his great opportunity to put a

      1069
      significant piece of legislation on the statute book, and it is right that he should take credit for it. It is just a great shame that the Government did not seek to create a much more comprehensive network of footpaths across the country. Such a network would have been closer to people's homes, and would have increased accessibility for them much more than open access will.
      In Committee, the Minister asserted—he has kindly done so again today—that the Opposition have approached the Bill constructively. At times, so did he, and I am grateful to him for that. I make it clear that the Opposition do not want to deny any responsible person the opportunity to enjoy the countryside. However, we believe that that could have been achieved in a different and better way, making access more convenient for constituents such as mine and those of many other hon. Members representing constituencies in the south-east who do not live close to open country.
      There is a great difference between linear access and open access. Many problems that do not result from linear access—such as landowners' liability—most certainly will result from open access.
      Many Labour Members have demonstrated a mindset that is against the interests of landowners and land users, and which is indifferent to the legislation's impact on agriculture, on wildlife—especially ground-nesting birds, including our waders in the uplands—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, on sporting use and landowners' ability to use their own land without encumbrance.
      As I said in earlier debates, there are also serious clashes between the Bill's provisions and the Government's own action plan for farming policy document.
      Many amendments were tabled to the Bill. In Committee, many amendments were supported by all the Opposition parties but were rejected. My noble Friends will have to address the issues dealt with in those amendments in the other place. Yesterday, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) moved an amendment on the issue of compensation, but the Minister dismissed it as legalistic. Not only would I expect an eminent lawyer to make a legalistic speech, but we are talking about making a law. It seems odd to say that one should not be legalistic in passing legislation.
      The Bill's most serious default—on top of all those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in opening our first debate today—is perhaps its failure to provide for information to walkers. Much information will have to be conveyed to those who want to use the rights provided to them in the Bill—such as which parts of a moor are closed, and, for those who do not have an appropriate map, the limits to the open country.
      Walkers will also have to know the boundaries of land owned by different individuals, as they will be subject to the absurd notion that, if they transgress schedule 2 provisions, they would have to leave that specific land for 24 hours. As those who are familiar with open country will know, the boundary between the land of different owners may not be easy to perceive. People may also have to know the rules on dogs, such as the dates on which they have to be on leads. The Government, however,
      1070
      rejected the eminently sensible approach of creating access points to the open country at which such information could be displayed.
      Labour Members seem to think—the attitude has come through again in the past two days—that all walkers are responsible people and that all landowners will seek to thwart the legislation. I do not believe that either group can be so characterised. Sadly, some people will try to abuse the rights being provided to them, and some landowners will probably—because of the Bill's compulsory elements—be less than enthusiastic about those rights.
      Despite what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said—with respect to him, he has not been in the Chamber for most of the debates—in our consideration of the Bill, including in Committee and in the past two days, we have seen at best an ignorance of countryside and land management activities, and at worst a barely concealed contempt on the part of some Labour Members for those who earn their income from the land or enjoy their sport, quite apart from those who own the land. It is not jut the wealthy landowners who will be affected, as Labour Members have sought to portray, but countless thousands of men and women who work on the land in the countryside, in all manner of ways, will find their occupations affected by these rights. Those effects have not been countered by measures in the Bill.
      It should not surprise us that there is this ignorance and intolerance of farmers and landowners from a party which is essentially urban. Labour Members may claim to represent rural seats—they may, temporarily, actually do so—but there is a gulf between representing rural seats and the countryside, and understanding what it is all about.
      I commend our amendment to the House.
      10.36 pm
      Mr. Meacher: Before we conclude our proceedings, I want to respond to the churlish and curmudgeonly reasoned amendment put down by the Conservative party. In my opening remarks on Third Reading, I rather unwisely praised Conservative Members for their thoughtful and constructive contribution to the debate. However, from their remarks on Third Reading, it is plain to all in the House that the mask is beginning to slip.
      When I first made the statement to the House on 8 March last year, Conservative Members' reaction was one of spluttering rage and outraged repudiation. A further year of considered reflection, and the realisation that the Bill is hugely popular, have tamed their response. We are now down to four relatively small matters of outstanding difference between us. Even on these, their reaction is biased and unbalanced, as I will show.
      I accept that the Bill does not do all that the Opposition would like it to do—for very good reasons. Were we to accept all the amendments tabled by the Conservative party on Report, open countryside could be closed for more than half of all Saturdays throughout the year, and would certainly be out of bounds at night, with people becoming criminals for the heinous offence of swimming in a lakeland tarn.
      Conservative Members have chosen to overlook just how far the Bill goes in meeting the genuine concerns of those who own and manage the land. In the run-up to the

      1071
      introduction of the Bill, we had many genuinely constructive meetings with representatives of landowners, particularly the Country Landowners Association. I do not for one moment pretend that they are happy with all the access provisions, but I know that we have reassured them on many important issues about how the right of access will operate in practice.
      The Opposition's reasoned amendment complains that the provisions on occupiers' liability placed upon landowners arising from any man-made features contain no exclusions for ancient or historical features. It totally ignores the fact that the Bill already introduces a key change of principle by removing all liability of occupiers in respect of natural features of the land.
      Mr. Paice rose—
      Mr. Meacher: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows full well what I am saying. Although we had originally proposed that the liability owed to those exercising the new right would be the very low level owed to trespassers, we have agreed to lower it further still and to remove all liability. It would help if there were some acknowledgement of that in the so-called reasoned amendment.
      Mr. Paice: Of course I acknowledge that there has been a change, but the fact is that is only to do with natural features. In open country there are countless features which, at some stage in history, were made by man. Iron age forts, ancient peat diggings, and dry stone walls which may have been there for hundreds of years cannot possibly be the responsibility of the land's present owner, yet landowners remain liable for an accident that may occur on them.
      Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman continues to refuse to acknowledge that we have removed all occupiers' liability in respect of natural features of the landscape—[Interruption.] Yes, he is referring to man-made features. We believe that a measure of liability in respect of farm equipment and other man-made features of the landscape is only right and proper.
      The reasoned amendment complains of the absence of provisions for compensation. I repeat that the Bill includes a range of provisions specifically to safeguard the interests of landowners and managers. We do not expect the Bill to impose significant costs on landowners. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions signed a certificate of compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998, after careful consideration and based on legal advice.
      The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said that part I was controversial. I acknowledge that. However, we have gone out of our way to put in place management arrangements that will ensure that the right of access and the proper use of land can co-exist. A short time after the new right has come into effect, people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
      On part II, the reasoned amendment welcomes the rights of way provisions of the Bill. The Opposition should remember that they cannot cherry-pick. Certainly, those provisions stand in their own right, but they form
      1072
      part of the measure's overall package. We have done much that the Opposition welcome, but my concern throughout was to benefit everyone involved—users and landowners alike—and not just the narrow sectional interests that the Opposition have been promoting.
      Finally, I recognise and welcome the general support throughout the House that the wildlife provisions of the Bill have received. We can justly claim that the strengthening of the protection and management of sites of special scientific interest represents a major step forward in the conservation and enhancement of our wildlife. The Bill forms only part—although a vital and essential one—of the steps we are taking to demonstrate our commitment to biodiversity and nature conservation. That commitment will continue.
      We will ensure that we fully comply with our obligations under the birds and habitats directives—including the completion of our contribution to the Natura 2000 network; we will develop the agreed recommendations of the local sites review group that we discussed this evening, so as better to deliver wildlife conservation locally; and we will continue to give our fullest support to the delivery of the UK biodiversity action plan.
      To sum up, the reasoned amendment is distinctly churlish in its response to the Bill; it looks solely and excessively at the sectional interests of only one of the many groups of people who will be affected. The Bill will benefit all who love our beautiful and priceless countryside and our rich natural heritage. I urge the House to reject the amendment and to send the Bill on its way.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 323.

      Division No. 234]

      [10.43 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Faber, David

      Amess, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Fallon, Michael

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Flight, Howard

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Baldry, Tony

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Beggs, Roy

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bercow, John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Garnier, Edward

      Blunt, Crispin

      Gibb, Nick

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gill, Christopher

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brady, Graham

      Gray, James

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Green, Damian

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Greenway, John

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Burns, Simon

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Cash, William

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hammond, Philip

      Hayes, John

      Clappison, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

      Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Collins, Tim

      Horam, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Cran, James

      Hunter, Andrew

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Day, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Nigel

      Lansley, Andrew

      1073

      Leigh, Edward

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Letwin, Oliver

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lidington, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Loughton, Tim

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spring, Richard

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Swayne, Desmond

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Syms, Robert

      Madel, Sir David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Townend John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Trend Michael

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Norman, Archie

      Waterson, Nigel

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wells, Bowen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Page, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Paice, James

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Paterson, Owen

      Willetts, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Prior, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Randall, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Robertson, Laurence

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Mr. Keith Simpson and

      Ruffley, David

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Allen, Graham

      Casale, Roger

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Caton, Martin

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cawsey, Ian

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Austin, John

      Chaytor, David

      Ballard, Jackie

      Clapham, Michael

      Barron, Kevin

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Battle, John

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Beard, Nigel

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clelland, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benton, Joe

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Coleman, Iain

      Best, Harold

      Colman, Tony

      Betts, Clive

      Connarty, Michael

      Blackman, Liz

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Corbett, Robin

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Borrow, David

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cotter, Brian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cox, Tom

      Brake, Tom

      Cranston, Ross

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Crausby, David

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Browne, Desmond

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Burden, Richard

      Darvill, Keith

      Burnett, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Burstow, Paul

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Davidson, Ian

      1074

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

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

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Denham, John

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Doran, Frank

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dowd, Jim

      Kidney, David

      Drew, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Efford, Clive

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Ennis, Jeff

      Lepper, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Leslie, Christopher

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Levitt, Tom

      Fisher, Mark

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Flint, Caroline

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Flynn, Paul

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Lock, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McCabe, Steve

      Foulkes, George

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Fyfe, Maria

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gerrard, Neil

      McDonnell, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gidley, Sandra

      McIsaac, Shona

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Goggins, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      MacShane, Denis

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McWalter, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Grogan, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gunnell, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hanson, David

      Maxton, John

      Harvey, Nick

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Meale, Alan

      Healey, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Heppell, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hill, Keith

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moore, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Morley, Elliot

      Hope, Phil

      Mountford, Kali

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mudie, George

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hurst, Alan

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Hutton, John

      Norris, Dan

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Jamieson, David

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkins, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pearson, Ian

      1075

      Pendry, Tom

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pike, Peter L

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Temple—Monis, Peter

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Purchase, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Todd Mark

      Rammell, Bill

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Rapson, Syd

      Touhig, Don

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Trickett, Jon

      Rendel, David

      Truswell, Paul

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rooney Terry

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Turner, Neil, (Wigan)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roy, Frank

      Tyler, Paul

      Ruddock, Joan

      Tynan, Bill

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Vaz Keith

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Saltar, Martin

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sanders, Adrian

      Watts, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Webb, Steve

      Savidge, Malcolm

      White, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Williams, Alan W(E Carmarthen)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Willis, Phil

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wills, Michael

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wilson, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wood, Mike

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

      Woodward, Shaun

      Snape, Peter

      Worthington, Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Wray, James

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mr. Mike Hall and

      Stringer, Graham

      Mr. Tony McNulty.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Marine Aggregates
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
10.56 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which has been brought to my attention by a number of my constituents. I know that it is also of great interest to the constituents of many other hon. Members.
Aggregate extraction in the UK can be divided between land-based production and dredging from the sea bed. While land-based extraction goes back to ancient times, it is only in the last century that we have begun to look to the sea for materials, with a significant industry developing in the 1970s.
Sand and gravel extractions are mainly used in the UK construction industry, although about a third of marine-extracted aggregates are exported to the near continent. Marine sand and gravel amount to 15 per cent. of aggregates used for construction in England and Wales. In 1999, 23.7 million tonnes of aggregates were removed from the sea, of which almost 40 per cent. came from the east coast. About 10 per cent. of the total aggregates extracted were used in beach replenishment, with 20.9 million tonnes sold for commercial use.
Although the amount of marine aggregates dredged over the last 10 years has remained fairly constant, it has doubled as a percentage of UK production in the last 20 years, following concerns about the impact of land-based extraction.
I understand that the Government actively encourage the extraction of marine sand and gravel because it reduces the need for quarrying. I am also aware that the area licensed for extraction is only 1 per cent. of the sea bed. The area that is dredged is even smaller—less than 15 per cent. of the licensed area. That is largely due to the fact that useful sand and gravel deposits are not widespread, although the areas that produce the best aggregates are usually also the favoured home of the local marine life, and dredging companies often operate in areas that have previously been licensed to fishermen.
Although the area dredged is relatively small and the amount of aggregates dredged has remained fairly constant, I am concerned that the amount exported to other European countries has grown from 11 per cent., or 2.4 million tonnes, in 1988 to 34 per cent., or 7.2 million tonnes, in 1999. In fact, about 50 per cent. of the aggregates extracted off the east coast in 1999 were exported.
The regulation of aggregate extraction differs greatly between land and sea. Licensing for land extraction is carried out locally. The impact of aggregate production on land is easily quantifiable, and the main environmental impacts include heavy goods vehicle traffic—as aggregates are heavy and expensive to move—noise and dust nuisance and potential loss of heritage and amenities. The environmental impacts of land-based production obviously depend on the source, but they would be carefully monitored, with clear data available to assess each project.
Marine extraction is entirely different. Licences to allow prospecting for marine aggregates are generally given by the Crown Estate, which owns the sea bed out

1077
to the 12-mile territorial limit, including the rights to explore and exploit the natural resources present. Local authorities, although consultees on any new licence applications, have no power to prevent dredging off their coastline.
Companies wanting to extract any useful aggregates are required to seek permission from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions through the interim Government view procedure. I understand that the full statutory procedure will be introduced later this year for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, in line with the environmental impact assessment and habitats regulations. Scotland is making its own arrangements.
The Government view procedure is a lengthy process, involving an environmental impact assessment and a consultation, which includes the fishing industry, local authorities and the general public. Environmental assessment, consists of among other things, physical and biological surveys, cumulative impact studies and monitoring programmes. There is the provision to hold a public inquiry during the interim and statutory procedures if necessary. Once the Government are satisfied that the extraction will not cause any adverse environmental impact, permission to dredge is given.
There are further restrictions on licensees, such as zoning and seasonal restrictions to help reduce the impact on other sea users. However, despite the strict regulation of marine dredging, which I understand is shortly to become more clearly defined, the wider environmental impact of dredging for marine aggregates is largely unknown, and relatively few studies have been carried out on it.
Two main concerns are raised both by fishermen and by environmentalists about the possible harmful environmental impact of marine dredging. The first is the impact on the marine ecosystem, owing to the disturbance that dredging causes. The other cause for concern is the unknown effect of dredging on coastal erosion, which is a significant issue on the east coast.
It is perhaps easier to gauge the impact of dredging on the marine environment than on coastal erosion, although there are difficulties in assessing even these effects, and as yet there is very little conclusive research. A study was undertaken by the Crown Estate and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in April 1992 off the Norfolk coast to assess the impact of dredging on animals living on the sea bed. The area was chosen because the sediment type was similar to the commercial marine gravel beds. There was an abundance of animals, suitable reference sites were available nearby, and the area was representative of undisturbed sea bed.
Dredging was conducted over a four-day period at the site, with 50,000 tonnes of material removed to a depth of about 30 cm. Samples taken before and after the dredging were compared with samples taken at nearby reference sites to ascertain what changes arose from the dredging activity and what could be put down to natural seasonal fluctuations. An immediate effect of the dredging was that the animal populations were reduced in numbers, variety and total weight. Although recolonisation for certain species went ahead fairly rapidly, full recovery had not been achieved by May 1994, more than two years
1078
after the dredging took place. The range, densities and total weight of the animal species were substantially lower than before dredging.
A further study in 1995 showed that the diversity, size and weight of animals in the dredged area were comparable with the reference site. However, although the number of animals had stabilised, they were at a level significantly below those at the reference site. The reason for this is not clear. Sampling will continue at the site to ascertain the longer-term effects.
The study also examined regional influences in the major dredging areas from the Humber to Liverpool bay, focusing on sediment type and the biological communities present. It found that the type of sediment and the prevailing conditions of waves and tides influenced animal communities. The Great Yarmouth bank, which has a high amount of physical disturbance due to the sea conditions, has relatively small populations in comparison with more sheltered sites such as Lyme bay. Animals in the more active sites are dominated by species that live for one to three years, while communities in sheltered areas are more mature. Consequently, stable areas take longer to recover from physical disturbance, as they are dominated by longer-lived, slower-growing animals.
Although the findings of the study seem to indicate that areas of the sea bed that are dredged will recover over time, related factors still have to be assessed. The cumulative impact around clusters of licensed dredging activity is unknown, as is the impact on fish populations, owing to the lack of knowledge about their feeding preferences. Those two issues will be considered as part of further research in the continuing study over the next three years, along with the effect of the sediment plumes created by the fine material disturbed during dredging. The plumes include industrial pollutants that have been discharged into the sea and settled over time on the sea bed. Environmentalists maintain that the marine ecosystem adapts to the introduction of the pollutants once they have settled, but when the sea bed is disturbed during dredging, the pollutants attached to the fine material are put back into suspension in the water, and become once again a substantial threat to sea life. Furthermore, once pollutants and other materials are put back into suspension, it becomes difficult to predict where they will settle.
Although scientists will be studying the impact of sediment plumes, I understand that there is no effective mechanism for tracing fine material that is put into suspension. Approaches have been made to both MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for funding to develop such a system, but none has yet been granted. One proposed method for analysing the drift of materials is to place a benign tracer in the area before dredging, which will show the movement of the plume. I await with interest the findings of those further studies, and hope that the movement of sediment plume will be addressed.
Although those concerned about the impact of dredging on the marine environment are mainly fishermen, trawling is responsible for similar disruption to the sea bed, and occurs over a larger area. The main difference is that sea bed material is not removed during trawling, but some environmentalists suggest that the impact of trawling must be considered alongside dredging to ensure the long-term survival of the marine environment—and, indeed, of the fishing industry.

1079
The other major issue of concern over the impact of dredging relates to the unknown impact on coastal erosion. Great Yarmouth is a leading tourist resort in the United Kingdom, and our stretches of golden sandy beaches form a large part of our attraction. In recent years, that asset has been under increasing attack from global warming, and the Environment Agency estimates that sea levels are rising by around 6 mm a year.
Dredging takes place at least 4 miles offshore at Great Yarmouth, as the near-shore banks are considered to act as a buffer against strong tides and are an important component in the reduction of the wave energy that causes coastal erosion. However, many scientists believe that the offshore banks, too, play an important part in reducing wave energy and providing sediment for replenishing beaches. There is certainly a case for further research into the role that the banks play in the hydrodynamics of our costal waters before further dredging is undertaken. A case study of the banks off the Great Yarmouth shoreline would provide useful information for future policy.
I appreciate the fact that licensees are required to carry out studies on waves and currents in the area and draw up a model of the estimated impact on coastal erosion before dredging is allowed, and that even the slightest perceived threat would lead to the licence being denied. However, although research to date shows the effects on coastal erosion to be negligible, concerns remain among both environmentalists and local authorities, especially as the sand banks are not properly understood and it is known that they have changed and moved.
I also appreciate the fact that an element of aggregate extracted from the sea is used for beach replenishment and coastal defence—I have had that described to me as "doing nature's work for her"—but in 1999 that accounted for only about 10 per cent. of UK production.
Great Yarmouth borough council, the local authority responsible for coastal protection, has long been concerned about the impact of offshore dredging. The council believes that the offshore banks are closely related to the near-shore stability, given that they can influence wave action.
When they are consulted during the process of granting licences for extraction, both the borough council and Norfolk county council oppose applications on the ground that members have insufficient information that dredging does not have an adverse impact on navigation channels, marine life and coastal erosion. None the less, the view consistently taken by the Government and the Crown Estate is that there is no clear evidence that marine aggregate extraction has such effects. Consequently, licences that meet all other criteria are invariably granted.
It is unsatisfactory when the wishes of local authorities that have responsibility for the protection of their coastlines seem to have no effect on the licensing process. Although my local authorities wish to proceed with caution and allow time for proper research, the Government and the Crown Estate continue to issue licences on the ground that nothing has been proved.
I question the Government's position should research prove that dredging indeed has a sizeable impact on either coastal erosion or the marine ecosystem. One such study that should report early next year is the southern North sea sediment transport study, which is being undertaken by the Crown Estate, MAFF, the Humber estuary coastal
1080
authority group and the Anglian coastal authority group. I am pleased that Great Yarmouth is a project leader in that study.
The study, which is in its second phase, will look at sediment movement over a period of time, and will factor in the impact of dredging. The study region runs along the coast between Flamborough head and the River Thames. The research will consider sediment sources, transport pathways, volume of sediment, areas of deposition and offshore sea bed features.
Once the evidence is available from that study and from the research that I mentioned earlier on the biological effects of marine aggregates extraction, we should have a much clearer understanding of the marine environment off the east coast and the effects of dredging. Given the lack of conclusive evidence, I suggest that the caution shown by Great Yarmouth borough council and Norfolk county council is more sensible than proceeding, like the Crown Estate and the Government, on the basis that no news is good news.
I am aware that the marine aggregates production industry in the United Kingdom is an important provider of jobs and wealth to the economy. I have spent the past three years working to improve employment prospects in my constituency, so I do not want to jeopardise jobs. I appreciate the fact that to stop dredging for marine aggregates overnight would lead to a huge shortage in necessary materials in the UK, as well as placing further burdens on land-based production.
However, there is a way in which we can mitigate some of the concerns about dredging, as well as maintaining the industry while we wait for conclusive research. As I mentioned, the export market in marine dredged aggregates has grown substantially over the past 10 years and now represents a third of the market, although overall production has remained more or less stable. By far the largest market for such aggregates is Holland, although they are also sold to France, Belgium and Germany.
Although I recognise that dredging companies must remain commercially viable, I do not believe that a shortfall in demand in the UK market should be made up by export, when the environmental cost to the UK has yet to be ascertained.
The income generated by the Crown Estate through royalties on production provides a sizeable income to the Exchequer, which can only increase after the introduction of the proposed aggregate tax. However, exports are exempt from the tax, which will make them even more appealing to producers and could lead to even higher exports. I am not sure that that will achieve the desired effect of the aggregate tax, as it will undermine the environmental reasons for imposing the levy in the first place.
In conclusion, although the marine extraction of aggregates has undoubtedly helped to lessen the impact of land-based production, it is clear that the environmental impact on the marine ecosystem remains unproven.
I hope that the Government will carefully consider the research that is continuing on the subject, and also consider further research, so that we have a strong body of data on which to base future policy decisions. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider carefully whether it is in the UK's best interest to continue to export our marine minerals at the present levels while the environmental

1081
impact is not proven, and also whether consideration has been given to the impact of the aggregate tax on the export market.
11.12 pm
Dr. George Turner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on securing the debate, and on the excellent and balanced way in which he expressed the main argument, which I will not attempt to repeat in the few minutes that he has kindly granted me, for which I thank him. I agree almost entirely with my hon. Friend's remarks.
In the Wash area, there has been a marked decline in fishing, especially for shellfish, over the past decade. The lack of scientific certainty to which my hon. Friend referred means that it is a moot point whether the fishermen are right in blaming the dredging for aggregates for the decline in their catch, or whether the Government scientists are right in saying that other natural forces are at work.
From my many discussions with officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it is clear that as a scientist one must conclude that there is much to be learned, especially about the life cycle of shellfish and the effect of the environment on them. When we know very little, we must proceed with caution, as my hon. Friend urged. We must be careful about the volume of aggregates that we extract and the attitude that we take to those livelihoods that may have been affected by the consequences.
Almost three years ago, shortly after I came to the House, I went with fishermen from the King's Lynn area to complain about the dredging. One of the reasons for the dredging, as my hon. Friend noted, is beach replenishment. Having made their case that the dredging would damage some of their fishing grounds, fishermen in King's Lynn were confident that if beach replenishment went ahead at Mablethorpe up the Lincolnshire coast, one of the other remaining major shrimp fisheries would be dramatically affected for the worse.
The responsibility does not lie with the Minister who is responding to the debate, but, in the spirit of joined-up government, I hope that she will ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will consider the matter with greater urgency. The fishermen predicted that they would lose their catch. When they lost it, they found themselves arguing with scientists about the reasons for that. The scientists claimed that natural forces had caused that loss.
When we do not know the reasons, we have the responsibility to be generous to those whose livelihoods have been affected. I hope that the Minister will take back the message from me on behalf of fishermen in King's Lynn that they have waited far too long for a reasonable settlement to their reasonable claim for the way in which dredging and beach replenishment affected their careers.
11.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) on initiating the debate.
1082
I shall do my best to address as many as possible of the points that he and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) made. Both displayed considerable knowledge about the issue. We would expect that because of their great interest in their constituencies.
I shall begin by explaining the reasons for the Government's support in principle for the extraction of sand and gravel from the sea bed before considering ways in which to prevent unacceptable damage to the marine environment and coastal areas, or to the interests of other users of the sea, such as those in the fishing industry whom my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk identified in relation to King's Lynn.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth acknowledged, the greatest use of sand and gravel extracted from the sea bed is aggregate by the construction industry. Clearly, aggregates are essential for that industry. They are needed to build houses, roads and other infrastructure, which is important in all parts of the country. The way in which the requirements for aggregates should be fulfilled is important in social, economic and environmental terms. We must have construction minerals, but I agree that they should be obtained without undue effects on the environment and quality of life.
Land-based sand and gravel resources can often be found close to centres of population. They often underlie the best and most versatile agricultural land or existing development. There is therefore frequently a conflict between safeguarding our natural heritage and quarrying. There is pressure to contain aggregate extraction from the land.
Clearly, there are extensive deposits of sand and gravel beneath the sea that can be dredged at coastal wharves. Marine dredging has long made a useful contribution to supply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth acknowledged, approximately 13 million tonnes of marine-dredged sand and gravel were consumed in Great Britain in 1998. That is approximately 6 per cent. of the total consumption of aggregates. In the south-east of England, which is an area of particularly high demand, approximately 32 per cent. of natural aggregates was from the sea.
I know that my hon. Friends would acknowledge that material dredged from the east and south coast has supplied many important developments, such as the Thames barrier, the QE2 bridge at Dartford, the Jubilee line extension and Canary wharf. The use of marine sources has potential benefits such as reducing road haulage, especially in areas of high demand and limited supply such as London and the south-east.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth acknowledged, marine-dredged materials are also needed for coastal defences and beach nourishment schemes to replace material lost from the beaches through erosion. It is particularly suited to that use because it is similar to materials that are found naturally on beaches.
My hon. Friend mentioned coastal erosion. He cited a national figure of 10 per cent. of extracted materials being used for beach nourishment. I am sure that he will be aware that the east coast of England, more than any other area, relies on such materials for beach nourishment. Between 1994 and 1998, the east coast used more than 60 per cent. of the total material used nationally for beach nourishment—about 23 million tonnes.

1083
As well as being an issue of concern for that area of the country, especially around the coast extraction is also an enormous benefit because of the use of such material for beach nourishment schemes and for the protection of beaches from erosion.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the export of materials. It is true to say that about 30 par cent. of material currently extracted is being exported. Exports of sand and gravel from the sea bed have increased in recent years for use in countries such as the Netherlands and France.
A ban on the export of such material raises two issues. First, as my hon. Friend will know, it is not possible under the treaty of Rome to ban the export of such material. That makes it all the more important to ensure that the extraction of marine aggregates does not have unacceptable effects on the environment. Secondly, there are competing interests. A ban would have an impact on the dredging industry, which is estimated by the Quarry Products Association to be in the region of 60 per cent.—it would affect up to 60 per cent. of people currently employed in the dredging industry. Although I appreciate my hon. Friends' concerns, there are competing interests in the dredging industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned the effects on fisheries. The current authorisation procedure includes an environmental impact assessment and a coastal impact study before any licence is granted. Fisheries interests are covered by the environmental impact assessment. In recent years, use has been made of data from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on areas fished and on fish landing statistics to identify the importance of dredging application areas for fishing.
I acknowledge that it is recognised that various other activities, including trawling, can have an impact on the marine environment. My Department's role to protect the environment from unacceptable harm arising from activities for which it is responsible is taken seriously. I shall give my colleagues in MAFF the message from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk about the concern of people in the fishing industry in King's Lynn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth mentioned research. We fully recognise that there are gaps in our current understanding of the marine environment.
1084
The Government and the Crown Estate have commissioned two major research studies. The first, funded by MAFF and the Crown Estate, is examining the potential for cumulative effects and the impact of dredging and of successive licences on marine activity over a period. That is a real issue. The study is trying to address the concerns of fishermen that aggregate extraction is affecting the fisheries by removing an important source of food for fish.
Research has also recently been commissioned by my Department to examine the recovery of the sea bed following aggregate dredging. That is a follow-up to an existing study that was undertaken by MAFF and the Crown Estate at a site off the north Norfolk coast, which showed that recovery had begun shortly after dredging ceased, and that within three years of dredging ceasing the area had fully recovered both in respect of the stability of the sediment and the range of species present. We shall certainly consider the results of those studies. There would be no point in undertaking the research unless we were minded to take the findings into account.
Finally, although my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth extensively outlined current procedure, I want him to understand fully that the Government are soon to introduce a new regulatory regime that will bring marine extraction under statutory control. Under the new regulations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions rather than the Crown Estate will become the competent authority for the control of marine dredging in English waters. Applications will be assessed only once an environmental impact assessment has been undertaken. The regulations will make it a criminal offence to dredge the sea bed without dredging permission, except in those areas already licensed. I can assure my hon. Friend that we take the points that he has raised very seriously and that the new regulations will bring a new dimension in terms of balancing the need for dredging and the need to ensure adequate protection of all the environmental issues that he outlined.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Christians in Egypt
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Betts.]
9.30 am
Mr. Edward Leigh: Last week, the first pedestrian bridge across the Thames in more than 100 years was opened. The new crossing is one of countless initiatives to mark the new millennium. While most people throughout our country continue to celebrate the start of the Christian calendar, I want to focus on pressures on the Coptic Church—the remnant of believers from the first days of Christianity. I am sad to report that while we celebrated the start of the millennium with fireworks, laughter and parties, in Egypt the new year was ushered in with a massacre of 21 Coptic believers. It was the worst episode of violence against Christians in decades.
It is easy to forget that, although Christianity started in the middle east, Christians in that region face persecution and possible extinction. While mass genocide in places such as Rwanda rightly grabs our attention, the plight of the people we are considering is important and relevant. I heard disturbing details of the persecution of the Coptic Church at a meeting organised by the Jubilee Campaign, the British human rights group. I met a Coptic bishop and Dr. Helmy Guirguis, the president of the United Kingdom Coptic Association, when they came to my home. Those men gave deeply moving accounts of atrocities against the Coptic Church in Egypt. It was strange to sit in the comfort of a Westminster home listening to quiet, impressive men, and being shown photographs of beatings inflicted on their people.
I was concerned when the two gentlemen told me that, in their view, the Government seemed unwilling to lend their full support to help the Egyptian Copts. It appears that it was difficult for a Minister—not the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)—to find time in his admittedly busy schedule to meet those Church leaders and hear the report of the human rights violations. I hope that the debate might lead to a meeting.
The Government were clearly ready and willing to support the concept of human rights in Egypt, but there was no direct evidence that they were prepared to make representations to the Egyptian Government. It is therefore fortunate that I have a factual and detailed report of the millennium massacre directly from Alexandria. I shall relate it shortly. I hope that it will spur the Government into action and into representing our deep anxiety about that incident and others to the Egyptian authorities in London and Cairo.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests and the fact
204WH
that I visited Egypt recently as a guest of the Egyptian Government. When I was in Egypt, I spoke to the Grand Imam about the problem. He said that he believed that he and the Coptic Pope were close personal and spiritual friends. He said that whatever incidents had taken place did not reflect an aggressive attitude on the part of the Egyptian Government. He said that they were reprehensible incidents that had to be tackled. He believed that he and the Coptic Pope were as one spiritually and were personal friends. Does that give my hon. Friend any hope in the circumstances that he is about to relate?
Mr. Leigh: Yes. I am grateful for that intervention because it underlines the complexity of the matter. I am not talking about mass genocide, or the Egyptian Government overtly discriminating against Christians. We are not considering open disagreement between the Coptic Pope and the Muslim community. Enormous efforts are made to try to live together. However, we are considering a complex matter. The Coptic Church in Egypt is under great pressure. Disturbing recent incidents support the view that matters may be getting worse, despite efforts to make improvements. It is important that we do not remain silent. Silence strengthens the hand of those who persecute people from other churches.
I shall outline a little history. The Coptic Church is heir to a 2,000-year tradition of Christianity in Egypt. By tradition, it traces its origin to 42 AD and the formation of the first Church in Alexandria by St. Mark the evangelist and martyr. The Egyptian Church has an ancient heritage, and is the largest and one of the oldest Christian communities in the middle east.
Egypt was a province of the Byzantine empire. Before the Arab conquest of 640 AD, all Egyptians were known as Copts. Early Arabs called Egypt the land of the Copts. After the Arab conquest, Egyptians gradually converted to Islam, and Muslims became the majority population in Egypt. Coptic means "Egyptian" in the pre-Arabic language of the country. While opinions differ on the origins of the word "Copt", most agree that it is a derivation of the Greek term "Aegyptos", which the Greeks called Egypt and the Nile. It currently denotes the original Christians of the country who retained their faith when the majority converted to Islam.
Today, Copts comprise more than 6 million inhabitants—more than 15 per cent. of Egypt's population of 65 million. The Church in Egypt, including Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans and Orthodox denominations such as Syriac, is the largest Christian community in the Arab world. The Coptic Church has survived more than 1,000 years of petty oppression and sometimes outright persecution. Recently, it has been the target of systematic and brutal attack by extremists who try to influence the authorities to exercise their religious privilege. It has also witnessed the quiet erosion of its status in society.
Christians in Egypt are bystanders in the conflict between the Government and Islamic fundamentalists. They are frequently caught in the crossfire. They believe that the authorities do not give them adequate protection from such aggression. The difficulties that the Christian community in Egypt faces are varied, and I shall detail them. I am grateful to several sources for the

205WH
information. They include the United Kingdom Coptic Association, the Jubilee Campaign, the Egyptian Centre for Human Rights for National Unity, Just Law International, Compass Direct, Open Doors, the office of Congressman Joseph Pitts, the head of the religious liberty taskforce of the United States Congress and Christian Solidarity Worldwide.
For years, the Government in Egypt have strictly enforced laws that date back to the Ottoman empire. They forbid the construction of new churches or the repair of existing churches. Christian churches can be built only with express permission of the President. The Hamayouni edict of 1856 requires the Head of State's approval for repairs, even mending a church toilet. In the past 10 years, few churches have been constructed. Some communities have been working for a church for 30 years.
I recently read "From the Holy Mountain" by William Dalrymple. It states:
According to the Government's own statistics, mosque building had accelerated—some 125,000 unauthorised masjids had been erected in the last decade alone—but in the same period, the Hamaynoic Laws had been used to deny permission for the building of more than a handful of churches.
In December 1999, the decree was relaxed and permission must now be sought from a local authority. The change requires mosques as well as churches to obtain permits for repairs, but mosques receive permission far more easily.
A report published by the Committee for Fact Finding in Sectarian Incidents recorded in the People's Assembly on 28 November 1972, identified the following:
Total of existing churches in Egypt: 1,442
Total churches that are licensed by royal or presidential decree: 286
Total of churches without permits: 1,156.
Those 1,156 churches function illegally and face the wrath of the authorities. Permits that are sanctioned are frequently for churches that were built approximately 100 years ago. More recently, surveys have been undertaken by the Egyptian Centre of Human Rights for National Unity, which, among others, has sent documentation to the Jubilee Campaign. I have many examples of locations without in Egypt without a church, but shall cite only a few. An application for one was made in Mamoura district in 1967, but the presidential permit has not yet been granted. In Luxor, no building permit has been granted by the local authorities since 1979. There is no church on the northern coast—375 km from Alexandria to Marsar-Matrouh—nor in the towns of Sixth of October, Al-Rehab, Al-Sherouk, Al-Nanda, Badr, Al-Salam, and so the list continues.
I also have many examples, which I can send to the Minister, of locations where churches have had difficulties, but I shall mention just two or three. The Church of the Virgin Mary in Ashmonein in Malawi has been closed. The Church of the Virgin Mary and Mar Girgis in Al-Ayat and the Church of Shaheed Abu-Seifein, Governorate of Al-Fayoum were burned down, and so the list goes on.
206WH
I shall refer to some of the problems and difficulties faced by Copts in Egypt. Under Islamic Sharia law, conversion from Islam to any other faith is punishable by death. Converts to Christianity face harassment from not only the state, but their own families. In fairness, Sharia law is not strictly enforced in Egypt, but it has been recognised as the foundation of Egyptian law. The Egyptian Government do not allow people to change their religion or the names on their identity cards and other personal pipers if they convert. That regulation does not apply in the case of converts from Christianity to Islam. That difficulty is constantly faced in Egypt. Such discrimination is not overt, but it makes life very difficult, especially when it involves changes to identity cards.
The Egyptian Government have done too little to control those who provoke hatred against Christians. For example, an Egyptian newspaper reported that the nationally famous late Sheikh Muhammad Mitwalli Al-Sharawi referred to Christians as "infidels". He was also accused by a Christian leader of making extremely derogatory remarks about Christians and Christianity. On one occasion, he allegedly stated that "the Sons of Dogs call the Torah the Old Testament." His implication was that Christians are sons of dogs.
There are reported cases—I shall not read out the list—of the use of rape as a means of forced conversion. Admittedly, those events are rare and, of course, abhorrent and intolerable, but they have taken place and should be dealt with firmly. Forced conversion is illegal according to Egyptian law. Egyptian civil law number 31, 1948 sets a legal age of 21, and Egyptian child law sets the age of consent at 18 years. The Grand Sheikh, Dr. Tantawi, issued a decree in 1997, stating that no Christian girl should be forced to marry a Muslim and that Christian girls younger than 21 cannot convert to Islam without the consent of their legal guardians.
There have been complaints of inaction by Egyptian authorities in the face of such practices and of refusals to act on behalf of victims and their families. Again, under Egyptian law, a Christian must speak to a priest or pastor before converting to Islam, but that law is rarely applied and a clergyman is usually informed only after the conversion takes place.
A major reason for conversion is economic. Conversion to Islam improves Christians' economic prospects because of the widespread discrimination against employing and promoting them. Pressure to convert is also applied to Copts, with offers of material reward, money, jobs, accommodation and even a spouse.
All that is serious enough, but I shall now deal with reports of violence. In the past five years, extremists have killed more than 100 Christians. In that period, not more than one or two of the killers have been arrested, tried and convicted. In the past two decades, more than 700 Coptic Christians have been wounded in attacks; more than 700 properties and businesses of Christians have been targeted by militants; more than 120 churches have been burned or ransacked; and about 100 homes have been destroyed. On 4 May 1992, armed members of the Islamic group, Al-Gamma Al-Islamyia, conducted a co-ordinated attack that resulted in the

207WH
killing by gunfire of 13 Christians. I have a long list of many such incidents, which I can send to the Minister, but I shall not read it out.
In August and September 1998, more than 1,000 Christians were detained in Sohag province in upper Egypt, many of whom were tortured, including 13 and 15-year-old girls. That was the incident that prompted the Coptic delegation to visit me. Bishop Wissa of Baliana and his co-priests were targeted for their part in exposing police brutality and reporting it to non-governmental organisations outside Egypt. They were interrogated and charged, but released, pending trial, after posting bail of 100 Egyptian pounds each.
One of the worst incidents was the millennium massacre. Five predominantly Christian villages in upper Egypt's Sohag province were ravaged over the new year weekend. At least 21 Christians were killed and another 34 hospitalised with injuries. More than 80 Coptic homes and businesses were destroyed, along with a village church. That was the worst sectarian violence for years and the largest massacre of Egyptian Christians for decades. Significantly, El-Koshesh is the same village where, 22 months ago, police were charged with brutality when more than 1,000 Christians were arrested.
I could go on relating such completely up-to-date information. For example, on 5 June this year, the Sohag criminal court convicted a Coptic Christian of murder and sentenced him to a maximum term of 15 years. Shaiboub William Arsal was convicted of murdering his cousin and a friend following a gambling dispute in August 1998. His defence lawyers are convinced that the verdict was a political decision and that the prosecution case was based on forced confessions extracted from two army conscripts from the same village after they were tortured. The Egyptian Organisation of Human Rights accused the police of detaining more than 1,000 Christians after the double murder at Al Kosheh and treating many of them brutally in an effort to pin the crime on a Christian to prevent tension with Muslims from occurring.
To reveal the horror of that incident, I quote a little passage from The Glastonbury Review—a journal of the British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria. It states:
On New Year's Eve, Friday 31 December … an argument broke out between a merchant and a customer. The situation could have been brought under control but the local security forces failed to intervene and before long a mob was on the rampage whilst all night long Christian-owned homes and shops were looted, destroyed and finally burned Unchecked by the authorities, assaults against property now turned to persons and the killings began. Copts were living in fear and stayed in their homes, not even able to open their windows. They did not feel safe at all. Some congregated far from the attack areas but were able to hear shots being fired.
The violence soon spread from El Kosheh to surrounding villages, including Awlad Touq East and Awlad Touq West, Naga Moussa as well as other areas. St. George's Church in Alwad Touq was destroyed and all of its contents were looted. Fear was spreading among Copts as they witnesses these uninterrupted acts of vandalism and killings. All of these acts occurred without any intervention on the part of local authorities.
Pope Shenouda has tried to take a moderate line, which is why he kept quiet after the first incident. Perhaps that prompted the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls).
208WH
Pope Shenouda waited three months after the first incident before issuing any public statement. I continue to quote the review, which states that
when he did so it was with the intention of bringing the polarisation resulting from this first incident to an end and preventing further escalation. Having worked for so long and so assiduously to foster good relations between Christians and Muslims and in support of national unity as the surest antidote to Islamic extremism, he rejected foreign interference and counselled quiet resolution for discussions with the authorities.
For their part the authorities assured him that complaints would be properly investigated, grievances righted and those who were responsible brought to justice. Unfortunately, not only were these promises not fulfilled but the principal perpetrators appeared to be rewarded whilst the innocent suffered.
His Holiness felt that this failure to address matters was the cause of the further problems, "In all honesty attempting to cover-up the previous events in El Kosheh approximately one and a half years ago, by means of acquitting individuals responsible for the incident and accusing the victims, has led to the escalation of the problem in a horrific manner. Physical attacks have turned into killings".
The Egyptian Government are aware of our concerns and they acknowledge that the constitution guarantees religious freedom. However, they often say that those terrible incidents are not sectarian clashes, but personal feuds. I understand the problems that they face with extremists. For example, the ruthless murder of the leading secular dissident, Farag Foda, has escalated the problem in Egypt, but Christians are dangerously exposed.
What do the Christians and Copts want? The answer is simple and can be summarised in one word—equality. The president of the United Kingdom Coptic Association has told me that they seek nothing less than equality. That is all. At the start of the 21st century, when the world considers equality and human rights as birthrights to be taken for granted, we cannot ignore such injustice. I call on the Government to place the plight of the Coptic Church at the head of the agenda in discussions with the Egyptian authorities.
Copts are not asking for special treatment or compensation for centuries of discrimination and persecution. They want to feel that Mr. Mubarak is President for Muslims and for Copts. They want him to care for them and to address their concerns. They want him to meet their religious leadership regularly and perhaps visit their churches, which other Presidents did. That would no doubt break down walls of mistrust and build bridges of tolerance and harmony between Muslims and Christians.
Copts want the abolition of the antiquated 19th century Hamayouni decree, which restricts the construction of new churches and the repair of existing ones. Copts want all Church trust lands returned to the Copts. The income generated by those lands was used to provide for needy Copts. Copts want all Egyptian citizens to have freedom of belief, including the freedom to change one's religion. Copts want religious affiliation removed from national identity cards, job applications and so on. Christians must not be identified and discriminated against.
Copts want the education curriculum to be revised to guarantee that it contains no denigrating references to Christians and Christianity. Copts want the Government to control the media to ensure that they refrain from conducting attacks against Christians.

209WH
Copts want an end to discrimination in job appointments and promotions. Few Christians are appointed to key jobs, such as Ministers or other Government officials. At present, there are no Christian governors, mayors, chiefs of police, presidents of city council or deans of college.
Copts want the Egyptian Government to be serious about apprehending those who murder Copts, to punish them to the fullest extent of the law, and adequately to compensate the victims of such crimes. Copts want to be allowed to enrol in all schools that are publicly funded, such as the Al-Azhar university. Copts want to be treated with honour and dignity within police departments. Copts want an end to religious discrimination that prevails at all levels of the Egyptian education system. Copts want an end to the enforced conversion of Christian girls.
I hope that our Government will raise the matter of the new year massacre of 21 Christians with the Egyptian authorities in London and in Cairo, and seek assurances that it will be thoroughly investigated. I also hope that Ministers visiting Egypt will raise these matters and apply and encourage concern in international forums. When I wrote to the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) about the Al-Kosheh massacre, he replied:
We shall encourage the authorities to take appropriate action against anyone found to have committed a crime or to have violated international human rights standards.
That is encouraging, but what does it mean exactly? The Minister also said that the Foreign Secretary had
discussed interfaith issues with members of the Government, including President Mubarak.—[Official Report, 14 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 163.]
However, there is no indication that the Government have made direct representations on behalf of the Copts. I hope that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West, will tell us that Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to do so.
In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Neath, said:
Our embassy in Cairo has been following the events and has discussed them with the Egyptian authorities.—[Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343. c. 624W.]
That could mean anything. It could just mean a polite request for information.
On 3 February 2000, the Minister of State said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan):
When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cairo … this year, he met the Sheikh Al Azar and Bishop Daniel as well as members of the Government … Interfaith issues were part of the discussion.—[Official Report, 3 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 737W.]
Again, what does that mean? Did the Foreign Secretary make direct representations on the part of the Copts?
It is important to ensure fundamental rights of political representation, to end educational apartheid, to allow the building of new churches, and to prevent massacres and killings. I hope that the Government will make strong representation on all those matters.
210WH
The Copts are a brave and quiet people. They are used to discretion. Indeed, they often have to deny in public what they say in private. They do not overstate their case in any way. William Dalrymple quotes a Copt as saying, "We Copts have always been attacked for our faith. Compared to some of those attacks these troubles are nothing." "So what sort of attacks are you thinking of?" said Dalrymple "Oh, the massacres of Emperor Diocletian, for instance," was the reply. These matters have been going on for a long time, but that does not mean that they are not serious.
The old Ottoman empire was relatively tolerant of Christian minorities. Up to recent times, our record in Christendom was far worse than theirs. The result is that, whereas at the beginning of the 20th century there was a thriving Christian community all over the middle east, today only 14 million Christians are left out of a population of 180 million in the middle east. Istanbul is virtually cleared of Greeks, and the Syrian Orthodox Church is a dying ember in Turkey. Only in Syria has the Church survived relatively in tact, but, with the death of Assad, that may change. In Lebanon, the Maronites are in retreat. In Jerusalem, a commentator said that the last Christians could be flown out in nine jumbo jets. In Egypt, the Copts are fearful, knowing that if Mubarak falls things would probably only get worse.
I am not opposed to the Egyptian Government. I know the difficulties that they face in resisting fundamentalism. I can also understand the reticence of our Foreign Office, which is rightly anxious not to criticise a Government who are moderate by middle east standards and vital to the peace process. However, as a friend of Egypt, we have the right and duty to speak up. Christianity is, by origin, a middle eastern religion. If we remain silent, by the end of this century it will no longer be a religion practised widely in the middle east.
It is estimated that more Christians were massacred worldwide in the 20th century than in any other century of the two millenniums. The world is becoming less, not more, tolerant. We should proclaim the values of tolerance in our own society and praise Muslim values. By speaking out, we will discourage intolerance everywhere and ensure that religion unites people rather than dividing them.
9.56 am
Mr. Nigel Evans: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on gaining this Adjournment debate and raising a vital issue. I am vice-chairman of the all-party friends of Egypt group. As my hon. Friend stated, this country is a friend of Egypt, and it is vital that such issues are raised openly and freely.
To be true friends of Egypt, it is vital to ensure that problems and crises such as those facing the Copts in Egypt are eradicated, and to encourage a feeling of toleration and understanding in that country. It is an important country: it has a population of 63 million and sits between the middle east and Africa, both of which are strategically important regions. We have interests in both those areas, and a number of British people live in Egypt.
I recently went to Egypt with the all-party group, and we visited Cairo among other places. Last year, we managed to set up meetings with a number of Egyptian

211WH
Ministers, including the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. There have also been visits by Egyptian Ministers to this country, and I and other members of the all-party group met them and raised issues, including the situation of the Copts.
We went to a factory in Sixth of October, which is an amazing, vast and growing city. We visited Unilever, which had a number of British workers. We spoke with a Copt who felt that there was no impediment to her job acceleration. She had reached quite a high position in Unilever. The issue that we are discussing and some of the events that my hon. Friend has mentioned, although ghastly and appalling atrocities and human rights violations, including violence and death, are exceptional in Egypt.
Ministers have made a number of visits to Egypt in the past three years. I hope that this issue has been paramount in their thoughts when they have spoken with their opposite numbers in Cairo. It is vital that they take every opportunity to have a constructive dialogue with Egypt.
I am involved in a number of all-party groups, including those on China and Turkey. Human rights violations not only occur, but some seem to be promoted by the Governments of those countries. Where we look to influence them, it is right to do so through constructive dialogue where possible, although, in certain examples such as Zimbabwe, constructive dialogue seems to be a complete no-no. It does not matter what we say to Mugabe—he will just carry on with his campaign of terror against the people of that country—but the Egyptian Government have not systematically carried out atrocities such as those referred to by my hon. Friend.
On our previous visit, we met the Grand Imam and spoke about the Copts and the death penalty. We had a free and frank discussion. As my hon. Friend said, the Egyptian constitution guarantees religious freedoms. We must do what we can, even when personal feuds exist, and I believe that the Government and Islam, the Muslim religion, have a role to play in ensuring that atrocities are stamped out. Egypt wants to maintain good relations with this country and although we know of the tourism atrocities in Luxor and a number of other places, the Government seem to have taken speedy action to stamp them out. I hope that they treat the atrocities in other parts of Egypt equally seriously.
My hon. Friend talked about what he wants for the Copts and spoke on behalf of us all when he mentioned tolerance, dignity and respecting the rights of people of minority religions. He also referred to churches and planning. To flip that on its head, there are planning issues for building mosques in this country. In certain areas, it is difficult for planning permission to be given and building a mosque never seems to be popular among the local population. Although they show great tolerance, their area never seems to be the right place to put a mosque. I have one in my own constituency and do not believe that it is in the right place, so perhaps similar issues are being discussed in Egypt and various other countries.
Over and above simple planning procedures, my hon. Friend mentioned a number of atrocities that give us great cause for concern. I, too, ask for those issues to be raised time and again through the British embassy in
212WH
Cairo, when the Minister meets his opposite number and when other Ministers visit Egypt. We must work with the Egyptian Government and should perhaps suggest where we can help to ensure that the minority who perpetrate atrocities show greater tolerance and understanding. The all-party group also has a role to play in raising those issues whenever possible. My hon. Friend might think it helpful if we tried to arrange a meeting with someone from the Egyptian embassy, perhaps even the ambassador himself, to enter dialogue and discuss what progress can be made. I have met the ambassador a number of times and he has been very helpful in all sorts of areas. I am sure that this is an issue on which the all-party group may be able to facilitate progress.
I conclude as I began: we are friends of Egypt, and I believe this country to be a friend of Egypt. Being real friends means having the honesty to say where things are going wrong. When there are problems, it is only right for us, as friends, to point them out. I hope that initiating the debate will enable more progress to be made. Sweeping those issues under the carpet would only make things worse. I congratulate my hon. Friend again and hope that, through the Minister, progress can be made.
10.5 am
Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on initiating the debate and endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said.
When politicians talk about Christianity, there is an audience that automatically turns off. That is well understood, but if being a politician in today's Parliament has any value, and given the significance of this particular year, we should applaud any Member who is prepared to take the time and trouble to raise the atrocities carried out against Christians throughout the world. In particular, I pay tribute to Christian Solidarity Worldwide and the Jubilee Campaign, which do marvellous work to alert people to all sorts of issues throughout the world. We should applaud the way in which those organisations conduct their lobbying, which contrasts with that of one or two other groups that tend to antagonise rather than encourage hon. Members to support their view.
Two years ago, I was privileged to be a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union annual conference in Egypt, which I had never visited, although I was only too well aware of pyramids and the Nile. However, other matters were brought to my attention that week and after, one quite graphically: the day after the UK delegation had returned home, terrorists planted a bomb by a museum. They were a day late in their activities. That incident brought all the difficulties home to us. Perhaps I should not speak for all colleagues, but the UK delegation was slightly irritated by the protection we were given throughout. We thought, "This is a lot of old nonsense; everyone seems pleased to welcome us." Of course that was not the case at all.
During that week, I saw poverty the like of which I had not seen before, whether it be in the Philippines, Pakistan or elsewhere. I was gripped by the scale of

213WH
Problems in Egypt and at a loss as to the solutions. I know that the Minister is a devout Christian and I do not want to over-criticise the Government's role and their response to the questions of hon. Members, a long list of which I have asked. However, I feel in my heart of hearts that these matters are not at the top of their agenda, although I could be completely wrong. [Interruption.] The Minister says, from a sedentary position, that that is not the case. However, although this is 2000, I feel that Christianity and trying to help people who wish to practise it—not only in this country, but throughout the world—is not the focal point of the Government's agenda.
The Government seem to think that Christians form a diminishing number of the population, so perhaps there are other priorities. That may or may not be the case and no doubt the Minister will mount a robust defence, but a number of opportunities have been missed. Hon. Members have already touched on Church property, conversion, the incitement of hatred against Christians, use of rape as a means of forcing conversion, pressure on Christians to convert to Islam and violence against Christians.
I want to focus briefly on two of those, beginning with the use of rape as a means of forcing conversion. Some people would immediately say, "That is absolute rubbish. Where is the proof?" I hope that hon. Members keep raising the issue long after the debate is forgotten and put it to the test, but the Jubilee Campaign has received reports from Christian sources in Egypt of the use of rape by Islamic extremists to coerce Christian women to convert to Islam. In Egyptian society, a girl's virginity is highly valued. Its loss through rape is often viewed by her family members as a loss of honour. That leads to their ostracising the victim, or even killing her.
It is difficult for a rape victim to find a marriage partner. Extremists use rape to pressurise Christian girls to convert. After the girl has been raped, the extremists promise that they will arrange for her to be married to a Muslim if she will convert to Islam, guaranteeing that they will provide her with a husband. Conversion offers marriage to a member of the group and "security" to the victim, whereas returning to the family after the rape would result in potentially fatal consequences. That practice is reportedly becoming more widespread.
I know that many people will be cynical and say, "That cannot happen in this day and age," just as it is completely dismissed that baby girls are culled in China. I believe the Jubilee Campaign. I believe that those atrocities are happening. It is beholden on this the mother of all Parliaments to continue to disregard the smirkers and doubters and to speak up on the issue, so that world leaders will raise the point when they meet. Let other world leaders smile at them when they do so.
There have been complaints of inaction on the part of the Egyptian authorities in the face of such practices: complaints that they refuse to act on behalf of the victims and their families. That has undoubtedly led to a change in life style among Christians in the upper part of Egypt. There is a growing reluctance to allow girls to attend schools. When girls are allowed out of the house, they are usually accompanied by a male member of the family.
214WH
What is going on in Egypt as regards the property of the Church is of great concern. The legal foundation for the Egyptian state's control of Church property is the Ottoman decree of 1856, which was amplified by the Interior Ministry in 1934 as the Alazabi decree. That decree severely restricted the construction and repair of Christian churches by requiring Christian congregations to submit petitions for building and repairs to the head of state. The decree completely contradicts the 1971 constitution.
Regarding repairs to Church property, progress has been made over the past two years. In January 1998, an amendment was made that delegated presidential authority to issue permits for church renovation to the country's 26 provincial governors. On December 28 1999, President Mubarak decreed that church repairs no longer required presidential, a governor's or federal ministry permit. Only planning permission from the local council was required. However, the need for presidential assent in order to build a new church is still required. That is ridiculous. There can be no justification for such nonsense.
No such permission is necessary for the building of mosques. In addition, churches may not be built in an Islamic locality. It is absolutely crazy. That criterion creates a loophole for the refusal of any application to build a church, as any locality may be considered Islamic. It theoretically promotes the persecution of Christians. A church may not be built within 100 m of a mosque.
In practice, the state systematically obstructs the construction of new Christian churches, halls, offices and parsonages, leaving many parishes without adequate facilities for worship and other congregational activity. The Coptic Orthodox Church has particularly suffered in that regard. Few of its applications for building permission have been accepted. Even the successful applications can take up to 30 years before presidential approval is granted.
Although the current Egyptian Government boast that, since President Mubarak has been in power, he has not denied permission for a single church to be constructed, the fact remains that many applications have never reached him. Even if an application receives presidential approval, in practice, it will often be blocked at the level of the Interior Ministry. In some cases, after permission had been given by the president for construction, Muslims quickly built a small mosque within the 100 m limit, thereby preventing the church's construction.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough would not wish the debate to damage our relationship with the Egyptian Government. I do not think that we are particularly bothered about our relationship with Her Majesty's Government, but we certainly would not want to damage our relationship with the Egyptian Government. As I know my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), our Front-Bench spokesman, will say, the Conservative party understands all the issues involved in trade; we understand those only too well.
We recognise that people will say, "What did the Conservative Government do for 18 years with their relationship with the Egyptian Government?" No doubt all those matters will be raised, but we have come into a

215WH
new dawn since May 1997. Her Majesty's Government has had more than three years to deliver on all their promises. Given their style, I should have thought that they would have been delighted to put Christianity at the heart of government.
The celebrations of the year 2000 have not been entirely joyous. There were many people who thought, "Never mind the hype about the dome, the millennium eye, the new bridge and all that; it should all be about Christianity". Therefore, what could be a finer tribute to the United Kingdom celebrations of the 2,000 years after the birth of Christ than the mother of all Parliaments, in raising issues concerning Christianity in this country and throughout the world, but in Egypt in particular, making a difference and stopping the persecution of those people in Egypt, who have devout beliefs in their Christianity and should be allowed to worship without any interference whatever from the Egyptian state?
10.17 am
Dr. Jenny Tonge (RichmondPark): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on raising the issue in debate. I am pleased to reply on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
We have all heard about what went on in Egypt over the millennium. I say at the beginning—I have got more and more stirred to say this while listening to hon. Members—that I was raised as a Christian, I love God, but I loathe religion. I think that it is dangerous and causes immense suffering throughout the world. We need to play it down in the modern world, not up.
I have read the reports from the non-governmental organisations; we have been well briefed. The Jubilee Campaign and Christian Solidarity Worldwide have sent us briefings. We heard about those briefings in detail from the hon. Gentleman. There are sickening reports of torture; I entirely agree. There is abuse of human rights and the introduction of Sharia law by stealth, it is alleged. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has talked about rape as a means of converting Christians to Islam. Referring to my previous remarks about religion, I remind him that, in Kosovo, the Christians were raping the Muslims to destroy their lives and to ensure that they could not be proper Muslims any more. It happens on both sides all the time. That is why I loathe religion so much.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North—East Fife (Mr. Campbell) wrote to the Egyptian embassy and, indeed, to the Foreign Secretary after the incidents over the millennium in Al Kosheh, and was assured that the Egyptian Government had taken the matter seriously. For what it is worth, I shall quote the embassy response:
The incidents which occurred on the 2nd January 2000 at the city of Dar El Salam were a reaction to false information and rumours about events in Al Kosheh.
A large number of the Christian inhabitants of Al Kosheh … took refuge and were hiding in the houses of their Moslem neighbours.
Such friendship between religions is common. People who feel as I do can often be quite friendly across the board.
The embassy response continues
216WH
That reflects the sudden nature of the event and the deep rooted cordial relations between the two communities.
The incidents that occurred in Al Kosheh and the events that followed started with a quarrel between a shop owner and one of his customers.
I have no idea whether that is true.
The investigations establish that these incidents do not reflect a bias towards any religion.
That is what is claimed by the Egyptian Government. I agree that it is difficult to believe when one takes word for word what is said by the Jubilee Campaign and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. I therefore looked up the Amnesty International reports on what was going on in Egypt. I have four pages of them here, three of which are entirely occupied by accounts of abuses of Muslim groups.
The Egyptian Government come down very hard on religious groups, it would appear. We read of torture, imprisonment without trial, the imposition of the death penalty—what I must call the usual pornography of violence which takes place in countries all over the world. The treatment of people by their own police force, and their treatment when in prison, is pornography, and is perpetrated against both Christians and Muslims.
Mr. Leigh: To be fair to the Egyptian Government, they are engaged in a vicious war against an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group. It is an ugly war, and the hon. Lady should be careful about what she says. The Egyptian Government are not persecuting Muslims in any way; they can be accused of acting very strongly, perhaps too strongly, against terrorist groups, but there is no persecution of ordinary Muslims in Egypt.
Dr. Tonge: What I am trying to illustrate is the fact that Egypt's human rights record is by no means good, as far as I can tell from the Amnesty International reports. Even if those arrested are terrorists, there is no need for the treatment that they are receiving. I am saying that there is a good deal of equality in the treatment of the groups involved. I think that the hon. Gentleman made a very biased speech.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on his point about planning applications. It was fair to point out that planning applications for mosques are sometimes difficult to get through in this country. I am pleased to say that there is a mosque in my constituency, which provides a useful centre for Muslims in the constituencies of Richmond Park and Kingston and Surbiton. I hold a surgery there every two months; I am always well received, and always have a good afternoon. I pay tribute to those who go to the mosque and foster such good relations in my community.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I contend that there is some brutality and abuse of human rights in Egypt, but that it is being dished out to all sections of the population, not just to Christians. There is a good deal of doubt about the way that the Egyptian police are behaving.
I must confess a love for Egypt and Egyptians, which I share with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. I have been to Egypt twice, and I had a dear neighbour—a constituent—who was Egyptian. I sprinkled his ashes in

217WH
Kew Gardens a few weeks ago. He loved his country, but he loved the United Kingdom equally, and I think he would be horrified if he were able to listen to this debate. Perhaps he is listening.
We need to reassure Egypt of our support. We want it to be part of the international community. However, I appeal to Government representatives from the Egyptian embassy—I am sure that they are here—to listen carefully to the debate, and to improve human rights for all their people.
10.25 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on introducing the debate. We all recognise and applaud the fact that he genuinely tries, as a Member of Parliament, to consider some of the key moral issues of our times and the practices in our society in the light of Christian ethics, and I believe that all Members respond to his sentiments. The same can be said of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess).
Although there are no clear figures relating to the size of the Christian minority in Egypt, it is undoubtedly significant, and 90 per cent. of the Christian community belongs to the Coptic Orthodox tradition. Many years ago, I stumbled into a church in Luxor where a mass was taking place, and was very moved by the ceremony.
In our country, we believe in religious diversity, and think that it should be accommodated in any pluralistic society. There is no doubt that Christians in Egypt have suffered significant difficulties, especially at the hands of Islamic groups, in a number of ways.
The jizya tax originated in the seventh century, and involved the defeated Jews of Khaybar paying a tribute to their Muslim conquerors. Some Islamic groups are trying to revive the tax, claiming that Christians and Jews accorded a separate and subordinate status under Sharia law must pay a special tribute to secure their own protection. The Egyptian human rights lawyer Moris Sadek says that the tax is nothing more than
a form of extortion used by Islamic militants to fund their campaign of intimidation and terror against Christians, tourists and the government.
The extent to which some Islamic groups are prepared to go to reinstate the tax is of considerable concern. In an interview with Al Ahram Weekly in 1997, Mustafa Mashhour, head of the Islamic group Muslim Brotherhood, publicly called on Muslims to impose the tax, saying:
Christians must pay jizya … it is part of Sharia.
Human rights groups in Egypt estimate that up to 2,000 Christians are being forced to pay; the actual figure may be considerably higher.
Coptic Orthodox leaders describe the practice as akin to a "religious mafia". It is reported that at least 40 Copts have been killed for refusing to pay the tax in recent years. Some Christians are too afraid to inform the police of the pressures. There is a widespread belief among Christians that pressure is being put on the Christian minority, either directly or indirectly, to convert to Islam.
218WH
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) spoke of her loathing of religion. She talked of the violence of rape, but she was really talking about human failings and human weaknesses, however detestable. That is the antithesis of what religion is about. To equate feelings about those terrible human failings and weaknesses with a loathing of religion is a quantum leap that I would not wish to make.
The Christian community is vulnerable to many kinds of pressure because of its economic situation. There is a widespread belief that there is discrimination against Christians in terms of employment and promotion, and that conversion to Islam is the only way of improving their economic position. There are reports of constant intimidation and persecution, to which my hon. Friends have alluded. Let me describe the problem affecting one family.
In March 1997, 13-year-old Teresa Shakir, a Coptic Christian in the eighth grade at school, was taken by her teacher—believed to be an Islamic extremist—to a police station. The police and the teacher tried to force her to convert to Islam, it has been alleged. Her family were able to obtain a form from the chief of police, instructing that the young girl be returned to her father, but it is reported that the local police refused to release her. Only after the family had contacted human rights organisations, Pope Shenouda and the office of the President was the girl finally released. The police had held her incommunicado for nine days.
In November 1997, Teresa's older brother returned home late one night to discover that his parents and younger brother had been shot to death, and another sister wounded. Teresa was also dead. Her brother ran to the police station to report the incident, and was arrested and accused of murder. To cut a long story short, a retrial is due to take place, at which I hope that justice will be done.
The case that I have described has been a major source of anxiety in the Christian community, whose members do not consider the Shakirs' family history to be unique. Egyptian Christians feel threatened by Islamic groups. Rightly or wrongly, they do not feel adequately protected by the police.
I hope that the Minister will say what recent representations he and the Foreign Secretary have made to the Egyptian Government about the problems of the Christian community and their human rights. What measures can he take to seek to improve the human rights of Egyptian Christians?
Egypt is, of course, the jewel in the crown of Islam. Its unique history, beauty, and intellectual and spiritual life have exerted an influence on the whole Islamic family of nations. Britain has close and friendly relations with Egypt, and it is also worth noting that the Egyptian Government have had their own significant problems with Islamic fundamentalists. They have reacted vigorously against such violence and extremism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) noted.
Mr. John Bercow: I declare an interest in that I recently took part in a visit to Egypt, courtesy of the Gulf Centre for Strategic Studies. In the course of it, I raised the subject of the death penalty. Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence on the Egyptian

219WH
parliamentary statute book of the death penalty is undesirable, as is the fact that conversion from Islam to any other faith is punishable by death? Do not those factors effectively act as a spur to private citizens in Egypt, who think that it is both legitimate and desirable to mete out violence to people who are Christians or who are in the process of converting from Islam to Christianity?
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that the Minister will take it on board, and that he will consider it in the light of Egypt's human rights obligations.
No one is suggesting that the Egyptian Government promote any calculated persecution of the country's Christian citizens. Traditionally, there has been greater religious tolerance in Egypt than in many other parts of the world. However, I urge the Minister to bring to the attention of the Egyptian Government the important questions of religious freedom and human rights set out so graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.
Egypt is a member of the United Nations. It is a signatory to the international covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights. The attempts by Islamic groups to reinstate the tax that I described, the planning difficulties alluded to so powerfully by my hon. Friends, and the ordeal of the Shakir family that I set out illustrate the pressures on Egypt's Christian minority. These concerns have been raised frequently by Egyptian Christians, most recently after the tragic incident in January described by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, when 21 Christians were killed. I therefore urge the Government to raise the issues of justice and equality for all Egyptian citizens, in practice as well as in the law.
10.35 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): It is routine to congratulate hon. Members on securing a debate such as this, but I shall go further and say that the Government are grateful to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for introducing this topic.
The hon. Gentleman has a track record in such matters, and his interest in the welfare of Christians worldwide is well known, in this Chamber and beyond. He has led several delegations on behalf of Christians to my office in recent months, the last time on behalf of Christians in Burma, and he is respected for the consistent rigour with which he campaigns. Raising this important subject in the Chamber, as other hon. Members have noted, helps maintain a spotlight on it, as our deliberations go far beyond this quiet Westminster Hall.
I also welcome the tolerant tone of the debate, which has been well balanced. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) called for constructive dialogue, and t hat has been evident in the spirit of the debate. I agree that what the hon. Member for Gainsborough called the plight of people is important and relevant, and that we should regularly discuss such matters. Violence and abuse are unacceptable, and the House's opposition to them should present a seamless robe.
220WH
Freedom of religious worship is a basic human right, and must be respected. All hon. Members should work together to ensure that it is respected fully, and we have a duty and responsibility to raise such matters in debate.
I know that many hon. Members have read troubling reports in the press and have received direct accounts about violence between Christians and Muslims in Egypt. They have also come across allegations of police brutality and of other harm to members of the Christian Churches in Egypt. The hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have presented a detailed and worrying catalogue of charges this morning. I shall try to respond to the points that have been raised, and to set out what the Government have done. I shall be happy to receive more details from hon. Members who want to take matters further, and to act on them. I assure hon. Members that the Jubilee Campaign's representations continue to be welcome and respected, and that the Government take them seriously.
I shall begin with the incidents in upper Egypt to which some hon. Members have referred. The first Al Kosheh incident in August-September 1998 resulted in the murder of two Christian villagers. That was followed by numerous arrests and there were allegations that many of those arrested were tortured in police custody.
The Government have made clear to the Egyptian authorities our concern that the allegations—in particular those of police brutality—must be fully and effectively investigated. Soon after his appointment last year, the new Egyptian prosecutor general reopened the investigation. It remains open, due to the number of matters under investigation. The Government will keep a close eye on developments.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is no longer present, but I can say, in response to his intervention earlier, that people do not believe that the Egyptian Government are systematically persecuting people. Independent human rights organisations have stated that more than 80 per cent. of the Al Kosheh villagers are Copts. They point out that it is, therefore, not surprising that, when arrests are made after an incident, some or most of those arrested will be Copts.
However, that inevitable effect of the numbers involved in no way excuses any torture that may have taken place—one case of the torture of a human being is one too many. Although what has happened does not necessarily add up to organised religious persecution, that does not mean that the Government do not take the matter seriously.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough drew attention to the case of William Shaiboob, the Copt who has now been found guilty of the two murders and sentenced to 15 years hard labour. We are following his case with close attention, as two of the main witnesses at his trial withdrew their evidence and claimed to have been tortured.
I understand that, on Monday, Mr. Shaiboob's defence lawyers put a request for an appeal to the Court of Cassation, Egypt's highest appeal court. That case is now being heard. It is, therefore, technically sub judice so we cannot comment further as that would prejudice it. However, our embassy in Cairo is following the case closely, and will keep Ministers informed. I shall be

221WH
happy to keep right hon. and hon. Members who have raised these points and others informed as we receive information.
The second incident took place in and around Al Kosheh in January this year, when violence and rioting left some 20 Christians and one Muslim dead, and 19 Muslims and 14 Christians injured. As with the first Al Kosheh incident, our embassy in Cairo has been keeping us up to date with regular reports. We have discussed the incident on several occasions with the Egyptian authorities; we are not afraid to raise these difficult issues with Egypt, because our strong relationship enables us to have a tough conversation occasionally, and that is as it should be. We have a good, open and free dialogue with the Egyptian Government on these matters. We have discussed them on several occasions, and have stressed the need to investigate them fully and bring wrongdoers who commit crimes to trial. That is exactly what we are monitoring now.
Given the intense interest that there has been, and in order to hear from the villagers first hand, a member of our embassy staff in Cairo visited Al Kosheh in May. He was the first and only embassy official from any country to visit so far. He talked to members of the village council as well as to individual Muslim and Christian villagers, including some of those whose relatives had been killed. He found that the atmosphere in the village was stable—there is now a strong security presence to ensure law and order and calm.
It was clear that the authorities had also made some real efforts to encourage reconciliation between the communities. Whether those efforts are successful will become clear only with time. Obviously, given the feelings of animosity and mistrust in that poor, traditional and divided rural community, in which more than 80 per cent. of the population is Christian, it remains to be seen whether reconciliation and tolerance work at a local level, but it is a project to work at.
We understand that when the Egyptian authorities set up their investigation into the second Al Kosheh incident, they consulted religious leaders and coordinated their efforts closely with them. On 11 March, the public prosecutor announced that he had completed his investigation into the events, and that 97 Muslims and 38 Copts would be charged in connection with the murders and the events leading up to them. I understand that five Copts have been charged with attempted murder, and that the rest have been charged with illegal assembly, damage to property and ownership of firearms without licence. No religious leaders, it might be noted, have been charged.
Two trials opened on 3 and 4 June, in a normal criminal court. One was for those accused from Al Kosheh and the other was for those accused from a nearby village. Both trials were adjourned until 7 August and 3 July respectively. Our embassy in Cairo will continue to monitor both trials. In other words, where there is criminal activity, the due course of law and order in bringing people to trial should take place. We like to insist that it does, and we are monitoring the fact that it is. That should be on the record, and part of the account of these events.
222WH
Other questions have been raised, of a rather wider nature. The hon. Member for Gainsborough listed a number of tragic attacks on Christians by Muslims, including acts of terrorism. All people should deplore murder, and terrorism in particular, wherever it occurs. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a systematic and brutal attack by extremists. I would simply add that systematic and brutal attacks by extremists are extremely difficult for any society to defend itself against, as we have seen recently in other countries, without the state taking an over-secure approach, as it were, to tackle the possibility of problems.
Sadly, the problem of terrorist attacks is not confined to Egypt and nor, within Egypt, has it been confined to Copts. Foreign tourists, including British citizens, have also suffered at the hands of fundamentalist terrorists. The Egyptian authorities have expressed their determination to prevent such attacks and to increase security for all. We fully support their attempts to increase security for all. The difficulty, as the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) pointed out, is that that can lead to a kind of over-protection to defend people against possible terrorist attacks. Getting the balance right is extremely difficult in individual circumstances.
Acts of fundamentalist terrorism must be the most difficult threat that any society can face. It does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong or corrupt at the heart of a state if there are terrorist activities within it.
Some hon. Members have claimed that there is systematic state discrimination against Copts that amounts to persecution. We maintain a regular dialogue with many Coptic Christians, from the Coptic Pope, to bishops and clergy, and to ordinary members of local communities in Egypt and elsewhere. We listen to their views and opinions—we take readings of their interpretation of the situation. Not surprisingly, as in all human situations, we hear a range of different opinions, not least on discrimination. While some Copts do indeed talk of persecution, other leading Copts tell us that they do not believe that there is a general Egyptian Government policy of discrimination against Christians; nor do they talk of persecution. We need to take that range of views into account in working towards that agenda. Building an atmosphere of tolerance and respect has been mentioned in this debate.
The Copts are deeply concerned, as are we, about any cases of violence, allegations of police brutality and other reports that raise human rights concerns. Such matters are always of concern, regardless of the ethnic or religious background of the person or group concerned. However, that does not necessarily mean that there is active state persecution in Egypt.
The Egyptian constitution provides for equal public rights and duties without discrimination due to religion or creed. Forced conversion, to which hon. Members have referred, is illegal under the constitution. The President has been very clear on such issues, stating publicly that he wants to see more Christians in the next People's Assembly after the elections this autumn. Ensuring that assemblies, Parliaments and Governments are properly balanced according to the population is not always easy, as we know from our experience in this place when it comes to getting the

223WH
balance right between the genders. However, that is on the agenda of the Egyptian President, which is encouraging.
We have also seen positive changes on another issue that the hon. Gentleman raised—the difficulties that Christian communities in Egypt have faced in building and maintaining their places of worship. It is just a few years since William Dalrymple's book came out. I suggest that matters have improved slightly since then. The difficulty that Christian communities face in this respect is on the agenda.
In 1998, authority for granting permission for church repairs was devolved from the President to the regional governors. I am not opposed to that. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley—I nearly said upper Ribble, but it is more like the valley of the Ribble—made a telling intervention about linking that to events here, as did the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). When planning permission is sought in this country, reconciling local communities of Christians, non-Christians and Muslims in not easy. I know that from my own constituency.
Negotiations for a community centre to have a minaret on it so that it can become a mosque can turn into an enormous argument and conflict about religious histories and traditions. I am waiting to see what happens when the application is made for the call to prayer five times a day to begin at sunrise, not at 7 am every morning, given that sunrise is currently at 4.28 am. I am simply saying that we have not reconciled those conflicts in our society either, so we need to work together internationally on the agendas of tolerance.
I prefer such decisions to be taken locally, rather than that the Prime Minister should decide whether a mosque should be sited in my constituency. To devolve such decisions to local areas is not a bad thing. It should be a stimulus for people to work together to build communities, instead of being antagonistic and oppositional, and not seeking reconciliation.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman is itching to intervene, so I gladly give way.
Mr. Bercow: Notwithstanding the Minister's remarks about the Egyptian constitution, will he comment on the fact, about which the Jubilee Campaign—among others—is most concerned, that, under Sharia law, conversion from Islam to another faith is punishable by death? There seems to be something of a tension between the constitution and the practice of the Islamic faith.
Mr. Battle: There appears to be a tension, but I made it clear that forced conversion is illegal. The question remains: does it happen? The practice in local communities may not always comply with the law and then the state has to act to ensure that the local community conforms. I accept that there is tension—just as there are tensions in this country over similar issues. However, we do not have time to spell them out, and this may not be an appropriate debate in which to do so.
224WH
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "tension", as that suggests that we should address the matter. There is conflict, but it does not need to degenerate into violence and personal abuse; we should look for ways to reconcile such conflict locally, so that people can live together, tolerating each other's activities, behaviour and practices—respecting one another as human beings. That should be the challenge for all religious traditions; it should be at the heart of their theological practice. I make that point because there is no easy reconciliation between the law and practice in any context.
As I pointed out, the authority for granting permission for church repairs was devolved, in 1998, from the President to the regional governors, but, in December 1999, it was decreed that all places of worship would be subject to the 1976 civil construction code—putting mosques and churches on an equal footing. Permission for new church buildings remained in the hands of the President, but, as hon. Members will be aware—from correspondence with my Department and with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—President Mubarak has agreed all applications put to him since he came into office in 1981. When such matters were referred nationally, there was agreement; that brought about reconciliation locally, including over planning permission. If we consider planning permission in our own country, there are also some question marks; we can understand the tensions involved in that process.
We shall continue to follow these matters closely; we take them seriously. We raise them regularly—not merely through nods and hints in passing conversations, but to point out that they are important matters. We have strong back-up evidence and research, and we need to act on them. We discuss them with the Egyptian Government and religious leaders.
When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Cairo in January, he met a wide range of people from many communities, including Sheikh Al Azhar, the leading Egyptian Muslim cleric, and Bishop Daniel, a Coptic bishop, as well as President Mubarak and other members of the Government. He discussed inter-faith issues and the importance of dialogue and tolerance. He pointed out that, even though all our societies have not resolved such matters, we could none the less work together on a common agenda.
That conversation and those representations were not a one-off. We shall maintain our dialogue with the Egyptian Government; we shall welcome positive change when we see it; we shall encourage the authorities to bring to justice anyone who has committed a crime or violated international human rights standards; but we shall not be afraid to raise human rights concerns. At the same time, we need to try to remain in touch with a wide range of Egyptian Christians so that we receive first-hand reports of matters that affect Christian communities in Egypt—cases of discrimination, for example.
While balancing the evidence, we must continue to raise such matters and to campaign for an increase in tolerance. The way in which we do so can either contribute to the spirit of tolerance or can undermine it.

225WH
This morning's debate could help, in a small way, towards generating a stronger atmosphere of tolerance—the tone of the debate is to be welcomed.
The debate will not be confined to this Chamber; these matters will be taken further—by the Government and by the Egyptian authorities. We thank the hon. Member for Gainsborough again for raising the issue, as well as for his introduction and presentation of the debate—it was a model to all of us.

Health Services (London)
10.55 am
Dr. Jenny Tongs: This debate was requested by some Liberal Democrats from south-west London; it was not initiated solely by me. We hope that the Government will treat it as part of their consultation exercise. I cannot mention everything, but I want to raise one or two matters in the context of the future of the national health service and the next tranche of money that the Government will allocate to it. I do not speak as a Liberal Democrat spokesperson; this is a Back-Bench debate, so for its purposes I am a Back-Bencher, expressing my Back-Bench views.
The Prime Minister often says that the NHS must get used to change. However, at present, the health service is definitely sick and one of the causes of its sickness is change—unfortunately. Although I accept that much change is needed this time—this year—the Government must get it right. We cannot go on reorganising the health service, because the energy of everyone—managers, doctors and nurses—is going into the process of change and reorganisation, instead of into the improvement of patient care. As someone who has worked in the health service for many years and who has undergone many changes and reorganisations, I plead with the Government to try to get it right this time.
The health of Londoners has always been at issue. I have been practising for long enough to remember when the Black report on the health of Londoners was published. I do not know what happened to that report. It stressed the importance of the link between poverty and deprivation and ill health. It made exactly the same points as eight subsequent reports. I do not know why we have to keep producing reports that say the same thing.
London has some incredible centres of excellence. Some of the best medicine and surgery in the world is practised in this city, but, at the other end of the scale, we have inner-city areas where medical facilities are appalling and where there is squalor, poverty and ill health.
I was considering the health services in the Tottenham area, as a by-election will be held there soon. They are patchy. I compared some of the statistics for Tottenham with those for Richmond, which is in Surrey but is also a part of London. In Tottenham, the infant mortality rate is three times higher, and the rates for tuberculosis are five times higher than those in Richmond.
Long ago, as a medical student, I was taught that a key indicator of poverty and deprivation is TB. It occurs where there is poor housing, poor health and poor nutrition. We have that in areas of London. I obtained the figures for TB from the Library; they clearly show a frightening rise in the number of cases in London over recent years.
I have spoken to people who work in the national health service who have had to contend with, among other things, the recent scandalous shortages of TB vaccine. I must draw the matter to the Minister's attention. It is no excuse to say that the manufacturer does not want to manufacture the vaccine any more because the patents have run out and it is not making enough money from it. Someone must get on with

227WH
manufacturing that vaccine, so that a generation of children does not grow up unprotected against TB. TB is on the march and it is resistant, and it is an indicator of what needs to be done in this city.
Let us consider the modernisation funds that were recently given by the Government and gratefully received by the health service. I understand that the first tranche was intended for primary care development, but in the London area 90 per cent. of it was used to address the deficits of the trusts; it did not go into primary care at all. The London region had allowed St. Mary's hospital and the Chelsea and Westminster hospital—large, famous teaching hospitals—to run up huge deficits. The new money was used to pay off the debt.
The remaining 10 per cent. of the first tranche was used to pay off the overspend on drugs in primary care. I know that the Government are addressing that problem, so I shall not go into it in detail; I simply ask how will the Government ensure that the second tranche of money, which we are all looking forward to, will be used for patients, not to cover the debt that has built up over years of mismanagement of the health service. In attributing responsibility for that mismanagement, I would cite previous Governments more than the current Government.
General practitioners are very enthusiastic about primary care groups and trusts. After initial reservations, all the GPs in my area whom I talk to now express enthusiasm. Particularly in the London area, we desperately need computerised records, but they must link up with those of hospitals. I understand that my local health authority, the Kingston and Richmond health authority, will run a pilot scheme for computerised patient records. I hope that the hospitals will be as enthusiastic about it as the general practices are, because it seems to me that the consultants and some of the people working in the hospitals are less enthusiastic about the switch to computerised records than the GPs.
Before I leave the subject of GPs, I repeat my plea on behalf of those in the London area who have had to wrestle with the problem of asylum seekers in the past two years. It has been a great problem for them. One of the greatest difficulties has been the lack of translators and language facilities. Everyone knows that there is a telephone line that one can ring to obtain a translation of almost any language, but it is very difficult—as I have found—to conduct a consultation with a patient in a consulting room when a telephone is in the way.
Mr. Philip Hammond: Does that remark indicate a lack of confidence in NHS Direct, where there is a telephone in the way of the consultation?
Dr. Tonge: No. The patient telephones NHS Direct and receives advice. As a doctor, I have reservations about that service, but I was referring to the language service that doctors can use when they have a patient with whom they cannot communicate. I have had to use it myself. One rings the language service and speaks to someone who can speak Serbo-Croat or whatever language one needs, and then one has to interview the patient via the telephone, which is terribly difficult—almost impossible. I hope that the Government will acknowledge that GPs in the London area have been wrestling with those problems.
228WH
Although it is not a feature of London alone, a problem remains in co-ordination between health services and social services. I have worked on both sides of the pale: I have been chair of a social services department and I have worked as a manager in community health. The two sides must be brought together. The Liberal Democrats would like to see them brought together under the auspices of local government. I do not mind any more how they are brought together, but they must be brought together. In the interests of patients, the buck-passing cannot continue.
I shall briefly discuss beds and NHS facilities. Over the past 10 years, there has been a 35 per cent. reduction in acute beds in the health service in the London area. I have failed—someone else in the Chamber might be able to help me—to find the figure for the percentage reduction in mental health beds, but I know that too many have been closed and that even the Government admit that.
The enthusiasm for competition and the internal market led hospital to fight hospital against closures. In my area, two hospitals were competing for supremacy. To show their hospital in a better light than the competitor, managers made extravagant claims and projections about how they would cope with patient flows, where patients would go and how facilities in their hospital would be able to cope—claims that did not materialise.
I plead with the Government: if there are to be any more closures in the London area, for heaven's sake let us have the extra facilities in place before a hospital is closed. In my area, the closure of facilities at Queen Mary's hospital in Roehampton created chaos at Kingston hospital. I pay tribute to the staff and managers at Kingston hospital who dealt with that, but the casualty department was woefully inadequate. Now, thankfully, the money has come through and a new casualty department will be ready at the end of next year, but that should have been in existence before Queen Mary's hospital closed; likewise the beds to replace those in Queen Mary's hospital. What I describe as a portakabin ward had to be put up to accommodate the extra patients. Funding has only just come through to create a proper ward block to look after our patients adequately.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) had been here—I pass on his apologies—he would have told hon. Members that in our area we also urgently need better diagnostic facilities. Patients from a huge area depend on Kingston hospital, and the facilities at Queen Mary's hospital are sadly out of date. For example, we have no magnetic resonance imaging in the area. In the United States, every hospital has an MRI scanner—it is standard diagnostic equipment nowadays. We must have proper facilities. Likewise, for radiotherapy we have old cobalt machines instead of linear accelerators. There is so much to be done.
The bed closures have caused a phenomenon that horrifies me. Bed occupancy rates are often touted. If we visit hospital managers—I do so regularly—we are told that bed occupancy rates are 95 or 96 per cent. My response is that that is a disgrace. It is impossible to run an acute hospital if 95 per cent. of its beds are occupied all the time. The result is that sick people must wait on

229WH
trolleys and chairs for empty beds. In the mental health sector in London, the bed occupancy rates are 130 per cent. That does not mean that there is one patient at the top of the bed and another at the bottom; it means that while a patient goes out for treatment for a day, another patient occupies their bed while they are away. It is appalling.
High bed occupancy also causes poor hygiene. Recently, I initiated a debate about the rise in methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus infection and the lack of hygiene in NHS hospitals. High bed occupancy is the cause. There is not enough time even to wash one's hands between patients, to clean down drips caked with blood or to ensure that the ward is tidy.
We cannot continue with such occupancy rates. They cause bad practice and corner cutting, and if there is an influenza epidemic or a disaster—such as a serious crash—they cause mayhem. I have experienced it. We must tackle the problem. We need more empty beds in the national health service, and we need more low-tech beds for the so-called bed blockers—those poor and mainly elderly patients who cannot be sent home and must be kept in hospital while social services and the health service pass the buck between themselves to decide whose responsibility they are.
I urge the Government, before they close any more small hospitals and cottage hospitals, to think very seriously about improving those hospitals in the London area in the context of low-tech beds, GP beds and nursing beds where elderly patients can receive the sort of care that they expected to receive for the rest of their life from the health service.
Other issues that affect London disproportionately are pay and accommodation. I saw a student nurse in my surgery last week. She is a mature student with two children, but her husband walked out on her three years ago, so she is on her own. She had managed to find a house that was just about big enough for herself and her two children and the rent was £10,500 a year. That is a bargain and good going in the Kingston and Richmond area, so she is not complaining about that. However, her bursary—it takes into account the fact that she has two small children—to be a student nurse at Kingston university and at St. George's hospital in Tooting is £8,500. Because she is a student nurse, she cannot claim income support and, because she is not on income support, she cannot receive housing benefit.
There is no way that my constituent could manage unless she did care assistant work at night. She thought she might be able to claim the working families tax credit if she carried out her studies during the day, picked up her children and worked at night. However, she then faced the problem of finding someone to look after her children at night, and that costs money. Will the Government please examine this problem, which does not affect only student nurses? I have been lobbied by other nurses. One of them said, "I'm really lucky that I have a council house, but my pay and conditions are so awful. I am so busy, tired and stressed that I think that I am going to have to leave nursing."
The price of accommodation is a big problem in London. I do not know whether it can be addressed through London weighting. It affects not only nurses
230WH
but pathology laboratory technicians. We have all heard about the cytology technicians—they are university graduates—who earn £12,000 or £13,000 a year. There is a huge need for better pay and conditions for staff in London.
I take a deep breath before I mention hospital consultants. I shall qualify my remarks by saying that the vast majority of hospital consultants—I am married to one and I know many of them—are decent people who do an amazing job and work extremely hard. The British Medical Association will tell us that independent research carried out for the doctors and dentists review body by MORI in February 1999 showed that hospital consultants worked on average 50 hours a week in the health service, and that is not bad. Surgeons and anaesthetists work between 40 and 70 hours per week in the health service.
The research does not break down the figures for London and it does not go into much detail on them. I have had experience of the health service for 30 years and I know exactly what is involved. In the London area, consultants have a huge opportunity for private practice and their contracts are arranged in a rather odd way. One can be a full-time consultant and work eleven elevenths of one's time, because the contracts normally include Saturday morning. That still enables consultants to practise privately, provided that they do not earn more than 10 per cent. of their health service salary. I would not accuse consultants of fiddling their tax; I am sure that they do not do that. We must accept that they work their eleven elevenths in the health service, put in many hours and earn only 10 per cent. extra.
However, many consultants opt for another contract. It is a nine-elevenths contract which gives them two free sessions a week in which they can practise privately. Some say, "Okay. On Wednesdays and Thursdays, I work in the private sector, but I work for the NHS for the rest of the week." Many consultants work that way and it is absolutely fair and above board. However, there are a number—I know because I have worked in the NHS—who spread the two sessions over lunchtimes, early mornings, evenings and any other time when they get a senior registrar to cover for them. I could tell all sorts of anecdotes and tales of consultants who are not in NHS hospitals as much as they should be, but who can always be found in private hospitals. The problem of consultant contracts must be addressed for the sake of the future of the medical profession and the reputation of consultants.
Mr. Hammond: Obviously, no one condones anyone who seeks to cheat the system. However, for the sake of balance. Will the hon. Lady tell us whether she is aware from her personal experience of the surgeons and anaesthetists who would like to carry out more NHS work, but who are unable to do so because of the rigidities relating to support staffing and operating theatres?
Dr. Tonge: I entirely accept that point and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. Consultant contracts are not the only problem. Many consultants are forced not to work for the health service because of the non-availability of an operating theatre owing to the closure of hospitals and the lack of provision in the

231WH
hospitals that remain, or to the lack of staff or beds. I shall return to that point later, which, if not the only reason, is one of the reasons for the problem that has been described.
I represent a well-heeled constituency and when my constituents see a consultant, they are disturbed when they are invariably asked whether they want to be seen privately. If they do, they are told that they can be seen tomorrow or the next week. If they do not, they have to spend 12 to 18 months on the waiting list. That makes people suspicious and upset. If the same consultant can operate on them next week, why cannot they be operated on under the health service next week? Why do they have to wait 18 months for the same man to carry out the operation?
Even more ridiculous things happen in specialisms such as diagnostic radiology. I know of a consultant in a hospital not far from here who sees all the private patients and carries out all the investigations on the private patients that are referred to his department. The patients are referred by general practitioners and other doctors from all over the region and the managers love that because it brings revenue into the hospital. The consultant takes his fee from the patient and then returns a little whack to the hospital for the use of its facilities. Consultants who see private patients who have jumped the queue in the health service cause health service patients to wait much longer for their investigations.
In the hospital that I have mentioned, there is not a particularly long wait for the investigations; it has plenty of capacity. However, a young woman in my constituency has had to wait nine months for a pelvic ultrasound examination. That is ridiculous when private patients can be seen in an NHS hospital just five or six miles away and have the same investigation carried out within a week. That cannot be right, so I urge the Government to tackle that problem.
I suspect that I shall not have any friends or colleagues left if they get to hear about what I have said this morning, but—to be really nasty—the consultants who carry out the most work in private practice are, sadly, the consultants who receive the biggest merit awards. The more doctors and surgeons one knows and the more one is a member of the private practice referral club, the more likely one is to be nominated by one's colleagues for a merit award. That fact must be aired publicly, so I put my head on the block by airing the issue this morning. The Government must take that problem on board.
There is no shortage of consultants in London and there is certainly no shortage of beds and facilities; there is loads of spare capacity in the private sector. If the Government are serious about reducing waiting times and waiting lists, they have two clear options. They can use the private sector for NHS patients and let Sir Lancelot Spratt take his patient for a hip replacement down the road to a private hospital if he cannot do the operation in an NHS hospital—and why not? Alternatively, we should tell consultants that if they work exclusively in the health service where they will be given more beds and better facilities, they will receive much greater rewards than they currently earn.
Most NHS consultants receive consultant pay, not consultant. Pay plus merit awards. Therefore, their pay is not comparable to that of lawyers, who probably earn
232WH
two or three times as much they do. In addition, lawyers do not suffer from the angst and are not subject to the flak that consultants have experienced in recent years.
Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Lady not see a potential danger in inviting the most eminent surgeons to make the choice that she has described? There is the risk that they will be lost to the health service altogether. I have always found it a rather attractive feature of the health service that a surgeon who charges a high fee to see a wealthy patient from overseas in the morning will work in the afternoon seeing patients free at the point of use in the health system. Is that not a strength of our system?
Dr. Tonge: It is a strength of the system, provided that it is not abused. My contention is that the majority of consultants probably do not abuse it. However, those of us who have worked in the medical profession know that it is abused. Often, when an eminent person is seeing a patient in his private rooms, his senior registrar and junior staff may be coping like Trojans in his out-patient clinic in an NHS hospital. That needs to be examined carefully and tactfully. The Government must recognise that consultants need better rewards than they currently receive in the NHS if they are to compare with other specialties and are to continue to take the risk of doing complicated procedures that may sometimes lead to a patient's death. However, both options cost money.
I am sorry to have taken so long, but I shall conclude with a point about funding, which relates not just to the health service in London, although it affects us acutely. The health service cannot go on without secure guaranteed funding every year, and funding must not depend on the whims of the Government, focus groups or whatever we think will give us enough political kudos. The health service needs far more funding than the Liberal Democrats have ever proposed and more than the Government are planning to give it. Indeed, it needs more money than any political party is prepared to take out of direct taxation. That is the problem: no one is honest enough to tell the British people that if they really want the sort of health service to which they aspire, it will cost them money. It would actually be much cheaper to pay far more in taxes than to take out private health insurance, perish the thought. The problem is never declared openly and we desperately need a debate about how we will fund the health service in future.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): There are seven speakers to get in if everyone who wishes to make a contribution to our debate is to be satisfied. I must therefore alert the Chamber to the fact that I shall be looking for concise, pertinent and clear statements that do not take an awfully long time.
11.22 am
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: As is traditional, I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing the debate. I agree with her concerns about mental health beds in the capital and think that her point about them was particularly important, although I suspect that the thrust of her other remarks will get the most attention. I share the general view that the amount of private work done by a small number of consultants needs to be

233WH
examined by the Government. I understand that that is happening, but the Minister may be able to comment further.
I welcome the debate as it is almost a year since we last debated London's health services, on a Government motion in an Adjournment debate. Today's debate gives us an opportunity to see how London's health services have progressed in implementing the Government's health reforms. This time last year, the key strategic issue facing London was how to inculcate the principle of partnership. The hon. Lady's experience of two local hospitals battling for supremacy is one with which my constituents would have considerable sympathy. In our debate last year, I said that, at times, there seemed to be a sense of bureaucratic imperialism in the health service, with the chief executive of an acute hospital battling with the chief executive of another hospital over services that they wanted.
How have matters developed in the past year? I shall give local examples and discuss the atmosphere now prevailing in Harrow's health care services, which have embraced the Government's national priorities with enthusiasm. In relation to national priorities on heart disease and strokes, the Harrow West primary care group has agreed local development schemes and incentive targets with all GPs and practices in the group. The GPs have identified all the patients on their lists at risk of heart disease, strokes and diabetes. There are now proper records and monitoring of the treatment of those patients. There is new investment by the primary care group in clinics, and staffing levels to meet concerns about heart disease, strokes and diabetes.
Another positive development in health prevention is the recent launch of the Harrow Heartbeat health campaign, which is a multi-agency primary prevention exercise aimed at raising public awareness of how to avoid heart disease and diabetes. The primary care group has worked to develop better access to care and has been successful in extending psychological counselling, for example. There used to be only 13 practices with access to such counselling; now all 27 practices in the primary care group have access to such services.
Practice-based mobile ultrasound services have been extended from two primary care teams to 22 practices in the primary care group, and local waiting times have come down from 11 weeks to two weeks, easing considerably the pressure on hospital ultrasound services, especially at Northwick Park hospital. All practices are now able to carry out cryosurgery—surgery on bumps and lumps—which, again, eases the pressure on hospital out-patient referrals. There have therefore been positive local developments on better access to care for patients.
Most significantly, £2 million is being invested in Northwick Park hospital's accident and emergency unit. That investment has been needed for at least 10 years and is only taking place thanks to this Government. The newly refurbished unit should be open in September. Furthermore, £5.8 million is due to be invested in two linear accelerators at the Mount Vernon cancer unit, which will substantially improve the quality of cancer care available to my constituents and others in the
234WH
region who benefit from the hospital. It will also give my constituents much-needed reassurance about the future of Mount Vernon hospital.
There is considerable concern nationally about quality of care, not least in the light of what is taking place on the issue at the General Medical Council this week. In my constituency, the primary care group has delivered a clinical audit covering all GP practices, and a second audit is due to take place. Proper peer review visits are being made to all the primary care practices. There have therefore been good and positive developments in both primary and secondary care in my constituency.
We have done a lot, but I want to highlight one or two matters on which further work must be done. I spoke in the Easter Adjournment debate to highlight the need to expand the provision of intensive care beds at Northwick Park hospital. There is an urgent need for significant investment in intensive care in outer London, so that my constituents and their relatives do not have to travel into central London to benefit from the intensive care services there.
Northwick Park hospital is ideally placed to benefit from additional investment in intensive care. It is a fully staffed unit. Northwick Park is probably one of the most successful hospitals in London in maintaining a full staffing complement for its intensive care needs. However, the existing facilities are not adequate to meet the local demand. I hope that the Minister will convey as a matter of urgency to her colleagues the need to accept and recognise the business case for an expansion in intensive care beds at Northwick Park.
Another local issue in Brent and Harrow is a review of the capitation process and formula. Under the present formula, Brent and Harrow is considered to be above its target so we tend to receive less growth moneys than other districts. The skill of many of the people who work in the primary care group, the health authority and the local trusts has meant that we have been successful at winning new funds for the NHS locally, but a review of the capitation formula needs to take place. I, for one, do not accept that the formula properly reflects the needs for health care in Harrow.
Recruitment and retention of nurses have received substantial attention in other debates both in this Chamber and in the main Chamber, but recruitment and retention of support workers are equally crucial to the quality of care. I am thinking of cardiac technicians and technicians who work in the delivery of pathology services. The pay and conditions of those professionals need attention.
I suggest that we need some more investment in the assistance that we offer to patients who think that they have not received good service from the NHS. In my constituency, the son of a woman who died had some genuine concerns about the quality of care that she received from one of my local hospitals, but he had and still has problems in obtaining access to medical expertise to advise him and help him read the medical records available to him and judge whether there was significant substance to his concerns. We have done a great deal to improve London's health service and health care for my constituents, but there are other things that we need to do, and I hope that the Minister will take those concerns forward.
11.33 am
Mr. John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing this debate. The attendance shows how popular the subject is and the need for the debate. Perhaps I can make a plea to the Minister. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) said that a year ago we had an Adjournment debate in Government time on health services in London. I suggest that a proper debate on the Floor of the House is about due. We do not want to have any more waiting for that.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park raised one issue about which I have a genuine question. I am not too up on it and perhaps she can give me an answer. I understand that if a GP holds only computerised records and not hard copies, he or she is in breach of some regulation, and that that deters many GPs from computerising records.
In Hillingdon, we have recently had the arrival of the primary care trust—one of the few in London. It is early days, but it has been greeted by most of the people in the health agencies with open arms. It seems that, although it is early days, the enthusiasm and optimism shows that PCTs might well be appropriate in certain areas, certainly in suburban and urban areas.
I and the two other Members of Parliament for the London borough of Hillingdon had a meeting last Friday with all the health agencies, including the community health council, to find out whether there was a cunning plan for Hillingdon. We feel that we are just drifting. We were slightly reassured. We are having a further meeting, but there is a great willingness to work together. We were told by someone from outside the area that Hillingdon is a good example of an area in which everyone is working towards a common goal. The social services department is working closely with the health agency to try to resolve some of the problems that we know exist.
We are not entirely sure what the big plan is for Hillingdon. We have our own vision and ideas of what we want and expect for NHS patients in three or four years' time. Although many matters teed to be dealt with for the time being, we also want to look to the future. We are worried that once we have our own plan, regional and perhaps national plans will be changed.
If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) were here, I am sure that he would raise the problem that he has and that I share in the Uxbridge constituency—the problem of GP practices. As time is short, I will make passing reference to the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has done in promoting the problems facing Mount Vernon and Harefield hospitals, which were mentioned briefly by the hon. Member for Harrow, West.
There is a great deal of concern locally—when I say "locally" I mean over quite a wide area—about threats to close those two hospitals. I cannot single out either of them, but Harefield is regarded as a national asset, and I find strange the idea that it would improve people's health to take them into the inner city for their operations and recuperation. Anyone who has been to Harefield knows what a tranquil and idyllic spot it is. Even a layman such as I realises that being in a place like that aids recovery.
236WH
As time is short, I shall not rehearse the points about Mount Vernon. I mention only the A and E unit, which has gone, and the burns unit and the cleft palate unit, which are under threat. There is a strong feeling locally that consultation with local interested parties is consultation for the sake of it. It seems that the decisions have already been made. Whether that is true remains to be seen, but there is a strong feeling that the consultation is just lip service.
I share many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. I have many of the same problems, including recruitment and retention. The hon. Lady mentioned the TB vaccine. I have taken up the issue and found out that there has been no routine BCG vaccination of children under the schools programme in Hillingdon for the past two years. In a letter dated 21 January 2000, I was told that this was due to the non-availability of BCG vaccine. I should like to know from the Minister whether there has been any improvement and what the Government plan to do about the problem. Are there any plans to vaccinate people who missed out? In that case, there will surely be a huge backlog. In the light of increasing incidence of TB, what threat is there to those children who have not been vaccinated? Do the Government consider the vaccination to be as vital as do the parents of those children who have not been vaccinated? I hear little on the subject from the Government, and I hope that today we shall hear more.
As Members of Parliament, we hear only the complaints, sometimes serious complaints, that come to us, so it is easy for us to think that everything is doom and gloom. Many questions surround the NHS in London. I pay tribute to all those people who work in the health service in Hillingdon, who are doing their utmost, sometimes in difficult conditions. There are some good things going on; I particularly mention the diabetes unit at Hillingdon hospital, which is certainly first class.
I regret that, as a Member of Parliament, I have spent the past three years or so fighting closures in the local health service. I should like to be welcoming the arrival of new services. It is a great shame that most Members of Parliament have been fighting such causes for some while. I make a special plea for increased renal services in our area. There seems to be a dearth of such services in west London—particularly of dialysis, but in a range of other services, too.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the great disappointment and frustration, not only in my area and in London generally but throughout the country, about what is happening in the NHS. If we are not careful to address those concerns quickly, there really will be a crisis. I do not want to talk up crisis for party political gain, but if she walks the streets, she will find that that is what everybody is saying.
11.41 am
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing this vital debate. It is vital in the true sense of that word because it concerns the life and death of our constituents here in London.
I must disagree with the hon. Lady on one specific point. Early in her speech, she made a plea for no more change in the health service. I want more change; I want

237WH
the sort of changes that we are seeing at Northwick Park hospital accident and emergency department. It was originally designed 30 years ago to accommodate just 40,000 attendances a year, but in the past year, that A and E department saw 75,000 people through its doors.
Dr. Tonge: I must qualify the point. There is great difference between reorganisation of management structures and new facilities that will affect patients.
Mr. Gardiner: I understand very well the hon. Lady's point. Indeed, were there time, I would elaborate on it.
I am delighted that we have secured the £2.2 million from the Government modernisation fund to make the change that is needed. Work has already begun. It includes a new six-bed resuscitation unit, a dedicated child care service, 22 new major injury bays, new minor injury bays and accommodation in the new A and E department for 90,000 attendances—more than doubling that of the present design and allowing for a 25 per cent. increase on throughflow. That is the sort of change that I welcome, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would do so, too. It is the sort of change that I want more of.
As anyone in Brent will tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the overcrowding of the A and E department at Northwick Park was desperately exacerbated by the scandalous closure of the emergency unit at Edgware hospital, which was rushed through by the Conservative Government just one month before the election. My greatest disappointment since becoming a Member of Parliament has been to find that we could not reverse that decision.
We had pledged to review the closure. It was only after the election that the true extent of the deviousness surrounding that closure became apparent. The Tories had not just closed the A and E department; without telling the public, they had let the contract to demolish the surgical block. Without surgical back-up, it is of course not safe to have an A and E department. The promised review therefore could not restore the emergency unit. That is the sort of change that I did not want.
Together with other local Members of Parliament, I spoke to colleagues in government—indeed, to the now Secretary of State for Health—and secured for the hospital another review of all the services that were to take place on the site. The full business case for the redevelopment of Edgware hospital has now been approved at a capital cost of £21.8 million. That is £22 million of new money going into services and provision for the local community in Edgware, Brent and Harrow.
A pilot of a primary care walk-in centre will open in August. The new hospital will include consultant-led out-patient services, children's services, day surgery and a birth centre. Those are all changes in the health service in the Brent and Harrow area that we want and on which we welcome the Government's initiative.
However, there are other aspects of the service in Brent and Harrow which the Government must address and change. I believe that the Minister knows of my concern, which is shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and for
238WH
Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), about the provision of breast screening by the Brent and Harrow health authority.
Women should receive reports of abnormal results from breast screening within two weeks. In fact, the results are reported within four weeks. The Government set a target for assessment of abnormal results within two to three weeks. The time span is up to six weeks. That is a desperate situation for women who are concerned about an abnormal scan and who want to find out what is going wrong and what treatment they might be able to receive. Mobile units in the Brent and Harrow health authority are clapped out. There is one left that is working. I challenge anyone to say that a screening unit that has for five months stood in a car park in Stanmore is truly mobile.
Those are the sorts of problems with which we are dealing, and they must be addressed by the Government. I know that ministerial colleagues are committed to providing good oncology services and that screening is one of the most fundamental parts that is subject to the review that the Department is undertaking, but I urge the Minister to respond to the concern of all local Members of Parliament and to ensure proper provision.
I shall finally pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park on the curse of tuberculosis. She talked of it as one of the most fundamental indicators of poverty. She may or may not know that my constituency has the highest incidence of TB. I raise the point because, although otherwise correct, her remarks cannot apply to Brent, North.
Brent, North is a comparatively affluent constituency, but 40 per cent. of its population comes from the Indian subcontinent, and they return there frequently. The health authority—I have been in discussion with it—is convinced that the real problem is with the Indian community visiting family on the subcontinent, where conditions are as the hon. Lady described, contracting TB and returning with the infection. I share her deep concern about the matter, but incidence of the disease in my local community is not indicative of poverty.
If time permitted, I would comment on many other issues. In particular, I welcome the reduction in the waiting lists in the Brent and Harrow health authority at Northwick Park from 11,500 to 8,500—a 25 per cent. reduction during the past three years. However, I am conscious of the time, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
11.50 am
Mr. Andrew Love: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), and apologise for arriving late and missing the start of her contribution.
I shall focus my brief remarks on an issue of major importance to the health service in London—the balance of funding between primary care services and the acute sector. Hospitals have always been synonymous in the public mind with the health service, but most people look to primary care—in many ways the cinderella service—to deal with their health care needs.
The balance of funding has been a problem in London since the advent of the national health service in 1948. A major recommendation of the Tomlinson report in 1992

239WH
was that there should be a shift of resources from the acute sector to primary care. It was suggested that that should be achieved through a reduction in bed numbers. I shall not elaborate on the problems that that has created in London, but the report recognised the difficulties of funding primary care and the provision of GP services in the Greater London area, which was identified as a major problem by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).
The Tomlinson report made a number of recommendations for improving the number of GPs, the associated services provided by health centres, and GPs' premises. However, it is clear from the Turnberg report of only two years ago that the problems of primary care in London continue and in many ways intensify. Since 1990, GP numbers in London have fallen by 1 per cent., during a period when they have risen by 6 per cent. in the rest of the country, and at a time when the population of London is increasing.
There is a particular problem with single-handed GP practices. Whereas they have reduced to 8.6 per cent. of all GP practices in the rest of the country, in London they represent 20 per cent. of practices—a major issue for London health services.
With regard to list sizes, the number of GP practices with lists of more than 2,500 is much greater than in the rest of the country. I recognise that there is far more population movement in Greater London, so some lists may well be inflated, but the pressure on GPs in London is significantly greater than on those in the rest of the country.
The problem of GP premises was supposed to have been addressed by the Tomlinson report in 1992, but in my district, Enfield and Haringey, 55 per cent. of GP premises remain below the minimum standard.
Taking all those difficulties together, we can understand why Leslie Turnberg stated in his report:
General practice lags behind the rest of the country and appears to be getting worse rather than better.
The problem is not just the failure to attract GPs into Greater London. There is a series of associated problems, often but not exclusively related to single-handed practices. I refer to the additional services that we have come to expect from health centres—the provision of practice nurses, chiropody and so on. Those are not provided in Greater London, as they are in other parts of the country. The training of staff to provide those services is not being achieved in Greater London, partly because of the number of single-handed practices, and partly because of a lack of commitment to maintaining staff of the highest standard.
The professional development of GPs is a further issue. Many single-handed GP practices in London are run by elderly general practitioners, many of whom have never had to update their skills and are still practising as though the health service was still in the 1950s and 1960s, rather than going into the 21st century.
The provision of proper primary care in the most deprived areas has been a particular problem. The difficulty of attracting GPs to deprived areas was partially addressed by the Government in 1998, when they made available £25 million for additional deprivation payments. I welcome that, but there are continuing doubts. It is clear in London and other parts of the country that deprived areas face significantly greater problems in attracting staff.
240WH
I recognise that a salaried general practitioner scheme may overcome some of those problems, but we must find ways of attracting GPs to work in those areas. The way in which the payments scheme operates is not to the advantage of the service. There seems to be some confusion about whether the payment is for additional work load, for providing additional time for the patient, or to attract staff into less attractive areas.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to re-examine the deprivation payments scheme, to see whether there is anything further that the Government can do to ensure that our most deprived areas—those that have been the focus of the recent report entitled "A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal"—will be able to offer a level of service comparable with that available in other parts of the country.
Finally, I hope that the spending review will address the balance of funding between primary care and the acute sector. Tomlinson got it entirely wrong by suggesting that resources should be shifted across the two. With the additional resources that are to be made available, there is an opportunity to provide an adequate level of funding for primary care. If we do that, we may create a health service in London that meets the real needs of its people.
11.58 am
Mr. Paul Burstow (Sutton andCheam): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing the debate. It is a timely debate, following on, as others have pointed out, from a debate in Government time about a year ago. From the contributions that we have heard today, it is clear that it would be valuable if there were a further debate in Government time, so that more hon. Members—London Members in particular, but others, too—could contribute.
Speeches have reflected a range of constituents' experiences and the concerns of professionals in the health service. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) rightly said, in our mail bags we receive and pass on many brick bats; we receive fewer bouquets. However, much of what the national health service does in London and elsewhere is excellent and needs encouragement, promotion and further development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has raised several important issues. I want to mention some, and develop a couple of other themes that emerged from the debate. She was right to mention the huge health inequalities that exist in London and the litany of reports that have identified the strong relationship between poverty, deprivation and poor health, and the need to do more.
My hon. Friend was right to highlight bad practice and corner cutting, as she put it, that is caused by an obsession with bed occupancy rates. The fixation with bed occupancy statistics, and efforts to concentrate on conditions rather than the person as whole, can lead to lack of attention to detail in the care of an individual, often at the expense of that person's dignity and overall care.
My hon. Friend identified another problem, which applies to my constituency. She spoke of change that is not about investment in services, which the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) rightly

241WH
described and welcomed, but organisational change. The NHS appears to be in perpetual revolution. It perpetually changes its organisation and management structures, not always with the outcomes trumpeted by the Ministers who initiated them. The primary care groups and primary health teams in the latest review are useful to drive primary care, but I am worried about the lack of integration of health, especially primary care, with social care. In my constituency, there is a lack of coterminosity between primary care groups and social services departments. That could get worse.
My hon. Friend said that she was making a Back-Bench speech. She made a typically forthright speech and raised many issues that will continue to be debated in this place and outside for some time. She was especially right to consider staff vacancy rates. It is important to acknowledge that capacity is vital in dealing with many anxieties that are raised with us in our constituencies. We have only to consider the legacy of staffing in the NHS to appreciate that the problems with which the Government grapple did not necessarily begin on 1 May 1997. They were long in their manufacture under the previous Government's tenure. We have only to consider the age profile of many staff, especially nurses, to realise that the current problems are not likely to be solved for some time. Many staff are approaching the end of their time in nursing. We must acknowledge that when considering the resources for tackling vacancy problems.
London suffers from the most acute staff shortages in professions allied to medicine and in nursing. One in three of the 15,000 vacancies throughout England are in London. The three-month vacancy figures for nurses and midwives show 2.6 per cent. in England and 5.1 per cent. in London. The figure in my health authority is 4.9 per cent; in my local Epsom and St. Helier trust, it is 6 per cent. Managers are grappling with genuine problems. They have to go ever further afield. Reports in the Evening Standard show that they look not only further afield in this country, but abroad to try to find additional staff to plug the gaps.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the need to invest in intensive care services. I agree, but we must acknowledge that there was intense pressure on intensive care beds in London last winter and that that was caused, at least partly, by staffing problems. There are 20 per cent. vacancies in intensive care units in London. The problem is therefore not simply one of beds and units. However, the hon. Gentleman was right to point to the need for investment in such services in outer London.
The problem of vacancies is caused partly by the fact that people are being priced out of London. That applies to public sector workers generally, and especially NHS staff. In the past year, house prices have increased in London by 23 per cent. It is a harsh reality that a newly qualified nurse, who earns approximately £17,000, cannot get on the property ladder. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park rightly said, our benefits system makes it difficult even to get into the rented sector.
I want to address two other issues briefly. First, I want to speak about neurology, another Cinderella service which needs some attention in London. I understand
242WH
that a review is currently taking place. I hope that it will shed light on the way in which the services might be developed in future. Specialist services have suffered through reorganisation and fragmentation. It is therefore important to consider the way in which we can tackle that.
Probably more than one in 30 people in London are affected by neurological conditions. There is only one neurologist per 200,000 people in the United Kingdom. I suspect that the position may be worse in London. There are not enough neurologists to fulfil demand. I undertook a survey earlier this year and found that the average wait for a first appointment with a neurologist was 19 weeks. The longest waits were 23 weeks. That is unacceptable when trying to map out the necessary care pathways to provide support, care and attention. Indeed, in this country, patients who sustain a head injury or stroke have half as much chance of waking with a neurologist or a neurosurgeon at the bottom of the bed than anywhere else in the developed world. That is an unacceptable measure of our position as a country.
Many neurological conditions leave people feeling marginalised and left to navigate their own way through the care system. Early diagnosis is vital; it leads to a better prognosis. Clear care pathways and counselling are often the key to many neurological conditions. Greater co-ordination of service providers and a multidisciplinary approach are essential. I hope that the Government will consider developing not only the strategy that is being worked on in London, but the need to provide a national service framework to develop neurological services.
Secondly, I want to speak about communicable disease, to which the hon. Member for Brent, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park referred. I shall concentrate on mumps, measles and rubella, and tuberculosis. There is a strong correlation—although the hon. Member for Brent, North cited some evidence to contradict it—between deprivation, low immunisation levels and outbreaks. That is not surprising when we take into account that 11 out of the 20 poorest boroughs in England are in London.
Let us consider TB first because mortality rates in London are a serious problem. Incidence of TB in London is 80 per cent. above the national average. Incidence is concentrated in some of the most deprived parts of London The hon. Member for Brent, North identified other reasons why it is a problem in Brent. There is also a serious problem in east London. The incidence in east London is six times the national average. The hon. Member for Uxbridge is right to draw attention to the backlog of BCG vaccinations and the potential problems that that could cause, for example, a future increase in TB.
The recommended level of immunisation to avoid outbreaks of mumps, measles and rubella is 95 per cent. In the United Kingdom, take-up is 88 per cent; in London, it is 80 per cent. However, like any average, that figure hides wide variations. In some parts of London, the figure is as low as 71 per cent. Outbreaks occurred in east London last year. They were not major or life threatening, but they are a serious cause for concern when we consider that serious outbreaks

243WH
occurred in the Netherlands, where immunisation levels are too low. Consequently, the more fatal elements of the condition were reached.
We need a concerted campaign to increase immunisation. Even if poverty is not the cause of outbreaks, low immunisation is a major reason for the increase in outbreaks. We need to consider carefully what immunisation levels in London mean for outbreaks in the next five to 10 years and ensure that we put that right now.
This debate has been a useful taster of the fuller debate that I hope will be allowed in Government time because many issues need to be discussed, including high-tech investment, about which hon. Members have spoken, and the need to deal with the detailed care of individuals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has said, the statistics on health inequalities in London are striking. Those inequalities need to be acknowledged in allocating resources and using existing resources more effectively, which means considering how to improve capacity without losing sight of Cinderella services, such as neurology. We must ensure that we drive home the message about immunisation and the links with poverty and communicable diseases so that health in London is as good as anywhere else in the country.
12.10 pm
Mr. Philip Hammond: I apologise to hon. Members for my late arrival. I had not realised until today that debates in Westminster Hall could start before the allotted hour. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing the debate. She seemed to be slightly torn between the temptation to attack the current Government and the temptation to attack the previous Government, so she had a go at both, safe in the knowledge that the party that she represents is unlikely to be burdened with that responsibility.
We have had a good debate, and hon. Members have made some important and interesting points, to which the Minister will want to respond. London is different. London's size, population density, ethnicity mix, social problems and environmental characteristics provide a specific backdrop to its health agenda. Many of the issues that hon. Members have raised reflect the more general problems of the NHS across London.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) made the point, which I am fond of making, that we as politicians are guilty of a tendency to focus on hospitals and acute services, yet primary care and community services represent the routine point of contact with the NHS for the great majority of people. A health agenda that works for Londoners must address the inadequacies in those services and provide people in the heart of the capital with the same quality of primary and community services that those who live on its periphery and in the surrounding suburbs have come to expect. Until the primary care tier is right, the secondary sector will always struggle to do its job properly against a background of inappropriate referrals and self-referrals to hospitals.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to the huge additional burdens that the influx of asylum seekers have put on health services in London. That is
244WH
an example of the specific problems that London faces. The incidence of TB is soaring. One estimate suggests that TB could have increased by 80 per cent. in 1999 alone, which inevitably imposes a huge burden on the service. There are other pressures, including HIV. A third of all HIV suffers in the United Kingdom live in London. The number in south-east London alone has increased by a third in the past two years, yet, for example, the genito-urinary medicine clinics at Guy's and St. Thomas's are forced to shut their doors once they have seen 100 patients because of the lack of resources. Facilities are not being used to address the urgent problems that face the capital.
Substance misuse and mental illness are particular problems in London, as hon. Members have said. Those problems affect twice as many male London residents compared with the United Kingdom average. Health authorities in London are inadequately resourced to deal with those specific problems, often with the result that improvements in basic health services for Londoners are not taking place as fast as in other parts of the country or as fast as necessary.
I am very concerned that the consensus by which the NHS prospers and has worked for the past 50 years will start to break down if what I shall typify as the ordinary working Londoner finds that the health services cannot deliver for him and his family, that the accident and emergency department cannot respond when his child needs it and that the family health services are not there for him and his family when they need them because of the extraordinary burdens that face the health care system in London. In addressing the specific needs involved in mental illness, HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, TB and so on, it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that we have to preserve that consensus by providing appropriate services across the board.
Outer London has some of the longest A and E waiting times and, on average, London as a whole has longer waiting times than the rest of the United Kingdom. That is linked to the problems of staff recruitment and retention. Some London trusts are 30 per cent. under establishment in nurses and are surviving only by using agency and bank staff.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park described the problems facing student nurses on bursaries. I have seen examples of such problems in my constituency, where house prices are almost as high as in hers. That urgent problem needs to be addressed. I do not pretend to have an instant or easy answer, but it is vital that it is resolved so that the health service in London has a future.
The hon. Lady also dealt with bed-occupancy rates—obviously, a critical issue given the rising number of hospital-acquired infections, yet the Government are still closing beds. According to The Sunday Times last Sunday, that has led to scenes of third-world chaos and squalor at a major teaching hospital in London.
On the eve of the election, the Government's slogan was "24 hours to save the NHS". Now that they are in office, they seem to be slightly less pressured by time. In response to the Turnberg report, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that it would take 10 years to improve London's health services, but, in the meantime, the NHS is still failing Londoners too often. Deficits are piling up in health authorities and trusts.

245WH
The Government promised a moratorium on hospital closures, but, after their three years in office, the axe still hangs over several London hospitals and beds are whittled away in others. Other hospitals have gone. Bart's—which was supposedly saved for the community and which, we were told, would focus on cancer and cardiac services—will not be a general hospital serving the local population, but a specialist unit. To all intents and purposes, for local people, Bart's has closed—a triumph of spin over substance and another broken election pledge.
The Harold Wood hospital scheme has been scrapped. The Havering hospitals NHS trust has now conceded that the new Oldchurch hospital will not be completed before the autumn of 2005, and people close to that situation believe that 2007 is a more accurate estimate. A further 200 beds have been cut from the planned number at the Royal London hospital development and the split-site solution has been chosen. Senior consultants have condemned that decision as a "dangerous" political fix, which presents a "serious risk" to patients.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park has spoken about the situation at Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton. Ambulance response times there were only 26 per cent. compliant with the Government's target, which had knock-on effects in maternity and A and E services across west London. Services at the Royal Free, Whittington and other hospitals are facing continued threats and uncertainty.
What of the future? The fact that London has an elected Assembly and an elected mayor has not been mentioned. They are bound to want to have a say in the health agenda for London. Across the country, political interference and attempts by politicians to micro-manage the health agenda have been part of the problem, not of the solution. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the NHS in London will not be turned into even more of a political football when the clash of titans takes place as the mayor gets into his stride.
The Minister needs to tell us that the extra money that will be made available to London during the next three or four years will reach the health authorities and can be used to improve primary and secondary services so that ordinary, hard-working Londoners can be confident that the NHS in London will be there for them when they and their families need it. After all the other extraordinary pressures that are specific to London have been dealt with, the ordinary people of London must find that the services that they need exist so that the consensus that is essential for the NHS to survive and prosper in the 21st century can be rebuilt.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health(Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on securing this timely and useful debate. Up until the last 10 minutes, I thought that it was specific to London, and I wish that I had more time to respond to the points that she raised. I realise how busy she has been this morning, as I saw her taking part in the earlier debate on Christians in Egypt. Her concerns go well beyond her constituency.
246WH
I shall deal with the specific points before coming to the more general aspects. Consultation is part of the national development plan. Some people have said please, no more change, and others have said that they want more change. I think that we need both. We need continual change, but it must be part of a much wider, strategic framework.
The hon. Lady referred to bed occupancy rates. I am aware that there have been problems with bed occupancy in hospitals in her constituency. However, I understand that they have now been alleviated. Kingston hospital has 30 more acute beds than it had last year, and the provision of mental health beds at Queen Mary's University hospital in Roehampton has improved because alternative provision and arrangements have been made at Tolworth hospital.
I was grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) recognised the improvements that have been made, but he highlighted the issue of intensive care beds, especially in Northwick Park hospital. I understand that he has a meeting tomorrow with the regional director of the NHS executive in London. I hope that he will have a successful exchange of ideas.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was concerned about whether consultations in this area are real consultations. I point out that the Mount. Vernon hospital accident and emergency department was closed under the previous Government. We must not lose sight of the past. Closing accident and emergency departments is not a significant characteristic of this Government: we are concerned with the provision of services. The consultation process can sometimes be unsettling for communities. We seek certainty, but the very process of consultation involves a period of uncertainty until decisions are made.
Many hon. Members raised the subject of tuberculosis and the TB vaccine. We are fully aware of the problems. The Government are in discussion with the manufacturers about the national shortage of vaccine. I assure hon. Members that the Government have made sure that the available vaccine goes to the children who are most at risk. In London, where this is a specific problem, the Thames regional directors of public health in 1998 published "A strategy for tuberculosis control in London: a need for change". As a result of that, a taskforce was set up in consultation with multidisciplinary agencies. We are piloting a TB register in London, and we shall soon have some of the results of that scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) reminded us of the disgraceful manoeuvring in relation to Edgware hospital, which made a revision of the plan impossible when we came into government. He raised valid
concerns about breast screening in his constituency. I am fully aware of the number of parliamentary questions that he has tabled on that issue. If he would find it helpful, I should be happy to facilitate a meeting with Ministers to discuss the matter further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) expressed his concerns about funding for primary care. He explained the problems faced in many parts of the country, especially in big cities. As a Birmingham MP, I recognise some of the problems that

247WH
he referred to, but not on quite the scale that people face in London. Considerable extra funding is going into the primary care sector, not least the £10 million additional funding in 2000–01 that has been targeted on improving primary care premises in London. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes the opening of the walk-in centre in Tottenham and Edmonton on 31 July.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) referred to the problem of boundaries, which is almost insoluble. There will always be overlapping boundaries: there is no perfect solution. It is important in the establishment of primary care groups and subsequent primary care trusts that the configurations we end up with have a natural dynamic. Communities should have cohesion. Sometimes boundaries will be concurrent, but in other places they will not be. Where there are overlapping boundaries, especially between health authorities and social services, we want provisions to be put in place that will overcome the problem.
Like all of us, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) learned something new today. I hope that he welcomes that learning opportunity. We welcome such developments in the national health service. I must challenge his notion that the problems are due to inadequate resourcing. He rightly said that we need a national consensus for a national health service. If there is one party that is committed to a national consensus for a national health service out of taxation it is the Labour party. We do not think that private insurance is the way forward.
To come back to the overall problems, what the debate showed is that London contains an extremely diverse community. It does not have a static population: some 7 million people live in London, but 25 million tourists visit the city, some 670,000 commuters come into London to work and almost a million people travel into the city centre every day. It has great diversity, including some of the most deprived areas and some of the most affluent. It has extraordinary nationally and internationally recognised medical expertise, and some examples of the worst practice.
248WH
That is why one of the first things we did when we came into government was to establish the Turnberg review, which was an independent investigation into the needs of London. We also set up the NHS executive's London office. The Turnberg review reported in seven months, and the Government accepted all its recommendations. It is important in the London context that all the agencies work together.
Hon. Members raised the issue of mental health. It is important to remember that on 11 April the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), launched "Mental Health in London: A Strategy for Action", which was developed jointly by the NHS executive and the social care regions. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, health and social care services must be delivered coherently.
These strategies are underpinned by increases in resources and the provision of new services. It is no accident that, of the 36 walk-in centres, a quarter are in London. The new services of NHS Direct will be available for the whole of London by 31 October. The Soho walk-in centre is important because it is a local health service centre that includes the Chinese national healthy living centre. That is a recognition of the ethnic diversity of London.
The funding that has gone into London has been unprecedented. There has been huge capital investment of £3.5 billion in a building programme, and there is year-on-year recurrent investment that is not used to pay off debts, as has been suggested. We expect any institution, whether it is a hospital or a trust, to finance its services coherently. In London, new moneys are certainly not being used to repay old debts. They are used to address the shortcomings in services, and to reconfigure services so as to provide a better service for everyone in London.
Focus is being put on health action zones working together with the new London mayor to provide a much healthier environment for people in London. We have recognised the need for strategic input, for extra money and for extra help for the training and retention of nurses. We are confident that we will put those policies in place.

Industrial Deafness
12.29 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: I welcome the opportunity to bring the case of my constituent, Mr. James Fryer, of Purley in Reading, to the attention of the Chamber. Sadly, due to ill health, Mr. Fryer cannot be here to witness the results of his four-year struggle to obtain industrial injuries disablement benefit. However, it is obvious to me that there is a clear case for the legislation surrounding the IIDB qualifying criteria to be reviewed by the Government.
I want briefly to outline the history of my constituent's case. As my hon. Friend the Minister and hon. Members will know, to qualify for IIDB the claimant must have worked in a prescribed occupation and the claim must be made within five years of having worked in that employment. For 34 years, Mr. Fryer worked with power presses at Waymaster Ltd. in Reading. However, unfortunately for him, and for some bizarre reason, power presses are not listed in the Department of Social Security guidelines and the occupation is not prescribed.
Mr. Fryer has suffered hearing loss as a result of his employment. That has been supported by subsequent medical reports. He made his claim for IIDB in 1996 and was refused in the same year in which the social security tribunal upheld the idea that the use of a power press did not constitute the use of a prescribed tool in a prescribed occupation. The nub of that argument is that power presses somehow make only background industrial noise. Anybody who has spent time on the shop floor and has seen such a press in operation will know that the very last thing that a power press makes is background industrial noise. It makes a considerable noise, and 34 years' work in the industry is likely to have some effect on a person's hearing. I should know; I was born right next to Heathrow airport, which is one reason why I have to shout a lot.
It is worth quoting the DSS tribunal hearing of 3 November 1996. Giving the grounds for his appeal, Mr. Fryer states:
If you read the first paragraph of NI 207 you will find that Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit was introduced to help the very people like myself. That is the first and foremost reason of its existence.
Secondly I do not believe there are two kinds of industrial deafness and I don't think the members of a tribunal will either, but if you can prove me wrong would you please put it in writing so that I might forward your statement to Mr. Hayworth, the hearing consultant at the Royal Berkshire Hospital, so he does not unknowingly mislead other people into thinking that they are industrially deaf when in fact, according to your rules, they are not.
A senior consultant at a well-respected hospital is advising constituents of mine that they qualify for that benefit when, because of a vagary in the rules, they do not.
Although I could continue at length, I am aware of the time constraints. However, I must quote the adjudicating officer's statement:
Mr Fryer is claiming that his deafness has been caused by working with power presses. In his letter of 23/4/1996 Mr Fryer states his deafness has been caused by working for 34 years with power presses and "for the rules to exclude power presses is very wrong".
250WH
As Mr Fryer has not worked with any of the prescribed tools or in any of the prescribed occupations in the five years prior to his date of claim the decision at box I was given.
Unfortunately, that decision was to deny Mr. Fryer IIDB. It is ridiculous that we have such time-limited criteria. Even though someone worked in an industry for 25 or 30 years—34 years in the case of my constituent—and because of the five-year gap before the hearing impediment became such that he felt able to lodge a claim, Mr. Fryer is somehow ineligible. Somehow, 34 years' work in heavy engineering counts for nothing under the rules.
In my three years as a Member, I have made a number of representations about Mr. Fryer to Ministers in both Houses. Although the responses have helpfully set out the legislation surrounding the qualifying criteria for IIDB, unfortunately the law offers my constituent little hope of obtaining a benefit that was established in 1974—in his eyes and mine and, I would suggest, in the eyes of Parliament at that time—to cater for people such as Mr. Fryer.
I have had copious correspondence with Ministers, which has been useful but not productive. A letter from Baroness Hollis of Heigham states:
You also expressed concern about the fact that Mr. Fryer's occupation is not on the list of prescribed occupations for which industrial injuries disablement benefit in respect of deafness can be paid. A disease may only be prescribed as an industrial disease if it can be treated as a risk of occupation and not as a risk common to all people and where, in particular cases, the occupational link can be established or presumed with reasonable certainty.
Apart from the fact that that statement makes absolutely no sense whatever, it defies logic to suggest that members of the general public wander in and out of engineering shops, exposing themselves to noise caused by power presses. That is the implication of what the Minister wrote.
My gripe is not with the treatment that my constituent has received from the Government, but with the inflexibility of the IIDB qualifying criteria. I call on the Government to relax the criteria for those who have suffered hearing loss or impairment as a result of their employment. I understand that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council keeps under review literature that relates to hearing loss at work. That fine, independent body then reports to the Secretary of State for Social Security and advises him or her accordingly. I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is a case for reviewing the way in which the scientific evidence is used in this area.
Perhaps my hon. Friend can advise me whether the Government have any plans to establish a group to look more deeply into the problem. I want to hear from him today whether there will be a full review of the criteria surrounding industrial deafness and the prescribed occupations. I am aware that being able accurately to assess the nature of a claimant's hearing loss after the statutory five-year period is a problem for Ministers, but I hope that they will look again at the nature of the employment that perhaps led to the hearing difficulties in the first place.
I draw to the Chamber's attention the results of "Indecent Exposure", a joint report on noise at work by the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Trades Union Congress that was published in March last year. I congratulate both bodies on their fine work

251WH
in researching excessive noise in the workplace. I am sure that, like me, hon. Members will be concerned to learn that current Health and Safety Executive figures suggest that at least 1.3 million employees are exposed to noise levels above 85 decibels—the point at which noise affects hearing and can affect it in the long term.
The connection between hearing loss and excessive noise is certainly not one that any self-respecting scientist or doctor would dispute. Clearly, the Government have done much to improve working conditions for millions of employees throughout the country. However, it seems clear that improvement is still lacking in this area and, despite various regulations and Acts of Parliament, industrial deafness still is not treated as seriously in the workplace as its consequences demand.
The report "Indecent Exposure" discovered that nearly a quarter of all respondents to the RNIDP-TUC survey reported listening to uncomfortably loud sounds for more than four hours a day. Almost one in five construction workers, more than one in 10 workers in the manufacturing sector and those working on oil rigs reported being exposed to uncomfortably loud sound for more than eight hours a day. A third of respondents said that work tasks left them with dullness of hearing—in 16 per cent. of cases, the dullness was continuous—and 20 per cent. reported that work tasks left them with ringing or rushing noises in their ears or head lasting more than five minutes.
Just as worrying is the fact that nearly half the respondents said that they were concerned that noise levels at work were affecting their hearing. However, only a quarter had raised their concern with someone and only two thirds had approached their employer. I endorse the noise at work campaign, which called for a number of improvements in the regulatory regime, such as:
more research into the dangers of noise in industries where the risks are not understood, or acted on … employers to meet their legal obligations under the Noise at Work Regulations 1989, reducing the risk of noise damage in the workplace; employees to be aware of the potential risks to their hearing from working in noisy environments, to wear appropriate ear protectors when provided and to inform and work with the employers to reduce noise risk; and greater awareness of the cumulative effects of noise damage—both from the workplace and from leisure activities—which increase the risk of hearing damage and tinnitus.
Those are very worrying figures, which should concern us all, particularly those of us who represent the few places in the country where there is still heavy industry, and manufacturing industry at that. To that end, I urge the Minister to re-examine the law surrounding the criteria for prescribed occupations with a view to offering my constituent some recompense.
I urge the Government to commission a report into noise levels in the workplace and their health implications, and to do more to encourage enforcement of existing noise regulations. I ask them to encourage employers and employees to foster a more ear-friendly culture in the workplace, especially through enforcement of the Noise at Work Regulations 1989.
12.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter)
252WH
on raising the important issue of occupational deafness. I sympathise with the difficulties that his constituent has experienced. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the persistent way in which he has pursued Mr. Fryer's case. He has proved again that he is an exemplary Member of Parliament speaking up for his constituents.
Before I respond to my hon. Friend's points, it may be helpful if I give some background information about occupational deafness and the industrial injuries benefit scheme. Occupational deafness became one of the prescribed diseases for industrial injuries disablement benefit in 1974. To qualify for industrial injuries disablement benefit on the ground of occupational deafness, a person must have worked in one or more of the prescribed occupations for an aggregate period of at least 10 years. The person must then claim benefit within five years of leaving the occupation that caused the hearing loss.
The person will be tested to see if he has an average hearing loss of at least 50 decibels in both ears due to damage in the inner ear. In at least one ear, that must be owing to noise at work. To get benefit for occupational deafness, the person's disablement must be 20 per cent. or more.
As hon. Members may be aware, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is an independent statutory body which provides advice to the Secretary of State for Social Security. The advisory council consists of a chairman and 16 members. There is an equal number of representatives of employers, appointed by the Confederation of British Industry, and employed earners, appointed by the TUC. The remaining members come largely from medical backgrounds connected with occupational diseases.
The advisory council advises the Secretary of State on the prescription of industrial diseases, on legislation and on the industrial injuries benefit scheme itself. When the advisory council prescribed occupational deafness as a disease in 1974, it considered that the prescription should cover those most at risk of substantial, work-related hearing loss.
The advisory council recommended that there should be four qualifying conditions. Those related to, first, the level of hearing loss; secondly, the occupations; thirdly, the length of exposure to noise; and, fourthly, the time limit for claiming benefit. The advisory council can recommend prescription only where there is good scientific and epidemiological evidence of a link between the disease and the occupation. Since 1974, the provisions for occupational deafness have been extended in line with further recommendations from the advisory council in 1979, 1983 and 1994.
My hon. Friend asks whether there will be a full review of those issues. I confirm that a review of occupational deafness is taking place. I will return to that later. First, I should like to comment, as far as I can, on the issues raised in relation to Mr. Fryer's case.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, Ministers cannot become involved in individual claims for benefit. Claims for benefit are entirely a matter for Benefits Agency decision-makers or, before July last year, adjudication officers. When they are contested, the claimant has the right to ask a social security appeal tribunal to hear the case. The tribunal, which is independent of the DSS—

253WH
tribunals are accountable to a judge, not to the Department or to Ministers—can overturn the adjudication officer's decision.
The tribunal has the status of a court of law and a Minister cannot ignore or overturn its decision. Therefore, it would not be right for me to enter into a detailed discussion of the decisions on Mr. Fryer's claim. However, in his case, I understand that there are two main issues of concern. The first issue relates to time limits and the second relates to the types of job listed as a prescribed occupation.
In 1983, the advisory council recommended that the time limit for claiming benefit should be extended from one year to five years. The Government agreed with that recommendation. The time limit was set at five years and not longer to ensure that occupational deafness is linked to a prescribed occupation and is not due to subsequent environmental or natural causes, or simply the ageing process.
Mr. Salter: Does the Minister accept that, although there may be a case for a time limit to avoid fraudulent claims, my constituent worked on the same piece of machinery for 34 years? Does that not indicate that his industrial deafness is unlikely to have been caused by anything in the five and a half years that passed between his leaving that employment and his registering a claim? It is the fact that he is out of time that caused the problem in the first place.
Mr. Bayley: Under the earlier rules, there was a one-year, rather than a five-year, time limit. A time limit is necessary because the longer a person waits before making a claim, the greater the probability that some factor other than noise at his former workplace injured his hearing.
I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that a time limit is needed, even if he feels that the five-year period is too short. However, if we have a time limit of any kind, there will always be the chance that someone will apply just beyond the time limit—just too late for his or her claim to succeed. The decision to extend the time limit from one year to five did, of course, improve the rights of a claimant.
The second issue, on which my hon. Friend dwelt most, related to the prescribed occupations for industrial deafness. More than 20 types of job are prescribed for occupational deafness. The jobs range from those using continuous glass-toughening furnaces, to work in ships' engine rooms, the use of band saws for cutting metal in the metal founding or forging industries and certain work on gas turbines.
Mr. Fryer argues that his deafness was caused by operating power presses, with which he worked five years before his claim for IIDB, and that his former occupation should be prescribed. Of course, his claim had to be determined on the basis of the law at the time. The tribunal has determined that, on the basis of the law at the time, he did not qualify for the benefit. However, I will try to respond to his argument.
The Government's decision on what to treat as a prescribed occupation is informed by the expert advice that we receive from the advisory council. As I have said, the advisory council is looking at the whole issue of occupational deafness.
254WH
In August 1998, the advisory council issued a consultation paper entitled "Occupational Coverage For Occupational Deafness." The paper invited evidence and views about the occupations already listed and about those not listed but which evidence suggests should be considered for inclusion. The paper also invited evidence and views about whether the approach to occupational coverage should be reconsidered.
The advisory council set up a group called the occupational deafness working group, whose job is to take forward the examination of occupational deafness. The working group is examining all the evidence that it has received, and is preparing a draft report for consideration by the full advisory council later this year.
The advisory council would recommend prescribing an occupation that used certain tools and machinery only if there was strong and sound scientific evidence that that occupation carried a generally much higher risk of occupational deafness.
Mr. Salter: Are power presses being considered as an additional category in this welcome consultation?
Mr. Bayley: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question, because I have not reviewed the evidence. The working group is reviewing it, however, and when it reaches conclusions it will submit them to the advisory council. If my hon. Friend writes to me with full details of the type of power presses on which Mr. Fryer worked during the five years before he made his claim, I will pass them to the council. I should point out, however, that even if the council supported Mr. Fryer's view, that would not alter the decision in his case, which would still have to be based on the law as it stood at the time of his claim.
Mr. Salter: I must make it clear that I have explained to my constituent—as, I am sure, all hon. Members do in similar circumstances—that, however vigorously we pursue such cases, we cannot expect retrospective legislation, much as we would like it. It is extremely rare for a Parliament in any western democracy to countenance retrospective legislation.
What we want—what I want, certainly—is an assurance that there will be no repeat of the injustice that I believe Mr. Fryer has experienced. We must close any loopholes in the legislation and the regulations to ensure that such episodes do not occur again, and that other hon. Members are not here in five or 10 years presenting exactly the same arguments to my hon. Friend's successor.
Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for explaining to his constituent why the rules of Parliament do not allow legislation to be made retrospectively. I accept that his constituent feels strongly that the type of tool with which he was working should be prescribed. As I said, if he gives me full details of the type of power press that was involved, I will pass them on to the advisory council.
When the council has fully examined the issues, it will produce a report setting out its conclusions and any recommendations for the Secretary of State to consider. I understand that it hopes to publish the report later this year or early next year, and I assure hon. Members that the Government will consider carefully any further advice that it may provide.

255WH
Employees who suffer hearing damage as a result of exposure to excessive noise at work may be able to obtain compensation from their employers under common law, on the ground of the employers' negligence. The fact that someone does not qualify for industrial injuries disablement benefit does not prevent that person from pursuing a claim for compensation against his or her employer.
Mr. Salter: It would be difficult for my constituent to pursue Waymaster Ltd under common law, because it has gone out of business. What would my hon. Friend advise?
Mr. Bayley: I am afraid that I cannot advise on an individual case without knowing all the circumstances. I can only advise on the law.
The Government believe that noise induced hearing loss caused by work is a serious and significant occupational health problem. As my hon. Friend said, exposure levels for many workers remain considerable: the Health and Safety Executive estimates that more than 1.25 million people in nearly 90,000 workplaces continue to be exposed to noise levels that could damage their hearing. There is no excuse for anyone's hearing to be impaired owing to loud noise at work. There is long-standing legislation requiring employers and manufacturers to address the problem, and to make noisy machinery quieter. The Noise at Work Regulations 1989 are the mainstay of the regime. They require employers to reduce risks from noise to the lowest reasonably practicable level, and to take specific actions in the case of certain noise levels to protect employees' hearing.
256WH
The Health and Safety Executive has produced a range of guidance to help employers and others to comply with their statutory duties. It has also developed a new long-term strategy on noise at work. It will promote more effective control of exposure to noise on the part of employers by encouraging the introduction of quieter machinery and processes. It will also promote the effective use of purchasing policies, the application of noise control measures and, when noise levels cannot be reduced, the correct use of ear protection. Employees have responsibilities to protect themselves by complying with notices and wearing ear protection.
The Government consider that wide-ranging provision is currently made for sufferers from deafness in the industrial injuries scheme when the disease has an occupational cause. There must be rules governing the payment of benefit, and inevitably there will be individual cases that are not covered by those rules. I am confident that there is a reliable and independent way for changes to be recommended to the Secretary of State, through the advisory council, when new scientific evidence about occupational deafness comes to light. As I have said, the council is currently conducting a review. I cannot predict its recommendations, but when its report is published I shall ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy. I also assure him that, when the Government receive the report, we shall consider its recommendations carefully.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): I know that a green light is flashing on the Annunciator, but as a Division could not be taking place anywhere other than here, and as a Division cannot take place here anyway, I suggest that hon. Members ignore it.

Drink Driving
12.57 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I am raising this subject because of the case of Charis Yeoman, who was a constituent of mine.
Charis was a 20-year-old student nurse. She was killed in 1997. While driving her car on a dual carriageway, she was hit by a driver who in the previous six hours had consumed six pints of beer and 10 measures of spirits, and then driven down the Tiverton link road to prove that he could do it in record time. For therapeutic medical purposes, a blood sample was taken from the driver after he had been taken unconscious to casualty, but it could not be used as evidence in court because the criminal concerned had not given permission, and would not give permission, for it to be so used.
In Charis's case, the police were fortunate in being able to track down the pub where the drinking had taken place. It was a busy bank holiday, and the publican did not volunteer to the police the fact that the individual concerned had drunk to such excess on his premises. Luckily, because it was a busy day, there were enough witnesses, including one who was able to specify to police the excessive amount that the man had drunk.
The point I am making is that, in bringing the prosecution, the police could not rely on the evidence provided by a blood test. That could also have happened when there were no key witnesses to bring a prosecution at all.
Charis Yeoman's case is not unique. We know that there are other such cases elsewhere in the country. In a letter written to me in 1998, Assistant Commissioner Paul Manning of the Association of Chief Police Officers referred me to the 1989 White Paper "The Road User and the Law". Although attitudes to drink driving have changed dramatically in recent years, the same problems still exist. The purpose of this debate is to seek Home Office Ministers' support for changing the law so that natural justice can prevail in such cases. Justice is not well served as the law now stands.
In 1998, I had a meeting with the Minister then responsible for these matters, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). When the right hon. Gentleman changed Departments, his successor as Minister of State at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), wrote to me, stating:
The Government is sympathetic to the principle that an offender should not evade conviction for the very serious offence of drink driving, and we would be willing to consider possible improvements to present legislation.
Much time has elapsed since I had those meetings with Ministers. That is because I had to do more research into the matter and, more pertinently, I discovered that the Kent constabulary was preparing a detailed paper on this and other issues to do with testing and breathalysing people. However, I wish to focus today on the law covering blood tests in drink-driving cases.
I have held meetings and corresponded with a range of people and bodies, including the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Medical Association, the General Medical Council, police surgeons and biochemists. I have spoken also to other hon. Members who have had constituency cases resembling the one that I have described.
258WH
Most importantly, the Kent constabulary report by Sergeant Tony Ramskill has now been published. I know that the Home Office has been able to study it, as have other interested parties. My presentation today is about more than that report, but it is an important piece of research which could help to clarify how we can improve the legislation.
The report mentions the Charis Yeoman case, and it discusses the difficult and vexed issue of whether blood samples should be taken when the driver is unconscious and unable to give permission. That matter has implications for the medical profession and for police surgeons. Sergeant Ramskill's study goes into some detail, and makes specific recommendations about the role of police surgeons, who in future may be given permission by a hospital's accident and emergency doctors to take from patients blood samples that could then be used as evidence in court.
That is a vexed issue. It has been addressed in other countries, and trials have already been held here. The Lothian and Borders force and the Fife constabulary currently use hospital staff to take blood samples. That system has also been trialled recently at a hospital in Cheshire.
Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, such samples have to be taken in a hospital. Two key issues therefore arise that need to be dealt with. First, the BMA has told me that it has concerns on behalf of its members, especially on behalf of admitting casualty doctors, about doctors' responsibility to their patients. That is a difficult problem, but it could be resolved by changing the way that the law is framed, so that admitting casualty doctors are not placed in a judgmental position. I must make it clear to the Minister that the proposal is not that doctors should be required to pick and choose whom they think the police might pursue for criminal prosecution.
I had a meeting some time ago with the BMA's ethical committee, which has responded to the Ramskill report, and continues to express concern. The BMA's response to me in a letter encapsulates the legitimate concern that must be addressed:
the role of a doctor is to treat people with a clinical need, whether they be a drink driver or the victim of a drink driver. The basis on which society permits doctors to help individuals who cannot consent themselves is that to do so is in their best therapeutic interests. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, consent can be assumed. Although there may be grounds for society to decide that it wishes to expand the scope of implied consent to include consent to taking and/or testing of samples for forensic purposes, the BMA considers that it would be inappropriate for doctors to press for such a change. A change in the law would have an inevitable impact upon the therapeutic relationship, and one which could undermine confidence in the doctors' role as patient advocate. Were such a change to be made, it would be important that the impetus came from society, not the medical profession.
The BMA clearly recognises that a problem exists. The association—rightly—represent the concerns of its members, but it acknowledges that the House represents and articulates the views of society in general. Society does not believe it right that the law allows someone who wilfully drinks to excess and takes another person's life to evade prosecution and an appropriate sentence. The challenge for hon. Members is to find solutions to the problems that I have described that allow doctors to carry out their duties without undermining the patient-doctor relationship.

259WH
The Kent police study found that 94 per cent. of medical staff would be prepared to take blood samples if that would not make them subject to legal challenge by patients. The remaining 6 per cent., of course, would not be willing to do so. Now that the report is available, Home Office Ministers should seek solutions to the problems that have created the difficulty in the law.
The available choices need to examined and pursued. First, should the law be changed so that drivers in road traffic accidents are tested automatically, subject to medical consent and as long as such tests do not jeopardise medical treatment? That option should be considered carefully. Blood samples are always taken from unconscious drivers taken into casualty departments. The sample size could be increased, so that it could be divided and stored properly. In that way, drivers could give their consent, or otherwise, to their blood samples being tested later, when they were in full possession of their faculties. That extension of the current procedure would not require any new invasive technique, as needles are used anyway to secure the routine therapeutic sample.
The Ramskill report also suggests that police surgeons should be allowed to remove samples, with the consent of the casualty doctor or the doctor in charge of the unconscious driver. Once the driver was well enough, he or she would have the right to agree, or otherwise, to the analysis of the sample being made known to the prosecuting authority.
As I have mentioned, matters of law arise when samples are taken, and we must consider carefully the position of the doctor. It would be one way forward if we could ensure that the law was changed so that the legal position of the doctor was not undermined, and he or she would not be subject to legal challenge under the civil or criminal law on the grounds that the procedure they had carried out was invasive and constituted an assault. Once the legal problems that doctors fear were overcome, we could start to address the ethical issues that must also be considered.
The experience of other countries such as Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Australia and many others, where blood samples are taken, indicates that changes are needed now in this country. I make no specific recommendation to the Minister, other than to say that recent research must now open up that area of the law to change, so that justice can be done, and can be seen to be done.
On the issue of ethics, the GMC has outlined its agreement, subject to reservations, such as the need for trust between doctor and patient to be assured. I believe that that issue can be overcome without the doctor's position being undermined. In the matter of ethics, the wider issue of the safety and health of members of the public who may be maimed or killed if drink drivers are not successfully prosecuted should also be considered. I return to the point that the BMA made in its letter to me about society pressing for this change. If Members of Parliament are to represent the views of society—I speak generally, not only about my constituency case—we must recognise that society is concerned about the safety of the public in general, which can be served only by successful prosecutions and appropriate sentences.
I have considered carefully the rights of victim and killer. While I would not wish to undermine the important doctor-patient relationship, I question where
260WH
the balance lies in ethical terms. Does it tip in favour of the person who has perpetrated a criminal offence, but has been lucky enough to escape with his or her life and is taken to hospital, conscious or unconscious, through the accident and emergency entrance? Or does the balance tip in favour of the rights of the victim, who—as society must recognise—still has rights even though he or she has died?
Unlike the perpetrator of the crime, the victim is taken through a different hospital entrance and immediately becomes the property of the coroner. If we are considering issues of ethics and morality, the rights of the victim in those circumstances have at least equal weight with the person who has perpetrated that crime. In such cases, the evidence that is critical to a prosecution and an appropriate sentence should not be denied to the victims and their families.
In recent years, we have seen a distinct change in public thinking about the whole issue of drink driving, and we sometimes have to make judgments that are not easy, but do at least put the victim first. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider whether now is the time to make progress in this area. I know that he has received much extra information, and I have far more information than I have been able to share with him in the course of 15 minutes.
Much technical information was provided to me by the clinical biochemistry department of the Royal Berkshire hospital about the way in which blood samples should be kept and stored so that they can be used as evidence in court. That point will need to be addressed after consideration of the principle of changing the law. I do not doubt that we will need consultation on the issue, but the difficulties are not insurmountable.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will agree to a meeting with me before the recess, so that we can explore in more detail how the matter might be taken forward. In that way, for Charis Yeoman and others like her, people who drink and drive and wilfully claim the lives of others will know that they will be prosecuted under the law without being able to deny the judicial system the very evidence that proves their guilt.
1.16 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing the debate. To be frank, I was not personally aware of the details of the cases and histories involved in this important and vexed issue, until the hon. Lady secured the debate and I briefed myself for it. I am grateful to her and can immediately agree to her final point, because I am happy to meet her before the recess to discuss how we may make progress. It is a very important issue and it is right that she campaigns on it.
The hon. Lady was generous enough to say in her introductory remarks that the issue has concerned several hon. Members. For example, my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) and for Luton, South (Ms Moran) have campaigned on it.
It is appropriate, as I begin, to comment on the case of Charis Yeoman, which the hon. Lady mentioned. It is right that we acknowledge the terrible tragedy that

261WH
befell the family when Charis was killed in the road crash, and I wish to express condolences to the family on behalf of everyone concerned. Perhaps I may offer them the consolation that if we are able to change the law in the future, something constructive may come out of that terrible tragedy.
As the hon. Lady knows, the issue has been the source of debate for many years, and it is the difficulty and sensitivity of all the points involved—many of which she mentioned—that have made it such an intractable subject. I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate the matter because it is an area of law and medical ethics that we need to consider regularly to see whether any changes have occurred to justify taking a different overall view from that taken in the past. The hon. Lady cited several reasons why we should do so.
Of all of the road safety issues involving death and serious injuries on our roads, none has received greater support from the public than those concerning drink driving. We want to ensure that we continue to make progress and reduce the casualties still further. In consequence, any deficiencies in the current arrangements must be considered most carefully. That is especially true if practice, procedures and the existing law may lead to offenders escaping trial and a due sentence, because—for the reasons the hon. Lady mentioned—the necessary evidence cannot be collected in time. She may be interested to learn that we shall publish a consultation document on the whole question of penalties for road traffic law to take the debate still further forward.
When a patient is admitted to hospital as a result of a crash, the first concern must be for that patient's welfare, whatever the circumstances that led to the admission. That is right and we cannot resile from it in any way. In consequence, the road traffic legislation recognises that the normal procedures associated with breath testing cannot be applied to that patient unless the doctor treating him or her is satisfied that the necessary procedures would not be prejudicial to the proper care and treatment of the patient. That also raises the key ethical issue of whether the doctor involved in treating the patient would be acting contrary to medical ethics if he became part of the process of gathering evidence to prosecute his patient.
The duty of care to the patient, and indeed to patients in general, could conceivably be undermined if it was thought that doctors were somehow operating on behalf of the authorities rather than primarily caring for the patient. That is the issue that has informed much of the response from both the British Medical Association ethics committee and the General Medical Council.
As the hon. Lady said, there is also the issue of obtaining the patient's consent. Doctors can take blood samples without the patient's consent, because their primary duty is a therapeutic one that is designed to help the patient. The whole breath-testing procedure rests crucially on obtaining consent. I understand that, in law, any taking of blood without consent would constitute an assault and would have to be treated accordingly. The hon. Lady referred to that fact in her comments on intrusive forms of medical treatment.
262WH
The law already provides that those who refuse to provide a sample commit an offence for which the penalty is not dissimilar from that for an ordinary drink-driving offence. However, often patients are not in a fit state to give their consent, even when the doctor is prepared to allow a sample to be taken.
Mrs. Browning: My understanding is that when a person is conscious after an accident but declines to give a sample, the penalties are pretty derisory. This point may be tangential to the specific subject of the debate, but I do not think that the current one-year maximum penalty is sufficient for those who refuse to give a blood sample. I was therefore pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government will consult on the way in which courts treat drink driving in sentencing.
Mr. Clarke: That is a perfectly fair point, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will make it in response to the consultation paper that we shall issue. That paper is based on a view that has been expressed in various ways on both sides of the House—that our penalties have not been updated sufficiently to take account of what she correctly described as the change in public attitude towards driving offences, particularly drink-driving offences, and then tragic consequences. Her point is well made, and I am sure that she will make it directly in response to the consultation.
The classic case in the sphere that we are discussing is that of the unconscious patient from whom blood has been taken for medical diagnostic purposes, but from whom a sample for drink-driving purposes cannot be taken. Indeed, that is exactly the example that the hon. Lady gave. It has been suggested that the use of any remaining part of a diagnostic sample might be used for forensic analysis, and that consent could be obtained from the patient at a later date. There is indeed a precedent for that in a previous case. Under current arrangements, however, that would be a very speculative process that would be open to substantial challenge in court proceedings. Nevertheless, that is exactly the argument that the hon. Lady is using.
Alcohol-impregnated swabs are usually used in the taking of diagnostic samples. It is already well established that that might be used to invalidate the blood sample. Usually, no preservative or anticoagulant is mixed with diagnostic samples. Therefore the sample starts to deteriorate in various ways, which could make further analysis difficult or easily open to challenge.
Mrs. Browning: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: I shall in a moment.
There would be difficulty in establishing the chain of evidence—that is, incontrovertible evidence that the blood was taken from the patient to the point at which it was sampled and finally analysed, and that no errors in its handling or labelling had occurred in between. By the time that the diagnostic sample could be released, it could well have been degraded by bacteria.
I wanted to list those points. They all involve technical issues, but they show that the standard medical procedure used for diagnostic purposes raises problems in the context of drink-driving legislation. However, I

263WH
acknowledge what the hon. Lady said about the technical evidence that she has acquired. I give way to her.
Mrs. Browning: Obviously, I would be happy to make available to the Minister the information that I have been given by the clinical biochemistry department. I believe that sample degradation could be overcome by the use of fluoride, which stops that process. I also agree that, for the purpose that we are discussing, changes would have to be made to the way in which samples are taken and stored. However, I think that the problems that the Minister described are technical ones which could be overcome.
Mr. Clarke: I acknowledge that the hon. Lady is right. It certainly seems right that overcoming such problems would require a change in medical procedures in cases involving suspected drink driving. The issue, however, is whether such changes in procedure, which perhaps could be achieved along the lines that she is suggesting, would be ethically acceptable to doctors in the framework that we are talking about. That is precisely the issue that we are debating.
As the hon. Lady said, the Home Office runs a scheme to fund individual police officers to undertake research projects that it is thought might throw light on operational policing issues. As part of that, the Home Office agreed to fund the recent report by the police officer in Kent constabulary to which she referred. He has produced recommendations on the matter following a study of the position in Australia. Of course the views that he has expressed are not those of the Home Office; as the report itself makes clear, they are the views of the author alone. Nevertheless, he has tried to address a very difficult subject and, within his remit, has significantly added to the sum of knowledge on the issue and moved it forward precisely as the hon. Lady has described.
I am also aware that the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council have seen the report and commented on it. I have copies of letters from them explaining their position. I shall place copies of those in the Library for hon. Members to refer to, and send a copy of them to the hon. Lady. I also have a very interesting annexe produced by my officials on the procedures and problems associated with testing hospitalised drivers for alcohol, which consists of a flow-chart showing the difficulties of the process. I shall also send a copy of that to the hon. Lady, for her information in taking the debate forward.
Although the General Medical Council has said that in principle it would be acceptable to take blood from a person who is not competent to give consent, its letter goes on to explain all the practical difficulties involved. Those difficulties match the concerns expressed by the chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee.
My officials have talked to both the BMA and the GMC, and we believe that there is not a fundamental difference of view between the two organisations on the issue. We also believe that the different ways in which they have expressed their views are the result of their different functions, not of a basic difference of opinion. However, none of that undermines what the hon. Lady has rightly said—that we have to face the issue head on.
264WH
In the context of the competing rights involved in the case that we are discussing—those of victim, doctor and driver—we have to find a resolution that is acceptable to the community as a whole, to ensure that people do not get away with illegal activity simply because of an evidential problem that could not be resolved differently.
I have thought it appropriate to make it clear that the ethical problems with which we have been struggling have not changed substantially since publication of the report by the officer in Kent county constabulary. None the less, I also want to tell the hon. Lady that we are happy to look again at all the issues involved in the light of the latest position, and of the points that she has made.
Following this debate, I shall talk to my colleagues in the Department of Health to determine whether there would be value in having a joint Home Office and Department of Health consultation on the subject, to discuss some of the issues. As a result of the way in which the hon. Lady has raised the issues, I think that it might be helpful to take forward the debate in a slightly more structured way. As I said, I shall talk to my colleagues in the Department of Health to see whether some process of that type might be appropriate.
As I also said, I shall be happy to meet the hon. Lady before the recess, as she requested, to discuss how we might take the whole debate forward. It is very much a cross-party issue, on which many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned to ensure that we make progress.
The Government have always made it clear that we should like to resolve any difficulties in drink driving enforcement. I know from the way in which she has dealt with this debate that the hon. Lady recognises that there are difficult and complicated problems involving medical ethics and procedure, and technical issues that need to be resolved. I am inclined to think that the type of consultative process that I described might be the best way forward. Therefore, as I said, before she and I meet before the recess, I shall talk to my colleagues at the Department of Health to determine whether a joint process to take the debate a bit further forward is possible.
I should perhaps take this opportunity to reassure doctors, and the GMC and the BMA, that we take their ethical questions extremely seriously. It is important for us to understand the exact basis of the position and to propose procedural or technical solutions that would accommodate those concerns and find a way through. However, as the hon. Lady said, at the same time we have to be clear that society and the community want us to ensure that there is genuine justice—so that the perpetrators of what are, after all, crimes can be properly brought to justice, in a manner that I hope will also inhibit future breaches of the law, and thus future tragedies.
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for initiating this debate. I have responded to it as constructively as I can, to try to move us forward.
Mrs. Browning: I am grateful for the way in which the Minister has responded to the debate.
Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that comment. This is a cross-party issue, and I know that both sides of the House would like to see progress made on it.

Sheltered Housing
1.29 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am grateful to be able to present a debate on sheltered housing. It is an important issue, and I hope that, via my hon. Friend the Minister, we shall be able to take some elements of it forward.
As I am sure the Minister knows, 22 to 28 May was sheltered housing week. Like other Members of Parliament, I participated in some of the visits and activities that took place during that week. I intend to discuss what I see as the importance of sheltered housing, drawing on the experience of my local authority in Stroud to help me so do. I want to look at the issues related to sheltered housing, particularly the development of very sheltered housing. I will use evidence from my own constituency, but will also look at what is possible in the country as a whole. I hope to be able to draw some conclusions from that, and to ask my hon. Friend some questions, which I hope that he will be able to answer.
I am indebted to a number of people who have helped me put together the text for this debate—Wendy Wilson from the House of Commons Library, Steve Neale from Stroud district council, Christine Allen from the National Housing Federation, Eileen Short from the daylight robbery campaign and, last but not least, all those involved with the emerging role of sheltered housing campaign. All those people value sheltered housing and demonstrate why it is necessary to have a debate at this time.
There is no statutory definition of sheltered housing. However, most sheltered housing schemes share certain common features, including the provision of accommodation designed with the needs of elderly occupants in mind—although not exclusively so—and the provision of on-site wardens and emergency call systems.
Standards for sheltered housing were laid down in the 1969 Ministry of Housing and Local Government circular 82/69, which introduced the concepts of category 1 and category 2. In category 1 schemes, communal facilities and a resident warden are optional. Dwellings can be bungalows as well as flats. Lifts are not usually provided. The circular intended that category 1 provision should be for the relatively independent elderly. Category 2 schemes comprise flats under one roof, and there must be communal facilities, resident wardens and lifts. Such dwellings were intended in the circular for more dependent elderly people.
Circular 82/69 has not been mandatory since 1980, but its influence lives on. The labels—category 1 and category 2 schemes—attract difference housing allowances and adhere to different cost frameworks. Category 1 and 2 sheltered housing is more expensive than ordinary housing because of its features and facilities—specially designed housing, a resident warden service, a communications system and communal facilities over and above those found in ordinary housing.
Sheltered housing dates back to just after the second world war. It took some time to take off—in fact, only 28,000 people lived in such units as recently as 1960. However, as my hon. Friend knows, during the 1960s
266WH
and 1970s, there was a considerable increase in the sheltered housing provision. I am grateful to Anchor and Hanover housing associations, which identified for me the importance of their role, as well as that of the local authority.
There are three key issues to identify at the outset. First, how appropriate is sheltered housing today, given some of the alternatives that are available, such as staying put, and care and repair? I declare an interest in that I am a director of Stroud care and repair, so I appreciate the importance of people being allowed to stay in their own home. However, I do not see that as conflicting with my support for sheltered housing.
Today, there are about 500,000 sheltered housing units. Some 300,000 of those are in the public sector and 200,000 are in the private sector, with registered social landlords. They are mainly, but not exclusively, for people over 65. Some of the units are not easy to let, leading to repercussions which I will dwell on later.
At a time when we have a gradually ageing population, it seems strange, after the peak in the growth of sheltered housing that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, there has been a decline ever since. For example, only 402 units were developed in 1997, the last year for which I have figures, compared with 1989, when some 7,000 units were developed. Something is happening to the demand for, and the supply of, sheltered housing. That is a little worrying and we must get to grips with it.
Much of the debate is about what is suitable for older people, what they want and what they expect. There are other issues, however, such as finance—what people pay in rent and what help they have to pay it. In addition, schemes in the private sector have been linked to leasehold problems. I have dealt with one of them myself.
I should like to use my district council area for the constituency that I represent as a good exemplar of what is best about sheltered housing. Stroud has 29 sheltered housing schemes, of which two are very sheltered. It has been a forward-looking authority, providing accommodation for people in their later years. There is a good take-up of units, but there is not the same desire to move into them that there was in the 1970s and early 1980s.
There are many valued aspects of the various units in Stroud. All older people who need it are able to link up with a central control system, so that, even if there is no warden on call, they have a back-up. There are good communal facilities in each unit, and some of them are comparatively new. There are many other ways in which people can have the benefit of living communally.
What is the future for sheltered housing, which has an image problem? As I said, there has been a rapid decline in the number of units provided year on year, affecting the private and, more particularly, the public sector. There is a funding issue, which is linked to people feeling that what they pay for is good value for money. We always come back to the housing benefit debate, which I shall say more about later. There are also issues about service charges and the cost of warden help.
However, sheltered housing has some good aspects. All the evidence suggests that there is a high satisfaction rate among people living in sheltered accommodation. There is an attempt to reinvigorate—almost to

267WH
reinvent—sheltered housing, led by the emerging role of the sheltered housing campaign, which I welcome. Other things are happening on the back of sheltered housing, the most important of which is the move towards very sheltered housing for the more fragile older person.
What is the Government's response to this? I wish to highlight two documents, one of which is the Green Paper on housing. I am a little disappointed that it does not make more of sheltered housing. The main point, to which I have alluded, is how to grapple with the difficult issue of housing benefit. I welcome the attempts to sort that out; it has an especially deleterious effect as one of the reasons that people do not want to go into sheltered accommodation.
I welcome the move towards transitional housing benefit that began in April, as well as the continuing consultations. There is evidence that people are beginning to take note of those matters; that may change some of the adverse perceptions of the high cost of living in sheltered accommodation. I lay my cards on the table by stating my support for the daylight robbery campaign—inasmuch as people feel Some anger that, because we have not yet sorted out housing benefit, there is some subsidisation of those who pay full rent either by those who do not, or through the housing revenue account. Until we deal with that difficult issue, the anger will remain. It has certainly been expressed to me—we need to do something about the problem.
The second document relates to the "Supporting People" programme, from which a series of papers was produced. The programme takes an holistic approach to dealing with the problems of older people. The original document identified the need to try overcome some of the complications caused by unco-ordinated and overlapping funding streams and to make more transparent who has responsibility for the support of vulnerable people. It examined structures and pointed to the need to make them easier to understand. It proposed the evolution of a more comprehensible strategy that would be more likely to be carried through. It also noted that the housing benefit problem should be sorted out.
As the document states, that will mean that we are
putting people first … addressing the needs of vulnerable groups—
and producing
high quality services
and
a logical and transparent approach—
to the planning of such housing.
A disappointing aspect of my research into this matter is that one of the strongest concerns expressed during the consultations was about where sheltered housing fits in. That point needs to be addressed and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do so. There are many reasons for that concern, but the main one is that, in these times of change, sheltered accommodation does not fit neatly into any of the relevant categories. It is not genuinely supported housing—unless it falls under the very sheltered category. People want some explanation of that point.
During the debates on the Care Standards Bill, I expressed the concerns, raised by some of the organisations that run sheltered units, that the
268WH
registration of such units might lead to a considerable loss in the benefits available to some residents. If that situation could be clarified and overcome, that would be welcome.
We are beginning to examine different ways of using our sheltered accommodation. The most obvious is the move towards very sheltered—or what my authority describes as extra sheltered—accommodation for older, frailer people or those who have special difficulties. Stroud was a pioneer in that form of housing. It started a scheme in July 1993, working closely with Gloucestershire social services and the health authority. The stated objective of the scheme is to provide
enhanced personal and social care of residents … Provision of emergency care, if required, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week … To provide a cost effective alternative to residential/institutional care. To provide additional domiciliary care co-ordinated by the Wardens promoting an ability for residents to live more independently in the community.
Last, but not least, it offers the possibility to enter into contracts with different care providers.
The beauty of such schemes is the opportunity for mixing—of ages, of people with different problems and of funding streams. Although it might be good to clarify and co-ordinate such schemes to make them more coherent, they have much to recommend them. They show that there is a strategic future for sheltered housing in such specialised forms.
How can we move towards those different uses for sheltered accommodation? I hope that the Minister will consider the need to get the accommodation right and the parallels between the ideas expressed in "Supporting People" and the royal commission on long-term care for the elderly. We are an ageing population; we need to provide different facilities for older people. The main demand is for people to stay in their own home for as long as possible. We need to develop and use resources in the best possible way.
I hope that we can develop centres of excellence that will serve the wider community, so that specialist facilities for vulnerable people can be produced in an innovative way, using—dare I say it?—joined-up thinking and action. However, some key issues must be addressed. We need to revisit the purpose of sheltered accommodation and how it is allocated.
We must consider the role of the warden. The increasing professionalisation of the warden service is good. Two of my friends—Diane Wyatt and Carol Snell—are the key wardens in the very sheltered schemes in the Stroud district; they demonstrate the high capabilities that result from training and support.
We need to examine how care is provided, how people gain access to it and who pays for it. We need to overcome the difficulties associated with some of the more difficult-to-let accommodation. That applies equally to the private and to the public sector.
Sheltered accommodation has a place and it has a future, although it is reasonable and right that its role should change. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address four points.
First, what is the position of the transitional housing benefit scheme—especially in relation to sheltered accommodation? Secondly, can the Minister clarify the registration process proposed in the Care Standards Bill? Thirdly, what are the Government's views on the

269WH
evolution of very sheltered accommodation? Finally, how do they envisage the relationship between the public and private sectors? Can they be pulled together through the best value initiative?
I have given my hon. Friend plenty to do, so I shall conclude my remarks and listen to his esponse.
1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Muffin): My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has raised a significant issue. As he says, more than 500,000 older people live in sheltered housing—more than in residential and nursing homes put together. My hon. Friend asked several questions and I shall do my best to address them. If I do not do justice to them, no doubt we can pursue the matter through correspondence.
The Government are in no doubt as to the potential benefits of sheltered accommodation in enabling older people to remain independent for as long as possible in their own homes. Residents speak enthusiastically of the benefits of such accommodation: having their own front door; having the options of company and of privacy; of feeling a real sense of security and peace of mind; and of the importance of being able to remain part of a community. Sheltered accommodation is clearly a positive housing choice for many older people.
My hon. Friend touched on several matters. The "Supporting People" programme aims to ensure that the highest quality services are provided to vulnerable older people. It will mean that a wide variety of options will be available to them—ranging from retirement housing, to traditional sheltered housing and to "floating" support services—designed to enable them to stay in their own homes. The programme will raise the priority of support services and encourage local authorities to take a more strategic approach to provision, integrating it with social and health services.
As my hon. Friend said, concern has been expressed about the impact of the new funding arrangements for sheltered housing under the "Supporting People" programme. First, regarding the impact of the transitional housing benefit scheme, which was introduced in April this year, concerns have been expressed about the need for private sector tenants, including owner-occupier leaseholders, to have a valid community care assessment in order to get help under the scheme.
We needed a statutory gateway to ensure both that the claimant requires support and that the landlord can provide the support needed. The community care assessment provides that gateway. Relatively few private sector tenants receive help with support charges through housing benefit. We appreciate that there are concerns, and we have worked closely with the Department of Health to issue comprehensive guidance to both social services and housing benefit sections to make processes as smooth and as simple as possible.
Looking at the long-term arrangements under "Supporting People", the Government recognise that, when many existing sheltered housing tenants moved into their accommodation, they regarded it as a home
270WH
for life. They did not expect to be rendered insecure in their tenancies or to be facing different terms and conditions as a result of changes to the funding of their accommodation. I assure existing tenants that when "Supporting People" is introduced, in April 2003, they will not have to move out of their homes or see a change in services provided, simply as a result of the change in funding arrangements that will be introduced in three years' time.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, service providers have expressed concerns that the changes will be excessively bureaucratic. The Government are determined that the administrative arrangements that are put in place for "Supporting People" will be straightforward, cost-effective and transparent. My hon. Friend asked me for detail. There is still a great deal of work to be carried out before "Supporting People" is implemented in April 2003; indeed, we have some time in which to do that work. The Government will work closely with local authorities, service providers and service users to develop a programme that can deliver the kind of high-quality support services that vulnerable people, including older people, need and want.
My hon. Friend mentioned the daylight robbery campaign and campaigners' fears about Government proposals to introduce resource accounting into the housing revenue account from April 2001. I have received many representations on that issue and I must say that there is some misunderstanding around, which we have done our best to clear up, but without complete success. Assumed surpluses on local authorities' housing revenue accounts underlie daylight robbery campaigners' concerns.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are introducing a major repairs allowance, which will have an immediate and substantial impact on those assumed surpluses and will address many of the campaigners' concerns. Full details of the major repairs allowance will be included in the annual determination, which will be sent to local authorities in December.
I mentioned the growing popularity of sheltered housing. With more and more older people actively choosing that type of accommodation, concern has been raised that there is no statutory inspection regime. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend mentioned that, but it is probably worth mentioning anyway.
Local authorities are subject to best value performance reviews of their housing stock, which would include sheltered housing. The housing inspectorate also carries out audit and inspection of local authority housing services. Registered social landlords who provide sheltered accommodation are regulated by the Housing Corporation, which sets performance standards.
The Care Standards Bill, which is passing through Parliament, will introduce the regulation and inspection of all types of home care provision, including that provided in sheltered accommodation.
Mr. Drew: All the evidence that I have shows that these changes are greatly welcomed. The worry is purely about the benefit implication.
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful. I cannot immediately provide my hon. Friend with the details, but we are

271WH
working on them and I have given a general assurance, which I hope that he will relay, that we do not intend to threaten in any way the existing arrangements for tenants. We still have some time to go in which to agree the precise details.
Concern has been expressed about the definitions used in the Care Standards Bill of "care home" and "personal care", and there are fears that those will require sheltered housing to register, the consequence being that older people might lose their entitlement to benefits. That is the issue that my hon. Friend is interested in. The vast majority of sheltered housing schemes involve care being provided to people in their own home. In those circumstances, whether they are an owner-occupier or a tenant, that home cannot and will not be registrable as a care home.
The Bill's definition of "personal care" is intended to clarify, rather than change, the definition in the Registered Homes Act 1984. The existing definition in the 1984 Act is care that
includes assistance with bodily functions.
The intention of the new definition is to ensure that advice and encouragement given in connection with such care would be included within the definition of personal care. Other forms of advice and encouragement not connected with assisting a person with their bodily functions will not be included, and the Department of Health intends to table an amendment to the Bill in due course to make that clear.
As I mentioned, the role of sheltered housing is changing. Demographic changes over the next 20 years will have a substantial impact on housing policy. The number of people over 60 is likely to rise from 6.5 million in 1996 to nearly 9 million by 2021. The number of frail older people is growing even faster.
Older people's aspirations are also rising. Individuals increasingly expect services to respond to their specific needs and preferences. Quite rightly, they are no longer prepared to put up with "one size fits all" services. Flexibility, choice, independence, information and involvement are the key issues raised by older people in relation to the accommodation arid services that they receive.
Very sheltered housing, which my hon. Friend mentioned, has been developed as a way of bringing social care and housing together. It is used as a base for
272WH
support and care provision which can enable older people to remain in sheltered housing as they become frailer instead of having to move into residential care. That type of accommodation, which is being developed in Stroud and throughout the country, is helping to widen the spectrum of housing options for older people.
In response to that changing picture, the Government aim to ensure a better and wider choice of options, with access to quality services which enable older people to lead active, independent and secure lives. To that end, the Departments of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and of Health are working together to develop a housing strategy for older people, which aims to ensure that they are able to secure and sustain their independence in a home appropriate to their circumstances. It also aims to support older people to enable them to make active and informed choices about their accommodation by providing access to, and advice on, appropriate services and housing options, including sheltered housing and extra care or very sheltered housing.
The strategy will also recognise the important links between housing, health and social services for older people and the need for those services to be integrated locally. Effective housing, allied to the right care, support and wider services, can be the springboard that enables older people to live life to the full. The Government hope to publish the housing strategy for older people later this year.
The future of housing for older people, including sheltered housing, holds many challenges and opportunities. Taken together, the Government's own work and that being carried out in the sector itself will ensure that older people have more choice about where they live and the type of services that they receive. Sheltered accommodation certainly has an important role to play in the development of quality services for older people that are flexible, responsive and user-focused. I am sure that, in the years ahead, we shall see many improvements in this sector.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue. If he wishes to follow up any further concerns by correspondence, I shall be glad to reply.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

HEALTH

  Mead Webber
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the(a) lowest and (b) highest HAS scores formally awarded to the Mead Webber plant since the introduction of HAS scores; what was the average score; and what were the (a) lowest, (b) highest and (c) average HAS scores awarded to the plant by Mr. Yogaratnam. [122051]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the lowest hygiene assessment system (HAS) score awarded to the Mead Webber plant since the system was introduced is 65; the highest 87 and the average 82.

  The lowest HAS score awarded to the plant by Mr. Yogaratnam is 80; the highest 87; and the average 84.

  NHS Patients (Food)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost was of food for each patient in each year since 1985 in(a) Bolton Hospitals NHS Trusts, (b) North West NHS hospitals and (c) NHS hospitals in England. [122594]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the cost of food was collected centrally for the first time in the 1998–99 financial year.

  The cost of meal provision per patient per day for Bolton Hospitals National Health Service Trust was £4.39.

  The total cost of meal provision for the North West Region was £41,291,201.

  The total cost of meal provision for England was £255,868,647.

  NHS Hospitals (Cleaning)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the average cost was of directly provided cleaning per square metre for each year since 1985 in(a) Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust, (b) North West NHS hospitals and (c) NHS hospitals in England; [122596]

  (2) what the average cost was of contracted-out cleaning per square metre for each year since 1985 in (a) Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust, (b) North West NHS hospitals and (c) NHS hospitals in England. [122595]

  Mr. Denham
  Information was collected centrally for the first time in the 1998–99 financial year. However these data cannot be split between contracted out and directly provided services.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many incidents of(a) virus infection and (b) horizontal gene transfer, broken down by the (i) place, (ii) date and (iii) exact nature of each incident, have occurred as a result of xenotransplantation procedures; and if he will make a statement; [125265]

  (2) what safety precautions are implemented (a) during and (b) after xenotransplantation research procedures in order to minimise (i) virus infection and (ii) horizontal gene transfer. [125264]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]The safety of research into xenotransplantation is governed by various regulations. A summary of the agencies involved and regulations that might apply is contained in guidance on making proposals to conduct xenotransplantation on human subjects (UKXIRA 1998). Copies are available in the Library.

  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) requires employers to notify the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) of incidents occurring in the workplace that result in the ill health of employees. The HSE has advised that data sets for reports under RIDDOR for the financial years 1994–95 to 1998–99 contained no reports of infection attributed to xenotransplantation procedures.

  No clinical trials involving humans have yet been approved in the United Kingdom. Our position remains that clinical trials in xenotransplantation involving humans will be allowed to take place only when we are fully satisfied that the risks associated with such procedures are acceptable, taking account of all the available evidence at the time.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the report, "Diabetes in the UK-the Missing Million"; and if he will make a statement. [125738]

  Mr. Denham
  We welcome the report, which will help to raise awareness of the seriousness of diabetes. We announced last year the development of a National Service Framework for diabetes in England. The diabetes National Service Framework will be published in 2001 for implementation in the National Health Service from 2002. Its aim is to improve health outcomes for people with diabetes, by raising the quality of services and reducing variations between them.

  Air Ambulance Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding the Government contributed towards the financing of the North West air ambulance, and how many times the air ambulance has been called out in the North West, in the last year for which figures are available. [125959]

  Ms Stuart
  Air ambulances are not funded from National Health Service central funds. The North West air ambulance launched 480 missions in its first year, 1999–2000.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the financial effect on the Government of the EU Commissioners' proposal to achieve the required reduction in fishing for MAGP IV exclusively through cuts in fleet capacity; and what fleet cuts would be required in Britain for the remaining 18 months of the programme. [124452]

  Mr. Morley
  If adopted, the suggested measures would require a cut in the UK fishing fleet of 8 per cent. over the two years 2001–02, representing about 22,000 tonnes of capacity.

  It is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the likely cost of decommissioning this tonnage through a voluntary grant scheme. Based on the average level of successful bids under the most recent scheme in 1997, it would be about £75 million. But the cost would be substantially higher since there would have to be sizeable cuts in those profitable fleet segments which have hitherto shown little interest in voluntary decommissioning schemes. Cuts of this scale over such a time period are not ones we think are feasible or that we could support.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Presser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 3 May 2000,Official Report, column 140W, on live animal exports, what steps he plans to take to reduce the number of sheep originating from Kent which need to be removed by his staff at Dover port from consignments of slaughter/further fattening sheep; and if he will make a statement. [124888]

  Mr. Morley
  Careful consideration is already given to the reasons why individual sheep are found to be unfit at Dover so that steps can be taken to deal with any remediable cause.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2000,Official Report, column 286W, on live animal exports, how many sheep were rejected by local veterinary inspectors from 31 May to 31 December 1999 as unfit to travel, broken down by county in England and Wales. [125135]

  Mr. Morley
  The updated numbers of sheep rejected by local veterinary inspectors as unfit to travel for the period 31 May to 31 December 1999 according to counties of origin are as follows:

  Country/county

  Number

  England

  Herefordshire

  506

  North Yorkshire

  3,726

  Shropshire

  3

  Scotland

  Dumfries and Galloway

  17

  Lanarkshire

  6

  Mid-Lothian

  1

  Wales

  Denbighshire

  6,547

  Monmouthshire

  10

  618W

  Country/county

  Number

  Powys

  600

  Wrexham

  1,143

  Total

  12,559

  Notes:

  1. Nil returns for all other counties

  2. All figures are provisional and subject to change

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the terms on which compensation is granted to farmers in the tuberculosis study areas; and what allowance there is for consequential loss. [125800]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]When cattle are slaughtered following a positive reaction to the tuberculin skin test, the farmer receives compensation of 100 per cent. of their market value. No compensation is given for consequential losses. Compensation arrangements are the same both inside and outside badger culling trial areas.

  Pigs (Transportation)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy on the transportation of pigs in farrowing crates. [125747]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]Farrowing crates are used to prevent sows from crushing their young piglets. They are not used to transport pigs.

  Animal Import Licences
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current importation licences which permit the importation of cynomolgus monkeys and wild-caught baboons into the UK for xenotransplantation research, indicating for each licence(a) the number of non-human primates involved, (b) the origin of the primates and (c) the expiry date of the licence; and if he will make a statement. [125302]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]A list of the current import licenses for cynomolgus monkeys(macaca fascicularis, otherwise known as crab-eating macaques), with expiry dates, is as follows. The animals are intended for research purposes but this Department does not require the type of research to be specified on the licence application. There are no current import licences for the importation of baboons.

  Number licensed

  Country of origin

  Date licence expires

  30

  Israel

  16 June 2000

  36

  China

  16 June 2000

  12

  China

  18 July 2000

  100

  Mauritius

  16 August 2000

  100

  Mauritius

  16 August 2000

  100

  Mauritius

  16 August 2000

  100

  Mauritius

  16 August 2000

  18

  Israel

  21 September 2000

  60

  Israel

  3 October 2000

  60

  Mauritius

  11 October 2000

  60

  Mauritius

  11 October 2000

  60

  Mauritius

  11 October 2000

  619W

  Number licensed

  Country of origin

  Date licence expires

  50

  Mauritius

  14 October 2000

  50

  Mauritius

  14 October 2000

  50

  Mauritius

  14 October 2000

  50

  Mauritius

  14 October 2000

  34

  Mauritius

  2 November 2000

  20

  Mauritius

  2 November 2000

  10

  Mauritius

  7 November 2000

  40

  Mauritius

  7 November 2000

  4

  Mauritius

  7 November 2000

  30

  Israel

  30 November 2000

  60

  Mauritius

  30 November 2000

  Agricultural Workers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of agricultural/horticultural workers in Cheshire are in(a) part-time and (b) full-time employment; how many receive the national minimum wage, how many of the part-time employees are female; and if he will make a statement on the retention of the Agricultural Wages Board. [124785]

  Ms Quin
  The 1999 June Agricultural and Horticultural Census recorded 3,938 agricultural and horticultural workers in Cheshire (excluding farmers and managers). Of this total 23 per cent. were in part-time employment and 77 per cent. were in full-time employment. The agricultural work force in Cheshire included 868 regular part-time workers of which 408 were female. In addition 300 casual or seasonal workers were employed on a part-time basis. We have no information on the gender of these workers or any data on rates of pay on a county basis.

  All agricultural workers should receive at least the Agricultural Minimum Wage set under the Agricultural Wages Order. All such rates are above the national minimum wage.

  The review of the operation of the Agricultural Wages Board—one of the regular, standard reviews—is ongoing. The consultation period closed on 31 March and the responses which were received are being considered.

  Frozen Beef Imports
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish an assessment of the animal health and safety welfare standards in countries from which the United Kingdom imports frozen beef. [124675]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]All consignments of fresh or frozen beef meat imported into the UK, whether from other EU member states or third countries, must have been produced in accordance with the harmonised Community rules laid down in Council Directive 64/433/EEC. Ensuring that these rules are adhered to is the responsibility of the European Commission and reports of their veterinary inspection visits to a number of these countries are available on their website at the following address:http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg24/health/vi/reports/index—en.html

  On animal welfare, Article 8 of Council Directive 98/58/EC, which lays down minimum standards for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, requires
  620W
  the European Commission to submit a report on the comparison between animal welfare provisions in the Community and in non-member countries which supply the Community. We await the findings of this report with interest.

  EU Beef Labelling
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the meat industry on the compulsory EU beef labelling scheme; and if he will make a statement. [123297]

  Ms Quin
  At its meeting in Luxembourg on 17 April the Agriculture Council reached a political agreement on the adoption of a common position on a Commission proposal for a Regulation laying down general rules for a compulsory beef labelling system in the EU. Since then we have received representations from a number of organisations involved in the beef supply chain expressing concerns about the compliance costs, the value of the proposed compulsory indications to consumers and the timescale for implementation.

  Particular concern has been expressed about the requirement for beef to be labelled with the category of animal from which it is derived. We fully appreciate these concerns. The requirements may be amended following consideration of the proposed Regulation by the European Parliament.

  Farmers
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have left farming in each of the past 10 years. [123462]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]Information in the form requested is not available. The overall number of main holdings in the agricultural census in the United Kingdom has declined from 256,700 at June 1989 to 239,600 at June 1999. These are net figures, which include holdings coming into, as well as leaving agriculture and will, in many cases, take no account of changes in ownership.

  GM Maize (Chardon LL)
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of the proposed decision to add the genetically-modified maize variety Chardon LL to the United Kingdom National List, how much money those making representations have in total paid him for so doing. [121514]

  Ms Quin
  To date £6,810 has been received in respect of written representations, and £40,280 for requests to be heard by a person appointed by Ministers.

  Pig Industry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a scheme to compensate pig farmers for the disposal of specified material on the same basis as that which exists for beef farmers. [121769]

  Ms Quin
  There is no scheme in place which compensates beef farmers or slaughterers for the disposal of specified material. The additional veterinary inspection
  621W
  cost of overseeing the removal and destruction of specified risk material (SRM) from cattle is not presently passed on to cattle slaughterhouse operators but as there are no SRMs in pigs no additional veterinary inspection costs apply.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information was provided to regional service centres in December 1999 to assist them in responding to inquiries about the withdrawal of organophosphate sheep dips; and on what date the advice was received by each centre. [120074]

  Ms Quin
  The withdrawal of organophosphorus sheep dips was announced to Parliament by written answer on 20 December 1999, when a MAFF News Release was also published and was made available on the MAFF website to which all Regional Service Centres have access. Regional Directors were informed of developments at their regular monthly meeting on 20 January and were subsequently provided with further briefing.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the General Affairs Council held in Brussels on 22 and 23 May; and if he will make a statement. [123722]

  Mr. Vaz
  I wrote to the Chairman of the European Select Committee on 7 June to explain the outcome of the 22–23 May General Affairs Council held in Brussels. Copies of my letter have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Charities (Forms)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [123947]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Although the FCO has contact with many charities and other voluntary organisation, no central record is kept of those contacts and the information sought could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  It is FCO policy, as far as possible, to minimise the administrative burdens it places on the charities and voluntary organisations with which it has dealings.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Organisation for African Unity and (b) the United Nations, about the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea; and if he will make a statement. [124500]
  622W
  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Our Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York is in frequent contact with the United Nations Secretary-General and the Algerian OAU Presidency to discuss the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

  Our Ambassadors in Algeria and Addis Ababa also hold frequent talks with the Algerian OAU Presidency. And our Ambassador in Addis Ababa is in contact with the OAU Secretariat.

  Croatia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to support Croatia's proposed accession to the(a) European Union and (b) World Trade Organisation; and if he will make a statement. [125377]

  Mr. Vaz
  Her Majesty's Government fully support the EU's Stabilisation and Association process, designed to build stability and prosperity in South East Europe. The 1999 Cologne European Council confirmed that Stabilisation and Association Agreements will offer a prospect of European Union membership on the basis of the Amsterdam Treaty and fulfilment of the criteria defined at the Copenhagen European Council.

  The Commission has produced a study on the feasibility of a Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Croatia recommending that the EU open up negotiations on an Agreement.

  We welcome the Commission's effort to reach agreement on the terms of Croatia's WTO accession. Following recent developments, we understand that the key outstanding issues surrounding a market access package have been resolved. We hope that this should open the way to Croatia's accession to the WTO in the near future.

  OECD
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount paid by Her Majesty's Government to the OECD in respect of membership fees in each of the last three financial years. [125532]

  Mr. Hain
  The total amount paid by Her Majesty's Government over the last three financial years is £14,151,086.69. The OECD membership fees per year for the last three years are: 1997—£4,845,082.79, 1998—£4,586,554.69, 1999 —£4,719,449.21.

  We believe that this represents good value for money. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development provides expert analysis and facilitates policy discussion on a wide range of subjects, including macroeconomic policy, labour market reform, harmful taxation competition. E-commerce, and food safety.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries with which he has discussed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in the last 12 months. [125768]
  623W
  Mr. Hain
  We have discussed the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons with a range of interlocutors as part of our normal bilateral dialogues. It has also been discussed at European Union and G8 summits and at meetings of the United Nations Security Council. The review conference of the treaty in May 2000 offered the opportunity for further bilateral and multilateral discussions. The conference was attended by 155 states parties.

  In all appropriate forums, both bilateral and multilateral, we have made clear our commitment to the treaty and our determination that all those states which are not party to it should proceed towards accession as soon as possible.

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his European and NATO colleagues concerning the protection of inhabitants of the Caucasus against Chechnyan forces. [125894]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]We have had regular discussions with international colleagues about the Chechnya conflict, including in the EU, NATO, the OSCE and other international fora. Such discussions have regularly included discussion of the impact of the crisis on regional stability.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chechnyan rebel leaders concerning the jihad in the Caucasus. [125893]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]Neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have had meetings with Chechen warlords. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials have from time to time met Chechen representatives. In such contacts we have condemned terrorism and made clear our concern about the level of violence and reported human rights abuses on both sides in the Chechen conflict.

  European Social Charter
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will ratify the 1996 revised European Social Charter of the Council of Europe signed on 7 November 1997. [125795]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]We are continuing to review ratification of the Revised European Social Charter and consultations will continue on the provisions that we might accept upon ratification.

  UNMOVIC
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken to ensure that there is adequate Arab representation within the UNMOVIC inspection teams. [125142]

  Mr. Hain
  This is a matter for UNMOVIC's Executive Chairman, Dr. Hans Blix. The UK is in favour of UNMOVIC staff being drawn from the broadest possible geographical base, as called for under United Nations 624W
  Security Council resolution 1284. We urge all UN members to respond positively to Dr. Blix's requests for staff.

  Russian Federation
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to refer breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights by the Russian Federation in Chechnya to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 33 of the Convention; and if he will make a statement. [125990]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have considered with our EU partners the possibility of bringing an interstate action against Russia under Article 33 of the European Convention on Human Rights. We and other EU states have pursued other means of ensuring accountability for alleged human rights abuses in Chechnya, notably at the 56th Session of the Commission of Human Rights. An EU-drafted Resolution was passed, registering major concerns, including the need for an independent Commission of Inquiry meeting international standards. With EU partners, we have agreed that this type of international pressure, rather than an interstate complaint, was the clearest way of indicating our concern over the situation in Chechnya.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to support the proposed suspension of the Russian Federation from the Council of Europe in accordance with Recommendation 1456 (2000) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [125991]

  Mr. Vaz
  We share the concerns expressed in Recommendation 1456 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE) and have taken every opportunity, bilaterally and in company with our EU partners, to impress on Russia the need to comply with its human rights obligations. However, we share the EU position that it is preferable to continue to bring pressure to bear through engagement within the CoE rather than to isolate Russia by suspension.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Queen's Counsels
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what restrictions on the use of QCs have been introduced(a) by Government Departments and (b) through legal aid funding, indicating in each case what savings to public funds he estimates will be made as a result; and if he will make a statement. [125533]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  Dealing first with (a), whenever a Government Department in England and Wales wishes to brief a QC to appear in court on a civil matter, a legal adviser of a designated level of seniority must seek a nomination from the Law Officers of a particular Queen's Counsel with the appropriate expertise. Each such nomination has to be approved personally by the Attorney General or by me before instructions can be sent. This procedure has been

  625W
  in operation for some years. It means that QCs are the exception, not the rule. The two First Treasury Counsel are both junior counsel and they will advise and represent the Government without Queen's Counsel in many of its important civil cases. In addition there are four panels of junior Counsel whom Departments are expected to use for the majority of the Government's civil litigation.

  With regard to legal aid funding, in civil matters, Queen's Counsel should not be instructed by a solicitor acting for a publicly funded party unless prior authority has been given by the Legal Services Commission either in the certificate or subsequently by the Area Director. The Legal Services Commission issues Guidance on the use of Queen's Counsel and on making an application for prior authority.

  In criminal matters before the higher courts, judges have powers to allow a Queen's Counsel for the defence in the following cases: (a) on a charge of murder; (b) where it appears to the court making the order that the case is one of exceptional difficulty, gravity or complexity and that a Queen's Counsel is required in the interests of justice; or (c) where the prosecution is being brought by the Serious Fraud Office. The Lord Chancellor has been consulting on changes to this rule to control the use of QCs more strictly. The consultation is substantially concluded and he will shortly be laying regulations which will have the effect of restricting the use of QCs to cases where the prosecution have instructed a QC or Senior Treasury Counsel or the defence case is exceptional when judged against other offences of the same type and the defence case for that defendant involves substantial, novel or complex issues of law or fact which in the opinion of the court could properly be handled by a QC. Judges will be asked to endorse a written application stating how the criteria are met. This will allow the effect of the change to be monitored.

  It is impossible to predict how many Government cases in the future will justify the appointment of a QC or, consequently, what cost savings are made by the operation of these procedures.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many legal firms deal with legal aid work; and what the number was in 1996. [125434]

  Mr. Lock
  The information is not readily available in the form requested, and can be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Legal Services Commission, which replaced the Legal Aid Board on 1 April 2000, records payments made to solicitors offices and not solicitors firms. One firm may have several offices, but the Commission's payment system cannot identify them as belonging to the same firm.

  During the period April 1996 to 31 March 1997, 10,739 offices received legal aid payments. The most recent figure available is for the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999, when the number was 10,751. The figure for 1999–2000 is not yet available but will appear in the Legal Aid Board's final annual report which will be laid before Parliament in July 2000.

  Barristers
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what his policy is with regard to the exercise of his powers under the Access to Justice Act 1999 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 on the formation of partnerships between barristers. [125432]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor has no statutory powers with regard to the formation of partnerships between barristers.

  The Lord Chancellor's powers under Schedule 4 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, as amended by schedule 5 to the Access to Justice Act 1999, enable him only to strike down and replace a professional body's rules if they unreasonably restrict a right of audience or to conduct litigation, or the exercise of such a right.

  The rules preventing barristers forming partnerships are entirely a matter for the Bar Council.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol (River Boats)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many alcohol-related incidents were reported to police on or relating to Thames river boats in(a) 1990–91, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1996–97 and (e) 1998–99. [125446]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the European Community or European Economic Area, or members of their families, were(a) questioned, (b) searched and (c) detained in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999; and how the powers in these respects are exercised and at what location, in respect of those travelling by rail through the channel tunnel. [125385]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not available. European Economic Area (EEA) nationals are normally admitted to the United Kingdom on production of a valid passport or identity card as evidence of nationality and identity, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994 ("the EEA Order") and subject of Article 15(1) of the EEA Order. Under Article 3(3) of the EEA Order, an accompanying family member of an EEA national who is not himself an EEA national will normally be admitted to the United Kingdom, although he may, in addition, be required to hold an EEA family permit issued abroad.

  Under Article 15(1) of the EEA Order, immigration officers on arrival may refuse to admit a person if his exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. This applies when the person is travelling by rail through the channel tunnel or by any other means of transport.

  Powers for immigration officers to question passengers arriving in the United Kingdom, whether they are citizens of the European Union or European Economic Area, or their accompanying (third country) relatives, are contained

  627W
  in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. Schedule 2 applies to the examination of (EEA) nationals in accordance with Article 20(2)(e) of the EEA Order. Under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, a person who is examined under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 may be searched, and his belongings examined, and that person may be detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971.

  These powers are normally exercised where the passenger first encounters the immigration officer or, in the case of a person examined on board a train, immediately on his arrival in the United Kingdom.

  Child Abuse
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he takes to ensure that alleged cases of institutional child abuse are thoroughly investigated. [125750]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Although the conduct of criminal investigations is a matter for the chief officer of police, the police have a duty and responsibility to investigate all criminal offences. Investigations into allegations of criminal offences against children in particular, should be carried out sensitively, thoroughly and professionally.

  The Home Office has worked with the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment to publish guidance—"Working Together to Safeguard Children"—which sets out how all agencies and professionals should work together to promote children's welfare and to protect them from abuse and neglect.

  In addition, following the North Wales Child Abuse Report (the Waterhouse Report) "Lost in Care", the Government agreed there was a need for an inter-agency review of best practice in conducting complex abuse investigations and that a Review Group would be established to take forward this work, bringing together representatives from the Home Office, Department of Health, Local Government Association, Association of Directors of Social Services and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Ronald Maddison
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people(a) have voluntarily contacted the police, (b) the police have contacted and (c) the police estimate they will wish to contact in connection with the Wiltshire Constabulary inquiry into the death of Ronald Maddison. [125989]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand from the Wiltshire Constabulary that no-one has contacted them on their own initiative in connection with the inquiry into the death of Ronald Maddison; that the force has so far been in contact with 12 people in this connection; and that it is not possible to estimate the final number who may be contacted. The inquiry into Mr. Maddison's death is just one aspect of a wider inquiry into events at Porton Down over many years.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will direct that the relevant local authorities and regional assemblies be given the opportunity to be involved in all discussions between the National Asylum Support Service and the private agencies and landlords in the allocation of asylum seekers to different localities. [125278]

  Mrs. Roche
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) is fully committed to consulting the regional consortiums as part of the negotiation process in dispersing asylum seekers. We recognise the importance of local knowledge and expertise and NASS has an established consultation process for the procurement of accommodation. It would not be practicable to give individual local authorities and regional assemblies the opportunity to be involved in all discussions with private agencies and landlords. NASS must strike the right balance between the need to consult and the need, for example, to secure accommodation within reasonable timescales.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the size of the local Islamic community and the availability of support workers in the education and social services departments and voluntary agencies is taken into account by the National Asylum Support Service in the allocation of asylum seekers to local authorities. [125279]

  Mrs. Roche
  Wherever possible we disperse asylum seekers to areas where there is an established community of the same language. We also take into account any other local factors brought to our attention during the consultation process with the local regional consortium. The voluntary agencies are establishing "one stop shops" where asylum seekers can receive help and advice.

  Resident and Community Groups
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been made available for spending under the Government's policy for community involvement by residents' and community groups since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [124261]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office spent £170,000 in 1999–2000 under the Community Resource Fund, and is likely to spend a similar amount during this financial year. £325,000 was spent under the Community Development Learning Fund with £650,000 to be made available for 2000–01. Both these funds were established as a result of recommendations contained in the Policy Action Team 9 Report on Community Self-Help, and are aimed at enabling small and emerging community groups in deprived areas to access funds as easily and quickly as possible.

  Other departments also resource this activity. The hon. Member may wish to seek further information from, in particular, my right. hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the Secretary of State for the Department for Education and Employment.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  No-smoking Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of her Department's no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of her Department's offices that do not allow smoking. [125161]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our smoking policy, which allows smoking in designated areas only, has been very effective. We have two offices in London and East Kilbride where smoking is permitted only in five designated areas which account for between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. of the total available space.

  Croatia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if Know How Fund aid to Croatia has been increased since the election of the new Government; and if she will make a statement. [125376]

  Clare Short
  Our bilateral allocation to Croatia is £1 million in the current financial year, increasing to £1.5 million in each of the two following years. Our share of the EU programme to Croatia in 2000 is just over £2 million.

  Our aim is to complement the funding available through the EU and the international financial institutions to which we contribute. Since the election of the new Government we have discussed with the Croatian authorities several areas of possible support to their reform programme. Where our current funding allocations are insufficient to support good proposals put to us by the Croatian authorities, I shall consider transferring uncommitted funds from within the overall allocation for Central and South Eastern Europe.

  Mangrove Swamps
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid is being given towards the preservation of mangrove swamps in(a) the West Indies and (b) the Indian Ocean. [123245]

  Clare Short
  My Department supports a number of programmes and activities related to the sustainable use and conservation of coastal ecosystems, including coral reefs and seagrass as well as mangrove swamps. Current programmes at least in part related to the preservation of mangrove swamps in the West Indies and the Indian Ocean include: the Turks and Caicos Islands Coastal Resource Management Project to develop institutional capacity; support to the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) for capacity building in coastal resource management; promotion of participatory natural resource management through the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI); the State Forest Management project in Grenada; rehabilitation of coastal mangroves in Bangladesh as part of a project to increase fish and shrimp production; and development of community management of coastal ecosystems at Mafia Island in Tanzania.
  630W
  Other on-going activities we support include the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) and preparatory work for the African Partnership Conference on the Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment of Africa.

  In addition, recently completed work includes support to the preparation of the South Africa White Paper on Sustainable Coastal Development containing provisions for the protection of degraded and threatened ecosystems, and research on the coastal lagoons of Sri Lanka. I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the findings and recommendations of this research project on participatory approaches to natural resource management.

  This answer does not include any assistance which may be given by other Government Departments.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  SSA (Leeds)
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the standard spending assessment for education in Leeds in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01 and the actual spending and planned spending by the local authority on education in those years. [125425]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out, for Leeds Local Education Authority, the Education Standard Spending Assessment for(a) 1998–99 (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01; the planned spending by the local authority on education for each of these years; the actual spending on education for 1998–99, the latest year for which such information is available; and the total resources available per pupil (5–15) through SSA and special and specific grant for all three years.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Education SSA (£ million)

  278.7

  292.4

  306.6

  Budget (£ million)

  297

  306.6

  315.2

  Net revenue expenditure (£ million)

  292.6

  —

  —

  SSA + Special and Specific Grant per pupil (5–15) (£)

  2,505

  2,683

  2,937

  Note:

  Budget figures are based on education budgeted net revenue expenditure taken from information reported by the authority on the RA and RA(SG) forms. The comparable outturn figure is based on information on the ROI, RS and RG Outturn forms. Net revenue expenditure figures include an estimate of education CERA made centrally, based on information in the forms.

  Key Stage 2 (Marking)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many end of Key Stage 2(a) mathematics and (b) science test papers were returned for a review of marking in each of the past four years. [124894]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on the number of end of Key Stage 2 mathematics and science test papers returned for a review of marking is available only for the past three years.
  631W
  The number of tests papers returned for review of marking were:

  Mathematics

  Science

  1998

  1,658

  1,870

  1998

  1,283

  3,967

  1997

  1,563

  2,577

  Allington School Site
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce a decision about the sale of the Allington School site in Chippenham. [125716]

  Jacqui Smith
  The application from Wiltshire County Council to sell the former Allington school site has been put on hold, at the request of the County Council, pending further discussions between the County Council, North Wiltshire District Council and Chippenham Town Council over the provision of additional playing fields in Chippenham.

  Early-years Education
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many additional free early years education places would be required to meet the Government's target of free places being available for 66 per cent. of three-year-olds by 2002 for(a) England and (b) each local education authority in London. [122710]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]190,000 additional new free early years education places for three-year-olds will be made available over the next three years using the £390 million allocated by the Government. This will allow us to meet the national target of providing 66 per cent. of all three-year-olds in England with a free place.

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

  The following table shows the estimated number of new places required in the local education authorities in London to contribute to taking the national figure to 66 per cent. It also shows our estimate of the percentage of three-year-olds in each area who will have a free place by April 2001.

  Local education authority area

  New Places required to reach national target of 66%

  % of children expected to have free places by April 2001

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  81.9

  Barnet

  695

  51.0

  Bexley

  669

  44.9

  Brent

  494

  81.7

  Bromley

  2,022

  16.0

  Camden

  518

  80.7

  City of London

  2

  64.0

  Croydon

  1,276

  57.4

  Ealing

  0

  79.7

  Enfield

  1,235

  67.4

  Greenwich

  245

  84.2

  632W

  Local education authority area

  New Places required to reach national target of 66%

  % of children expected to have free places by April 2001

  Hackney

  739

  86.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  297

  80.5

  Haringey

  149

  83.5

  Harrow

  1,195

  30.1

  Havering

  1,158

  22.0

  Hillingdon

  1,596

  37.5

  Hounslow

  293

  76.1

  Islington

  574

  82.9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  601

  71.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  265

  52.9

  Lambeth

  868

  84.9

  Lewisham

  946

  82.9

  Merton

  0

  68.6

  Newham

  686

  88.1

  Redbridge

  1,221

  56.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  771

  30.5

  Southwark

  221

  85.4

  Sutton

  1,264

  13.2

  Tower Hamlets

  0

  85.9

  Waltham Forest

  1,058

  80.7

  Wandsworth

  1,083

  78.8

  Westminster

  692

  76.0

  Pre-school Learning
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial support his Department has given to the Pre-school Learning Alliance in each year since April 1997. [123102]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department has provided the following Financial Support to the Pre-school Learning Alliance (PLA) since 1997:

  £

  Marketing, quality and training infrastructure

  Section 64 grant: core funding

  Total

  1997–98

  1,578,000

  420,000

  1,998,000

  1998–99

  1,585,000

  420,000

  2,005,000

  1999–2000

  1,590,000

  420,000

  2,010,000

  2000–01

  1,600,000

  450,000

  2,050,000

  Total

  6,353,000

  1,710,000

  8,063,000

  During the same period £640 million has been made available to fund places for three and four-year-olds—around 50 per cent. went to the voluntary sector. I am encouraged that over 80 per cent. of new free nursery places for three-year-olds created during 1999–2000 were in the voluntary and private sectors.

  In March, I announced that, for the third year running, we are making available £500,000 for a further round of small grants for pre-schools and playgroups facing financial difficulties. This will give groups breathing space in which to consider their longer term plans.

  In recognition of the challenges facing the sector we have announced the provision of £250,000 for specific projects to help pre-schools and playgroups develop and grow, as the early years sector expands.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2000,Official Report, column 483–84W, on London Underground, if he will list (a) train, (b) signal and (c) track failures in each financial year for each line of the London Underground. [125281]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd. (LUL). The figures requested are not standard London Underground performance measures and data are not kept in this format. Therefore to provide the figures on a line by line basis would incur disproportionate cost.

  Registered Social Landlords
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list(a) those local authorities which have transferred some or all of their housing stock to registered social landlords, (b) the name of the registered social landlord to which the stock has been transferred, (c) the average rent increase or decrease determined by the registered social landlord in each financial year since the transfer and (d) the rent collected by the registered social landlord as a percentage of the total rent due in each financial year since the transfer; [124258]

  (2) if he will list those registered social landlords to which local authority housing stock has been transferred which have failed to satisfy the performance indicators set by the Housing Corporation, for each financial year since the stock was transferred, and in each case give details of the specific performance indicators they failed. [124259]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]The information requested, that is readily available, has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  However, information about rent increases and decreases has been collected as part of the Housing Corporation's performance indicators only since 1995–96. Information on rent increases for transfer tenants and for new tenants is not collected separately. The rent differential between these two groups can be over 20 per cent. It would be misleading to provide an average figure combining rent increase and decrease figures for transfer tenants and new tenants.

  The Housing Corporation has collected a range of performance indicators since 1993–94. Since April 1998, RSLs have been expected to achieve set levels of performance in certain key areas of housing management. In view of this, a list of RSLs to which local authority housing stock has been transferred which failed to satisfy the performance indicators set by the Housing Corporation is available only for the years 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Housing Investment Programme
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the(a) cash and (b) percentage changes to the Housing
  634W
  Investment Programme in the London boroughs of (i) Kensington and Chelsea and (ii) Westminster in each year since 1992. [125421]

  Mr. Mullin
  Kensington and Chelsea's and Westminster's Housing Investment Programme allocations for 1992–93 to 2000–01 were as set out in the table. The figures for 1997–98 to 1999–2000 include the allocations made through the Capital Receipts Initiative.

  £ thousand

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Year

  Allocation

  Change on previous year

  Amount

  Percentage

  1992–93

  13,084

  +3,440

  +36

  1993–94

  12,087

  -997

  -8

  1994–95

  9,567

  -2,520

  -21

  1995–96

  9,327

  -240

  -3

  1996–97

  9,583

  +256

  +3

  1997–98

  7,453

  -2,130

  -22

  1998–99

  9,682

  +2,229

  +30

  1999–2000

  10,625

  +943

  +10

  2000–2001

  16,395

  +5,770

  +35

  £ thousand

  Westminster

  Year

  Allocation

  Change on previous year

  Amount

  Percentage

  1992–93

  21,314

  +1,249

  +6

  1993–94

  25,190

  +3,876

  +18

  1994–95

  18,780

  -6,410

  -25

  1995–96

  16,583

  -2,197

  -12

  1996–97

  15,763

  -820

  -5

  1997–98

  12,313

  -3,450

  -22

  1998–99

  14,172

  +1,859

  +15

  1999–2000

  15,561

  1,389

  +10

  2000–2001

  25,535

  +9,974

  +64

  Thameslink
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will take to ensure that Railtrack minimises inconvenience to passengers travelling to London from stations on the northern section of the Thameslink line, during the construction of the Thameslink 2000 project; and if he will make a statement. [125591]

  Mr. Hill
  The shadow Strategic Rail Authority is already working closely with Railtrack to construct replacement timetables for services disrupted by the engineering works for Thameslink 2000. These discussions supplement the normal 30 week notice period Railtrack must give to Train Operating Companies in order to undertake long planned work, and the aim is to reduce disruptions to the minimum.

  Rail Sleeper Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to encourage the reinstatement of discontinued sleeper services between the North of England and London. [125549]
  635W
  Mr. Hill
  These services were withdrawn some years ago by the British Railways Board as they were no longer financially viable. Since then journey times and opportunities on North of England services have been substantially improved both early in the morning and late into the evening. The Franchising Director has no plans to include North of England sleeper services in Passenger Service Requirements at present, since there is little perceived demand. These services could be provided by train operators in the future if there is an adequate commercial basis for their provision. Financial support could be sought through the making of an appropriate Rail Passenger Partnership bid.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons Jubilee Line services to Charing Cross have been discontinued; what consultation tool place before the withdrawal; and if he will make a statement. [125606]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]It was decided to extend the Jubilee Line from Green Park to Stratford via Westminster and Waterloo, omitting Charing Cross for engineering, cost and passenger benefit reasons. London Underground Limited did not undergo a consultation period before the withdrawal of the service since Part Five, Section 38 of the London Underground Act 1992 (giving construction powers) excluded them from any need to do so. However, throughout the time the Bill was going through Parliament London Underground made clear their intention to close the Charing Cross Jubilee platforms.

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it a requirement for the successful bidder for the Connex South Central franchise to include firm proposals to reopen the Lewes-Uckfield railway line. [125610]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]Negotiations for a replacement South Central franchise are at an advanced stage. The Deputy Prime Minister has asked the Franchising Director to evaluate the bids against the following criteria: commitment to secure better performance and customer services, the extent to which extra or earlier investment can be secured, the extent to which passengers will be given a greater voice in the level and standard of services, and value for money to the taxpayer. All the investment proposals contained in bids will be evaluated against these criteria.

  Rail Passenger Committees
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what safeguards he proposes to put in place to secure the independence in respect of policy making of the rail passenger committees. [125608]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]The recently renamed Rail Passengers Committees will continue to have the freedom to express their independent views under the sponsorship of the Strategic Rail Authority as they currently do under the sponsorship of the Office of the Rail Regulator. Although the SRA will sponsor the 636W
  RPCs, the Secretary of State will continue to appoint the Chairmen of the RPCs and the Chairman of the national Rail Passengers' Council.

  Bog Areas (Conservation)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that appropriate hydrological and management regimes are established by 2005 in all lowland raised bog areas which have been damaged but still retain nature conservation interest. [125773]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Biodiversity Habitat action plan for Lowland Raised Bogs, published in October 1999, and placed in the Library of the House, sets out the planned action for restoring this habitat to favourable conservation status in the UK.

  English Nature is the Lead Agency for co-ordination of action and work plans by the organisations identified in the plan. The plan acknowledges that a list must first be drawn up to decide which bogs require action to be taken.

  Some bogs are included in the list of Candidate Special Areas of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive which is currently under review. The Government will ensure that activities on or around candidate SACs which may damage their hydrology and are subject to formal permissions or licences are reviewed, including planning consents and activities licensed by the statutory water regulators. This could lead to a number of different outcomes to remove the source of damage.

  Dog Identification
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how often the Working Party on Dog Identification has met; what items were on its agenda when it met; who has given evidence or provided reports or submissions to it; what means of dog identification are being considered by it; what methods of enforcement of dog identification are being considered by it; and if it will receive and consider submissions from members of the public. [125874]

  Mr. Hill
  The Dog Identification Working Group (DIG) was set up to consider the issues surrounding the permanent identification of dogs in England. The Group will produce a report to reflect a consensus view on all the available options for dog identification and this is expected in the Summer. No decisions will be taken until I have fully considered the report.

  The Working Group has met on eight occasions, the first meeting was held on 17 May 1999 and chaired by the then Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). The Agenda items of these meetings have been wide ranging to cover all the issues surrounding dog identification. Among the issues the Group has discussed are existing voluntary schemes, different methods of enforcement, a Dog Registration Consultation Paper from the Pet Advisory Committee, International Experience of dog identification schemes, a public education and marketing strategy and the use of databases. The Group has considered a wide range of evidence relevant to its terms of reference—copies of this will be contained in annexes to the Group's report. All forms of identification are being considered including possible future developments in technology. Enforcement

  637W
  is a matter which will be covered by the Group's report. When I have received the Group's report, I will consider the recommendations and whether any further consultation is required.

  Gas Safety
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received regarding the installation of excess gas flow valves in public sector housing. [124870]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), on behalf of the Health and Safety Commission, is undertaking a fundamental review of the current health and safety regime for the installation and use of gas to determine whether, or how far changes are needed to the existing system of control. As part of the consultation process, HSE has received three representations from a UK supplier of excess gas flow valves about the safety case for fitting these valves in domestic premises generally, including public sector housing. I am also aware of a similar representation made recently to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authorities have fitted excess gas flow valves to their housing stock; and how many have been fitted. [124872]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]I have been advised by the Health and Safety Executive that it is aware of 21 local authorities and three housing associations that have specified and are fitting excess gas flow valves, as set out in the list. I have no information about the numbers that have been fitted.Local authorities and housing associations known to be specifying and fitting excess gas flow valves
  Local Authorities

  Birmingham city council

  Bristol city council

  Bromsgrove district council

  Cheltenham district council

  Coventry city council

  Derby city council

  Dudley Metropolitan borough council

  Glasgow city council

  Halton Metropolitan borough council

  Hounslow London borough council

  Hillingdon London borough council

  Kingston upon Thames borough council

  Leicester city council

  Macclefield borough council

  Newham borough council

  Nottingham city council

  Newcastle upon Tyne borough council

  Preston borough council

  Rotherham Metropolitan borough council

  Sandwell borough council

  Slough borough council

  Housing Associations

  Guinness Trust

  Orbit housing association

  Touchstone housing association

  Waterloo housing association

  Two-wheeled Vehicles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government have pursued since 1 May 1997(a) to promote the wider use of powered two-wheelers and (b) to improve their safety. [125453]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]"A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" recognised that there are circumstances in which mopeds and motorcycles can have a role to play in integrated transport. We have thus:established an Advisory Group on Motorcycling;
  advised local authorities to take account of the contribution powered two wheelers are making in delivering integrated transport policies.

  We have taken action to improve the safety of motorcyclists by:
  making changes to the theory and practical driving tests—resulting better driving standards will benefit all vulnerable road users;
  announcing a package of measures for improving training and testing for riders of mopeds and motorcycles;
  since June 1999, requiring, along with EU partners, the design and construction of newly designed models of motorcycles to be approved and verified to appropriate safety and environmental standards;
  committing, in "Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone", to further measures that will improve the safety of motorcyclists over the next 10 years.

  The Highways Agency's new strategic plan for safety, "Making the Network Safer", includes actions to reduce risks to motorcyclists travelling on trunk roads and motorways.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to declare a moratorium on further planning applications for new telecommunications masts pending the outcome of the announced review of planning policy; and when he expects to complete this review. [125889]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, set up at the instigation of the Government and chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS FRSE, has considered the possible health effects of the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. The Group published its report on 11 May.

  The Group concluded that
  the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, there can be indirect adverse effects on their well-being in some cases.

  The Group recommended that for all base stations, including those with masts under 15m, permitted development rights for their erection be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process.

  In its response to the report, also issued on 11 May 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

  639W
  widely before doing so, including on the principle and precise scope of any new arrangements. We aim to issue a consultation document in the summer, with a view to being able to introduce revised procedures and guidance by the end of the year.

  The Group does not recommend a moratorium on further planning applications for new telecommunications masts pending the outcome of our review, or at all, and the Government have no plans to introduce such a moratorium.

  Class 175 Trains
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the new Class 175 trains will be brought alto service on the North Wales Coast Route; and what the reasons are for the late delivery. [125796]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]The train operating company, First North Western, hopes to introduce the new trains into service late this year. Delay in their introduction is due to technical difficulties.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to monitor the effectiveness of cross-departmental initiatives aimed at neighbourhood renewal and urban regeneration. [124272]

  Ms Armstrong
  My Department commissions in-depth evaluations to assess the effectiveness of initiatives aimed at neighbourhood renewal and urban regeneration. These evaluations are concerned with effectiveness both in terms of process issues, such as delivery structures, and in terms of their impact on deprivation and exclusion. DETR is currently responsible for the following evaluations of cross-departmental initiatives:

  New Deal for Communities
  The monitoring and evaluation arrangements for the NDC programme comprise ongoing project and scheme monitoring, which is reported to Government at the mid-year and annual progress reviews, and individual project evaluation, and scheme evaluation at the three, six and end year stages of the schemes. The Government will also be undertaking a national evaluation of the programme, which will focus on the operation and achievements of the programme in its first three years.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  There is an on-going evaluation of rounds 1 and 2 of SRB and plans to commission an evaluation of more recent SRB activity this year.
  In addition, we are supporting the evaluation of the Local Government Association's New Commitment to Regeneration and have commissioned an action research study to develop more co-ordinated working between regeneration initiatives at the local level. Emerging evidence from these studies has already been used to support wider reviews of policy such as the Spending Review 2000 cross-cutting review of Government Intervention in Deprived Areas, the Social Exclusion Unit's National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal and the work of the Performance and Innovation Unit.

  NATS
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many organisations have expressed interest in being included on the list of interested parties to bid for the NATS public-private partnership. [125936]

  Mr. Mullin
  Nineteen companies have expressed an initial interest in the NATS PPP. These are not formal expressions of interest. In accordance with the Department's agreement with those companies their identities cannot be revealed. Furthermore, in order to maintain a competitive and level playing field, the Department does not intend to release the identities of bidding companies and consortia in future stages of the PPP process.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost of part-privatising NATS. [125935]

  Mr. Mullin
  DETR, NATS and the CAA expect to incur consultancy costs in the order of £20 million in connection with the NATS PPP. In addition, restructuring costs of around £15 million are expected to be incurred in order to achieve the separation of NATS from the CAA.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 358W, concerning NATS, if he has produced (a) the list of properties and (b) the valuation; and when he plans to publish this information. [125937]

  Mr. Mullin
  A list of properties, which are owned or leased by NATS, has been placed in the Library. Valuations for the key sites are in progress. However, we do not intend to publish these at this stage as they will form part of the confidential information released to pre-qualified bidders in the NATS PPP.

  Government Initiatives
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made on the co-ordination of Government initiatives at a regional and local level. [124274]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have established the core of the new Regional Coordination Unit. We will publish, in July, a timetabled action plan for implementing the conclusions of the Performance and Innovation Unit's Report on the role of central Government at regional and local level.

  Regional Planning Guidance (South-east)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons copies of the draft regional planning guidance for the south-east were not available in public libraries until Thursday 18 May; if he will extend the deadline for replies to the consultation; and if he will make a statement. [125964]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Boxes of leaflets and documents were sent to all chief executives of local authorities in the south-east, requesting them to distribute the document and leaflet to their council offices and to their libraries. The documents were sent out on the first day of consultation,
  641W
  27 March 2000. It is the Secretary of State's opinion that draft Regional Planning Guidance for the south-east has been made widely available and that there is no need to extend the consultation period.

  Passenger Transport Authorities (Wales)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to enable the National Assembly for Wales to establish passenger transport authorities under the terms of the Transport Bill. [125471]

  Mr. Hill
  We made our position clear in our response1 to the 2nd Report of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee (HC287) "The Transport Bill and its impact on Wales". In particular we said that:
  The possibility of creating new Passenger Transport Authority areas was considered at the time of the Transport White Paper. We rejected it then, partly because no group of authorities seemed to have a very strong case for establishing a PTA and partly because, although PTAs have a good track record in co-ordinating and developing public transport, they have no roads responsibilities, and this can create problems in fully integrating transport in their areas.
  Local authorities outside the PTAs already work closely together in developing transport strategies for their areas, as the Local Transport Plans for England submitted to the DETR last summer have shown. A number have submitted joint plans for their combined areas, and we are confident that this co-operation will continue. We are not persuaded of the argument to bring forward primary legislation to enable the establishment of one or more PTAs in Wales.
  1 Response published as the 5th Special Report of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee (HC497) "The Transport Bill and its Impact on Wales".

  BAe 146 Aircraft
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the airworthiness directives the Civil Aviation Authority has issued to British airlines relating to BAe 146 aircraft in their service about(a) engine icing and (b) the ingestion of fumes from the engines into the cabin. [125988]

  Mr. Mullin
  As a result of in service experience of engine icing on the BAe 146, the Civil Aviation Authority has issued a total of five Airworthiness Directives, two of which have been superseded. These Airworthiness Directives impose operating limitations and placarding requirements. In addition, the CAA has accepted as mandatory three Airworthiness Directives (two of which have been superseded) issued by US Federal Aviation Administration in relation to the Allied Signal ALF 502 engine used on the BAe 146. The CAA is entirely satisfied that all the necessary precautions have been taken to ensure that the aircraft meets both UK and international airworthiness standards. The current limitation published for aircraft have shown themselves to be both effective and practical for crews to apply.

  The CAA has not issued any Airworthiness Directives relating to the ingestion of engine fumes into the cabin on BAe 146. This issue is currently the subject of investigations by both the Australian Senate and the Swedish aviation authorities. Should these investigations reveal problems the CAA will ensure that appropriate action is taken.

TREASURY

  Convergence
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when current forecasts indicate convergence between the UK and Euroland economies under the convergence programme submitted to the EU. [125554]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]As set out in 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. The Chancellor has said we will produce an assessment of the five tests early in the next Parliament.

  Royal Collection
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 7 June 2000,Official Report, column 274W, on the Royal Collection, if the Royal Collection includes all the Queen's assets. [125901]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]The custody and care of the assets in the Royal Collection Trust are the responsibility of the trustees. I have asked the Director of the Trust to write to the hon. Member.

  North Sea Tax Revenue
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sterling/dollar exchange rate was assumed when forecasting the North Sea tax revenue as set out in the March Financial Statement and Budget report. [125639]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]I refer the hon. Member to page 165 of the March 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Marsham Street
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how long the old Department of the Environment building in Marsham street has lain empty; and if he will make a statement. [124268]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions finally vacated 2 Marsham street at the end of April 1998.

  Retail Inquiry
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the next Inquiry into Retail; and to which years' statistics it will relate. [125571]

  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 Len Cook to Dr. David Clark, dated 14 June 2000:
  As the Director for the Office for National Statistics (ONS) I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the date and year of the next Inquiry into Retail (125571).
  The Sector Review into Retailing (formerly Business Monitor SDA25) will be published in August 2000. The sector review will contain statistics on total turnover, sales by non-store activity, a detailed breakdown of commodity sales, stocks, purchases, capital expenditure, employment costs, taxes and levies for the most recently completed inquiry year 1998 on the new inquiry basis

  643W
  Annual Business Inquiry). It will also contain statistics for the inquiry years 1997, 1996 and 1995 which have been adjusted by a series of factors to reflect the methodology improvements introduced for the 1998 inquiry year and remove the discontinuities with previous estimates.

WALES

  No-smoking Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of his Department's no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of his Department's offices that do not allow smoking. [125169]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department operates the same policy on smoking as the National Assembly for Wales, which is designed to protect the great majority of staff, who do not smoke, from the effects of smoke, as required by health and safety legislation. Smoking is therefore not permitted in working areas, whether cellular or open plan, and sources of information and advice on stopping smoking are provided to those staff who wish to give up the habit.

  My Department only has one building housing about 40 staff who have agreed between themselves that smoking should take place only in certain rooms.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 2000,Official Report, column 633W, on opinion research, what steps have been taken to ensure that his Department makes such results publicly available as required by paragraph 19 of the Cabinet Office May 1999 Guidelines on Research into Public Attitudes and Opinions. [125992]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office has not carried out any market or opinion research since it was established on 1 July 1999. In the event that my Department does undertake any market or opinion research, the Guidelines will be followed.

DEFENCE

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

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency has been set the following Key Targets for 2000–01:

  1. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for 620 commissioned officers.

  2. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for 610 officers qualified for service in Field Force units following successful Special to Arm training.

  3. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for the professional development training of 6,714 officers.

  4. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for 10,831 regular soldiers qualified for service in Field Force units following successful Basic and Special to Arm training.

  644W

  5. To meet the Adjutant General's requirement for professional development training for 52,458 soldiers.

  6. To achieve a 3 per cent. annual aggregate improvement in ATRA efficiency measured on the ATRA Efficiency Index.

  Depleted Uranium Shells
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many depleted uranium shells have been(a) fired and (b) recovered from the DERA establishment at Dundrennan in each of the last three years; [124697]

  (2) if the test firing of depleted uranium shells at the DERA establishment at Dundrennan, Kirkcudbrightshire is continuing. [124718]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of depleted uranium shells fired at the range in each of the last three years is as follows:

  Number

  1997

  749

  1998

  134

  1999

  111

  During this period only one projectile has been recovered. This was in October 1997 when a fishing vessel trawled up one in the Solway Firth. Current planning proposes a programme of DU firings up to October 2001.

  Identification Friend or Foe System
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reasons underlay the length of time taken to procure the successor Identification Friend or Foe system for the Royal Air Force; what the original cost was; if the contract is to be signed at that original cost; and if he will make a statement. [124885]

  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. Mike Hancock, dated 14 June 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about procurement of the Successor Identification Friend or Foe (SIFF) system for the Royal Air Force. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The SIFF programme involves fitting new electronic equipment into some 40 different types of Sea, Land and Air platforms. Total equipment requirements are likely to number in the order of 1000 transponders and 600 interrogators: each has to be functionally and physically integrated with the host platform. SIFF is a complicated project.
  The only contract placed to date for fitting SIFF has been to the Royal Air Force's Tornado F3 aircraft. This was placed with the then British Aerospace, the aircraft design authority in 1998. This contract was placed ahead of the main SIFF programme in order to achieve cost savings through alignment with the Tornado Capability Sustainment Programme. Separately, but also in 1998, the SIFF Integration Study and Planning Phase (ISPP) commenced with contracts being placed with individual platform type design authorities to investigate the fitting of a SIFF system to the platforms in the main SIFF programme. The overall value of the Tornado F3 and ISPP contracts together amounts to some £100M, and this is within the original budget provision.

  645W
  Owing to the number and diversity of the platform types, it is not possible to adopt a single prime contractor approach to manage the main SIFF programme, which amounts to an estimated value of over £400M. Outputs from ISPP have included Demonstration and Manufacture tenders provided by two competing potential equipment suppliers, BAE SYSTEMS and Raytheon Systems Ltd, covering many of the platform types, and from individual platform design authorities for the remainder. Evaluation of these tenders is an extensive and intensive task, to ensure that the decision on the choice of equipment supplier and the phasing of the work to be undertaken by the individual platform design authorities is made on the best overall balance of operational and value for money grounds. We are currently considering the way ahead in the light of this and in the current competitive situation are unable to provide further information on costs or budgets. I hope that we will be in position to announce a decision on the programme, including the choice of equipment supplier, during the summer.

  AMRAAM Missiles
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what obligations Raytheon has in respect of industrial participation and offsets in respect of the current order for AMRAAM missiles for the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [124991]

  Mr. Hoon
  The order placed in 1992 for AMRAAM missiles is now complete and was made through the Government to Government Foreign Military Sales process. Such purchases do not attract industrial participation.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what obligations he plans to place upon Raytheon in respect of industrial participation and offsets in respect of the additional AMRAAM order announced on 16 May; and if he will make a statement. [124990]

  Mr. Hoon
  The announcement on 16 May stated the intention to purchase a quantity of AMRAAM missiles to equip Eurofighter when it first enters service. Options for acquisition, whether by a Government to Government order or through a direct contract with Raytheon, are being examined. The potential for industrial participation opportunities will be taken into account.

  Warrior Fighting Vehicles
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about structural and metallurgical defects on Warrior fighting vehicles in Kosovo. [125316]

  Mr. Spellar
  Despite its advantages there are also inherent problems in the use of aluminium armour on vehicles such as the Warrior. The Department has been aware of this for some time and appropriate repair schemes have been developed with the Design Authority. There have been no reports, however, of specific structural or metallurgical defects affecting any Warrior vehicles deployed to Kosovo.

  UAVs
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what projects his Department is engaged with the US Department of Defense involving(a) unmanned aerial vehicles and (b) unmanned aerial combat vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [125706]
  646W
  Mr. Spellar
  None. However, we do have in place a number of Information Exchange Agreements with the US Department of Defense in support of unmanned aerial vehicle systems research for sea, land and air operations.

  Front-line Equipment
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is on the use of PFI or PPP solutions for the procurement of front-line equipment. [125805]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]Public Private Partnerships comprise a range of close relationships between the public and private sectors including Private Finance Initiatives (PFI) and Smart Procurement. PFI solutions are being explored for a number of services in direct support of operations (e.g. Heavy Equipment Transporter, Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft) where we judge this may offer best value for money without detriment to operational effectiveness.

  Personnel (Scotland)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed by his Department in Scotland in(a) 1979, (b) 1989, (c) 1994 and (d) 1999, broken down into (i) civilian and (ii) military personnel and including territorial forces. [125574]

  Dr. Moonie
  The table gives details of the number of people employed by the Ministry of Defence in Scotland in(a) 1979, (b) 1989, (c) 1994 and (d) 1999 broken down into (i) civilian and (ii) military personnel.

  Year

  (i) Regular Forces

  (ii) MOD civilians

  (a) 1979

  19,016

  n/a

  (b) 1989

  20,035

  12,209

  (c) 1994

  18,030

  11,238

  (d) 1999

  14,937

  9,274

  Notes:

  1. The data cover UK Regular Forces and UK based civilian personnel counted in official Ministry of Defence civil service figures. They exclude UK based casual civilian personnel and permanent civilian personnel whose salaries are paid for or reimbursed by other non MOD organisations such as NATO and USAF.

  2. Civilian figures are full-time equivalents where part-time staff are counted in proportion to hours worked. Since 1995 the method of counting part-time civilian staff has reflected actual hours worked (on average approximately 60 per cent. of full-time) rather than the notional 50 per cent. previously used.

  3. The data for Royal Navy Regular Forces include personnel on board ships in their home waters who are included in the region of their ships home port. The method of allocating personnel to location was changed in 1995 from having a category for location on the record of Service to using the postcode of the unit to which personnel are attached.

  4. Location data for territorial forces are only readily available for 1999 for the Royal Navy and RAF and are not readily available at all for the Army. Such incomplete data are of little use for comparative purpose of the PQ and have therefore not been included in the written answer.

  It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to obtain data for civilian personnel prior to 1980. Location data for the territorial forces of all three Services for the dates requested are not available without disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  Serbia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his letter of 2 June, what ways of funding the Serbian health system the Government have identified in the last 12 months and are considering for the next 12 months; and if he will give details of the initiative to which he refers to facilitate the return of Serb communities which have fled Kosovo. [125604]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]We have contributed £2.5 million each to the Balkans appeals of the ICRC and UNICEF. There are no specific allocations to Serbia, but UNICEF plans support to mother and child health services for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and refugees. ICRC programmes include provision of essential medicines to IDPs, refugees and the socially vulnerable in Serbia. In addition, ECHO plans support to primary health care services in remote locations, including to IDPs and refugees.

  We have provided £120,000 for roads and community schemes managed by British and Swedish troops of Multi National Brigade (Central) to encourage Serbs to return to villages in the Sliovo area, and Albanians to return from Pristina to their villages in the region.

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Government's third annual report will be published. [125939]

  The Prime Minister
  By the end of July.

  Criminal Assets
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Prime Minister when the Performance and Innovation Unit will publish its report on the pursuit and seizure of criminal assets; and if he will make a statement. [126158]

  The Prime Minister
  The Performance and Innovation Unit's report "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime" is being published today as agreed Government policy. Copies have been placed in the Vote Office and in the Libraries of the House. It is also available on the Cabinet Office website at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation.

  The PIU report sets out the Government's new approach to tackling crime through its finances. In implementing the report, the Government are determined to show that crime will not pay in the UK. We aim to reduce crime and to increase confidence in the criminal justice system. The report sets out a plan of action covering the following areas:

  (i) a more strategic approach to asset recovery, including a dedicated National Confiscation Agency and greater cross-Government co-operation;

  (ii) more emphasis on financial investigation to help law enforcement uncover criminal assets as a routine part of their business;

  (iii) a new legislative attack closing legal loopholes and calling all convicted offenders to account for their assets where they have clearly benefited from their crimes; and introducing civil forfeiture giving the courts power to recover unlawful gains currently beyond the reach of the law;

  648W

  (iv) tightening the money laundering regime, simplifying and consolidating the money laundering laws;

  (v) taxing unlawful gains by using tax powers more effectively to target criminal wealth; and

  (vi) setting a higher international standard, working with our partners overseas to drive up standards and close boltholes.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, will take forward implementation of the conclusions of the report and introduce legislation as soon as possible. The report is being widely circulated so that views received by the Home Office by the end of August can be taken into account prior to introduction of legislation. Further information can be found on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what the annual cost is of the Performance and Innovation Unit; and what action the Government are taking to implement its reports. [124285]

  The Prime Minister
  For the financial year 1999–2000 the Performance and Innovation Unit (PIU) spent £2.3 million. For 2000–01 the unit has an allocation of £2.6 million.

  Whenever PIU reports represent Government policy, implementation plans with lead responsibilities and timetables for action are included. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for South Cambridge (Mr. Lansley) on 3 May 2000, Official Report, columns 109–10W.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 14 June. [125403]

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

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which accountants have been paid fees by the New Millennium Experience Company; and for what purpose. [124385]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has paid fees to four firms of accountants.Deloitte & Touche—tax advice.
  Ernst & Young—external audit; accounting advice; provision of interim management of staff; and IT consultancy.
  priceWaterhouseCoopers—tax advice; IT consultancy; internal audit; and financial planning.
  Arthur Anderson—internal audit.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the resignation of the Chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company. [124483]
  649W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]Robert Ayling decided to resign as Chairman of the New Millennium Experience Company on 23 May. His decision was made in the best interests of the Dome. He served the Dome as Chairman for three years and his decision to step down was in keeping with the fact that he has always put the good of the project first. I would like to pay tribute to Robert Ayling for his contribution to the Millennium Experience.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if the(a) contingency draw down, (b) £60 million cash flow facility and (c) £29 million additional cash flow facility made available to the New Millennium Experience Company will be repaid; [125023]

  (2) which Millennium Commission projects have received funding additional to their original grants; for what purposes; and to what value in each case. [125024]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 8 June 2000]These are matters 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.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate how many direct debits for paying licence fees currently set up with the BBC by visually-impaired customers will have to be cancelled because of the evidence requirements contained within the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998; what guidance his Department has given the BBC to ensure that visually-impaired customers have equal access to this method of paying bills; and if he will make a statement. [125347]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Under section 2(2) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act (as amended), the only evidence required to prove entitlement to the 50 per cent. reduction in the television licence fee for registered blind people, introduced by the Government on 1 April this year, is a certificate issued by a local authority. This requirement has no bearing on the method of payment. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not issue guidance to the BBC on the administration of the television licensing system, since this is a statutory responsibility of the Corporation.

  No-smoking Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of his Department's no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of his Department's offices that do not allow smoking. [125157]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 89W, and to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 16 December 1999, Official Report, columns 279–80W.

  My Department's policy on smoking can be considered effective as it actively encourages a reduction in smoking by allowing smoking to take place only in the designated
  650W
  smoking rooms. Less than 1 per cent. of the Department's office space is given over to areas in which smoking is allowed.

  Bowling Greens
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of bowling greens which have been closed and redeveloped in each of the last 10 years. [125870]

  Kate Hoey
  Neither my Department nor Sport England hold this information.

  Analogue Televisions
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which action his Department has taken to advise purchasers of analogue televisions that the televisions will cease to function as soon as the analogue signal is withdrawn. [125919]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are working with industry on a public information campaign to inform viewers about digital television. I expect this to deliver messages about the timescale and the conditions which have to be met for the switch-over from analogue to digital transmissions, and advice about how to get digital television and that analogue television sets can be converted to receive digital signals by the addition of a set top box. One of the conditions for switch-over is that 95 per cent. of consumers have access to digital receiving equipment.

  National Lottery (Computer Failures)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 5 June,Official Report, column 96W; if, when he was informed of the defect in the National Lottery computer, he was told when the defect was identified and by whom; if he was informed of estimates Camelot had made of how long the defect affected its operation before it was corrected; and if he has been informed as to when the National Lottery Commission will complete its investigations. [125673]

  Kate Hoey
  Due to an error in my original answer, the incorrect date was given for the date on which the National Lottery Commission became aware of the defect in the National Lottery computer system. The correct answer is as follows. I apologise for any inconvenience that this might have caused.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was informed when the defect was identified and by whom, and was also informed of how long the defect had affected operations.

  The defect was first drawn to the National Lottery Commission's attention on 12 April 2000 in a letter from an ex-GTECH employee. The defect affected operations from the start of the Lottery until it was corrected on 27 July 1998.

  The Commission intends to complete its investigations as soon as possible.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many men in South Wales were diagnosed by his Department and agencies as suffering from vibration white finger in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000 to date; [125742]

  (2) how many former miners in South Wales applied for Disablement Benefit for vibration white finger in (a) 1997, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 to date. [125741]

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

  Information on claims to industrial injuries disablement benefit for vibration white finger made in Wales

  Number of claims made for industrial injuries disablement benefit for vibration white finger in Wales1

  Number of men who were first diagnosed as suffering from vibration white finger for industrial injuries disablement benefit

  1997

  2,300

  300

  1998

  1,300

  201

  1999

  1,300

  108

  First quarter 2000

  400

  16

  1 Estimate

  Notes:

  1. Claims data are based on a 10 per cent. sample.

  2. Diagnoses data are based on a 100 per cent. count of first diagnosed assessments.

  3. Diagnoses will be made after the claim has been made. Claims and any resultant diagnoses may not be made in the same period.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre

  Employment Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the last two national surveys of employees in his Department; what action has been taken as a result of the most recent survey; and if he will make a statement. [125442]

  Mr. Rooker
  The last two national surveys of employees in the Department were the Child Support Agency's staff attitude survey carried out in May 1999 and an internal communications survey completed on 2 June 2000.

  We do not expect to publish these surveys externally.

  The recent survey of internal communications will be used to rationalise and improve internal communications processes. A summary of the results will be available for staff via internal staff media.

  The Department is committed to the civil service reform agenda, which includes providing a better deal for staff. The results of national employee surveys will be used to deliver this aim and ultimately provide a better service for the public.

  State Pension
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the date of October 2001 is to be maintained as the target for helping potential benefit customers 652W
  understand (a) their future entitlement to retirement pension and (b) the importance of saving for their retirement; how this target will be achieved; how much it is expected to cost; and if he will make a statement. [125439]

  Mr. Rooker
  The first combined pension forecasts, which include details of both State and private pension rights, were issued to Prudential customers in April in one of a series of pilots we are conducting. Other pilot employers and pension providers will issue combined forecasts later this year. We are on course to meet or exceed our target to start the full-scale service from 2002.

  Availability of the full service depends on putting in place a new computer system that can issue the much higher numbers of State Pension forecasts which will be needed, up to 15 million a year from 2005. Our target date for introducing this new service will be £14.5 million with ongoing running costs of £7.5 million a year once the service has bedded down.

  Combined pension forecasts will, for the first time, provide individuals with a clear indication of what sort of retirement income to expect. This will enable them to make better-informed decisions on what savings they need to make.

  Telephone Claims Service
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the estimated cost is of the national telephone claims service for pensioners which is planned to be introduced in October; what the continuing yearly cost to his Department of this service will be; and if he will make a statement. [125378]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is estimated that it will cost around £1 million to introduce the National Retirement Pension Tele-Claims Service from October 2000. The majority of this cost is associated with an upgrade of infrastructure that will provide a platform for further pensions modernisation in the future.

  Introducing this service will:
  Provide active assistance to customers at the point of claim by allowing them to speak to a member of staff who will complete an electronic claim form on their behalf;
  Provide a simplified claim form tailored to customers individual requirements;
  Reduce the need to ask customers for supporting documentary evidence by making use of data held.

  The ongoing running cost to the Department is expected to be around £0.5 million per annum.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were involved in fraudulent benefit claims which resulted in the overpayment of £135 million for 1999–2000; how many such benefit claimants received no further benefit from his Department; and if he will make a statement. [125438]

  Mr. Rooker
  The "overpayment" figure (or value of losses) for 1999–2000 is currently being collated. It will appear in the Losses Statement of the Vote 1 Appropriation Account due to be signed by the Benefits Agency Chief Executive in August.
  653W
  The 1998–99 Statement showed losses of £136 million. In addition to overpayments caused by fraudulent benefit claims, this amount includes losses due to other factors such as the writing off of old debts, the miscalculation of entitlement in disability benefits, the change in the payment of hospital in-patients and the duplication of payments of Jobseeker's Allowance by automated credit transfer.

  The number of people involved in fraudulent benefit claims, which formed part of the total losses, is not available.

  The number of benefit claimants who received no further benefit is not available, as the Benefits Agency does not match past fraudulent claims with new claims.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the imputed rate of return on savings used in calculating entitlement to means-tested benefits. [124939]

  Mr. Bayley
  The system of tariff income in the income-related benefits is not based on any imputed rate of return. The system provides a straightforward method of calculating the weekly contribution which people with capital in excess of the lower limit are expected to make from those resources to help meet their normal living expenses. Because no tariff applies to savings below the lower limit, the rule is most generous to people with relatively low savings; for example, in cases where the lower limit is £3,000 the annual tariff income for a person with savings between £3,000 and £3,250 would equate to just 1.6 per cent. of their savings.

  The capital rules are kept under regular review.

  "Listening to Older People"
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on his document, "Listening to Older People". [124281]

  Mr. Rooker
  During 1999 the Government led a programme of listening to older people events across the UK. The events were put on by a partnership between the Inter-Ministerial Group for Older People, the UK Secretariat for the International Year of Older Persons and mainly voluntary sector organisations working with older people.

  On 17 May the Government published three documents relating to this programme of listening events. "Life begins at 50: the 1999 Listening Events"; a newsletter style account of last year's regional programme of events. "Building a Better Society for Older People: Report on the Listening Events to the Inter-Ministerial Group for Older People"; a research report on the regional events by Annette Boaz and Carol Hayden, Warwick Business School, the University of Warwick. "Life begins at 50—A Better Society for Older People"; a report setting out the key points raised by older people during the 1999 listening events, the action we have already taken to address them, and the action we will take in the future.
  654W
  No representations have been received on these documents.

  Pensions Entitlement
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people who have reached pensionable age within the last two years have not yet been paid their full entitlement of additional pension; [125915]

  (2) how many people are currently employed in carrying out manual calculations of the entitlements to additional pension of those who have already retired; [125917]

  (3) how many manual calculations of entitlements to additional pension were carried out in each of the last three months. [125918]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is estimated that in the last two years the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS) computer will not have carried out a calculation of the additional pension in some 120,000 cases. The number of these who have not yet been paid their full entitlement to additional pension is not known, but because the facility for Benefit Agency offices to apply for a clerical calculation has been available, the number will be in the minority.

  There is a team of 10.5 people in the Benefits Agency responsible for clerical calculations of additional pension.

  The number of clerical calculations carried out in March was 5,789; in April it was 588; and in May it was 442. The significant reduction in April and May was planned. The processes that had prevented the NIRS2 computer calculating additional pension had become available and it was part of a strategy to accommodate the transition from clerical to computer calculations.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are being targeted as possible qualifiers for the minimum income guarantee in each of the age groups(a) 60 to 65, (b) 65 to 70, (c) 70 to 75, (d) 75 to 80, (e) 80 to 85, (f) 85 to 90 and (g) over 90 years old. [118007]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 April 2000, c. 167W]The information requested is in the table.

  Pensioners in the following age bands are being targeted as possible qualifiers for the minimum income guarantee

  Age band

  Total count

  Male

  Female

  60–64

  156,542

  0

  156,542

  65–69

  245,887

  108,088

  137,799

  70–74

  298,589

  117,065

  181,524

  75–79

  436,627

  146,415

  290,212

  80–84

  509,017

  206,772

  302,245

  85–89

  360,645

  136,119

  224,526

  90+

  159,881

  45,505

  114,376

  Total

  2,167,188

  759,964

  1,407,224

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Assisted Area Status
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to submit a new proposal for assisted area status for North Staffordshire. [125353]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]Details of the revised assisted area proposals, which included North Staffordshire were published on 10 April 2000.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the Office of Commissioner Monti in respect of assisted area status for North Staffordshire. [125350]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 9 June 2000]None.

  Textile Task Force
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies in the North East have benefited from the Textile Taskforce; how much money has been allocated from the Task Force Fund; and what financial resources are available to it. [125383]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The most recent information available shows that 48 companies have contacted the North East Textiles Taskforce, resulting in 29 initial visits being made. The range of support already provided has included help towards a sports/leisurewear event, trade shows, marketing, technical training and developing business system and process analysis.

  When the Taskforce was set up it was allocated funding totalling £773,000. Total spend by the Taskforce up to the end of May 2000 was £140,000.

  Limited Liability Partnerships Bill
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for the registering of partnership agreements and the publication of partnership accounts under the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill[Lords]; and what role he plans for Companies House in respect of these new entities. [125428]

  Dr. Howells
  There will be no requirement for limited liability partnerships to register an agreement between members. The Government concluded, after wide consultation and taking account of the views of the Trade and Industry Committee, that to impose a requirement on LLPs to register a member's agreement would be of little value unless regulations determined exactly what should be contained in the agreement, and that would be almost impossible to define. Moreover, it would be impracticable for Companies House to take a view on every individual agreement to ensure agreements met the statutory criteria before allowing an LLP to register.

  More detail of the Government's decision on this matter is set out in the Government Observations on the Fourth Report from the Trade and Industry Committee (Session 1998–99) on the draft Limited Liability Partnership Act (HC 529).
  656W
  The LLP regulations will apply the accounts and audit provisions of the Companies Act 1985 with appropriate modifications to reflect the different capital structure of LLPs. They will require LLPs to disclose similar financial information to that required of companies in their annual accounts, those accounts being filed with Companies House where they will be open for inspection.

  Companies House will be responsible for the registration and striking-off of LLPs, the registration of documents which must be filed under the LLP regulations and for enforcing compliance in line with requirements of the regulations. They will also provide information on LLPs to the public as they do for companies.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whom his Department is consulting on the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill[Lords]; and what replies he has received to date. [125702]

  Dr. Howells
  There has been extensive consultation on the basis of three detailed consultation documents published in February 1997, September 1998 and July 1999. For each consultation copies were sent to some 1,800 consultees, including business, trade associations, academics, potential clients and regulators and meetings were held by officials with interested representatives from each of these groups. Telephone and written requests for documents resulted in around 3,000–5,000 extra copies of each document being sent out. The documents were also made available to visitors to the LLP website at www.dti.gov.uk/cld/llpbill/index.htm from September 1998. Over 300 responses were received in total. The names of those who responded can be found in the Libraries of each House and the responses are publicly available. A further short consultation paper was published in February 2000 on a more limited circulation, but was also available on the LLP website.

  Dagenham Ford Plant
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has held with the Greater London Authority with regard to the future of the Ford Dagenham plant; and what plans he has for future discussions. [125611]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry discussed the future of the Dagenham plant directly with the mayor both before and after Ford's announcement on 12 May. A representative of the Greater London Authority also attends the fortnightly meetings on the regeneration of Dagenham and the Thames Gateway organised by my Department and involving other Government Departments, local councils and regeneration bodies, TUC and Ford. My right hon. Friend and I intend to remain in close contact with the mayor, the Greater London Authority and the London development agency.

  Insolvency (Creditors)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the priority given to creditors of companies in administration under the Insolvency Act 1986; and if he will make a statement. [125770]
  657W
  Dr. Howells
  Under the Insolvency Act 1986 certain debts (principally for employee claims and taxes collected but not paid over) have preferential status up to defined limits.

  Representations are received about this from time to time and many representations received since the failure of UNO plc and World of Leather plc urged that preferential status should be reduced or abolished or that the categories of eligible claims should be extended. Last year the Department published a consultation document entitled, "A Review of Company Rescue and Business Reconstruction Mechanism", which invited views on, among others, the question of whether Crown preference in insolvency should be abolished. A report of the review group will be published in due course.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from creditors of World of Leather plc and UNO; and if he will make a statement. [125769]

  Dr. Howells
  Many representations have been received from or on behalf of customers of both UNO plc and World of Leather concerning payments made for furniture ordered but not supplied. The issues raised are set out in the record of the debate held in the House on 24 May 2000,Official Report, columns 247–55WH. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade subsequently also wrote to hon. Members who had participated in the debate and a copy of this letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Sub-post Offices (Transfer)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate the financial transactions which take place between Post Office Counters Ltd. and prospective sub-postmasters at the time of a transfer of a post office business to new ownership; and if he will assess the effect of these transactions on the long-term future of the Post Office network. [125461]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 12 June 2000]The contractual and financial arrangements relating to the transfer of a post office business to new ownership are matters for the Post Office and the prospective sub-postmaster. I am not aware that the financial terms relating to licence and relocation fees are having any significant implications for the long-term future of the network and I understand that the Post Office offers some flexibility where particular circumstances merit it.

  Chronic Bronchitic Emphysema
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims from widows have been settled in respect of mineworkers who died of chronic bronchitic emphysema in the last two years. [125880]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]We have made interim payments of bereavement awards to 2,577 widows seeking compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema, totalling £22.5 million. At present 262 claims from widows have been assessed through the medical process. We expect these claims to be settled shortly.
  658W
  My Department has also received estate claims in respect of some 7,400 miners who died between 1992 and May 1997.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims his Department has received from mineworkers claiming compensation for chronic bronchitic emphysema; and, since May 1997, how many such claims have been settled. [125882]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]After years of neglect by British Coal and a blind eye from the previous Administration, this Government have reached an agreement which gives former miners fair compensation for their suffering resulting from these diseases.

  The Department's claims handlers have registered nearly 107,000 claims for chronic bronchitis and emphysema from former miners and their families. To date, we have made 21,500 payments in full and final, and part settlements, totalling £60.5 million.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he appointed respiratory consultants to examine and report on claims from mineworkers for chronic bronchitic emphysema; how many have been appointed in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland; and when he expects the reports to be complete. [125881]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]Healthcall commenced recruitment on 1 November 1999. To date 170 respiratory consultants have been recruited including 77 who are not allocated to a specific location. Reports are to be completed as soon as possible.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many mineworkers requesting domiciliary visits for tests in respect of claims for chronic bronchitic emphysema died prior to the test being carried out. [125883]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]After years of neglect by British Coal and inaction by the previous Administration, this Government have reached an agreement which gives former miners fair compensation for their suffering resulting from these diseases.

  My Department has received estates claims in respect of some 7,400 miners who died between 1992 and May 1997. Many of these could have received compensation during their lifetime if British Coal and the previous Administration had not continued to deny responsibility.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to make bereavement awards to the relatives of deceased widows of mineworkers who would have qualified for payments due under death certificates relating to chronic bronchitic emphysema. [125885]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]After inaction under the previous Government, this Government have reached an agreement which should give former miners fair compensation for their suffering resulting from these diseases.

  The Department has agreed that the sons and daughters of those widows who died in the period between the date of the High Court judgment and the signing of the Handling Agreement may receive an ex-gratia payment.
  659W
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received concerning lung function tests carried out on behalf of the Government by Healthcall in respect of compensation claims from mineworkers suffering from chronic bronchitic emphysema. [125884]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 13 June 2000]I am informed that no such representations have been received.

  Young People (Protection at Work)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the UK opt-outs under the EU Directive on the protection of young people at work. [126395]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Directive on the Protection of Young People at Work (94/33/EC) provides a time-limited opt-out for the UK from certain of its provisions. The opt-out expires on 22 June 2000 and the UK will not be pursuing an extension. The Government will be undertaking a full consultation of all interested parties on proposals for the necessary amendments to the Working Time Regulations, in order to give effect to the previously excluded provisions in UK law. We will seek views on the most appropriate use of the derogations which are available in the Directive, in order to balance the proper protection of young people from being required to work long hours against the need to avoid unnecessary burdens on business and to respond to practical problems in particular areas and sectors.

  Postal Services
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what duty the Postal Services Commission will have to ensure that any infringement of the reserved area is remedied. [126396]

  Mr. Byers
  The provisions in the Postal Services Bill provide for the enforcement of the reserved area by the Postal Services Commission. That it has a duty to do so is implicit in the Bill. The reserved area (in which it is an offence to operate without a licence) is there to protect the provision of the universal postal service. The primary duty of the Commission (as set out in clause 3) is to exercise its functions in the manner which it considers best calculated to ensure the provision of the universal postal service.

  Since, under the European postal services directive, the reserved area can be only such as is necessary to ensure the provision of the universal service, infringement (unlicensed activity) of the reserved area (which is illegal) must be considered a potential threat to the provision of the universal service. This applies as much to relatively small infringements (which could cumulatively undermine the universal postal service) as it does to large infringements which have a significant effect in their own right. It follows, therefore, that there is an implied duty for the Commission to enforce the reserved area to protect the licensing regime and by doing so to protect the provision of a universal postal service.

  The Bill makes it clear that, if the Commission considers that the scope of clause 7 of the Bill, and thus the activities requiring a licence, should be changed the mechanism for doing so is to recommend to the Secretary of State that he makes an Order modifying clause 7. It is
  660W
  clear, therefore, that the Commission should not allow de facto reductions in the scope of the reserved area simply by allowing repeated infringements of it.

  Both the intention and effect of the Bill is that the Commission will take whatever enforcement action it considers necessary to protect the reserved area by deterring, detecting and prosecuting or otherwise remedying unlicensed activity. Not to do so (without good reason) would be a breach of its duties.

  In line with precedents in the utilities legislation (where it is also a criminal offence to operate without a licence) and the application of the criminal law in general, by not creating an express duty to take enforcement action in all circumstances, the Bill recognises that there should be an element of discretion in enforcement. So, while the presumption is that the Commission will usually take action to protect the licensed area where it knows or has good reason to believe an offence is being committed under clause 6 of the Bill, there may be circumstances where formal enforcement procedures, by prosecution or otherwise, are not in the public interest.

  Enterprise Culture
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to achieve its key priority for 2000–01 of promoting a culture of enterprise in the European Union. [125912]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department's actions include:pressing for the early adoption of a European Charter for Small Firms setting out key principles for promoting enterprise and pledging the Commission and Member States to action;
  working closely with the Commission in drawing up a Multiannual Programme for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship for 2001–05 which seeks to develop a programme of actions to make Europe more entrepreneurial and innovative; and
  giving support to the Spirit of Enterprise, a European Union-wide awards scheme whose aim is to promote entrepreneurship among young people.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the National Campaign for Enterprise. [125914]

  Mr. Byers
  The national campaign for enterprise—called Enterprise Insight—was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11 May. The campaign, supported by my Department, is informing young people about the challenges and rewards of starting their own business, developing entrepreneurial skills and encouraging the establishment and growth of successful businesses. Existing entrepreneurs and business people have a key part to play in the campaign. Already, 200 have signed up to participate in a range of activities to encourage enterprise in their communities.

  Public Service Targets
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the criteria are for evaluating his Department' s performance against its public service agreement target for 2002 of making the United Kingdom the best place in the world to trade electronically.[125924]

  Mr. Caborn
  The PIU report, 'e-commerce@its.best.uk', set out a number of possible criteria for evaluating progress against the target of being the best place in the world to trade
  661W
  electronically by 2002. The Office of the e-Envoy is working to establish more rigorously what these criteria should be and the results of this will be published in the autumn. In the meantime, the DTI continues to work towards a number of measurable targets related to trading online, namely that:
  1.5 million small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) connected;
  1 million SMEs actually trading online;
  and the use of ICTs by micro and small businesses up with the best in the world.

  Progress against these targets is measured in the DTI's annual International Benchmarking Study. The year 2000 study will be published shortly.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the criteria are for evaluating his Department's performance against its public service agreement target for 2002 of improving the overall international ranking of the science and engineering base in terms of quality relevance and cost-effectiveness. [125920]

  Mr. Byers
  The criteria for relevance and cost effectiveness are, respectively;the ranking of the UK against G7 and other countries in terms of HEI funding from non-Government sources;
  the ranking of the UK against G7 and other countries in terms of papers published per £1 million investment.

  Business Start-ups
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many successful high growth business start-ups there were in each of the last four years. [125922]

  Mr. Byers
  In 1999, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 12,800 successful higher growth start-up enterprises. In 1998 there were 12,600 enterprises. Estimates for earlier years cannot be made. Higher growth means enterprises achieving annual sales of El million or more, or employing 10 or more people, by their fourth year of trading.

  Spin-out Companies
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have been spun out by universities in each of the past four years. [125910]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minster for Small Business and E-Commerce to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 23 May 2000,Official Report, column 474W.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the criteria which are being used to judge the achievement of his Department's key priority for 2000–01 to operate efficient and effective systems for export licensing. [125913]

  Dr. Howells
  The criteria used to judge achievement of this priority are set out in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, together with details of performance. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Criminals (Confiscation of Assets)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the seizure of criminal assets. [124270]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced, we have today published the performance and innovation unit report, "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime".

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and Libraries of the House.

  The report sets out a package of rigorous measures to recover from criminals their unlawful gains and to ensure that crime does not pay. We will:
  strongly encourage prosecutors and courts to make confiscation the norm after convictions where there have been proceeds from crime;
  enable courts to keep restrained assets to help meet confiscation orders; and
  simplify and enhance money laundering legislation to make it easier to bring cases and help focus efforts on criminal money flows.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what meetings she has had with the performance and innovation unit to discuss proposals to confiscate the assets of criminals. [124271]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have been Sponsor Minister for the performance and innovation unit project on recovering the proceeds of crime.

  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced earlier, we have today published the performance and innovation unit report, "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime". Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and Libraries of the House.

  The report sets out a package of rigorous measures to recover from criminals their unlawful gains and to ensure that crime does not pay.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what specific measures she intends to bring forward to ensure that criminals are deprived of the profits they make from drug dealing and other criminal activity. [124284]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced, we have today published the performance and innovation unit report, "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime".

  Copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office and Libraries of the House.

  The report sets out a package of rigorous measures to recover from criminals their unlawful gains and to ensure that crime does not pay.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent discussion she has had with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regarding presentation of Government policy on GMOs. [124273]
  663W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have held recent discussions with various colleagues, including my right. hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, given my role as co-ordinator of biotechnology policy across Government.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many special advisers there are and how many have authority over civil servants. [124275]

  Mr. Stringer
  There are 79 special advisers in post of which two in the Prime Minister's office have executive powers.

  Knowledge Network Computer System
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if certain information held on the Knowledge Network computer system will be restricted to Ministers and special advisers. [124276]

  Mr. Stringer
  From the beginning of the project, it has been envisaged that as much information as possible which is eventually held on the Knowledge Network will be made publicly available over the Internet.

  Access to the full Knowledge Network will be restricted to Ministers and civil servants (including special advisers). There will be no new types of material produced by, or held on, the Knowledge Network which has not previously been circulated within Government through existing paper methods.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she last met the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator to discuss progress in meeting the Government's targets on reducing drug abuse. [124277]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I hold regular meetings with the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator to discuss progress in meeting all aspects of the Government's anti-drug strategy.

  Civil Service Recruitment Policy
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to ensure equal opportunity recruitment policies in the Civil Service. [124278]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Government are committed to a diverse Civil Service which reflects the society it serves, and has set targets of 35 per cent., 3.2 per cent., and 3 per cent. for the representation of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities in the Senior Civil Service by 2004–05. Departments have also set targets for these groups outside the Senior Civil Service.

  Recruitment to the Civil Service is on merit, through fair and open competition. We want the best people for the work, whatever their background.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made since May 1997 in 664W
  making magistrate appointments in the county palatine more representative of the communities they serve. [124279]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  In my Directions for Advisory Committees in the Duchy of Lancaster there is a requirement that each Bench should broadly reflect the community it serves. We have been consulting on whether this result is best achieved by retaining the separateness of Duchy appointments or linking the system with the rest of England and Wales by transferring the power to appoint to the Lord Chancellor. As a result of this consultation, I have decided to see how we can more closely align with the system run by the Lord Chancellor on the principles of openness and transparency, while still retaining the local link through the Duchy, which many in the Duchy area value highly. I have asked a Committee involving representatives of the Duchy and the Lord Chancellor's Department to examine this question and report to me.

  Drugs Policy
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proposals she has for further co-ordination of the Government's drugs policy. [124280]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government's drugs policy is set out and co-ordinated through our ten year Strategy, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain". The Anti Drugs Co-ordinator, Keith Hellawell, was appointed to co-ordinate and drive forward the strategy. The strategy contains challenging aims and targets across the whole of our policy. These are annually monitored and reported in the co-ordinator's national plan and report.

  The current spending review is considering further ways to enhance co-ordination of the strategy. Results of our consideration will be published when the review is concluded.

  Drug Prevention Programmes
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if it is her policy to introduce independent assessment of the effectiveness of drug prevention programmes(a) in schools and (b) elsewhere. [124283]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As part of the Government's ten-year strategy "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain" we are committed to identifying what works. This includes education and prevention initiatives. To support this objective the Drug Prevention Advisory Service (DPAS), is currently discussing with the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) ways in which the school inspections system can monitor schools drug policies and activities.

  DPAS also has a key role in assessing all Drug Action Teams prevention programmes. These cover a wide range of activities, including those, which take place in schools. The Anti Drug Co-ordinator, with the support of DPAS is currently reviewing DAT action plans for the year ahead.

  Small Business
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations she has had on administrative burdens on small business. [124286]
  665W
  Mr. Stringer
  My ministerial colleagues and I have sought and received representations from a wide range of business organisations about the specific problems facing small businesses. We have most recently received correspondence from the Federation of Small Business. I will be meeting the Federation shortly to discuss their ideas for simplifying and reducing regulatory burdens.

  Civil Service Code
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what procedures she uses to remove conflicts of interest which are contrary to the Civil Service Code. [124287]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Civil Service Code is part of the terms and conditions of employment of all civil servants. The code informs civil servants of the standards they are expected to uphold, and the appeal mechanisms available to them. Ministers are under a duty, set out in the ministerial code, not to ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code.

  Crop Contamination
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make a statement on co-ordination between Government Departments in formulating policy and providing public information on contamination by GM seed of conventional crops. [124288]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have met various colleagues to discuss contamination of GM seed. In addition to a parliamentary statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18 May 2000, public information has been provided on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food website and placed in the House Library.

  Annual Report
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will arrange for the Government's annual report to be prepared by the National Audit Office following previously published guidelines. [124289]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government have no such plans at this time.

  Drug Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what new proposals she has to reduce drug deaths. [124290]
  666W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government's ten-year anti-drugs strategy aims to reduce the number of deaths from the misuse of illegal drugs. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) has been considering how best we can report, monitor and reduce the number of deaths arising from the use of illegal drugs and they will be reporting to Ministers in the near future.

  The anti-drugs strategy includes a target to have in place an action plan to reduce the number of drug-related deaths and this will be drawn up and implemented in response to the recommendations contained within the ACMD's report.

  Computer Viruses
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps have been taken across Government Departments to prevent disruption of communications by computer viruses similar to that known as the Love Bug. [124282]

  Mr. Ian McCatney
  Further to the hon. Member's question, dated 10 May 2000,Official Report, column 830W, we have published an assessment of computer viruses such as the Love Bug and its implications, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when copies of the report on the impact of the love letter computer virus on Government IT systems will be placed in the Library. [126066]

  Mr. Stringer
  I have today placed copies of the report in the Libraries of the House.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 11 January 2000,Official Report, column 134W, concerning secondments, which of the secondees listed were appointed for a period of 12 months or less. [124816]

  Mr. Stringer
  There were 10 secondees into the Cabinet Office for a period of 12 months or less from May 1997.

  All 10 of those secondees were in the return from May 1999. They were seconded in from Anderson Consulting, Barclays Bank plc, BT, Hay Management Consultants, KPMG, Marks & Spencer plc, McKinsey & Co., Microsoft Corporation, Wragge & Co. Solicitors, and Zurich Financial Services.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Financial Services and Markets Act,

Railtrack (Waverley Station) Order Confirmation Act.

Mature Students: Financial Provision
2.36 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to increase financial provision for mature students wishing to undertake degree courses at universities.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we have made mature students, especially those with children, a priority. We are introducing measures to give them more financial support, including bursaries of up to £1,000, paid according to need, a means-tested school meals grant and, from September 2001, a childcare grant based on actual costs. All of these will be disregarded for benefits purposes. We are also this year raising the income threshold at which mature students have to contribute towards their tuition fees.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful and promising reply. Can she confirm that the extra money made available earlier this year for mature students was directed towards those universities offering part-time courses with a vocational focus? I do not disagree with such a policy, but does my noble friend accept that many people wish to undertake full-time university courses over a wide spectrum of study. Can she confirm that the policy I mentioned in my first supplementary question will not be implemented at the expense of the kind of course I have just mentioned?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in my initial Answer I referred to the position as regards support for full-time students. After all, it is full-time students who gain full access to the student support regime. However, the Government have decided to make it
1632
possible for part-time students also to gain access to the loan system. Part-time students on low incomes will be able to take out a loan of up to £500 a year.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, why is it that students undertaking Bachelor of Education degree courses are treated so unfavourably when compared with those undertaking a PGCE course after completing their first degree? It seems only fair that B.Ed students should qualify for at least equal treatment with anyone else who chooses to go into teaching.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has asked about this on previous occasions. The reason for treating PGCE students in a particular fashion is to tackle the problem of shortages of secondary school teachers in certain subjects. Most students studying for a Bachelor of Education degree will in due course become primary school teachers, where the shortages are not as acute as in secondary schools. That is the reason for the different treatment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I was pleased to hear the Minister mention in particular the costs of childcare. Does the Minister agree that women returning to higher education after having children often face difficult problems as regards childcare because many institutions do not have créches where young children can be looked after? Does the Minister have any solutions that would address this problem?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. We must do all that we can to help women with children, in particular single parents, to secure the qualifications they need in order to get well-paid jobs. They will then no longer be dependent on the state. For that reason, anion 3 others, we have introduced these improvements for mature students, with a special emphasis on mature students with children. So far as concerns creches, it is for the universities themselves to decide on their arrangements for the provision of on-site daycare facilities. However, I think that the vast majority of universities now provide creches and give priority to students with particular needs, such as single mothers or, indeed, single fathers.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the disabled student's allowance has been assessed as regards its effectiveness in assisting disabled mature students?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not believe that a specific study has been carried out into the effectiveness of the disabled student's allowance as it affects mature students. However, the Government have expanded the provision of DSAs to include part-time students because many mature students study part time. This is the first time that that has happened. I can also tell my noble friend that the Government are making DSAs available for postgraduate students.

Toll Charges: VAT
2.43 p.m.
Lord Islwynasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to introduce VAT on toll charges.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the issue of whether to charge VAT on toll charges is presently the subject of proceedings before the European Court of Justice. HM Customs understands that the judgment of the court is not due until 12th September.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, has the Minister noted the judgment of the Advocate General to the effect that, because the United Kingdom failed to impose VAT on tolls, it has as a result failed to meet its obligations under EC treaties? The Advocate General has ordered that the outstanding VAT should be paid retrospectively back to 1994, together with interest charges. Does the Minister appreciate that when I raised this issue a few years ago—I was concerned about the grave effects the imposition of such charges would have on the Severn bridges, the lifelines of Wales—I was told by the then Transport Commissioner, Mr Neil Kinnock, that the fears I was expressing were part of the Euro myth? Does the Minister agree that the reality is now a little different? Furthermore, is it not time for us to stand up to those faceless bureaucrats in Brussels?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend uses language that I am more used to hearing from the Benches opposite. The Advocate General delivered his written opinion to the court on 27th January, but the final decision is before the court. We understand that it will be delivered on 12th September. My noble friend is right: the opinion of the Advocate General was that all toll charges should be subject to VAT, but that, because of delays in consideration of the matter by the Commission, arrears should be paid over a period of only four years rather than over the full period from the time the matter was first raised by the Commission.
Lord Renton: My Lords, do the Government believe in freedom of movement for workers, holidaymakers and tourists? Is the Minister aware that the imposition of these charges would mean interference with freedom of movement and would add to its cost?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the only tax imposed in this country which is subject to European law is value added tax. Consistency between countries in the way in which value added tax is imposed is a matter of European directives, to which we have signed up in the form of primary legislation.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I could not possibly better the splendid denunciation by my noble friend Lord Islwyn of the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels? Is it true
1634
that the Government have merely expressed disappointment at the Advocate General's ruling? Would it not be better if they expressed outrage? Would it not dish the Commission, the Advocate General and the European Court if we used some of the new telephone licence money to abolish toll charges, not only on the Severn Bridge but on every other bridge and road in the United Kingdom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have done a great deal better than object to the opinion of the Advocate General—it is an opinion, not a ruling; the final decision is with the Commission. The Government argued strongly before the European Court in November last year when the issue was before the court that VAT should not be charged on tolls. We did so on the basis that nearly all the tolls in this country are operated by local authorities as a statutory duty and, therefore, should not be, and never have been since 1973, subject to VAT. A difficulty arises with tolls such as those on the second Severn crossing which are privatised. The argument is much more difficult to sustain in those circumstances.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, if the Government are faced with an adverse judgment in the European Court, will they consider lowering the charges, because traffic levels on the Severn crossing are rather higher than expected, and in view of the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, said, this is Wales's lifeline?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord refers to the second Severn crossing, the toll charges there have been a matter of agreement between the Government and Severn River Crossing plc. It is primarily a matter for the company to decide the charges in accordance with that agreement. A difficulty arises in relation to some crossings, in that there is a limit to the increase in charges, and that is true of both Dartford and the Severn. Any annual increase is restricted to the increase in the retail prices index. That may prove a difficulty which will have to be faced if and when the European Court of Justice finds against us.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, do the French and Italian Governments pay VAT on the tolls on their motorways, some of which are privatised and some of which are state-owned? Are they, too, subject to the future ruling in the European Court? Secondly, if the Commission is proposing VAT on road tolls, is it proposing VAT on bus and train fares, Underground fares, air fares or any other kind of travel within the Community?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer to the second question is no. The answer to the first is that the Commission's action before the European Court of Justice will relate to all those countries, including the UK, France, Holland, Ireland and Greece, which charge tolls on roads.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in view of the European Court's record of agreement with the opinions of the Advocate General, can the Minister tell the House with what confidence he faces the prospect that on this occasion the court may disagree with the Advocate General?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I have no insight into the minds of those at the European Court of Justice. As a matter of historical fact, the noble Lord is right. The court usually, if not always, agrees with the opinions of the Advocate General.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, is it right that other countries are also opposing this action in Europe? Is it not right that it would apply to the first Severn crossing as well as the second Severn crossing? The Minister referred only to the second Severn crossing; they run in tandem. Will the Minister be kind enough to place in the Library the detail of all those tolls in Europe where this practice is followed, and the way in which the VAT is applied? We can then see what is happening in other countries and what is proposed in this country.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can undertake to do that as regards this country, or to answer a Written Question if that would be more appropriate. I am doubtful whether we could collect the information for other European countries.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, presumably the Treasury has done some research on how much such charges would cost the UK taxpayer. Perhaps the Minister can share that information with us.
If the proposal is upheld by the ECJ do the Government intend that relevant local authorities should he forced to levy an additional 17·5 per cent on their bridge tolls?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not a question of how much it would cost the taxpayer. If we take the issue literally, I assume that both local authorities and publicly and privately owned toll roads and bridges would wish, if they could, to increase their charges to cover the VAT so that it would cost the taxpayer nothing. Those are matters which will have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
I am not sure whether it is clear to noble Lords who talk about the cost to this country, in particular to business and industry, that all commercial traffic and passenger vehicle traffic by business motorists would be able to recover their VAT by keeping their receipts and entering them in their VAT returns.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, may I seek to be helpful to the Minister? Perhaps he can suggest to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that additional charges resulting from a judgment of the European Court about VAT on the Forth road bridge used by many of his constituents would not go down very well in that part of Scotland.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the spoon with which I have supped with the noble Lord does not grow any shorter! I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is well aware of these matters.

Inter-Governmental Conference: Nice
2.52 p.m.
Viscount Waverleyasked Her Majesty's Government:
When the agenda will be agreed for the Inter-Governmental Conference in Nice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we expect the European Council in Feira on 19th and 20th June to confirm that the IGC agenda should remain focused on the institutional changes necessary for enlargement, and that negotiations should be completed this year. In addition, the presidency will report on discussions so far and recommend the inclusion of a few additional agenda items. We expect these to include areas such as reform of the European courts, the composition of the Community's other institutions and bodies, and closer co-operation. We are content to see these issues on the agenda.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, how can the United Kingdom's European participation be considered to be impacting centre stage when it quite manifestly is not, given our current approach? Why is our reputation with our partners, the Commission and, most importantly, the British electorate seemingly being diminished by a creeping on-off engagement without consistent arguments being articulated before what will be the most draconian Summit since Maastricht?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Viscount should so describe the IGC. I cannot join with him in his assessment. Our reputation has not been diminished. Britain has very much gone to the core of Europe. We are extremely well respected. The IGC agenda is clear. That agenda has been well established. It has been agreed. Provision was made for the inclusion of a few related additional matters. These have now been thrashed out.
This IGC is very much on course. We are dealing with precisely the issues that Britain wanted to be dealt with. We are confident that we shall be ready and able to deal with those issues in a productive way.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, is it correct that the French Government wish to put the charter of fundamental human rights on the agenda? Do the British Government agree that that should be part of the treaty?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that we shall have an interesting debate on the charter of

1637
rights on Friday when I am sure I shall be able to expand more fully on the subject. I make clear that Her Majesty's Government welcomed the opportunity to raise the visibility of those rights. The charter should preserve the legal certainty, including full consistency with the ECHR, stick to existing rights, and be consistent with other EU policies and objectives. At present we do not see that this charter should be anything other than a declaratory charter. We think that this is the best way to raise visibility while maintaining legal certainty.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister will surely agree that the agenda that she would favour is completely different from the agenda that Mr Joschka Fischer wants. Has my noble friend read his speech of 12th May to Humboldt University entitled From Confederation to Federation? It sets out clearly the German point of view—it is not a personal point of view—towards a country called Europe stretching from the Urals to the Atlantic. Can the noble Baroness emphatically disagree with that view and give some leadership to the other countries which do not see the German-French axis vision of Europe as they do?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Mr Fischer made clear that he was speaking in a personal capacity, and not as Foreign Minister nor as a representative of the German Government. We welcome his contribution to the debate on the future of Europe, which sets out some familiar views. We can support some elements of his speech. For instance, we support his emphasis on the need for early enlargement and his recognition that political integration should not go against the grain of the national institutions and traditions. But clearly we do not share his view on the EU constituent treaty or a full parliamentary federation. We want a united Europe of states not a united states of Europe. It is right to remember that France, too, has welcomed his view and expressed interest, but no more.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I fully understand that the agenda for the conference has not been finalised, let alone the agenda for the subsequent treaty of Nice. However, is the Minister aware that some of us are beginning to feel a shade misled by the propaganda about the nature of the conference—not by the noble Baroness, I hasten to say, but by government spin generally? We have been told again and again that it is a tidying-up conference; that it is tightly focused; and that it is all about the Amsterdam left-overs and the housekeeping needed for enlargement. But it has become plain that it is a conference about the major issues affecting the future of Europe and its shape. It is becoming a Christmas tree on which everyone hangs their favourite cause in relation to European reform.
The Minister referred to a tight focus for the conference's agenda.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Howell of Guildford: How can that be reconciled with the apparent push to put on the agenda defence issues, the question of enhanced flexibility and co-operation and the charter of fundamental rights? How can it be reconciled with the view of Commissioner Verheugen that EU institutions are having heart failure? These are enormous issues. I do not believe that they should be suppressed.
Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord Howell of Guildford: It is time that the Government took a lead in debate instead of pretending that nothing very important is happening.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I shall say as clearly as I can that the statements made by this Government in relation to the focus of the IGC remain true. We cannot account for others who may ill report that which is in fact happening. But we have kept it focused. The noble Lord will know that it is of incredible importance for us to be ready by 2002 for the prospect of enlargement. The issues to be dealt with by the IGC are to that end.
Of course additional matters will be discussed but that is what it will be—a discussion. There is no indication that we shall go outside that which I have told the House on other occasions or what I have said today.
Lord Roper: My Lords, the Minister will know of the interest on these Benches in the progress on defence, made last year at the Helsinki and Cologne summits. Will she confirm that the Council's legal advisers have ruled that there will be no need for any treaty amendments and that therefore that item need not feature on the IGC agenda?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is right. There is a clear view that a treaty amendment is not necessary and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it does not form part of the IGC.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it not true that the Government's own White Paper—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

Millennium Bridge
3 p.m.
Lord Lukeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they would support the spending of additional lottery money to stabilise the Millennium Bridge.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like all lottery distributors, the Millennium Commission is independent of government. The Millennium Commission has contributed just over £7 million to the

1639
construction of the bridge. While the project engineers work to solve the problem with the bridge, it seems pointless to speculate as to whether the Bridge Trust will seek further funding from the Millennium Commission. Any application for further funding from the Millennium Commission would be considered on its merits.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. If by chance more money is required, will it come from the taxpayer or directly from the lottery?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already said that it would be pointless to speculate as to whether the Bridge Trust will seek further funding. If it did so, no doubt it would be from the Millennium Commission, as I said in my original Answer.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, if the people who constructed the bridge have made a mistake is it not up to them to pay?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that may be a matter of debate and subsequently of legal opinion. However, it all depends on what the cause is found to be as a result of the engineering investigation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, when I fly in an aircraft I try to do so on one that has not been designed by an architect. Would it not have been more sensible if the bridge had been designed by a bridge engineer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the bridge design was based on a concept by a sculptor, Sir Anthony Caro, and not an architect. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, would fly in an aircraft designed by a sculptor.
There are different views on these matters. I remember that during my childhood in Scotland I really enjoyed going on what we called a shoogly bridge. Some of us would enjoy going on a bridge which was not entirely static, but I can see that safety considerations might lead to a different opinion.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not preferable to have a bridge that wobbles rather than a bridge that is rigid and breaks?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather think so. The evidence of the Tacoma Narrows bridge points to that.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, will the Minister ensure that when the bridge is reopened it is possible to travel from south to north of the river and not in the opposite direction? Those of us who live south of the river occasionally like to travel north, not least to debate in your Lordships' House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, surely, the right reverend Prelate would want to have City persons joining his congregation at Southwark Cathedral.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we recognise that it is the function of the Opposition to criticise, and
1640
we are used to their knocking copy about various aspects of the millennium development. However, is it not the case that future generations will delight in the bridge, the London Eye and the Dome?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the bridge is wonderful. It is outstanding among the many wonderful structures being built in London and throughout the country this year. I believe that all will survive both physically and in our memories for a very long time to come.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the bridge is attractive, but can he tell the House why the three millennium projects have all gone wrong? Is it something to do with 10 Downing Street?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure to which three millennium projects the noble Lord is referring.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I was referring to the wheel, the Dome and the bridge.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is just plain wrong. In any case, the London Eye is not a millennium project but a British Airways project.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
3.4 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Baker of Dorking set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Higher Education
3.5 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorkingrose to call attention to the state of higher education in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I asked for the debate before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his infamous remarks about Magdalen College, which happens to be the college I went to. Therefore, I shall turn to that matter later. I wanted to give your Lordships an opportunity to examine the crisis facing

1641
higher education in our country. "Crisis" is not an exaggeration. Nearly every academic one talks to admits that the quality of education in our universities is declining. They say that in private, but very few say it in public.
Mr Robert Stevens, the Master of Pembroke College, Oxford, and the Visiting Professor of Law at Yale University, wrote in the Financial Times only a few weeks ago that,
"the quality of research and teaching in English universities is declining. This deterioration will gather pace unless funding, either public or private, is considerably enhanced".
That is not just one view from the ivory towers of Oxford. During the past two years, the Government have received three reports. The latest is the one commissioned earlier this year by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Higher Education Funding Council and the SCP. They all say the same thing; that the quality of education in our universities is declining because of their inability to recruit and retain staff. They say that the infrastructure of our research base is deteriorating. They say that more than one-third of academics in this country are over the age of 50. Young graduates are not being attracted into the profession in the numbers that are required. For the fourth year running, the numbers applying to take a Doctor of Philosophy have declined.
All that comes from a Government who boast that they want to create a knowledge-based economy. The knowledge base is in the heart of our universities. When the Government use that phrase they demonstrate yet again that they are a Government of adjectives and not a Government of achievement.
The crisis is particularly acute as regards academic salaries. At present, 70 professorial posts are unfilled. Warwick, one of our elite universities, cannot appoint a Professor of Economics because no one of sufficient calibre has applied. During the past two years, one of our older universities advertised 13 professorial posts. It appointed six, but during the same time six resigned, amounting to a standstill.
Yesterday I spoke to Professor Peacock, the Waynfleet Professor of Metaphysical Philosophy at Oxford. Next month he is going to New York University. Professor Martin Davis, another Oxford philosopher, is going to Australia. Professor Higginbottom, also an Oxford Philosopher, is going to Southern California. That is what is happening in just one discipline—an important one but with no great numbers—at one university. So the brain drain is well under way—and it is one way only. It is almost impossible to attract scholars of international standing to this country. They like working here, they like the atmosphere, but they are not prepared to take the financial penalties that they would bear.
1642
The greatest difficulty in recruitment is in accountancy, engineering, computer-science, business, law, nursing and maths. In a careless reply in this House a few weeks ago, the noble Baroness dismissed this as,
"small difficulties in some scientific areas".—[Official Report, 23/5/00: col. 632.]
The difficulty goes much wider than that. And it is not surprising that there is a difficulty. Since 1981, academic pay has risen in real terms by just 1 per cent compared with an increase in wages and salaries since then of our general society of 40 per cent. The increase among professionals is even higher. Therefore, there is a very real crisis in pay. A graduate lecturer's starting salary is £16,000 per annum. With a bit of luck, by the age of 28 he or she might be earning £24,000. That is a very poor reward and it is why so many of them are finding it extremely difficult to accept a career in education in this country.
When it comes to professors, the professorial minimum in this country is £38,000 a year. The standard salary for an Oxford professor is £41,893. The department of the noble Baroness has four special advisers: two of them are paid up to £46,000 a year and one is paid up to £61,000 a year. Therefore, the clear lead given by this Government is that spin doctors are more valuable than professors. That is unacceptable.
When great institutions decline, they do not decline precipitously; there is no precipice. They simply decline very slowly. Higher education in this country is now heading down that slope and I believe that the Government are doing very little to arrest the decline. In her wind-up speech tonight, the noble Baroness will point out that the Government have increased the funding of higher education up to the year 2002 by 11 per cent in real terms. That is simply not accepted by the university world.
When I became Secretary of State for Education in 1986, the average teaching expenditure per student in the universities was £8,500; it is now approximately £4,000. That is a real-terms cut. I believe that the proportion spent on higher education by this Government is disgraceful. I asked the Library to check with the noble Baroness's department the answers given by the Government in this House. Therefore, there should be some semblance of reality and truth in the figures that I give.
The proportion of GDP that the Government will spend on higher education this year is 1·12 per cent, including salaries. That is well below the OECD average; in fact, it is the lowest figure of any OECD country. America spends nearly three times as much on state education. The average spent during the 18 years of Conservative government was 1·22 per cent of GDP. The Government have spent 1·12 per cent this year; in the 18 years of Conservative government, the average was 1·22 per cent. Therefore, Gordon Brown is spending a lower proportion of our GDP on higher education than did Kenneth Clarke, Norman Lamont, Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Lawson was so generous, but he should take some credit for that.

1643
In order to catch up with the Tory average of 1·22 per cent, the Government should increase expenditure this year—I am talking about the year 2000—by £800 million from £10·1 billion to £10·9 billion. That happens to be very close to the figure that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is asking the Government for. The noble Baroness is currently engaged in discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the whole question of her expenditure programme. Unless she increases it by £800 million a year—that is standstill extra—she cannot talk of a real increase. That is the challenge that faces the Government.
This year some universities have experienced a real-terms cut in their budgets. Thames Valley has had a cut of 14 per cent; Sussex, 2 per cent; Oxford, 1 per cent; and Cambridge, 0·3 per cent—a bit of spite there! I had a look at Birkbeck College, which was headed by the noble Baroness. Its budget is approximately £20 million this year and it has received an increase of £250,000. That is a real-terms cut of 1·2 per cent. If I had inflicted that upon her when she was the head of Birkbeck College, she would have stormed into my office and accused me of being a mean-spirited, Thatcherite Tory (she can join the ranks!). I dare say that when staff in the senior common room of Birkbeck knew that Tessa was to be their Minister, they must have felt that Christmas was coming. However, she has not delivered the goods, and I believe that they would probably now agree with King Lear:
"Ingratitude, thou marble-hearted fiend".
I believe that we need an entirely different approach; fortunately, not the one advocated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government seem to intervene only when cheap headlines are to be won. I believe that Gordon Brown's infamous attack on my old college is the only speech that he has made about higher education in the course of the past three years. I understand that Tony Smith, the President of the College, invited him to dinner in order to explain what Magdalen and Oxford were doing to widen participation. The first lesson from that episode is that if you invite the Chancellor to dinner, remember that he bites the hand that feeds!
Then the Chancellor said that Oxford was elite. Elite? Oxford elitism is nothing compared to the elitism of Harvard. Twenty-five per cent of the intake at Harvard every year is constituted of the families of old Harvard alumni. That is not the case in Oxford. It is a matter of old boys making sure that their sons and daughters go to Harvard. That is the elitism of which we are supposed to be guilty. Would the American Secretary, Larry Summers, attack Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Berkeley and Stamford as being elite? Would the socialist education Minister of France—a real socialist—attack Les Grandes Eccles in Paris for being elite? It is an absurd position for the Chancellor to take. It was a capricious and malicious attack.
Subsequently in an article in The Times, Mr Brown said that we must learn from the US. Perhaps for a moment we should examine students' packages in the US. There are grants, loans and work. When assessing
1644
need, Harvard takes into account not the student's income, but his parents' income, the value of the parents' house and the value of the parents' pensions. That is the kind of system that the Chancellor is encouraging us to consider. When it comes to work, I believe that Laura Spence will understand that she must engage in a major fund-raising exercise. She will have to work at Harvard. Many of the students there work in the kitchens, cooking food for the richer students. That is an opportunity that would have been denied to Laura Spence if she had gone to Edinburgh or Manchester Universities.
Gordon Brown's aversion to Oxbridge has nothing to do with education; it has everything to do with politics. He obviously has difficulty with public school Oxford graduates, particularly if they live next door. When one considers the selection committees, not only at Oxford but at all the other universities, there is barely an old school tie among them today. The people who form the selection committees certainly cannot afford private education for their children because they are paid so poorly. Therefore, in fact the whole system is biased to pulling in more people from the state sector.
Gordon Brown's rocket has exploded in his own hand. I believe that he likes to watch football on television, in which case he knows about elites. The proudest and greatest elite in our country today is Manchester United. It is ruthlessly selective. Only the best are selected; second and third-rate people are rejected. Are noble Lords aware that there is not one player in that team who comes from the private sector of education? Worse still, there is not one player in any premier league club who comes from the private education sector. Young boys are being denied the chance to play for their country by this discrimination. The Chancellor must call in the chairman of every football club and demand that they have a player from the private sector of education. That might even improve English soccer. One never knows; there is a long way to go.
That analogy shows the absurdity of the Chancellor's position. He got his facts hopelessly mangled. Of the five students accepted at Magdalen, two came from state schools and three from ethnic minorities. Fifty-six per cent of the applications to Oxford come from state schools; 53 per cent are selected. Gordon Brown should focus upon the relative under-performance of state schools. Al tacking elite universities before improving the performance of state schools is like attacking and taxing the motorist before public transport is improved.
Of course, I accept that there is a real difference in the life opportunities between youngsters who attend private schools and those who attend schools in the inner city estates. However, the answer is not to punish Oxbridge and private schools but to reform the state system so that it competes with the best of the private schools. The Vice-Principal of Aberdeen University expressed the matter pithily last week:
"If kids come out of school with poor qualifications, there is not a lot universities can do about it."

1645
We also need a programme of positive access. I praise the work undertaken by Peter Lampl of the Sutton Trust and many of the colleges and universities whose staff have written to me in the past few days, all demonstrating their attempt to increase the number of young people who apply to university. The critical point is the numbers that apply. Many schools do not apply. That is where the weakness lies.
We should not overlook our success in higher education. In 1989, at the end of my time as Secretary of State, I set a target for participation in higher education, which, at that time, was running at 12 per cent. I said that by the end of the century we should get that figure up to 33 per cent—it is actually 35 per cent. Now the Government have set a further target of 50 per cent. I do not believe that that target can be reached unless there is a fundamental and radical change.
I have come to the conclusion that no government of any complexion—whether Conservative, Labour or a coalition—will ever provide the funds that are properly required for higher education in our country. Our universities are, in fact, a nationalised industry. They have all the characteristics and weaknesses of a nationalised industry. It is an under-funded mass system with national salary negotiations instead of regional and local salary negotiations; top-down regulation of student numbers and of courses in each university; incessant bureaucratic, trivial intervention, day-by-day, which the universities resent; and under-investment in libraries, laboratories and computer rooms.
Universities started as private institutions and they should become private institutions once again. They should become independent, free-standing bodies, totally in charge of their own affairs. That should be the object and I see one or two Members opposite who come from the university world nodding in agreement with me.
If some Members opposite find the word "privatisation" a little too hard to take, they should note that their Government, this very day, is removing all the schools in the city of Leeds from the public sector and handing them over to the management of the private sector. We need something as radical as that in the university world.
Universities should be responsible for the range of subjects that they provide; they should be demand led and not controlled by a quango; and they should be responsible for their own salary negotiations and their investment programmes. That is the American system which the Chancellor seems to admire. But how can we get there? It cannot be done overnight. Our system does not have the large American endowments which have been built up over decades and, in some cases, centuries.
However, we are slowly moving to a market position. The market will run ahead of us in this area. Earlier this year the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals—the Chairman of which is in her place opposite—held a conference on borderless education,
1646
that is, students gaining qualifications and degrees from leading universities like Yale and MIT over the Internet. That is the pure market operating. For Britain it provides opportunities and threats.
The other area in which the market operates is in regard to overseas students. We have one of the highest levels of overseas students in the world: 71 per cent of the post-graduates at the London School of Economics, 50 per cent at Oxford, 40 per cent at Cambridge, 32 per cent at Nottingham and 26 per cent at Birmingham. Most of them pay full student fees.
Do noble Lords remember the opposition faced by Margaret Thatcher in 1981 when she introduced full charging for overseas students? That is the lifeline of every university in our country today. In regard to the LSE, if one adds in the number of undergraduates, 63 per cent of students now come from overseas. One has only to visit the Aldwych at any lunch time to see every nation, every race, every creed represented there. It is a united nations. So fees from overseas students are one of the building blocks for the future.
Another building block is per capita funding which I introduced in 1989. After per capita funding, which is the state contribution given for each student—so much if they study art, so much if they study science, so much for dentistry, so much for vets, so much for doctors, and so on—I envisaged that there would be loans, which I introduced, and then fees, but I did not have the boldness to introduce them in those days. Those are the various building blocks.
Another building block is access funds, which I introduced. That money is given by the state to individual universities to create scholarships for students who need them. That now runs at £45 million a year, which I do not believe is enough.
What more needs to be done? I believe that the Chancellor should make a gift to the universities of at least £1 billion as a capital endowment, dependent upon the size of the university. That is roughly the amount of money spent on the Dome. It could be taken out of the receipts from their mobile phone auctions, the results of the knowledge-based economy. They could take some of that money back and give it to the knowledge base. It should be a capital endowment to the universities that they could control themselves, with the interest being used for scholarships. That could be topped up by donations from companies and individuals. He should also extend the tax relief that he has given on the donation of shares to universities, which I recognise is attractive, and to personal donations—an extra tax bonus, as it were. That is Treasury income foregone, but it would act as a stimulus to create that necessary pool of endowment funding.
In a few days, I believe that the Russell Committee will report. That is a committee of the 18 leading research universities in our country headed by Sir Colin Campbell of Nottingham. I hope that they will be radical in their proposals. My advice would be, because their futures are all at stake, to follow John Milton's words,
"Strike high and venture dangerously".

1647
Unless they do that, I do not believe that the radical changes that are necessary will be introduced. I am certain that we are moving to a system where universities should be able to charge fees; where significant scholarships are available—the maximum at Harvard is 60 per cent—and where students can repay them, through the tax system, after they have left college. Scotland may well show the way.
I believe that unless something along these lines is undertaken, the decline of our universities will continue. We must arrest that decline. We must start heading upwards. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Bernstein of Craigwell: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech, although his accomplished speech has made me even more apprehensive than I would have been in any case on this occasion.
As chairman of the Granada Group of companies for many years, I had thought that my experience of addressing shareholders at annual general meetings would have prepared me for anything, but I have to say that your Lordships, although fewer in number than our shareholders, are greater in gravitas, and, therefore, much more alarming.
I also take this opportunity to thank your Lordships and the officers and staff for their kindness in making me so welcome here. It is a great pleasure to be following in the footsteps of my uncle, the late Lord Bernstein of Leigh, in your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords who are due to speak today include those of great eminence in the university system. I am unable, in any way, to match their experience and learning, but I have spent many years in the world of visual arts, including being on the boards of a number of public galleries. Today I want to speak of the place of the colleges of art in the higher education system.
When there are so many challenges facing our universities, this may seem to be raising a matter of less than central importance, but in many ways the arts define the kind of society in which we live. My noble friend Lady Blackstone, in a debate in this House last year, said that,
"the arts provide their own justification by what they do for us all".
Many people share that view.
Last month the new Museum of Modern Art, Tate Modern, opened to great acclaim. On the Cup Final weekend in May, 78,000 people went to Wembley and over 80,000 to the Tate Modern.
In our sophisticated world, the arts play an increasingly vital part, not least in economic terms. The turnover of the creative industries in this country is £60 billion a year and is growing a t twice the rate of the economy as a whole. I was going to say that these industries need a firm foundation which has been provided by the colleges of art, but after the comments made on Sir Anthony Caro's role in the Millennium Bridge, I should rephrase that. However,
1648
in Sir Anthony's defence I should say that an eminent firm of consulting engineers was also employed in building the bridge.
The colleges of art have been extremely successful and have been the envy of the world. In large part, that is due to Sir William Coldstream's report of the 1960s, which made two vital recommendations: first, that teachers should be artists and not academics; and, secondly, that successful and practising artists should teach students part-time. It is the one-to-one tuition by artists that has made the reputation of our art colleges. However, in recent years there have been a lot of changes. Many colleges are now part of the university system and others have adopted the university ethos. This provides students with many pluses, not least the opportunity of a broader education, but—and it is a big "but"—the process carries with it its own dangers.
Colleges of art are becoming more and more influenced by universities in their entrance qualifications, methods of teaching and evaluation of work. For example, most art students now need to study a broad range of subjects for which credits are given towards their degree. One is bound to ask: does this detract from the concentration, even obsession, that is the mark of a successful artist? And one-to-one tuition, which is essential to the teaching of art, is under attack because it is more costly than the largely lecture-based teaching of academic subjects. Finally, the research assessment exercise, which is tuned to test academic research, is much less able to evaluate practical work.
I believe that the disciplines and methods that are appropriate for academic work are less so for the work of art students. Most successful artists would never have flourished in a university environment. Although a collection of A-levels of the highest grade may be essential for the study of medicine, that certainly is n of so for the study of art. Many artists are dyslexic; many come from the most unlikely backgrounds, with little academic success; and many would never dream of applying to study an academic discipline.
One of Queen Victoria's daughters, Princess Louise, decided that she wanted to study at the art college which is now the Royal College of Art. The Queen wrote a letter to her, saying:
"You must beware of artists my dear. They mix with all classes of society and are therefore dangerous".
I am not sure that they are dangerous. But artists are different. That is my theme today. I am of course 'well aware of the importance of academic standards and methods, and of the attractions of a university education. I only suggest that art students do not always fit comfortably in that system. I suggest that we should not take for granted the success of our colleges of art.
Thirty years after the Coldstream report, perhaps it is time to look again at the teaching of art in the higher education system to ensure that the colleges of art will be as successful in the future as they have been in the past.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein of Craigwell. He comes from a family which has rendered great services to the arts and he has preeminently done that himself. I thought that he slightly underestimated his university qualifications. He was educated at one very distinguished university and has been associated with the administration of another two. I thought that he used that background to speak to us with a mixture of authority and charm. We congratulate him and look forward very much to hearing him in the future.
This afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Baker, made a powerful speech, as he did in a debate on universities in December which I initiated. In that previous debate I endeavoured to transcend my role as Chancellor of Oxford—which I must of course declare—and to discuss the universities well beyond Oxford or even Oxbridge. Today my time is much less. We have also had the Chancellor of the Exchequer's little blitzkrieg on Oxford. I must therefore keep my sights narrower today.
The Chancellor's attack resembled a blitzkrieg in being an act of sudden, unprovoked aggression. But it was incomparably less well-prepared and accurately carried out than the original blitzkrieg of 60 years ago this spring. The target was singularly ill chosen. It would be difficult to think of any group of academics to whom the designation "old school tie, old boy network" was less appropriate than the medical entrance examiners of Magdalen.
The historical event which I think Mr Brown's enterprise more followed was the Cultural Revolution in China, which was designed not to achieve any practical result but just to stir things up for political purposes, to spread unease and to create damage, which took a lot of repairing. Mr Brown's diatribe was born of prejudice out of ignorance. Nearly every fact he adduced was false. I only hope that he is better briefed when dealing with Treasury matters. But I think that he must be, otherwise the economy would be in a worse state than it has been over the past three years. But as a former occupant of his office, I advise him to stick more to his last, and not to try to do too many other Ministers' jobs for them.
Then we had the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in Washington. I of course gave her notice that I intended to refer to her this afternoon but she apparently has priorities other than this House. Her speech in Washington was not wise, although I do not think that it justified the vicious press attacks which have been made upon her, and which I do not endorse. I think it was unwise: first, because it is a mistake to mingle a commemorative occasion in America—I know those dinners well—with a controversial speech designed for political consumption at home; secondly, because her point about the best American universities was ill founded. She said about admissions policy, "You've done it at Harvard and Yale. We should do it at Oxford and Cambridge".
1650
I have a great admiration for those American universities and for some aspects of their admissions policy. But I will wager the noble Baroness any money she likes that the gap between the tiny percentage—a little over one per cent—of American children who are educated at the equivalent of our fully independent schools—I am not talking about parochial schools because they are not at all equivalent—and the percentage who still get in to Harvard and indeed Yale is substantially—very substantially—greater than the gap at Oxford or Cambridge.
The noble Baroness has also been attacked about her own school. I will not join the argument about the status of Blackheath, but I know that I went to a still more ordinary grammar school, and that did not prevent my being elected on a very wide poll Chancellor of Oxford 13 years ago. That is wholly incompatible with the "old school tie" spectre at Oxford which so haunts Mr Brown.
I also feel some sympathy with the noble Baroness about the schools of her children. My children followed almost exactly the same pattern. But one lesson, if I may say so, is not to throw stones out of glasshouses. She has recently been in danger of carrying that to an extreme order, equivalent to hurling boulders out of crystal palaces.
The other lesson is not to treat education as primarily a matter of social engineering. At higher levels it is a matter of excellence, and of fair access to excellence certainly. At Oxford we recognise that we have some way further to go. Our ability to do that depends on a lot of good applicants being forthcoming from state schools. I very much doubt whether Mr Brown has helped in that direction.
We want to cover this extra piece of ground, and we are making strenuous efforts to do so. But there are two contingent dangers. First, it would be quite wrong to say that a candidate, however good he or she may be, should be excluded because he or she comes from too privileged a school. Children mostly do not choose their own school, and in any event I doubt whether such an approach could stand up under the Human Rights Act. Secondly, there must be no question of governments, or agents of government, deciding which individuals should or should not be admitted to particular universities. There is already too much government interference, far more than in the much-praised Harvard and Yale.
Finally, might the Government not consider whether in the recent flurry of ministerial pronouncements there is some contradiction between their elevating admissions to Oxford as a key battle ground and at the same time expressing the view that great efforts are to be made to keep those who do get in out of the most important public service jobs?
3.39 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, on his most interesting and excellent maiden speech and say how much I appreciated his point about the value and importance of one-to-one teaching and tuition.

1651
I should like also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking on introducing this debate. As he said, the issue of higher education was very important when he tabled his Motion. It is now at the top of the political agenda, following the extraordinary and intemperate attack on the University of Oxford by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech full of inaccuracies, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, pointed out. It is difficult not to believe that the Chancellor's remarks were designed to draw attention away from the Government's evident failures on other political matters, such as the National Health Service and education in schools. In any event, it was utterly disgraceful to use in this way a young girl—a sixth-former—who was about to start her A-level examinations. Not only did he succeed in offending the University of Oxford but, by implication, the University of Edinburgh, which has one of the oldest and most renowned medical schools—quite as good as the medical school at Nottingham.
In the time allowed I can make only two points, but I should like to take up those issues raised by my noble friend Lord Baker. To a large extent, the prosperity of our country depends on having some universities that are of world class, not only for their academic excellence but also for the science-based industries linked to them, which are in the forefront of technological development and ring a number of university cities. The university world is a competitive one. Students who can do so go where they think the courses are best; some already choose Harvard or Yale, MIT or Stanford, to name but a few. Equally, dons will go where the facilities for their work are the best, In those circumstances, universities—this is particularly so in the case of Oxford—pwill not lower their standards of admission, and should not in any event be ashamed to aim to be elite. We surely do not want third-rate institutions of any kind.
Universities will always look for the best students, whatever their background. Immense efforts are being made by Oxford. The university gave up its entrance examination because maintained schools said that they could not teach to it. The University of Oxford and, I suspect, others are willing to consider the American system of intelligence tests. Some such tests are being piloted. That leaves the interview, which is bound to be difficult when there are more applicants than places. As for the ratio of independent to maintained school pupils, it must be noted that one-third of independent school pupils achieve three A grades at A-level, which is a far higher proportion than those in maintained schools. That should say something about maintained schools and the need to raise the standards of education there.
That leads to my second point. Everyone who cares about education wants to see equality of opportunity. There should not be any waste of the talents of our people. Indeed, in the 1960s a higher proportion of maintained school pupils went to Oxford, with an approximate split of 60 per cent to 40 per cent. But in the universities generally—I speak as a former Chancellor of the University of Greenwich—we are
1652
succeeding well in life-long learning. It is a pleasure that 50 per cent of students are women and that increasing numbers of ethnic minorities go to university. The latest OECD figures show that the United Kingdom has now overtaken the United States in the number of young people who get degrees.
All that said, it is essential that maintained school pupils should apply for places at. Oxford and Cambridge. Great efforts are made to encourage them to do so. Pupils are invited to the universities to see what they are like. Students visit schools to say what their experience is. But, I regret to say—I believe it to be true—that there are still some teachers who actually discourage their pupils from applying, saying that Oxbridge and other universities are "not for them". Frequently, colleges approach schools and schools do not respond. The first lesson to come out of this is that one cannot deal with people who do not apply. In my view, schools should work to raise standards and expectations. They should train their pupils for interviews; for every job will require an interview, whether it is a tough one for a university place or for a 16 year-old who leaves school at the earliest possible opportunity to go to work, say, in a local supermarket.
To conclude, I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Baker that Oxbridge and a number of universities—perhaps all—should now seriously consider becoming independent. There is already a real danger of universities not being able to recruit. We have heard from my noble friend that it is very difficult to recruit economists, lawyers and those in computing. It is very difficult indeed to staff the new business schools. When we consider that a professor earns around £40,000 a year—less than the starting pay of a solicitor and, dare I say, very considerably less than that of a Member of Parliament or (as we have heard) a special adviser—is it likely that we shall succeed in recruiting those who are most in demand in society?
What is really needed is a good deal more money to keep up the standards of excellence. As we have discovered over so many other issues in our economic and political life, if we are to keep up the standards of excellence but the state cannot or will not provide enough money the only alternative is to privatise. We need to face up to that as a country, not only for the financial independence of the universities but the maintenance of their excellence and, essentially, their academic independence.
3.46 p.m.
Baroness Wahnsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, for giving me this opportunity to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House on a matter which is close to my heart—equal access to higher education for all students.
Since I was first introduced to this House three weeks ago, I have been treated with the utmost kindness and friendliness by noble Lords and Baronesses from all Benches, for which I am most grateful. I am not renowned for my sense of direction and therefore have more cause than most to be grateful

1653
to the wonderful staff, who have guided me through the geography and procedures of this historic place with unfailing patience, good humour and courtesy.
The subject of this debate is the state of higher education. The quality of any product is, to a great extent, affected by the quality of the raw material. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that our leading universities compete avidly with each other for the best raw material—the students applying for admission. It is to this process that I intend to address my remarks.
We have heard much about what the universities are doing to level the playing field between state and independent pupils of similar ability. However, I should like to take one step back and look at what schools are doing. During my years as a biology teacher I helped many young people through the process of applying for admission to university. It was a very difficult time for them. Although I do not recall ever having a pupil bring me an apple, I will always remember one particular sixth-former who once brought me, by way of thanks, a rabbit which he had shot that morning on his father's farm.
I vividly remember the interview for my own place in the botany department at Liverpool University. It was a terrifying experience. The interviewer peered at me through his spectacles and said, "Miss Watson, we are going to stretch you in all directions". I have felt somewhat the same since entering your Lordships' House, although the stretching may have as much to do with the delicious offerings of the Refreshment Department as the intellectual stimulation of the debates.
There has been much discussion on why it is that so many well-qualified young people from state schools either do not apply to our top universities or fall at the hurdle of the interview. Despite the evidence that they have the intellectual ability to benefit from a place at these institutions, many of them are not admitted, in the view of some interviewers, because they do not project themselves as well as students from independent schools. Why is that, when they possess equally fine exam results in many cases?I believe that the answer is that, although schools teach the three Rs, some of them do not pay sufficient attention to the two Cs—confidence and communication.
Those of your Lordships who have recently been in contact with young people of 17 and 18 may not have perceived them to be lacking in confidence or the ability to communicate. However, this may have been in an informal situation. The whole of society has become less formal in recent years; even classrooms are not the formal environment I remember from my own school days. The consequence is that if a young person who has not been used to coping with such pressure is put into the formal and stressful environment of an interview, the picture is often very different. They become unable to project to a set of strangers the qualities which they undoubtedly possess.
The leading universities have their pick of a plentiful supply of young people with three As at A-level. They separate them one from another at the interview, by
1654
judging their personal qualities. Young people are not supermarket trolleys, stuffed with packets of GCSEs and cartons of A-levels. Like every supermarket trolley I have ever encountered, they have personalities and minds of their own, and the leading universities know this only too well.
We are failing many able young people from state schools if we are not helping them to develop the self-confidence and communication skills which they need to show the interviewers who they really are in the short time available. It is the person the universities are looking for, not just a stack of exam certificates.
How, then, can we improve this situation?
First of all, we can give young people from state schools confidence in the system by urging the elite universities to publicise with all their energy their commitment to recruiting the most able students from all backgrounds.
Secondly, I believe that schools can do more to develop students' confidence in themselves. Where, for example, are the debating societies, which used to thrive among sixth forms? I believe they exist more in the independent sector than in state schools. The English Speaking Union's School Mace debating competition, chaired by my noble friend Lord Watson of Richmond, attracts fewer than 10 per cent of all secondary schools. Although three-quarters of the schools entering are now from the state sector, the percentage of individual pupils entering from the independent sector is still disproportionately high. This excellent competition gives opportunities for the stars of the school debating societies to shine in a national arena, but they are not likely to enter such a prestigious external forum if they are not accustomed to debating in schools.
I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that debating is not only great fun, but is very good for young people. It helps them to marshal their arguments and express them coherently. It encourages them to think about how best to communicate their ideas; and, after the initial terror of standing up in front of their peers and making a speech, it gives them confidence. They find, as I am doing today, that it is not so bad after all. After a while, they even come to enjoy it.
Therefore, I welcome the similar views expressed recently by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and encourage more state schools to find time in their busy schedules to run debating societies. Perhaps then in future fewer able three As students will fall at the last fence of the interview for lack of the two Cs. Then we may have to make room on the Benches of this place for more able young debaters and look to our laurels.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, it gives me very great pleasure to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on that graceful and confident maiden speech. Her wide experience in the Liberal Party at all levels and her special skills honed as a public relations consultant stood her, and I am sure will stand your

1655
Lordships' House, in good stead. I agree completely with what the noble Baroness said about debating societies. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Bernstein of Craigwell on his maiden speech.
A mere six days ago I had the honour to be installed as Chancellor of Leeds University, so I am well aware that my knowledge of the subject of this debate, when compared with the accumulated experience and wisdom of so many of your Lordships, is, as yet, slight. But I hope that first, inevitably broad, views may also have their place, and it is in that spirit that I offer two impressions and a conclusion to the debate so timely called by the noble Lord, Lord Baker.
First, I am astounded by the success of our universities, as exemplified by Leeds. In the national malaise of carping and among the commonwealth of monotonously complaining commentators, the young people of Britain are paraded as yobs or slobs, drugged or drones, and always miles behind everybody else. In Leeds, and I am sure elsewhere, there is among them optimism, determination, flair and delight in intelligence. Yes, there are financial and structural difficulties which need attention, but the positive side, which struck me first of all, is palpable.
To a newcomer like myself it was like being taken down to the engine rooms by Rudyard Kipling in McAndrew's Hymn. Universities today are the engines which drive the state. Our universities have relatively recently taken on the several and strenuous trials involved in the Herculean task—clichés often speak true—of transforming our society. Universities have been asked to conduct a monumental expansion and to maintain, even improve, standards, to raise their sights in research, to take on global competition, to feed industry with ideas, and to steer steady on the fundamental integrity of scholarship. It is a bold and noble enterprise, and Leeds is doing this. So, I am sure, are others. It is a wonderful success story and should occasionally be sung as such.
My second impression in no way contradicts the first, but it flows from it. All this energy of growth has been provided by men and women whose dedication has been undervalued and under-rewarded. Many of your Lordships know that better than I, so I shall take one example only. The pay of lecturers is 30 per cent down—30 per cent at least— when set against that of comparable professions. That is both unjust and dangerous. So far, I am told, the universities are holding the line—but just.
In some departments—ironically, often those most central to our future growth as a new technology nation—recruitment is already extremely difficult. In all departments, serious and level-headed members of staff—across the disciplines—express deep concern that if remedy is not found soon a system stretched to exemplary efficiency will simply begin to snap. Supply, though in many ways admirable, is struggling to keep up with justified demand.
Any new "efficiency gain"—that is, a cut in core funding—will surely cause the final trumpets to begin to sound outside some of the walls of academia. Even a 1 per cent "efficiency gain" at Leeds is £2·5 million,
1656
and as 60 per cent of the budget goes on staff this would be the loss of a lot of jobs. Core funding is just that, and to neglect or, worse, diminish it is a risk not worth taking.
The universities have done us proud, but success needs to be nurtured, and present success, I am told, conceals, without doubt, imminent crisis—the word is widely used—unless real help is forthcoming.
These are my two first impressions. The conclusion is simple. We live in a world which will be governed in every possible sense by intellectual properties. In this country we have a magnificent resource. It is the mind, in all its ramifications, which will control the future, and if we wish to play a full and prosperous part we must—as I am sure the present Government will—cultivate that cerebral garden with all the forces we can summon up.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking for giving us the opportunity to debate higher education, as it has been one of the worst areas of government failure in the past three years. The country enjoyed seven years of unparalleled expansion of higher education during the John Major government, when the numbers of young people going forward into higher education doubled, with a consequent huge rise in those staying on in school past the age of 16, and the proportion of school-leavers going forward into higher education almost tripled. Under the present Government, we now have a decline in applications, most sharply among mature students.
The Government's fine words about increasing access are the exact opposite of reality. The removal of the maintenance grant and the introduction of fees has meant that access to higher education is now infinitely more difficult for the poorest students as well as for older students who already have heavy financial commitments. The maintenance grant was means tested and therefore only the poorer students were eligible, and it is they who have been most disadvantaged by this Government's actions.
Meanwhile, the much publicised 11 per cent additional funding, which no doubt the Minister will rehearse to us when she speaks, has not helped the core funding of universities, which have actually suffered an annual drop in funding year on year under the present Government. Temporary boosts in hardship funds for students or in capital building programmes—which is where the increases are calculated—while not unwelcome, do nothing to help universities to continue to provide high quality education for their students. But in the long term, even more damaging is this Government's attempt to bring all universities on to a uniform single funding level, presumably from some idealistic belief that uniformity is an inherently good idea.
In the brief time available to me I wish to make an impassioned defence of diversity. We have today a diverse student body representing a wide range of social and educational backgrounds, as well as a wide

1657
range of ability and motivation. It also encompasses a wide age range, demonstrating the flexible system of lifelong learning which must be the higher education system of any civilised country. I can only hope that our country's system will continue to make provision which allows people to enter higher education, on a full-time basis if that is right for them, at any age which their life chances and personal motivation dictate. But the attack on opportunities for mature students puts that aspiration gravely at risk.
Equally obviously, the demands of the complex, diverse and rapidly changing economy argue for a very diverse higher education system, not one in which uniformity produces a population of graduates formed from the same mould. A modern economy needs the wide range of vocational courses which the new universities provide so well. Their four-year vocational degrees, developed to a high standard of both vocational relevance and academic understanding, have been a feature of our higher education system of which we should be proud. It is my hope that their reputation and standing, and the justifiable pride of their graduates in their hard-won degrees, will not be damaged by the Government's extraordinary proposal for a two-year vocational degree (an idea which I hope will be quickly buried).
We should be proud of our world-class vocational higher education. The previous government's granting of university title to the former polytechnics was a sign of their commitment to parity of esteem between vocational and academic education, and attracted interest and approval around the world. Many of the new universities have developed world-class vocational degrees, often in close collaboration with local employers, as well as professionally and industrially relevant applied research. As a country we should be proud of this element in our higher education system, allied as it is to open access, appealing often to mature students with strong vocational commitment.
Our higher education system must also continue to support the academically elite institutions which provide for the brightest of young people, many of whom will be studying for non-vocational degrees, taught by world-class academics whose own research is such a rich source of wealth creation for this nation. World-class research universities are an essential ingredient of a successful economy, as other speakers have said. If we lose our international edge in pure research, we lose our international edge in the global economy.
Diversity of provision would be deplorable if either the new universities or the older traditional universities were unsuccessful in the mission they pursue, or if they were by their nature closed to students qualified to seek access to the kind of provision they make. That, however, is not the case. Universities such as the LSE, Imperial, Warwick, Bath, York, Oxford and Cambridge, not only compete successfully in the global market of world-class research activity, but have also triumphed in their close relationships with industry and their ability to
1658
attract industrial investment for their research. More than half their students come from an ordinary comprehensive school, and if the comprehensive schools improve their examination performance, that proportion will increase—unless, of course, the high-achieving students from comprehensive schools are deterred from applying by ill-chosen advice from their teachers, or even more ill-chosen comments by leading politicians.
We should be working towards a system which embraces and celebrates the diversity of our higher education institutions, not one which brings them all into a single model, ill fitted both for the needs of students and the needs of society. The absurdities of league tables, which apply the same input and output measurements to all universities, are only some of the factors which mitigate against diversity. Ranking universities by the A-level points of their entrants only punishes those with open access. When the league tables of pure research assessment are published, they condemn as failures those universities which serve their local communities by applied, collaborative research. If league tables of state school entrants are to be published, we shall punish those universities which apply only the higher standards of A-level performance to their entrants.
Such a system is indefensible. Before we go any further down the road which destroys the best of all that has been built up in recent decades, we must stop and rethink the system of funding, measuring and evaluating our universities and the students within them.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on moving this Motion. I was quite touched by his faith in the markets to solve our higher education problems. Markets allocate resources; they do not solve problems. People solve problems.
I do not want to enter into the argument about access. I want to speak about outcome: the flow of people from higher education into the world of work and employment. In the old days that transition was easy. People going into higher education came from families and backgrounds that enabled them to form a fairly clear idea of what they were going to do after university, and they expected to do it for the rest of their lives.
With the expansion of higher education, students come from all kinds of conventional and unconventional backgrounds. They can be the first generation to go into higher education; they may be the first generation with English as a first language, and they expect many changes in the work that they do and the organisations for which they work. They know that their skills and knowledge will be obsolete in a few years' time and yet those will be their most valuable assets.
Employers' needs are also changing. They look for talented people everywhere, not only in Oxbridge. So, welcome to the knowledge economy referred to by the

1659
noble Lord, Lord Baker; welcome to an economic landscape that seems to be in continuous turmoil, where new areas of economic potential constantly arise, and endless competition means that we have to be continuously resourceful, and the new economy is changing all the rules.
Fortunately, there is a bridge between the world of higher education and that of work. It is a bridge that prepares graduates to manage their own personal development, to adapt to the change and to make effective transitions. That bridge is the Higher Education Graduate Careers Service. No longer can a modern careers service in higher education be about giving final-year students a one-hour careers guidance interview shortly before they leave. The careers service too has to move into the knowledge economy.
Last Friday my noble friend the Minister announced a review of the current state of higher education careers services and how standards could be raised. I welcome that. I believe that the providers and users of the service welcome it. I know that Mr Martin Thorne, president of the Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services, also welcomes the review. We all welcome it because it emphasises how important the service is.
Careers people are serious and dedicated men and women, and as good practitioners they welcome outside reviews from time to time. It helps to take stock of progress, institute changes and prepare for the future. Yet the service has made changes in recent years both in what it does and in how it does it. I hope that the review will assess those changes. The careers guidance profession, like all good professions, seeks to raise its standards. It is doing that in conjunction with the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Careers advisers also help graduates to develop the so-called "soft skills" of networking, openness to change and adaptability; in other words, to take control of their own careers. They also seek to promote self-employment and professional development. They provide opportunities for graduates to work in small and medium-sized companies—companies which, in the past, would never have considered employing a graduate. The service now also tries to make provision for students with special guidance needs; for example, the disabled, ethnic minorities, older graduates, international students and even the artists referred to by my noble friend Lord Bernstein in his excellent maiden speech. Of course, these changes will not be equally implemented throughout the country, but when the review team comes across a lack of progress I hope that it will not just put it down to the poor professionalism of the local service. I hope that the team will probe more deeply. There could be other causes, such as lack of support of other managers in the institution, lack of support from the higher education funding bodies or lack of support from policy-makers. Vice-chancellors and principals in particular can be very influential in the successful participation of the careers service within their institutions.
1660
We now have almost one-third of our young people going into higher education, and our target is to increase that percentage to a half. This will still leave us behind many of our competitors, but the lack of numbers can be made up by a good careers advisory service that works strategically to encourage graduates not only into blue chip businesses and organisations, but also into new businesses; that is to say, businesses and organisations that have never previously taken graduates.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Dearing: My Lords, perhaps I may join in the congratulations expressed to the two maiden speakers on their demonstration of relevant knowledge and performance in the two CCs, which is enviable. I declare an interest as the chancellor of the University of Nottingham, not a party to the Russell group's liberations nevertheless. I shall deal with three issues—access, quality and research.
First, access is a major issue. I do not have in mind the universities of Oxford and Cambridge here. I am very conscious of the inverse correlation between social class and access to universities and, therefore, to the kind of "ticket to ride for life": if you are born into social class 1, it is three to one on that you will go into higher education; if social class 5, the reciprocal of that. We must deal with that situation.
The Government are taking relevant measures. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, about maintenance grants; but that is the past. The Government are doing many things that I welcome. I heard the Minister for lifelong learning say that there are more measures to be expected from the Government this autumn in the spending announcements. That is good. However, the battle for better access is not to be fought when youngsters are 17 or 18. It must be fought in our primary schools. It is a national scandal that we have 7 million adults who, we are told, cannot find a plumber in the Yellow Pages, such is their lack of skills in their national language and in basic arithmetic. That is where the battle must be fought. That is our prime national cause. David Blunkett is right to put his job on the line to achieve the levels of performance that will give people an enfranchisement for life—access.
Secondly, I turn to quality. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is absolutely right. We have a prime national asset and it has done great things in achieving that welcome twofold or threefold increase in participation—that also applies to mature students. But quality cannot be taken for granted. Although no promises have been given by the Minister, I notice that she does not rule out the possibility that salaries will be one of the issues to be addressed during the coming spending review. You cannot exploit—I hope that I may use that word—people indefinitely and expect our universities to continue to be world class. They will not. Salaries must be addressed, whether it is for young researchers or the "profs", which my committee found to be two areas of particular concern. There is also a problem concerning manual workers in the universities.

1661
My third issue—I am seeking to be very brief—is research. I speak for the university interest, but I speak foremost for the national interest. We have only one future if we are to succeed economically; namely, in knowledge-based, research-based industry and commerce. It is the only viable strategy for a nation like ours. My committee found that our universities ranked second in research only to the United States. They are research efficient, as no other nation. That is very good. However, in terms of how "second" we are, there is an enormous gap with the US. Funding per capita for research in the United States, whether in industry or in higher education, is twice that of the United Kingdom. We do not compare awfully well with some other members of the European Community. Sweden is a particular example. It has rightly adopted the policy of an economy based upon high technology and research.
When my committee was carrying out its work, we found a genuine crisis about the research capability of the universities. Again, we have been exploiting the past and our people. Through not renewing infrastructure, we were getting a worn-down, worn-out research capability; and there was a crisis that needed to be dealt with. There were responses to the situation. Two charitable foundations went into action with the Government and a scheme was introduced for renewing infrastructure.
However, I remain concerned that there is risk that the research councils will not be providing the funding for indirect costs that are an essential part of funding research. If I remember rightly, my committee recommended that the proportion to be allocated for overheads by the research councils should be increased from 45 per cent to 60 per cent. I have not heard that this has happened. Indeed, I doubt whether we went far enough. I remember that we concluded that it should be increased to 60 per cent—compared with a maximum of 65 per cent recommended by the Cooper Brothers—but that it should be increased by up to 100 per cent, if that were necessary in particular cases. We must not cheat ourselves and the universities by pretending that we are increasing the volume of research unless we are funding the indirect cost. We must not run down the infrastructure again.
I am also concerned about volume. If we are to pursue a policy of knowledge-based, research-based industry and commerce, we must be world class. I do not mean in every university and certainly not in every subject in every university. But we must invest more in our research output. I have seen the CVCP document which, if I remember rightly, asks for an extra £1·35 billion over four years. I do not believe that it asks for enough—and I was not put up to say that either! There is such an immense national interest here that should be advanced, as well as safeguarded.
In this research expenditure, I am also concerned that we should build bridges between the universities and industry and commerce. It is no good doing research in the ivory tower only; there must be spin off. Therefore, I wish to encourage the Government in a scheme that they introduced to promote partnership in
1662
research with industry. I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in introducing this debate. We have much to do.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness James of Holland Park: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking for initiating this important debate, although I feel that I may be ill qualified to take part. I have had no higher education and left school at the age of 16. In this, I am sure that I am not alone in your Lordships' House. However, I had the great advantage of being educated at one of the old local authority high schools—an education that was liberal, humane, disciplined, intellectually stimulating and which was concerned with good manners and civilised conduct, as well as with learning. I know myself to have been fortunate.
Inevitably, of course, there are references in this debate to what has become known as the Laura Spence affair. Indeed, it was a scandal, although hardly in the sense that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended. We have to assume that rational men intend the natural results of their actions. This means that the Chancellor, to propitiate those members of his party who require regular skirmishes of the class war to satisfy their passion for social indignation, and perhaps in pursuit of some private ambition, deliberately insulted one of the world's greatest universities, slandered a distinguished academic and, perhaps most serious of all, put back, perhaps for years, the patient work of Oxford in persuading young people from the state system that Oxford welcomes them and that they can be happy there.
What I find particularly depressing about this affair is the clear message it sends of government animus towards Oxford. It is useless for Ministers to declare that this is not so; their deeds speak louder than words. I find this animus curious. When I am in Oxford common rooms I never feel that I am in a bastion of conservatism.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness James of Holland Park: Of course all universities are under financial pressure with workloads increasing, the burden of an onerous bureaucracy, inadequate resources and, frankly, disgraceful salaries.
The tutorial system at Oxford and Cambridge is particularly expensive but is regarded as fundamental to the high quality of teaching students receive. The system of state support for Oxford and Cambridge is complicated but at Oxford the Government have decided to reduce their support by £6·5 million over the 10 years to the year 2009—that is £650,000 a year in the values of 1999.
If the state is no longer able to support university education of this standard, or to allow Oxford and Cambridge to charge top-up fees, then perhaps we should indeed face what previously seemed unthinkable: that major universities should have the

1663
right to become independent, charging such fees as are necessary to maintain their standards and providing for the poorer students by a liberal system of bursaries and grants, as happens at Harvard.
Oxford and Cambridge are not, of course, the only centres of academic excellence. Those universities in the top rank are well known to prospective students, to employers and to the community at large. Instead of seeking to diminish the quality of the best, should we not take a more critical look at the other end of the spectrum? From the published tables the divergence in results is depressing. At the bottom of the table in one university 31 per cent of students left without a degree. We can imagine the cost of this financially, in the waste of time and resources, and in the effect on the students' morale and prospects. We have a two-tier, perhaps a three-tier, system of higher education. I suspect that this is as socially divisive as it is educationally unsatisfactory.
If the policy of the Government is that every young person who wants to go to university should be able to do so, perhaps we should face up to the implications of this policy. It makes even more vitally important what is surely our educational priority—the improvement of state secondary education. Even so there will always be some for whom university is not possible. How disadvantaged will they feel when university entrance is regarded as a right irrespective of intellectual achievement or effort? When that happy day comes, we shall no doubt do away with the system of classifying degrees. If everyone cannot achieve a First, then no one should achieve a First. If some students find examinations difficult, let us do away with examinations. We cannot build excellence on a world in which no one is ever allowed to fail.
We live in a populist, media-driven, envious and destructive world in which we seem to take more delight in destroying than in preserving. But if our higher education is to continue to attract international respect, with all the financial and other advantages which follow, let us recognise value and support excellence wherever it is found in individuals and in institutions. In our enthusiasm for everything new, let us not forget that much that is best in our society has been patiently built up over centuries. It can easily be destroyed by neglect, ill will or deliberate policy. Once lost, it can never be regained.
4.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many others I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for introducing this debate, coming as it does six months after the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
As a young student in my home city of Edinburgh during the 1960s I witnessed at first hand the rapid expansion of higher education following the Robbins report. I returned to higher education in the 1980s as chaplain and lecturer at the University of Manchester and spent much time picking up the human cost of the stringent cuts that had been introduced seemingly at random and, without doubt, too rapidly.
1664
The University of Portsmouth, about which I want to speak briefly, has been at the forefront of widening access to higher education. Here I refer with appreciation to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I am a governor of the University of Portsmouth. Its history is simple. It was founded as a technical college in 1894 and received its university charter in 1992. It has made a significant contribution to the economic, cultural and educational development of the south coast around the M27 corridor.
With close links to local and regional employers, particularly in defence and technology, the university, like other former polytechnics, has made the transition to its new status and is now a thriving community with 13,000 full-time and 5,000 part-time students and 2,000 teaching and administrative staff. It has focused on vocational and professional programmes, selectively promoting research of national and international quality. What I believe to be of more importance is that it serves an area which bucks many' of the trends normally associated with the South East. Portsmouth as a city has a history of under-achievement of a severe kind and low expectations in education. The university is committed to an agenda of widening participation and seeks to do so in collaboration with further education partners and the local education authority.
I see in the University of Portsmouth a clear desire to put into practice the principles of "lifelong learning". There has been some recent expansion in pharmacy; the development of engineering in collaboration with the Royal Navy; and, as I have just gathered from the vice-chancellor, the provision of training on fraud prevention for the Benefits Agency. Perhaps toll bridges will be introduced across the river, the creek, to Portsea Island!
There is also a keen desire to participate in the newly established regional development agency to provide services for new and small businesses and to promote enterprise hubs. In addition, because Portsmouth is one of the gateways to continental Europe there is now a significant number of students, as well as commercial and educational links, both within and beyond the European Union.
I wish to make two brief observations which I hope will be of value to the debate. First, I draw attention to the human impact on university teachers and students of rapid change both in culture and in budgetary constraints—an impact detrimental to morale and to the character and relationships of the academic community. I say this with no sense of nostalgia because that ethos lives on; it does not remain static. But it is under severe pressure, and some would say that in some places it is almost non-existent.
In part budgetary constraints are a healthy development. In whatever sphere we operate—I am sorry to speak rather badly; I have toothache—we must be held accountable for the right and proper use of our resources, which we might term "good stewardship". However, I simply do not believe that our university lecturers, administrative staff and

1665
students are intent on frittering away public money. While there will inevitably be more efficient ways of doing things, and occasionally projects whose value we question, there remains a basic principle about adequate funding for the role that we ask our universities to undertake. At root, this is part of a larger question about the way in which we as a society value those whose life's work cannot be counted on an abacus but has to be experienced in lives given fresh direction and new opportunities through access to education. This seems to me to be a profoundly valuable contribution to the whole human experience, as well as one which pays dividends in the cultural and economic life of the United Kingdom and beyond.
Secondly, there is the question of stability and change. I concur strongly with the words of Vice Admiral Jonathon Band, former assistant chief of naval staff and now head of the defence training review, who wrote in the current Royal Navy journal Broadsheet,
"I cannot remember a time when I, and all around me, have not been saying 'what we need is a period of stability'. Yet it never seems to happen. Indeed, today many commentators are suggesting that in the twenty-first century the only constant will be constant change".
To translate this into the current debate, I believe the much-valued words of St Augustine at the beginning of his confessions are apposite:
"My heart is restless till I find my rest in thee".
In an age of increasing speed of communication, stability and stillness will not be found exclusively in the mode of delivery of educational opportunities. These must of necessity be constantly reinvented or realigned to meet current needs. However, there is an underlying ethos and character, often intangible but none the less real, to our educational institutions which should provide a valuable level of continuity with previous generations of students and with the students of generations to come. Those values are about acknowledging the individual within a large institution, respecting the diversity of views and beliefs inherent in a university and developing a deeply-rooted search for truth which lies at the heart of the human condition.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, as I pondered what contribution I might make to this important and, as we now know, thoughtful and informative debate which the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, has introduced, I discovered to my horror that I have now been involved in either running or reforming institutions of higher education for no fewer than 40 years, starting as a campaigner for education as a civil right in Germany, continuing as a European commissioner for a while responsible for research and education, going on to be Director of the London School of Economics, after that Head of House in Oxford and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford and, more recently, becoming deeply involved in reform of higher education in the post-communist countries of east central Europe.
1666
The conclusion that I have drawn from my experiences as far as concerns higher education is that for a higher education system to be first rate it has to do three things. It has to be accessible to all who are able and willing. It has to be sufficiently diversified to cater for a variety of needs, from the cutting edge of research to applied training, from general education to lifelong learning. It has to have open borders to the world around, to business and the professions as well as to local communities and wider society. Britain's higher education system achieves those needs to a remarkable degree, certainly better than that of any other European country. It is no accident that some of our top universities could probably fill every place with an able European applicant who is trying to escape the shambles of universities on the Continent.
In view of these facts, I have long been bewildered about the attitude of governments to higher education and notably to universities. The last Prime Minister, in my experience, who appreciated universities was the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who was not a graduate himself. His successor kept on haranguing us for having betrayed the country by neglecting the needs of business in favour of the "cosier" professions. Her successor prided himself on having been to the "university of life". Ministerial colleagues of his successor now carry on about universities neglecting the under-privileged. First, we were insufficiently capitalist, now we are insufficiently socialist. It is almost as if governments are ashamed of the great national treasure of Britain—its universities.
I cannot help adding that there is quite a lot about which to be ashamed in this country—child poverty, the growing illiteracy of considerable numbers—but not universities. In my view, the real problem of Britain is not remnants of privilege but the absence of a decent, basic standard of life for all. It is not Oxford, but Lambeth, Gateshead and Easterhouse.
Talking about Oxford—which in my case is an acquired taste since I am an LSE person, not quite born but certainly bred—I find it remarkable what efforts Oxford has made to widen access, ex gratin, as it were, for it was hardly given government support. I also find it remarkable how Oxford has, along with other top universities, certainly along with Cambridge, upheld its standards of excellence despite massive financial and other pressures. If Oxford has a problem, it is, in my view, not access but opportunities for research and advanced study. In the sciences great progress has been made, but in the humanities and social sciences much more needs to be done, certainly if Oxford wants to continue to compete with Harvard, Columbia, Stanford and others.
When this Government took office I had hopes that we would see an end of the onslaught on places of excellence that has characterised the past quarter of a century in Britain. Even one ministerial speech delivered with the enthusiasm with which Ministers have greeted the Millenium Dome would have been quite helpful. If that is too much to ask, silence would have been acceptable as a second best.

1667
I admire the resilience of Britain's institutions of higher learning, but I suspect that it cannot last for ever. Already there are signs of strain caused by resource starvation, assessment mania, bureaucratisation and public attacks. I say to the Government that, in my experience, Britain's universities are well aware of the needs of the day, but every now and again they could do with a little encouragement, and they deserve it.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I only wish to make the shortest of interventions in this debate. I must start by thanking my noble friend, Lord Baker, for introducing the debate in such an articulate and effective way. I must also declare an interest as the paid chairman of the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, the national training organisation for engineering manufacture.
Several of your Lordships have already referred to the rather unwise attack on some of our higher education institutions, particularly Oxford, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Government. Not only was it unwise, but it was also, I believe, misguided. It is simply the fact that the competition for places in some universities nowadays, especially Oxford and Cambridge, is tougher than ever. Straight A grades at A-level no longer guarantee a place and many institutions, when filling courses, must now look at other ways of judging suitable candidates.
It is not the universities that are at fault for setting high standards but the shortcomings of our secondary education system which continues to fail some of our young people.
I hope that I may be permitted to add, in parentheses, that the abolition of the assisted places scheme has not helped in this regard. Under that scheme so-called public schools were able to accept students who could not otherwise pay the fees and, perhaps, prepare them more effectively for Oxford or Cambridge entry.
I am particularly concerned that the debate sparked by the Chancellor will have damaging consequences for industry. One of the principal roles of my organization—EMTA—is to encourage the brightest and best of our young people to pursue engineering as a career. Throughout the year we visit schools and attend exhibitions with a view to attracting young people into the industry. That is not an easy task and it will, I fear, be made more difficult. We do not seek to persuade young people to take one educational route or another, whether it be via vocational qualifications or higher education. But we work very hard to encourage enough young people, at the age of 16 who may feel so inclined, to consider pursuing a vocational rather than an academic route.
For many young people, that is a difficult decision to take. They face competing pressures from their parents, teachers and friends to remain at school with the intention of going on to university. For some such youngsters, the route may be totally appropriate but for others, taking a vocational route would be a much better option.
1668
The plain fact is that a university degree is not necessarily the right course for every young person. I fear that one of the consequences—and a very serious consequence—following the Chancellor's remarks is that young people will believe that anything less than a university degree is failure. I am concerned that we shall face an ever more difficult job in persuading young people to consider the vocational route.
If the Government's desire is to increase the percentage of young people going into higher education, then that will reduce the number of young people which industry can attract into the vocational route. Industry will not have the apprentices it needs and we shall have an even greater skills shortage.
For an industry such as engineering, we need people with early experience of the workplace and many businesses question whether a university education provides that. In truth, the shortage of degree-qualified engineers is much less marked than the shortage of vocationally-skilled persons.
I hope that one of the consequences of this whole debate is that future emphasis on higher education will be job-related degrees, such as the Government's proposed foundation degrees. I am sorry that I disagree with my noble friend Lady Perry in that regard. At the moment, we have only limited information on that proposal but it sounds to me to be imaginative and, at this stage, I very much support it. I look forward to hearing further details from the noble Baroness, perhaps this evening.
This is a useful debate. My intervention has been short but deliberately so. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this debate is timely, coming as it does just before the next triennial spending review. But I do not want to concentrate entirely on funding. I want to refer to some of the successes of our universities.
Like my noble friend Lord Bragg, I think that it is quite remarkable that universities are so buoyant and enterprising after two decades of continual cuts in the unit of resource. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that between 1990 and 1996, there was a 16 per cent cut.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that the rumour of a further 3 per cent cut is without foundation. I fear that the Government's targets for the participation rate for overseas student enrolment and technical transfer are at risk if that is so.
I want to refer to two of those targets: first, access. There is still a long way to go in recruiting a higher proportion of students from non-traditional backgrounds, as the report of the Sutton Trust indicated. But the continual growth in the participation rate is encouraging. Equally so is the progression rate. We might remind ourselves that the UK's graduation rate is the highest in the whole of Europe.

1669
I am proud to say that the University of Bradford, of which I am Chancellor—so I declare an interest—recruits 89 per cent of its students from the state system. It has a progression rate of over 90 per cent, of which 31 per cent are from the bottom three socioeconomic classes.
Widening access is not cheap, nor will it be cheap to reach the Government's ambitious target of a 50 per cent participation rate by 2010. Access students need more preparation prior to enrolment and continual support throughout their course. Bradford has a number of initiatives to help in that respect, including Saturday morning and summer universities.
I welcome the access funding mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, which has now considerably increased. But I should like to see it increased even more, particularly to support those students who come from poor backgrounds, have no previous university expectations and, frankly, whose minds boggle at the thought of a debt into the thousands before even starting working life.
Secondly, I should like to refer to universities' contribution to our economy and competitiveness, which is greater than ever before. Last Friday, I attended the launch of a revolutionary technique in particle design, which will vastly improve drug delivery to patients and will be a valuable asset to a wide range of industries. Blue skies research such as that, with technology transfer, is not cheap either. It is a long, expensive process before the reward justly comes back to the scientist, the university and the UK economy.
I mention that because I hope that the Minister might remind her friends in the Treasury and the DTI that medium-sized universities like Bradford also lead in some of those fields and would benefit from university challenge funds.
Another leading field of my university is in the School of Informatics. The first graduates of the Department of Electronic Imaging and Media Communications came through in 1994 and now many are leading entrepreneurs in the multimedia and electronic field. Current graduates are much sought-after recruits by their predecessors, although many, on graduation, go into setting up their own business. Those students rely not on the traditional patenting route but on their own skills and entrepreneurship.
But there are problems. When students, on graduation, can start up their own business or immediately earn more than their tutors, staff recruitment becomes a problem, particularly at professorial level. I join with those who say that university staff must now be properly rewarded.
While it is appropriate for some funding to reward access, teaching quality, research and technical transfer, I believe that for a university to be successful in those fields it needs first to be a well-founded university. That is dependent on core funding.
I urge the Minister to fight hard for the financial viability of the universities and I assure her that they will not let her down.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I declare an interest as the head of an Oxford college. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, for initiating this debate. In my experience, his activities are usually life-enhancing and this one is no exception.
The curious aspect about the recent argument about admissions is that both sides claim to be—and I believe sincerely are—on the same side. Both government and universities want selection of students to be on the basis of ability. They do not want able youngsters to be denied the opportunity of achieving their aspirations because of their race, gender or, in particular, their educational or financial background.
For the universities, the irritating aspect of the recent debate is to be criticised by the Government who, in some major respects, have made it harder rather than easier to get more state school candidates into higher education.
The Government are at pains to say that the introduction of the tuition charge and the ending of maintenance grants has had no perceptible effect on university applications. I make no complaint about those changes. As I have said before in this House, I believe that they are inevitable and would have happened under any government. If they bring more money into higher education, they may be beneficial. However, it defies common sense to say that they have not put new obstacles in the way of youngsters from poorer families taking up higher education.
Here I shall revert to an issue that I have taken up with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. With the help of generous alumni, my college wants to offer bursaries of £3,500 per year to cover the living expenses in Oxford of youngsters from state schools which have not previously sent candidates to us—just the kind of student to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, eloquently referred. The purpose of that is to save those students from having to take out the substantial student education loans which may be daunting for families not previously used to debt.
We ran up against a DfEE regulation which states that if a student has more income from bursaries and other sources than £1,820 a year, their tuition grant will be reduced pound for pound. In effect, we are not allowed to take up the option of doing for poorer children what any well-off family can do for its children; namely, to pay their living expenses and save them from having to take out a large loan. I know that the Minister, Lady Blackstone, is reviewing these regulations. I urge her to apply her political mind and to take the simple and obvious course of disregarding entirely bursaries given to those students who qualify for exemption from student fees.
Other obstacles lie in the way of increasing the proportion of state-educated students coming to Oxbridge, such as lack of confidence, lack of parent or teacher encouragement and fear of rejection. It is much more in the power of universities and schools to remove those obstacles. I believe that these are more important factors than bias in the selection procedures.

1671
Last week I happened to visit a non-selective comprehensive school in south Brent. The school has many problems, but largely due to the efforts of the head teacher and her staff, it is a school that has made huge strides over recent years. In 1986 the proportion of students attaining five GCSEs at grades A-C was in single figures and virtually no students went on to university. Now 68 per cent of pupils gain five or more GCSEs at grades A-C and last year, all 45 A-level students gained university places. Oxbridge entry is now becoming regular.
I met the splendid teacher who acts as mentor for the pupils applying for these university places. He told me of all the work that he has to put into achieving what he does achieve: summer schools, mock interviews, open days and much more. He also told me that since he started this task 10 years ago, all the students he has put up for Oxford and Cambridge have received interviews. Ninety per cent have been offered places. He has not known of a single case in which a pupil has had a bad experience at interview.
The truth is that the removal of obstacles to all youngsters achieving their full potential needs hard, patient work from all concerned: from universities; from schools and from the Government. A little gingering-up from the Government does no harm, but real progress requires serious efforts and resources rather than words—and certainly ill-founded words. Higher education, like other forms of education, is a very important matter. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I am afraid that I have to say that I am not convinced that the Government are yet treating the difficult choices as seriously as they should.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I should declare an interest as an academic at the University of Hull. I note that I have already been preceded in this debate by one Hull graduate and I am to be followed later by another.
I do not propose to devote time to the issue of university admissions. That, in many respects, is to detract from the problems facing higher education. The Government's stance on admissions is akin to threatening to take a battering ram to an open door. The problem lies not with the process of admissions to the universities, but rather—as has already been mentioned—with what happens before students apply and what happens after they have been admitted to university. The Government are focusing, deliberately or otherwise, on the part of the process that is probably the least problematic. The question of admissions is being addressed. The universities do not need to be told what to do in this respect. They know what to do.
However, there is certainly a problem at the stage prior to applications. Students coming from particular backgrounds need to be encouraged to apply, to think in terms of taking a degree. Here, families and schools have a vital role to play. Universities themselves are contributing to the process. Through a range of devices, they are encouraging students from backgrounds where there is no history or culture of going on to higher education to apply to university.
1672
As I have already said, there is also a problem subsequent to admission. This brings me to the central problems confronting higher education. It is these problems that, in the time available, I propose to address.
Universities are being squeezed by a pincer movement. On the one hand, the number of students admitted to universities continues to climb. There was little change in the numbers during the 1980s and a massive increase in the 1990s. The Prime Minister has spoken of 50 per cent of young adults going into higher education. It is not clear that that is the target, but for my purposes the important point is that we have already seen a dramatic increase in the number of students in higher education.
However, the resources available to universities have not kept pace with that development. There has been a cut in real terms in the funding per student. The situation is exacerbated by a qualitative as well as a quantitative change. The number of students applying to universities has declined while the number admitted has increased. This affects the quality of the intake. If one reaches out to bring in students who are less qualified than those previously admitted, then this has clear implications for how one is to teach those students. One cannot necessarily rely on existing resources and on current modes of teaching to cope with a growing body of students who do not have the qualifications of previous intakes. In short, the demands on universities are increasing in nature as well as extent; the resources to meet those demands are not. Universities are not going to be able to maintain the quality of teaching, given the failure to provide the resources so to do.
The position is made worse by the other arm of the pincer. Universities are being overburdened by bureaucracy, with no commensurate incentives to make academic life attractive. Consequently there are problems with recruitment, retention and motivation, as has already been pointed out by several other noble Lords. When last December your Lordships' House debated the state of the universities in Britain, I referred to the new and extensive methods of quality control being applied both in terms of teaching and research. I argued then that they are highly bureaucratic and that they impose a substantial burden on the institutions and those who work in them. Although the methods employed may in some cases be effective, they are highly inefficient. They place a burden on academic and administrative staff that, in many cases, serves little or no purpose. The opportunity cost is substantial.
These burdens are not offset by any incentives. The sticks get larger as the carrots wither away. Academic pay has declined markedly in relation to other professions. There is little incentive to stay in the academic world, or indeed to enter the academic world, given that the pay is far better in other professions and, indeed, in a great many other jobs. Bright graduates in the City, or in journalism, or in political lobbying, can be earning in their late 20s or

1673
early 30s more than a lecturer twice their age is earning. Indeed, they can be earning well in excess of what a professor is paid.
It would not matter quite so much if the working environment were attractive, but, at present, it is not. Academics are being asked to do more with less. It is no use the Minister talking about a real terms increase in the funding of higher education when the real terms increase in the burden on universities has outstripped it.
I suspect—indeed, I am fairly certain—that there is a relationship between the two problems I have identified. If government are not able to provide the funds to meet the goals they would like to achieve, then they look to regulations—to paper exercises—to reach the goals, or at least to appear to be trying to achieve their goals. This is not something peculiar to the present Government. Governments feel the need to be seen to be doing something. It does not work. Indeed, for the reasons I have touched upon, it can be counter-productive. Academics are employed to teach and research. That is what they do well. They are now being given other tasks that get in the way of teaching and undertaking research. They are being denied the resources to do that which they do well. Unless the Government tackle the real problems—and I emphasise "real problems"—then the situation will get very much worse.
Among other things, fresh thinking in terms of finance is required. My noble friend Lord Baker and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, have encapsulated the kind of thinking that is required. Leaving matters as they are is not acceptable.
5 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, first, perhaps I may join with other noble Lords in complementing the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on maiden speeches that were not only interesting but extremely entertaining.
I must declare an interest in this debate as the chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on introducing the debate. It is certainly timely, as higher education squares up to the Treasury in the spending review.
We last debated the state of UK universities in this House in December, and much has happened in the sector since then. In that debate, I recalled how higher education had been transformed during the 1980s and 1990s; and more recently, we have seen the impact of the Dearing report on the sector. I do not want to rehearse that territory again today, but instead to consider the immediate prospects and medium-term trends.
Several noble Lords mentioned the recent political and media furore on access and admissions which, I am sad to say, has obscured the true picture of how hard all universities are working to meet the challenge of widening participation in higher education. I said in
1674
the debate in December that access is one of the key issues facing universities, and the CVCP wants the debate to look at access for all those who might benefit from university, whatever that university. As other noble Lords have said, that is still a challenge.
Fifty years ago, we did indeed have an elitist system. Those who made it to university were, largely, sons of the middle classes. In the 1970s and 1980s, the daughters of the middle classes rapidly caught up. But neither the universities nor the schools have yet cracked the problem of raising the aspirations of young people for whom the obstacles of economic and social disadvantage are just too great. Those are the people we have failed.
Universities are taking initiatives. Many have set up schemes to encourage young people from low participation areas to apply to higher education. I referred to many of those initiatives in the previous debate. But the efforts do not stop there. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Baker, refer to the CVCP's report, From Elitism to Inclusion. We are now taking that further. We want to assess how we can do better on part-time and flexible structures and on collaboration between further education and higher education, and how we can engage employers and professional bodies to do more to encourage students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
Above all, youngsters who have little or no aspiration, who have negative school experiences and whose families may have long histories of unemployment need to see that education, and indeed higher education, can be fun. But the efforts to raise young people's aspirations and attainment must be joint ones, between schools, parents, pupils and universities, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has emphasised on many occasions. I welcome the recently published Sutton Trust report, Entry to Leading Universities. The report acknowledges that universities are aware of access problems, and that they have initiated programmes to improve access.
The Department for Education is aware of that too. With the help of DfEE funding, the CVCP has commissioned a report about the way in which universities make decisions about admissions. The project aims to improve the "fit" between information used to make decisions that is obtained from UCAS, which is largely about past achievement, and ways of judging potential. In other words, can we find objective indicators of future success?
The CVCP is looking forward to working with the Sutton Trust and with the DfEE to find ways of improving the admissions process and to raising performance and expectations in our schools.
But all of this cannot be conjured from the thin gruel of financial starvation. If the higher education sector is to continue its efforts to meet the Government's goals on access and expansion, adequate funding is vital. The Government have halted the inexorable and debilitating decline of the previous 15 years. But, as so many noble Lords have said, as successful institutions, universities need real investment for growth.

1675
Next month's spending review may see public funding of higher education cut once again. A cut of 2 or 3 per cent per student is rumoured. That would have a hugely damaging effect on the quality of education received by precisely those youngsters we want to attract to universities.
The sector is keen to meet the Prime Minister's key target to raise the participation rate in higher education to 50 per cent of 18 to 30 year-olds by 2009, and also, in the international arena, to meet the target of raising the UK market share of international students from 17 per cent to 25 per cent by 2005. But without extra funding, universities will be unable to meet this challenging agenda.
We have to ask: what will all that do to our ability to contribute to competitiveness? There is a danger that industry will shun our out-of-date equipment, labs and teaching facilities. It operates in the global marketplace; it can go elsewhere, and it may well do so. Further investment is required to build our knowledge transfer capacity.
In order to compete, universities must have their fair share of the best staff. But why become an academic, after several years of study, when you can do so much better—of course, in the City, but also in teaching, in health, in the Civil Service, and in business?
Everything that we have heard in this debate suggests that UK universities are one of this country's best kept secrets when it comes to success stories. But we cannot depend on out-performing international competitors, even in the medium term, on less and less money. Universities will be crucial both to ensuring the UK's global success in the 21st century, and to ensuring that today's "have-nots" are given a chance to join in our growing prosperity. I urge my noble friend the Minister to agree that a real boost in investment will enable that to happen.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker for introducing this debate on the slow, gradual decline in many aspects of higher education in this country today. In fact, my noble friend did not initiate the current debate, as we well know. It is sad that a senior government officer—I refer, of course, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—should open the much-needed national debate on higher education in the manner in which he did. It was a cheap diversion from what is certainly an important area of our national life which our Government are in some respects failing. Where is the national vision? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contribution is an element of the national vision, heaven help us!
One issue, of course, as the Chancellor emphasised, is access. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, is right. Nursery education is a first key, and I am grateful that the Government are making progress in that direction. But secondary education is where the problem of access is most clearly manifest. The question is not, "Why are people in the lower income groups not being admitted to all our national universities?" but "Why are they not applying?".
1676
I express an interest. I am still a university professor but no longer a head of house. When I had something to do with admissions about 50 per cent of the entrants to the college with which I am associated were from the state sector. That was largely because 50 per cent of the applicants were from the state sector. A general pattern across Oxbridge, and probably beyond, is that the admissions are in general in ratio to the applications. If one wants, as we do, to have more students from ethnic minorities one must encourage applications from ethnic minorities. Why are they not being encouraged to apply? Here the problem lies in schools more than universities. The noble Lord, Lord Plant—we look forward to his speech—wrote in the Guardian a few days ago that he is regularly asked by private schools to talk to A-level classes. In 33 years of teaching he has had one request from a state school.
That is one place where the problem lies. It is a matter of attitude in the schools and among the potential applicants. I am saddened that by his words the Chancellor has exacerbated the problem and not improved the situation. By enhancing the myth that some universities are difficult to access by, or not suitable for, state students, I fear that he has set back the problem by a couple of years. I think it is a scandal that he should have done so.
Perhaps I may give a view from the inside on two issues and echo some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Norton. On the financial side, clearly academic salaries are a scandal. However, perhaps it does not come well from someone whose principal income is in that direction to say so too emphatically. My noble friend Lord Baker, and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, made those points effectively, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I refer not only' to academic salaries but also to capital expansion. There are the problems of student funding, the funding of libraries and laboratories and, above all, research.
Many academics spend many hours writing applications to research councils and boards such as the ESRC, NERC, SRC and AHRB. Many applications receive alpha ratings but few are funded. One of the sad factors in university life today is that many excellent, alpha-rated research applications are not being funded. I strongly believe that one of the excellent features of our universities is the research component. I believe that good teaching is related to good research. It is a scandal that research is so seriously under-funded.
In yesterday's edition of The Times there was a letter from the President of the European Physical Society referring to an international evaluation and emphasising the inadequate level of research funding in British universities. If one wants to start, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, the nursery end is one place; but the research end is another.
I wish to raise one further issue. It echoes the point made by my noble friend Lord Norton. I refer to the bureaucracy which now strangles the unfortunate teachers in the university sector—under-funded, under-provided for, under-financed. There are mountains of paper work. I have referred to research

1677
applications. It is far more difficult to get a good grade research application funded; it is also far more laborious to apply for the money.
The research evaluation exercise determines the funding which comes to university departments. In principle, it is excellent. It is right that departmental research should be evaluated. In practice, it is extremely burdensome. It has set up an artificial market in transfers between university departments in order to meet the annual deadline. That is false and rather foolish.
It is right that teaching quality should be assessed, but I assure noble Lords that it makes for a mountain of paperwork. Many departments now employ a full-time administrator to prepare the paperwork. The Government are creating a new profession—bureaucratic administration.
I turn to transparency. Before 24th June I have to fill in a form indicating not the number of hours but the percentage of my time—I have no idea what it is supposed to signify—I have spent on research, administration and so on.
The merits of the Institute of Learning and Teaching—we have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for it—are obscure to me. The Quality Assurance Agency is introducing benchmarking. The dead hand of bureaucracy is falling upon British universities. That feature is almost as serious as the chronic under-funding. Where is the vision? I have been to the Millennium Dome three times. I have looked at the Work Zone; I have looked at the Learning Zone. The Government are not offering us any vision in this field.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we have many speakers in this important debate. Because there are so many speakers, noble Lords are limited on the whole to six minutes. I hardly need to remind noble Lords that when the clock indicates the figure six they are then starting the seventh minute. Therefore noble Lords should aim to sit down when the clock indicates the figure six.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, noble Lords would not think it if they read the newspapers, but there are more important matters requiring attention in our universities than the medical school quota for Magdalen College, Oxford. That incident was neither typical nor emblematic, and the sooner it is forgotten the better.
I also find myself profoundly unimpressed by any suggestion from noble Lords on the Benches opposite that this Government have not made spectacular improvements on the torpor of their predecessor in providing for universities. I think of four aspects in particular. First, thanks to the measures which this Government have introduced, access to all universities is now much wider and easier than it was under the previous administration. Secondly, student numbers have expanded in each of the last two years, this year
1678
by nearly 5,000. Thirdly, research funding has increased by £1.4 billion since the last Comprehensive Spending Review. Fourthly, there has been an extra £1 billion for higher education in this Parliament, an 11 per cent real terms increase.
These are notable successes, and there are more to come, but, like the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, I want to draw your Lordships' attention to that one deeply debilitating fact of university life: the exponentially increasing, incessant demand for information, statistics, reports, corporate plans, strategic plans, revised financial projections and so on, which strangle research and weaken teaching. Much of this demand comes from the funding councils and their progeny, and so it cannot be resisted, postponed, or consigned to what computers call "trash", because if any institution does not fully, fairly and immediately comply its grant stands in peril. Perhaps I may offer just two examples.
One great northern university has just endured and survived its "Continuation Audit" by the QAA. This happens to every university every five years. To prepare for it, and to undergo it, occupied a substantial part of the senior management team for most of this year and required a continuous correspondence and assemblage of information. The best result that the university can hope for is a statement that its teaching is jolly good, the worst result that it needs to improve. It is widely believed—I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell your Lordships whether or not it is true—that no department in a British university where departmental teaching quality is rated on a scale from nought to 24 has yet scored less than 20.
In another well-known southern university the Faculty of Mathematics was audited last year and had to set aside one entire lecture theatre to accommodate all the box files of information demanded by the inspectors, and there is no evidence that any of it was ever looked at.
It is true that the QAA itself has been uneasy about the havoc it has created in one university after another, and it hopes to move to a "lighter touch" system in two years. But two years is a long time and a "lighter touch" can mean anything or nothing.
Quality assessment of university teaching is a very difficult art and the QAA certainly needs all the help it can get. This is the problem throughout the whole system. The English Funding Council has a long history of appointing non-experts. It has taken its responsibilities very seriously and demanded to be informed before it takes decisions. Quite right! But its forebear, the University Grants Committee, was made up of experts in university education. They did not need to be taught what questions to ask because they probably knew most of the answers. Universities trusted them, although we also feared them. A UGC visitation under the chairmanship of Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, or Sir Edward Parkes, or the late and much lamented Lord Dainton, was an experience few of us will ever forget or recover from. But, above all, it was assessment by our colleagues and peers and we trusted them.

1679
In the 1990s, the Conservative government developed a rooted objection to appointing experts to anything. So trust was lost and we in the universities had to teach our grandmothers to suck eggs before the government graciously informed us how much money we could have. Things are better now than they were in the 1990s, but the Secretary of State could, if he were so minded, improve university governance even more by appointing experts—academics actually doing the job—to the funding councils and their subsidiaries to break up their bureaucratic log-jam and liberate the universities.
Meanwhile, the universities will, of course, respond to all government demands, though with a rich mixture of compliance, scepticism and contempt; or, as T.S. Eliot so notably put it, remembering the words of Nehemiah the Prophet,
"The trowel in hand, and the gun rather loose in the holster".
5.21 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, first, I congratulate the two maiden speakers on their contributions. They were thoughtful and stimulating, but in particular constructive and concrete.
I want to deal with one aspect of the debate centring on the alleged élitism at Oxford; that is, its damaging impact on foreign opinion. Even allowing for the fact that some ministerial utterances might have been made in the heat of the moment and that they did not imply a deliberate denigration of standards at Oxford nor a lack of recognition of the need for having world-class universities in this country, there is no question that the whole atmosphere surrounding the debate, the soapbox tone of some of the media, has triggered a serious suspicion abroad, especially in Europe, that there may he something rotten in the affairs of Britain's centres of excellence.
Perhaps I should declare my interest and say that for 10 years I have been actively involved in the development of European studies at Oxford. I am in continuing touch with philanthropic foundations and other sources of sponsorship, especially in Germany. I can assure your Lordships that this debate has harmed Britain's image and that a distorted picture has gained credibility that the British Government, no less, are not only dissatisfied with recruitment methods, but also with standards of teaching and the future prospects of our oldest and best-known universities.
I assure your Lordships that voices abroad—actual and potential sponsors—suggest that perhaps the United States offers not only better career prospects and intellectual resources, but also a calmer atmosphere and public acknowledgement and recognition. As your Lordships may know—and the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, spoke of it most knowledgeably—there has been a soul-searching debate and discussion in most European countries about declining standards of tertiary education. Yet in Germany, Italy, Spain and Austria—to name those countries of which I can speak with personal experience—there is an acerbic and self-castigating criticism about such issues as the size of classes and
1680
universities are described as "knowledge factories". But it is the tutorial system of Oxford and Cambridge, and indeed the congenial atmosphere of about a dozen other British universities, which are constantly held up as desirable examples to follow. In fact, today the number of foreign students in Oxford is constantly growing. There are now more German undergraduates in residence than Americans. At the same time, the fact that the number of postgraduate American students is constantly growing confirms the perception that even undergraduates from the leading Ivy League colleges feel that they can greatly profit from postgraduate study and research at Oxford.
As for the charge of Oxford's deliberate discrimination in favour of applicants from more affluent social backgrounds and public schools in this country or their equivalent abroad, I am sure that other noble Lords will share my experience that that is wholly unfair. I happen to have first-hand knowledge of the exact inverse version of the Laura Spence case, which must not be allowed to become the Dreyfus affair of British academe. The son of one of the best-known philanthropic families on the Continent and benefactors of Oxford, who could prove excellent academic references, applied for admittance to one of Oxford's poorest colleges and was rejected. Soon afterwards, he was accepted by one of America's leading universities and three years later graduated summa cum laude. The exact opposite.
It is greatly hoped that the debate, for which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will defuse the situation and that the Minister will allay some of our misgivings. But it is important to realise that after such acrimonious discussion some damage remains. It is damage in the form of bitterness in the academic community, damage abroad and, not least, a residual sense of confusion among potential applicants from state schools as to whether they are after all wanted at Oxford and Cambridge.
But, as has been stated in the debate by several noble Lords, the root cause of the whole vexed question remains the need for a radical overhaul of secondary education; the levelling up, not down, of standards and social accessibility. Ultimately, the whole controversy strikes at the very root of the problem of academic freedom; the freedom of a university to choose the best human material and offer the best teaching resources for the brightest and the best, as befits a truly meritocratic society.
5.26 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have two concerns today. The first is to set the record straight about the government-created myth of Oxford's exclusive class-based culture. Nothing could be further from the truth. The other is my growing concern about whether our children have much hope of being truly educated at all if the plethora of management organs are to have their way—`from the Quality Assurance Agency, which wishes to replace first and second-class degrees with "records of achievement"—rightly repudiated by the CVCP—to the Stockport College, Manchester, which in a remarkable set of rules for staff

1681
and students (Equal Opportunities, Politics into Practice) has barred the word "history" because "some find it sexist". As the dictionary defines "history" as:
"a continuous methodical record of important or public events",
deriving from the Greek historia, I found that difficult to understand until I realised that for the writers of the rules of this temple of the new erudition, "history" is "his story". It should presumably be "her story".
However, my main concern is the perception of Oxford, that infinitely valuable place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer approvingly quoted The Times' view that the class system remains entrenched in British education. I agree, but it is not to be found in Oxford and Cambridge, whose elitism is a quest for excellence rather than a social evil, but among all too many teachers in the schools.
Had I not won a state and county scholarship, I could not have gone to Oxford from my excellent state secondary school in London, for we had no money. It had never occurred either to my teachers or to me that I should not try for Somerville and I found not a few other state scholars in my year. However, when I became Principal 40 years later, I met candidates who had been actively discouraged by their teachers from applying on the ground that Oxford was not for them. One gifted entrant, when she came up, came only to say that she would not be staying. Her teachers, who had not wished her to apply for Oxford, had dubbed her publicly as a class traitor when she won her place. More, they had visited her parents the week before she came up to warn them that once she had gone to Oxford they would not be good enough for her; they would not see her again. She was the first of her family to go to university and their distress was such that she felt she could not stay. I persuaded her to invite her family up soon to meet her friends and share her experience with them. She did so, to good effect, and she stayed, doing extremely well and going on to a highly successful career.
Although I encountered a similar prejudice on other occasions, as did many of the undergraduates who, in my day, visited comprehensive and inner city schools to talk about Oxford, I hope that, with the exception of the Chancellor and some others, that inverted snobbery is less prevalent today. However, it is still part of the problem. The issue is not the failure or refusal of Oxford to admit well-qualified candidates from the state sector; as many noble Lords have said, it is the failure of many such candidates to apply.
One reason for that is still money. Despite anything that the prospectus may say, many potential entrants believe Oxford to be more expensive than other universities and the fees to be higher. They are not. Neither is it a failure by the university and the colleges to go out to the schools to tell them what Oxford can offer. Even in my day, 20 years ago, we had open days, a scheme for undergraduates to visit schools and regular dinners for school teachers, and I visited and spoke to many schools.
Today, the campaign to encourage state schools to send their children to Oxford takes a massive amount of the time of tutors, overworked and monstrously
1682
underpaid as they are, and those whom they teach. In Somerville alone, the JCR admissions officer, a second year student reading law, has just returned from a tour of the North East, organised and funded by the Oxford University Students Union and the university as part of the Target Schools Scheme. With a group from other colleges, she visited schools and talked to sixth-formers and to teachers, answering questions and describing the interview process, which rightly she regards as helpful, not inimical. Last year a similar visit took place to Birmingham schools.
The university, OUSU and the colleges all produce a great deal of literature for candidates, including a special booklet on interviews, to make the process yet more transparent and to reassure. Under the access scheme, undergraduates, particularly those from ethnic minorities, visit inner city comprehensives which have never sent anyone to Oxford.
However, I believe that the most urgent group to target and educate may be the teachers, and Oxford tries hard to reach them. The Sutton Trust runs a teachers' in-service week, but the colleges have important initiatives of their own. The difficulty is to persuade teachers to come. That may be a problem which relates both to time and money but, even so, the response is disappointing. Somerville runs an annual conference for teachers from state schools, each year focusing on a particular subject. The last, at Easter, was on the impact of the most recent post-A-level reforms: 2,493 invitations were sent, asking for written comments from any who could not attend. Two hundred replied and 70 came. Some felt reluctant to attend an elitist institution.
The sad thing is that such meetings should provide an excellent way to dispel misunderstanding, such as the all too prevalent view that no candidate who has not been specially coached to deal with esoteric interviews can hope for a place. Overworked teachers are likely to be reluctant to take on that extra burden and to offer special treatment to one or two candidates in a large sixth form; nor do they understand that the interview gives a candidate far more chance than pure paper selection to make an individual mark which has nothing to do with special coaching and everything to do with character and personality.
Experienced tutors can learn a great deal from interviews. I remember that our chemistry tutors admitted someone despite a bad performance in the entrance exam because they perceived her real quality and found out that she had had, at a time of much upheaval in school, nine supply chemistry teachers in one year.
The universities do not need lessons in how to tell schools and teachers what they have to offer. However, something needs to be done urgently to kill the myth of exclusive elitism based on class. One of the problems is that far too few teachers in the state schools today come from Oxbridge. In 1978, 8 per cent went on to teacher training; in 1988, the figure was 3.7 per cent; and in 1998, 2.7 per cent. Therefore, there is no Oxbridge memory in the schools, and that seems to me to be a terrible pity. If the Government want to

1683
see more candidates from state schools applying for Oxbridge, and for Oxbridge to survive, they might try some really well-funded action: support for academics, scholarships and action to enable teachers to come and listen to the facts rather than the cheap and profoundly ignorant rhetoric of some Ministers who should—particularly a former Chancellor of Edinburgh—know better.
5.33 p.m.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I rise to draw your Lordships' attention to the plight of the higher education of children in Tower Hamlets. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, for initiating the debate. I believe that a brief glance at his record during his time as Secretary of State for Education shows that he did very little to enhance the plight of Tower Hamlets students. I even went so far as to have a brief glance at his memoirs, The Turbulent Years: My Life in Politics, which failed to mention the matter.
I have spoken to graduates in Tower Hamlets in that regard and their view is that the problem begins well before the higher education stage. In that regard, I agree entirely with the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which I enjoyed greatly. The students believe that education remains a lottery. Many of them believe in the ideal of equal educational opportunity—everyone should have an equal chance and their educational qualifications should be based on merit, ability and effort. Thus, if a person works hard, he or she should make it, regardless of ethnic or social background.
Equality of opportunity for all may be the ideal on which the British education system is based. However, it is certainly not the reality, in the experience of pupils with whom I talked. The debate, which largely has been dominated by an analysis of education, concerns the factors which affect the educational attainment of students in schools. Explanations have ranged from stressing the importance of socio-economic and political will through to the home, culture and school. If one compares the most improved school in my area with those which have not improved, the explanation of poverty and socio-economic circumstances does not stand up to scrutiny. Further examination needs to be made of the role of good head teachers and teacher teams, which can make a difference.
It is now more than a decade since the publication of the final report of the committee of inquiry into the education of children from ethnic minorities, widely known as the Swann report. The previous government introduced the market principle into the education system, in which graduates from areas such as Tower Hamlets never entered the equation.
The achievements of ethnic minorities taken together are shown to be similar to those of the white population. However, that is misleading when one considers the most recent Policy Studies Institute survey which reveals that, while some ethnic groups are doing better than white students, Afro-Caribbean
1684
groups are under-achieving. Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils are performing no better, although Bangladeshi girls are outsmarting their young men.
The role of prejudice and racism in that complex pattern is understated. In relation to the differing achievements of certain ethnic minority pupils, some research suggests that social class, gender and ethnic origin all play important roles. The Oxford debate illustrates that. However, the relative significance of those factors is not always clear. The factors affecting British Bangladeshi pupils have been highlighted as poverty and fluency in English. However, studies have shown that that explanation does not apply once the pupils become proficient in English at GCSE and A-level.
In Tower Hamlets, 30 per cent of Bangladeshi girls and 25 per cent of Bangladeshi boys achieved five A to C grades, compared with 21 per cent of white girls and 18 per cent of white boys. It is claimed that where the home background is not English, pupils are held back. The Swann report found that that was a factor in a small number of cases. If it is suggested that bilingualism continues to hinder our young people in entering higher education, what explanation can be given for pupils who do well in primary schools and much better in secondary schools?
Graduates say that the answer lies, sadly, in a lack of expectation in many institutions, as well as in the guidance and support that they receive in the higher education institutions. Graduates to whom I spoke said that they felt that the whole education system was stacked against their success. The few who succeed do so because of their own and their families' persistence. Many who succeeded said that it was due also to the individual efforts of exceptional teachers, who made the difference between their success and others' failure. They spoke also of the lack of guidance that they received about possible career paths.
That was borne out by the recent admissions from the Civil Service, the police, the fire services and the NHS. Even in the private sector there is a disparity in the treatment of ethnic minority candidates and recruits. The graduates say that it is only the educational establishment and local authorities which have not caught up with their responsibilities to provide equal treatment and equal opportunity.
A number of projects have been set up in the community to address the continuous failures of the statutory educational establishment. They are projects such as Keen Student, Supplementary School, People into Management, network graduate forums and summer universities. I declare an interest in that I have some involvement in those projects. I must admit that we have elites among us, and I have certainly spoken to some. It appears that if they come from Tower Hamlets, even when they have the elite experience of Cambridge and Oxford, elitist organisations do not necessarily wait in the wings with offers of employment. Locally, the drop-out rate remains as alarmingly high as gainful employment is low, and yet we are blessed with thousands of jobs on our doorstep.

1685
I should like to see a radical examination of the whole system of education in Tower Hamlets. I want to know why our Government are prepared to settle for less in our educational establishments.
One of the central ideas of the Lawrence report is that the focus of racial equality must take into account institutionalised racism, which is defined as a collective failure. It is the cultural, institutional and professional assumptions and practices—formal and informal— which our children encounter that have such a dramatic effect and impact during their lifetime. The institutionalised racism within education is certainly more detrimental than what happens in one-off incidents.
Racial equality must mean seriously changing the level of achievement of children from ethnic minorities. It is not about changing attitudes or organisational culture, but simply the delivery of education. Some 10 or 20 years ago I would have tolerated and welcomed a debate about policy and long-term planning and constraints of resources; now it is not acceptable, either to me or to the graduates to whom I have spoken.
For me, the Lawrence report says that it is the responsibility of all institutions to be accountable to the race agenda. Education cannot hide from its responsibilities. If we continue to ignore what is happening on our doorsteps, I am afraid that higher education will continue to fail not only my children but my grandchildren.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I shall do my best to match the lightning speed of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. Debates in Parliament on the state of public services nearly always revolve round a single topic—money. Certainly, that has been the major theme of our discussion today. This threnody for impoverishment has been coupled with another—that is, the lament for vanished independence. Universities and their teachers complain of a growing weight of regulation, and I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Renfrew said about this earlier in the debate. They are constantly being assessed for their research and teaching capacities, sometimes, it seems, by methods borrowed from Stasi, but which, in reality, are the methods of bureaucracies the world over. According to the results of these researches, money is allocated by organisations known only by their acronyms.
I should like to stress particularly the connection between underfunding and independence. Underfunding and over-control are not separate; they are twin sides of the same coin. That connection has to be understood if we are to make further progress in the discussion. The brutal truth is that a cash-strapped paymaster is always a hard taskmaster. The increased control is directly connected to decreased funding as governments try to squeeze more value for money out of a shrinking unit of resource.
1686
Worse still, if the Government pay, why should they not tell universities who to admit and what to teach? In future, grants to so-called elite universities are to be tied, so we are authoritatively told, to their success in achieving the Government's preferred social mix.
The Chancellor's recent clumsy attempt to make a class-war issue of the Oxford selection system compels us to focus on the real issue in the debate as I see it—that is, not money but independence. Should universities be regarded as autonomous institutions or as agents of the state? This question is constitutional; it is about the way power is distributed in our society. The question, "What is to be done?" matters less in this instance than the question, "Who is to decide what is to be done?". For anyone who stands for university autonomy, for anyone who believes that in the institutions of civil society lie the best protection of individual freedom, there can be only one answer. Universities must wean themselves off their present dependence on the state. That also happens to be the surest way of replenishing their coffers.
What does this involve in practice? It means, above all, that universities would set tuition fees at any level their markets could take. The right to charge a market price for one's services is a fundamental condition of a free economy and a free society. It was only in the communist world that such rights were systematically denied.
The predictable response to this is that any step in this direction will deny young people from poor families access to university education, There is something in that argument, but there is also a great deal wrong with it from an economic point of view. There is no reason why the borrowing power of poor students should be any less than that of better off ones. A university degree confers an earnings advantage which accumulates to £400,000 on average over a working lifetime, irrespective of parental background. To secure such a return on most investments one would have to borrow about £100,000. By comparison, to borrow £30,000 for an investment in a university education is an astoundingly good buy.
Of course, that is not the end of the story. For various technical reasons, banks would need to be insured against the risk of default, and both the Government and the universities might wish—I would support this—to provide bursaries to ease the passage of poorer students into university life. Governments would also continue to finance research of national importance. All that I take for granted. Simple changes in the charity laws would enable the universities to tap large additional sums of private money—the lack of which was lamented by the noble Lord, Lord Baker—as they do in the United States.
However, none of this will come to pass unless some universities are prepared to go to the Government and say, "Unless we can agree a new constitutional settlement between the universities and the state, we will renounce the block grant altogether and resume our freedom of action." A bold step. Integral to any such settlement the universities may seek would be a "charter of freedom", which would include the right to

1687
set fees without penalties—I emphasise, "without penalties"—the right to retain absolute control of their own admissions, and the right to regulate their own standards.
Will any of the universities have the courage to do this? Probably about half a dozen of the top universities could do it if they could agree on a policy, agree to pool their resources and agree to launch a massive appeal for what I would call an "Independence Fund". Unless some such effort is made, the universities will never escape from their present state of slow strangulation.
My object in saying this is not that half a dozen of the best universities should go into the private sector, but to force the Government to understand what should be the proper relationship between the state and the university system. It is one thing to sell one's birthright for a mess a pottage, but when the mess is too mean to nourish life, it is time to start remembering what one's birthright was and to start on the difficult task of reclaiming it.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for his prescience in initiating this debate. I declare an interest: for 33 years I have been a university teacher, including five-and-a-half years, until January of this year, as Master of St Catherine's College, Oxford.
In my short speech I want to say a little about centres of excellence—or, if you like, elite universities—and to say something about access, on which the controversy over the past two or three weeks has focused attention.
I am all in favour of centres of excellence or elite universities. They are not identified or determined by ministerial or bureaucratic fiat; they arise out of the talent of the individuals within them—poorly rewarded though it is at the moment—and through the innumerable decisions arising from the research assessment exercise, the policies and priorities of medical charities, funding councils and so on. It is undoubtedly the case that over the past. 10 years or so an Ivy League, or whatever one wants to call it, of top-ranking universities, which are able to attain international standards of excellence across a whole range of academic disciplines, has emerged. It seems to me that that is vital to the industrial, business and scientific future of the country.
But while there are these elite universities—and a jolly good thing too—I am sure that we all agree that recruitment to those elite universities should not be based upon a social elite but upon those who have the standards, the merit and the ability to benefit from the education that the universities are able to offer. I think the case for equality of opportunity in relation to access to elite institutions is fairly straightforward. First, they should be open to all those who can contribute to and maintain the standards of the institutions. Secondly, a large share of the funding for universities comes from public money, which is an echo of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, either by HEFCE or the research councils
1688
and there should be equality of opportunity to gain access to publicly-funded goods if one has the merit or the ability to benefit from those goods. Thirdly, in a democratic society, each individual has a right to realise, as far as possible, his or her potential. Fourthly, equality of opportunity in the sense of securing the best use of talent is almost a definition of economic efficiency in terms of human resources.
For those reasons I am wholly in favour of equality of opportunity in relation to access to elite institutions. So what degree of equality of opportunity is there at the moment in relation to the top universities? I am sure that all noble Lords have read the Sutton Trust report. The telling point in that report in relation to the 12 top universities is that students from independent schools have a 25 times greater opportunity of achieving places at those universities than those from the maintained sector. Can that be justified on the basis of any principle? It could be justified only if one believed that the recruitment patterns of the top universities mirrored the distribution of appropriate talent among the population at large, and that seems to be factually wrong and frankly absurd. It would make the whole programme of change and trying to raise standards across the range of schools totally pointless. Surely, that cannot be an appropriate principle to justify a disproportionate basis of selection.
What is the appropriate talent base for the top universities? I think it is to be defined as Colin Lucas, the admirable Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, has defined it; that is to say, in the case of Oxford, those children achieving three As at A-level. How is the talent of those achieving three As at A-level distributed? Two-thirds of those who gain three As at A-level come from the state schools and one-third come from the independent schools. However, taking Oxford University, because it is one that If know, 53 per cent of offers have gone to state school pupils and 47 per cent to private school pupils. That is definitely an improvement on which the university is to be congratulated, but it still falls a long way short of recruiting from that two-thirds of the cohort of state school pupils with three As. I do not believe that the rate of progress is fast enough.
It may be argued by some that private school candidates should be preferred because they perform better when they are in the top universities, particularly in the challenging environment of Oxford and Cambridge. But that is not so. Research undertaken by Professor McNabb of Cardiff University, reported in the Daily Telegraph, has shown that for students with identical A-level scores, those from the independent schools were 20 per cent less likely to graduate with a first class degree. That is a very telling statistic. So there can be no basis for a choice on that assumption.
To echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, what can be done? I shall not follow him down the route of privatisation. Quite a lot is being done in Oxford and I believe that the university deserves a great deal of credit for it. I shall not rehearse all those matters again. One very interesting new

1689
initiative is that pioneered by David Marquand, the principal of Mansfield College, in relation to further education colleges.
The crucial area of concern in Oxford must be the interview. It is difficult to see how the university could manage without the interview because of the large number of well-qualified candidates. While it is entirely right to say, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said in her interesting speech, that schools should try to develop communication skills, it is also important that the universities that use interviews in their selection process should offer staff who conduct the interviews of young people, who may lack confidence, a good deal of training in interview techniques. On that basis there could be a real partnership between schools, top universities and the Government in trying to achieve a better representation of those who are undoubtedly well qualified to share in the education offered by top universities.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, given the many distinguished speakers in this debate, I want to focus on three points: two points of principle, which I invite the Government to endorse, and one specific point on business education aimed at the universities themselves.
The first point of principle I suggest is that the volume of higher education should be based on maintaining high academic standards and not on some arbitrary participation rate. The reality, as my noble friend Lord Baker said, is that participation by young adults in higher education has increased enormously. In the early 1970s it was 15 per cent and now it is over 33 per cent. While we all endorse the principle that all those who can benefit should have access to higher education, it stands to reason that participation cannot continue to increase indefinitely without, at some stage, standards being reduced and students being admitted who may well be better served through work-related training and further education. There is nothing magic about the formula of a three-year degree course in higher education which means that everyone ought to aim for that as their route into adult life.
The funding crisis, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, is, I believe, partly a consequence of the pressures of funding the growth in the past and the desire to continue to fund growth in the future. That desire for growth is understandable on the part of those in the institutions, but the consequence has been a reduction in the funding per student referred to by my noble friends Lord Baker and Lord Norton. Not only does growth cause funding problems; it can also lead to pressures to reduce standards in order to fill the vacant places that universities fear they may have at the end of the UCAS process.
While I am concerned that the Prime Minster has set out the target of driving participation up to 50 per cent without any particular basis on which to justify that
1690
number rather than any other number, I am also concerned that that may worsen the funding pressures without benefit. Funding may be achieved only by reducing standards and, rather than setting an arbitrary target, I would like the Government to reaffirm the principle that the criteria should be to maintain the current and historic high standards of higher education and to determine volume according to the number of students who are able to meet those standards.
The second principle is that whatever volume of higher education we provide in this country, admission should be based on open meritocracy and not on arbitrary quotas or social engineering. I believe that meritocracy against consistent high standards is the only fair basis for selection. To include or exclude people just because of the schools selected for them by their parents is to be unjust to children who have worked just as hard as any others to reach the standards expected of them. Equality of opportunity is becoming a much abused term. It can be interpreted to justify almost any intervention, so rather than talk about the equality of opportunity I suggest that we need a ladder of meritocracy that allows young people who have ability, aspiration and motivation to advance on an equal basis whatever their backgrounds.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and others have pointed out, trying to shape that ladder at the stage of selection to university is too late. Lowering standards in order to allow more people over the bar is not the answer. It has to start at school level. It is a tragedy that over the past 30 or 40 years we have destroyed so many outstanding selective grammar and direct grant schools that gave so many people the chance of rising up that ladder of meritocracy. I know that many other noble Lords in the Chamber have taken advantage of that ladder in the past. I speak as someone who had the immense benefit of an LEA-funded place at a direct grant school, a full maintenance grant at Cambridge and a private scholarship for postgraduate study.
School standards is the subject for another debate, but I would like reassurance from the Government that they will not put pressure on universities to distort admission standards away from meritocracy and standards of excellence to try to meet other social objectives. I also ask the Government, in the light of the evidence that we have accumulated over the past two years, to look again at the policy of fees and loans. I believe that there is evidence to show that that policy plays a significant factor in discouraging applicants from disadvantaged groups to rise up the ladder of meritocracy.
My third point is slightly different and more specific. I should like to ask universities to give more attention to business studies in their agenda, thus raising the professional status of business careers. I think that we would all accept that the quality of business in this country depends critically on the quality of leadership. We need to have the best graduates to have a choice of business-related studies that are seen as intellectually challenging as courses in science, law and the arts. I do not believe that it is the

1691
Government's role to regulate this. I agree with my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and others who favour more independence for universities. Having myself benefited from postgraduate business education in the United States—and seen the demand that there is for such education in that country—I believe that UK higher education institutions have been somewhat remiss, compared to the US, in being slow to adapt and recognise the academic validity of university courses and research in areas such as financial markets, marketing, logistics and organisational development and other areas of the curriculum covered in many US universities. It is up to the UK universities—I think particularly of Oxford and Cambridge—to embrace business degrees as a primary offering for talented and motivated students at both undergraduate and graduate level.
There have been encouraging developments at Templeton at Oxford and the Judge Institute of Management Studies at Cambridge, but there is a lot more that can be done to put business-related studies on an equal academic basis. I look forward to further progress in that area.
Finally, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Baker for providing the opportunity for this debate. I look forward to the Government's response on the issues that have been raised.
6.1 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, for introducing this debate and proving—not for the first time—that gamekeepers make the best poachers.
I have been over these issues, I think, in every debate in which they have come up since I made my maiden speech on the noble Lord's education Bill in 1988. I do not like boring the House. I do not think, frankly, that I have the hope necessary to go around that course again, so I shall confine myself to one issue: widening access to the universities. I have not spoken at length before on this subject because I still believed that we and the Government had our hearts in the same place. I must declare an interest as a serving university teacher. I also wonder whether I ought perhaps to declare an interest since I have a distinct suspicion that Miss Laura Spence may be my cousin. My great grandfather Spence happened to be a Sunderland docker, so the possibility is slightly more than purely theoretical. But hypothetical interests, like hypothetical questions, do not require answers.
Listening to this debate, I am reminded of a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Fawsley. He warned the government, "Do not lose the universities. If you lose the universities you will lose the future". It was the voice of Cassandra, and so it proved. That warning needs to be repeated. I do not suppose that it will be any more use now than it was then, but one must try.
I have noticed that the anger created by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's remarks is most intense among colleagues and postgraduates who are themselves from working-class backgrounds, because
1692
they think that his objective is not to help them but to use them as a political football. Of course, it is the nature of footballs that they get kicked.
The device of the whipping boy who was whipped for the king's misdeeds when the king was tried is well-known. There is a widespread suspicion within the academic community that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is using universities as a whipping boy for faults which are his.
There has been talk of incentives to encourage universities to admit more people from a wider range of backgrounds. It really is not needed. If you listen to essays—as I do 12 to 14 hours a week—you do not need an incentive to listen to more interesting essays, any more than your Lordships need an incentive to listen to interesting speeches rather than boring ones. I think that that is in the wrong place. I have observed the broadening of access over 45 years. I see two variables. One is the question of getting people to apply. That appears to me to depend first and foremost on the amount of money available for student support. The Minister knows my view that the amount of student support available is very far from sufficient. This is not just a matter of tuition fees; it is basic maintenance. Tuition fees are merely the lid on the poisoned chalice. Frankly, if I were asked tomorrow by someone aged 18, who could not depend on substantial financial support from his parents, whether he should go to university, I should feel it my duty to advise against it. That is a sad thing to have to say.
That is the first matter that must change. The other is that the quality of the schools must change. F or most of my life the gulf between public school education and state school education has been narrowing. But since about the middle of the 1980s it has been widening very rapidly. This is first and foremost a matter of resources. What I notice over and over again in interviews is the complete absence of a school library. What I look for in an interview is someone who can argue between two conflicting views on the basis of evidence. One cannot do that if all one has heard are dictated notes from one teacher in which the distinction between fact and opinion is by no means as clear as one would wish.
One cannot select students just on their A-levels. I once marked 36 A-level scripts from one school. The only way that I could tell the difference between them was by the spelling mistakes. It is like selecting junior Ministers for preferment on the hypothesis that they write their own speeches. You need to question them off the brief.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, mentioned objective tests. When I was at Yale I sat the scholastic aptitude test before administering the graduate entrance programme. I was relieved to discover that I could just scrape into the department whose graduate programme I was in charge of. One of the questions was entirely about baseball. Cultural bias in objective tests is by no means unknown. There is really no substitute for an interview and an adequate school library. What the Government need to do in

1693
this field, as in so many others, is to spend a little more and control a little less. If that message is not heeded we shall remember this as a debate not about the success of fee-paying schools but the success of a fee-paying university.
6.7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Earl has made some very wise remarks, as he so often does. Scotland has been mentioned only once during this debate. It was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Baker. He made the point that Scotland might be the place where the first university breaks free from the stranglehold of the public sector, the stranglehold which my noble friend Lord Skidelsky described so well. I am inclined to agree. I believe that Scotland might be the place to do this.
The funding of Scottish universities is now a devolved matter. Scottish universities must nevertheless be part of this debate because much of what the Scots Parliament decides for them affects United Kingdom and other students, not just those resident in Scotland. It also affects universities themselves elsewhere in the UK, and indeed Scots who choose to study with them. It must be part of this debate.
Of all the matters that must most concern this Westminster Parliament, the most important I believe must be what is happening in Scotland on student fees and support. The anomalies created by the Government's decisions before devolution are well known to your Lordships, but the decisions since are compounding the unfairness. Following the elections to the Scots Parliament, the Liberal Democrats, with 17 of the 129 seats, agreed to govern in coalition with Labour on condition that student fees were abolished. The Cubie committee was set up to see how that could be done. It produced 52 recommendations and some 40 of those were accepted by the Scottish Executive, at an estimated extra cost of £50 million. A discussion paper was also produced asking for views on matters still undecided.
Cubie's central recommendation was no more upfront fees for Scots students in Scotland but that after graduation, once a person was earning £25,000 a year, £3,075—the equivalent of fees elsewhere—would be paid into a graduate endowment fund. That maintained the all-United Kingdom principle, established hitherto, that a degree confers earning power, so those who benefit are asked to contribute.
The Scottish Executive has abandoned that principle and indeed all equity with the rest of the United Kingdom. It has decided that only £2,000 will be paid on graduation. That will be due on a wage as low as £10,000, except for students from the poorest families who will pay nothing at all, however high their salaries turn out to be, except maintenance. How much the compounded unfairness of all this will deter students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom from coming to Scotland, where they will have to pay full
1694
fees, or how much it will deter Scots from going south to universities where they will pay full fees too, remains to be seen.
Andrew Cubie has said publicly that he believes that the fear of having to repay £2,000 on a £10,000 salary, in addition to any maintenance one may have paid with a loan, will certainly deter some Scots within Scotland from applying to university at all. It has been pointed out to me that because of the various starting dates within the scheme it will be financially advantageous for better off students to go to university immediately, even if they were not going to go in this coming year, while it will pay the less well off to wait a year. They may, in the meantime, of course, decide not to apply at all. That is hardly a good start for Scotland.
I want to ask the Minister a question on one other point to do with the Cubie report because I think it one which is particularly important for her. The Cubie committee has made a number of important recommendations on student maintenance and cost of living expenses for students. They would affect the benefits system. The benefits system is a reserved matter, dealt with by this Westminster Parliament. Have the Minister and her colleagues here at Westminster begun to look at those recommendations? The matter is fairly urgent because the Scottish scheme is a package and it will not work unless those recommendations play a part. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether she and her colleagues have begun looking at those recommendations, because the benefits system will have to be considered by the Department of Social Security. If she cannot do so, would she be kind enough to write to me?
6.13 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for introducing this debate. My recent experience of higher education in the United Kingdom and abroad has been as a professor and as a recruiter of excellent men and women graduates, as chief executive of the Meteorological Office and director of a consulting science-based company in Cambridge. I declare these interests. I have also been involved in discussions about the content and standards of degrees as president of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications.
As a result of government policy and by their own efforts, UK universities are now graduating more students per head of population than most other countries in the world and are attracting increasing numbers of overseas students to the UK for courses that cover a wider range of basic and applied subjects than is available elsewhere. The universities should also be commended on having undergone the same remarkable managerial transformation as other parts of the public service in the UK. With almost no training in management, accountancy and so on, academics running departments in universities now know the cost of staff, equipment, buildings and the income they generate from teaching and research. As a result, many decisions about staff duties as between

1695
teaching and research, appointments, salaries and resources are taken quickly and at the level of the department.
One has only to compare with other university systems in both America and Europe to see why our universities are quite efficient and spend relatively much less on administration. The structure we now have in the UK is broadly sustainable, and I trust that the Government will not be changing it radically. I do not believe that the evidence supports the conjecture of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that the organisation of the better funded American universities has much to teach us. I know where I would rather be a professor, and fill up fewer forms.
However, if universities are to increase further the number of students being graduated while improving standards, more resources are needed especially for the infrastructure of the buildings, libraries and scientific equipment, and for staff salaries. Here comparison with North America would show that most libraries in state universities there are better resourced than those in many leading UK universities. As for the state of some buildings in our universities and even teaching hospitals, your Lordships would not want to see them.
Because of low salaries, outstanding scholars and teachers are leaving or are not entering universities. Their levels are not competitive with those in the Civil Service, let alone the private sector, and yet most academic staff are working a 50 to 55 hour week, as recent surveys indicate, with no overtime payment. On the Continent there is generally a connection between academic and Civil Service salaries. Surely that provides a reasonable basis for comparison. The Bett report endorsed the concept of a general salary structure with local and personal variations. I hope that the Government will provide more funding and guidance than they have hitherto.
As a result of managerial reform, the Treasury can be assured that public money is spent responsibly. Average student/staff ratios have increased from about 9:1 up to 17:1 over the past 20 years and therefore it will be very difficult for universities to find further 1 to 3 per cent efficiency savings per annum, as they are being urged to do by the Government. As with other organisations in the public and private sectors, such further savings can come only from structural changes. In the university that would mean significant changes in teaching methods. All those concerned with universities, including the Government, need to consider this question. For example, will it lead to less tutorial work and more large lecture classes such as are standard in American universities, including the very best?
Whichever solutions are reached, it is essential for the UK economy that our graduates are as good as those in other countries. But we should not forget, as perhaps we have today, the higher ideals of university education to form graduates who will lead fulfilling lives and contribute and provide leadership to society.
To meet international and European standards in science and engineering, many UK universities have introduced four year degrees. Nevertheless, some
1696
foreign governments, multinational companies, academics and professional engineers have expressed concern about the level of certain first UK degrees, and also about the level of UK professional qualifications in relation to those on the Continent. Considerable ingenuity and leadership will be required by the Quality Assurance Agency and the professional institutions to introduce different and appropriate levels of technical qualifications. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, are quite applicable.
At the same time as increasing the number of students, the Government Chief Scientist, Sir Robert May, has pointed out that scientific research in UK universities is world- class and very cost effective. That is helped by the research assessment exercise, which has been criticised during the debate. It encourages staff to re-energise their research careers and also redefines the roles of those not engaged in research.
As for funding of research, the substantial recent increase provided by the present Government was an essential first step in slowing the relative decline of the total volume of UK research in universities. Nevertheless, there remains concern about the future position of UK research, as other countries, especially the United States, are increasing their funding of scientific research faster than here, especially in almost all fields of science, engineering and medicine. It is worrying that, as the Royal Society noted, there is a planned reduction in research by government departments and agencies. This source of funding plays a crucial role in stimulating applied research and high technology industry in the United States.
In the United Kingdom the research conimunity agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that a good proportion of government revenue from new developments in science and technology, such as licensing of wavebands for mobile phones, should be ploughed back. Games theory and economic research at University College London helped the Government devise the ingenious arrangements for the bidding process. This is a clear example of the ever-wider role that universities are having in our society. This will flourish, provided they have the resources and encouragement from supporters everywhere, including, of course, in this House.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Chilver: My Lords, this debate has already identified a score or more of serious concerns from all sides of the House about the state of higher education in the UK. Before adding to those concerns I should like to preface my remarks by referring briefly to the international scene in higher education.
In that world scene there is a progressive movement towards a greater diversity of both institutions and styles of higher education. This is leading to the wider accessibility of higher education involving new forms of communication and research. One of the most significant recent developments is the setting up of world universities on the Internet. These new universities offer access to very large numbers of

1697
students from many countries at very low cost. Such universities are truly international and can operate freely across national boundaries.
Across the world higher education forms the apex of the tertiary system of education. Leading institutions of higher education are those which exercise autonomy in their policy directions, manage their own affairs and enjoy intellectual freedom in their work. Autonomy and intellectual freedom lead to high qualities of academic achievement in the forms of knowledge and science which are universally valid.
It is often argued that higher education in any country is a key force in that country's economic development. Among the present members of the European Community, Denmark and the United Kingdom have comparable participation rates in tertiary education of between 45 per cent and 50 per cent. At the same time, GDP per head of the population of Denmark is 70 per cent greater than it is in the United Kingdom. While there is no direct correlation between the levels of tertiary education and simple economic indicators such as that, it is entirely proper for an intelligent society to seek to understand why the same quantum of tertiary education at least appears to be so much less effective in the UK than it is in Denmark in economic terms.
That having been said, the arguments for the progressive expansion of higher education are strong. Not least at the highest levels, higher education plays a key role in raising the general educational standards, through the dissemination of ideas and knowledge.
Over the past few decades higher education in the UK has evolved considerably. Across the universities the balance of income between government and non-government funds for some of the leading institutions has changed markedly. The non-government funding of universities in teaching research rose to £2 billion in 1997–98 and it continues to grow. Unfortunately, the bureaucratic control that government have over the universities as a whole tends to a uniformity of the institutions concerned rather than encouraging innovation. I have already mentioned as an example of innovation the development of major world universities on the Internet. It would seem that there is no major initiative in Britain at the present time to encourage universities and others to explore these Internet possibilities seriously. So much for the Government's priorities of both education on the one hand, and the e-world developing around us on the other.
If central control of leading institutions of higher education is continued, there is a serious danger that the standards in some of our leading universities will be affected adversely and their roles in the international scene will be impaired. An alternative for those institutions which are only partly dependent on government funds is to give them more autonomy from central bureaucracy to enable them to develop as European and international leaders in higher education.
6.26 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, my main excuse for offering a few thoughts today is that I want to say something about the polytechnics.
Before coming to that subject, I should like to speak about Oxford, so beloved by so many of us who were there, and resented, I am afraid, by some people who were not. At any rate, I should like to say a few words about Oxford as an old Oxford don, Oxford father, Oxford husband, Oxford grandfather and so on. I certainly can claim to be, if nothing else, an Oxford person.
I want to say two things about Oxford. First, in all the years I have known it, I have never known it to have any prejudice against people who came from humble backgrounds. I shall mention only one person, who, it may be said, was rather exceptional: Professor A.L. Rowse, who came from one of the poorest areas of Cornwall. Many other examples could be given.
I leave open tonight—although we shall have to return to it again and again in these debates—the question of how far an advantage should be given to people with disadvantaged backgrounds. If some rather feebler version of the late Professor Rowse arrived on the scene in a competition for the last place with someone like myself, with a background of Eton and Oxford, and we were about equal, should the place go to him? If in fact I were a little ahead of him, should it still go to him? If we are to try to secure a higher proportion of people from state schools, we may have to give a positive advantage.
After all, people do not pay thousands of pounds for the so-called best schools without expecting some advantage. They certainly get one. The noble Baroness the Minister may not have the figures, but no doubt there are figures showing the ratio between teachers and pupils in state schools compared with the private schools. The only ones that I have investigated suggest that the ratio of teachers to pupils in the private sector is about twice as good as in the public sector. That would not apply to every school, of course, but by and large it is so. People pay a great deal to gain an advantage for their children. Should we then discount that? I leave that question open.
I pass on to the polytechnics. If on the last day, which may come rather sooner for me than for some others present, St. Peter asks me "Did you do any good down there?" I shall reply "At least I was the first person in Parliament to propose that the polytechnics should be made universities". It is particularly appropriate to discuss polytechnics today, because the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will go down in history as the man who turned the polytechnics into universities. It was Lord Baker who did it, but he is too modest to talk about it.
Everybody seems to refrain from talking about the polytechnics and instead discusses the universities and whether ethnic minorities have a chance in them. They neglect the fact that in the University of Westminster, for example, almost half the students come from ethnic minorities.

1699
We must pay attention to the polytechnics. In 1992 they were put on more or less the same footing as the older universities. They were given the power to grant degrees, and they are now called "universities"; they are not "polys" any more. All that is a great step forward. However, we may wonder what the result has been, and so far as I know no one has produced any kind of expert measurement of comparative performance.
Most people will agree—I hope everyone here will agree—that the polytechnics have been a great success. I hope that includes the Minister who, in my eyes, is the most distinguished educationist of any Minister of the Crown that I can remember since my old warden, H.A.L. Fisher, who was a leading academic and then became Minister for Education in the government of Lloyd-George. If that is her opinion, I hope that she will say so clearly. The old polytechnics still have a bit of an inferiority complex, and that is understandable. So I hope that the Minister will say some encouraging words to them.
I may be a little biased in favour of the University of Westminster. It did me the honour of making me an honorary doctor, and I am sure allowance will be made for that. But no one can deny that it has received many marks of approbation. Only the other day it won the Queen's Award. I am sure everyone will agree that it is a first class university. We have not heard much about that in the recent discussions. No one pays tribute to the work of polytechnics and they are ignored. So I hope that my noble friend will rectify that.
Are the polytechnics now on the same footing as universities? They do not believe so and nor do I. I have been briefed by the University of Westminster and do not apologise for that. I wrote to the Minister mentioning the improvements it would like to see made. I shall not trouble to go through them tonight; the question of funding becomes extremely technical. But, having studied the issue again after all these years, I feel that the polytechnics are at a disadvantage in certain respects in regard to funding. So I hope that the Minister will at least say that the Government will give that aspect careful consideration.
We are talking about higher education in this country. The great advance in my eyes stems from 1992 when the noble Lord, Lord Baker, turned the polytechnics into universities, and we have gone on from there. I hope that, when the Minister winds up, she will give full credit to them.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on their eloquent contributions to our discussion this afternoon. And I, too, must declare a personal interest. I speak from the sharp end as the Head of Imperial College. Before that I was head of a Cambridge college and before that, worst of all, I was an Oxford admissions tutor. Just in case anyone should imagine that the efforts by Oxford to broaden access are recent, as well as I can calculate, it was 35 years ago that my noble friend noble Lady Warnock,
1700
who was in her place earlier this afternoon, and I were dispatched by the Oxford college admissions office in a hired car to go and sell the message of Oxford to state schools around the north of England.
We are at the end of a decade of great achievement during which British universities have expanded at a rate unprecedented in the world. The student capacity of the system has more than tripled in less than 12 years. That has allowed the UK to reach the levels of higher education enjoyed by its main industrial competitors.
The system is performing well. It has captured approximately one quarter of the world market for students who study overseas. As was remarked, that yields around £2 billion a year in overseas earnings. That figure is welcome but, above all, it indicates that although higher education is available more cheaply elsewhere—notably in the United States and Australia—our universities offer good value. That is the only international measure of quality and value for money that we have.
International comparisons of university research such as those carried out by Sir Robert May, show that our research universities are among the international leaders and, for the funding they receive, give astonishing value. That research leads to new products and new businesses—in the case of Imperial, at the rate of around one a month. But all that success is precarious. That is partly because of the highly centralised and regulated way that we manage higher education in the UK. There are echoes of the command economies of the former Eastern Bloc, where government determine the number of home students a university may enrol, and fines it if it strays over or under that number. Further, they decide unilaterally what universities are to be paid in respect of each student, and for many universities that accounts for most of their funding.
The trouble is that that unit of resource has been reduced relentlessly year on year under governments of all complexions. While the overall level of funding for higher education has increased because of expansion, Treasury and DfEE figures show that, in real terms, universities today receive 50 per cent less for each student taught than 50 years ago. Some of that pressure was undoubtedly justified. Some universities were not well run. They are not all well run today. But neither is every business nor—dare I say? — every government department. But I wish to argue that the level of funding today is such as to seriously threaten the long-term viability of the system.
Why is that? Although part of the reductions have been taken up by genuine improvements in efficiency, the most immediate effect has been the reduction in staff-student ratios, which simply means that students receive less personal attention. Staff salaries have declined, as we heard earlier this afternoon. Less obviously, but no less seriously, many institutions have chosen to defer items of long-term maintenance and renovation of infrastructure in preference to serving their students less well. And to a degree, the apparent solvency of our university system is in that

1701
way spurious. It may well be asked whether all that can be solved with IT and the dot.com technologies. The brief answer is that they allow us to do things differently and more flexibly, but in most cases not more cheaply.
Although all universities are affected by those difficulties, it is the leading research universities that perhaps feel them most acutely. In every respect they have to compete not just nationally, but internationally, for staff with competitive salaries and, more importantly, with research facilities. Whether we like it or not, those are the flagships of our system. Unless an institution has private endowments or private patronage, I can say from personal experience that it is difficult to fulfil that role at present levels of government resource.
I am frequently invited to visit the campuses of overseas institutions with whom we both compete and collaborate. I must confess that all too often I am ashamed to issue a return invitation because I know that our general facilities compare so badly and that we show up as the poor relation.
There is no absolute measure as to how much a country should spend on its universities, but if at least in part the purpose is to help the country compete internationally, a comparison with the expenditure of competitor nations is of some interest. As has already been pointed out, the most recent OECD figures show that, as a percentage of GDP, the UK spends less than half the OECD average per student. Those who find that comparison uncomfortable will say that the figures are inaccurate. That is true, but the difference between our expenditure and that of our competitors is so glaring that the inaccuracies pale into insignificance.
So, where does that leave us? Although the Government have put additional and welcome money into university research, like their predecessors, they appear deaf to pleas that the university system is under-funded. Universities have achieved increases in productivity that would be the envy of many businesses. They have demonstrated that they are internationally competitive in every respect, and that they offer good value for money. They have generated new sources of income. But they are poorly funded by comparison with their competitors, and they simply do not see how they can make ends meet now. They also carry an increasing burden of un-costed bureaucratic scrutiny.
If the Government do not believe the universities` case, it is for them to say what evidence they would accept as proof that the universities are bleeding to death. The relentless reductions of the past three decades must be reversed.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if the Government were to go down the route proposed by my noble friend Lord Baker—and it is one that I find extremely attractive in principle—what else would they have to do? There are at least a few areas where the Government would have
1702
to make great improvements in what they and the universities do. Indeed, perhaps the Government ought to be doing those things in any event.
First, there is the matter of the provision of information for students. Students now have a large financial interest in universities. Certainly, if my noble friend's proposals were to come into effect, they would probably have a rather larger financial interest in paying for their courses and a differential one between universities. But even with the current state of affairs, they deserve much better information than is now available.
Information on courses—a pretty basic requirement, one would have thought—is, by modern standards, currently provided in an extremely poor form. To obtain detailed information on courses, the student has to pay a very large sum of money; it is not freely accessible over the Internet. It is only available on a private basis from one particular firm. Moreover, when that information is received, it is not well linked with universities' own sites. And when you access those sites they are not well linked with what their professors get up to, their research papers and what the actual experience is of students doing certain courses.
Any web-based company trying to sell such a product would provide more and better information to students regarding courses in which they were interested. The Government should ensure that that is integrated so that someone seeking, for example, to take chemistry could easily access such information and do so from home and over the weekend. In that way, students could find out what the courses were like, who would be teaching them, and so on.
Secondly, there are some good publications that cover the sort of "beer and sandwiches" life at universities, so the Government need not worry about that. But following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Plant, said, there is much to be done on value added. It is clear from some studies that A-levels are not the be-all and end-all determinant of how people do at university. Universities ought to be taking a leaf out of the book of what is done in secondary schools, and even in primary schools. They should be using a decent value-added system to get a handle on what it takes for students from particular backgrounds to do well on a particular course. It would certainly be a great source of information for admissions tutors and should be provided to students so that, when entering a certain course, they have an idea of what they are likely to get, and what the university's history is in producing degree results for the calibre of students to which they feel they belong.
Thirdly, I turn to prospects. At the end of the day, universities are about going on into later life. There should be much more information about what university students taking particular courses go on to achieve. It ought to be possible to see lists of those who attended certain courses during each of the past 10 years, what they are doing (where such information is provided) and perhaps establish links to former students and hear comments from them. That would be an immensely valuable resource for students who

1703
were judging whether a particular course was suitable; for example, whether it produced the sort of results required.
If one looks at further education and considers some of the better colleges that are linked with industries— Farnborough is one that I visited—such information is available to students. They know exactly where all the old alumni are because, by now, they are the people who are recruiting the new students when they come out and, indeed, often before they come out of college. That sort of quality of information ought to be available to students now. It would certainly be needed if the universities were independent.
We should also have good information provided by the Government in terms of quality assessment. Much has been said about how the present systems feel from a university point of view. Looking at them as a user, I have to say that they are useless. They provide nothing of use to students. I do not know of any school that makes use of its output in any integrated way. What we have is a number of simplistic indicators, which really mean very little, and a formulaic approach to reporting that is obscure and really does not give a feeling of what the course and its quality are like as an experience. People and good admissions tutors rely on their own experience and on person-to-person contact. The reports produced at such great effort and expense amount to nothing when it comes to informing students. Again, there is a great deal that could be done using the world-wide web. In that way you can display information in all its variety and depth and make it available to students. We do not need to have this "condensation" and formularisation, which appears to be the present approach.
Moreover, we need to take a much more radical approach towards securing student access. It is quite clear that access to the best universities and courses must be open to everyone. I believe that that should be done by allowing the universities to choose what fees they wish to charge, while saying that, above a certain level—the level at which the Government provide funding—they can only charge such fees by lending the students the money to pay them. That would operate on a similar basis to the student loans scheme.
Universities would have no difficulty in funding the bulk of that cost from the commercial market. That is something the Government should have done ages ago; and, indeed, something that they would have done ages ago if it were not for the dead hand of the Treasury. They should put the whole business of the student loans scheme out to the private sector. It is an enormously valuable loan resource; an index-linked asset just waiting for the life insurance industry to take it, but the Government will not let it go. If individual universities were lending the money to students, they would be re-financing that in the City as rapidly as possible. That would be a source of finance for universities that would not harm the ability of poor students to get to university.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, opening up access to higher education is not simply about Oxford and Cambridge, important as they are. It is important that there should be universities with the resources to pursue research as effectively as competitors in other countries. Those universities need the ablest students who want to come to them and believe that they can find entry.
There is an issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Plant of Highfield, illustrated, arising from the Sutton Trust report. What needs to be overcome in many schools is not prejudice but a fear of failure among teachers. Some schools have simply never thought that they could win places. So, the present debate can be very creative if more schools feel that they can encourage able young people to try. Of course, some of the universities are at the top of the pyramid, but to expand opportunities means putting building blocks in place all the way up from the ground and at every level in the pyramid. I want to speak about opportunities rather closer to the ground. The changes of recent years offer excellent education to vastly increased numbers of students. Successive government; should take credit for that development. The noble Lords, Lord Bragg, Lord Dahrendorf and Lord Oxburgh, all pointed out the real success that we should celebrate but also referred to the increased burden that coping with greater numbers has laid upon so many university teachers. We should accept that there are limits to the quality that they can achieve without greater resources.
The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, recognised in his report the strength in the variety that higher education has to offer. He said that there were different missions and centres of excellence. My inquiries this week in the world of higher education in Liverpool have informed me that there has been a sea change and that there is much of which the Government can be proud. For example, I understand that the Teacher Training Agency pays £6,000 to PGCE students for their fourth year. That has made a significant difference to teacher recruitment.
I also understand that the funding council monitors postcodes to assess grants for higher education establishments, which I am delighted to hear, as I hope are other noble Lords. The Government should make such steps more public. Sometimes I think that the Government want to do good by stealth and not let too many people know about it. We should not be coy about affirmative action that opens up opportunities. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, did not shrink from speaking about a programme of positive access.
I hear that the result of monitoring postcodes is that different institutions now chase students from Toxteth. I hope that they do not simply want the money but realise that they are giving opportunities to people with great intelligence which in former generations has been wasted. That seeking of students shows that government policies can make a real difference.

1705
My involvement in higher education has been to chair—boxing and coxing with Archbishop Derek Worlock—the council of what has become Liverpool Hope, building on long established Catholic and Anglican colleges. The most recent development has been to establish "Hope in Everton" which is a £20 million development in the north end of inner city Liverpool. Accommodation for PGCE students is on the spot. It introduces them to inner city schools where it is hoped many will make a career. Liverpool Hope also works in partnership with sixth form colleges in the North West, developing a network of Hope colleges that bring higher education within the reach of more people.
Having seen much of life in areas of high unemployment makes me an enthusiast for "second chance" learning. I know that the Minister shares that enthusiasm. Further education colleges provide a key bridge on which personal confidence is built. Colleges such as Liverpool Hope and many universities open doors for mature students who had never imagined themselves with degrees. Many noble Lords will, like me, have attended graduation ceremonies, for example at Liverpool John Moores University or the Open University. Plainly, many who receive awards are the first in their families to do so and bring special insight and experience as mature students to their education. I hope that we can all rejoice at such developments.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I feel some trepidation in taking part in this debate as an East Anglian in what seems to have been very much an Oxford affair. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking for an opportunity to improve and continue my education.
I intend to approach this subject from the bottom up rather than from the top down as most speakers have done. My experience of higher education began more than 30 years ago when I became a governor of what was then a technical college and school of art. I mention just one formative incident from that period. The college sought someone to be head of department in what had then become an institute of higher education. One applicant had left school at 14. He had only one degree; a PhD. We could not resist the temptation to interview him. He explained that he had been invited to lecture at a university at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. A year later the academic authorities invited him to attend an interview which he attended with some trepidation. He said that he was a little bothered that perhaps he was not fulfilling their expectations. The authorities said that the problem was not his but rather theirs. They were rather embarrassed that someone was lecturing at postgraduate level who apparently had no formal academic qualification. They invited him to submit a thesis. He said that when he did there were three people in the country who were qualified to mark it, and he was one of them!
1706
The important thing to note from that incident is that university education is vitally important and not just for those leaving school. It has continuing relevance much later in people's lives. It is gratifying to note that there is so much more opportunity today for mature students. The institution I have mentioned still takes people in their late 20s and early 30s off the streets, so to speak. After taking the standard course some are awarded a first class honours degree and undertake important research work.
The Institute of Higher Education was formerly controlled by local authorities, as indeed was all public sector higher education in former times. However, in the mid-1980s institutions could escape that control if they had a sufficient proportion of public sector higher education students. They were allowed to incorporate. The institution with which I am involved incorporated at one minute past midnight on 1st April of the relevant year. One minute later it amalgamated with another institution. The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, will recognise that process. A few months later we scraped over the hurdle of 4,000 full-time students in higher education and became a polytechnic. In the early 1990s the law was changed and that institution became a university, although not willingly as it rather enjoyed being a polytechnic. The polytechnics became universities as, particularly abroad, no one understood the distinction between a polytechnic and a university. That was something to do with the Common Market, and we all know where that gets us!
Today that institution has 20,000 students and is doing well. It is a good regional university. The institution came about because it was able to escape the controls which were formerly imposed by local government. Today university funding and quality control have reasserted the intrusive controls from which the university with which I am involved escaped just a few years ago. The annual fight for funding takes up more and more time in administration. The Quality Assurance Agency charges huge sums of money. A single audit for a single department now costs the university £350,000. We have several of those audits every year. That money would be far better spent on students and student facilities.
Real problems exist. The plea of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that universities should stand on their own feet and become independent, has real resonance at the present time when the system—disregarding the simple matter of funding—is becoming too intrusive and is exercising too much control. The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, called for boldness of action in the development of the university sector. I lived through a process of continuous change. We did not expect to end up as we have; we always expected to trip up. However, we got there. But having done that, it is sad to find that the system is now slipping back into the controlling, intrusive and awkward system from which we thought we had escaped.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for initiating the debate. I missed the debate that took place in December but I am glad to be able to attend this one.
Oxford has an élitism problem; I have never heard the like. A careful study of Prime Ministers since 1945 will show that if you want to become a British Prime Minister you should either have an Oxford education or none. There has never been a Cambridge-educated Prime Minister, and the LSE has only made it with Jim Hacker. Therefore, we all have a right to complain.
I, like Laura Spence, applied to go to a British university 40 years ago—it was at Peterhouse. I was not interviewed because I was in Bombay at the time. I did not get a place and I do not know who was luckier. I did get to the United States of America, where I had full tuition and a full fellowship. The point about the Laura Spence case is not élitism but that there are universities which can fund students fully. We have failed, not because of the type of schools which people attend, but because we have failed to tackle that problem.
While the going was good—and I started my university life here in 1965 when it was—we did not worry about money at all. Students and teachers did not worry about money. Money was always there. Then something went wrong. In my first 15 years I did not worry about money, although salaries started to be frozen in the 1970s. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Secretary of State for Education, started asking how we spent our time. We had to keep diaries. All politicians think that university professors are lazy, so they want us to account for our time. They cannot understand that thinking is very hard work. Try it some time; it is very hard. Ever since then there has been a tremendous deterioration in our facilities, salaries and so on.
As many of my noble friends and other noble Lords have said, we still have a very good higher education system. There is a crisis in the technical, "medical" sense. At this point we have to think about how the system should develop. I shall concentrate on two major possibilities.
One is to take the current system, stop any further efficiency gains and bootstrap it up. It will cost a lot of money, just as in the NHS, because of the neglect of the past 20 years. Like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I have amnesia and I forget who was in power most of the time while the money was being cut, but we will let that go. The money has been cut. The unit of resource was £8,000. If one wanted to restore that, plus inflation, it would come to something like £12,000. To go from the present level to £12,000 will not be done quickly; it may not even be necessary. It will take something like 10 years.
We shall need a bold plan to restore the funding of higher education, on the current basis of access or improved access, and with low fees and so on. We could do that. That is one plan.
1708
The other plan proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Skidelsky, says that we should go the private route. I shall briefly wear my economist hat and consider that option. I think that option has great attraction. In the American system a diversity of tuition fees are charged and there is diversity of quality. Indeed, there is a lot of independence, though not a little bureaucracy. As my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out, there is a lot of form filling in American universities as well.
What will it cost? The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said banks will have to be made to be bolder iii lending money and so on. We know that capital markets are imperfect. Banks do not give loans on future income. If they have to be made to do that, we need supporting mechanisms. Income-contingent loan arrangements to guarantee interest payment is one possibility. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said—and I find this an attractive suggestion—if currently £3 billion is being spent on roughly 1 million students (these are broad numbers) each student has an entitlement of £3,000. The Government provide £3,000. One could say that in a new private system anyone can have up to £3,000 as a floor. One may choose to spend less than that and to go to a cheaper university. One may go to an expensive university. But one cannot have more than £3,000. One could bootstrap it in that way and take out an interest-free loan over the period, or whatever.
I should like to know whether these are die lines along which the Opposition are thinking. I should like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to say whether that is official policy which the Opposition will propose in their next manifesto. It would make for a very interesting debate were the Opposition to put forward a privatisation plan with a loan policy of that kind and were my noble friend Lady Blackstone to go in to bat for the current system of bootstrapping. That would make a very interesting debate which would be very welcome.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords. I well remember the bombshell that hit us at the LSE—as I suspect does the Minister—when the noble Lord, Lord Desai, arrived in 1965. I was "gobsmacked" then and I remain "gobsmacked" always by what he has to say.
I should like to begin, as have others, by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on initiating what I think has been a very thoughtful and valuable debate.
We have also been privileged to hear two excellent maiden speeches, one from my noble friend Lady Walmsley—and I warm very much to what she said about the two Cs, communication and confidence—and the other from the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein.
I, like many others, also have to declare an interest. Until last year I was a member of the academic staff at the University of Sussex and I retain a part-time appointment at that university. That university has an admirable record in encouraging access from a very wide diversity of backgrounds.

1709
We have had a very wide-ranging debate, covering a vast number of issues in the higher education field. For someone having to wind up, it is always somewhat difficult to know what to say and what to pick out. I want to pick out three issues that have arisen and talk about them. I want to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf about praise for our universities as compared to what he called the "shambles" on the Continent. Then I want to look at the issue of scientific research which, because I come from the Science Policy Research Unit in Sussex, is an issue in which I am particularly interested. Finally, I want to turn to the issue of access that runs through the whole of the debate for many people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, talked about our universities as being one of Britain's best kept secrets. I do not think it is a secret. I believe that our universities are one of our best and bravest institutions in this country that have served us incredibly well. This is well known. It is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, said, we have students flocking to the United Kingdom to participate in our universities. Perhaps there is one aspect that is secret. Why do students flock? I shall give your Lordships one example as to why they flock. The University of Sussex has many exchange programmes. I have taught on a number of occasions classes with exchange students. I well remember a French student being absolutely overwhelmed by the fact that in the group of about eight students I was taking—and she called me Margaret rather than Madame Professeur—we had an equal exchange of views. I would listen to what she had to say and participate. She said to me that that was so different from France, that in France there are separate staircases so that the lecturers do not have to rub shoulders with the students. It is the friendly tutorial system which is actually at the root, the secret, of our success.
When I first went to the University of Sussex in 1981 I was taking what were called tutorial groups of 1:4 and today I am taking tutorial classes, as we now call them, of 1:20. It gives you some idea of the rise in the teacher/student ratio. That is the position now. At Sussex, it is 1:17. That is tough, particularly when there is all the bureaucracy which we have been talking about. Nevertheless, even at 1:20, we are offering those students an opportunity of personal contact with senior members of staff which does not exist in a typical continental university. That is extremely valuable.
Scientific research is another area where Britain is good, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, made quite clear. Indeed, we excel at it disproportionately for our size. So there is a secret there.
The tutorial system is a secret of the success of our teaching. What is called the dual-support system has been the success of our scientific research. That dual-support system provided two things: first, the surety of core funding with which to employ scientists long-term; and in addition, the specific funds for specific projects
1710
through the research councils. The combination of those two has led to an excellence of research in this country which is seldom matched elsewhere.
Sadly, that system has been under gross strain over the past 20 years. Nevertheless, Britain remains outstanding in the production of scientific knowledge. Recent research by my own unit, the Science Policy Research Unit, revealed that in 1997, very recently, a typical academic scientist produced an average of 11.2 papers compared with the United States, where the average academic produced only 9.2 papers. Your Lordships may feel that that is not necessarily the right measure by which to look at the productivity of academics, but that is what is being done these days.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, mentioned Sir Robert May, the chief scientist. Sir Robert is very proud of that productivity. Indeed, he goes around demonstrating what good value for money he gets from his scientists. It must be pointed out to him that if you are paying peanut salaries, that helps in value-for-money terms. It looks good in terms of the number of papers that you receive per pound invested. But he is doing rather well. Scientific productivity in our universities is high and we should be proud of that.
Sir Robert May also likes to talk, as does the Prime Minister, of Britain being the California of Europe. Sadly, we are hardly there, not because our universities are not producing the research but because the business sector lets us down. If business does not invest in research and development and employ scientists and technologists, it cannot make use of the science and technology that we produce. You have to be able to understand what our scientists are saying. Unless people understand what is happening with leading-edge science and technology, that cannot be translated usefully for industry. That is where we fall down.
If your Lordships look at the statistics, you will see that in spite of the growth in recent years and the success of the British economy, over the past five years, expenditure by British industry on research and development has fallen and it is employing fewer scientists and engineers now than it was employing five years ago. That is a shocking record.
That research has shown that, as a result, if Britain were a US state, far from being like California, we should be on a par with Virginia and Oregon, hardly the most innovative of American states.
The report then goes on to point out that things have changed over the past two to three years. In particular, the US, Germany, Canada, France, Finland and Denmark have all made sharp increases in their public sector support for science, as, indeed, has the UK. It acknowledges that. It then goes on to quote a recent OECD report which says that the UK's efforts were "less ambitious" than those of other OECD countries. Of course, the UK had an enormous back-log of neglect over the past 20 years to make good.

1711
How then do we reconcile high productivity with low investment? Sadly, the report concludes that much of that high productivity today reflects past investments. The average age of academics in British universities is now 48. It concludes:
"In the current environment of low pay, limited resources, poor morale and casualised labour, the UK researchers may be less productive than their forbears".
I now want to move onto the issue of access about which many noble Lords have spoken in this debate. I fail to understand why the Chancellor was so surprised about the access issue. Over a long period of time, we have had evidence which has linked educational under-achievement with social background. There is no reason why he should be surprised that the 7 per cent of private schools produce 35 per cent of the A-level pupils and 50 per cent of the Oxbridge places.
As many noble Lords have pointed out, the scandal is that so few candidates from our state schools achieve the standards required. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, the problem lies not only with our secondary schools but also with our primary schools.
Britain alone among OECD countries has seen a failing percentage of its GDP devoted to education. In 1992–93, we were spending 5.1 per cent of our GDP on education. Last year, 1999–00, we spent an estimated 4.6 per cent.
The percentage of children in private schools in this country has remained remarkably stable at between 6 and 7 per cent. That they do so much better than the state schools at GSCE and at A -levels can be accounted for by two factors: first, social class; and secondly, the fact that spending per pupil in private schools is approximately double that in state schools. It is £5,500 per pupil in private schools, compared with just over £2,500 in state schools.
If this Government were really anxious to even out the inequalities of social class, one would expect them to spend more rather than less on those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. But what have this Government been doing to make universities more accessible? They have introduced tuition fees and abandoned maintenance grants in favour of loans.
Some noble Lords quite clearly understand that if you come from social classes 3 and 4, mortgages of £70.000 or £100,000, let alone the £300,000 that, some while ago, one would have needed for a house in Notting Hill—you would need a lot more—are beyond belief for most of those people. A fear of debt is very deep within them.
As a result, what have we seen? In England, we have seen a drop in applications. In Scotland, where there are no tuition fees, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, mentioned, we have seen a rise in applications. In addition, with the advent of tuition fees, we are seeing students working many hours overtime.
What is the answer to that? We hear about top-up fees. It would be a supreme irony if this Labour Government, who came to power on the slogan "Education, education, education" ended up
1712
privatising the lot. Yet that is the way they are going. It is all very well for the Minister to say, as she has many a time, that the issues of university salaries and costs are nothing to do with her. As we have heard today, if our universities are to remain top-rank universities in both research and teaching, they must increase their incomes. I gather that less than 20 per cent of the LSE's income now comes from the state It is obvious that going private is an option. But as my noble friend Lord Jenkins pointed out, Harvard and Yale are hardly models to be put forward for equitable access. Do we really want to go down the American Ivy League route?
The answer to Gordon Brown's diatribe against inequality lies in his own hands. He should recognise the logic of the Government's actions 10 date. All the indications of what they are likely to do in the CSR for universities will drive those very universities out of the state sector and reinforce their social elitism.
7.19 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, wish 10 thank most warmly my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking for initiating this debate and, indeed, for making such an outstanding and radical opening speech. Given all that has been said so far, from all sides of the House, it is clear that my noble friend was more than justified in returning to a subject that was debated in this House in December last year.
Perhaps I may also associate myself with the much-deserved compliments that have been paid to the two maiden speakers. I remember how daunting that experience can be. Their contributions added greatly to the debate and we look forward to hearing from both of them in the future.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that he followed the instructions of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to the letter. He will have to be very patient, as indeed will all noble Lords, because it is not for me, as a lowly Member of this House, to pre-empt my colleagues in another place.
It is not possible to cover all the aspects of this subject in the time allowed. Higher education in the United Kingdom is, rightly, admired throughout the world. At its best, our higher education certainly competes successfully with the best in the world. In some ways, the underlying theme of this debate has focused on the degree to which that position can be sustained or even whether that reputation is under threat.
As I said in the previous debate, a country is judged on the quality of its education, and in particular on the quality of its higher education. When my noble friend tabled his Motion for this debate, little did he know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, would address the issue of access to universities in such a damaging way. He very unwisely personalised his comments by drawing attention to a particular student who was about to sit her A-levels. Equally unwisely, he attacked the reputation of Oxford University without first checking his facts. He went on to compound the

1713
problem by engaging his fellow Cabinet colleagues to indulge in various forms of speculative social engineering.
Given all that has been said, the Minister must inform the House today precisely why it was that Mr Brown described what happened at Magdalen College as a "scandal". Despite the fact that Mr Brown claimed that Laura Spence had the best A-level results, the timing of his outburst was not only wrong, but could hardly have been more insensitive. In fact, Laura was about to take her A-levels. The facts are that all 22 applicants for medical places at Magdalen College had 10 starred A grades at GCSE. Anthony Smith, the president of Magdalen, said,
"the interview, which accounts for a quarter of the marks we give candidates, was the part Laura Spence did best. She performed less well in the written test, the test of observational skills and the structured discussion".
He went on to say,
"We were not convinced that she had the necessary potential".
Only five places were available for that particular course and a breakdown of the successful candidates shows that three were women, three were from ethnic minorities and two were from comprehensive schools. Where is the prejudice in that? It is also now clear that, had Laura wished to study medicine, places were offered to her at three fine medical schools: Edinburgh, Newcastle and Nottingham. For Mr Brown to criticise the admissions procedures at Oxford, in ignorance, so publicly and using the most intemperate language, was offensive to those who took so much care to recruit the very best students without prejudice as regards their background. I also think that the headmaster of Laura's school, an adviser to the Government, must accept some blame in this matter.
Sadly, the clock has been turned back to old-style class warfare and the politics of envy which at best serves no purpose at all and at worst belies and devalues the real efforts being made by the universities and others, such as Peter Lampl through the Sutton Trust, to widen access for bright students from all backgrounds.
Time does not allow me to refer to an excellent paper written by Colin Lucas, the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, where he sets out an impressive catalogue of initiatives designed to improve access from state schools. When I read the paper I could feel only anger at the way in which Mr Gordon Brown had wantonly accused a university where the selection process is thorough, impartial and rigorous.
This is not the first time that we have witnessed the Government's antipathy towards Oxford and Cambridge. It was not so long ago that an attack was launched against college fees, which support the tutorial system. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in a largely agreeable interview last week with me on the radio, said it was because Oxford and Cambridge had behaved so badly. Can the Minister tell the House of what precisely were the two universities guilty? Is that the kind of subjective test for funding that we can now expect to be applied by the Government?
1714
Under the 1992 Higher and Further Education Act, the Government are prevented from using grant allocation to punish or, indeed, to reward universities on the basis of criteria used for the admission of students. Many have said that we need more applicants from state schools. While that is true, had there been more applicants for places at Magdalen, and had they come from state schools, there would still have been only five places. Therefore, even more young people would have been disappointed.
Do the Government intend to set a cap on the number of independent school pupils or do they intend to fund additional places at the more sought-after universities? Finally, does the Minister believe that Magdalen College did discriminate unfairly against Laura Spence? If not, the college should receive an apology. Does the noble Baroness think that they will receive one?
It is timely to pose some questions about the purpose of higher education. Has expansion in higher education gone far enough, or has it even gone too far? The present target is, I understand, 50 per cent of the cohort. The Chancellor, the great egalitarian Mr Brown, has even predicted more. Are too many students being accepted with inadequate qualifications and a poor aptitude for their courses of study?
What about the expansion of places in further education? My noble friend Lord Trefgarne developed this point very well when he stressed the need for more high quality vocational education. Is the meaning of higher education being redefined by stealth? Is it the intention of the Government to remove the distinction between further and higher education and to create a form of comprehensive post-16 sector?
Whatever are the merits of the "University for Industry", they do little to promote the understanding of the purpose of a university education when young people with very poor education and skills are recruited from hanging around town centre shopping malls into university. The intention to improve the education of such people is laudable and I support it fully. However, to recruit them into a body called a "university" creates a distortion which only devalues a university education as we know it. I have to say that, over the years, much the same has happened to the word "engineer". These are important issues which must be addressed. They have a direct bearing on quality, standards and the pursuit of excellence.
An observer from the higher education sector who sat in the Gallery during the last debate in December commented that the Minister sounded so sanguine about the concerns expressed during that debate. I agree with that remark. As we all know, students were deceived by the Government over tuition fees in the run-up to the general election. The abolition of maintenance grants, together with the introduction of tuition fees, was compounded by the increasingly bizarre Scottish anomaly and is causing much distress. There have been two reports on this. The first was the Cubie report, referred to by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour. As regards the contribution made by my noble friend, I wonder whether the Minister will be

1715
able to tell the House who will be footing the £50 million costs of the Scottish proposals? Or what will not he funded if that expense is to be met from the normal block grant? Secondly, we have seen the Quigley report.
The fourth-year anomaly has been partially resolved by the Scottish Parliament, although inexplicably the changes for Northern Ireland are not to be introduced until 2002. Why is that? What legislative changes are required to implement those proposals?
However, the matter goes from bad to worse for English and Welsh students. Tuition fees, as an advanced payment, have now been abolished in Scotland and replaced by a postgraduate contribution. This arrangement is to be extended to Scottish, southern Irish and European Union students, but not to English, Northern Irish or Welsh students, even though they are also full citizens of the European Union. The Minister really cannot defend this situation—well, not with a straight face!
This issue was discussed while the then Bill was proceeding through this House. At the time I argued that the greatest unfairness was not that of tuition fees, but the removal of the maintenance grant. Students from the lowest income families now leave university with the greatest burden of debt. There is an irony here. On the one hand, the Government are looking for ways to encourage bright young people from lower income families to go to university, while on the other hand they are actively putting obstacles in their way. In addition to the loss of maintenance grant, the Government have abolished the assisted places scheme. They have waged a malicious war of attrition on grammar schools and the Secretary of State has personally pledged, and subsequently legislated, to outlaw selection by academic ability. However, selection for dance, art, drama, sport, music and technology is acceptable. It is a disgrace and a real blow to our brightest children from poorer homes. What is so unacceptable about academic ability for the purposes of selection?
It is not popular, nor is it in keeping with the courtesies of this House, but it must be said that the degree of hypocrisy shown by the Government is breathtaking when one realises the number of Ministers, including notable Members of this House, who send their children, or indeed went themselves, to the best independent, grammar and grant-maintained schools and Oxbridge colleges and who voted to remove the rungs from the ladder for other bright children.
On a number of occasions I and others have raised the issue of pay in higher education. The Bett report, published some time ago, has been dismissed as being a matter for the universities themselves. However, without some recognition through funding, they are not in a position to respond.
Many eminent people, including vice-chancellors, have warned of a crisis in recruiting the brightest and most ambitious postgraduate students back into
1716
academic life. The brain drain appears to be with us again and, over time, that will have an impact on standards.
The Government have exacerbated the situation considerably for higher and further education by providing more funding for teachers in schools. I say "schools" because a further manifestation of the teachers' pay awards is the anomaly created for non-school teachers, for example, in the Prison Service, young offenders' institutions and hospital schools.
The Bett report made clear that it will be difficult to sustain a world-class higher education system in the United Kingdom. Some spending commitments arising from the comprehensive spending review have already been announced. Therefore, today would be an ideal time for the Minister to make some commitment in response to recommendations in the report.
The Minister will almost certainly make reference to the record of the previous government, of which I was a member. I shall not argue about there being problems within the sector when we were in government. That is why the Dearing committee was set up with all-party support. Funding and pay were both key issues. It is, however, worth making two more points. First, the Government are now in their fourth year and should be answering for their own record. Secondly, despite cash increases since 1997, the Government are spending only 1.12 per cent of GDP on higher education, compared with 1.23 per cent of GDP in 1979 and 1.19 per cent in 1996–97.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking. His remarks were radical. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. There is much In their call for freeing up the institutions. The noble Baroness the Minister concluded her speech in the previous debate on this matter by saying,
"I do not recognise the rather gloomy picture painted in speeches made by some Members … Nor do I believe that many vice-chancellors, university staff and students would recognise it".—[Official Report, 8/12/99; col. 1358.]
That does a great disservice to many in the higher education sector who are very concerned. I appeal to the Minister to think again about that comment.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on her excellent maiden speech. The comments that she made about confidence and communication ring a great many bells with me and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We want good state schools to ensure that all young people benefit from being helped in that respect.
I should like also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Bernstein of Craigwell on what was, again, an excellent maiden speech. My noble friend rightly drew attention to the work of our art colleges. These colleges are beacons of success and bring in large numbers of students from around the world. I went to a fashion show arranged by one of them only 10 days ago. Some of it was a bit "whacky", but much was of

1717
extraordinarily high quality. It is in such schools that many of our designers are trained. Many are taken up not only in this country but by designer organisations all over the world.
We should all thank the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, for initiating the debate. I always enjoy taking part in debates with him, even when his rhetoric gets a little out of hand as I believe it did once or twice today. As Secretary of State for Education in the latter part of the 1980s and early 1990s the noble Lord was responsible for beginning the largest expansion in higher education places since the Robbins report. It is a pity that the policies of his successors resulted in a stop-start approach to expansion, with the imposition of ceilings on student numbers. We also should not forget that under the previous government funding per student was cut by an extraordinary 36 per cent between 1989 and 1997. That really did tarnish the noble Lord's policy of expansion. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that if there has been a crisis, it has been due to the policies pursued by the noble Lord's successors. In a sense, the noble Baroness admitted that there had been problems.
I always learn something new from these debates. Tonight, I have learnt that Jim Hacker went to the London School of Economics! I cannot recall exactly whether he was there in my time, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, or the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
We have had a good debate covering a wide range of issues. Noble Lords will understand that I shall not be able to cover all the points raised. I shall attempt to focus on the main points. I shall write to noble Lords about the more detailed matters raised in the debate.
I am glad that some of the speeches addressed wider issues of access and funding than the debate that has raged over the past two or three weeks. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for his unduly flattering remarks about me and also for giving credit to the excellent work of our new universities, the former polytechnics. I endorse everything that my noble friend said on that subject.
The Government's vision of higher education is clear. We believe that education makes the most significant contribution to improving the lot of our citizens. Through education people acquire knowledge, skills and attributes that they need in order to make a success of their lives. They can earn more, have more satisfying jobs and gain greater benefit even from their leisure. They can engage more easily in the political, social and moral debates that go on every day in their adult lives. That is true of all phases of education, but it is especially true of higher education. Gone are the days when an undergraduate degree was the reward of the privileged few. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on helping to bring that about. Higher education must serve the nation as a whole, either directly through educating increasing numbers to degree level, or indirectly through providing the skilled people on which the growing knowledge economy depends. I make no apology for using the term "knowledge economy". That is why the
1718
Prime Minister has set ambitious targets to expand higher education yet further so that half our young people will have benefited from higher education by the time they reach the age of 30.
Higher education must be open to all who can benefit from it, irrespective of social class, race, income or the type of school that they attended. Widening participation and opening access mean just that: making sure that no one is prevented from attending university who can benefit from it. That means working on the attainment of all up to age 18. It means making sure that prospective students apply for places and that the admissions arrangements are blind to all factors other than the achievements and potential of prospective students. That must be the basis on which students are admitted.
Many thought that mandatory grants were the key to helping more students from poorer families into higher education; indeed, I believed that myself. The facts are otherwise. The share of places taken up by students from manual backgrounds has remained low. As mandatory grants began to be phased out after 1990, the proportion of students in higher education from the lower socio-economic groups rose from one in 10 to one in six as now. That proportion is still far too low.
That expansion has to be paid for. When higher education was enjoyed by only a few, the taxpayer met the whole bill. Few at the time said that that was unfair but graduates, who have prospects of high earnings, were being subsidised by the general taxpayer, many of whom had not themselves had the benefit of higher education. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, and the noble Earl. Lord Russell, that we have reformed the student support system to provide more and better targeted support to those low income students who need it most. The basic system, I believe, is now fairer to students, their families and the taxpayer. We have provided low-cost loans for maintenance which graduates repay through a new income-contingent scheme which links repayments directly to income. We ask students and their families to make a contribution towards their tuition fees if they can afford it. The fee is about one quarter of the full cost. The contribution is means tested. Those students who come from less well-off families do not pay tuition fees. That applies to one third of dependent students now and that figure will rise to about 40 per cent from next year.
For the first time part-time students, who make up 30 per cent—a growing share—of all students, are now eligible for hardship funds. Those on benefits or low income get their tuition fees paid. This year those on low incomes will also be eligible for income-contingent loans of £500 a year.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that I had once accused him of being a mean-spirited Thatcherite. I do not remember making such an accusation. I remember the noble Lord coming to Birkbeck. There was an excellent discussion over dinner during which he made a splendid speech about the role of Birkbeck. Perhaps I may say to him that my old colleagues at Birkbeck are

1719
absolutely delighted that this Government have at last done something for part-time students. I had asked him to do that; regrettably, he was unable to do so.
There is no evidence to suggest that our arrangements have deterred students from entering higher education, as some noble Lords on the Benches opposite claim. On the contrary, student numbers have increased over the past few years.
To widen access to students from disadvantaged backgrounds we are working with Peter Lampl and the Sutton Trust to expand and develop summer schools for 16 to 18 year-olds in FE and secondary schools. We are introducing opportunity bursaries of up to £1,000. We are also raising the income threshold for the parental contribution from next year which means that a further 50,000 families will not have to meet the costs of tuition fees.
Access and hardship funds are now at around £75 million, not the £45 million quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. They will total £87 million next year which is four times the figure in 1997.
The student support reforms target the maximum support on students from low income families where it is most needed. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brock well, tells me that he wants to pay higher bursaries to low income students to induce them to apply to his college. I fully support such measures, as I support any moves which will improve the chances of the most able state school pupils being able to enter our leading universities. I have already told the noble Lord I would ensure that these new measures did not result in students from low income families paying fees. I was, therefore, a little surprised that he chose to write today an article in the Independent without making that absolutely clear. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue. Where students are in receipt of substantial income their access to government support must be limited. That is a principle long established under successive governments and there is nothing new about it.
I turn to the issue of higher education funding which was raised by a number of speakers. We now spend over £10 billion in the UK on higher education. In 2001–2 higher education will receive an extra £295 million compared with the previous year. That is a cash increase of 5.4 per cent which is on top of an extra £253 million for 2000–1 and £318 million extra the year before that. Of the extra £295 million, over 80 per cent will come from new funding rather than fees. That means that since April 1998 planned funding for universities has increased by just over £l billion in new money, which is an increase in real terms of 11 per cent.
I am not inclined to take any lessons from the Conservatives about higher education funding. Moreover, during the period that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was Secretary of State the percentage of GDP going into higher education was less than it is today. The Government have called a halt to the huge 36 per cent cut in funding per student which was experienced under the previous government. We have implemented the findings of the Dearing report and have held the efficiency savings required of the higher education
1720
sector at 1 per cent. I can reassure my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Lockwood that the spending review continues and no decisions have been announced. Reports about efficiency savings of up to 3 per cent are speculation by some newspapers. I can also give my noble friend and others who have taken part in the debate a pledge that I shall fight hard to ensure that the compact that the Government made following the Dearing report is adhered to.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister understand, first, that the message about funding is not coming simply from the Conservative Party; and, secondly, that if the noble Baroness does not heed it a large number of universities will go down the path indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Skiclelsky? I do not think that she wants that any more than I do.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, of course I do not want that. I do not believe that universities will go down the path that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, wishes them to take. Our universities wish to remain autonomous institutions but with public funding. That is the position of the Government.
The noble Baronesses, Lady James and Lady Blatch, mentioned college fees. Perhaps I may reiterate what has been said on a number of previous occasions. The Dearing committee recommended that the direct payment of Oxbridge college fees by DUEL, which amounted to a 40 per cent premium above that provided for teaching in other universities, including other top universities, should be reconsidered. It was considered by HEFCE which recommended that it should be replaced by a different system that more closely reflected the funding of the remainder of the sector. The change is being phased in over 10 years. The reduction will involve no more than 0.2 per cent of the total income of those universities. It is important not to exaggerate the impact of those changes.
I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, about foundation degrees. I was extremely surprised by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. Those degrees will accomplish the very thing she wants: they will promote diversity in the sector, play a vital role in developing our workforce and address the skills deficit at the intermediate skills level. It is through these degrees that the Government see the great majority of the further expansion taking place. We will publish a prospectus soon and I shall ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, receives a copy.
A number of speakers commented on intrusive bureaucracy in the way in which our universities are treated and claimed that that was the responsibility of the Government. The Government consider it important that higher education continues to be of the highest possible quality, and I am sure that all noble Lords want to see that, too. However, the arrangements by which teaching quality is checked are not in the hands of the Government but the sector itself. I must make clear that the Quality Assurance Agency is not a government quango but is owned and managed by the sector. Following extensive

1721
consultation, the QAA will shortly introduce a new system for assessing quality which is designed to reduce bureaucracy and minimise burdens which the previous system placed on universities. I am extremely sympathetic to the complaints that many universities have made about that and shall watch closely to see how the new system beds down.
Few speakers said a great deal about research, but I believe that it is an aspect that we should celebrate. University research is a key part of the mission of higher education and is one where we have a reputation for excellence. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, referred to Sir Robert May, Chief Scientific Adviser, who often quotes figures. With 1 per cent of the world's population, the UK carried out 5.5 per cent of the world's research effort and produced 8 per cent of the world's scientific papers, placing us second only to the USA. Our success in this area, low wastage rates and high quality teaching attract many overseas students, especially postgraduates, from around the world, as the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh (who is not in his place), pointed out. In order to sustain world-class university research in an increasingly competitive environment we need to ensure that funding exists and excellence is sustained. That is why the research assessment exercise, which allows research funding to be collective, is so important.
World-class research also depends on world-class facilities and equipment. For that reason, the Government in the previous Comprehensive Spending Review provided, with the Wellcome Trust, an extra £750 million of capital investment over three years through the Joint Infrastructure Fund. That was part of a £1.4 billion package of extra funds for the research base. With these extra resources we are reversing the years of neglect and improving the whole spectrum of research equipment and facilities. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris for pointing that out. I emphasise that that capital funding is in addition to the block grants which universities receive to fund their research staff and facilities—in England alone that amounts to £867 million this year—and the large amounts of public money which universities receive from the research councils and government departments. Following what was said by my noble friend Lord Desai, I say to noble Lords opposite who want to privatise universities that such a move would cut them off from all that funding. Is that really what they want to do?
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Baroness understand that no one wants to do that, but to continue as we are is not an option?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thought that some of the noble Lords opposite did want to do it. I thought that they wanted to free universities from what they saw as a constraint in being publicly accountable for the money that they spend. Perhaps the noble Lord can be brief because we are short of time.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I shall be brief. No one on this side of the House advocated privatising the universities. At most they called for a new compact between the universities and the Government so that the Government would provide adequate funding for the universities to fulfil their proper role.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that was not how the noble Lord's speech came across. I shall read it in Hansard, but I do not believe that he made himself as clear as he might have done. The Government already have just such a compact with the universities and are providing extra funding. I recognise that the universities may want more, and we shall fight for further improvements in the Comprehensive Spending Review.
A number of noble Lords commented on the pay of higher education staff. Our world-class reputation in higher education has been achieved by the quality and dedication of the staff who work in it. They have all contributed to the maintenance of our enviable position. I find it incredible that members of the party opposite are so self-righteous about the issue. During their time in office pay year on year did not increase even to the level of inflation, let alone above it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke about the brain-drain. There has always been some academic recruitment across national boundaries, but I am aware that there are concerns about that. It is being monitored by, for example, the Office of Science and Technology. It has found that there is an inflow of academics to the UK at all levels, including professorial. As I told the House previously, higher education pay is under consideration in the current spending round. I am pleased that the employers, the universities, who negotiate pay have been able to make an above inflation offer this year.
I conclude on the subject of admissions to our universities which was raised by many noble Lords. They spoke about the efforts which top universities, including Oxford, make to broaden the social mix of their students. The Government applaud these efforts. Equally, we must acknowledge, as has the Vice Chancellor of Oxford, that more needs to be done.
I listened carefully to the wise words of my noble friend Lord Plant. It is regrettable that the latest figures show that 65 per cent of young people who gain three A grades at A-level are state-educated, but only 52 per cent of entrants to Oxford come from state schools and colleges. Research carried out by the eminent Professor Halsey at Oxford shows that it is not just a matter of applications; more students with three As from state schools who apply are turned down than students with three As from independent schools. The North report also recognised that, stating:
"Fairness to applicants and fulfilment of the university's mission alike suggest that the proportion of applicants accepted should be closer to the ratio of higher grades at A-level, one-third independent school pupils to two-thirds maintained".
Therefore, the Government and the University of Oxford, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will agree, are thinking on exactly the same lines. We want

1723
to work not only with Oxford but with all the other universities to ensure that students are admitted on the basis of merit.
What is required is a comprehensive attack on under-achievement in our schools so that more young people gain the grades which they need to enter higher education. We need an attack on the relatively low number of suitably qualified young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who apply and on admissions systems which sometimes result in certain categories of applicants doing better than others.
The Government are taking action on a number of fronts, some of which I have indicated. There is much more that I could say—for example, about educational maintenance allowances which are being piloted for 16 to 19 year-olds—but my time is running out. I know that the universities are taking their responsibilities seriously in that respect.
The last time that we debated higher education the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, accused me of being concerned about the gloom and doom that emerged in that debate. I am concerned about it because I believe that we have a great deal to celebrate. I believe that our universities and higher education colleges compare very favourably with the rest of the world in terms of the proportion of young people who go to university, the proportion who manage to gain degrees, the employment of graduates and cost-efficiency. I look at the volume and impact of academic research. We punch above our weight. However, that does not mean that we can be complacent, especially in a world of increasing globalisation and competitiveness. Quality must be maintained and completion rates must not be allowed to decline. Above all, as many noble Lords have said, we must ensure that more students from a wider range of backgrounds benefit from higher education. It is to those ends that our policies are directed.
8 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, on his maiden speech. He brought his knowledge of the arts and media and reminded us of the importance of colleges of art. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on her witty speech and on the demonstration that she is confident and communicates well. I am sure that we shall hear much more from both of them.
This has been an interesting debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. It is an impressive list: four chancellors from Bradford, Leeds, Oxford and Nottingham Universities; two heads of colleges; five former heads of colleges; two former vice-chancellors; and any number of professors. In fact, there were so many professors that at one stage I was reminded of what Lord Keynes said when he was called to be a professor. He said, "I don't want the insult without the emolument". The emolument is what the debate is largely about.
I remind the Government that they have received many warnings tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, spoke of worn-down research infrastructure; the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and my noble friend Lady
1724
James of disgraceful salaries; the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, of signs of strain; and the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, said that Gordon Brown had received a good sand-bagging in this debate and had damaged the reputation of universities in Europe as a result of his action. The Minister should listen to those comments. She should listen to what my noble friends Lord Norton, Lord Renfrew and Lord Hunt, say about the burden of bureaucracy. Those are warnings to her.
I believe that she is in great personal difficulty as a Minister with responsibility for higher education. The funding gap is absolutely enormous. The salaries of academics should rise by between 30 per cent and 40 per cent. There is little point in arguing who is to blame for this situation. We, as Tories, take some of the blame, but the Minister must still achieve an additional £800 million a year in order to return to the level of average funding that obtained in our 18 years of government.
The gap is huge. How will she bridge that gap? How many years will it be before academics catch up? We are not talking about hundreds of millions of pounds; we are talking about billions of pounds. When it conies to the funding gap for research, one should read the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Oxburgh. Ile is the head of our greatest research college; he is at the pinnacle. He said that he is ashamed to invite his peers from around the world to his university. He is ashamed because of his research infrastructure.
This is the knowledge economy for which the Minister is responsible. How much will obtain from the Chancellor? She needs not hundreds of millions; she needs billions of pounds. I do not believe that she has the fire power to take on a disgruntled Chancellor. Therefore, I feel sorry for her because the gap is enormous. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, we cannot go on as we are. Noble Lords have complained of bureaucracy. Bureaucracy becomes so over-burdened because it is determined by state money. My poor noble friend Lord Renfrew must record on a form the percentage of his time that he spends thinking. And so on and so on.
Nothing will be achieved until the universities again become independent and truly autonomous. That will happen, and the Minister should try to devise schemes to move matters along more easily; otherwise, she will come to the House with a very disappointing settlement. She has heard the demands from her own side. Incidentally, only one noble Lord defended Gordon Brown. He should be promoted! The Minister has heard the demands. How will she meet them? The gap is absolutely enormous and thus the slow, slow decline continues. And it is a decline. I urge noble Lords to read again the speeches made today in order to understand the real problem.
I began by saying that there is a crisis. It is a crisis. I said that the universities are a nationalised industry. They have all the weaknesses of a nationalised industry. That is what has been rehearsed in this House today. I hope that the Government will listen. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Horserace Totalistor Board Bill [H.L.]
8.4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The debate will perhaps take place in front of a smaller audience but, I hope, one of just as high quality as that of the numerous academics who seem to be fleeing from the Chamber. I shall let them go, no doubt marking themselves with points out of 10, before I start to consider the Bill.
Perhaps I should begin by saying what the Bill is not about. It is not about who owns the Tote. As your Lordships will remember, the Government's answer to that question from my noble friend Lord Burnham last year was:
"The Horserace Totalisator Board is a non-departmental public body whose members are appointed by the Home Secretary. Technically, it is these appointed [board] members who arc responsible for the assets [owned by] the Tote but they do not actually own the assets".—[Official Report, 10/6/99; cols 1541–42.]
I am delighted to see that one of the members of the board, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is here tonight. Indeed, if anyone owns the Tote at this very moment, it is perhaps the noble Lord. I look forward to his contribution.
In answering at that time, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, went on to say that primary legislation would be required in order to change the status of the Tote and bring it fully into public ownership before any other changes could be made. Your Lordships will remember that the Tote was created by a private Bill that became the Racecourse Betting Act 1928, which amended the 1853 betting Act.
Prior to the question from my noble friend Lord Burnham, the Home Secretary had appointed a steering group to advise him on the Tote. The Minister at the time promoted a report produced by the steering group to justify the claim that the Treasury should benefit from the sale of the Tote. It is hardly surprising that the steering group came to that conclusion because, of its seven members, five were the Home Secretary's own officials from the Home Office and, indeed, one was from the Treasury.
However, events have moved on. Progress was made when on 2nd March this year the Home Secretary announced that the Tote would be sold to a racing trust. That announcement was widely welcomed within racing and I applaud the Home Secretary's decision. There had been quite an argy-bargy within racing as to whom the Tote should go. Finally, the chairman of the British Horseracing Board, Peter Savill, Sir Eric Parker, chairman of the Race Horse Owners' Association, and Peter Jones, chairman of the Tote, were able to come to an agreement about the composition of the racing trust.
In spite of the Home Secretary's decision, I do not entirely accept the logic that the Government own the Tote or are entitled to all the proceeds. However, in the light of the Home Secretary's decision that he intends to sell the Tote to racing for the benefit of racing,
1726
I accept that his decision is in the long-term best interests of racing, provided it is sold or transferred to the racing trust at a reasonable price. As always, the devil is in the detail.
The Government rightly say that transferring the Tote to racing requires primary legislation, first, to clear up the ownership issue and, secondly, to allow the Government to sell or transfer the Tote to a private body. The Government have promised a Bill, but they cannot say when. We know that there is a log-jam of Home Office Bills this Session. Some will have to fall as there are perhaps too many for the timetable. As for next Session, who knows? If there is an election next May, there will be more important Bills on the agenda in the short space of time that may be available, including perhaps at least one from this Session.
Even if the general election is put off for a year, will the Home Office obtain a slot in the busy parliamentary timetable for a racing Bill? As we know, home affairs always take more Bills than any other government departmental interest. There is always a criminal justice Bill in every Session and, as I said, probably in the next Session Bills will be added from this Session. As has happened in the past, there will always be a danger that racing's interest will be bumped to the bottom of the list and, finally, off the list.
Therefore, I come here this evening to try to help the Government by bringing forward a simple Bill to do the job. I believe that a private Bill such as this, even if it is not the Bill that is finally used, can be used to transfer the Tote to racing. It will, I hope, receive support on all sides of the House. The Bill could even make progress in another place should the Government care to pick it up.
I accept that the Government are genuine in their view that they want to transfer the Tote to racing, but two issues concern me. That is why I have brought the Bill forward today. My first concern relates to the Levy Board and its future. The Home Office Minister in another place has suggested that the Government, in reviewing the future of the Levy Board, should consider that review at the same time that any proposals for the Tote are considered. I understand that the Government have decided that the Levy Board should be abolished. Can the Minister confirm that today?
I also understand that the BHB, at the Government's request, is in the process of preparing a plan for the future funding of racing. There seems to be agreement that the Levy Board's central funding role should be transferred to another body, but no agreement yet as to whether that body should be the BHB or some other new entity. However, it is important that the levy is directly transferred for the benefit of racing.
The Levy Board and the Tote are separate issues and should not be linked or confused. To put them together could put back further any timetable for privatising the Tote. There are, of course, obvious links between the two bodies at board level but their functions are totally different. The Levy Board is a

1727
statutory body under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963. It is charged with the duty of assessing and collecting monetary contributions from bookmakers and the Tote, and then with applying those contributions.
In regard to those contributions, the Government's own paper states:
"Applying them for the purposes conducive to one or more of: the improvement of breeds of horses: the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science or veterinary education: and the improvement of racing".
The Levy Board does a good job.
In the past, options for the Levy Board have included abolition, privatisation, contracting out some of its functions, or merger. However, I should point out that the Levy Board could also be dealt with by a private Bill—even an entirely separate Bill from the one relating to the Tote.
My second concern and reason for bringing the Bill forward is that the Government have announced a betting and gambling review. I welcome the fact that a review will take place, as do the racing industry and, by and large, the betting industry. However, the bookmakers' lobby is extremely worried. In particular, bookmakers with shops seem to view any possible extension of betting as damaging to their interests; they are obviously concerned that if betting moves out of shops it will devalue them. But we heard those kinds of claims, for example, when the National Lottery was introduced. It is right that the pools industry suffered. However, it found its feet again and found a market. Although its turnover went down by a considerable amount, its profits went clown by a much lesser amount. Let us not forget that racing is only a part of the betting business. Other sports such as football and cricket attract significant turnover.
Any extension of betting could be very beneficial to racing. A successful betting industry is crucial to racing—it pays, for example, more than £60 million to the Levy Board, while the Tote at the moment pays less than 10 per cent of that figure to the Levy Board, just over £5 million, although that is only part of the Tote contribution to racing, which includes prize money and other support.
The interests of racing and bookmakers are not always mutual and occasionally conflict. The betting industry is concerned about the transfer of the Tote; the Tote is competition and may become a more effective competitor in the future. The bookmakers have lobbied the Government and have claimed, rather interestingly, that the price the Treasury will receive on the transfer of the Tote to a racing trust will be five times less than its real or market value. I do not know how they manage to substantiate those claims, but they have been made. It is certainly a claim that alarms those of us who support the Tote and no doubt it is being studied carefully by the Treasury.
The price is important. If the Tote is to achieve a real return for racing, it cannot be saddled with too high borrowings. Even at a modest sum, the Tote may need outside capital if it is to expand and improve its
1728
product to help fill the funding gap that currently exists in the racing industry. The Tote may well need partners.
The betting industry does and must stick up for its corner; there are sound commercial reasons for it to do so. Its primary duty is to its shareholders—but let us all recognise where it is coming from.
The Tote need not be direct competition. If it sold its rather small chain of betting shops and concentrated on Tote Direct, Tote Credit and its on-course facilities, that would be an improvement and fit in much better with the industry. Equally, all of the betting industry should sign up to Tote Direct and share in the benefits of the monopoly pool. For example, Tote pool betting is not currently available on on-line betting sites; nor, therefore, is it available to an international audience.
The worry that I have had all along is that the Home Office, like all good government departments, will encourage its Ministers to think of tidy solutions. One can see the advice: why use up good parliamentary time to transfer the Tote when legislation may be needed for the abolition of the Levy Board, possibly for new rules for casinos, and for the changes that will be needed following the gambling review. One can imagine the sound, sensible advice. But any delay will damage racing. The bookmakers are all rushing off to establish new off-shore operations; the Tote is not able to do that at the moment.
My Bill offers a way out of the dilemma. I should like the Minister to confirm today that the issues of the future of the Tote, the Levy Board and the gambling review need not be so closely linked. Racing cannot afford to wait. If they are linked, the Government should explain why.
I do not intend to go into the detail of my Bill, except to say that I hope that it is simple and workable. Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to bring the Tote fully into public ownership, and Schedule 1 makes provision for the transfer scheme to achieve this. Clause 2 then allows the Secretary of State to privatise the Tote and gives him power to dissolve it. Clause 4 makes provision for the pension rights of people working for the Tote, which is important and is required to avoid the issue of hybridity.
If the Bill needs amending, we could, of course, have a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading. However, unlike most government Bills that have been brought forward recently, I am rather proud to say—I have to thank the draftsman who helped me—that this Bill has received a clear judgment from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that no amendment is needed to the delegated powers in the Bill, nor to the parliamentary control provided for those powers. I again thank the Private Bill Office for its help in drafting the Bill.
Racing needs the Tote and needs Mt soon. It is constrained in its present form. It is almost 10 years since the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that the Tote should pass to the racing industry. Racing cannot wait another 10 years. My Bill allows it to happen in this Session—it could happen by

1729
November. With government support, we could have the Horserace Totalisator Board Act. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Astor.)
8.18 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, I am a member of the board of the Tote. I declare that interest straightaway. It is a sad commentary on the social decline of the Tote when compared with the great days of the late Lord Wyatt, that the only Lord on the board should be on this side of the House. I think that would have amused Woodrow quite a lot.
The whole House will appreciate the initiative of the noble Viscount in bringing forward this Bill. It has won the support of all three parties in this House, if not en masse. The interest that the noble Viscount has always taken in the Tote is most welcome, as is the stress he laid on the urgency of the legislation.
The outside critic may ask what is the rush; why the hurry? The Tote is doing well; profits last year before contribution to racing and exceptional items were £21 million, which compares with only £10 million five years ago. I honestly believe that the Tote has become a sharper operator; for example, it has a new joint partnership on the Internet, Totalbet, and its highly successful new bets, the Scoop 6 and the Exacta. We were able to bid for Corals when it came on the market last year, although sadly we were not successful. Our credit operation has a reputation with its customers that is second to none, and the Tote will now lay "thick" bets in a way that certainly was not the case a few years ago.
But these successes have been achieved despite being in the public sector and not because of it. The Tote has paid a high price for its public sector status, and the statutory and non-statutory inhibitions on what it does that go with that status. In 1961, when betting shops were introduced, we paid that high price as the Tote was not allowed to compete because, under the legislation, it could not accept fixed odds bets. If that had not happened, today we might be a winner on the high street, not an also-ran. When numbers betting came in with the introduction of the National Lottery, the Tote was denied entry for 12 months because, under the legislation, it could take bets only on sporting events.
Today, we face a similar problem in the form of competition on the Internet. I shall illustrate that with some real figures. Over the past three years, Tote Credit, the telephone arm of the Tote, has been growing by 25 per cent a year, but with tax-free offshore betting available, some of our best clients have left us. Over the past six months business has declined by 3 per cent, and we are not necessarily at the end of the road yet. As a public sector body it is not easy for the board, with the best will in the world, to move as swiftly and as decisively into some parts of this market as can bookmakers.
1730
The Home Office, Ministers and officials—I pay tribute to them—are alert to these problems. They are as helpful as they can be. But by their very nature, public bureaucracies can move only so fast, and so fast is not always as fast as commercial imperatives require. The Home Office has more important fish to fry, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made clear in his speech. A change of ownership would benefit the Home Office just as it would benefit the Tote.
With regard to the form that change should take, first, it seems to me clear that racing should have a major stake in the new Tote. Not only does racing have, as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, pointed out, a claim on the proceeds of the Tote, but it is also clear that there are major synergies between the aims of racing and the Tote, which will mean that if they work in partnership they flourish best. That is an argument against flogging us off to the private sector.
Secondly, we now have a concrete form for this: the so-called racing trust. It will have a punter's representative and I see a natural candidate sitting below the Bar of the House who would be right for that post. As the noble Viscount hinted in his speech, we did not have an entirely clear run in bringing that proposal forward, but in the end it burst through decisively and the judge, the Home Secretary, declared it the winner in his parliamentary Answer in another place on 2nd March. The trust, or company limited by guarantee, as it is more likely to be, should be an effective vehicle to maximise the future profitability of the Tote for the benefit of racing, combining as it does the ownership pressures of the racing industry with an operational board structure that will encourage continued enterprise in a fast-changing, betting marketplace. Personally I believe that provided it is chaired, as I am sure that it should be, by an independent person of high standing, that will work to the benefit of everyone.
Incidentally—the noble Viscount referred to this matter—I do not believe that the bookmakers are right to be scared of this prospect. I know that there have been worries that the trust may be the poodle of the BHB, but the BHB will not be in a majority on the trust and the chairman will be independent. The Tote does not seek special favours; it seeks lively and fair competition.
Finally, perhaps at the risk of importing a certain controversy to the matter of price, I do not disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, when he said that the Government have no particular claim to the proceeds; that is, apart from any of the proceeds which may be attributable of the exclusive right to run the on-course pool. However, a certain realism is needed. I speak as someone who, if I understood the noble Viscount aright, is one of the current owners of this excellent company.
There are two facts. First, the Home Secretary can appoint as many directors of the Tote as he chooses, so if he believes that we are running off with the loot, or disposing of it in some way that he does not like, effectively he can overrule us by appointing others who will not do that. Secondly, the price should not be so

1731
low that a plausible case can be made to Brussels that it should be declared an unacceptable "state aid" to the business. Those two facts alone mean that negotiation is inevitable; negotiation which I am sure will come up with a fair price that also reflects the relatively small part that successive governments have played in the Tote. An amazing amount of Ministers' time was taken up over the late Lord Woodrow Wyatt's reappointment. His glorious reign was extended by successive Home Secretaries until so late in his life.
I should be surprised if the Minister, in his reply, does not refer to some of the ways in which this Bill is imperfect. It does not lay down a new structure for the Tote; it does not deal with the regulation of the pool monopoly, which clearly is necessary; and there are other gaps. However, in no way does that detract from the value of what the noble Viscount has done in bringing forward this Bill. This should be seen as a wake-up call to the Government. The Tote cannot wait for levy board abolition, casino law changes, or for gambling reviews. It needs its freedom now. That way consumers will benefit from sharper competition; racing will benefit from its increased profits; and the country will benefit from a flourishing horseracing industry.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am advised that I too should declare an interest. While there is no family that engages less in pillow talk that mine, my wife is a director of the British Horseracing Board and, as such, I may be considered to have an interest.
In June last year, I asked the Government, as my noble friend has said, a simple four-word question, "Who owns the Tote?" I did not receive, and indeed I did not expect to receive, a simple four-word answer. The then Minister, the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, was at his obfuscating and courteous best. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to be a little more helpful today.
In July, in a later debate, the Minister told your Lordships that the directors of the Tote did not, as I suggested, own it. He said that they were able to direct the assets and the conduct of the business but they were not the owners. More helpfully, he added that there was no reason why legislation should not be introduced to enable it to be sold. That is why we are here today.
I still do not accept that the Government have any right to make money out of the Tote. Nor do I accept the validity of the report of the steering group on which, as my noble friend said, only the chairman of the Tote, Peter Jones, was put in to balance one Treasury representative and four Home Office representatives. The Government have put nothing in so why should they get anything out?
If the Tote is anything, it is an institution, like Stonehenge. In France Pari Mutuel has a monopoly of gambling on horses and it is there that the elder Louis Romanet, its former head, said that an attack on the PMU was like an attack on the French Government. The Tote does not hold quite that position in British
1732
life, but it is nevertheless a major part of it, and, like much of British life, it comes of origins shrouded in the mists of time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, asked my noble friend in July of last year whether it was official Opposition policy that the Tote should be disposed of with no benefit to the taxpayer. This was a good catch-22 situation, but it does beg the question whether the Government have the right to sell something for the benefit of the taxpayer that it does not own. If the noble and learned Lord were here today I should ask him that question back.
Having made the remark, the noble and learned Lord—ignoring the jibe he had just made—said that it would be foolish to treat the Tote as a political football, and complimented my noble friend Lord Astor and myself for not so doing. It is with that in mind that we—and I certainly speak for myself, if not necessarily for my noble friend—have abandoned our sincerely held beliefs that the Government have no right to any money from the Tote. Therefore, we are supporting the Bill tonight, a Bill which assurnes such a right.
It is noticeable how the small number of speakers in this debate are distributed equally among the political parties. We all, I believe, have one thing in mind, which is to help the Tote to get into a position where it can do the maximum good for racing. That, I think we all believe, is to get the Tote into the incontrovertible ownership of a trust representing racing. It would not, surely, be desirable to have it owned by a plc which has to pay out, not racing interests, but shareholders.
That being the case, I hope that the Government will realise that the Bill is intended to help to achieve the aim of selling the Tote for the benefit of all. No doubt your Lordships will give it a Second Reading tonight, but since it will probably be quite simple to run it through the remaining stages in this House, I hope that the Government will act to get it through in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, commented on the imperfections of the Bill. I am sure that it has imperfections. But of course it has the very simple aim of enabling us to start to get the Tote into the correct hands. When we have achieved the passage of the Bill, as I hope we shall, we shall be able to get down to more important matters like working out the price that the racing trust will have to pay.
In common with other noble Lords, I have heard sums of money quoted, both what the Tote has offered and what the Government are believed to want. I do not intend to quote either, although I may say that within the past three-quarters of an hour one of my noble friends in the Bishops' Bar offered to buy the Tote on the spot at the higher rate which I heard quoted as the figure the Government are looking for. I hope I dissuaded him.
Undoubtedly, if the price settled is too low, the bookmakers will complain about state aid. Soil has to be a fair figure, which will enable us all to be happy at the end. I remind the Minister, however, that we have here an industry which is in desperate need of money. If the Treasury is too grasping it will be in no one's

1733
interest. The Government's take from betting tax is dropping due to the growth in offshore, non-tax paying bets. The Tote itself is seeing a fall in its turnover. Its credit business is being beaten up by offshore betting. Unless the Government do something about betting tax—of course this is a totally separate subject—there will be a serious fall in revenue. The Tote itself may well find that it is necessary to go off into warmer waters. It may well there place itself outside the range of the most grasping taxman. It is only necessary to look west to Ireland to discover how the problem can be solved. But, as I have said, that again is another matter.
Meanwhile, will the Minister assure the House that the Government will give the Bill a fair wind and assist it through all its stages in this House and in another place? It is in everybody's interests that that should happen.
8.34 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I have no interest to declare, except that I have been contributing to bookmakers' satchels now for more than 50 years, and sometimes indeed to the Tote. I should also like to say that although it was published in Racing Post today that I am the sponsor of the Bill, I am in no way a formal or informal sponsor of this Bill. That does not mean that I am against the Private Member's Bill. Indeed, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on bringing it to this House so that we can discuss the interesting issues which have already been rehearsed. It is, of course, a probing Bill. It is a Bill that seeks to elicit from the Government some more information following their indication that they are intending to pass the Tote into other hands. I shall be as interested as all other noble Lords to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
At the outset one needs to say something about racing as a whole before one speaks about the Tote. Over many, many years—decades and longer—racing in this country has been, and is, a model for the rest of the world. It is known throughout the world for its variety, for the enthusiasm of those who follow it and for the dedication of those who work in it. That is real dedication because many of those who work at the lowest levels in racing—those, male and female, who look after horses—are extremely badly remunerated for the work that they do. The central problem about our racing has been the continuous lack of adequate and predictable funding. In fact, the engine for funding in racing is, of course, betting, and in this country that engine has developed in a way peculiar to the United Kingdom.
I say at the outset—I shall elaborate on this point in a moment—that the one outstanding asset that British racing has, despite various hiccups, and hiccups in recent times, is its integrity. The integrity of British racing is important because we are dealing with very large sums of money, and we are dealing with a very wide sector of the British public. That integrity has been safeguarded over the years by successive governments, by the Jockey Club and by other bodies.
1734
But it is not good enough that that integrity exists; it has to be seen to exist. It has to be perceived. The perception of what goes on is so important. The perception of the integrity of racing, thankfully, both here and abroad, has been maintained at a very high level, and those bodies which I have mentioned, which include the Home Office, must over many years take a good deal of credit for that.
I know that people talk loosely about how we must get rid of all regulation and why should not people be allowed to do what they want. I do not know whether I am the oldest person here, but I do recall—and I have mentioned this before—that when I first started going racing—which was just after the Second World War when there was that rare hiatus in this regulated integrity that we have because of the war—that for a while we had race gangs operating at Brighton, a place well known to the Minister. That was quickly dealt with and we got back on track again. I do not want to hear anyone again saying that if you free up racing and you free up gambling in this country—and the gambling review body will deal with that—it is not going to attract those kind of elements which will bring down that integrity which racing holds in the eyes of the British public and abroad.
Racing is well served by press and television. Here enthusiasm for racing is enormous. In France, where I go racing fairly regularly, racing is well organised and well run, but no one goes. So far as I can see, one finds there only the international rich and illegal immigrants. Indeed, one day I was talking to a French racing friend of mine—he is a trainer—and I asked, "How do you deal with the heckling that comes from certain sectors of the crowd around the paddock?". They enjoy that at French race meetings. He said, "Thank God for it. I don't care if I'm insulted. It livens things up". In France the scene is steady because of a Tote monopoly and various aspects are better funded. Here, where everyone is keen on racing, we have all kinds of troubles that do not exist anywhere else.
I turn to the Tote itself. I am surprised that neither the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, or the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has sought to define what is the Tote. The Tote is a mixture of pool betting and straightforward bookmaking, betting through betting shops and offices. We all know that the Tote arose because of historical circumstances. All credit to the bookmakers. They were given the opportunity to remain operating. The Tote was brought into existence to give the working man, who was not able to bet in large sums or did not want to bet with bookmakers, an alternative way of betting. But the Tote was always going to struggle against the competition from bookmakers.
For the regular racegoer and the larger punter it has always been an unattractive prospect to bet with the Tote. They prefer to go to bookmakers. The bookmakers say quite rightly that, as it exists at the moment, the Tote does not give choice and does not give value. I think that it gives choice. I am not sure whether bookmakers give value. One can find value if one goes racing every day. Over 50 years I have found it very hard to find value with bookmakers. Recently, curiously, one has been able to find value. The new

1735
pitch arrangements and so on have meant enormous competition among bookmakers. In fact, it has probably been the best period for people to back horses in the history of racing in this country. But that has resulted in the major bookmakers seeing a loss in profit on their turnover.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving way. I should not like him inadvertently to create a wrong impression, as I am sure he does not mean to. As the figures that are before the board each month show, if you put a pound on every horse on the Tote, you win a good deal more than if you put a pound on every winning horse with bookmakers.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, be that as it may, the Tote is very patchy. Obviously, those of us who go to Ascot next week will see enormous returns on the Tote pool. The success of a pool depends on the size of the pool. If you have a big pool, you will get big dividends. You have only to go to Hong Kong to see that operate. Here, you do not often get big pools except at the big meetings. I am not criticising the Tote for its operation of the pool. It has done marvellously. The new Scoop 6 pools are very successful. I give credit for that to the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford, with whom I had various tangles across the Floor of the House. Mr Peter Jones has done a terrific job.
People who read Hansard or find out about this issue from perhaps a radio programme should realise that when we talk of the Tote we are talking about two things which run alongside each other. At the moment, the Tote pool is the poor relation in the operation. My contention is that in the future, because of new technologies, because of global communications and because of interest in pools, the pool need not be the poor relation. All kinds of things may happen over the next few months, rather than years, which could make the Tote operation very interesting. People in other countries may wish to use our pool and our racing. We may get an enormous pool which will be a new engine for funding racing without having to go into this painstaking, boring and painful confrontation every year with the bookmakers via the levy board to get funding for racing.
It was said in the papers this morning that 50 per cent of the top trainers in the country said that, because of the difficulties of staff, borrowing money, bad debts and so one, they would not recommend anyone to go into their business. Money is the main issue. The Tote can reverse the situation. I see the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, nodding. Mr Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, are taking steps to see that these new developments take place. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that we could now make possibly the biggest jump in terms of creating some affluence in racing so that even the prize money could be increased.
I shall not mention prize money. I remember very well the last time prize money was mentioned in the House. We had Lord Hartington upstairs representing the Jockey Club and we had his father, the Duke of
1736
Devonshire, down below. After everyone had been whinging on about the level of prize money, the Duke of Devonshire, in the fashion of a line and distinguished Whig Peer, said, "I don't agree with prize money going up". He said, "If I had yacht, I would not want my sails or my rudder to be subsidised". To an extent I can follow his reasoning. It was an extreme view. But the prize money in racing has already increased quite markedly at the higher levels in the group racing. That is where the group and pattern race structure in this country has helped to channel better funding into the better races. The prize money will take care of itself if we get the basic funding right. All I am saying to the Government is that they must take care to ensure that no stone is unturned in seeing to it that the new technologies are accommodated and new opportunities are not lost.
I have written in my notes, to which I have not referred very much, "shootings in the foot". Those need to be mentioned. I shall mention briefly the things which make me hot under the collar. There is the cost of getting into racecourses and so on, which is exorbitant. It is a rip- off. There are also the racecourses which deal with people who have their backs to the racing and instead are enjoying champagne with their hosts in the corporate entertainment boxes. Newmarket has reached the extreme of ludicrous behaviour in that area and that will now be reversed.
There have been two blips with regard to racing. The first was the appalling handling of the arrest of jockeys and other people connected with racing. It was extremely clumsily done. We have got over that and so I shall not go into it. The second is the integrity of the starting price. That worries the Tote because it deals with this aspect. The starting price is the price at which ordinary punters have their bets settled. Over the years it has been carefully watched and regulated in a way which has been perceived to be fair. What do we have now? We have a most extraordinary situation. We have the new SP Executive. Who is on the SP Executive? The chairman of the SP Executive is Mr Terry Ellis, a man with whom I do not have the honour of being acquainted. I have no reason to believe that he is not a man of the utmost integrity and extremely useful in racing, but he has been employed by bookmakers in the past. He is also director of operations for Satellite Information Services, which beams out pictures to bookmakers. That operation is 40 per cent owned by bookmakers.
How is it possible that racing could have allowed this change? Even if it is run perfectly, even if all these people have become saints overnight and are whiter than white and everything is done at arm's length, the perception is that it is a rap. Those who have been to racecourses and betting shops know how quickly racegoers get the idea that they are being gypped or that someone has pulled a horse. That is the situation here. How could the bookmakers have allowed this to happen? It is so damaging.
I do not expect the Minister to give a detailed answer on this point. I have sprung it on him after he was kind enough to have a word with me before the start of the

1737
debate. But this development has caused monstrous damage to the perception of our racing. It is so short term. I imagine that the bookmakers are now seeing, with the changes, that their returns are likely to be diminished and punters are having a good time. Even if they do not fall foul of these temptations, there is a perception that they will and that the SP will be manipulated.
To me, that goes well beyond the blips that we have had. This is the most dangerous development in racing in recent times. It has to be changed. I hope that punters around the country will clamour for it to be changed, and I hope that I have the support of the Tote in its entirety.
I shall stop now. This is a fascinating debate. I have always loved talking about racing, whether in betting shops, in your Lordships' House or wherever else. I thank the noble Viscount for the opportunity.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we can all agree with the last remark of the noble Viscount. He clearly enjoys talking about the matter, and so do some of the rest of us.
My credentials here are not nearly so impressive as those of my noble friends and other noble Lords who have spoken. But I have had some exposure to the issues. I was until recently—I do not think it counts as an interest any more—chairman for some years of the Horse and Pony Taxation Committee, a joint committee of the British Horseracing Board, the British Horse Society and other bodies. I also had responsibility for a while in government for betting tax when we were able to carry through some assistance with VAT.
I mention that exposure to the issues to give at least some authority to my opinion that my noble friend Lord Astor, supported as he is by Peers of the two largest parties, and to a certain extent by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, has brought forward a useful Bill which could speed up substantially the reorganisation of the Tote in the interests of racing.
It is often frustrating in political life to have sensible reform bogged down by legal and bureaucratic delays over the mechanics. This Private Member's Bill shows the way to unlock those delays in this case and allow the reform to proceed. It clarifies, without prejudging the remaining decisions to be taken. If it helps, I would even be prepared to describe it as modernisation, because the Government seem to like modernisation and to think that if something is modernisation it must appeal, without any other justification for change.
With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I think that it is more than a probing Bill. It is a practical approach to the situation. I shall not follow the noble Viscount in what he said about the starting price, except to say that I have always understood that it was developed by a well-known firm of bookmakers called "Cope" a century or so ago. It was the trust in that firm—no relation of mine, so far as I am aware—
1738
that enabled the SP to develop as it did and become the respected institution, if that is the correct word, that it is.
I was very interested in the attack by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on the public sector character of the Tote, if that is not to misrepresent him. I would have preferred the phrase "statutory character".
The question of who owns the Tote is very important and potentially a very expensive legal question. I am no lawyer, but I have been told—and I think it has the ring of truth—that the Tote's assets are held in trust for the punters. That means that ultimately it is held in trust for those who bet with it, between the time they place the bet and the time the race is run. In many cases that is only a few minutes, and it is very rarely more than a day. Therefore, that is not a very satisfactory basis on which to proceed.
The Home Secretary does not own the assets; he is the trustee for the punters. Given that, it seems to me that the European Union could not in any sense complain about state aid, even if the Government were to give the Tote to the racing trust, or, for that matter, anybody else.
Punters, including punters with the Tote, are not coterminous with taxpayers. They pay tax—they pay betting tax—but they are not the same. Therefore, the view that the Government should pocket the profit on the sale of the Tote is not obvious.
At the same time, like my noble friends, I shall not argue with the situation that we are in. It is a practical situation in which one cannot ask those who bet on the Tote to vote if they happen to have a bet open at the time. I certainly do not press that view tonight.
The Bill makes a useful contribution to unblocking some of the difficulties. It might make a major contribution to avoiding great delay on the subject. I am delighted, therefore, to support it, and I hope that the Government will do so too.
8.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I begin by acknowledging that the Bill is undoubtedly introduced with the very best of intentions. I for one particularly welcome the opportunity it has provided for Members of your Lordships' House to air some of the issues associated with the sale of the Tote.
I have found the debate hugely entertaining. As ever, for someone like me who is something of a novice—no pun intended—it has been a genuine learning experience. I have enjoyed the contribution of every Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken.
The debate conjured up images for me. I now see the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in a trilby at the local Brighton races; the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, in the owners' enclosure; the noble Lord, Lord Cope, taking the taxes at the end of the run; the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, counting the pennies for the Tote; and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, carefully considering the future of the racing industry as we all meet at the

1739
winning post. As I said, the debate has been extremely interesting and I have some very powerful images from it.
We all know that the future of the Tote is of major importance to the racing industry, and of course to those currently working in the Tote. If this evening we do no more than to clarify the situation for them, it will have been time well spent.
In that context, I should like to comment on the Bill and some of the points made in the debate. I wish first to reiterate that the Government fully recognise racing's legitimate stake in the Tote and wish to work with the industry to ensure that its interests are safeguarded. Indeed, we are already doing exactly that. We have announced that a sale to racing is our preferred option for the Tote. I am pleased that there appears to be consensus among those who have spoken that that is the right way forward, but the detailed terms and conditions of such a sale remain to be determined, not because of any dragging of feet or because of bureaucracy or red tape, but because we feel that there are very important issues to be resolved first. Put simply, no matter how much some people may want it, there is no realistic quick-fix option available. To suggest otherwise would represent serious underestimation of what is really involved.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate the situation is to look at the Bill. Where in it are there any references to the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 or to the many provisions therein relating to the operation of the Tote, such as the regulation of horserace pool betting; the terms of the Tote's exclusive licence to operate pool betting; the Tote's powers to authorise others to operate pool betting; the requirement for it to negotiate a separate levy settlement; and finally the fact that its chairman has a guaranteed seat on the Levy Board? All of those issues will need to be addressed in legislation at some later point.
I could go on. But I hope that I have made my point that there is more to selling the Tote than just taking its assets into public ownership and selling them on to racing. Quite simply, that would be unrealistic and leave the job no more than half done. The Government's requirements, as may be expected, are for a piece of legislation that stands up well to scrutiny and properly addresses all the issues. We are not talking here about the price to be paid for the acquisition of the Tote. It is now well understood that that is to be determined by commercial negotiation in the light of circumstances at the time; that has to be the best way forward. This is not a matter of price; it is a matter of principle. To that end the Home Office is continuing to work closely with racing and the Tote itself to make sure that those issues are satisfactorily resolved. There will be no avoidable delay.
But resolving some issues may take longer than some of us would like. I am afraid that cannot be helped. Complex matters like the Tote's exclusive licence on the horserace pool betting and its future regulation demand proper consideration. In addition, because the sale of the Tote involves the transfer of a
1740
public body to a private one, it raises the question of whether state aid is involved, as has been mentioned by Members of your Lordships' House.
Our belief is that we can satisfy the European Commission on that aspect of the sale. But there will need to be formal notification. We shall be referring the sale proposal to the Commission shortly, asking it to give the matter the highest priority. It would be premature to legislate in advance of that clearance. In the meantime, the Tote will continue to operate in an efficient and effective way. "Business as usual" will be maintained, and the Tote's profits will, as its popular slogan suggests, remain in racing.
The Tote is in good hands. Frankly, I am at a loss to see what dire consequences people fear if the sale takes rather longer to finalise than some may have hoped would be possible. We believe it is much better to get it right than to rush it.
Fears have been expressed that linking the Tote to the abolition of the Levy Board may in itself delay the sale. But the Government's view—shared by the British Horseracing Board—is that there is no persuasive reason why the two should not proceed in parallel and to the same broad timetable. The Government favour a single Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that the Government favour a tidy solution; we feel that that would be in the best interests of the industry and I make no apology for that. Taken together, the sale of the Tote and the abolition of the Levy Board represent a coherent strategy for the Government's withdrawal from direct involvement in the administration and funding of horseracing.
Although both organisations have evolved over the years, they share the primary purpose of channelling funds from betting into racing. To differing degrees they have had a hand on racing's purse strings. We take the view that racing no longer needs so many helping hands and, as such, it makes eminent good sense to deal with the two issues together. I suggest also that it is in the interests of the racing industry to he able to draw a line under direct government involvement in its funding. If it is to be in command of its own destiny with the ability to plan properly for the future, then we will do it no favours by withdrawing in a piecemeal fashion.
Having urged racing to adopt a strategic approach, it will make no sense for the Government to do precisely the opposite by treating the Tote as a standalone issue. Naturally, if there were to be some significant or unforeseen delay to either one or the other, then we would have to review that approach. But at the moment we do not anticipate having to do so.
The comprehensive gambling review is now being undertaken for the Government—as i am sure everyone is aware—by Sir Alan Budd and his colleagues. That is running to a longer timetable. But it has never been our intention to postpone the reforms

1741
of the Tote and the Levy Board to await its findings. We do not see those things as being inextricably bound up.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister leaves that point, can he address the issue of casino legislation? Is that for the longer term or is that for the short term, linked with the Levy Board and the Tote?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we see that more as a medium-term issue. It will greatly benefit that sector. We need to liberalise it; that much is clear. But it is not inextricably linked with the future of the Tote.
A number of questions were asked during the course of the debate and I shall attempt to address some of them. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked if I could confirm that the Levy Board will be abolished. I can confirm that and believe I have already made that clear. Our decision to do so was announced at the same time as our decision to sell the Tote.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey made the point of the need for early legislation. We accept that and we are as keen as the current board of the Tote and racing as a whole to see an early sale. That is why we are working closely with all the key stakeholders and carefully consulting them to ensure that we address all the outstanding issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, raised the issue of the price to be paid by racing. I congratulate him on that. I welcome his pragmatic approach. I know that he believes very strongly in the approach that the Government are adopting. We feel it is realistic and that it is the best way forward. I want to ensure that we get the issue of principle right and no doubt he will consider our general approach to be correct.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised one of the most important issues this evening; that is, the integrity of racing in the United Kingdom. It goes without saying that our racing industry does have integrity. We are a long way from the race gangs at Brighton racecourse, Brighton Rock, Graham Greene and all those matters. It is because of that that our racing industry is as well supported as it is; why it is still a spectator sport and still attracts great interest. I played some small part in that in promoting the Labour Race Day at Brighton racecourse.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am pleased with that. It is something we should have more of. I reckon the party that races together works best together.
We need to hang on to and sustain the integrity of racing and any action that we take, such as the sale of the Tote, must reflect that.
We have had a very useful debate this evening. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the initiative that he has taken. This has been very important for us and it is something that will take us
1742
in the general direction of the disposal of the Tote over time. I am not here this evening to give a commitment as regards the timetable in that respect. As I said earlier, this is a matter upon which we need to focus more time and attention so as to ensure that we get it absolutely right. We need to continue the dialogue with the important stakeholders and to conduct our discussions and negotiations with the Commission in Europe.
I am greatly indebted to the noble Viscount for the constructive tone of his contribution. I am most grateful to him for giving me an advance copy of his notes. The spirit that we have discovered in your Lordships' House this evening will serve us well when we bring forward government legislation at some later stage, the aim of which will be to proceed with the sale and disposal of the Tote to the racing industry, where it should rightly rest.
I understand that the Bill has been described a number of times this evening as an effective Bill and, perhaps, as a simple Bill to do a simple job. But, unfortunately, when you subject it to any form of objective analysis, I am afraid that the Bill is probably too simple and, regrettably, would only do part of the job required. Indeed, I believe that I made that case earlier. Having said that, I thank the noble Viscount. We have had a most useful and entertaining debate and one which we have all enjoyed. I wish the spirit of the Bill well, if not the Bill itself.
9.9 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I have been asked to apologise on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, who wanted to be here this evening but was unable to do so. He has asked me to say that he would have supported the Bill. His great concern is that he is afraid that the delay in privatising the Tote would damage it commercially at a time of great technological change. While the uncertainty continues, he believes that the Tote will experience difficulty in raising the capital needed to invest in new technology. I believe that that call was echoed on all sides of the House this evening. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, described it as a "wake-up" call for the Government.
It is entirely clear that any delay will damage the Tote and its ability to compete. For example, the Tote does not know whether or not it can go offshore. Therefore, it will have difficulty in competing with the bookmakers. Another problem is that it does not know whether it can go on-line and offer on-line betting to international punters. As my noble friend Lord Burnham said, we are not here to argue about who should get the proceeds. We all accept the practical decision that the Home Secretary made, providing that the Tote goes to a racing trust.
I was interested to hear the Minister describe the Tote as a "public body" and say that, therefore, the sale would have to be referred to the European Commission. I find that interesting because, judging by what we heard this evening, I do not think that

1743
anyone really knows whether it is a public body; it is certainly not a government body. We know that the Government do not own it: it seems to be floating around in the middle somewhere. Therefore, until the Government have defined exactly what it is, I do not see how we can approach the Commission on the matter.
I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Indeed, his interest in racing is, as always, wide ranging. I look forward to being with him at Ascot next week. He described the debate that I remember well when the Duke of Devonshire said that he thought the prize money should not go up because he (lid not see why anyone should subsidise his hobby. The noble Viscount asked why someone should subsidise a yacht, or something like that. At the very least, I hope that the noble Viscount will make some money and that that will subsidise a pair of new mudguards for his motorbike.
However, seriously speaking, racing does need the money. As has been said, the Tote provides quite a small part of the total money that actually goes to racing, but it is important that we try to fill that gap. I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Burnham and Lord Cope. We are all as one in wanting to see this happen as soon as possible. I can do no better than to conclude the debate with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and say that this is a wake-up call for the Government. I hope that noble Lords will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 2000
9.12 p.m.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I begin by setting this evening's debate in the context of the Government's overall approach to counter-terrorism legislation.
Noble Lords will be aware that this House is currently considering the Terrorism Bill, which will eventually replace the existing temporary provisions of both the prevention of terrorism Act and the emergency provisions Act. That Bill will, we hope, receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. That, however, leaves us with a gap between 1.5th June, when the current provisions of the emergency provisions Act expire, and Royal Assent of the Terrorism Bill. The purpose of this order is to renew the temporary provisions for that period.
Noble Lords will appreciate that, while there has been significant progress in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Belfast agreement, that progress has
1744
been slower than we would have hoped. Regrettably, the agreement has not yet brought a complete end to the terrorist threat.
On both Republican and Loyalist sides, new groupings have emerged determined to destroy the agreement and deny the people of Northern Ireland the chance to build a new and prosperous Northern Ireland. These groups remain small. But sadly their capability is still considerable. The security forces, north and south, continue to use every effort to thwart their attempts to destroy the peace process. This cooperation reflects the determination of both governments to protect the community.
I pay tribute to the continued courage and commitment of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and to the Armed Forces acting in their support. To their credit both the RUC and Armed Forces have carried out their duties with utmost professionalism during the 30 years of violence but at a very high price.
We all hope that the security forces never have to lose another life as a result of terrorism. A sign that progress has been made is that 1999 was the first year for 30 years in which no member of the police or Army was killed in Northern Ireland. A further sign is that today a battalion of the paratroops has left Northern Ireland, reducing the number based there to its lowest level since 1970.
This changing environment means that security policy faces challenges unknown only a few years ago. In the face of a sustained terrorist campaign, the prime need to protect the community from terrorism was widely accepted. Now we need to look both ways. We must and do recognise the very real progress that has been made, and security activity has changed accordingly. Some want this to go further, but we can never forget the forces out there determined to destroy Northern Ireland's chances for peace, who have been responsible at Omagh for Northern Ireland's single worst atrocity of the Troubles.
But equally, we must ensure that our security policy is always governed by the threat level. The Government have an overriding duty to protect the community from threats, from whatever quarter and in whatever form they come.
The emergency provisions Act provides the security forces with powers over and above those in the ordinary law. Consequently, it also has important safeguards.
Independent reviewers provide reassurances to the Government and the public that the powers are used fairly and properly; that persons detained under the terrorism provisions are fairly treated and that both the statutory and administrative safeguards are properly applied.
This evening's debate is particularly informed by the recent report of Mr John Rowe QC, independent reviewer, on the operation of the Act in 1999. Mr Rowe has concluded that the temporary provisions of the EPA should be renewed in their entirety. The Government share that view.

1745
There is also a requirement, and a safeguard, that for the provisions to remain in force they must be reviewed and renewed annually by Parliament. That is the business of your Lordships' House today.
The draft order will continue in force the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 from 16th June 2000 until the Act repeals itself on 24th August. However, as I said earlier, the provisions are likely in reality to cease to have effect as soon as the Terrorism Bill becomes law.
The order will also continue in force Section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998; and Parts III and V of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 in so far as they have effect in Northern Ireland. Together, these provisions provide a wide-ranging package of measures, additional to those contained in the ordinary law, to counter terrorism in Northern Ireland. They have provided a workable legislative framework to allow the police and Army to deter and detect terrorist crime, and to bring those responsible for such crimes to justice.
The Government recognise and are encouraged that the threat of terrorism in Northern Ireland has diminished significantly. The use of the emergency powers has been greatly reduced to reflect changes in the terrorist threat. We hope and expect the threat to diminish to the point where no special Northern Ireland powers will be necessary. But until such times the provisions are vital to deter and detect terrorist crime and to protect the community. I commend the draft order to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for laying the order before the House. I agreed with much of what he said. We on this side of the House believe that all parties in Parliament must be united in the fight against terrorism.
Northern Ireland is experiencing peace of a kind. It is a great statistic that the noble Lord quoted, that not a soldier or policeman was killed in the year 1999. We hope that that will continue.
However, it is also true that the Province is not peaceful; it is not content; it is not relaxed. The majority of people from all quarters and on all sides, I believe, seriously want peace. However, there are extremists on both sides. Terrorism in Ireland has been a way of life for 30 years. There are those who really cannot bear the thought of giving it up and who are still attempting to persuade others to continue. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that we in this kingdom do not drop our guard.
In the meantime this Government, quite rightly in my opinion and our opinion, are tidying up the antiterrorism legislation. They have faced reality. Terrorism—Irish, national and international, whether it be in Ireland, London, the Middle East, on the cybernet, perhaps in years to come in space— would
1746
appear to be here to stay. I hope that the Terrorism Bill that is before this House at the moment will include all the statutory powers that the kingdom needs for protection from terrorism in the future.
I am not an optimist about living in a peaceful world. The world seems to fragment. Terrorists and those who fight, shout and create nuisance, both with violence and in other ways, still, unfortunately, seem to get their way. It is vital that necessary legislation to protect the nation from terrorism—because we cannot defeat terrorism—is enacted in this House in this Parliament. The Terrorism Bill will replace and tidy up all the prevention of terrorism legislation. However, this order will continue the shield of protection that legislation can provide while the new Terrorism Bill is being enacted and while Ireland is still full of weapons and there are, unfortunately, a few hundred people who are still determined, given the opportunity, to use them. I support this measure.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I thank the noble Lord for his support.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security and Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000
9.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the regulations amend principally the Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations to which I shall refer as the DMA regulations. They also amend regulations on claims and payments, child support and industrial injuries.
As your Lordships will be aware, the DMA regulations were made under the powers in the Social Security Act 1998. That Act set up a new decision making appeals system within social security. The regulations provided the detailed framework for an improved decision making and dispute resolution system, a simplified appeal system and the introduction of a modern, accountable appeals service.
The amendments are purely technical and are intended to make changes to the regulations which will improve customer service. They are based on our experience of live running of the DMA system and are all beneficial to clients. So they are technical and benign.
The new processes were first introduced into child support on 1st June last year and extended to social security benefits between 5th July and 29th November on a rolling programme. On the whole the new system

1747
works well and we are already starting to see fewer cases going to appeal and a reduction in the appeals backlog.
The regulations break down into three parts: first-tier decision making, appeals, and miscellaneous. The amendments we are making at first-tier are aimed at securing a more efficient and effective management of the new process. The key changes are, first, a clearer definition of "official error". The original definition had caused confusion for clients. More significantly, there was the possibility of customers being penalised where no penalty was intended. Secondly, there are changes to bridge a payment gap when the Secretary of State supersedes a decision on his own initiative. Thirdly, we are regularising the position on supersessions for disability and incapacity benefits in relation to tribunal and commissioner decisions.
1 turn now to appeals. The amendments—which affect the composition of tribunals, striking-out, decision notices and time limits—are all aimed at improving the service for appellants by streamlining the administration of appeals.
In the final category, the main changes are the tidying up of the decision making process for industrial injury scheme benefits. The amendments are designed to ensure that DMA principles are adhered to and the improvement of the administration of claims when the entitlement is dependent on the award of another benefit. The existing provisions can lead to delays in people receiving their full entitlement. In future, provided people act within a defined time, payment will be made much more promptly and automatically.
The new decision making and appeals arrangements have already had a positive impact on the way both the agencies and the appeals service handle disputes and appeals. However, there is always room for improvement. I am confident the package before your Lordships tonight will help bring about yet more improvement in the service we give to customers. I hope your Lordships will accept the regulations and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th May be approved [19th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining clearly the purpose of the regulations. They are not controversial and I am sure that the Minister will be happy to know that we shall not oppose them.
They were discussed in the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation in the other place, so I shall be brief and restrict myself to two general questions.
The Minister mentioned that the regulations reflect the Government's experience of working with the DMA and are designed to deliver better administrative processes and an improved client service. Therefore, how will the Government measure the success of the new procedures? Will they set a date—for example, six
1748
months after the passage of the amendments—for some sort of report to be given on the effectiveness or otherwise of the regulations?
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall be brief. I believe that reading regulations is probably the answer to anybody's insomnia. I have three questions. First, I associate myself with the idea of keeping this matter under review. I do not know whether six months is the right period, but certainly all these matters must be kept under review. Indeed, one hopes that many of the amendments are the result of a continuing process of review.
Regulation 3 refers to the Social Fund Maternity, Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987. That caught my eye and that of my colleagues. I hope that those regulations have been updated and upgraded. What was the initial figure? When something is set down in legislation it has a nasty habit of staying there for ever. We are all trying to claw back money from the Treasury.
It was pointed out to me that Regulation 10 seems to have been superseded by the current Bill. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that for me.
I have a more substantial disagreement. Regulation 25 refers to the change from one-member tribunals to one legally qualified person. That may be a slight improvement but I should like to register the fact that we do not like the idea of one person sitting as a tribunal.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their constructive responses to these regulations. As I have already said, they are benign, but because they are technical I am grateful that I have been given a certain amount of notice of these points.
Perhaps I may respond, first, to the two queries raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor. He asked how the success of the provisions is to be measured and what forms our evaluation and report will take. He was joined in that request by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. We are evaluating the effect of all the changes that have been made to the provisions covering decision-making during the course of this year. I should say that so far, since we introduced the DMA proposals, the story has been one of good news. The live load of the Appeals Service currently stands at a little over 61,000, down from a load of 140,000 cases in February 1999. Three-quarters of the outstanding cases are under six months old and the average waiting time is 13.7 weeks; that is, under 14 weeks, which is well within the target set by the Secretary of State. In general, the procedures appear to be working very well and are in fact exceeding our expectations.
However, we shall obviously keep this under review. In discharging his commitments under Section 81 of the Social Security Act 1998, the Secretary of State will report annually rather than every six months on the quality of the decisions taken. We shall take account of the effect of these regulations in that report and, if

1749
necessary, note their impact in any particular areas. I believe that covers the two points raised by the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about Regulations 3, 10 and 25. Regulation 3 comments in passing on the social fund payments on maternity benefit and funeral benefit. Although the noble Lord has given me notice of his question, he is slightly cheekily using this to raise a wider point than is dealt with in these regulations; namely, to ensure that there is seamlessness between qualifying benefits and succeeding benefits and how those may affect funeral benefits.
I have not been able to find out what happened long ago as regards funeral benefit, but we know that in 1995, when I served in the Opposition, a limit of £500 was put on funeral directors' expenses. In addition, other legitimate expenses such as the cost of a plot were allowed. In 1997 the figure for the benefit to cover funeral directors' expenses was raised to £600. Other permitted expenses are also allowed. I believe that that demonstrates that we are keeping this benefit under review and that we have raised it rather more generously than the rate of inflation. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
As regards Regulation 10 which covers departures, the noble Lord asked whether those are to be suspended, given the provisions of the current Bill. As he will know, departures in the Bill currently moving through this House are to be replaced by a new scheme of variations. Regulations with respect to variations will be laid before the House for debate in due course. Any details that may concern noble Lords can be discussed at that time.
The third query on the regulations raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, concerned Regulation 25. Again, he has quite understandably used this as a peg on which to raise wider concerns about the success or otherwise of one-member tribunals. The noble Lord will recall from our deliberations on the original DMA Bill that the president of the appeals tribunals deals with their constitution and the appointment of panel
1750
members. The chairman of each individual tribunal is always legally qualified. Tribunals are constituted with one member when the issue is only one of legal interpretation. If, however, a matter concerned, for example, with disability benefit arises where an assessment of physical disability is required, a medical specialist would be attached to the tribunal, thus making it a two-member panel. If the tribunal needed to draw upon financial and actuarial experience, a third member with the relevant expertise would be brought in.
For the nine months for which we have been able to gather statistics—April 1999 to January 2000-a roughly one-third split between three—member, two-member and one-member tribunals were constituted. The child support tribunals largely comprised one member, with male and female lawyers equally represented on them. I asked specifically whether problems had been reported, but I have not been made aware of anything unsatisfactory in the present arrangements for three, two and one-member tribunals. They appear to be working well and we have received no complaints. I had a meeting yesterday with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on a wide range of issues associated with CSA matters and so on. I am sure that if NACAB had any concerns about one-member tribunals it would have raised them at the meeting. It did not do so; I therefore have no reason to think that the system is working less than well. Indeed, the fact that we are able to speed up the appeals, added to the sharp reduction in the backlog, is a testimonial. However, if noble Lords have any reason to be worried about implementation of these regulations, I am always happy to pursue the matter further.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their constructive comments, and particularly for giving me notice on the technical issues that were raised. I hope that in the light of my comments, your Lordships will feel able to support the regulations. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before ten o'clock.

  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body: Recommendations
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body: Recommendations
  Persistent Young Offenders
  Persistent Young Offenders
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  GM Contamination of Oilseed Rape Seed
  GM Contamination of Oilseed Rape Seed
  Cod Fishing Ban
  Cod Fishing Ban
  Pig and Poultry Installations: Pollution Control
  Pig and Poultry Installations: Pollution Control
  Computer Virus: Impact on Government IT Systems
  Computer Virus: Impact on Government IT Systems