Sitting of 20 March 2000

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

    Public Access (Departmental Land)
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: If he will make a statement on progress in providing public access to his Department's land. [113688]
    Angela Smith: What review he has made of the criteria on which his Department allows access to his Department's land. [113697]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): There is a presumption in favour of public access to the defence estate subject to safety, security and operational reasons. Although those have been the overriding factors governing access by the public, we have also taken into account the criteria—which are now in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—of land management, nature conservation and heritage protection as well as the interests of our tenants. Our forthcoming strategy for the defence estate, which is due for publication in June, will be the vehicle for improving the quality, extent and certainty of access to the defence estate.
    Mr. Pickthall: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive reply. Will he nevertheless consider some of the changes that could be made under current legislation? For example, will he consider complaints about Dartmoor, where about 40 firing days every year are not used by the Army, and 60,000 acres can be closed off when only a handful of troops are using a corner of the territory? Does he not agree that an awful lot of efficiency and compromise could be achieved under the present regulations?
    Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Ease of access is clearly one of the main principles that we have in mind, and although we must also be careful about public safety, allowing access wherever possible will be an overriding consideration.
    Angela Smith: I, too, welcome the Minister's answer, but may I push him further? I welcome the current review, but is he aware that in 1986 public rights of way were
    700
    withdrawn from areas of Salisbury plain? Despite that, the Royal Artillery hunt is allowed access to it even when the red flags are flying, although many ordinary ramblers are not—it is still out of bounds for those who want only to walk. Given the unpredictable nature of fox hunting—the fox runs, and the hounds and riders follow—would not it be appropriate to open up access to those who merely want to walk?
    Dr. Moonie: While it remains a legal activity, hunting with hounds is permitted on the defence estate. It is restricted to recognised hunts, and licences are granted only to those that have held such permission previously.
    Mr. Robert Key: Will the Minister confirm that, under clause 26, he will seek to exempt all military training lands from the provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill? Given the severe shortage of training land and the training shortfall, particularly in the Army, when can we expect an announcement on the outcome of the inquiry into the Otterburn range's improvement, which is putting a great deal of strain on the Army's training programme?
    Dr. Moonie: First, the presumption has to be that the public have right of access, but clearly the needs of the service must be taken fully into account in that presumption. Secondly, I am sorry to say that Otterburn is not in my hands.

    Ethnic Minority Recruitment
    Mr. Clive Soley: What proposals he has to increase recruitment from the ethnic minority communities into the armed forces. [113689]
    Fiona Mactaggart: What action has been taken by the Army to tackle race discrimination; and if he will make a statement. [113696]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): In the spirit of our partnership agreement with the Commission for Racial Equality, all three services continue to work vigorously to increase recruitment from ethnic minority communities. Challenging goals have been set, rising to 5 per cent. in 2001–02, and we are beginning to see considerable signs of progress. Along with the other two services, the Army is fully committed to tackling and removing prejudice in keeping with the zero tolerance policy towards racism. A number of other organisations are now consulting our armed forces to learn from that successful approach.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Minister convey my thanks to the members of his Department who organised a brilliant effort by those—mainly non-commissioned officers—who visited various constituencies and came to the White City estate in my area to lead a recruitment campaign? They were from the ethnic minorities and did not dress up any of the problems of racism that are encountered from time to time, but, with enthusiasm and commitment, made it abundantly clear to the young people from the

    701
    ethnic minority communities in my constituency what rewarding careers the Army, Navy and Air Force can offer.
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which reflect those I have heard from around the country on the members of the ethnic minority recruiting team and my experience in meeting them in a number of locations. They are not only fine members of the armed forces, but extremely effective communicators of their message to young people. They are perhaps far more effective than Ministers in that regard because they wear the uniform of the armed forces and are themselves from the community. They have an effective message to put over. They do that extremely well and have a great impact on the youngsters they talk to.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Minister aware that, before the general election, the Commission for Racial Equality was considering a formal investigation into recruitment practices in the armed forces and that there has since been an agreement between the CRE and the armed forces, which Herman Ouseley described as
    a good, ground-breaking model for other employers…?
    Will he say unequivocally that my constituents—many of whom have ancestors from the Caribbean or the Indian sub-continent and family traditions of gallant service in our armed forces—are as welcome to serve in the defence of Britain as people from any community in this country?
    Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. We want to re-emphasise that message. We pay tribute to the long history—two centuries—of involvement in the British armed forces of people from overseas, many of whose families are now in this country. The answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) was important because that is the real-life experience of members of the ethnic community in the armed forces, and that is the message that they are getting across. It is not the distorted vision that is portrayed in the media. It is extremely important that people who hold senior positions and positions of influence in the ethnic community also get the message across that the armed forces is a good career for their youngsters and offers great opportunities to serve this country.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the Minister agree that it is important that we get across the message that there will be no discrimination prior to entry or while people from ethnic minorities proudly serve in our armed forces? Does he also agree that with 18,000 savage cuts in the Territorial Army, there are now fewer opportunities for young people from ethnic minorities who are working to be able to contribute to our armed forces?
    Mr. Spellar: In spite of the fact that we have had the best year of recruitment into the armed forces in 10 years, there are still a considerable number of vacancies. We welcome into our armed forces all those who qualify and wish to serve this country. We are glad that that message is increasingly getting across. As I stressed earlier, we have zero tolerance of discrimination in the armed forces. I emphasise the fact that when one looks into many of the cases that hit the headlines, one discovers that they often relate to events that occurred some years before, and that
    702
    there has since been a sea change in attitudes in the armed forces. That is welcome and is a tribute to the leadership of the senior command and the way in which they have brought that about.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Encouraging the recruitment of people from ethnic minorities into the armed forces is to be welcomed, but will the Minister confirm that there will be no positive discrimination, and that the selection of people from ethnic minorities will be solely on merit?
    Mr. Spellar: I certainly hope that that is the case; indeed, I know it is. That is the view of people from the ethnic community who serve in the armed forces. If the hon. Gentleman has met any of the recruitment teams in particular, he will recognise the high quality that we are talking about. I should make it clear that this policy is not based on political correctness, but is to ensure that we have the widest possible pool of talent from which we can recruit so as to maintain the high quality and high reputation of the British armed forces.

    School Access (Service Families)
    Ms Ann Coffey: What steps his Department is taking to improve access to schools for service families. [113691]
    Charlotte Atkins: What steps his Department is taking to improve access to schools for service families. [113698]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The service families task force has achieved considerable success in improving access to schools for service families. There is reference to service children in the Department for Education and Employment's code of practice on school admissions. The Service Children's Education Agency is now a formal member of, or is in attendance at, 18 local education authority admission forums. Although some families are still experiencing problems, the code has generally improved access to education for service families.
    Ms Coffey: As someone who was brought up in a service family and went to seven different primary and secondary schools, I welcome the Minister's reply, which I am sure will also be widely welcomed by thousands of service families who experience real difficulty in getting access to schools to enable their children to have a decent education. What evidence is there that the new guidance is having an impact?
    Mr. Spellar: Discussions are under way with service families. In the Chester area, which is quite close to my hon. Friend's constituency and where the 1st Battalion of the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire is stationed, all the families have been able to put their children into their school of first choice. We recognise that there are still some difficulties, but progress is being made, and there is a willingness by admissions bodies across the country to understand the particular difficulties

    703
    and necessities that arise because of the requirements of service life and service careers—which my hon. Friend will obviously understand, given her background.
    Charlotte Atkins: I am pleased to hear that progress has been made on this long-standing problem, but does the Minister accept that, because of their mobile life styles, service families also experience difficulties in gaining access to national health service waiting lists and in finding NHS dentists? What progress is being made in that regard?
    Mr. Spellar: The NHS has made provision for extra dental services in areas that we identified as having particular difficulties and containing a large number of service families. The same applies to access to doctors' waiting lists. Those improvements are being achieved by the service families task force, which I chair and whose members include Ministers from a number of other Departments. The task force has focused on difficulties arising specifically from the service life style, and on the responses that other Departments can often make quite easily and effectively.
    We are also examining hospital waiting lists. Some people, especially those with less threatening but often very painful conditions, may be on waiting lists for longer than they and their families are in the relevant location. We are undertaking further work on the jobseeker's allowance, and we have had considerable success in regard to student loans. From September this year, students—even if they have been resident abroad with the armed forces—will have access to loans.
    Ours is a considerable record of success. Not only are we proud of that record, but we believe that it has had a real effect on the conditions experienced by the service families who play such an important part in ensuring the effectiveness of our armed forces.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I welcome the progress made by the service families task force, which is clearly an improvement on that of recent years.
    Does the Minister agree that when men and women leave the armed forces, it is important for them to have access to the services that they need, in the places where they need them? Will he discuss with housing authorities the possibility of those who have served their country being put at the top of housing lists when they return to the local authority areas from which they originally came?
    Mr. Spellar: There is a considerable housing problem, not least because the last Administration encouraged the selling off of so many properties. A number of Army families, in particular, are experiencing difficulties; this applies less to Navy and Royal Air Force families. When we have dealt with the immediate issues, we shall need to explore those difficulties further.
    Once some problems have been solved, others always arise. For instance, the mobile life style of many service personnel causes difficulties with access to credit. I have asked my officials to discuss that with credit organisations. After all, we are talking about people with
    704
    regular incomes and assured careers. We want to ensure that they have proper access to credit, and we are making considerable progress in that regard.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Will the service families task force, whose establishment I welcome, undertake to audit the provision of facilities on bases throughout the United Kingdom? Is the Minister aware that the 1,400 service personnel based at Warminster have access to two playgroups, a creche, a mothers and toddlers group and a youth club, whereas the 7,698 service men at Catterick enjoy no such provision? Is it not time that our service men had equal provision, regardless of where they are based?
    Mr. Spellar: This is almost a case of "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
    If we had uniform provision, we would never make progress. Once we have made progress in some areas, we can see what works and then start to "level up". As I have said, we have made considerable progress, but we regard what we are doing as work in progress. We appreciate that there will be future needs, because of changing aspirations and changing life styles. For instance, far more service wives now work and have careers, and that creates problems for families because of the mobile life style. We are continuing to work on this. We do not think that we have solved all the problems; I merely say that we have made considerable progress.

    Procurement
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: When he last met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss defence procurement. [113692]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has regular meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Cabinet colleagues to discuss a range of defence issues, including procurement.
    Mr. Swayne: Which procurement exercises have been cancelled, deferred or withdrawn during the current Parliament?
    Dr. Moonie: None.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we inherited many of the procurement problems that have been reported by the press from the previous Government? Will he also confirm that we inherited a total overrun cost of £3 billion and an average delay of three years on the top 25 projects? What action is he taking to correct that?
    Dr. Moonie: I can indeed confirm that. Because of smart procurement, we are on track to achieve the £2 billion of reductions in spending on equipment procurement by 2007–08. We aim to achieve that as a result of the defence review. The programme to introduce the new structures and procedures is right on course, with integrated project teams, a new customer organisation in

    705
    my headquarters and a range of new processes. Smart procurement really is a complete overhaul of all aspects of the business of buying and managing equipment.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the immense purchasing power of the armed forces can have a direct effect on the economy of these islands and that, other things being equal, that effect should be borne in mind, not least in the purchase of meat for the armed forces? There is an inability, apparently, to secure home-grown lamb from any competitive source. Surely that can be reversed, and it is possible to purchase lamb from within these islands.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Questions should be about defence procurement.
    Dr. Moonie: With regard to the procurement of beef and lamb, I am doing everything that I can to facilitate the purchase of those materials from British sources.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: In his discussions with the Chancellor, will my hon. Friend ensure that the case is put forward for the Meteor and A400M programmes, on which tens of thousands of jobs in the north-west depend? I realise that finance is always important, and savings of £300 million could come with the Antonov 124–100.
    Dr. Moonie: I cannot comment now on the purchase of the BVRAAM—beyond visual range air-to-air missile—because we are evaluating the bids that we have received from two groups of companies: Matra BAe Dynamics and Raytheon Systems Ltd. However, our assessment will take into account a wide range of factors, including missile performance, cost, technical risk, industrial issues and overall value for money.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I think that the Minister may need to think again about his rather hasty answer to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Surely, last summer, the original C17 leasing contract was shelved indefinitely and the current heavy-lift contracts and projects are all being considerably delayed. Those are just two examples.
    Is it not time that Defence Ministers or perhaps the Chancellor himself—who no doubt imposed the savings—came clean about those efficiency savings? Is it not a fact that the Select Committee, which has a Labour majority, now regards those so-called efficiency savings as thoroughly suspect? When, for example, 65 per cent.—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We want a question to the Minister. We do not want examples.
    Mr. Davies: But if 65 per cent. of the current cost of running a warship goes on salaries, which cannot be arbitrarily reduced, and if, as the Minister himself has acknowledged, all the forces are under strength, those savings will have to come—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I expect Front Benchers in particular to put questions to Ministers and not to hold the House up, as the hon. Gentleman is doing with examples. He should put a question to the Minister.
    Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that those efficiency savings are thoroughly bogus? To get 3 per cent. savings out of the remaining 35 per cent. the Government will have to cut spares, fuel and so forth by 10 per cent. each and every year—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.
    Dr. Moonie: I shall reply briefly, Madam Speaker.
    The decision on heavy-lift capability is a difficult one to make, as we are evaluating several excellent prospects. To get value for money, it is essential that we make a rational decision and make absolutely certain that we are satisfying our armed forces' need for a heavy-lift capability. It takes time to do that.
    On spending, the hon. Gentleman should address himself to the cuts that the previous Administration made prior to the general election.

    Budget
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What recent representations he has received on the level of the defence budget. [113693]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have received a number of representations on the level of the defence budget from a variety of sources.
    Mr. Blunt: The Secretary of State surely knows that the defence budget is wholly insufficient to deal with current commitments and the equipment programme. If it were not insufficient, we would have had a short-term answer on strategic lift last year, and the Secretary of State would have been able to publish the list of targets for efficiency savings—which we are now entitled to believe are cuts. Does he understand that, when he negotiates with the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review, if he fails to obtain significantly greater resources for defence, he will have failed the armed forces and imperilled the future security of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is a considerable expert on the question of defence cuts. When he was special adviser at the Ministry of Defence, he advised on real-terms defence cuts in the order of £1.4 billion. I therefore do not think that he is in any position to give lectures to Labour Members on the subject. However, since he has mentioned the subject, I can tell him that in contrast to the record of the previous, Conservative Government—whom he supported and who cut defence spending by up to a third in the 1980s—the reduction in defence spending under this Government is less than 4 per cent.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Given the indiscriminate and inhumane use of cluster bombs in Kosovo, will my

    707
    right hon. Friend tell me what representations he has had from interested parties to provide extra resources to clear up and de-mine the province?
    Mr. Hoon: I have seen British forces in Kosovo engaged in the very difficult and dangerous task of removing mines and occasionally removing the failed parts of cluster bombs—the bomblets that have a 5 per cent. failure rate. Certainly that is something that they do extremely well. If they can be of assistance to any other organisation, although we certainly look to that other organisation for funding we are certainly prepared to participate where we can.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on the United Kingdom defence budget if the United States, as now appears inevitable, deploys a system of national missile defence? In particular, what are the financial implications for Menwith Hill and Fylingdales? For how long will the Secretary of State decline to state the UK Government's position on the political, military and economic consequences of the deployment of such a system? "I shall think about it tomorrow" may have been good enough for Scarlett O'Hara, but it is not good enough for the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that no decision has yet been taken in the United States on the deployment of national missile defence. Although there have been considerable discussions among NATO Ministers about NMD and its possible deployment, the assessment of the financial implications for the UK—which, after all, is not part of any of the first phase of national missile defence—is not something that need currently concern either the right hon and learned Gentleman or the House. However, I should be entirely willing to discuss that matter should any right hon. or hon. Member suggest a debate or ask a question on the subject.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can the Secretary of State estimate what part of the budget, in the next three or four years, will be used for the design and construction of roll on/roll off vessels and the type 45 destroyer? There is very keen interest in those contracts in the shipyards on the Clyde, and I should like to know whether he has any good news for me.
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend puts together two processes that are being approached in quite a different way. He knows full well that ro-ro procurement is being done according to quite different principles from conventional defence procurement. Those ferries will have the capability of being used not only for military purposes, but—most of the time, we should hope—for civilian purposes, thereby significantly reducing their cost. I therefore cannot at this stage give my hon. Friend precise figures on the contribution from the defence budget. It clearly depends on the extent to which the vessels can be used for civilian purposes.
    708
    The type 45 procurement will be along more conventional lines, although certainly building in the considerable benefits of smart procurement, which have shown so many advantages in relation to the defence budget.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State's budget is falling by about £800 million a year, and the deployments of troops to the Balkans that have taken place and may take place in future have a huge bearing on that budget. Does not the announcement that a battery of artillery armed with surveillance aircraft will be deployed in the area suggest that the need to survey both the area of Mitrovica and south-east Serbia indicates the way in which the Kosovo Liberation Army is beginning to drive decisions here that may impact directly on the budget?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows that all the costs of Kosovo have been provided to the defence budget and that substantial repayments have been made, both in terms of the materiel that has been used and the consequences for our people in the form of long-service allowances and the various extra expenses that they have faced as a result of the deployment. His linking of the two subjects is not particularly helpful.
    I shall refer specifically to the deployment in and around Kosovo of intelligence gathering. It is clear that we should have better intelligence of what is happening in Kosovo, and especially along its borders. That is why the Government have been delighted to assist in providing the extra facility and the extra people who can do the job, to ensure that KFOR can carry out its job of providing security in Kosovo still more successfully.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: First, the right hon. Gentleman is only partially right about the way in which the budget is being funded. The pressures and stresses on his budget from having extra troops deployed in the area create a knock-on effect right the way through. May I draw his attention to the recent words of General Wesley Clark, who has been given to warning the Serbs about their actions in Montenegro. He has gone on to say that that would, if necessary, have drawn NATO in. Has the general consulted the right hon. Gentleman? Are we building plans for future deployments into Montenegro? If so, what effect will that have on British troops? Have we any such plans, or are we simply sliding behind the general?
    Mr. Hoon: There are regular discussions between NATO allies about the security situation in the Balkans. We have made it clear to Milosevic that we would view seriously any sort of interference in the affairs of Montenegro. That is and will remain the position.

    Crisis Relief
    Mr. Graham Brady: How much his Department spent in providing assistance for crisis relief missions in each of the past five years. [113694]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The defence budget does not include specific provision for disaster relief. The prime responsibility for

    709
    overseas crisis or disaster relief lies with the Department for International Development, whose budget is voted by Parliament for that purpose.
    Should my right hon Friend the Secretary of State for International Development request the use of military assets and personnel to assist with overseas relief operations, the Ministry of Defence will investigate urgently whether we can help. If defence resources are employed on such operations, DFID would, in line with well-established Government accounting policy, reimburse the Ministry of Defence only for the marginal cost of providing the assistance.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Could not the resources be more quickly and effectively deployed if the United Kingdom had access to its own heavy-lift capacity? In Mozambique, we had to charter Ukrainian Antonovs for that purpose. Would it not be better if, two years on from the strategic defence review identifying a need for heavy-lift capacity, the Government had done something about it?
    Mr. Hoon: I was almost going to agree with the hon. Gentleman until he spoiled his rather helpful question with his final comments. We agree that it was set out in the strategic defence review that we should have a heavy-lift capacity. I cannot resist the temptation to point out that it is a capacity that the previous, Conservative Government failed to provide and one that had to be identified in the strategic defence review. Nevertheless, progress is under way with procurement, and I hope to put him out of his misery quite soon.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State agree that the defence budget should take serious account of humanitarian relief missions to ensure that there is no delay in response to any future disaster, and also that there should be no question of charging other Departments for assistance, as happened with Mozambique? Some outsiders might say that charging a fellow Department for humanitarian assistance in Mozambique is rather like asking for a subsidy from those whose budget is dedicated to providing for the victims of such disasters.
    Mr. Hoon: The difficulty with my hon. Friend's suggestion is that it would lead to the danger of two Departments trying to solve the same problem in different ways. By joining up the approach of both Departments, we ensure that we agree on the appropriate way of providing assistance and that, as in Mozambique, the help reaches the people in need as quickly as possible.

    AWE Aldermaston
    Mr. David Rendel: What plans he has to extend the existing contractual arrangements at AWE until the DTI report on BNFL has been published. [113695]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): As I informed the House on 1 March, existing contract arrangements could be extended or direct MOD management imposed if, for whatever reason, we judge
    710
    that AWE ML is unable to take over responsibility for the management and operation of the atomic weapons establishment as scheduled on 1 April.
    Mr. Rendel: Does not the Minister recognise that employees at Aldermaston and residents in the surrounding area are deeply upset at the delays in coming to a final conclusion? Would not it be far better at least to announce today that the new contract has been postponed until the review of BNFL is published in mid April, to put those residents and employees out of their misery? Would not it be better still to announce that the new contract has been cancelled, given the grossly irresponsible attitude to safety of both BNFL and Lockheed Martin, the two main parties to that contract?
    Mr. Spellar: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes the attitude of sentence first and trial afterwards. As he is fully aware—he alluded to it in his question—an inquiry is taking place. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe has tasked the chairman of BNFL to undertake a thorough review of the company's affairs leading up to its recent difficulties. It would be quite inappropriate to pre-empt the inquiry by making a firm and final decision. That is why, as I said in the House on 1 March, we are keeping our options open—but, unfortunately, we are unable at this stage to announce to the House the outcome of the discussions and inquiries. We must wait until the full evidence is available.
    Mr. Martin Salter: Is my hon. Friend aware that only this morning the company currently managing AWE Aldermaston, Hunting-BRAE Ltd., launched what it believed would be its final annual report on its seven years in charge of the atomic weapons establishment? Does he accept that the continuing uncertainty regarding the future of the establishment and its management regime is damaging confidence in the establishment as a whole? Does he further accept that, in view of the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry report into the disgraceful behaviour of BNFL is not due out until 15 April and the new management arrangements at AWE Aldermaston are due to kick in on 1 April, it is time that the Government made their intentions crystal clear?
    Mr. Spellar: First, I fully understand the concerns of those who work in Aldermaston or live in the surrounding area, represented by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and by my hon. Friend. I fear, though, that my hon. Friend is falling into the same trap as the hon. Gentleman in wishing to predict the outcome of the inquiry into BNFL. We are considering the options. Unfortunately, we have not been able to come to a conclusion before Defence questions today, but by definition there is a requirement to make a decision in the very near future because of the 1 April starting date of the new contract. We are fully aware of that, as well as of the skills and qualities of the work force who will be overwhelmingly the same work force, irrespective of who is managing the contract. As I said, we have a range of options, but we have not yet been able to decide which will be appropriate.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: To what extent are the future contractual arrangements for AWE and its sister

    711
    scientific organisation, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, being influenced by pressure from the Treasury? Given that both organisations are critical to our procurement process and command enormous respect in their co-operative work with the Americans, should not their futures be determined on their merits alone, and not by factors such as a promised £250 million refund to the Treasury?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is tying up two different, although tenuously related, issues. We have to make a decision on the effective management of AWE, and—as he rightly identified—we have considerable links with the United States of America on that. We have also asked for a report from the US on the accident at Oak Ridge and its assessment and evaluation of that. That issue is separate from the public-private partnership with DERA. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have taken strongly into account the effective and mutually beneficial links between DERA and the various Government scientific laboratories in the US. They are very important and a significant part of the special defence relationship between ourselves and the US.
    Other issues need to be explored in connection with the public-private partnership, especially the need to sustain a defence research base in the light of the considerable developments that are taking place in science outside defence establishments. In many cases, defence needs to capture scientific advances from outside defence, whereas previously it was the other way around. We also need to maintain the science base within the defence budget. Those issues are being actively pursued by my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement, Baroness Symons, and we are working closely with the Americans to ensure the best deal for DERA and to maintain the proper scientific relationship.

    Real IRA
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the Army's state of readiness in Northern Ireland in relation to the threat posed by the Real IRA. [113699]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland keep the security situation under constant review. We remain alert to the threat posed by dissident republicans and changes to the security profile are made as and when appropriate. The recently announced withdrawal of about 500 soldiers from Belfast to a rear base in Great Britain is one such adjustment. I would like to take this opportunity to commend, once again, all those who serve in Northern Ireland for their excellent performance in a most demanding role in support of the police.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Did he note that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland evaded answering my question on Wednesday, when I asked him about the Real IRA's acquisition of shoulder-held rocket launchers—just as, incidentally, he managed to evade apologising to the Household Division? What steps is the Secretary of State for Defence taking to protect our service men in Northern
    712
    Ireland, given that the Real IRA is acquiring weapons from the Balkans, including portable rocket launchers, and given that we now learn that people who have been released early from prison in Northern Ireland are joining the Real IRA?
    Mr. Hoon: I have already made it clear that we regard the security situation in Northern Ireland to be of paramount importance. On the hon. Gentleman's specific observation, we obviously do all that we can to block the illegal import of weapons from whatever source and we work closely with the police in achieving that.
    Mr. David Heath: While reviewing the overall security situation in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State take particular care when considering proposals for withdrawal of the Royal Navy Northern Ireland patrol vessels, which I understand have not yet been discussed with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the ability of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Customs and Excise to replicate the valuable work that those patrol vessels currently do?
    Mr. Hoon: Again, we consider any proposals that might affect the security of Northern Ireland very carefully. However, I emphasise that it is ultimately the responsibility of the Chief Constable to determine the level of security that is required. He acts in consultation with the General Officer Commanding and makes appropriate recommendations.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: As the Secretary of State started, quite rightly, with fulsome praise for members of our armed forces who have served in Northern Ireland, will he tell us whether, when he heard the comments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about chinless wonders serving in the Household Division, he contacted him and told him to apologise unequivocally? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has done so in his letter to the Major-General?
    Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, conversations between Cabinet Ministers on a private matter should remain private. As he also knows, my right hon. Friend wrote an apology to the General Officer Commanding, London district of the Household Cavalry, and also expressed his regret publicly in the House.

    Learning Forces Initiative
    Ms Sally Keeble: If he will make a statement on the recent progress of the Government's learning forces initiative. [113701]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): We are making good progress with our learning forces initiative, which introduced a series of measures to enhance opportunities for education and personal self-development of armed forces personnel. Our forces are widely dispersed across the globe, so by using modern information technology-based learning facilities we are

    713
    bringing access to training and education to service people's workplaces, as far as possible regardless of geographical location.
    Ms Keeble: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. Will the scheme be extended to give service personnel more general training in areas such as housing and finance, bearing in mind that ex-service personnel are among the groups most likely to end up homeless and sleeping rough on the streets of our towns and cities?
    Mr. Spellar: The actual figures for the number of personnel who are homeless may well be skewed, particularly in the older age group, by the fact that the majority of them will have undertaken national service. However, we recognise that there are some difficulties and we are in discussions with other Departments to deal with that.
    I take my hon. Friend's point on improving basic skills—that is part of the programme. It is a flexible programme, enabling individuals to develop their skills and, equally importantly, to acquire the certification that gives them portable skills to take back into civilian life after they have finished serving with our armed forces.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that retention is a problem for the armed forces, and that the learning forces initiative can have a positive part to play? Will the Government consider extending NVQ2 to the forces network under this scheme?
    Mr. Spellar: We are looking, in as many cases as possible, at extending certification and proper levels of qualification. That gives objectives for individuals to aim for and provides a discipline within the framework of education. Equally importantly, it provides a benchmark and portable, recognised qualifications that individuals can take with them when they go back to their civilian careers, enabling them to have on-going careers, not just in the armed forces. As the hon. Lady rightly says, that is an important part not only of work within the forces but of retention. My experience and the experience of colleagues in visiting various bases has been that people undertake this enthusiastically, not just in this country but, through the use of modern information technology, at our bases in many areas around the world, even in some that we hope will be temporary.

    RAF Chilmark
    Mr. Peter Brooke: When the RAF vacated RAF Chilmark; and when it envisages disposing of the site. [113703]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): RAF Chilmark closed in 1995. Parts of the site have already been sold, having been cleared of munitions, and it is envisaged that further areas, including the headquarters element of the site, will be
    714
    released for disposal later this year. It is anticipated that the final section of the site will come forward for disposal in 2002 or shortly thereafter.
    Mr. Brooke: That news is extremely welcome. My understanding is that the cost of maintaining the site is of the order of £500,000. The fact that disposal is being brought forward will be welcomed in the neighbourhood.
    Dr. Moonie: It is expensive to maintain such a site—about £490,000 per annum. The total cost of cleaning and preparing the site for sale in accordance with MOD policy over the past five years amounted to 371,460.

    Military Equipment (Charges)
    Mr. Paul Goggins: If he will make a statement on the method used for calculating charges made to other Government departments for the use of military equipment in connection with emergency situations and natural disasters. [113706]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As I have already indicated to the House, where military equipment is deployed on an emergency task that it is another Department's responsibility to fund, the Ministry of Defence—in common with other Departments—calculates charges based on the marginal cost of providing the assistance, in accordance with well-established administration practice and Government accounting principles. That is the amount that would not have been incurred had the relief activity not taken place.
    Mr. Goggins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. This morning, I spoke to a senior member of the team from CAFOD—the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development—which has been working in Mozambique in recent weeks. He described the British Government's response to the catastrophe as "brilliant". Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend agree that now would be a good time to sit down with other Ministers and with representatives of non-governmental organisations to try to make improvements in the way that resources are charged for and allocated, so that we can continue to provide effective support and responses to natural disasters when they occur.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for paying tribute to the excellent work that has been done in Mozambique by British armed forces and by civilians. I emphasise that, with the exception of helicopters from Malawi and South Africa, British helicopters were the first from any other country to help people in Mozambique. That is a tribute to the speed with which the armed forces, in particular, were able to get the helicopters down there in very difficult circumstances.
    Certainly, there are lessons to be learned—as there are from all deployments. I shall follow my hon. Friend's advice and try to learn from that particular deployment.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If everything in the garden about charging for MOD helicopters is so rosy, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why the Secretary of State for International Development criticised the MOD

    715
    on the "Today" programme? She stated that the MOD was proposing to charge far too much for making helicopters available in this crisis.
    Mr. Hoon:: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what my right hon. Friend was saying. She made it quite clear that, in the early phase of the deployment, her priority—rightly—was to secure helicopters that were locally and immediately available. It was only when it became clear that the situation was more difficult and that further helicopters were not available in the region that it became necessary to turn to the Ministry of Defence to obtain helicopters from a great distance and, obviously, at considerable cost.

    European Rapid Reaction Force
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement about the ability of the planned European rapid reaction force to act in instances of natural disaster. [113708]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Although we are not creating a standing European rapid reaction force, European Union member states at the Helsinki summit committed themselves to undertaking the full range of Petersberg tasks and developing the ability to do so rapidly. Those tasks cover a wide spectrum, including humanitarian response to natural disasters.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the aims of future defence strategies would be to get as many people from as many countries to a disaster scene as quickly as possible? I am thinking especially of the earthquake in Turkey last year and of the floods in Mozambique this year. Can he assure the House and me that, in future, he will ensure that full discussions are held with our European partners about the suitability of the rapid reaction force to reach emergencies and disaster scenes as urgently as possible?
    Mr. Hoon: That is one of the explicit tasks that were set out at Petersberg; we are required to fulfil it as part of our contribution to the RRF. I shall certainly take account of my hon. Friend's words and ensure that they are carried out.

    Colchester Garrison
    Mr. Bob Russell: When he expects work to commence on the new barracks at Colchester garrison. [113709]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Subject to successful negotiations, it is expected that work will commence during the summer of 2001.
    Mr. Russell: Will the Minister give an assurance that the Ministry of Defence will comply with both the spirit and the letter of the Deputy Prime Minister's brownfield land disposal and redevelopment regulations when it comes to the disposal of the existing Colchester barracks?
    Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

    Schools (Service Families)
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What steps his Department is taking to improve access to schools for service families. [113711]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ms Coffey) and for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins).
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank the Minister for his earlier replies and point out that they were mostly concerned with United Kingdom service families. Does he accept, as I do, that it is important to look after the needs of service families overseas? Will he also say a word or two about what goes on in Cyprus, and perhaps Belize, to ensure that service families' children receive good education?
    Mr. Spellar: Given the rate at which we are moving through the questions, I am more than happy to say a few words on the latter subject. However, I am also pleased to have the opportunity to draw attention to the excellent work that is undertaken by our schools for service children overseas. For example, at key stage 1, if such schools were treated as a local education authority they would be fifth in the country—and that is behind a number of extremely well-off areas. At key stage 3, they would be fourth, behind three extremely well-placed areas. That is a tribute to the work that is undertaken by our education services, especially given the mobile and sometimes unsettled life style that service families have to face.
    We must ensure that we integrate that work into the educational work here in the UK. That is partly to do with schooling, to which I referred in previous answers, and partly to do with transfers to higher education—in which connection I am very pleased to say that, from September this year, access to student loans will have been achieved, which will be a considerable weight off the minds of many families.

    Shoeburyness Ranges
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What further progress has been made in the disposal and development of the old and new ranges in Shoeburyness. [113713]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Details of the sale of the old ranges and Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness have been announced. I have written to the hon. Gentleman about the outcome; I trust that he has received my response.
    On the question of the new ranges, DERA is now working with SERCO Ltd. to rationalise the estate and introduce new businesses which can co-exist with the continuing range activities. At a public meeting on 8 March 2000, DERA and SERCO put forward their proposals for regeneration of the site to the joint councils of Southend and Rochford. DERA and SERCO will work closely with both councils in preparing a 10-year

    717
    development plan for the introduction of new commercial activities on the site. Public consultation will be a key feature in taking forward any proposals.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the concern in Shoeburyness that the plans for the new and old ranges involve the building of 700 additional new houses when already in the area we have serious traffic congestion and a shortage of public facilities? Will the Minister and his colleagues ensure that the transport problem is resolved before the houses are completed? Finally, can he explain why the bid of £8 million was accepted when a larger bid for only 150 houses, submitted by a local firm, was turned down?
    Dr. Moonie: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, the bid that was accepted was that which was considered to give the Department best value for money. On his first point, the purpose of the detailed consultations that we have held with local councils is to address the very concerns that he is raising, and I trust that they will be resolved before the matter goes any further.

    Serle's House, Winchester
    Dr. Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on the future of Serle's house, Winchester. [113716]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Following a rationalisation study of regimental headquarters and museums in Winchester, a decision was made to co-locate those presently in Serle's house to Upper Barracks. Serle's house is a grade 2 listed building in the centre of Winchester with an attached memorial garden. My Department is keen to obtain best value for this property while ensuring that it and the memorial garden's future are taken fully into account. To achieve that, any open market sale will be subject to prospective purchasers being bound by a restrictive covenant or other legal agreement. This will ensure retention and upkeep of the garden together with rights of access thereto.
    Dr. Lewis: I am very encouraged by the Minister's helpful answer. Is he aware that Hampshire county council is particularly concerned about the future of Serle's house and especially about the memorial garden, which commemorates the lives of those men of the Hampshire Regiment who made the supreme sacrifice for their country? Will he undertake that the Department will enter into discussions with Hampshire county council to ensure the future of Serle's house and the memorial garden once the Ministry of Defence no longer needs them for its specific requirements?
    Dr. Moonie: As far as I am aware, that is part of the process. I shall certainly ensure that that takes place and that the memorial garden is properly safeguarded.

Personal Statement
3.30 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: In accordance with the report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I wish to apologise to the House for breaching the rules on registration of interests and for not observing the principle of openness which the code of conduct requires.
When I was first elected to the House in 1987, I checked with the authorities that income from earnings paid into my firm, Localaction Ltd., did not need to be individually declared in the register. Following the new code of practice, I wrote in 1996 to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to clarify the position.
My outside earnings then developed in such a way that my registry entry was no longer adequate. I ought to have made a comprehensive entry covering all the services that I provide through Localaction, but I did not in fact do so. As soon as possible after the issue was raised with me by the present Parliamentary Commissioner, I amended my entry in the register in accordance with the rules.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
[Relevant documents: The Thirteenth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on The Protection of Field Boundaries, HC 969–I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4200.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
3.31 pm
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Madam Speaker: Order. I had forgotten to mention the fact that there will be a 10-minute limit on the speeches of Back Benchers. [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Minister."] I am afraid that I cannot do that.
Mr. Meacher: The length of my speech will depend on the number of interventions, but I shall try to keep my remarks within a reasonable compass to enable everyone else to speak.
This is an historic Bill. It finally achieves the aims and aspirations of the great post-war Labour legislation, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and it fulfils the yearnings of the British people, expressed often dramatically over the past century, for full rights of access to the beauties of our countryside to which we are all heir. It fulfils the Government's manifesto commitments not only to offer all people greater freedom to explore the open countryside, but—and just as importantly—to strengthen protection of our national heritage. It finally brings to reality the dream of Lloyd George that nobody should be a trespasser in the land of their birth.
There have, I recognise, been several worthy previous attempts to legislate, most notably the Law of Property Act 1925, which granted access rights to urban commons, and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Yet extensive areas of open countryside remain out of bounds to the public. Despite some commendable individual initiatives, the key fact remains that the voluntary approach has delivered relatively little new access over the past 50 years. Indeed, at the rate of expansion by voluntary means over the past 50 years, it would take something of the order of 1,000 years to achieve what we shall achieve through this Bill.
I remind the House that our decision to legislate has been supported by very substantial majorities in the responses to extensive consultations and opinion polls.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The Bill will give the public the right of access to private property. When the right hon. Gentleman was framing the legislation, was he aware of any precedent for giving the public access to privately owned property and land?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman, unusually, was not listening. I said that there are precedents, most notably the Law of Property Act 1925, which granted access rights to urban commons. That was taken further in the 1949 Act

721
passed by the post-war Labour Government, but that Act did not succeed in extending the right of access to all the land that it intended to cover, because it relied on the voluntary method. There are plenty of precedents for what is being achieved today, but the difference today is that we are ensuring that the aspirations behind those earlier Acts will now be brought to fruition.
The Bill is not only about access; we also recognise that it is time to bring our public rights of way system up to date for the first time in many years and to legislate for increased protection of our sites of special scientific interest. We want to prevent further damage to those sites and to redress the effects of the Tory legacy, which has left a large proportion of SSSIs in a serious and degraded condition. We do not intend to stop there. We are also increasing penalties for people who deliberately damage special sites, and we will be introducing the first custodial penalties for wildlife crimes.
On the broader front, we are taking the first step towards the designation of two new national parks, in the south downs and the new forest. They will be the first new national parks in England for over 40 years. We are taking steps to provide better management and protection for our designated areas of outstanding natural beauty, which cover twice the area of the national parks in England. I have already announced that I am more than doubling the funding available for those areas, and soon I will be making a further statement about measures to conserve and enhance those beautiful and important areas.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern to preserve these areas, but has he been to the New forest recently and seen the amount of litter and detritus produced by many visitors? Is he sure that his provisions for greater access to the countryside are compatible with the protection of the countryside?
Mr. Meacher: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that the amount of litter in our country is intolerable. That is not a recent development, and since the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, went around St. James's park putting carefully selected pieces of paper into a plastic bag, the nation has not noticed much improvement in the litter problem. I entirely accept that we need much tighter litter provisions and more stringent application of the law. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to include those measures in the rural and urban White Papers which we shall publish later this year.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the setting up of new national park authorities. Will they include parish council representatives, who were included in national park authorities by the previous Government—a measure that Labour then opposed?
Mr. Meacher: The composition of the authorities for the two new parks has of course to be decided. This is a long process; it will take two or three years to consider planning issues, the parameters of the parks' coverage and
722
the composition of the authorities. I have much sympathy for the idea of parish council representatives on those bodies, but the decision has not yet been taken.
Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the huge welcome that has been given to the Bill in the northern part of England because of access and the resulting enhancement of areas of outstanding natural beauty? Does he also recognise that many landscape features are an essential part of such areas? Will he consider granting features such as dry stone walls special protection under the Bill?
Mr. Meacher: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend, too. Although the matter is not specifically in the Bill, we can consider it in Committee. I accept that the landscape of many areas would be greatly improved if dry stone walls, particularly in the north, the dales and elsewhere, were restored. They are an essential part of the beauty of the countryside and have been neglected for too long.
Mr. James Paice rose—
Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way on the same point, I shall move on because I am not devoting any more of my speech to dry stone walls. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] This subject is very wide and I intend to cover all its main aspects.
I turn to one such main aspect: greater protection for commons. We are consulting on that issue, too, and we shall be considering responses before deciding whether legislation might be needed. Nor are we ignoring the concerns of those who live and work in our rural areas—indeed, far from it. Our rural White Paper, which is being developed in tandem with our urban White Paper, will be published later this year. It will set out the range of our vision for rural areas and how objectives will be delivered. The Bill is of course a key element in that vision, but it is only one part of our overall strategy.
What exactly will the Bill do?
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way on the point about common land?
Mr. Meacher: I shall be coming to the subject of common land, so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman restrain himself until I get there.
Part I will deliver permanent public access to the countryside on a scale never before seen. We will grant a right of access on foot to 4 million acres of mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land—much of which will be opened to the public for the first time in centuries. That amounts to about one ninth of the total land of this country.
Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have a strong impression that he will keep bouncing up and down every few sentences until I do so, and it is better to get his intervention over with quickly.
Mr. Fabricant: If nothing else, the Minister is always concerned about my welfare. He will know that

723
considerable numbers of sheep graze on common land. Does he accept that people unwittingly damage sheep by allowing their dogs to roam free? What steps is he taking to ensure that there will not be increased savaging of sheep by dogs? Has he considered raising the penalties for that terrible crime?
Mr. Meacher: We are extremely aware of the problems that dogs can cause. That is why we are proposing that dogs will have to be on a lead whenever they are in the presence of livestock, and at all times on all land during the March to June lambing and nesting season. If that is still insufficient, there is flexibility for amendment of regulations to extend further restrictions on dogs.
The issue is primarily about access on foot. I am not against dogs, but I intend full protection of wildlife in the open countryside.
Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher: This is the last time I shall give way before making some progress.
Mr. Brady: How close to livestock would a dog have to be in order to be considered in the presence of that livestock?
Mr. Meacher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman can exercise a little common sense. [Interruption.] Perhaps my hope is misplaced, however. It is perfectly clear that if one is approaching a field in which there are livestock, one's dog must be put on a lead. We are talking not about precise measurement, but about common sense. I am sure that if such arrangements do not work, the local access forum, on which landowners and farmers will be fully represented, will raise the issue. If further tighter restrictions are needed, I shall be perfectly happy to sanction them.
Through part I, we shall deliver for walkers and landowners alike greater certainty, clarity and permanence of access. We shall promote inclusiveness, not exclusiveness, by giving everyone the opportunity to enjoy and appreciate our natural heritage. Together with our proposals for modernising the rights of way system, the Bill's provisions represent the most far-reaching—yet, I would insist, balanced—package of measures on recreational public access for decades.
Let me explode a few myths. Rights of access will not apply to developed land, cultivated land or gardens: there is no question of people being allowed to trample over fields of flax, or beds of begonias. Landowners will continue to be able to use and develop their land as they wish—the land remains theirs. Landowners will have the automatic right to close their land or otherwise restrict access for up to 28 days a year for any reason, although they do not have to give a reason; and they will be able to apply for further closures or restrictions for land management reasons.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I understand that there are no rights of access allowed in respect of land that is farmed or gardened, but what about areas of, say, moorland, that are especially sensitive in terms of the
724
wildlife they support—for example, bird breeding sites? Is there any statutory protection that will prevent people from roaming over such land and disturbing the wildlife at sensitive times of the year? The Bill, as drafted, appears to give no firm statutory protection to such areas.
Mr. Meacher: I disagree: the Bill makes it perfectly clear that closures can be imposed. It does not specify the length of such closures, but to protect wildlife, they might well be expected to last the three months from March to June inclusive. There are powers to close land, probably temporarily; however, if it is recommended by the conservation agencies, agreed by the local access forum and supported by the Countryside Agency, a closure could be made permanent. There is no question but that wildlife will be protected. My priority is, through the Bill, to extend rights of access on foot, provided that such access does not damage the interests of wildlife, which must prevail.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister is being most generous in giving way. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is right. Clause 21 states that exemptions are not allowed on Saturday, Sunday, Christmas day or Good Friday, but how are we to tell that to a ground-nesting bird such as a merlin or curlew?
Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood. Clause 21 relates to a landowner's capacity to determine days on which there will be closures, and the weekend is excluded precisely because that is the time when most people are able to visit the countryside. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was speaking of closing land that is otherwise open, the restrictions being imposed to protect wildlife. I insist that those powers are comprehensive and complete within the Bill.
The right of access will be limited. I repeat, access is on foot only, and it is subject to sensible restrictions to avoid damage or harm being done. If people engage in other, damaging activities or breach any of the restrictions, they will forfeit their right to be on the land. I have already explained the provisions relating to dogs.
Another issue of great concern to landowners is occupier's liability—indeed, it was one of the matters pressed most strongly by the Country Landowners Association. We have ensured that occupiers of access land will benefit from a reduction in liability. Their liability towards walkers will be removed in relation to the natural features of the landscape—in other words, if a walker sprains an ankle or breaks a leg, it will be his responsibility, not the landowner's. Landowners' liability will be reduced to that of trespassers in relation to man-made features and activities. That is important for the protection of the landowners' legitimate rights.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Would an old mine shaft that has been disused for a century and a half be considered natural or man-made?
Mr. Meacher: There is already legislation requiring the landowner to protect the top of the mine shaft by

725
fencing it off or capping it, or both. It is essential that that be now done. In respect of mine shafts and also quarries, landowners owe a liability which they must meet.
Mr. Paice: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher: I must make progress. [Interruption.] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later; I see that that is well supported.
We intend that access rights should be managed overwhelmingly by voluntary agreement, through local access forums, which do not appear in the Bill. All the main parties, including of course landowners, will be represented on the local access forums.
I insist that, collectively, the provisions will amount to a substantial and commonsense restriction on the right of access to ensure a proper balance with the interests of landowners, whose interests deserve to be equally respected.
The speed with which people will benefit from the new right of access—that is, when it will come into operation—will rightly depend on how quickly access land is mapped by the Countryside Agencies in England and Wales. Mapping must be done carefully. The Bill provides for a comprehensive procedure but some land, especially registered common land and land above the 600 m contour, can be identified easily. Taking the provisions together, I expect substantial areas of access land to be available within the next two to three years.
Mr. James Gray: The Minister says that access will be available immediately to land over the 600 m contour. Is he aware that access to most land above 600 m will be across other land, which will not yet be mapped? Will he delay access to land over 600 m until the mapping exercise has been completed?
Mr. Meacher: I did not say that access to mountain land over 600 m would be available immediately. I said that that land is most easily mapped, but the hon. Gentleman is right—one must take account of accessibility, which might require a further delay, depending on the circumstances.
Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher: No, I must get on.
The Bill contains two provisions to extend rights of access beyond mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. First, clause 3 permits the Secretary of State and the Welsh Assembly to extend the right by order to coastal land. That reflects a recommendation from the Countryside Agency. I give an undertaking to the House that any order of the Secretary of State to that end will be subject to approval by each House of Parliament, and that no order will be laid until a full public consultation has been carried out and a regulatory impact statement has been prepared.
Secondly, clause 16 is a new power for landowners to dedicate their land to permanent public access in accordance with the Bill's provisions. That is voluntary;
726
there is no question of any compulsion. That power will be available to both public and private sector owners and may be used, for example, to permit access to woodlands.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Minister mentioned the role of the Welsh Assembly with regard to access to land adjacent to the sea coast. Does he accept that in Wales circumstances are somewhat different from those in England, not only with regard to the management function, but with tourism, agriculture, leisure and environment all coming under the National Assembly, and a different body of subordinate legislation developing? Will he re-examine the Bill before Third Reading to see whether it is possible to insert a clause—in line with the commitment given by the Secretary of State for Wales when he addressed the National Assembly before Christmas—to enable us to make modifications to the Bill, as may be deemed necessary from our own experience and needs in Wales?
Mr. Meacher: I am happy to consider the Bill further for that purpose, but I am not sure that it is necessary. It is clearly right for the National Assembly for Wales to exercise powers in Wales similar to those that Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Ministers exercise in England. The National Assembly will be able to exercise all regulation-making powers. I believe that the Bill achieves the right hon. Gentleman's aim; if it does not, I will consider the matter further.
Part II deals with rights of way. Modernising the administration and management of the rights of way system is a natural complement to our proposals for more access to the open countryside. We are proposing radical improvements; we want the system strengthened, developed and brought up to date to respond to the modern-day needs of users and land managers.
There is a growing demand for safe and quiet recreational routes away from busy roads. We want to encourage the creation of new routes and changes to existing routes when there are good reasons for that.
Miss Anne McIntosh rose—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
Mr. Bob Russell rose—
Mr. Meacher: I shall give way in a moment.
We want to extend the opportunities for linear access to users, such as horse riders and cyclists, who would not benefit from our proposals for more access on foot. Local highway authorities will be required to draw up and publish plans to improve their rights of way networks. They will have to take account of the needs of local residents and visitors, including people who experience mobility difficulties. We shall ask those authorities to report to us on their progress.
Miss McIntosh: Has the Minister considered who will be liable for any accidents that happen on the regular access routes? Will the landowner be solely responsible or will the Government make some contribution?
Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Lady is referring to access land, I have made it abundantly clear that the landowner

727
will not be liable for accidents. However, public rights of way are different. Any accidents are a matter for the person who had the accident and the local highway authority. Responsibility depends on the circumstances of the accident.
Mr. Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend happy that the provisions for footpaths are in good shape at this stage, or does he hope that changes will be made as the Bill progresses through the two Houses?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend knows me well. I do not believe that the Bill is simply a cosmetic exercise. Part II, which deals with rights of way, was the last of the four parts to be settled. The matter is complex, and we held an extensive consultation exercise on it. We have already changed our proposals significantly in the light of the consultation to take account of what we genuinely believed to be the good case that was made to us. If others continue to press the case for change in an acceptable way, I am prepared for further changes to be made to the Bill.
Mr. Barnes: Are bridleways included in the provisions for protecting rights of way? They are used by motor cyclists to create mayhem in my constituency, following court cases in which the definitive map has not been treated as definitive by the courts. Can the Bill include a provision to close that gap and to ensure that bridleways are used for the purpose that Parliament originally intended?
Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend anticipates my next point. We are worried about the matter. We do not want to discriminate against scrambler and motor bikes, but we propose to close the legal loophole and prevent the unauthorised use of off-road vehicles on land away from roads. They cause substantial damage and I am concerned—
Mr. Bob Russell rose—
Mr. Meacher: I must make progress, particularly as I want to deal with the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes).
Roads used as public paths—RUPPs, as they are known in the jargon—will be designated as an entirely new class of public highway called restricted byways. Those will offer a public right of way for walkers, cyclists, horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles and will be without prejudice to any pre-existing vehicular rights. Anyone with evidence of those rights will be able to apply, as now, to have a restricted byway reclassified as a byway open to all traffic—which is rather curiously known as a BOAT—with motor vehicular rights. Such evidence will have to be provided, and what I told my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire will apply. Most people do not want the quietness and tranquillity of the countryside torn apart by noisy and extremely obtrusive off-road vehicles being used in a manner for which I believe they were never intended.
Mr. Andrew Hunter: Can the Minister explain why the Government have moved away from the consultation paper proposal that all RUPPs should become restricted byways?
Mr. Meacher: We have not moved away from our proposal—the hon. Gentleman does not recount that quite
728
correctly. The original proposal was that RUPPs would remain as bridleways, although in a limited way. We changed our mind only as a result of the consultation and decided to introduce restricted byways. At present, bridleways can be ploughed up by the landowner and can be gated off, and there were strong objections from cyclists, horse riders and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles that that would limit their access. We believe that that view is reasonable, which is why we made a change to introduce restricted byways. That should assist cyclists and horse riders.
We are also tackling the long-term problem—
Mr. Paice: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Meacher: This must be the last intervention I take for a long time, but the hon. Gentleman has been trying to intervene for a while.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—if only because of my perseverance. May I pursue him on the business of RUPPs, BOATs and, in particular, the restricted byways? He said that it would be open to anyone with historical vehicular use of what will be a restricted byway to have it converted to a byway open to all traffic, but is there not a significant difference between a right of access used to gain access to land further up a restricted byway and its free-for-all use by the four-wheel-drive vehicles that he rightly denigrates? Should there not be protection for the person who wants to take a vehicle up such a route for access purposes; and would not the change to a BOAT create full open-to-all-traffic access and open the route up to the disturbance that he described?
Mr. Meacher: I very much agree. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman caught my words, but I did not say that a person could require that a restricted byway be reclassified as a BOAT. I simply said that he could apply for reclassification. He would have to provide good reasons—it would certainly not be automatic. I very much support what the hon. Gentleman says: there is a great deal of difference between the need for vehicular access further up the byway and charging up and down on motor bikes—all the difference in the world. That would be reflected in the manner in which such an application was taken.
We are also tackling the long-term problem of obstructions to public rights of way. There will be a new right for people to serve notice on local highway authorities to have certain obstructions removed from public rights of way. If the local highway authority ignores the notice, the person can apply to the magistrates court for an order requiring the authority to remove the obstruction. Where someone has been convicted of wilfully obstructing a highway, magistrates will be able to order him to remove the obstruction. That is very important because at present magistrates only have the power to fine offenders, which does not directly address the problem. We are addressing that longstanding problem.
In addition, landowners and occupiers will have a new right to apply to a council for orders diverting or extinguishing footpaths and bridleways on their land and to appeal against the decision if the council refuses. If the

729
council ignores the application—there are many examples of that—after four months the applicant will be able to ask the Secretary of State to direct the council to make its decision.
During the passage of the Bill through Parliament, we intend to introduce proposals to encourage the completion of the record of historic rights of way within 25 years, subject to the provision of adequate resources to complete the task within that time scale. We will also introduce order-making powers for local authorities to divert rights of way where necessary to protect SSSIs, and a power enabling local authorities to make temporary diversions of rights of way for exceptional land management reasons.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: All those complex and constructive suggestions will depend on the expertise in the countryside agencies and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that, before any alterations are made either in MAFF regional offices or in other agricultural civil servant posts, he will closely consult the people most concerned?
Mr. Meacher: Of course. The consultations on the operation of the Bill are interdepartmental. Liaison between DETR and MAFF is much closer than it has been in the past. The joint approach of the Departments on their corporate plans sets a new precedent. They have worked closely on the Bill, on the associated rural development regulation and the agri-environmental measures, and on changing the direction of the common agricultural policy, which is just as important as, if not more important than, the Bill. I certainly intend that joint approach to continue.
Mr. Bill Michie: Under schedule 6 the landowner, the occupier or certain restricted groups can have changes made to rights of way, such as closure, diversion or creation. As far as I understand it, at present more groups can influence those issues. Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that they will not be restricted? If not, can schedule 6 be extended so that users as well as landowners can make applications?
Mr. Meacher: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that, at present, members of the public can apply for the diversion or restriction of a right of way. It is for the council to decide whether to grant such an application. If the council grants it, there can be an appeal. Up till now that right has not extended to the landowner, and in our view it is right that it should do so. If an application is made, the council can be required to reach a decision and not sit on it indefinitely. We are taking a balanced approach between the two sides.
I assure you, Madam Speaker, that I shall be much shorter on part III and shall take fewer interventions. Part III represents a major contribution to delivering the Government's commitment to giving greater protection to wildlife. It strengthens significantly the powers to prevent damage to sites of special scientific interest, while creating the conditions in which those sites can be positively managed.
The Bill will substantially strengthen the powers of the conservation agencies. They will be able for the first time to refuse consent for damaging activities or to withdraw
730
consents already given when damage is occurring, and to serve management notices requiring action to be taken to combat neglect. It is neglect rather than deliberate harm that does so much damage to SSSIs. The agencies will have new powers to enter land when that is necessary for the proper protection and management of sites, and to purchase land compulsorily if, in the last resort, that is the only way to secure the future of a site.
Increased powers require increased accountability. We have therefore balanced the new powers with a more structured approach to discussions about management, including the preparation of management schemes and new appeal procedures for owners and occupiers where rights are curtailed.
Nevertheless, when deliberate damage occurs—and it still does—it is right that penalties should reflect the site's importance. We will increase fines to up to £20,000 in the magistrates courts, and they will be unlimited in the Crown courts. There will be new court powers to order restoration of the damaged special interest when that is practicable, and there will be a new general offence applying to persons who are not owners and occupiers of the land. The Bill will also place specific duties on public bodies to further the conservation and enhancement of sites of special scientific interest, both in carrying out their operations and in exercising their decision-making functions.
Wildlife crime is a growing problem, and we must and will act to deal with it. The Bill will introduce the option of prison sentences of up to six months for most offences under part I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as well as increasing fines for those offences to £5,000. It will also give extra powers to the police and my Department's wildlife inspectors to assist them in the fight against wildlife crime. We are bringing existing legislation up to date by providing stronger powers for enforcers to require tissue samples for DNA analysis. Taken together, the provisions will send a clear message to those who cynically exploit wildlife, or use it for their own personal but selfish enjoyment, that their activities will not be tolerated, and that they will be pursued and punished.
If we wanted proof that the Tory party is still rooted in the squirearchy of the 18th century, its reasoned amendment would provide it. The right of access is described as a "heavy-handed and unjustifiable" infringement of owners' rights, and the compensation as "negligible". In fact, the new right is very carefully limited, as I have made abundantly clear, and there is no significant loss to be compensated. Only an Opposition of this character would think that the environment will be devastated and the rural economy ruined by walking.
Access is claimed to be
in a form which will be damaging to … farmers and will threaten wildlife and conservation sites.
In the tiny handful of cases in which conservation needs will require no access to be permitted, the Bill will enable complete closure of the land.
It is claimed that the improvement to rights of way are insufficient. I can only say that I have heard no sensible proposals for improvements today, or during the extensive consultation period, that are not provided for in the Bill.

731
The Bill, it is noted, does not include measures relating to areas of outstanding natural beauty. I have already announced additional funding for AONBs, which are now being financed at twice the level that we inherited, and I promise to make a statement soon about further measures.
Finally, the amendment repeats the litany that the Bill does not deal with the so-called real rural problems. The Bill is, of course, only part of our overall policy: we are working on many other aspects, not least the forthcoming rural White Paper.
Unlike the Tories, we believe that the countryside should be an asset for everyone, not just those who happen to own substantial chunks of it. The Bill sets a new, historic foundation for the uniting of the interests of all parties—those who live and work on the land, those who want to enjoy access to some of our finest landscapes, and those who are anxious to strengthen the protection of our biodiversity and natural heritage. The Bill provides the framework for that essential co-operation, and I commend it to the House.
4.14 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill because, although it contains worthwhile provisions on protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and wildlife protection, the provisions on access to the countryside impose heavy-handed and unjustifiable infringements on the rights of private property owners, and provisions for compensation are negligible; because it introduces access to "open country" in a form which will be damaging to the interests of hard-pressed farmers and will threaten wildlife and conservation sites which other parts of the Bill are designed to protect; because it fails to provide sufficient improvements in the Rights of Way network which is a more important mechanism for improving access for most people; and because it gives no extra protection to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and misses the opportunity to deal with many of the real problems affecting the countryside in England and Wales.'
The Bill is the product of nearly three years of debate and consultation. It is of intense interest and no little concern to the agricultural and conservationist community, coming at a time of crisis in the countryside that is unparalleled this century. It is a source of regret that the Deputy Prime Minister is not participating—I do not know whether he is back from Brazil yet—especially as the Minister for the Environment announced that the Bill was of historic importance.
A few weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister accused me of being the silent spokesman for the Opposition. He will doubtless come to regret that remark, but his absence today will be taken by the countryside community as an indication of his priorities and the importance that he attaches to the Bill. That must be particularly so, as environment is one of few briefs that he retains directly within his grasp, unlike transport and the regions. It is also a Bill over which he has no conflict of interest, in so far as the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has no particular interest in the countryside.
It is a source of regret that no Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present, reflecting perhaps the detrimental effect that the Bill will have on the agricultural community. However, we recognise that, for the Minister for the Environment, the Bill represents the conclusion of three years of hard
732
work and a longstanding commitment to the countryside and environment. There is no doubting the sincerity of his intentions. I congratulate him on bringing the Bill this far.
We welcome many aspects of the Bill. The first is the protection for sites of special scientific interest. My predecessors as spokesmen are on record as saying that we would support the tightening of restrictions and protection for SSSIs. We will stand by that reassurance. Secondly, we welcome the wildlife protection measures and the greater penalties for wildlife crime, which are much needed. Thirdly, we welcome the provisions on the public rights of way. In some respects, we would like them to be strengthened, but in general we welcome their inclusion.
Despite those welcome elements, overall, it is disappointing legislation. Far from being historic and balanced, it is incomplete, puts forward measures on open access that are heavy-handed and includes aspects that will damage the interests of farmers and conservationists alike: the very people whom it is designed to protect.
The Bill represented a great opportunity to deliver a comprehensive new approach to the rural environment by, for example, introducing a comprehensive framework for protection, including that of areas of outstanding natural beauty. We wait to see what the Minister has to say on that subject, but we see no reason why those protections should not have been included in the Bill.
Mr. Gray: Does not my hon. Friend find it odd that the Countryside Agency, which is, after all, a Government body, is sending briefing to hon. Members headed: "Countryside Amenity and Conservation Bill: Parliamentary briefing on AONBs"? Apparently, AONBs were included in the Bill until a very recent stage, when the agency printed its briefing.
Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is interesting to note that the Countryside Agency is advocating the inclusion of greater protection for AONBs in the Bill. That protection seems to be conspicuously absent.
The Bill provided an opportunity to shift once and for all the balance of protection from intrusive development, particularly house building on the countryside, and to facilitate new partnerships between farmers and people wanting access. By its draconian measures, it has obviated those partnerships and made it more difficult and less likely for them to happen. By all those measures, the Bill comprehensively fails. It is likely to disappoint and to anger in equal part.
More important, the Bill is significant for what it excludes. True conservation depends on the health of the rural economy, which the Bill can only damage. It is a time of crisis for the countryside. It is important that the Bill be seen in the context of what is happening to the rural economy.
Farm incomes have fallen 75 per cent. since the Government came to power. Hill farm incomes are down to an average of £4,500 per annum, which is well below a living income. Moreover, according to the National Farmers Union, the Government are cutting support further by £80 million in the next five years.
The threats to the rural environment are greater than ever. It is ironic that the Bill is being considered within two weeks of the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement

733
that 900,000 new houses will be imposed on the south-east—on the countryside of Sussex, Kent, Surrey and other home counties, which will be irrevocably lost—often on land that is directly adjacent to many areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest, which the Bill was designed to protect. Independent surveys—it is not only our claim—state that 50 per cent. or more of those 900,000 new houses will be built on green fields. That is the consequence of the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement. The damage to the environment and to conservation in that one stroke—in that one announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister—will be far greater than the damage that the Bill is designed to redress.
The proliferation of visual damage to the countryside is accelerating, unhindered by the Government. Ministers are not providing the necessary support and legislation to restrict the growth of visual intrusion, of which mobile telephone masts are only one example. Although the number of such masts is expected to triple in the next 10 years, the Bill contains no provision to prevent, as Opposition Members have advocated, the unsightly siting of mobile telephone masts. The masts are eroding the countryside and reducing the value of the access that the Bill is designed to introduce.
More broadly, the Bill has been introduced in the context of a failure to deal with the consequences of agricultural intensity and the common agricultural policy. It is significant that, this week, the Prime Minister is going to Lisbon to negotiate at a summit at which agriculture will be conspicuously left off the agenda, despite the fact that we are now contemplating a historic enlargement of the European Union, bringing in the agricultural economies of Hungary and Poland to compete with our own. There are intended to be no changes to the CAP's provisions, which are doing more damage to the countryside than any of the other matters that we have discussed today.
The Bill should be seen against the background of a crisis in the rural economy, which the Bill fails to deal with in any fundamental respect. Nor does it go far enough in the spheres of conservation that really matter. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) mentioned AONBs. The Council for the Protection of Rural England stated:
We are concerned that the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver on numerous Government commitments to secure much needed improvements to the protection and management of England's valuable hedgerows, landscape features and AONBs.
That sentiment has been echoed by the Country Landowners Association, the Countryside Agency and other environmentalist groups.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in seven years under the previous, Conservative Government, 158,000 km of hedgerows were grubbed up? Who was responsible for that?
Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are more than fully aware of the problems facing the countryside and the grubbing up of hedgerows. Opposition Members have frequently argued for measures to ensure that that grubbing up ceases.
734
The Bill not only fails to provide at all for AONBs or protection for hedgerows, but underestimates all the costs of its provisions—the cost to landowners and farmers and that to local authorities, when council tax is already rising at three times the inflation rate. According to the Countryside Agency, it will cost £30 million per annum just to deal with the backlog of work on rights of way. According to English Nature, it will cost £20 million per annum to protect wildlife sites. According to the CLA, it will cost £8 million per annum to operate open access.
Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about areas of outstanding natural beauty, does he accept that he could strike a deal now across the Chamber that agreed measures could be added to the Bill, which he would facilitate in Committee? He could get his friends in the other place also to facilitate such measures. How about it?
Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman will know that in the past we have offered to include such provisions in a narrower protection Bill. I shall refer to the aspects of the Bill that are a great deal more objectionable than those to which I have referred. I take the opportunity to welcome a representative of MAFF to the Chamber—the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Let us not pretend that the Bill solves the problems of conservation or access. It does neither, after three years of waiting. It delivers a little when much is needed. It is swimming against the tide of housing and development that has been unleashed by the Deputy Prime Minister, who is absent from the Chamber. It is a piecemeal attempt to address a systemic problem, and it is a sadly missed opportunity.
I move on to the right to roam and open access. Worse than the absence of true protectionist and conservationist measures, the parts of the Bill that we have welcomed are the sugar coating around the damaging provisions of the right to roam. We believe that the right to roam raises a fundamental issue of principle, which is that the state should not confiscate the property rights of individuals without compensation or without regard to the costs to, or the livelihoods of, those who are affected.
It is easy for the Minister to try to characterise those who will be affected as wealthy landowners. He will know that in reality many of these people are small sheep farmers—they are often tenant farmers, not even landowners—and conservationists. These are people who have worked and saved hard to do the right thing for the countryside, for wildlife and for the farming community.
These people, too, have rights. It is for Conservatives to stand up for minorities, whether rich or poor. Conservation is about providing incentives for all who are involved, and not only introducing regulations for the few.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has skedaddled. Perhaps he did not want to ask a question after all.
My hon. Friend will know that all Conservative Members are accused of being landowners and standing up for the big toffs who are similarly landowners. I own less than 0.1 of an acre of this country, so I do not think that I can be accused of being a big landowner. Does he

735
agree that the right to roam is really the delivery of a promise to the old-style socialists, those who envy the fact that someone might have some property that he wishes to protect? Since the inception of the Labour movement, it has always been argued that we must drive away all property. The Minister accused the Tory party of representing landowners, and in so doing he represented the old-style envy of the socialists.
Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic potency. I am sure that no one on either side of the House would accuse him of being a toff.
Conservation is about providing incentives for all who are involved and not only regulations for a few. Unrestricted and open access will send a signal to conservationists and landowners alike not to bother, yet it is important to conserve open access land. It includes many SSSIs and other pieces of land that the Bill is designed to protect and preserve. It cuts against the grain of conservation incentives and the desire of owners to manage land with care for successive generations. It works by regulation and punishment that are entirely disproportionate in a system that is skewed against the landowner in favour of the trespasser and the hooligan.
Mr. Tom King: Is not the real problem that this is not the right to roam but a highly qualified right to roam, with a whole lot of detail, which will be a lawyers' paradise? The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is right: the Countryside Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will find it very difficult to have the information at their fingertips. It is a racing certainty that the general public, who will have heard the phrase "right to roam" in relation to the Bill, will be unaware of all the exemptions.
Mr. Norman: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The sheer complexity of the legislation will make it a lawyers' paradise for years to come.
The Minister could easily have negotiated a voluntary and conservationist outcome before introducing the Bill, but he spurned the opportunity. Contrary to his claim, voluntary access had been increasing steadily and it is clear that, had the right legislation been introduced, that increase would have accelerated, as there was considerable appetite for it in the agricultural and landowning community.
It is no good arguing that the reason for introducing the Bill in this form is that it is popular. The real demand, as demonstrated by Gallup polls organised by the CLA, is for waymarked routes close to where people live. According to Gallup, 63 per cent. preferred waymarked routes to open access; 41 per cent. would use greater access if it were within five miles of where they live; and only 13 per cent. would travel five miles or more to get access to countryside.
It is hard to conclude that the motive for providing open, unfettered access in this form has anything much to do with the countryside or conservation: it has more to do with good old-fashioned, anti-landowners, gut-feel socialist vanity. The Minister once said:
If we don't redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor, what's the point of having a Labour party?
and nobody doubts his sincerity.
736
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) suggested, the problem with the Bill and the open access provisions is not just the principle but the fact that they are incredibly complex and unworkable. The Minister has argued that he has introduced adequate protections in the Bill, notably the 28-day closure period—weekdays only—the reduction in owners' liability for natural hazards and the requirement to keep dogs on a lead for four months of the year. In practice, none of those protections is effective or enforceable with open access, as opposed to restricted access or designated points of access. Without greater provision for practical implementation, those protections will prove so superficial as to be scarcely worth having.
Many points of detail in the Bill are unsatisfactory and will be extremely hard to implement and hard for simple farmers, landowners and others in the countryside to grapple with. They are not lawyers: they are people who want to get on with earning a livelihood, which is increasingly difficult.
Fundamental to our concerns are five basic points. The first is simple injustice: the Bill provides for total inequity of enforcement. If a walker gets it wrong, he is trespassing, and leaves for the day; but if a landowner gets it wrong, he is a criminal. If a walker misses a sign, it is bad luck; but if a landowner leaves the wrong sign up, it is a criminal offence. The landowner who abuses his rights could end up with a heavy fine or even in jail; but the hooligan who abuses his rights is at best off the land until tomorrow.
Furthermore, walkers who trip on a stile or hurt themselves on dry stone walls—presumably not natural hazards—can sue; but the landowner whose wall is destroyed has to rebuild it at his own expense. It is no good arguing that the liability is reduced from what currently exists by the provisions to which the Minister referred. At present there is no open access, so the issue of liability applies only in relation to trespassers.
The whole purpose of the Bill is obviously to increase access and the number of people walking across the land, which will enormously increase costs for farmers and landowners. That will be reflected, at the very least, in their insurance premiums, and in all likelihood in their ability to maintain their livelihoods and restore their walls, which is bound to affect their future appetite for conservationist measures.
Secondly, the Bill provides wholly inadequate protection for wild birds and for hill-farming livestock. Many access areas include SSSIs and many involve remote hill farming, where lambing takes place far away from the homesteads and supervision. The result will be that even towards the end of the lambing season, in June and July, lambs and other livestock will be at risk from roaming dogs and walkers crossing the land.
The 28-day closure provisions are wholly inadequate. They are too short and inoperable. How will people know when they apply, given the fact that access will come from all different directions, not one single point at which signage will be available? How will farmers pay for the costs of signage and information? The Bill is opaque on that point. How will the ewes know not to lamb at weekends or when dogs are around? How will the plovers know not to nest where people will tread?
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge, in all the criticisms that

737
he is making of the Bill, the joy, optimism and hope that is felt by thousands of decent people who want nothing more at the weekends than to get out into the wild places and the freedom of open spaces and to get away from the black tarmac of the supermarket car park?
Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman will know that we already have one of the most extensive networks of footpaths in the world. It has always been the intention, on both sides of the House, to find ways to extend voluntary access, but all the evidence is that demand is for access close to where people live and along defined paths and waymarks.
The Bill's provisions in relation to dogs are especially worrying. Hon. Members will know that many farmers have already expressed great concern about the provisions for dogs to roam freely, and those remain a major threat. Whatever the Minister may claim, requests for dogs to be kept on a leash for four months of the year will be flouted. A recent survey on Saddleworth moor—which is near the Minister's constituency and he presumably knows it well—showed that 66 per cent. of dogs on the moor were running off the lead and 8 per cent. were effectively running wild. How will those dogs know where ordinary moor or mountain land ends and where an SSSI starts? What provision is there to ensure that landowners have the effective ability to keep dogs under control?
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to get round the question of the nesting and lambing season is to say that for that period no dogs should be allowed on the hill at all?
Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and it is clear that the provisions on dogs could be greatly strengthened in several respects. The problem is not only that the provisions are loose, but that people coming on to the land will have no way of knowing when the restrictions apply and in what form, because open access means that they will arrive from many different points and the landowners will not be able to provide proper information.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that similar legislation on access already exists in Germany, Austria, Norway and Sweden. Is he aware of any significant problems in those countries with nature conservation or the impact on wildlife?
Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is ludicrous to compare England and Wales with Norway where the population is much sparser and concentrated in the south. [HON. MEMBERS: "Germany."] The land mass of Germany is more than double that of the United Kingdom. At risk of repetition—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. If the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) is seeking to catch my eye later, she is not going about it the right way.
Mr. Norman: There is already a much greater provision of footpaths and wayleaves in this country than in any of those that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about lambs.
738
My constituency is in the Lake district, and for thousands of years people have spread across the fells. Hundreds of thousands of people go to the lakes every year, yet we do not hear from farmers about problems with their sheep or loss of lambs. In 20 years, I have never had a letter from a constituent complaining about any of the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions. I think that he is exaggerating.
Mr. Norman: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has never had a letter in 20 years from a farmer complaining about damage to lambs. I have managed to break his record in a very short time. One has only to listen to the remarks of the National Farmers Union to realise that this is a credible issue of widespread concern to those who live and work in the countryside at a time of crisis for rural incomes.
Our third major concern about the Bill is that it will be impossible to make any of the protections work without agreed points of access as opposed to open access to the mountain and moorland. Agreed points of entry and exit would at least create a chance to provide marked wayleaves and better information for walkers about how the moor is maintained, its special features, any SSSIs, the wildlife, the behaviour that is expected of them and the enjoyment that they can derive. Such defined points of entry would be better for farmers, conservationists and walkers.
Fourthly, on security and liability, the Minister will be aware of the rising concern about rural crime and the inability of the police, at a time of falling police numbers, to cope. People in the countryside feel helpless when it comes to rural crime and agricultural crime against livestock, horses and equipment. Tighter restrictions on night access and approach to buildings would help address the problem. However, it is a fundamental problem that derives from open and unfettered access, and is of great concern to the agricultural and rural community.
Mr. David Chaytor: I want to comment on crime and link it to the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks about dogs on Saddleworth moor. I live very close to Saddleworth moor; I do not know who conducted the survey, but I assure right hon. and hon. Members that it would be impossible to conduct any accurate survey of the number of dogs on a lead.
I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am one of the people whom my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment mentioned earlier as owning chunks of the countryside. Mine is about 60 sq m, not far from Saddleworth moor, and it has a right of way through it. What does the hon. Gentleman think has caused more damage to conservation over the years—people walking over the countryside or the common agricultural policy?
Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point. There is widespread concern among Opposition Members about the common agricultural policy. I have already said that it is regrettable that, at a time when we are discussing radical changes to the European Union, the CAP is not even on the agenda. The Prime Minister is going to Lisbon this weekend, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be asking him to raise this issue, and so he should.
Finally, the fundamental problem in the practical operation of the Bill is cost. The Bill comprehensively fails to provide for the cost of implementation for local

739
authorities or farmers. Most of the cost will undoubtedly fall on the farming community, the landowners and the conservationists. Those costs include maintenance of dry stone walls, restoration of stiles, provision of information on access, provision of car parks by the local authorities, the prevention of parking on land, signage to provide information for the enjoyment of individuals coming on to the moorland, repairs to damage, loss of livestock and the extra labour required in supervision to protect the wildlife species or lambs at sensitive times of year. The £2.2 million annual cost estimated in the Bill falls wildly short of any sensible estimate, such as those provided by the National Farmers Union and other bodies.
It is hard to avoid the impression that the Bill is being pushed through to meet the political agenda of the Labour party and the sincere socialist instincts of the Minister, despite the fact that the Treasury is not prepared to pay the price. Conservation costs money. The cost of the Bill will not fall on the Government. In practice, it will fall on the council tax payer, on the agricultural community, which can scarcely afford it, and on the well-intentioned conservationist.
Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the cost of the measure. Does he realise that one third of the land involved lies in Wales? If the Bill is passed, what will his party do to ensure that adequate payment is made to the Welsh Assembly to cover those costs?
Mr. Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point about Wales. I do not want to make any unwarranted commitments, but if we introduce a measure of such fiendish impracticality and complexity, I share his sentiment that it must be paid for properly. In the five critical respects that I outlined, the access provisions are inequitable, inadequate and unenforceable.
Some aspects of the Bill are welcome, but it represents a great missed opportunity. Worse than that, it contains provisions that are objectionable in principle and will undermine its own objective of bringing about greater access and enjoyment of the countryside. It will bring intrusive regulation and division to the countryside rather than partnership and unity. It will deal another body blow to the hill farmer, who can ill afford it. It tries to achieve conservation on the cheap, without proper funding from the Treasury. It will do precious little to address the real problems of the countryside and the rural economy at present.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
4.48 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The House can rarely have heard a meaner speech than the one made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). It seems so sad, because it was the Conservatives who gave us the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There was some controversy over that measure at the time, but it was a landmark. It would have been much nicer if the Opposition had wanted to build on that achievement to make the Bill a success. I am disappointed.
740
However, I rejoice in the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill. The access provisions will give much pleasure to a large number of people. Vast areas of forbidden Britain, such as the Berwyns and the Arans in Wales, the eastern Pennines around Sheffield and the forest of Bowland will be opened up for many people to walk in and enjoy. There might not be so much extra access for rock climbers, but I am sure that many of them will enjoy being able to climb on Bamford edge or Sype Land above Ranskill. The Bill will give people greater access.
The measure will not just give people access to areas of moorland where they are currently not allowed to go; it will give them confidence when they walk on footpaths where there are existing rights. Many people are frightened that, if they stray off the path, they will be in difficulty. Once the Bill becomes law, they will be able to use rights of way confidently, knowing that if they deviate slightly, they will not get into trouble. Let us welcome the Bill for providing extra access, and let us welcome it for giving people greater confidence to go out and enjoy themselves.
Let us also welcome the Bill for the fact that it will do something to reduce the overcrowding that occurs at so many of the honeypots in our countryside. As a result, there will be slightly fewer people on Snowdon, on the Old Man of Coniston and on Pen-y-ghent, and places such as Stanedge will not be quite as crowded with climbers. The Bill will give people a chance to spread out into the countryside, and ensure that, when they visit it, they can enjoy peace and quiet.
We should not only welcome the access provisions but very firmly welcome the protection that the Bill will give sites of special scientific interest. The destruction of SSSIs in recent years has been a scandal. I firmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment; he has done extremely well to get the Bill so far, and I look forward to its being law by the end of the year.
The Opposition and the Country Landowners Association have come up with a myth. First, they make the perfectly tenable argument that very few people want the right of access. However, they then say, "Ah, but it will cost a great deal because so many people will go out into the countryside." They cannot have it both ways. If very few people will take advantage of the new provision, there is no problem. If lots of people will, there is very good reason for introducing it. We should make it absolutely clear that a lot of people will want to enjoy access, and that we must facilitate it. The idea that there is no demand for it is rubbish.
The CLA has started working on the idea that the new legislation will be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, and that the passage of the legislation will in some way take away property rights. I suggest that the CLA should not try to reignite a conflict in the countryside. We want peace and harmony, not conflict, in the countryside. However, if members of the CLA want to develop that conflict, there will be lots of other people who will start to say, "We should question their rights of ownership," because for many people who own big estates in the countryside, their ownership actually came about as a result of successful war crimes. They were the people who benefited from the destruction of the monasteries. They often benefited from the destruction of a previous king, and they gained their ownership. We do not want to go back into that, but I would suggest that, if they question

741
the rights of individuals to go out and enjoy themselves, other people will want to question the way in which some of those big estates were established.
Mr. Gray: It is, of course, nonsense to suggest that Conservative Members do not want people to go out and enjoy themselves. However, the hon. Gentleman is president of the Ramblers Association, which for a long time has lobbied for the right to roam in its full sense. Will he therefore say whether he is disappointed by the provisions in the Bill?
Mr. Bennett: I believe that the Bill has the makings of a very good compromise. It will allow people into the countryside in large numbers. I am amazed that Opposition Members do not want to encourage it, because, as I was about to say, if there is a demand for payment, there is a payment. The more people go out into the countryside and understand it, the more they will be willing, as taxpayers, to subsidise the agriculture that must continue there. It is obviously in everyone's interests to encourage people to go into the countryside and to understand it; keeping people out will simply increase misunderstanding.
Not only do farmers benefit when people visit the countryside and gain an understanding of it, but many farmers have diversified into tourism, which is an important part of the economy of many rural areas. However, we must find ways to compensate farmers where there are very real costs, such as the costs of creating footpaths to enable people to get up to access land, of building stiles and of putting in necessary features. I believe that there are the makings of a very good working compromise in the legislation.
I want to voice one or two concerns in the brief time that I have in which to speak. First, there is nothing in the Bill about marine nature reserves. One of the tragedies from 1981 is the fact that a provision that was put into the Wildlife and Countryside Act has hardly ever been used. The Bill should mention marine nature reserves.
Then there is the question of field boundaries. The report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs leaves us in no doubt that hedgerows and walls need better protection. When he came to the Select Committee, the Minister for the Environment conceded that the present legislation was not adequate. We need to do something about that.
Headlands are another problem. It is useful that many landowners have been able to have wide headlands so that field birds and wild flowers can flourish. It is regrettable, however, that European Union auditors have said that a headland should be a narrow strip. That matter needs to be dealt with quickly.
I wish to make a couple of brief constituency points. Inland cormorants take fish from fishermen's ponds and there is the problem of raptors killing homing pigeons. Both those issues need to be examined.
I have described what I would like to have seen in the Bill, but I would not be too disappointed if the Government dropped the footpath provisions, which I do not think are ideal. The Government were sold a pup at some stage. They were told that footpath legislation would be easy, and that everybody would be pleased with it.
742
I am afraid that it is not easy and I do not think that this Bill's provisions on footpaths will last for the next 50 years. I hope that we can find time in Committee and in the House of Lords to improve those provisions and to make them workable. However, if the Government are worried about the number of provisions in the Bill, they should drop the footpaths provisions and deal with issues such as field boundaries and marine nature reserves.
I welcome the provisions on the obstruction of footpaths, but it is important to record that footpaths are part of our history. Just as no one would believe in destroying stocks or any other artefact from the past, we should destroy or divert the footpath pattern of a village only for very good reason. We should be clear that footpaths are part of our history and we should cherish them.
I hope that the Bill will enable us to get on with mapping and that the appeals will be even-handed. I ask the Minister to consider the issues of high-level camping and bivouacking. The provisions for them need to be clear in the Bill.
For many years, the countryside has been subject to intensive farming activity. As a by-product, it has also offered sport for the aristocracy. We should pay tribute to all those people who have nurtured our countryside and made it a green pleasant land, with neat fields, vast heather moorlands, mile upon mile of stone walls, beautiful hedges, banks of wild flowers and a vast array of small animals and insects.
We must ensure that we protect the countryside and that it continues. I believe that the Bill will provide the opportunity to protect the countryside and to ensure that many people can get out and enjoy access to it.
4.58 pm
Mr. David Curry: Before I came to the Chamber, I looked up the definition of the word "roam" in the "Concise Oxford English Dictionary". It defines it in three ways. First, it defines it as to
travel aimlessly over a wide area.
Secondly, it is defined as to
wander over, through or about;
and, finally, as "an aimless walk".
We will all be greatly helped if we drop the expression "right to roam" from the debate, because I am sure that the Minister does not intend "roam" in any of those definitions of the word. Instead, we should talk increasingly about managed access or—even better—contractual access. That would convey the idea that we intend people who have access to the countryside to take on obligations and, equally, that we expect those who concede access to assume obligations—that is a matter of definition—and to receive some benefit as well. The more we talk in terms of a form of contract between the people who own the countryside and the other people whom they need to make a livelihood from it, the more we can put the debate on to a sensible footing.
We could argue about the Bill in principle or in practice. I am a realist. With the Government's majority, the sensible thing is to argue the practicalities of the Bill. If the notion of management or a contract is to prevail, the existence of a set of rules, effectively policed, is essential. We should debate the nature of those rules and the policing of them.

743
I represent a large constituency in upland Britain, and clearly the proposals will apply to that area. The Yorkshire dales national park is one of the management agencies that will have responsibility under the legislation. I want therefore to talk about the countryside not in an abstract way but in terms of the practical problems that are brought to me every day in my capacity as a Member of Parliament.
I note that much of the debate is about the pressure on the countryside. In Yorkshire, access to the national park and the management of traffic into the park are live and important issues. We have also realised that there are pressures on physical access, including the ability to move hardcore up to certain areas to reinforce footpaths.
I represent many people for whom the countryside is a working rather than a recreational environment, as it is for others. One group does not exclude the other. I represent a significant number of gamekeepers. I realise that the nearest that many members of new Labour have come to a gamekeeper is reading "Lady Chatterley's Lover"—and they might wish that all gamekeeping were as romantic and exciting as that—but in reality it is much more humdrum. Gamekeepers' livelihoods depend on the maintenance of the open spaces. The sport of the rich is the livelihood of the ordinary countryman. We should be careful about assuming that such sport is exclusively for the rich, and recognise that many people's livelihoods depend, even in an ancillary way, on access to the countryside. One form of access may occasionally be at odds with others. Even the sporting activity to which the Minister referred is a form of access.
I am conscious of the number of small and tenant farmers, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) referred, who have a vested interest because their livestock graze the moorland and common land. They are already facing pressures as a result of the proposals to change from a headage basis to an area basis the arrangements for payments under the common agricultural policy—rightly in my view. They find that some of their support is taxed to help the rural development proposals with which the Minister will be familiar. All that adds to uncertainty and pressure.
It is important that in passing the legislation we should try to iron out the most obvious problems about which people have concerns. The Minister may say that those concerns are not justified or that they have been dealt with, but they come up repeatedly, so it is important that, in Committee, the Government demonstrate a willingness to try to deal with uncertainty or legitimate concerns about how the rules will work in practice. For example, who will man the local access forums? Will the local culture be dominant in those forums, or will pressure group appointees be nominated? It is important that people feel confident that the forums are manned by people who understand the environment for which they are responsible.
The local authorities have only a discretionary responsibility for management; for example, they must provide wardens and access points. It is difficult to understand how, in the present financial circumstances, many local authorities will find the money to make that provision, even though most of us think that it would be beneficial.
I am bothered about the Minister's apparent lack of interest in access points, which are important. In my constituency, roads across the moor become ribbon
744
parking lots at certain times of the year, as people park on the edge of the moor. The landscape that we enjoy is visually compromised by the volume of people who come to benefit from it.
There is particular concern about the fact that the Bill permits closures. How does one notify the public of a closure for a particular reason? If there is no central access point, how do people who come to the area know that the closure is in effect? That is a practical difficulty. It is a small issue, but it is important for the sensible operation of the legislation.
I see no objection to dawn-to-dusk access, but I am conscious of problems of rural crime—not just the wildlife crime to which the Minister referred. I know that stone and slate are stolen from barns in my constituency; we know that there is poaching. The incidental, collateral damage resulting from such activities often causes difficulty.
Sheep theft is not very frequent at the moment—one would have to be economically illiterate to want to steal a sheep at present—but such theft has been a problem. People enjoying such illegal access have left gates open, and policing at night is difficult. I hope that the Minister will be open to persuasion that there should be dawn-to-dusk rather than 24-hour permits.
I know that the issue of dogs is emotive. The Bill sets out a period in which they are required to be on a leash in the vicinity of livestock. It is easy to make fun of those who ask what "vicinity" or "being close to" sheep means, but the problem is a practical one, particularly if dogs are not well trained and difficult to bring under control once off the leash. The Minister must again address himself to a practical concern because the sanction throughout the Bill is extraordinarily weak. The law of trespass in the United Kingdom is a weak instrument, which would put the fear of God or of the law court into nobody's mind.
There is the question of liability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, it is closely defined. There are manmade features of the landscape that are tantamount to being natural features because, in a sense, almost all the countryside is man-made. We are trying to preserve stone walls, which are under threat because of difficulty of maintenance, but if people stand on them, they become unstable. A dry stone wall is just that, and the danger of accident is real.
On the 28-day closed period, I know that the Bill provides for people to apply to a designated authority—in my constituency, the national park will probably be the main one—for an extension. We need to know that the procedure will be rapid and clear and that the response will be rapid, too. We all know of difficulties experienced by those who have had to apply to some official body—28 days later, they are still waiting for an answer because the next committee meeting is umpteen weeks away. Will the Minister ensure that there is a mechanism for rapid response and evaluation at short notice of such applications? In the light of circumstances, that would be very helpful.
I welcome the provision for rights of way improvement plans; they do need to be amended more rapidly. I welcome particularly the banning of vehicles from green lanes. Vehicles cause enormous damage on such lanes; when the snow comes, great potholes fill up—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up. I call Mr. Pickthall.
5.8 pm
Mr. Colin Pickthall: I have been a hill walker ever since my boyhood in Cumbria, so I suppose I must declare an interest in what I have to say. First, however, I very much congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on a magnificent achievement in getting the Bill thus far. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on their long crusade on this issue.
Part of the pleasure of hill walking lies in seeking a different route every time one is out, and in the map and compass work that that often involves. Even in the Lake district national park, where access is about as free as it can be, it is still possible to be trapped by private land, deer fences or wire. In my experience of fell walking over 45 years or so, very few walkers have wanted to invade private property. The vast majority of the time, especially in poor weather, they want to stick to well-trodden paths.
I take enormous pleasure not only in walking myself, but in seeing others walking, many of them trekking up hills and along ridges: they are not sitting in front of television screens or on cosy football terraces, but exercising body and spirit, and many of them become addicted. Walking plays an essential part in maintaining the nation's health and its sanity. The ability to visit the countryside on foot is vital to those who do not live in the country. Walkers tend to be observant and careful; for the most part, they help to take care of the countryside through which they pass. Hill walking is one of the few occupations that is available to people regardless of age and almost regardless of income.
By contrast, the attitude of some landowners—not all, thank God—and their spokesmen is often marked by extraordinary snobbery. The Country Landowners Association regional secretary for Leicestershire, Rutland, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire wrote:
We don't want all and sundry roaming our land, especially not criminals, drug pushers and vandals.
I am sure the House can imagine a drug pusher on top of the trough of Bowland, waiting for the walkers in woolly hats to come up and buy his illegal goods.
The CLA regional secretary for the east midlands wrote that the freedom to roam
would apply to everyone, including the minority of vandals, sheep stealers, badger baiters, horse slashers, illegal hare coursers, poaching gangs, birds eggs thieves and those responsible for a rising tide of crime in rural areas.
Picture those people, staggering around the mountains looking for a horse to slash. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) summed up walkers as trespassers and hooligans.
One does not need to read many such comments to get a clear idea of what landowners think of the citizens of this country. They appear to hold the extraordinary belief that walkers are all from the towns. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Quentin Letts refers to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment as "Minister for Townie Ramblers", as though those of us who live in the countryside never put one foot in front of the other.
Another argument advanced is that the Bill represents the thin end of the wedge. Such an argument could be used to negate every piece of legislation ever proposed.
746
Jolyon Dodgson, the CLA regional secretary for the north-west—a fine man, pleasant company and an old friend of mine—writes that the Government's decision
is nothing more than the expropriation of private land rights and we would advise other owners of private property to take note.
Next, Parliament will legislate to allow people to wander through other people's gardens.
A third argument that is often advanced has already been put by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—the people will not understand the legislation. Apparently, we are all too thick to understand such complicated legislation, so we should not do anything about it. A hint of that attitude has been heard in suggestions made this afternoon about the right people not being put on the access forums, and the need to choose carefully people who can understand the legislation—and, no doubt, who own a lot of land as well.
The key to the Bill is balance: it not only extends rights of access, but provides the means to protect wildlife from disturbance at sensitive times of the year and allows for the protection of the land itself from hazards such as fire. In the existing national parks—in the Lake district, the Peak district, north wales and so on—the most serious problem caused by walkers is erosion of footpaths, as continuous overuse grinds them down to gravel. One need only visit the Old Man of Coniston or Kinder Scout to see that that is a problem. However, better access in other parts of the country might help to prevent such problems by diverting walkers elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle and I had an interesting meeting a short time ago with representatives of the CLA in the north-west. They told us that they did not expect a vast mushrooming in the number of walkers—such as the total population of Greater Manchester and Merseyside suddenly wandering out into the trough of Bowland. However, existing walkers and their families and new walkers—we hope that there will be more, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish—will be given a wider choice and greater access closer to their homes, involving less travelling. For me, the trough of Bowland, most of which is out of bounds, will become accessible and it is only a short drive away.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on clause 65, which deals with the danger to limestone pavement, which has exercised me for some years. It is appalling that limestone pavement in south Cumbria, north Lancashire and the Pennines has been quarried for gardens and for massive export to Japan. It is therefore reassuring to see the clause.
The problem of dogs has been mentioned. I understand the restrictions contained in the Bill, but I ask my right hon. Friend to consider further restrictions. Human beings, as well as sheep and birds, are in danger from unleashed dogs in mountainous country and country where there are quarries. My two daughters and I have been knocked flying in the mountains by other people's dogs racing ahead of their owners. It is a problem that needs addressing.
In the last couple of minutes available to me, I shall deal with the provisions on footpaths. The CLA is right to argue that most people want to use footpaths in their neighbourhood—the footpaths that connect or ramble round villages and hamlets, such as those in my constituency of West Lancashire, which are often under

747
threat from development as well as from farming. The Government are right to be impatient with the slow progress in producing definitive maps in some areas and the huge delays in sorting out disputes and diversions.
The footpath network in this country is one of our greatest national assets. The fairly frequent creation of new paths, both long-distance and short-distance ones, proves that local authorities and other agencies are aware of their popularity and the fact that they will be used. The footpath system has even spawned its own literature, as can be seen in every book shop.
However, there are persistent attempts by some landowners to block or plough up paths. That has naturally led to equally bloody-minded resistance from walkers organisations, such as ramblers organisations and local footpath groups. The Bill's provision for local authorities to produce right of way improvement plans, to be prepared and published within five years, is to be welcomed. Will my right hon. Friend tell us what mechanisms there will be to deal with authorities that fail to produce such plans, or afterwards fail to publish the 10-yearly reviews that are provided for?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
5.18 pm
Mr. David Heath: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) and, in particular, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry). I found myself in agreement with so many of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made during his speech. He juxtaposed the two positions of opposing in principle and opposing on practicalities, and rightly said that it was the practicalities that mattered.
I am at a loss to understand the position of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Front Bench, who want to oppose Second Reading in principle. Leaving aside the irony—which will be lost on no farmer—of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), with his business history, now purporting to speak for farmers who are finding it difficult to make an economic living, I fail to understand how the Conservatives can oppose in principle a Bill that has not been opposed in principle by the vast majority of people in this country, including those who speak for countryside and agricultural interests, who all find parts of the Bill that they can support, but nevertheless have serious doubts about some of the practical applications of the legislation and want those explored in Committee.
Mr. Damian Green: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heath: As the hon. Gentleman has not yet spoken, I am delighted to give way to him.
Mr. Green: If the hon. Gentleman reads our reasoned amendment, he will realise that while we object in principle to parts of the Bill, we welcome other parts. I recommend that he reads the amendment.
Mr. Heath: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that I would come to the debate without reading the amendment. I question the position that Conservative
748
Members have adopted of opposing parts of the Bill in principle. The detailed briefings from the many interests that have examined the Bill oppose not the principle but its detail. Those interests include the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the Countryside Alliance. If we accepted the amendment tabled by Conservative Members, we could not amend the details in Committee; we would not have the opportunity of clarifying the access provisions, extending environmental protection or reforming rights of way. That would do the country a disservice.
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) for the concept of the blue-green dimension of Conservative policy. That was included in a recent press release. However, the response from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells was reminiscent not so much of cyan as of the purple of the grouse moor. That is unfortunate because we have an opportunity greatly to strengthen legislation on the environment and rights of access. We do not oppose the principle of the Bill; we welcome the principles that underlie much of the measure.
A succession of "buts" will now follow. The Bill does not tackle some practicalities properly and we will have to explore them in Committee. The Bill is disappointing in many ways, and its lack of aspiration is sad—[Interruption.] Hon. Members mumble from a sedentary position that it is overdue and overhyped; it is over the hill and far away in terms of the aspirations of many people who wanted environmental legislation to be strengthened during this Parliament. We want to explore the Bill's limitations.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was right when he said that one of the key anxieties was about definition. It is important that we all understand how the Bill will work. Even our brightest and best educated constituents will not understand several definitions and some of the working practices in the Bill because they will not be on public display or in a digestible form. That will cause confusion and create tensions where none previously existed. That is sad and should be tackled.
Our second major concern is the scope of the Bill and some of the missed opportunities, which we hope to remedy in Committee. That applies especially to environmental protection and to reforming the rights of way system. The latter needs reforming and the Government have ducked the issue. They may want to revert to the matter; perhaps the Bill is half written and they will table a plethora of amendments in Committee. However, the measure is currently undercooked.
Our third major anxiety is about resources. For the Bill's intentions to be realised, it must be backed by a substantial amount of money. I have my doubts about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I wrote to the Minister about that very issue on 1 March, but I have not yet received a reply, nor has my hon. Friend. That is not surprising from this Government, but what worries me is that the collusion between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may mean that the contagion that has overcome MAFF for the past three years may have spread to DETR. We may have to wait months.

749
The success or otherwise of the Bill ultimately depends on adequate resourcing. The Secretary of State started the process of consideration by saying that the cost would "not be significant", but that is belied even by the explanatory notes and all informed commentators say that the likely cost will be more than the Government estimate. There will be significant costs for supporting the mapping process, the administration, the appeals and the new procedures—that is all self-evident—but there will also be a significant cost for creating the liaison structures, which will underpin its functioning on the ground. We need firm commitments not only to produce the resources required at this stage, but to continue that resourcing for a considerable number of years. There will be not only start-up costs but a continuing need, and meeting it will be critical to the success of the countryside bodies, local authorities and farmers themselves if they are to meet the Bill's requirements.
I want to deal with the access provisions. We welcome public access to uncultivated countryside. That is the basis of the Bill and we support it. However, we have concerns. First, the regional forums will be critical to its success, but their structure, the way in which they will operate and their existence are not dealt with by the Bill. The forums simply will not work unless the various interests with a direct concern in this matter are properly represented. We have always said that the forums represent a local matter that needs to be dealt with locally.
The definition of what land falls into what category is a problem, as is the fact that the mapping procedure is not yet complete—the cart has been put before the horse. We have to recognise and quantify the associated environmental costs and the Government have to meet them. I am concerned about restricted access because it will cause a lot of difficulties. The provisions are not workable and, for example, 28 days of restricted access is not sufficient for a double lambing. That has to be addressed, as does the exclusion of high days and holidays and the nonsensical idea that the farming calendar can somehow be put on hold during such periods. Is not it possible to encompass partial restrictions on a general area to establish sequential use of land for a particular purpose in 28-day periods—or whatever limit is prescribed—to achieve proper economic land use without restricting public access?
I am also concerned about night-time access and the more I think about it the more I question whether it is necessary. Will not it produce more access problems than it solves? The proper security of individuals is an issue, as are liabilities, and perhaps the Minister needs to reconsider that provision. I am worried that the code of conduct may not have the force of law. Where possible, codes of conduct should be transformed into byelaws so that everybody is absolutely clear about the way in which they apply.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about liability and compensation, but still was not persuaded. How is a natural feature defined? Is a tree a natural
750
feature? Is a tree doing what trees do—dropping a branch every now and again in a high wind, acting as a natural feature?
Mr. Bennett: Of course it is.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course it is," but is that the landowner's responsibility? There is a lack of definition and that is precisely what we need to explore in Committee.
I do not believe that the Government have gone nearly far enough in reforming this country's rickety rights of way system and they probably recognise that their proposals are incoherent and represent unfinished business. Local authorities are being given a new duty, but it is a duty to provide plans, with no duty to implement them. I have some experience of local authorities and they are always producing plans. The question is whether they ever bring them to fruition and whether they have the resources to do so. We cannot have a coherent and definitive—that is perhaps an unfortunate word to use in this context—rights of way system until we address that issue.
We should reconsider signposting, so that the public know exactly what they can and cannot do. We also need to address the issues of freedom from obstruction and bridleways, and establish a hierarchy to make the position clear when access through rights of way and conservation interests clash. My view is that conservation interests must take precedence, but that is by no means clear at the moment.
I listened carefully to the comments about RUPPS and their transition to restricted byways, and about the fact that there could be a challenge on vehicular use. I hope that it will not be all or nothing—either a restricted byway closed to vehicular traffic or a BOAT and open to all vehicular traffic—because that is nonsense. People may have proper rights of access because they need to use a particular restricted byway, but it should not be opened up to general vehicular use. It would be nonsense if local authorities had to go through the process of a road traffic order and had to put up a plethora of signs on the top of hillsides to stop what everyone knows should not be happening.
We welcome the strengthening of the current framework of conservation and wildlife protection as far as it goes. We regret the fact that there is no statutory underpinning of what was developed as a result of the Rio conference. Biodiversity action plans are not to be put on a statutory basis, as I believe they should be. We regret that there is no provision in the Bill for making good existing damage to SSSIs, but perhaps there will be provision elsewhere. Protection of SSSIs over the past few years and the amount that has been lost has been a disgrace.
We regret the fact that there is nothing about species protection outside SSSIs. I understand how difficult it is to produce definitions in that area, but the Government must address that problem if they are to take wildlife protection seriously. To echo an earlier point, we regret that the Bill contains nothing on marine conservation. Many years ago I was involved from outside the House in producing the amendments to the Environmental Protection Bill—as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) will recall—which has never made a

751
great difference. We need to address that issue. We should also consider the position of interim development orders. That applies particularly to peat moors and the effect that they can have on mineral workings. The Bill does not contain provisions for areas of outstanding natural beauty. They should be included, and we must address that issue in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to talk about Wales. My view and that of our party is that the Bill should not cover Wales, because this is a devolved matter for the Welsh Assembly and for the conservation and countryside bodies in Wales to deal with. It is wrong for the United Kingdom Parliament to retain this matter under a devolved system, because what happens in Wales has no effect outside the Principality.
The principal point is that it is possible to have environmental and societal benefits at the same time as agricultural sustainability: the two are not mutually inimical. Sustainability in environmental terms is not only compatible with but essential to the development of our rural communities, the rural economy and agricultural interests. There is a synergy between offering better protection and redirecting the present price support to farming through the CAP, which is wasteful and wholly indefensible. The Bill can go only a little way in that direction. It is for the Government to argue elsewhere how they achieve that.
Paradoxically, although the Government are making progress, there is limited progress on the common agricultural policy. We have the nonsense of the new IACS—integrated administration and control system—regulations and their effect on our hedgerows. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be arguing with Brussels about that. We have the nonsense of environmental support for agriculture being effectively capped, and certainly not meeting the aspirations of the industry.
We need joined-up government. We need improvements in the Bill during its passage. However, we also need the underwriting of environmental support for rural areas by the Government, through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and through MAFF. We understand that the Bill is no more than a platform in terms of some of those developments, but it is a good platform. We shall not oppose it in principle, although we shall seek to improve it during its passage.
5.35 pm
Dr. David Clark: I congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the Bill. We have waited a long time for it, but it is good to have it now.
This afternoon's sideshow was provided by, in a sense, two Conservative parties. I felt that what the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said about managing society and the countryside—it was echoed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—formed the kernel of the debate. I find it sad that Opposition Front Benchers have not yet grasped that we should be trying to manage our countryside for both environmentalists and farmers. That is possible and practicable, but sad to say, it is not the official Conservative line. It is sad that the Conservatives do not
752
appreciate the needs and aspirations of our citizens, who are demanding today what they have demanded for many years.
I have been examining the history. When I looked at the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, introduced by a Conservative Government, I realised that its hallmark was the wish for conciliation and consensus. We have heard no conciliation or consensus from the Opposition today; they simply do not understand.
I digress, however. I want to thank the Government for realising the aspirations of many people, including many Members of Parliament, throughout the decades, who have tried to secure the right to roam in Britain, and to extend people's rights to enjoy our beautiful countryside for the purposes of air and exercise.
The first legislation was introduced in, I believe, 1888—even before old Labour—by James Bryce, a Liberal. Thereafter, the point was taken up repeatedly by MPs—mainly, ironically enough unless we think about it, MPs representing the older industrial areas. I am thinking of people such as Charles Trevelyan, who gave Wallington to the nation and represented Newcastle upon Tyne, Ellen Wilkinson, who represented Jarrow, Hugh Dalton, who represented Bishop Auckland, and Chuter Ede and Arthur Blenkinsop, who both represented my constituency.
Indeed, I find that back in 1980–20 years ago, almost to the day—I introduced a private Member's Bill in an attempt to effect the purposes of this Bill. I am surprised and encouraged to discover that at least two of the likely suspects, my hon. Friends the Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), sponsored my Bill. As I have said, we have waited a long time for this legislation, but it is good to see it now. As for the accusation that it is political, I thought that that was why we were here. We are honouring a manifesto pledge to our citizens.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), the Conservative spokesman, built his case on exaggeration, myth and half-truths.
Let me try to reassure the House. The Lake district national park is one of the two oldest national parks. By a quirk of history, under the National Trust Act 1907 and the Law of Property Act 1925, almost all the commons in the national park have a right of access along the lines that the Bill proposes; in fact, it is far more liberal than is proposed in the Bill. That has been the position since 1925.
Over the years, that has caused problems, but as someone who was born within sight of the lake district national park and who grew up there, I see those problems diminishing as the years go by, with farmers realising that their business opportunities increase as more people are attracted to the national park. We should try to develop and to build on that. The Opposition have to build their case on practical experience, not on half-truths and myths.
The Government could be on weaker ground in respect of the public rights of way. Some forces argue that that part of the Bill weakens and reduces our network of registered public footpaths. A definitive numbered footpath is the Queen's highway; it is not a concession, but a right. One has as much right to walk along a registered public footpath as a registered road, but there is a fear that the network will be reduced under the

753
Government's proposals. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that, although there may be cases where footpaths are redirected or, indeed, closed, that is not the general purpose of the Bill. Incidentally, I take the point that, in certain urban areas where footpaths encourage crime or vandalism—clause 68 recognises it—diversions may be a better way forward.
I make one suggestion to the Minister on footpaths. Will he consider the possibility of each local authority area creating a footpaths panel that represents all interested groups: country landowners, the National Farmers Union, ramblers, the Open Spaces Society—whoever it may be? In the early 1970s, we tried that as an experiment in the Kirklees district. I sat on the forum for a number of years. Although at the beginning there was much suspicion between the opposing sides, on no occasion did the council refuse the panel's recommendations. It was a good way in which to build consensus and understanding. It was the right way forward.
I ask the Minister to address certain other issues: for example, marine nature reserves. I thought that they had already been covered by the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, which I introduced and got on the statute book. I was surprised to learn that so little progress had been made. Equally, I was surprised that there had been so much discussion, deliberation and confusion about mapping of open land in the national parks—I emphasise, in the national parks. The national park authorities were required to do that under the 1985 Act.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said, we are losing hundreds of thousands of kilometres of hedgerows. It looks as if the pace of their removal is still quickening. However, they are part and parcel of the fabric of our countryside. It is very important that the Government should take this opportunity—if they cannot provide another one in the near future—to try to deal with the problem.
I end where I began, by thanking the Government for their action on the right to roam. So many people in the United Kingdom would feel better—one cannot describe it in words or in literature—if they could get out into the countryside. When they do get out there—on the mountains, the moors or the downs—aspects of life will become much more meaningful for them. The more we encourage people to get out into the countryside, to exercise their legs and their lungs, the closer we will be to having a much more balanced society. I should have thought that both sides of the House are trying to achieve that objective.
5.45 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I declare an interest which is in the Register of Members' Interests: I am a consultant to the Countryside Alliance. I should also say that I am a member of the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union, so that the House will have no doubt about where I am coming from in the debate.
In countryside debates, it is always a pleasure to follow my north-east neighbour, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). He has a very detailed and deep
754
knowledge of the countryside, and I respect him for that. However, he was completely wrong when he said that Conservative Members should not object to the Bill on principle. Of course we should object to it on principle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said that there is not much point in arguing about principle today because the Government's majority will force the Bill through. In his speech, he therefore wanted to address management issues.
A fundamental point of principle is raised by the Bill: it will take away the central right of property owners to say who may or may not come on to their land. It is a matter of profound principle. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, it is not worth arguing that particular point of principle today, because Ministers will not listen to such arguments.
My main criticism of the Bill is that it is a wasted opportunity, particularly to provide for reform of the rights of way network. Proper reform of the United Kingdom's rights of way network is one quid pro quo that would have gone a long way to pacifying landowning and farming interests. It is not—as the right hon. Member for South Shields said—a matter of diminishing the number of public rights of way, but a matter of making rights of way more suitable for modern recreational use. I should have liked the Bill to contain a far tougher and more detailed section on rights of way.
The Bill does effectively nothing on rights of way. It simply says that it will give local authorities a duty to produce a plan on how to improve the rights of way network in their area. In most country areas, county councils will produce such plans. However, county councils have for years been fiddling on about rights of way. They have neither the money, nor the will, nor—in many cases—the resources properly to improve rights of way.
Farmers, particularly, wanted the Bill to make it far easier to divert unsuitable rights of way, making a right of way not only more sensible for their agricultural purposes, but more user friendly for those who want to walk it. However, the Bill does absolutely nothing about that.
Currently, farmers who want to divert a footpath have a right to apply to the local highways authority to that end. If the highways authority refuses to make a diversion order, the farmer has a right to appeal against the decision. However, even if the authority agrees to a diversion, the usual mechanisms for making the diversion will apply. We have an incredibly cumbersome and expensive system to divert a right of way. Once again, that system is being enshrined in legislation.
The Government should have done something much braver, by giving parish councils, for example, the right to draw up plans to provide people with proper recreational footpaths through the countryside. That is what people want. The right to roam is an old-fashioned socialist idea—dating back to the Kinder Scout trespass, in the 1930s, at the thought of which old socialist ramblers go jelly-eyed. They should go and see how much wildlife there is now on Kinder Scout. There is an awful lot less now than there was when it was private. Most people who live in towns want proper reform of rights of way, and that is what the Bill will signally fail to do.
My constituency probably contains some of the largest areas that will be affected by the Bill. It includes some of the best heather moors in the country, in the north

755
Pennines. There is an area of de facto right to roam around Hadrian's wall, and the problems that stem from that right are well known to farmers. Any pretence that the Bill will cause no difficulty to farmers is pie in the sky.
There is first-hand evidence. Farmers who try to farm along Hadrian's wall and in that area know only too well about the problems that an unrestricted right to roam causes. Inevitably it leads to gates being left open, which cause flocks of sheep to be mixed up and cattle to wander into areas where they should not be. There are also the usual problems of litter and disturbance. These are serious management problems for farmers on Hadrian's wall.
If it is discovered that, through the workings of the Bill once it is enacted, there is damage to the environment—let us suppose that the right to roam causes damage to a well-managed grouse moor, which substantially reduces its value—is there provision for the farmer or landowner to seek compensation? The answer is that there is none. That is entirely wrong.
There are important detailed questions that have not been answered. Perhaps the Minister will respond to them when he replies. For example, who will sit on the access forums? It is vital that local people be involved. When the previous Government were setting up new national parks committees, we insisted that parish councils elected representatives to them. That made a substantial difference to the respect in which national park authorities are held by the local population. I hope that there will be room for parish council representatives to be on the access forums. Without that, townies will be seen as imposing their demands once more on the countryside.
I reinforce what has been said about resources. Northumberland county council, which is my local highways authority, is chronically short of cash. It is never short on criticising Ministers of both parties for not providing sufficient funding. If it receives no additional funding after the Bill is enacted, there is not a chance that it will be able to put in place some of the things that will be required of it.
Landowners are asking—no doubt these questions will be asked of Ministers time and time again during consideration of the Bill—how they are to close a grouse moor to public access. The Minister said that they could close it for 28 days without permission, except on weekends and bank holidays. That means that anyone who wants to close a grouse moor or an upland area because of lambing will have to apply for permission. The area will have to be closed for more than 28 days, and there will have to be 28 unbroken days. How will they tell people that the moor is open or closed on a particular day?
What of common land? There is common land in upland areas that will be affected by the Bill, and in parts of East Anglia where there are shooting interests. How is that common land to be closed on shooting days? Who will come out from the Countryside Agency? Will its representatives have to stand round the common and say, "You can't go on there today because it is a shooting day"? Will it be necessary to put fences round common land bearing notices stating, for example, "No access today"? Farmers, landowners and those who look after commons have a right to know how these things will be done and whether it will be to their cost or someone else's.
How do we define cultivated land? Is Newmarket heath, for example, uncultivated land? The House will know that it is used by trainers for exercising their horses.
756
There are gallops that are used by other training establishments. Will these areas be regarded as cultivated land? What will happen if a farmer decides to plough some uncultivated land? That is frequently done these days before re-seeding. Would that uncultivated land with a right of access become cultivated land with no right of access? How will that be shown on a map that the Countryside Agency will produce?
I reinforce what others have said about the problems of night access. It seems nonsensical that there should be 24-hour access each day to certain land. It will be impossible for many management tasks to be undertaken if there is access at night. The Minister will be aware that a great deal of predator control—for example, the shooting of foxes with the use of lamps—is done during the night in upland areas. If people have a right to roam at that time, there could be serious danger to them and to those who are engaged in the control operation. There is no reason why moorland should be open during the evening.
Finally, when the Bill is considered in Committee, I plead with the Minister to accept amendments to the definition of common land, which will be helpful if the—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
5.56 pm
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I welcome the Bill, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on bringing it forward when all about him were ranged the forces of conservatism. What a glittering speech he made. What a tonic it was, compared with the dire contribution of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. The speech of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) was not much better.
Whenever Conservative Members speak on issues such as this, they bang on about compensation. They want compensation for this and compensation for that. In effect, they are saying, "Hand it out, give us the money." What happened during the previous Parliament? I note that the hon. Member for Hexham is disappearing. I believe that a head deboning firm in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, went out of business without compensation. We must understand that, under the Conservatives, there is compensation only when it suits them.
The Conservatives come to the House with spurious arguments from, for example, the Country Landowners Association and the so-called shooting and conservation lobby. They will do anything to keep out the great unwashed. That is what it is all about. It is their countryside, not ours. That was exemplified by my parliamentary neighbour, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), when he talked about those who owned the countryside.
This may sound like a revolutionary sentiment to the House, but the land belongs to us all. [Interruption.] It does. Conservative Members may laugh, but the last laugh will be on them because the Bill will give millions of people the chance to enjoy countryside that is now out of bounds.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: My chief recreation is walking. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that over 25 years of doing it I have trespassed on innumerable

757
occasions on other people's land. On no occasion do I remember having been ordered off the land or objection being taken to my activities. However, the keeping of the law of trespass is a residual power to the landowner that is vital to prevent abuse.
Mr. Prentice: I hope that the Bar Council was listening to the hon. Gentleman's intervention. There is a practising barrister who is a lawbreaker in the House.
We have heard about what is and is not principle. My principle is that there are good reasons for keeping people off open land, but ownership is not one of them. Was it last year that someone was going to buy Snowdon? Sir Anthony Hopkins, with his Welsh antecedents, came forward. He said that he would put up the money to ensure public access to Snowdon. Are Conservative Members seriously suggesting that if someone has a pot of money and wants to buy a tract of beautiful countryside in this country, he can do so and keep people off it? If that is not what they are saying, let one of them intervene now, because that has always been my understanding.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that the Bill has been a long time coming. The Countryside Agency is busily mapping the country, and I understand that the exercise will be completed by the end of 2003, which will be six and a half years after the general election that brought Labour to office. Why is it taking such a long time? Because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister likes to bring people with him.
The Countryside Agency is doing a good, enthusiastic job and showing tremendous commitment. We must ensure that it is properly resourced. We must also ensure that we listen to the arguments and reservations expressed by people such as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). The Prime Minister does not want to be ideological about this. He is a hugely pragmatic politician. If there are problems about exercising the right to roam and the farmers and landowners have legitimate grievances, he will want to listen to them. He is a Prime Minister who consults like mad. No Bill has ever been consulted on more than this one. I think that we have consulted 60 million people in the United Kingdom.
The Bill is a good Bill, and should be welcomed, but—there is always a but—it can be improved in Committee. Inexplicably, it contains nothing about areas of outstanding natural beauty. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend the Minister, and I think that he said that there would be a ministerial statement on AONBs at a later date; but why not have it now? We pass countryside legislation about once every 10 or 15 years. The Bill should be the vehicle. I would appreciate a response to that in the winding-up speech.
We all know that the Prime Minister wants to ban fox hunting, as all Labour Members here do. He said as much on television. The Bill could be a vehicle for that. I have an amendment in mind—when the Whips put me on the Standing Committee—that will allow us to ban fox hunting painlessly by saying that no hunt can take place within a mile of a public footpath. I am sure that that will be in order. It will be very effective when the entire country is criss-crossed with public footpaths.
There is a power to extend the right of access to coastal areas such as beaches, but why stop there? Why not extend the right of access to lake shores, river banks and
758
canal tow paths? Why not go the whole hog? We have come a very long way from what the Country Landowners Association said a couple of years ago, just after the general election. I have used this quotation many times, because I just love it. They wanted a "right of visual access". I do not want a right of visual access. I do not want to look at the hills. I want to walk on them. That is what the Bill is for.
I want the landscape to be improved. What incredible hypocrisy we see in the reasoned amendment, as if we had inherited a glittering legacy of a thriving countryside and it all went dreadfully wrong in May 1997. The Tories left the landscape in a terrible state. Much of it was derelict. I have already referred to the 158,000 km of hedgerows that were ripped out. Walls were left to fall down: almost a third of dry stone walls are derelict. That is the great legacy. Every time I walk up Boulsworth hill, I pass a rusting tractor graveyard. The planning system has never tackled the piles of rusting machinery, and it should.
The right to roam is central to the Bill and I welcome it. The opponents who regularly go over the top do their arguments a disservice. People have stopped listening. The National Farmers Union has given a briefing to Members of Parliament. It says:
Much of the upland area that is to be mapped as open country also play an important role as water gathering grounds. As a result the risk of pollution must be increased by allowing increased public access to it.
That is just ridiculous; it is farcical. In the forest of Bowland, North West Water has a catchment area that is open to the public. Why does the NFU still peddle that rubbish and ask us to give weight to it?
Nicholas van Hoogstraten has been our greatest ally. The Ramblers described him as a bullying millionaire. I can think of a choicer description, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which you would—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
6.6 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) spoke with great passion. I cannot understand why he is not sitting on the Front Bench, considering the way in which he spoke about the Prime Minister. I remember him well from the year that we spent together on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. He spoke with passion then, too.
There is a certain irony about the Bill. Part III is about endangered species. Following the Ayr by-election, when I look across the Chamber I see about 200 endangered species. The probability is that many Labour Members will lose their seats. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) may yawn, but that is the fact.
I declare an interest in that I come from a farming background. My father farmed. I do not own any land, so it is not a registrable interest, but I love the countryside and I am very concerned about conservation and access. I resent the idea that all Conservative Members are against the principle of people enjoying the countryside. There is

759
much to be done to improve access to the countryside but the Bill contains a lot that needs changing, and it will probably spend a very long time in Committee.
Farmers will feel threatened by the Bill as it stands. If we are to have a happy compromise, with the constituents of the hon. Member for Pendle and others enjoying the countryside, the farmers' fears must be allayed. I was taken by what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said about our needing conciliation and consensus to manage the countryside. In fairness to Conservative Members, he referred to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which was a triumph of our Government. It was a great Act, and much care went into it.
Those who live in the countryside feel under threat in many respects, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said. Rural communities are desperately concerned. Their livelihoods are under threat. We have lost many small farmers in Leicestershire recently, and there are problems with transport costs, planning and countryside sports. I attended the countryside march and rally in London. If ever there was an example of country people expressing their worries about the future of their way of life, that was it. It was not just about hunting.
One of the major bones of contention will be clause 21(6), about when landowners can exclude the public and whether they can do so on weekends, Christmas day and other holidays. The Minister for the Environment avoided the issue, which is crucial. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, how on earth are we supposed to deal with the problem of nesting birds and other breeding animals if there is an automatic right of access and the land cannot be closed off for more than four or five days at a time?
The message from the countryside march was, "Listen to us." I say to the Opposition—I still think of the Government as the Opposition—
Ms Candy Atherton: The hon. Gentleman is three years out of date.
Mr. Tredinnick: We were in power for a very long time—a lot longer than this Government. To make the Bill work, the Government must seek the co-operation of the rural communities. At the moment, they are on a collision course, and that is regrettable. The Wildlife and Countryside Act was steered through the House with great care and consensus. New Labour has demolished much of the old structures of the other place, but many of the hereditary peers spent hours pondering that legislation to try to get it right. I do not claim that this Bill will not be carefully considered, but the 1981 Act certainly was.
What are the other issues of concern? Unrestricted access to sites of special scientific interest is bound to lead to damage. It takes only one careless or negligent person to do tremendous damage. As for dogs, I get the feeling that Labour Members have never walked a dog. If dogs are taken out into open countryside, they do not want to stay on the lead. Once they are off their lead, many owners find it difficult to get them back on the lead. That will lead to sheep worrying and other problems.
I am also concerned about the effect of clause 21(6) on ground-nesting birds and lambing. However, a devolution issue arises, which most people have missed, in
760
connection with wildlife and nature conservation provisions. The improvements in management and enforcement envisaged in the Bill must be accompanied by adequate funding for the conservation agencies. The Minister can deal with English Nature in that respect, but the Countryside Council for Wales comes under the auspices of the Welsh Assembly. I wonder how the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will look at those issues. The hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) also raised that issue.
Other problems include statutory rights of access to village greens if they have not already been registered. What will happen if a disgruntled person decides to disrupt a cricket match? Will he in future have a statutory right to interfere with the match? The requirement for the mapping of all-access land will, I suspect, cause much repetition and should be closely monitored. The Ordnance Survey has, over the years, produced copious maps of the countryside.
I welcome the exclusion of woodland from the scope of the Bill. If it had been included, even more wildlife damage would have been likely, especially for nesting birds and other animals. I am sure that Labour Members believe that they understand the damage that can be done by a dog or one person walking in the wrong place at a particular time of year, but it is not unless one has lived in the countryside on a farm that one is truly aware of just how much damage can be done. I hope that that problem will be thoroughly addressed in Committee.
What appeal mechanism will exist for access points to the new open areas? "Local access forums" is a lovely phrase, but who will hear an appeal if that is necessary? How many wardens will be needed to enforce the measures and where will the money come from? The Bill provides no statutory protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty nor any duty on local authorities to maintain wildlife sites. That is another weakness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned a greater role for parish councils. I agree with him. For example, they could examine the possibilities of exchanging footpaths and creating new ones. That could be one way to provide the access that Labour Members want. I approve the safeguard in clause 74, which allows an appeal to the Secretary of State if a local authority refuses to act on a request for a diversion. It often happens that responsible landowners and other parties request a diversion—for example, for a housing estate—and the requests are refused or ducked.
The report "The state of the countryside 1999" found that the three main concerns of people living in the countryside were development, pollution and the removal of hedges and woods. The removal of hedges is a legitimate concern, and I have always hated the idea that the countryside could lose all its hedges. I confess that I think that the previous Government should have done something about that, and the Minister should do something now to ensure that we do not experience the mass removal of hedges when economic circumstances change.
Farmers face a desperately serious situation. We need co-operation, not confrontation, and I look to Ministers and my Front-Bench colleagues to make the Bill what it should be—an excellent Bill.
6.16 pm
Ms Candy Atherton: I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate, and I am proud to represent a constituency and a county known throughout the world for their great natural beauty. I welcome the Bill because many of its elements relate to causes and issues that are close to my heart.
I shall begin with a personal perspective. Like many other hon. Members, I am a keen birdwatcher. For me, a great day is a day spent watching little egrets feeding in the Exe estuary, or red kites in Wales. My interest in wildlife conservation grew out of my love of birds, and it is obvious that if we do not take care of the landscape, wildlife cannot thrive. In that context, SSSIs are rightly described as the jewel in the crown, and it was for that reason that I introduced a ten-minute Bill last year, which was supported by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and many other countryside and wildlife organisations, in which I sought to place obligations on landowners and users of land to repair damage sustained on SSSIs. The then Minister kindly agreed to adopt my Bill as part of the consultation. I am delighted to see that this Bill will enable conservation bodies such as English Nature to serve management notices on those landowners or occupiers who persist in refusing to co-operate in the best interests of the land.
I have at the moment a SSSI in my constituency which many feel could be under threat from development at Swanpool in Falmouth. Like many other hon. Members, I could give some of the worst horror stories chapter and verse, but we are all too well aware of the problems. I propose instead to look at the answers that the Bill provides.
When I introduced my Bill, I met local conservation bodies, including English Nature, which knew and made it quite clear that, while I wished the wrath of God to fall on the heads of transgressors, co-operation was the preferred way forward. They argued that, in the first instance at least, they wanted to work in partnership with landowners to seek agreement and find common ground. The Bill offers that possibility, and should be commended for the sensible path that it treads. The support that it has received from a wide spectrum of sources is testament to its skilled approach to this issue. It is right, for example, that compensation can be paid to those severely inconvenienced by a management scheme.
Of course, the sad reality is that a few would rather hinder this process than move it forward. The provision in this Bill for compulsory purchase where agreement proves impossible may be a last resort, but it is a necessary resort. Equally, while the Government are dangling the carrot of financial support, those found guilty of damaging SSSIs will rightly face a fine of up to £20,000 and—perhaps more important—will be forced to reinstate the land.
Compulsory restoration may prove far more effective than the fine as a preventive measure. The costs of repairing land where it has been deliberately despoiled could amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds, and the threat of financial repercussions must be the most powerful of disincentives.
I now turn to another part of the Bill that I particularly welcome—the protection of wild birds. To me, the egg collector and nest stealer represents the lowest form of life. I once visited a warden working for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on a remote Scottish island.
762
He described coming across a peregrine nest thief hanging by his fingernails after slipping in pursuit of a nest. He graphically described the internal conflicts that swept through him as he pondered whether to rescue that sad individual. That may sound unduly harsh, but that warden saw the effects of such crimes all too often—the distraught parent birds and the depleted numbers the following season. Perhaps most disturbing of all, he saw birds deliberately poisoned by a sick minority of people—a practice that is thankfully in decline.
It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that I welcome the increased penalties and enforcements provided in the Bill. Those who seek to deceive by snatching birds from the wild and rearing their chicks will face their comeuppance. The ancestry of birds will be traced. Inspectors will have greater powers—and quite right too. If we cannot protect these birds, who will? I hope that some exemplary sentences will be meted out to those who hoard and steal wild bird eggs. They make big money from those birds—they should face big sentences.
Access and rights of way have received more attention than most aspects of the Bill—both during its preparation and since its publication. We have heard some excellent speeches. I have little to add to the comments of the majority, to the effect that these provisions are overdue and are to be applauded. They will open up vast tracts of our countryside and will enrich the relationship between the public and our natural heritage.
I have had many letters from constituents outraged by blocked footpaths, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my constituent Hazel Perham from Treverva, who has led the campaign in Cornwall for a number of years. Hazel is very supportive of the Bill, and for her, as for many like her, its successful passage through Parliament will be the realisation of a dream.
I believe and hope that landowners and farmers who oppose such measures will stop to consider the opportunities that they offer. The Bill is another key step in the creation of a living, breathing countryside, protected and embellished for the enjoyment of us all. What attracts people to living or visiting the countryside is its beauty, its landscape and its serenity. The more people experience the joys of the countryside, the more they will appreciate its value and value its existence. Alternative forms of income may be sought by those who maintain this natural heritage, through farm tourism and the sale of local produce. Our natural heritage will increasingly become a recognised label of quality—whether for the life style that it embodies or the produce that it supplies. To use the parlance of the time, this is a fine example of joined-up thinking and should be encouraged within the rural economy as well as within government.
It is partly in that context that I suggest that the omission of measures providing for the improved management of areas of outstanding natural beauty is disappointing, although I am heartened to hear that there may be an announcement. Again, I choose to focus more on the opportunities such measures would offer rather than on the supposed problems that they would cause.
Cornwall has a high proportion of areas of outstanding natural beauty. Some 20 per cent. of England's heritage coastline is in our county and is enjoyed by the whole nation. Unfortunately, existing legislation does not provide for its proper management, and there are not

763
sufficient resources to handle the task. By making management a statutory duty of local authorities, that deficiency could be addressed. This is not simply a question of landscape management, but of integrating the economic management of rural areas and building local partnerships that include landowners, local interests and national agencies.
It is my belief that that would benefit the rural economy. The potential would exist for the improved marketing of local produce and for the sensitive development of tourism. Such areas would be given an enhanced identity, to be used to their advantage in a number of ways. I encourage Ministers to give the question some thought. I also make a plea for Cornish hedges to be debated in Committee.
Notwithstanding those suggestions, I believe that the Bill represents an important step forward. It contributes to the creation of a living, breathing and working countryside. It facilitates an improved relationship between the public and the countryside, and it is with pleasure that I give it my enthusiastic support.
6.24 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: In opening the debate, the Minister for the Environment said that changing the workings of the common agricultural policy was more important than the Bill. I agree with that, and I believe that there will be widespread disappointment in the countryside at the Government's choice of priorities. There is a fear that by the time the Government get round to tackling the real problems in the countryside, many involved in agriculture and the allied industries will have gone to the wall. That process will not be arrested or obviated by the prospect of the much-vaunted rural White Paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) pointed out, quite rightly, that there is a fundamental issue of principle at stake in this debate. That view was not shared by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who seemed to cast aspersions on us for raising a point of principle in the debate. Second Reading debates are traditionally the right time at which to voice reservations about the principle of the Bill under discussion: if we do not raise matters of principle at this stage of the Bill's passage, it will be inappropriate to raise them at a later stage.
The point of principle is an important one. It has to do with the fact that we are increasingly a property-owning democracy. Ownership of property in this country is protected by the law of property. Millions of homeowners will appreciate and understand that an important principle is at stake. They want someone to defend the principle that if one owns a property, one has full rights over that property, which should not be encumbered by the public or anybody else. The Bill, of course, seeks to change that principle in a fundamental way.
When I intervened on the Minister and asked what precedent there was for this departure from what has previously been the case—the sacrosanct right of ownership over property—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said, from a sedentary
764
position, "Soviet Russia." That opinion would not be shared by my constituent Mr. Parish of Lydbury North, who wrote in respect of the statutory right of access:
this is an infringement of the basic rights of free and unfettered possession of one's property… Not even in the thankfully-departed Soviet Union was the public allowed access at will…
It is no defence for the Government to say that a majority of the 2,000 responses to their consultation paper supported the statutory right of access. There are potentially far more users of rights of way or rights of access than landowners. At the risk of appearing somewhat trite, it is like asking the general populace whether they are in favour of free beer when there are more beer drinkers than brewers, or asking whether they want lower taxes when there are more taxpayers than tax collectors.
I have a very lovely constituency in the south of Shropshire. It has notable landmarks such as the Clee hills, the Stiperstones, Long Mynd, Caer Caradoc. Some of them are in private ownership, some are in the ownership of the National Trust. I have never, in my 13 years in the House, had complaints from constituents about access to the countryside. Indeed, the access provided is adequate—certainly in my county—and that is praiseworthy.
Furthermore, as a lifelong recreational walker I have never, in any part of the country—whether in the south-west, in Wales, Scotland, or the Pennines—
Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gill: In normal circumstances, I would, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a 10-minute limit on speeches.
I have never experienced any problems when walking anywhere in the country. When I walk in those places, I accept that I do so at my own risk—on that matter, my views might differ from those of Labour Members. In Committee, it is important that we thrash out the limits of the liability of landowners. In a moment, I shall expand on that point in relation to one of my constituents.
There is already a huge network of rights of way. I have never received any complaints about the extent of that network, or about access to it. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is a keen walker, who is dedicated to achieving the aims and objects of the Bill. He pointed out that footpath legislation is not an easy matter. That is an understatement: as we know, the matter is fraught with difficulty. If time had permitted, I should have liked to give the House many examples from my constituency to demonstrate that point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) was correct to point out that, if the Bill receives its Second Reading, we must be careful to get the detail right in Committee. If we do not, there will be many disputes—possibly leading to litigation. I appeal to Ministers to bear in mind the increasing needs of recreational horse riders, who sometimes experience difficulty in finding paths that they can use. We must ensure that we take their requirements into account before the Bill is enacted.
Will the Minister consider the legal position of my constituent Mr. Hunter of Beckbury, who told me that

765
three sides of his three-acre garden are bounded by a footpath and agricultural land? The whole area was fenced with chain-link fencing. His letter stated:
Over the last few years, people have broken down my fencing, allowed dogs to foul my land, and dumped their cans and rubbish. The last straw was when some men dumped an old three piece suite of furniture.
To protect my property I have had part of my boundary fence replaced with a four strand barbed wire fence.
Mr. Hunter asks what risk he runs of being taken to court for any injury that ramblers might do themselves on his barbed-wire fence. He rightly points out:
Surely, if people are allowed to roam over other people's land. they should do so at their own risk.
That is also my view.
As the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) said, the footpath network is a national asset. I agree. However, it is important to understand how and why that national asset came into being. As most Members will be aware, footpaths were established because in previous centuries, families living on farms used those routes to go to church, to the pub, to their neighbours, to the mill to get their corn milled, and so on. I am keen that the legislation should offer a suitable and simple means whereby those historical paths are rationalised sensibly for both landowners and walkers.
I caution against the law of unintended consequences—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
6.35 pm
Ms Chris McCafferty: It is always a great privilege for hon. Members to speak in the Chamber on an issue of major importance—locally and nationally—to their own constituents. This is just such an occasion.
I wholeheartedly support my constituents' demand for a right of access to local moorland and heath from which they have been banned for centuries. Furthermore, I wholly support the national campaign for access to the 4 million acres of mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land, denied by so few to so many.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on introducing the Bill. I also acknowledge the inspiration of lifelong campaigners whom it is a privilege to know and to call friends. Benny Rothman, now 88 years old, is one of the six campaigners who were sent to jail for leading the mass trespass on Kinder Scout in 1932. He did so much to raise awareness and interest in access issues. Local campaigners, Alan and Elsie Gaskell, have been involved in the struggle for the past 50 years. Alan is now retired, but his mere presence at the local authority rights of way committee is still enough to give any ill-informed councillor pause for thought.
In my constituency of Calder Valley, much of the upland has been designated an area of outstanding natural beauty. Significant areas have been designated sites of special scientific interest. Always wild, always beautiful and sometimes unforgiving, there are secret places that calm the brain, expand the mind and make the spirits soar.
Regrettably, the wildest and most beautiful places are often the most inaccessible; not because of the selfishness and perversity of nature, but—sadly—because of our
766
fellow man. One such place is known locally as Boulsworth moor. Lad Law is its summit; at 1700 ft, it is the highest point in the south Pennines. That is the very landscape that inspired the Brontë sisters, who lived nearby.
As long ago as the 1950s, a public inquiry found in favour of access to Boulsworth, but nothing was done to achieve it. Attempts to negotiate access have been continuous since the 1970s, but with no success at all. The land on the Yorkshire side still cannot be walked on without the prior consent of the landowner.
In 1977, a three-mile concessionary path was allowed by the North West water authority on the Lancashire side of Boulsworth. At present, North West Water does not object—to its credit—to walkers on its land. Unfortunately, most of the area is in Yorkshire.
There are five landowners on Boulsworth. Four are opposed to access for walkers, although they encourage numerous groups with shooting rights; only one does not object to walkers. When Tom Stephenson, who was responsible for establishing the Pennine way, wanted the route to cross Boulsworth, he was stopped by a local landowner—Lord Savile—and was forced to devise a route that passed over lower ground. Why?
Of course, it is true that SSSI land in an area of outstanding natural beauty deserves and needs special protection. I look forward to the Minister's statement on that aspect of the Bill. It is right that access to open country is linked to care and respect for farming, landowning, shooting and nature conservation interests. It is important that the Bill provides a duty of care on all who use the countryside to respect the country code and the needs of a working landscape. For the majority, walking is an innocent and harmless activity, but we must protect the countryside against the destructive minority, whoever and wherever they are.
Ironically, when it comes to harming the countryside, it is not walkers who are the main culprits. It is not walkers who have rooted up 100,000 miles of hedgerows in the past decade, and it is certainly not walkers who have polluted our rivers and aquifers with pesticides and chemical fertilisers.
No farmer, landowner or conservationist has anything to fear from the Bill, which provides the proper protection that their crops and livestock and the natural habitats on their land require. It would be wrong, and indeed foolish, to offer anything less.
We have heard many prophets of doom today, especially from the Opposition Benches, claiming that the countryside will be irrevocably changed for the worse if the Government grant access to the countryside. We have heard the same arguments used in connection with the banning of hunting with dogs. Yes, the countryside would be irrevocably changed, but I believe for the better—and not just for visitors to the countryside.
My constituents live in a semi-rural community, often working in the countryside, yet they are powerful advocates for change. How can that be? Well, we might say that it is because they are bloody-minded, proud, pernickety and independent, as they have been recently described in a book about the area, and perhaps our character is formed by the landscape and the weather, but I would add that it is because they are also canny Yorkshire men and women, with a generosity of spirit, who are proud of their heritage and happy to share it with

767
others. They acknowledge a common interest in the natural beauty and special qualities of the uplands, and the need to work together for their protection and enhancement. They recognise that improved access will require better local public transport, so that everyone can access the countryside without using their cars. That would be good for visitors, and even better for the local community. They would welcome the increased revenue that sensitively managed tourism will bring to the area, and they recognise that the interests of walkers and of people who work and live in the country can, and do, coincide.
The Bill is the most significant piece of legislation in 50 years, and it marks the pinnacle of a 116-year campaign by countryside lovers everywhere. It fulfils Labour's manifesto commitment to give people greater freedom to explore our countryside. It dramatically increases access to open space and it modernises our rights of way for the first time in 100 years. It provides for a balance between the rights and the responsibilities of people enjoying the countryside, and will give a major boost to everyone who wants greater access.
I believe that the new rights and responsibilities in the Bill will produce a countryside partnership that benefits everyone. We shall all be better off. That is why we need to change the law. That is why I am supporting the Bill, and that is why all Members of the House should support it.
6.43 pm
Mr. James Paice: It is a great shame that the Government have decided to combine in the same Bill a considerable amount of legislation to protect the countryside and further protect sites of special scientific interest—legislation on which there is cross-party consensus, and with which the vast majority of the House will concur except on matters of detail—and measures dealing with the right of access, on which it is well known that there is huge disagreement on principle. It is an even greater shame that the Government have decided to do so at this late stage in the parliamentary timetable, when only a third or so of the parliamentary year remains for the Bill to complete its stages. As a result, there is a risk that the Government will lose the whole thing because of discussions on one aspect, or that, in order to keep to a timetable, they will be forced to introduce unfair guillotine motions and so risk damaging the good bits of the Bill by cutting short debate.
As I have said previously in the House, I oppose the idea of the right to roam or the right to access. I oppose it because, as is abundantly clear from many of the sedentary remarks made by Labour Members during the debate and from one or two speeches, it is based on what I believe to be that most ignoble of human traits—envy. It is an anti-landowner, anti-property and anti-privacy aspect of their Bill. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members to laugh; they were not sitting here listening to comments of the type that were made throughout the opening speeches, which showed an unwillingness to accept the rights and responsibilities that go with land ownership.
I believe that the Government would have achieved their objectives, which I wholly support, of allowing people to walk in the countryside, enjoy the countryside
768
and, let us hope, learn a bit more about the countryside—especially agriculture—as they walk in the countryside, far more effectively and for far more people if they had chosen to develop a comprehensive network of footpaths. For the Minister for the Environment to use the argument that the voluntary approach has not been wholly successful as a reason for introducing the right to roam is of course—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): It has been tried and does not work.
Mr. Paice: The fact is that, under the voluntary approach, there has been an increase in access to footpaths. It may not have been as big an increase as we might like, but it is a red herring for the Minister to use that as a justification, because I would be quite happy if there were some element of statutory—
Mr. David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice: No; I will not.
I would be quite happy if there were some statutory basis for that comprehensive network of footpaths, but the Government have made no attempt to create it. As a result, for the vast majority of people in the south-east of England, including my constituents, the right of access provided by the Bill is relatively immaterial. Most would need to drive considerable distances to reach the open land to which the Bill applies, whereas a comprehensive network of footpaths would apply to them near their homes.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, we must accept the parliamentary arithmetic. Therefore I want to make some constructive comments about the Bill and about measures that I hope that the Government will accept in Committee.
The Government have identified all the key issues of concern on the access issues, but I fear that they have fallen down on the solutions. I hope that that is because the Minister does not fully understand the implications of what he proposes. I fear that perhaps he does understand and has dismissed the concerns on several issues.
Such issues include the potential damage to heathland and moorland. They also include the inadequacy of 28 days' temporary closure, the impact of access on nesting and sporting activities, and the absurdity of ignoring that closure at weekends and on bank holidays—as though the birds would understand that. The issues surrounding temporary closure were raised by many of my hon. Friends. There are also problems relating to dogs on the lead.
There are problems of liability relating not to natural features, but to man-made features even if they were made millennia ago, which is quite possible on some of our moors. There are ancient man-made structures, very ancient mine workings or quarries. What about gates and those dry stone walls that we have heard so much about? What about ancient peat cuttings? All present hazards and yet they are not natural features.

769
There is also the issue of the penalties in the Bill, which are simply to ban an individual for the rest of the day or to declare that they cease to have the rights under the Bill and therefore become a trespasser under common law. Wowee! The latter will not strike fear into the average walker, because we all know that the law of trespass is highly ineffective; whereas the landowner is, as my hon. Friends have said, at risk of incurring much greater cost and liability as a result of the Bill. As several hon. Members have said, there is no justification for the right of access during the night, for all the reasons that have been stated.
The proposals will require landowners to police the legislation. At present, people understand the position on access, but they are not necessarily able to recall, for every piece of land, all the constraints that will be put on them. Simply maintaining the status quo on liability or on trespass is not enough. That fails to take on the purpose of the Bill, which is to increase access and to encourage more people to walk in the countryside and to range over much greater areas of land. The dry stone wall that they could not go near on a footpath is one that they might be able to clamber over as part of the right to roam.
In the few minutes left to me, I wish to consider other aspects of the Bill. I welcome, as far as they go, the changes on public rights of way and road traffic. In particular, I welcome the constraints on the use of cross-country vehicles on green lanes. As the Minister knows, the British Horse Society is concerned about the implications of those proposals for horse users, and I hope that that issue will be addressed.
I also welcome the concept of restricted byways. However, as I said in an intervention on the Minister for the Environment and as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made clear, some people need to use vehicles—and perhaps agricultural vehicles—to access property along such byways, but they do not want the byways to become open to all traffic. The two options in the Bill are not enough and I hope that the Government will consider this issue.
The Bill's provisions for the creation of stopping-up and diversionary powers move in the right direction. I particularly welcome schedule 7, which allows for stopping up where footpaths cross school grounds. In my constituency, a footpath crosses the campus of a large secondary school which was once two schools. The school had to spend a large sum of money to put up security fencing on both sides of the footpath to salve its own conscience and to do what it thought right to protect children. The proposals in the Bill would have prevented that.
Clause 56 refers to obstructions to the carriageway. I note that it does not include provisions for temporary buildings, and my constituency faces serious problems with travellers' caravans obstructing the byways. I hope that we can consider that issue.
There is a need to upgrade the protection of sites of special scientific interest. However, I emphasise that the damage that we all know is taking place is not, as Labour Members have implied, just the result of the activities of farm owners and landowners. Often, the damage is caused by developers, sometimes with the Government's compliance. For example, the Cardiff bay scheme, which
770
was the result of a Government-sponsored Bill, and the Newbury bypass are among many developments to which the Government agreed, but which damaged SSSIs.
Missing in the provisions is a consideration of cost. Nothing in the Bill will enable landowners to be provided with the money to carry out the management notices that are submitted. I do not advocate that they should receive every penny for every minor improvement, but some management programmes are costly to develop and resources should be made available for them. As others have said, it goes without saying that, given the current state of agriculture, landowners cannot afford to undertake such developments.
6.53 pm
Mr. David Lepper: My speech will be largely congratulatory in tone. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), on having secured a slot for the Bill in the legislative timetable. Over the past year or so, their approach has drawn together all the appropriate organisations with an interest in the related issues of access and protection. They have listened to the concerns and fears of those organisations, and this Bill is the result.
The approach of bringing people together is reflected in the national countryside access forum. In advance of the Bill, it brought landowners, farmers, ramblers and local authorities together to consider some of the detailed problems that might arise and the practicalities of putting the proposals into action. How different that is from the approach of Conservative Members. Divisiveness has characterised every one of their speeches. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) seemed to make the longest speech that I have heard in my three years in the House. He managed not only to patronise people whom he described as simple farmers, but to characterise ramblers as hooligans. Similarly, Nicholas van Hoogstraten, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred, and about whom I shall say more shortly, described ramblers as riff-raff. That divisive approach has been most regrettable.
However, I welcome the speeches of Opposition Members. If they are widely publicised, they will put new heart into Labour voters throughout the country. The Opposition criticise us often enough for not implementing our manifesto promises, so it is a bit rich for them to criticise us for implementing two of them—on wildlife protection and the right to roam.
I have congratulated Ministers, but I wish also to congratulate those Back Benchers who, in the life of this Parliament, have kept the issues of wildlife protection and access to the countryside high on the parliamentary agenda. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle for his Right to Roam Bill, of which I was pleased to be a sponsor. In this Parliament, there have been 22 debates in the House of Commons on wildlife protection; nine private Members' Bills including, in 1998, my own Wildlife Bill; 62 early-day motions on related issues, including my own—let me congratulate myself—which received the backing of 349 Members from all the parties in the House; and eight Select Committee reports on wildlife protection.

771
I also congratulate the non-governmental organisations which have helped to keep these issues high on the political agenda. It would take me all my 10 minutes to list them all—I am sure that I would forget some even if I did—so I shall pay tribute to the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which has brought so many organisations together, and to the Ramblers Association. Those organisations have made careful and well-argued points, lobbied individual Members and Ministers and have kept the issue alive with members of the public. The campaign that they have waged is already seen, and will continue to be seen, as a model of its kind. Those organisations secured 250,000 petitions nationally on the issue of wildlife protection. People from town and country called for exactly the type of legislation that we have in the Bill. To be inclusive, I add that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), who is not present at the moment, and I presented those signatures to No. 10 Downing street about a year ago.
The Bill is welcome and much needed. I first became aware of problems facing sites of special scientific interests three years ago, when a farmer ploughed up part of Offham down near Lewes, close to my constituency. When in opposition, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment went with me to that site and his intervention helped to secure action to prevent damage to it. That site, which is on the Clayton and Offham escarpment, is now subject to a long-term, managed restoration programme, and far too many sites have had to become subject to such programmes.
The need for protection has been well argued, but this Bill shifts the emphasis from preventing damage to positive management for important SSSIs. I welcome the proposals that allow for the formulation and, if necessary, the imposition of management plans; an increase in the penalties for damage to those sites; the power to order restoration of damaged sites; and an increase in the penalties for damage to sites other than SSSIs. I also welcome the proposals for greater access. It has always seemed to me that access goes hand in hand with environmental protection, rather than being at odds with it. Other hon. Members have mentioned measures that could have been included in the Bill, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those in his reply.
I come now to two issues of particular local concern. I represent a Sussex constituency that includes part of the south downs. I did not know until recently that, taking East and West Sussex together, Sussex is the second most wooded county in England. Unlike the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who welcomed the exclusion of woodland from the Bill, I ask the Minister to think again about that exclusion—otherwise, parts of the south downs that should be open to access will be excluded.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lepper: No, I regret that time is too short.
Finally, I return to the subject of Nicholas von Hoogstraten and his company, Rarebargain Ltd., which was, thanks to the Ramblers Association, recently fined £1,600 and required to pay costs because of the obstruction of a footpath on his estate near Uckfield, where the building of his mausoleum is in progress. I am
772
concerned that the Bill might not prevent obstruction such as that perpetrated by Mr. van Hoogstraten because it does not provide a right to require the removal of buildings that obstruct rights of way. It is a building that obstructs part of the right of way on the van Hoogstraten estate.
That is a point of detail, but it is of local concern to me, to my constituents and, I am sure, to Mr. van Hoogstraten. I believe that he was once one of my constituents, but thankfully he is one no longer.
Mr. David Taylor: Where has he gone then?
Mr. Lepper: I hope, as I am sure my constituents do, that he is incarcerated in his mausoleum.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address those two points of detail in his wind-up speech. I end as I began, by congratulating all those who have brought the Bill before us and by welcoming it.
7.3 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: When the Minister for the Environment announced these proposals on 8 March last year, I questioned the wisdom of allowing a general right to roam over extensively grazed land because that is the very environment that is under the greatest ecological threat. Typically, the areas that we are referring to are moorland, heath and heather uplands. They are delicately balanced areas, and I warned against putting them under ever-greater pressure with the inevitable further decline in upland ground-laying species of birds. I was greeted with howls of derision and even anger from Labour Members. I repeat that warning.
I was born and brought up in a rural environment, and I would welcome more access to it, but access that is managed and does not destroy the very environment that we all seek to enjoy. I am not rowing a boat for any landowner or sectional interest, but we must ensure that the environment is not destroyed as a direct result of ill-thought-out measures.
I hope that the debate will not descend to howls of derision. There are basic truths that need to be repeated. I do not object to increased access at all. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned the Berwyn and the Aran mountains. As a lawyer, I was directly responsible for opening up the Aran mountains and negotiating voluntary agreements between ramblers and local landowners. Those agreements stood the test of time and still operate 20 years later. No one should say that the voluntary approach has utterly failed; in some areas it has succeeded rather well. The Berwyn mountains is another example, and there are others in England and Wales.
It has been said that some 12,000 miles of footpaths have fallen into disrepair because local authorities are not taking their responsibilities seriously or, more likely, do not have the money to maintain them. Reintroducing those paths to the UK network would make a considerable difference. I note that the Countryside Commission has said that £30 million would be required annually for five years to reinstate those paths. That would be money well spent.
Mr. Gordon Prentice rose—
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman, who I will not allow to intervene—I do not insult him, but time is short—

773
rightly said that most land in the UK is within a short distance of the footpath network. That is fine, if it is true, and I want there to be more footpaths in the network, but it begs the question whether we need the Bill at all. Should we not have started on the footpath network first? The Government may be ducking that issue so that they can provide access on the cheap.
I may be wrong about that, but I am sure that we need a careful balance in the Bill between the expectations of ramblers and walkers and those of the occupiers of land. We need a balance between the needs of walkers and the need to nurture the birds and wildlife on the uplands. There must also be a balance between the legitimate right to use the land for animal husbandry and the right of access. I do not see that balance in the Bill. On the one hand, the occupier who damages a site of special scientific interest will be fined £20,000, but a person who trespasses and does the same damage will be told to go away for a day. That is not the balance that I seek, and any sensible, right-thinking person would agree with me.
In any event, as other hon. Members have said, the law of trespass is in complete disarray and has been for centuries. As any law student will know, the old wooden lie is that "Trespassers will be prosecuted." They cannot be prosecuted, apart from under limited provisions on criminal trespass. It is no use saying that the law exists to back up the occupier—it is of no use at all.
We need to consider fragile habitats and to ensure that there are sufficient conservation safeguards. Again, the Bill appears to be deficient. Commentators far more informed than I am will tell the House that the merlin, golden plover and others would be at great risk from unrestricted access during the breeding season. The Bill does not allow only for linear access; people will be able to walk side by side across a heath and cause destruction. Again, I say let us have access but we should be careful about how we allow that access. Clause 1(1)(d) says that "access land" includes any land which
is situated more than 600 metres above sea level.
Does that make sense? That environment is very delicate.
I appreciate that this is a Second Reading debate, but I ask the Minister whether the definition of "cultivated land" refers only to land used for crops or whether it covers grassland that is cultivated regularly. That is an important point. The devaluation of land with no compensation may well breach human rights legislation, and that will be a live issue. I hope that the Government will think again about that, despite the section 19 statement at the start of the Bill.
Common land is vital to the smaller farmer because he or she will graze animals on that land. That is especially true in Wales. Even at this late stage, I echo the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) in asking for that matter to be left to the National Assembly for Wales because it is a local matter for Wales and Wales only. It is only right that we should do so. There are particular strains on the Welsh uplands. The lambing season is extended owing to inclement weather and the need to try to vary it in order to capture the market. Twenty-eight days is of no use whatever.
774
I shall hurriedly refer to one or two comments from my constituents. Mrs. Rogers, a keen horse rider, asked me to raise the following points:
Any plans to improve rights of way must carry total commitment.
Section 56 needs to be amended to allow diversionary routes to be arranged.
A sitting Justice of the Peace refers to the climbing of Cader Idris by about 80,000 visitors a year. That leads to erosion but, as he says,
I am not against…Open Access.
He continues:
I do believe that if we are not careful in a National Park the visitors will destroy the uniqueness and the charm of what they have come to see. Also in livestock areas like Meirionnydd it would ignore the public's need for way-marked routes because most of them are fortunately sensible to the dangers to livestock that their rambling can bring.
He says finally:
there…seem to be double standards…here. On the one hand Landowners face criminal prosecution"
and on the other, trespassers will be subject to the archaic law of trespass. I agree with him.
The steward of the internationally renowned Aberdovey golf club refers to many people in the area walking their dogs on the common. He asks that we ensure that dogs will be on leads, as the Bill stipulates, and that there will be some financial support to assist landowners with the erection of notices to inform the public of their duties.
I heard the Minister's comments on liability for injury with regard to clause 13, but we need to consider the matter further. I agree with what has been said about the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria—one enters at one's own risk. That would be entirely reasonable in the circumstances. I know that farmers are concerned about the matter.
I am speaking not on behalf of large farmers, but those who are struggling to make a living in the present economic climate. They are desperately worried about the cost of insurance and of compliance. Thus I return to my original premise—I am not against access per se, quite the reverse, but the Bill has many grey and potentially problematic areas which must be clarified and amended. Above all, such matters should be left to the National Assembly for Wales.
I warmly welcome the excellent provisions in parts II and III on public rights of way and road traffic and nature conservation and wildlife protection. It is very good to see them; I am pleased that they are in the Bill. However, for the reasons that I gave earlier, I and my party cannot support Second Reading and will reserve our opinion on Third Reading.
7.13 pm
Mr. Martin Caton: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). I did not agree with many of his reservations about access, but until this evening, I was not aware of the part that he played in opening up the Aran mountains to the public. As someone who has benefited from that, I take this opportunity to thank him.
Like all my hon. Friends, I celebrate the introduction of the Bill. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) in rejoicing at it. It is a major piece of legislation that moves us forward considerably in

775
the right direction. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and his Front-Bench team. Their understanding that the future of our countryside—the way in which we use it, value it and protect it—is all about balance shines through the Bill.
The Bill balances the legitimate claims of landowners and land managers and their need and right to produce food and other goods from that land, with, first, the equally valid claim of the public to enjoy the freedom of the countryside and its precious and varied qualities, especially those of our least tamed areas, and secondly, the claim of the countryside itself—the flora, fauna, landscape and high-quality natural and man-made environments. The Bill is about striking the right balance for this first century of the new millennium. I am sure that that was the Government's objective, and that is how we should measure the Bill's success.
On the whole, the Government have been remarkably successful. In the value of its separate measures, I believe that the Bill will work. It also provides a new framework for considering that balance between agricultural production, freedom of access and environmental protection—a framework in which we may stop regarding such claims as competing or even conflicting, and instead recognise that, in future, we must, for the benefit of all three interests, make them increasingly complementary.
In these few minutes, I want to say something about the countryside and wildlife protection parts of the Bill. Before doing so, I put on record my full support for the creation of the new rights of access to mountain, moor, heath, down and common land. That should not be underestimated or downplayed. It is a significant extension to the freedom of the people of this country. It is motivated not by envy but by a desire to improve quality of life. The extension is made without in any way endangering the livelihood of the farming community, contrary to what some of the scaremongers on the Opposition Benches have suggested.
I welcome the modernisation of our rights of way laws, although I hear some of my hon. Friends' reservations. I look forward to hearing those arguments developed in Committee. I also welcome the requirement on councils to improve the network and to take into account the needs of disabled people and others with mobility problems in considering applications for new stiles and gates.
The target for completion of the historic record of rights of way—25 years—sounds a long time, but I know from my council that to deliver on that will probably require a doubling of the activity rate in the department responsible—and I do not think that my council is the furthest behind in England and Wales by any means.
On the countryside protection arm of the Bill, one need only look at what has happened to so many of our sites of special scientific interest over the years to realise that the way we treat them must change and that the penalties for damaging them must increase to constitute a real deterrent. The Bill deals with current deficiencies and I am sure will result in much better protection for those special sites, but new legislation is also required for another group of special countryside areas: our areas of outstanding natural beauty.
I declare my enthusiastic interest: I represent the first designated AONB in the country. Gower, like all the 40 other AONBs in England and Wales, was designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside
776
Act 1949, which in many ways the Bill succeeds. The 1949 Act was flawed in its provisions on AONBs. It granted power to designate, but did not make anyone responsible for the areas' management. That was in marked contrast to provisions on national parks.
Over the decades, Ministers of various Governments, including this one, have assured us that AONBs, in terms of landscape quality and wildlife conservation, are equal in their value to the nation to our national parks. Yet over that same time, we have seen very different approaches, failures of approach and enormous variation of approach to individual AONBs.
The lack of any requirement for anyone to take responsibility for managing AONBs has resulted in a loss of some quality landscape features and valuable natural habitats. We can put that right by a straightforward and simple amendment that would give local authorities statutory responsibility for the management of AONBs, including a requirement to draw up management plans. That would be building on best practice. We should grab the opportunity to provide better protection. It would be totally in line with the approach in other parts of the Bill and with the philosophy underlying it.
I hope that, during the passage of this important piece of legislation, Ministers will be prepared to look again at the subject of AONBs. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister said about resourcing, and those changes are welcome, but we must reconsider the way in which we look after such areas and not just think about the amount of money involved. The Bill is excellent, but it would be better if it also tackled the management of AONBs.
The Bill would also be improved by amendments to provide better protection for hedgerows, other field boundaries and landscape features. Ministers have acknowledged the damaging consequences of the loss of many of our hedgerows in the past half century—indeed, they set up the hedgerows review, which made several recommendations in 1998. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) says, the Bill provides no opportunity to implement some of those recommendations, especially the provision whereby local authorities identify important local hedgerows in consultation with the communities they serve.
It might also be useful to investigate whether the protection we provide for hedgerows could be extended to cover features that are often regarded locally as hedges, but are not defined as such in legislation. I have in mind the cloddiau found in Wales: they are often valuable in terms of their antiquity, the wildlife habitat they provide and their landscape quality, but they are really banks covered with grass, ground-cover plants and gorse or bracken.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I suspect that it will be some time before another major countryside Bill is introduced. It is vital that we use the vehicle now available to us to improve the prospects for our rural areas, the people who live and work in those areas, visitors and the quality of the countryside itself.
7.21 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I support the principle of Bill, as I did that of the private Member's

777
Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) almost exactly a year ago, which is to allow access to those areas of the greatest beauty in England and Wales, which, until now, has been denied to our constituents. As a hiker and a mountaineer, I have always shared the anger of those who complain that there remain mountains and moors, heath and downland, coasts and beaches that can never be seen by the public, except with special permission. That denial is a legacy of feudalism, persisting rather like those ancient covenants that prevent our constituents from building a swimming pool in their back garden—as remains the case in parts of my constituency today.
Of course I accept that the legitimate interests of the owners of such land must be protected, and the Government claim to have recognised that in their proposals. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) and others have said, some of the proposed protection for landowners falls short of that which is required and there remains inadequate protection for wildlife, especially native plant life. I share some of those concerns and I expressed them in relation to the Right to Roam Bill last year.
It is right that we now proceed with the right legislation to enable access, as the Bill would provide. A voluntary approach, as advocated by representatives of landowners, will never deliver the degree of access required. In that respect, the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which attempted to improve access, has failed, the comments of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) notwithstanding.
Moreover, there has always been a misunderstanding on the part of some landowners and farmers of the protection that legislation would afford them. My constituency is predominantly urban, but there remains open rural space that is farmed, although it continues to be threatened by development. When I participated in the Second Reading of the Right to Roam Bill last year, I received a letter from a farmer constituent who noted that I was advocating the notion of the public having the freedom to trample over his ploughed fields; he had not appreciated that that Bill contained protection against such intrusion. Today's Bill, while providing for and protecting rights of access, certainly makes clear the responsibilities, obligations and restrictions on those who seek such access to protect the rights of farmers and landowners.
I have several reservations about the Bill, the first of which relates to clause 13, which addresses the fundamental issue of occupiers' liability. Everyone exercising the right to roam has to assume responsibility for his or her own actions; thus I welcome clause 13, which amends the Occupiers' Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984. However, I remain concerned about the wording of the amendment to the 1984 Act, mainly the use of the word "natural" in respect of obstacles. That term does not include reasonable and necessary land management measures which, although essential to the good of the land and to access, provide an obstacle or hazard. It would be better to distinguish between obstacles that are intentionally placed so as to create a hazard and those that are either natural or the consequence of legitimate land management. I hope that that can be clarified in Committee.
778
My second reservation relates to the access provisions contained in clause 21, which deals with exclusion or restriction of access by the landowner. Under the clause, the "entitled person" can apply for access to the land to be restricted, but such restrictions are limited to 28 days a year and cannot include Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas day, Good Friday or a bank holiday. However, without harbouring any malicious desire to deny others enjoyment, a landowner may have good reasons to restrict access on a weekend. Would it not be more sensible for the access authority to make a reasoned judgment on the merits of each case?
The question of who should bear financial responsibility for access concerns many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The Bill is vague on that point. The owner bears the responsibility, in agreement with the access authority, for carrying out work to provide reasonable access, and the authority is to provide a contribution to the cost of that work—but what constitutes an appropriate contribution? Is the landowner expected to shoulder 50 per cent. of the costs, or 10 per cent? What happens if the relevant parties do not agree on the issue?
Under the Bill, local authorities have an option to employ wardens, but the cost of employing them is not covered. What is to be the source of funding for such wardens? Moreover, is it wrong for the owner of the land to have to pay for signposts to guide members of the public on to his land? I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to those points.
Last year's Right to Roam Bill was withdrawn because of the Government's commitment to introduce a more comprehensive Bill which would also provide greater protection for wildlife. There can be no one who does not welcome greater protection for wildlife; there is more awareness than ever before of the need to protect what is left of our completely natural environment and our endangered species. However, the Bill does not provide adequate protection from those who abuse access and threaten wildlife.
First, abuses under schedule 2 that are not already covered by legislation on criminal damage fall under the civil law. That prevents the authority, the landowner or any legitimate user of the countryside from taking action necessary to deal with an immediate problem. Irreversible damage could be done in minutes to the habitat of creatures such as the great crested newt, but all the police could do is take names and apply for a court injunction. The punishment imposed on a trespasser who fails to conform with schedule 2 is that his or her right of access to that land is removed for the remainder of the day; even if it were possible to enforce such a restriction, it is hardly a disincentive to offending.
Secondly, on a more general point, the Bill does not appear to make provision adequate to meet the need to protect species that are ecologically vulnerable and declining, especially those that spend half the year in hibernation. Such species include the great crested newt, the natterjack toad, the smooth snake and, most endangered of all, the sand lizard. Those living in SSSIs are the best protected, those living in farm ponds, which are rapidly becoming obsolete, are less protected, and those in the way of development have no future.
Despite the general protection called for in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, it strikes me that more positive management is needed in respect of such rare and

779
endangered species. The location of such species should be registered and the owners of the land informed. That would be a role for nature conservation agencies which, until now, have been administratively preoccupied with SSSIs. Such measures would answer representations that I have received from the Herpetological Conservation Trust, which is located in my constituency.
In anticipation of the Bill's introduction, I consulted interested organisations such as the Ramblers Association and the British Mountaineering Council. In calling for rights of access, those organisations are genuinely committed to the protection of the rights of the landowner. They understand that the interests of their members are best served by a co-operative and productive relationship.
It is therefore in the interests of both parties that the obligations imposed upon them in the Bill are clear and do not prejudice the landowner. I hope that in Committee the Bill will be clarified to enable all relevant parties to move forward together and ensure that greater access to our beautiful countryside is a success.
7.30 pm
Ms Joan Walley: I am pleased to take part, however briefly, in the debate. I am conscious of all those who have spoken, especially my hon. Friends, who support the Bill, and all those who have gone before, instigating, organising and continuing the fight for the right of access, improved rights of way and countryside protection.
My right hon. Friend the Minister, who is not with us in the Chamber, can be especially pleased with his unique part in the great step forward that we are taking today. I acknowledge his understanding, persistence and consensus-building, which have helped to bring the Bill to its present stage.
We have cause for celebration. Over the years many people have believed in and worked for the Bill, including those who are present and people who may be following proceedings at home. Above all, we have a Government who said in opposition that they would legislate, and who have taken the minimum time necessary to set in motion the consultation processes required to introduce the draft legislation. We should celebrate the fact that we have done what we said we would do.
I am aware of those who were fellow travellers over the years, who pressed for the Bill, who were pilgrims to Kinder Scout and went on other rallies, and who were involved in the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society, and those who are no longer with us. The campaign has transcended generations. All those who campaigned must celebrate this evening.
As on any long-distance walk, just as we reach the summit and get to where we intended, the horizon changes and we see things from a different perspective. Having reached where we are today, those of us who can see the next stage of the journey know that, above all, we must promote environmental integration. There is still a distance for us to travel to get access and protection for the countryside and wildlife on to the statute book and to make that workable, so that people in our cities, towns and countryside can responsibly enjoy the new rights that they will gain as a result of the Bill.
Ahead of us is an altered destination—sustainability. That needs to be firmly in our sights and mapped out in detail in the Bill. I noted earlier contributions, such as that
780
of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton), whose beautiful constituency I know well, as I lived there for part of my time in south Wales. He and others suggested topics that should be included in the Bill.
We are all time-poor. We must take account of the speed of change and the devastation caused to our wildlife over the past two decades. We have a greater awareness and understanding of climate change, and we know how speedily we must tackle it. We cannot afford to wait another generation and certainly not another century to legislate for further sustainability. We must manage wildlife in the context of the acceleration of global warming.
Gone are the days when we could afford to manage for the status quo. We must recognise the speed with which some species are dying out and the implications of global warming. Butterflies can, perhaps, move from place to place, but other animals and plants cannot do so. We must make sure that we provide stepping stones to survival and corridors that will lead them to the habitat in which they can survive. We must not only give enhanced protection to sites of special scientific interest, but build into the legislation ways of managing change.
As spectacular as our progress has been, if we are to cover the necessary distance, the Government must consider going the extra mile. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has brought us this far. Only once in a lifetime does such a legislative opportunity arise. I hope that he will steer us still further.
In my remaining time, I shall speak about what I should like to see in the Bill. As always, my starting point is north Staffordshire, where I grew up. As a child, I always knew where to go for the first celandines and coltsfoot. I knew where the lanes and open fields were and where the foxes went. I knew the meadows where we had marsh marigolds and ladysmock, ponds full of frogspawn, woods where the wood sorrel and bluebells grew, before the new housebuilding. Back then, the abundance of wildlife was part of my life—something that we all took for granted.
The wildflower meadows were uprooted for new housing. I knew then that if we were to value, save and protect our countryside, we would have to go about it differently. That is why I am so grateful for the work of Staffordshire Wildlife Trust, along with many other local and national organisations that welcome the stricter protection that the Bill gives to SSSIs. They are right to point out that too many of our top wildlife sites have been degraded in the past two decades. They recognise that the Bill offers them a more secure future.
However, wildlife is not found only in SSSIs. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have a multitude of wildlife sites and open spaces, many of which exist because of the long-standing policies and vision of the city council, which reclaimed former colliery and industrial sites. Those are important for all kinds of wildlife, not just protected species. The open spaces are valued by the local community. It is important that we have in our towns and cities places where people can be part of nature. It is good for our sense of well-being to be side by side with nature.
A further consideration is that on such land, animals and plants are not subject to pesticides. It is increasingly important that birds and animals that were once found only in open countryside can find refuge in city centres, and that we can prevent some of the problems that Rachel

781
Carson outlined in "Silent Spring". I should like urban wildlife sites to benefit from the protection afforded by the Bill.
In Staffordshire, as in most counties, we are fortunate to have partnerships for implementing our biodiversity plans. As in the rest of the UK, we have systems in place locally to identify, assess and protect wildlife sites. The partnerships have grown out of the biodiversity action plans that originated from the Rio summit of 1992, and we owe a great deal to them.
The problem remains that there is still no legislative base for sites of lesser importance than SSSIs, and no national standards for them—just a mass of ambiguity about their status. I am not suggesting an inflexible national standard. Much discussion is going on behind the scenes, in English Nature, about how the forthcoming urban White Paper can ensure minimum standards for accessible green space in urban areas.
I hope that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will recognise the need for a national framework that could offer local authorities guidance on individual targets, adapted to each local situation, and linked to indicators of sustainability.
The Bill should be made a vehicle for that. It could offer a means of delivering joined-up government, by extending the concept of species protection and enhanced SSSI protection, both of which are well covered in the Bill, to a third type of protection—protection through designation of wildlife and open spaces, linked to stronger planning guidance, such as a revised planning guidance note 9.
7.40 pm
Mr. Richard Livsey: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). Whatever our perspective, a great love of the countryside enlightens all the participants in the debate. We are all trying to do our best to ensure that the Bill is appropriate in that context.
In his opening speech, the Minister for the Environment referred to Lloyd George's words that no one should be a trespasser in the land of his birth. No one is in Wales; Lloyd George saw to that by fiscal measures. There are not many big landowners left.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Then Lloyd George lived in Surrey.
Mr. Livsey: He did for part of the time.
We build stone walls, plant and go hedging to maintain our hedges, not to pull them out. I have been an instructor in those skills. In my constituency, there are three separate styles of hedging: south Breconshire, north Breconshire and Radnorshire. We protect our hedges.
However, the Bill does not deal with enclosed land but with open countryside, mountain, moorland and common land. We must concentrate on that. There is a cultural difference in people's attitude to access to land in Wales. It is replicated to some extent in Scotland.
The Government's proposals have not gone down well in Wales, and not only in rural Wales. As the Minister for the Environment and the Under-Secretary know, Wales
782
has three national parks and much of the rest of upland Wales is owned or managed by public bodies such as the National Trust, the Ministry of Defence and Crown Estates. Mynydd Eppynt in my constituency comprises 32,000 acres, which are owned by the Ministry of Defence. The families who lived there were uprooted in 1940 and given six weeks to quit. They have never been allowed back.
The Forestry Commission owns a great deal of land in Wales. It is badly managed. It is almost impossible to get on to it because trees are blown down all over the place. My constituency includes such land.
In theory, rural Wales qualifies for inclusion in the Tir Gofal agri-environment scheme. It would qualify in practice if the Welsh Assembly were given sufficient funds to finance it properly. Tir Gofal covers a public form of conservation and environmental designation. More than two thirds of Wales is covered by such designation. The Bill would have a disproportionate impact on Wales because one third of the new statutory access areas that the Bill creates are in Wales. The cost of implementation will therefore fall disproportionately on Welsh people and Welsh public bodies and councils.
As a native of Wales, I have travelled to almost every square kilometre of the country, and I have a good understanding of the people. My constituency is in the county of Powys where 86 per cent. of the land is designated as severely disadvantaged. Indeed, 96 per cent. of the county is in the less-favoured area category. From that statistic, the Minister can visualise the sort of place that Brecon and Radnorshire is, and the huge expanse of open countryside that dominates it. He will also understand that the Bill could have a major impact on my constituency, which consists of 382,000 hectares or 750,000 acres. It is the third biggest constituency in Great Britain.
The Brecon Beacons national park is in part of my constituency. It is the jewel in the crown. It is an outstanding area of countryside, but my constituency is among the most beautiful places in Britain.
I cannot think of another measure whose application to Wales is so suspect. Landowners in Wales have traditionally taken a far more relaxed attitude to the public's use of open land than their counterparts in some areas of England. Other than the large areas owned by the Ministry of Defence or the Forestry Commission, I cannot think of a hill or mountain in the country to which the public does not have access. I have received only one complaint in approximately 15 years about denial of access. That is why we favour a policy of voluntary access. It is a slight on Welsh people to assume that they will deny access to anyone. I have experienced no trouble, nor have my friends—or, indeed, my acquaintances—in open countryside in Wales.
We do not have statutory access to those vast open tracts but we have de facto access. The Bill puts that pragmatic arrangement at risk. I am in favour of access, but if we are not careful, we could walk into a legal minefield. In some cases, landowners have allowed the local and visiting population to walk over their land without hindrance for centuries. The behaviour of those Welsh landowners has traditionally been in stark contrast to that of some of their more confrontational English counterparts, whose unreasonable actions have precipitated some aspects of the Bill.

783
It is essential that the Welsh Assembly deals with the Bill. I shall explain the reasons for that. In parts of Wales, there is land between open hills and enclosed land. It is known as coed cae in south Wales and ffrydd land in north Wales. Ewes and lambs are put there in spring before going up the hill. There are problems with access to that land, and the Countryside Council for Wales has been reasonable about it. I held a recent meeting of 85 commoners in the upper Swansea valley. The commoners were heard and the designation of the map, which is in a pilot area, was changed to exclude the land that I described. The Bill has to tackle such matters of detail.
We must consider the Bill's impact on family farms, which are economic units only because of their common grazing. What will happen to common land legislation? What will happen to graziers associations, which are based on democratic principles, and have elected chairs and often include as many as 100 graziers on various commons? Those problems must be sorted out.
I support the protection of SSSIs and the exclusion of four-wheel-drive vehicles, which are an utter menace in many upland areas. We should consider the 600-m rules carefully. Plynlimon is 3,000 ft high and has fences on the summit. The Bill must deal with that. Much land of that height is fanned well.
In my constituency, there are a million sheep. They constitute the livelihood of many farmers. The impact of the Bill has to be carefully framed so that fanners can continue to make a living. They are not currently making a living for other reasons such as the great pressure of global markets.
The Bill should be amended to take account of the fact that Wales is different from England. It should provide for the Welsh Assembly to make sense of the issues for Wales. The Assembly should decide whether it wants such a measure. If the Government insist on applying the Bill to Wales as well as England, they must amend it to allow the Assembly to make major changes. The Liberal Democrats will table amendments to that effect. The Minister must show that he is prepared to listen to the many representations that urged such a course of action. The Bill should contain a clause that specifically covers Wales.
7.49 pm
Mr. David Borrow: I was born in the west riding of Yorkshire and have lived for the past 25 years in Lancashire. I have become acutely aware of the extent to which working-class communities in industrial towns and cities in Lancashire and Yorkshire were the early pioneers of greater access to the countryside, particularly the uplands, in the first half of the last century. The tribute to them came with the establishment of the national parks in the dales, the peak district, the lake district, Snowdonia and the north Yorkshire moors. As this century begins, the Bill represents another major step forward. The people of Lancashire will welcome the opportunity for greater access, not least to the forest of Bowland area of outstanding natural beauty—and I support a number of my hon. Friends who have urged the Government to examine whether it is possible further to strengthen those areas through the Bill. If that is not possible, we would welcome Ministers' comments—if not tonight, in the next few weeks—as to what proposals they have on that.
784
However, in my few minutes I want to discuss a number of unrelated matters. I welcome the provisions for improving the possibility of closing or changing footpaths in urban areas to reduce crime. I spent 10 years as a local councillor in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise), working with residents in an estate that was built in the early 1980s with five footpaths on to it and one road off it. As a result of several petitions, I spent most of those years pursuing the convoluted process, which still exists, of seeking closure. Under the existing system, one person's objection will virtually stop a closure, and the mechanism does not allow for any objective judgment of the balance of merits between the rights of those who want the footpaths to remain open and those of residents seeking greater security from crime and vandalism.
Many estates of the 1970s and 1980s, and even of the 1990s, were built open-plan and with footpath access—thought at the time to be modern and attractive. Such designs would not be used these days, as we are crime-conscious and seeking to design out of modern developments a lot of the opportunities for crime and vandalism that were built into many of the estates of the 1970s and 1980s. I welcome the provisions on that issue.
I also want to touch on disputes. Before being elected to the House, I spent many years dealing with property taxation appeals, so I have a bit of experience of disputes. Many provisions, whether on access or footpaths, will give rise to disputes, as the decisions will be made by various public bodies—local authorities or whatever—as the process goes ahead. It is crucial that we build into the system a robust appeal mechanism, which must be local, efficient and quick. It must not get bogged down with lengthy consideration of local disputes by civil servants or processes based in Whitehall. It is also important that, as far as possible, hearings should be public, and that there should be a presumption that dispute appeals should be heard in private only in exceptional circumstances. Although there is provision for that to happen, I would like Ministers to consider the dangers of allowing disputes to be considered in private as a matter of course.
There is also an assumption in the appeals process that the only people with the right to appeal against a public body's decision are landowners or the occupiers of land. I see nothing in the Bill that allows those who do not own or occupy land and who disagree with a public body's decision to become involved, make an appeal and challenge that decision. It is important to examine that mechanism to see whether we can ensure that those who want access to land, who dispute provisions to close or amend footpath routes, or who want to open new footpaths have some right in the appeal process and the disputes mechanism.
I note that there is little to do with mediation in the Bill. As there is so much scope for disputes, we need to consider a mediation system and the method by which disputes could be resolved before coming to a formal appeal process. I am also concerned that we should be careful not to restrict the right to appeal against decisions by making it too narrow. I am aware that there is an administrative assumption in the Whitehall machine that the right to appeal against a public body's decision should be narrowed down as much as possible because appeals lead to bureaucracy, more work and more expense. We should be wary of narrowing appeal rights down too much on the basis of saving money or administrative expenses.

785
It is important that the appeal process is properly funded and that those public bodies with a role to play in it are able to do so properly. Sufficient finance must be made available for that to happen.
My final point concerns what I consider to be the worrying aspect of tonight's debate—the extent to which some people want to portray the Bill as an issue between urban and rural England. I represent a constituency that is a mix of urban, suburban and rural areas. The rural areas depend on agriculture. I am aware that, if we are not careful and if we try to polarise rural and urban Britain, rural Britain will lose out. The vast majority of the population live and work in urban Britain and there needs to be a partnership between the two. The extent to which rural Britain depends on support from urban Britain was mentioned earlier: £3.5 billion goes in subsidy to agriculture; there is considerable rate relief in rural areas, as farm buildings and farmland are not rated; and a range of supportive measures has been put in place.
The Bill can bring urban and rural Britain together by dividing rights and responsibilities between the two. If we are to ensure that urban Britain continues to recognise the importance of the countryside, we must allow access to the countryside and emphasise the partnership arrangement that is at the heart of the Bill, which does not provide an unrestricted right to roam across the countryside. It has been carefully drafted to achieve restricted access to certain parts of the countryside. Those with that access must behave responsibly, and there is a clear method of arriving at many of the difficult decisions concerning when people can and cannot have access. That is crucial.
Some Conservative Members go over the top by saying that access to the countryside for people from urban areas is wrong. They speak strongly about the right of landowners to refuse anybody access to their land. They must remember the extent to which we as a nation support the countryside in many ways. That partnership means urban Britain accepting its responsibilities to rural Britain, but it also means rural Britain accepting its responsibilities to urban Britain.
7.59 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson: It is a great pleasure to be called in this debate, and to follow the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). Coming as I do from a rural constituency, I do not want to fight about the urban-rural divide. However, on the hon. Gentleman's last point, the problem is that those in the Ramblers Association who fought that skilful campaign may be friendly and responsible, but many of the people who will take advantage of the legislation are not.
I am astonished that the Government have introduced the Bill when we have the worst rural crisis of this century. Pig farmers in my constituency are leaving for Saskatchewan after four generations of farming in north Shropshire. Ten to 12 quota holders a week apply to the main agent in Shrewsbury to get out of dairy farming. Welsh sheep farmers who come down from the hills to Oswestry are constantly talking about the crisis in the hills. The increase in the number of buzzards and ravens that I see is a manifestation of the fact that the countryside in the hills is going backwards.
786
There is so much that the Government could do if they wanted to help the countryside that it is astonishing that they have produced this Bill. The Cabinet Office has stated in a report that Shropshire has been the hardest hit of the west midlands counties, and is one of the poorest in the country, with people there 22 per cent. less wealthy than the average Briton.
The countryside is not a playground. It looks as it does thanks to private landowners. Much of the Bill is a direct assault on the principle of private land ownership. Most landowners are extremely responsible, with a deep understanding and love of the countryside. The Bill legislates with prejudice against the many to catch a tiny few.
For a start, there are already 140,000 miles of footpaths and rights of way with a right to roam. There are 13,000 hectares under the country stewardship scheme; 48,000 hectares of national parks; and 58,000 hectares set aside by exemption on inheritance tax. In a free society, voluntary agreements must be right and compulsion must be wrong.
Landowners understand the countryside. My objection to the right to roam is that the first half of the Bill totally contradicts the second half, as 60 per cent. of heath moorland is SSSI land. Under the Bill, people with dogs, who will not always be well-meaning, will be let loose 24 hours a day. They may not understand where they are going and what they are about. Why do we need access to moorland 24 hours a day? That is a burglars and poachers charter. Labour Members may laugh, but I know a landowner who has had to put half-inch steel plates over the hasps that cover the padlocks to prevent deer poachers from getting down his farm tracks. I can tell the hon. Member for South Ribble that those are the people whom I am worried about, because they will take advantage of the Bill.
The 28-day exclusion is far too short. I have re-read clause 21. How on earth are lambing ewes, merlins and curlews to be told to watch out on public holidays, weekends, Christmas day and Easter day? It is ridiculous. Nature does not work like that.
Heather-burning is vital to keep moorland healthy. That cannot be planned months ahead: it has to be done at the right time according to the weather. Various other such provisions show that the Bill has been drafted by people who do not have practical knowledge of the countryside.
The one question that I would ask the Minister is how he would define "cultivated land". Many crops in the spring look like grass. I have already had reports of members of the public walking on to farms thinking that there is a much wider definition of the right to roam. Is a field of grass that is being grown for silage or hay cultivated land? I should be grateful if the Minister would reply to that question when he winds up the debate.
I am very worried about the liabilities. As I read the Bill, the landowner would be responsible if someone fell off a barbed wire fence or tumbled off a stone wall. In a reply to an intervention from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), we were told that the landowner would also be responsible if someone fell down a mine shaft. Land with a mine shaft is probably worthless, but now it will be a cost on the landowner as insurance premiums go up.
Further costs will be imposed on landowners for providing stiles and points of access at a time when most farmers are losing money. The only way in which the

787
Bill could possibly work would be a massive increase in resources to provide wardens. It is not clear in the Bill who would be made to pay for that. Shropshire county council reckons that to establish the legal right to roam in places such as Prees Heath, and others, in my county, more than £200,000 will have to be found. According to the Countryside Agency, the money for the existing rights of way programme will be cut by £50,000.
As I see it, this measure is all cost and pain for the landowner, and the real problem is that there is no incentive—no carrot—to encourage the landowner to co-operate. That is what is so sad: co-operation has been lost as the voluntary approach has been thrown away. That applies particularly to SSSIs. The incentive is now for any landowner of an SSSI quickly to plough it up, because it will become a liability. The countryside is a living place, and cannot be set in aspic. A landowner whom I know had an open field which was ripped up for opencast mining. He has restored it, and now has a lake. A fishing club from the local village uses it, and there are otters and kingfishers. It is a totally admirable environmental programme coming from opencast mining. That site has not yet been spotted by those who designate SSSIs. The danger of this legislation is that the incentive for the landowner will be to fill in the lake, so it will achieve exactly the opposite of what is intended. There must be flexibility. Land use must be allowed to move on: there must be mobility in what people do with their land.
My other fear concerns the power that the Bill gives to those who decide the consequences arising from SSSIs. I am privileged to have a vast moss in my constituency. Whixall moss is part of a huge moss alongside Bettisfield and Fenn's moss, which is in Wales. It has been dedicated as a national nature reserve since 1990, and is a Ramsar site, which is about as high a designation as it can have. It is a site of international importance. It is astonishing. I went round it last spring. About 2,400 acres have been restored by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales. No one could fail to admire what has been achieved there: it has 130 species of birds, 1,700 species of invertebrates and numerous extremely rare bog plants. It is a very successful example of restoration of a rare and exceptional site.
The problem is that relations with surrounding farmers will become more fraught. There are already SSSIs in the near boundary, and there is also a 2 km consultation zone around the whole moss. One of my constituents wanted to put up a free-range poultry unit, and had great trouble. There were costly, lengthy negotiations, and the matter was finally resolved when it was agreed that the muck would be carted away at his cost. Dairy farmers nearby are worried that they will be prevented from putting cow muck on the land. There is a delicate balance to be achieved between English Nature carrying out its extremely important work on the moss, which is admired locally, and dairy farmers who are struggling to make a living.
Another danger is that other benefits may be ignored when a site is designated as an SSSI. The Montgomery canal is well worth restoring. It would bring substantial investment to the area, and a possible 570 jobs in trades alongside the canal. The bed of the canal is a dedicated SSSI, so the restoration of the canal could be held up. The biggest restoration project so far has been to build a new SSSI alongside the canal. When designating such areas, we should also consider employment, architecture and historical assets.
788
On that note, I hope that I shall be called to make further comments in Committee.
8.9 pm
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), although the only part of his speech that had any substance was his description of the Ramblers Association as skilful, which was somewhat understated praise.
Like my hon. Friends, I warmly welcome the Bill, not least because it locks into law the principle that everyone should have the opportunity to enjoy the countryside at its best. The natural majesty of Britain's mountains and moors should be available to everyone, not off limits to all but an exclusive few. Wealth should not be a bar to people's ability to gain access to some of the most beautiful scenery that our country offers.
James Bryce, who led the first parliamentary effort to protect access rights, said in a debate in 1892:
All I ask to-night is to bring forward the grievance and suffering caused to the people…by their exclusion from their right to enjoy the scenery of their own country, and to seek healthy recreation and exercise on their own mountains and moors.
More than a hundred years on, the debate remains essentially the same, and similarly simple. Do we believe that the citizens of this country should have the ability to enjoy—I accept that responsibility is needed—the scenery and beauty of their own country? There are undoubtedly genuine issues to be resolved, once that principle has been conceded and accepted, regarding the protection of wildlife and the safeguarding of the environment, but those are not, and never have been, reasons for denying legislation on the right to roam.
A remarkable feature of the debate on this subject over the past hundred years is the extent to which a range of issues have been used to create a smokescreen for those opposed to access to hide behind. To be fair to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), he came up with a new one today: the idea that the right to roam is an insult to the Welsh is a new one on me. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) repeated the claim in the amendment that wildlife and nature conservation would somehow be threatened by access. Where is the evidence to back up that claim? The hon. Gentleman could cite no evidence from countries that already provide the access that the Bill will deliver.
I do not rule out the idea that increased access could have an impact on wildlife and the environment. Clearly some restrictions and safeguards are needed, and they are included in the Bill. In general, however, I believe that access will have a positive impact on wildlife. The Wildlife and Countryside Link commented:
Enhanced public access to the countryside is an invaluable mechanism for building public understanding and appreciation. In general, access benefits protection of landscape, wildlife and heritage.
The issue of cost to the landowner has long been touted as a reason for denying access. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Shropshire peddled the point. The Country Landowners Association's estimates of the costs of access last year were, to be generous, highly inflated, and were debunked to a considerable extent by the Ramblers Association's investigation. We heard echoes of such claims in the speech of the hon. Member for Tunbridge

789
Wells. Last year, the Government's own independent consultants' cost benefit analysis found that landowners would not suffer significant losses or costs for reasons of access, and I know of no research from Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden or Switzerland, where access on this scale already exists, that suggests that landowners' costs are higher as a result.
The Bill rightly deals with occupiers' liability. It holds out the possibility of direct and indirect financial assistance for the provision of means of access and warden services.
The right to roam has long been described as a future cause of crime. Speaking at the Tory party conference last October, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) described it as a trespassers' charter, and I think that the hon. Member for North Shropshire spoke in the same terms. There is no evidence linking footpaths with a higher incidence of crime. The Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 delivered, effectively, a right to roam over 40 per cent. of land within Dartmoor national park. Voluntary agreements already exist for some 50 per cent. of that land. There is no evidence that the passing of the 1985 Act resulted in a greater increase in crime. One would think that, if anything, the additional eyes and ears of members of the public using their rights of access would be beneficial in preventing crime.
Another argument used to justify opposition to access is that it is not needed—that there is no need for legislation. That claim has passed through several stages. Back in 1892, it was argued that exclusion from mountains or moorlands was exaggerated; in 1938, it was said that landowners would nearly always give permission, and that walkers were seldom stopped. Those obvious fictions have been brought up to date by the argument that we have heard from Opposition Members that voluntary access agreements would somehow deliver high-quality permanent access to our mountains and moors.
Last year, the Country Landowners Association's voluntary access efforts failed spectacularly. Just 18 per cent. of the sites on its register provided proper access. That came nowhere near delivering the permanent right of access to 4 million or so acres of open countryside for which people have been campaigning.
Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman said that there was no evidence that the use of footpaths would have any effect on crime. Perhaps he will he explain to the Minister the purpose of schedule 7, entitled
Stopping up and diversion of footpaths for purposes of crime prevention etc.
There is clearly a real issue here, which the hon. Gentleman's Government recognise.
Mr. Thomas: With respect, I suggest that increasing access will help crime prevention, because there will be more people in the countryside to prevent the crime that Opposition Members fear and hype up to such an extent.
I was talking about the Country Landowners Association's rather desperate efforts to promote voluntary access. The inclusion of land for fox hunting and strawberry-gathering in its register did not help its case at all; but perhaps most telling is the fact that
790
traditional supporters of the voluntary approach, the Peak national park authority and the Countryside Commission, backed legislation when consulted in 1998.
Extending the right of access will present exciting new opportunities to walkers. It will help to improve fitness and health, and it will inevitably benefit the rural economy. I encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister, and those who will serve on the Standing Committee, to consider again the issue of access to woodland. Surely, if the Woodland Trust, with its 16,500 hectares of woodland, can deliver access without concern, we should give serious consideration to the issue, and also to the issue of access to river banks.
I welcome parts II and III, and suggestions made to me about the possibility of a statutory duty on local authorities to maintain local wildlife site systems. I look forward to further clarification of the issue of areas of outstanding natural beauty.
An unintended function of this excellent Bill will be to throw into stark relief the problems that remain in regard to access to water. As a canoeist, I must point out that, although 10,400-odd miles of rivers are suitable for canoeists, only 2.8 per cent. of that—376 miles—is accessible. As the agreements do not cover 365 days a year, the figure is actually less than 1 per cent. I canoe on the River Dart, and some 12,000 canoeists annually take advantage of the access agreements there. Not one complaint has been received about the impact of canoeists on wildlife. Canoes cause no erosion, no noise and no pollution, and leave no trace of their passing—not even footprints. I simply ask, is there a more sustainable form of transport?
This is an excellent Bill, and I warmly welcome it.
8.18 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I oppose the right to roam part of the Bill in principle, for two overriding reasons. First, it is an infringement by the state of the fundamental rights of ownership, and, as such, is illiberal and dangerous. Secondly, nothing in my experience of nearly 17 years as a Member of Parliament leads me to believe that a right to roam is necessary. Countryside access exists: it is a reality which my constituents, for example, enjoy, as do visitors to the borough of Basingstoke and Deane. The north of Hampshire, like the rest of the country, is criss-crossed with paths. I do not accept that the case for a right to roam has been made.
Because time is short, I will concentrate on just one aspect of the Bill: the reclassification of RUPPs. I have raised my concerns with successive Governments, not least in two Adjournment debates. The basic problem, as I see it, is that the reclassification process under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has failed to provide protection, and has proved to be a legal minefield. I greatly fear that, despite its best intentions, the Bill in its present form will not resolve matters.
As hon. Members know, vast tracts of the country's green lanes are extensively damaged through misuse by modern motorised vehicles. Without doubt, some of the damage is caused by agricultural vehicles, but much of it is caused by 4x4s and other recreational vehicles. The root cause of much of the misuse by vehicles of green lanes remains the reclassification process under the 1981 Act.

791
The problem is inadequately addressed in the Bill. It is a tragedy that the Government have retreated on what is an important and environmentally sensitive issue.
I understand that the aim of part II is to remove the burden on local authorities of reclassifying each road that is used as a public path individually. I applaud that objective. It is right. The requirement for individual reclassification has created a backlog of cases. It has given rise to some extraordinary inconsistencies and created some bizarre rulings, so the move away from individual reclassification is the right way to approach the matter.
In so far as it goes, I welcome the new category of right of way: the restricted byway. It is right that there should be byways that allow access only on foot, horse and by non-mechanically propelled vehicles, but the Bill fails badly when it comes to RUPPs and existing vehicle rights.
As hon. Members know, the Bill provides that, where vehicle rights exist on a RUPP, there will be an option for reclassification as a byway open to all traffic, but that is a modification of the proposal in the consultation paper. That suggested reclassification of all RUPPs as bridleways, not restricted byways—as I mistakenly said in an intervention to the Minister. That would have excluded all types of vehicles. It is regrettable that the Government have not stood their ground on that issue. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that the Government's approach will leave the difficult issue of vehicle rights unresolved. They will still have to be proved on a case-by-case basis.
The Bill does not tackle the problem of enforcing existing driving regulations. As the Minister may be aware, magistrates have been declining to convict motorists who drive on bridleways where the defence is offered that there is doubt as to whether the rights are limited to bridleway rights, even though the way is shown on the definitive map as a bridleway. I understand that that is a reflection of the criminal test, the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement, being influenced by civil matters—establishing rights "on the balance of probability"—and is thwarting the operation of the law. Magistrates are increasingly taking the view that they have to assess the probability factor of rights existing, not to make an absolute judgment. That is the core of the problem under the 1981 Act.
As I read it, the Bill does not change the situation. Clauses 44(4) and 44(5) restate, rather than resolve, the "no other rights problem." I fear that the Bill fails to recognise the weakness in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the discrepancy between that Act and the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
Our ancient green lanes are a rich part of our environmental and natural heritage. Under existing legislation, we are not looking after them properly. Unfortunately, the Bill does not completely redress the position. The ambiguity of the Stevens judgment remains. The difficult issue of vehicle rights is unresolved. As the Bill stands, they must still be resolved on an individual basis. Those are matters that must be revisited in Committee.
The Bill does not address an issue of which I have only recently become aware; perhaps it is a new development. It involves common land. The situation has arisen in my constituency. I have heard about it in newspapers
792
elsewhere. Common owners are adopting the custom of charging residents for access to their homes if driveways pass over common ground.
I know of three or four instances of that arising within recent months. I hope that the Minister will be open to amendments in Committee that will allow the matter to be explored to establish precisely what rights residents adjacent to common land have to free-of-charge driving along driveways over common land.
8.25 pm
Mrs. Helen Brinton: Like all Labour Members and, indeed, many more individuals and groups outside this place, I was enormously relieved and delighted to hear in the Queen's Speech that the legislation would be introduced in the current Session, 50 years after the first major wildlife Act—the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act—which was introduced by a previous excellent Labour Government in 1949. I was equally pleased when the Bill was published earlier this month.
I pay tribute, as so many other Members have, to all the people who have worked so hard to bring the Bill to its present form. They include non-governmental organisations, which, coming from different perspectives and having different ideas, have worked together through the Wildlife and Countryside Link, representatives of which are here; the Government agencies; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which has more or less succeeded in translating the recommendations of such organisations and groups into workable legislation; the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment, whose personal commitment has given vital impetus to the whole process; and last but not least, the many Back Benchers on—despite the tone of the debate—both sides of the House who have campaigned to such effect.
I personally have been most concerned with the aspects in part III—wildlife protection and conservation—but I am equally glad to welcome the mostly complementary proposals in part I, which I have seen described as the culmination of 150 years of attempts to legislate effectively to provide widespread permanent access to the countryside.
I understand that the Bill is by and large consistent with the advice of the many agencies concerned and that it will ensure that all people have the right to enjoy and, thus, to learn better to conserve and to appreciate the countryside. However, access should be sensitive to certain times of the year: for example, the breeding and nesting period for birds. Additionally, care must be taken to protect the wider public interest concerning water quality. No one would want that compromised by unrestricted access.
Part II on rights of way should ensure much needed rationalisation and modernisation of the law and form an essential accompaniment to the provision of greater access. There may be a need for considerable clarification of some of the provisions in that part. It seems essential, for example, that there should be no arbitrary time limit to completing the legal record of rights of way. Rather, a prescribed number of steps should be taken in every case. Funding will be key if local authorities are to fulfil their duties and the legitimate interests of landowners must be respected.
Part III on nature conservation and wildlife protection proposes fundamental changes to the way in which SSSIs are protected and managed. They have been described as

793
the crown jewels of our wildlife heritage. They must be protected from damage, whether wilful or, more frequently, due to neglect. That part is urgently needed.
As we have heard in debates of all types in both Houses, almost one SSSI a day is lost or damaged. On the Government's own figures, up to 45 per cent. are reported as in an "unfavourable" condition. The Bill will provide conservation agencies with new powers to prevent damaging activities in SSSIs.
The Bill also makes much stronger provision to halt—with higher penalties and custodial sentences—the increase in wildlife crime that we have heard described in this debate. I very much welcome the introduction of those increased penalties and custodial sentences. Very importantly, the Bill will also make it an offence "recklessly" to disturb a nest site or shelter. However, it is very difficult to prove an intent to damage or disturb. Overall, the legislation should ensure a better balance—a word that has been used often in today's debate—between the rights and responsibilities of people enjoying the countryside and the greater protection and conservation of the countryside.
Nevertheless, nothing is perfect, and the Bill has omitted some provisions that I believe should be considered in our subsequent consideration of the Bill. In some cases, the omissions serve mainly to highlight the need for further legislation, or even for non-legislative action. As hon. Members know, much could be done in this place to address those issues in other ways and on other occasions. I hope that it will be possible to amend the Bill to address those issues without impeding its successful passage.
Areas of outstanding natural beauty are the first issue. Many hon. Members have spoken today about AONBs, which comprise 15 per cent. of our land. In the 1949 Act, it was intended that AONBs would receive treatment equal to that provided for national parks. However, legal protection for AONBs has not been developed, and no one has the legal duty to protect and look after them. Consequently, there is no effective long-term planning for those areas and there is no sound basis for local managerial partnerships between agencies, landowners and communities. The Bill could be the only opportunity for some time to give AONBs the protection that they so urgently need. Such provision would certainly complement the Bill's provision for wildlife protection and improved access.
Habitat beyond SSSIs is the second issue. It is another issue about which hon. Members have expressed their concern today. I believe that very simple changes to the Bill could give essential protection to very important species of plant and animal life that are being threatened by habitat destruction. I also understand that only last Friday, the Joint Nature Conservation Council published various recommendations to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how agencies could be enabled, when they identify the need, to extend their management agreements beyond SSSIs.
The third—but no less vital—issue is the fact that the legislation could be greatly strengthened by underpinning in law the United Kingdom's biodiversity action plan, which was developed as a consequence of the United Kingdom's commitment to the 1992 Rio earth summit's
794
convention on biological diversity. The Government strongly support the convention. As I understand it, the problem in developing species and habitat biodiversity action plans is that they require the voluntary involvement of many stakeholders. Although voluntary involvement is good—it helps to build the partnerships necessary for the plans delivery—without a foundation in law, long-term commitment and planning is vulnerable to changing political priorities and administrations, whether at local, regional or national level. I believe that we should explore the extent to which the legislation might not only protect species and habitat, but actively promote their recovery, as happens in other countries. The United States's Endangered Species Act provides an example of that.
The lack of legal protection for marine wildlife is the final issue, which is addressed also in my ten-minute Bill on marine conservation. My Bill is part of the campaign—to which I was alerted by The Sunday Times campaign—to develop better control over use of personal leisure craft, such as jet skis. As I said, I was very pleased to see the offence of recklessness included in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill—as it was in my very much smaller Bill.
I was very disappointed that in the Bill, as defined, the offence of recklessness does not seem to be appropriate for application in the marine environment. Dolphins and porpoises do not nest and they also do not have easily definable places of shelter. I hope that something can be done to change the definition. The scenes around our coast and elsewhere are urgently in need of protection and recovery. Many marine species are threatened by very inappropriate international policies and economic activity. I wonder whether, in the Bill, we could not make at least a little progress towards taking the much wider action that is so urgently needed, so that the greater protection that the Bill will deliver on land and in other terrestrial habitats could be extended also to our seas.
Overall, I give a very big welcome to the Bill. However, I hope that we recognise that we have to get as much as we can right now if we are to make wildlife protection as comprehensive as possible. I hope that we also recognise that we act in a wider global context, in which factors beyond the simple scope of national legislation are most powerful. As the Minister for the Environment will know, climate change is the most general demonstration of that fact. Climate change is already happening, and it is affecting wildlife and wildlife habitats—not tomorrow, but now. The sooner that we do as much as we can, the better.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Time is up.
8.36 pm
Mr. James Gray: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), who is an acknowledged expert on many countryside and wildlife issues. She will be concerned to hear that I agree with much of what she had to say, with the exception of her comments on the right to roam. I shall return to that issue in a moment.
I felt uneasy about the beginning of the hon. Lady's speech—which sounded like the beginning of most of today's speeches by Labour Members—as it seemed to express a type of triumphalism and class war. They

795
seemed to be saying that, after 50 or 100 years of campaigning, they have finally given birth to this shabby and thin little piece of paper that we are debating today. The triumphalism is based on some idea that Labour Members are the champions of the cause of freedom of access to the countryside, and that Opposition Members are ideologically and fundamentally opposed to such access. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
I am very much a grammar school educated non-landowner. However, as guardians of the countryside for many hundreds of years, my colleagues who are landowners, and people in the countryside whom I represent, have always gone to great lengths to ensure that they make as much of their own land and the countryside available as they possibly can to all types and classes of people across the nation, so that they may have some pleasure in it. Labour Members seem to be suggesting that Mr. van Hoogstraten—whom various Labour Members have prayed in aid—is typical of landowners, but that is an absurdity. To create law based on one such example is to create extremely bad law.
The reality is that across this great nation of ours, all of us—people from all towns, cities and elsewhere—have been ramblers. I am a strong supporter of the Ramblers Association in Chippenham, although I have not yet been able to go out with it as it tends to go out on Sundays. I wish that it would change its outing to Saturdays, and I shall certainly send it a copy of today's Hansard to ensure that it does.
We are all strong supporters of the rights of people in cities, in towns and in the countryside to walk, to ramble and to enjoy the countryside. Of course we are. The issue is not whether the principle is a good one but the means by which we implement it. We must ensure that the countryside, which we all enjoy, remains the fine place that it has always been. I rather resent the hon. Lady's implication that somehow Conservatives have kept people out of the countryside.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), whom I respect greatly on this issue as the president of the Ramblers Association, said, "They are trying to keep them out." We will be able to check the record tomorrow. Others have said that access to the countryside should not depend on wealth. What marvellous old Labour rhetoric. "It is those Tories who kept people out of the countryside for 18 years because they look after wealth. We new Labour people look after the ramblers." What tosh. It is nonsense, and it is important that we lay the ghost to rest before we do anything else.
We all support safe and secure access to the countryside. I pray in aid a fine landlord who is just outside my constituency on the Marlborough downs, who over 20 or 30 years has gradually changed rights of way. He has gradually improved rights of access, pathways, walkways and bridleways. His estate is now acknowledged as being one of the finest in England for access to the countryside. That is acknowledged by the Ramblers Association in Swindon, Chippenham and elsewhere. It is an example of what can be done with proper, voluntarily managed access.
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the Duke of Westminster has stopped the regular
796
walking over Bousland that took place in the 1930s, and has been extremely obstructive in letting people get on to that area of high mountain?
Mr. Gray: I am not in a position to comment on that example. I am not certain whether the Duke of Westminster is necessarily an hon. Friend of mine any more. If the hon. Gentleman writes to him care of the House of Lords—that is if the duke is still a Member of it—the matter will be clarified.
Labour Members are talking about the right of people—the extreme ramblers as I would call them, the really keen people—to get out into remote areas where they are now not allowed to go, while we Conservatives would prefer the managed access approach. There is a conundrum because I am not aware of any huge demand for access to most of the areas of the countryside about which Labour Members have been talking. I spend my holidays in north Cornwall on the National Trust cliffs. Even in mid August, during the peak of the walking season, one rarely sees a walker. North Wiltshire is a key walking area, but the people of Swindon do not come out in their hordes. Many Labour Members have talked about opening up great areas of woodland or farmland. The idea that many of my constituents would go out to them seems misplaced.
I do not believe that there is any demand for what is being proposed. It is an imaginary demand that is based on the notion that something is being denied to the public and therefore the Labour party must find a way of making it available to them. There are a few odd characters like Mr. van Hoogstraten, but I am not aware of landowners and farmers who deny access. Perhaps there are a few exceptions such as the Duke of Westminster. I find that surprising because I know of his love for the countryside. I suspect that we may be talking about that one example. I am not aware of any more than one or two isolated examples of farmers who are not perfectly happy for people to walk across their land in a properly managed way. Many of them, as in the example to which I referred, go to great lengths to provide ways to enable the public to get on to their land. They adopt a systematic approach to giving them proper access to the countryside.
There is no evidence of any demand and there is no evidence of any obstruction. I am not convinced of the need for the Bill and I suspect that we might be setting the country against the town, although Labour Members have used new Labour expressions such as, "We are seeking a partnership between town and country". Of course that is what we are seeking, but we will not achieve it by requiring people in the countryside to do things that they currently do not do and do not wish to do. The partnership will be achieved by saying, "Together we will provide access for all to the countryside. We shall allow you as landowners and farmers to prosper. We shall allow you also to do the things that you have always done in the countryside. However, people from the towns also want access to it." That is the right approach. By doing otherwise, people will be set one against another.
I am not convinced about the right to roam and the principle behind it. I am also concerned about specific problems that arise from the Bill. We are told that cultivated land will be exempt from the right to roam, but what is that land? If the extensive grassland in my constituency were ploughed one year—much of it has not been ploughed for many years and has probably been

797
extensive grassland for 100 years—would it become exempt? There are many definitions and words in the Bill that need to clarified, and I hope that the Minister will consider doing so.
There have been references to the 28-day rule and exemptions for weekends and public holidays. That is all absurd. No shooting estates could possibly operate on the basis of a 28-day exemption. The prerequisite of a shooting estate is to make it pay, and the exemption would have to be many more days than 28. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that and subsequent clauses.
The multiple points of entry argument is crucial and unanswerable. How can one say whether an estate is open on a particular day when there could be 100 or 1,000 points of access? This is a licence to trespass, because no one will know whether a place is open.
The Government have not thought about night access. Why are nearly all urban parks—other than unfenced ones—closed at sundown? It is thought that it would be bad for people to walk in them at night, but apparently people are to have the right of access to estates and farms at all hours of the day and night, regardless of whether, for example, lamping of foxes is being conducted—it is normal to keep foxes down by shooting them at night. How are we to stop the roamers from getting in the way? They cannot go into the park in London, so they will decide to go out into the countryside and do a bit of roaming there.
The great question of owners' liability has not been properly answered, despite what has been said about clauses 14 and 15. Clause 13 does not address what happens if a rambler falls off a dry stone wall and damages himself. People should enter at their own risk, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) rightly said.
A lot of the details have been badly thought out. It is important for the Government to accept a significant number of amendments in Committee. Of course, bits of the Bill are worth having, and we all support much of it. We all support increased access to the countryside, but that must not be—
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order.
8.46 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I am not sure whether I could be described as an extreme rambler, but I have certainly rambled at great length over many stretches of the Pennines and the lake district over many years. He commented on the language of new Labour, but he speaks the new Tory language that says that if the Bill is enacted it will be a charter for poachers, burglars, trespassers, drug addicts and hooligans of all kinds. I will tell my constituents with great pleasure this weekend how ramblers have been described by the official Opposition.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and his ministerial colleagues: the Bill will bring enormous pleasure to many millions of people. My constituents and members of our party and of the ramblers movement will all welcome it. I see it primarily not as a
798
piece of legislation with huge symbolic importance but as one with great practical importance, because it will open up the pleasures of the countryside, over time, to more and more people, at the same time as enhancing wildlife protection.
I want to reassure Opposition Members. I live in an area on the edge of the Pennines where we already have a well-established rights of way network and the right to roam over many thousands of acres, and in all the years I have lived there, I have experienced very little difficulty, other than with the occasional stray mountain biker or motorcyclist.
Every day of the week, ramblers walk past my front door and through the little bit of land at my back door, and I find great pleasure in seeing them enjoying the countryside. They are not urban hooligans. Most of the ramblers in the mid-Pennines are entirely responsible people who care for the countryside. With the additional access that the Bill will bring, they will continue to care for it and to promote conservation.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that pretty much everywhere—and certainly in Wales—landowners, too, behave in a responsible way and that they may regard the Bill as something of a sledgehammer to crack a nut?
Mr. Chaytor: That may be so, but what is interesting about the official Opposition line is that it is in fact two lines. The Conservatives argue that there is no pent-up demand for access and that the Bill is unnecessary for that reason, and then they say that there is huge pent-up demand by drug dealers from the inner city to get into the landowners' estates and do their evil deeds. That is a completely contradictory argument from the Conservatives. We should not take any lessons on the countryside from the party which introduced BSE to the nation and enabled four supermarkets to control the nation's food supply and drive down the prices paid to farmers for milk and meat. The Conservatives cannot teach us any lessons about conserving or protecting the countryside.
My constituency is largely urban and suburban, although it contains some of the most attractive landscape in Greater Manchester and some very environmentally sensitive areas. I shall address one issue that is not in the Bill but which I passionately believe should be added to it. I welcome the extra protection given to SSSIs, but most people never visit one and do not know where their nearest one is. What we need to do is increase the attraction and the pleasure of the countryside and the quality of the environment for urban and suburban dwellers, so the Bill should include some protection for local wildlife sites. The vast majority of urban and suburban dwellers are unlikely to flood out into the countryside in hugely increasing numbers, now or in the future, but they need more access to green space and more experience of wildlife locally, in the towns and cities.
I pay tribute to the work of the wild life trusts across the country, especially the Lancashire wild life trusts. I pay special tribute to groups in my constituency which have worked hard to preserve important wildlife centres, such as Barracks Lodge, which is a large, important stretch of water that a local developer unfortunately wished to drain and build houses on. I pay tribute to the

799
work of people campaigning for the preservation of Chesham woods, a site that could easily have been turned into a golf course. I mention the work of the Holcombe Society, which has protected the landscape around Holcombe hill which, with its famous tower, is one of the most important landscapes in south-east Lancashire. I also pay tribute to those working to protect sites in the Hollins area of my constituency.
We must understand that most of our population—the 59 million now living in the United Kingdom—are urban and suburban dwellers, which is why we need better protection of the wildlife in the last green oases in our towns and suburbs. I also pay special tribute to three people in my constituency of Bury, North—Mr. Michael Wellock, Mr. Martin Prescott and Mr. David Bentley—who have campaigned vigorously in the past few years to preserve the last remaining green sites in the centre and fringes of the towns.
I understand that within the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions a review group has examined the issue of local wildlife sites. I understand that the group's report may be published in the near future, and I urge Ministers to consider seriously the recommendations that may be made and the possibility of giving statutory protection to local wildlife sites. That would mean giving local authorities the duty and responsibility to establish a network of local wildlife sites. It would also mean giving advice and information to owners of such sites about how best to preserve them, and it would mean protecting those sites through the unitary development plans and the planning process. And yes, it would also mean some investment in the preservation of wildlife in those areas.
As an adjunct, it is important, in the context of strengthening the statutory basis of wildlife protection, that statutory force be given to the UK biodiversity action plan, a point also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) and by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Not many hon. Members will have taken their copies of the biodiversity action plan from the Vote Office, but I have and I commend it to all hon. Members as a fascinating and invaluable document, especially if they have children currently studying GCSE or A-level biology or geography. If the marvellous work that went into the production of the biodiversity action plan is to have its full reward, it must have statutory force.
In the time remaining to me, I should like to mention another concern that needs addressing more fully by the Bill. I refer to invasive species. I am all in favour of letting 1,000 flowers bloom. The difficulty is that two or three of them then tend to take over the rest. A remarkable feature of suburban areas in recent years has been the huge developments in gardens—the rapid growth of small ponds and water courses, the massive increase in all things aquatic and the growth of garden centres. People's understandable desire to increase and improve the biodiversity in their own back yards has led, unfortunately, to the import of a large number of invasive species. I should like to mention the 10 most dangerous species, which threaten the biodiversity of other species. They are—and as time is short, I shall not mention the full Latin botanical names—the Australian swamp stonecrop, also known as the New Zealand pigmyweed,
800
parrot's feather, floating pennywort, Indian balsam, water fern, water lettuce, giant salvinia, water hyacinth and water chestnut.
This is not a trivial issue. The current estimate for controlling floating pennywort, for example, is about—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
8.56 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to speak in the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), although I shall not be mentioning the list of weeds to which he referred.
I wish to speak in favour of the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and to commend it to the House. The amendment puts a new light on "roaming in the gloaming". I believe that the amendment, rather than the Bill, sums up the delicate balance that must be reached between the various interest groups. In doing so, I wish to declare an interest. I am the half owner of a smallholding—and when I say smallholding, I mean a small holding—with two fields in Teesdale, County Durham. My brother is the co-owner. It is opposite and across the river from the Pennine way, the part of the country where I was brought up, so I am very aware of the problems of access to such popular walks as the Pennine way.
I was amazed, a number of years ago, that Teesdale district council chose to use local residents' money, through the community charge—as it then was—to tarmac part of the Pennine way, accessing one of the area's well-known beauty spots, High Force. My husband and I chose to marry and hold our reception at High Force hotel. I should have thought that the money could have been better used building a swimming pool for the use of all those living in Middleton and Teesdale and in the villages up and down the dale. We all wish to improve access to the countryside, but I argue, as the reasoned amendment argues, that there are other and better ways of doing so than those set out in the Bill.
I am proud to say that we have at least two sites of special scientific interest in the Vale of York which I am going to visit in the next month. I am sure that Yorkshire wildlife trust would welcome ways of improving access to and protection of such sites. I believe, however, that a better and more appropriate way forward would have been through a voluntary, non-legislative and non-binding approach. Positive co-operation could be encouraged between all those involved, such as the wildlife trusts, English Nature and the landowners, whom Labour Members seem often to forget. The Bill does not adequately fund, on the basis of positive management agreements, adequate access to and protection of such sites of special scientific interest.
The House should consider the consequences of opening up, in the comparatively densely populated region of England and Wales, the blanket access over 4 million acres that the Bill proposes. The Minister and I are becoming familiar to one another; he gave a courteous response to my Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall last week. Will he explain the extent to which rural

801
development grants, under the revised EU structural funds, could be allocated to reimburse the costs to landowners of meeting the Bill's requirements for open access to the countryside? I realise that the matter may not be one for his Department; it might be more appropriately dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It is right and proper that landowners should be encouraged to diversify and to move away from food production. That has been agreed and strengthened under the Agenda 2000 provisions. Will the Government consider whether they could properly apply rural development funds for those purposes?
It is important for the Government to address the question of costs, because they will inevitably increase for landowners. I offer the House a local example, from my constituency, in which rights of way have not been properly resolved under the present arrangements. I was contacted by a lady who had recently been widowed and who felt especially vulnerable when she wrote to me. She and her husband bought their field and property in 1953; they lived and worked there for 45 years. On 1 October last year, she wrote:
I have learnt recently that the proposed path goes by my back door, by the garage, then a further few yards by the workshop, then a few more yards past a free-range poultry house to the adjoining farmer's land.
I live outside the main residential area of the village. Walkers would have to come some distance to even begin the path. Many people walk their dogs on the quiet bye lanes of Asenby.
In the present climate this problem is causing me great distress, knowing of local burglaries, vandalism, etc. I have recently been widowed and feel very, very vulnerable.
Please consider my peace of mind and look fully into this case: To have the "path" stopped; To have the "path" rerouted.
The lady's neighbour, happily, was minded to agree to reroute the path through her own property. That neighbour is Mrs. Blair—I assure the House that she is no relation to the parliamentarian of the same name. The land at Asenby, near Thirsk, has been farmed by her husband for several years. He discovered that 11 of the 13 fields have footpaths running through them.
The Blairs farm corn and keep a suckler herd; the farm is wholly managed by Mr. Blair. He is personally responsible for erecting stiles in 11 fields, for which he receives no help or financial support. In Mrs. Blair's view, that makes it extremely difficult for him to continue farming—especially at certain times of the year, such as just before and after calving, when the animals need to be undisturbed. I am sure that I do not need to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how upset a cow can be when she has a young calf.
If we added that example to the many others that hon. Members could cite from their constituencies, we would regrettably realise that such rights of way problems are not resolved by the measure. Indeed, the Bill would make the situation worse; it would be much more harmful to the farming community. The Government give the impression that they have no understanding of farming, or of the continuous crisis in the countryside. The Bill fails to provide sufficient improvements to the rights of way network. It brings no hope to people such as my constituents, the Blairs, in the Vale of York.
802
The rights of way network is an important and appropriate vehicle for improving access for most people, and I believe that the Government will have the opportunity in Committee to resolve that situation. I urgently beg them to do so.
The Bill is equally remarkable for its omissions. The Government plead their commitment, as they did tonight, to greater protection for hedgerow features and areas of outstanding natural beauty, yet the Bill omits any provision to assist those areas and is silent on living up to the Government's stated commitment to protect hedgerows, landscape features and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is therefore defective in that regard. I believe that the Government have the opportunity in Committee to reverse that omission.
For all those reasons, I invite the Government to keep an open mind, with a view to amending the Bill in Committee. I am nevertheless minded to oppose Second Reading tonight, and I commend to the House the reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
9.5 pm
Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am happy to give the Bill my total support.
Some 45 million people walk for pleasure at least once a month. I represent a London constituency so, as some Opposition Members might say, we are townie ramblers as opposed to extreme ramblers—but why not? It is vital that people who have to put up with the stresses and strains of urban life should be able to escape into the countryside to recharge their batteries and breathe some fresh air. Many of my constituents have written to me supporting the Bill. With greater access, people will have more choice and freedom to walk in our wonderful countryside, on our moors, downs and mountains.
I believe that a side effect of that greater freedom will be a boost to the rural economy—which I am sure that all MPs representing rural constituencies would welcome—bringing more people to small village shops, shops that sell outdoor gear, hotels, bed and breakfast places and, for some, the local pub at the end of a long walk. The British Mountaineering Council says that tourism is the largest industry in the English countryside, generating some £13.6 billion in spending annually. In 1996, a survey by Highlands and Islands Enterprise estimated that mountaineering activities brought income of £162 million into the HIE area alone—more than double that attracted by shooting and salmon fishing in the whole of Scotland. Tourism is a very important part of the rural economy, and I believe that it will grow with greater access to the countryside.
I should like to raise two points. First, my constituent, Neil Brindley, a keen rock climber and hill walker, is worried about access to coastal land. Part I states that the Secretary of State "may" extend access to coastal land. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said on that issue earlier. Climbers such as Neil have managed to arrange access by agreement with several bodies, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to climb sea cliffs at Swanage, in Cornwall and on the Gower peninsula.

803
Rock climbers are a responsible bunch of people—they have to be because they are very aware of their own safety—and have great respect for wildlife and the environment. It would be contrary to the spirit of the Bill if that present access was lost as a result of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider changing that "may" to "shall" in Committee. I am sure that the British Mountaineering Council would give the Government plenty of advice on the best way of doing so, and on current best practice.
My second point concerns the right of appeal. It appears from the Bill that if access is granted, the landowner will be able to appeal, yet if access to a certain area is withdrawn, the public will not have the same right. I hope that the Minister will confirm or deny that, because if access can be taken away without appeal, walkers may unwittingly find themselves being treated as trespassers.
I will not say much more, as I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I very much welcome the Bill, including the right of way reform and extensions, although I am concerned, as are some of my fellow Members, about the already stretched resources of local authorities to implement the recommendations. I am worried that they will not see that as a priority when their budgets are stretched to breaking point. Therefore, I raise the issue of extra cost.
Bills have to be fairly complex to cover all eventualities, but I hope that the implementation of this Bill will be as streamlined, simple and transparent as possible. It would be wrong if too much regulation and restriction resulted in little more real access. However, I look forward to the Bill making speedy progress through the House.
Finally, on his performance today, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) has definitely qualified to be added to my sad people list. In fact, I think that he has gone right to the top.
9.10 pm
Mrs. Diana Organ: Like many other Members, I wish to congratulate the individuals and organisations that have played their part in delivering this historic Bill. All three parts—on access to the open countryside, on the modernisation of rights of way and on the improvement of wildlife protection and sites of special scientific interest—are much welcomed.
SSSIs are the gems in our landscape, but many other areas of the countryside are equally as precious and need protection. I would like to press for an amendment which, as my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Caton) and for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) have mentioned, would enhance the Bill and would provide protection and better management for some of our finest landscapes. Such an amendment would do something about the status of, and provision for, areas of outstanding natural beauty.
The Countryside Agency, the 37 AONBs, including the Wye valley in my constituency, and the Council for the Protection of Rural England all feel that a trick has been missed. They want to add to the Bill an AONB package to improve them and give them proper management arrangements and adequate resources. We very much welcome the doubling of the funding that the Government have put into AONBs, but such areas need much more.
Existing AONBs and other fine landscapes, such as the forest of Dean, that do not have any protection need better management and protection now. There is no legal
804
responsibility for protection and insufficient funding for their full management needs. The Government suggested that they wanted to review AONB status and Ministers have given the impression that they were sympathetic to that. I understand that certain difficulties between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which had caused problems in the past, have been sorted out, but there is no clause to cover it in the Bill.
The Countryside Agency wants to work for a new model for other landscapes. The Bill would be the best opportunity to take that aim forward in the near future. That is particularly important for the forest of Dean, which is an exceptional landscape. It missed out on the Hobhouse recommendations of 1949 and on being made an AONB in 1974. I have raised that point in an Adjournment debate and in other debates on AONBs.
Parts of the forest of Dean are a national forest. In the past, it was felt that the Forestry Commission and now Forest Enterprise, as the major landlord, would be the guardian of this wonderful landscape. That has been shown not to be so, because such a body is wholly inadequate for such an important task. The area is an important limestone escarpment covered in trees—mainly oaks—but with a wealth of distinct historical sites. It has rich cultural heritage; it is a rural area with a mining and industrial history and it needs rural regeneration.
Four years ago, the area was threatened with plans for large extensions of quarrying activity—mainly for the carboniferous limestone—that would ruin this wonderful landscape, threaten the tranquillity of the local community and distract from the tourist industry. Before the 1997 general election, Labour promised to consider protecting that landscape and offered plans for a special status for the forest of Dean that was much needed. Since then, the Government and the Countryside Agency have commissioned a full-scale land use consultants survey, which has resulted in the area being recognised as a landscape of national importance.
The Countryside Agency board then made a landmark decision that it was committed to that status, which was reflected in a commitment to social and economic issues as well as landscape and recreational matters. It would embark on a major project acknowledging the connections between landscape, culture and the industrial past, as well as present social and economic issues. It decided not to proceed with AONB designation, since it felt that it was correct to evolve a tailor-made approach for the Dean.
In the meantime, however, the agency asked for an undertaking that the Government and local planning authorities, such as the county council and the district council, would act as though it were an AONB and that the Minister would give a clear steer to Gloucestershire county council's minerals working party to recognise that the landscape is of national importance and needs protection. Has the Minister agreed to that, and has he made it clear to the minerals planning authority that the landscape must have protection?
The Countryside Agency wanted to create a large-scale, integrated rural regeneration and development project while offering landscape management and protection, particularly with regard to the local minerals plan. It was widely agreed that simply designating the area an AONB as those areas are constructed at present was not enough.

805
It was hoped that the Bill would provide an opportunity to develop AONB mark II, which would offer a new integrated approach to solving local environmental, social and economic issues. There may be a chance to develop that idea in the forthcoming rural White Paper, and landscapes such as the forest of Dean could be the location to pilot that innovative approach.
In the meantime, I urge that the Bill is amended to give AONBs—the forest of Dean is nominally considered an AONB—a body with a statutory duty to protect their landscape and the resources for effective long-term planning and care so that their scenic and other environmental qualities are not damaged or lost. The Bill should also give AONBs the potential to deliver a wide range of linked environmental, social and economic benefits. The Bill is the only opportunity in the foreseeable future to give the forest of Dean and similar landscapes the protection that they urgently require. Before Labour was elected, it promised to give that protection, and we could achieve it by being innovative and delivering the new status of different, strengthened AONBs.
Mr. David Taylor: I understand that there are substantial ancient woodlands in the forest of Dean. Does my hon. Friend accept that 85 per cent. of ancient woodlands are not covered by SSSI or AONB status and deserve particular attention in the Bill or in other legislation shortly afterwards?
Mrs. Organ: My hon. Friend is right. He represents a constituency that is part of a new national park, so he has a particular interest in conserving and protecting important woodlands.
We should not miss the opportunity in the Bill, as we have missed opportunities in the past, to preserve landscapes that are much prized by the local community and recognised nationally as needing extra management, care and protection. The Government are sympathetic, and I hope to see the Bill amended in Committee.
9.18 pm
Jane Griffiths: I shall be brief because of the lateness of the hour. I am privileged to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), who is such a doughty fighter for her constituency and who loses no opportunity to tell the world about the uniqueness of the landscape that she has the honour to represent.
My constituency is rather different because it is urban and suburban, but like many other constituencies it has many sites that are sensitive, unique and important. I very much welcome the measures to strengthen protection for sites of special scientific interest, but I join colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), in calling for the designation of urban wildlife sites. It is important to preserve the diversity of our habitats, and the Bill gives us a long-awaited opportunity to do so.
On Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whom I was pleased to see in the Chamber earlier, visited my constituency to open the splendidly refurbished Victorian town hall and
806
museum. While there, he took the opportunity to see displays about a unique geological feature of part of my constituency known as Emmer Green, after the emmer wheat that has been grown there. I am told that the area is unique in the south of England as an earthquake zone—owing not to mine workings or anything of the sort, but to the geological formation of a finger of London clay that extends a long way west to abut the Berkshire downs. The unique geology has been studied over the years.
I cite that feature as an example of the special areas everywhere in the country, whether urban, rural, suburban, moorland, woodland, beach or coastal. I highlight it because, in an urban area such as the one that I represent, it is arguably more important for people to be able to experience a variety of habitats.
Otters are beginning to return to the Thames and the Kennet. My constituents who walk along the riverside—where it is not closed off to them—are reporting sightings of otters or evidence of them. Sometimes, that is the only way we know that such wildlife is returning. There is no evidence that such sightings cause any difficulty for otters or represent any disincentive for them to take up residence. If the land is closed off, there will be no way to find whether otters remain or have been driven out by mink—as can happen, because the habitats are similar.
This is a Bill whose time has come. There have been campaigns for access, mass trespass and so on over many decades. We all acknowledge that the law on trespass is a bit of a mess. The Bill is about more than that. It is about our changing attitudes to the countryside and the land on which we live.
I grew up in Bedfordshire—I apologise to the area because I am sure that it has since changed—and remember the south Bedfordshire countryside as a monoculture of chemical-soaked onion fields. I remember the poisonous green foam that got into the brooks as they flowed past the brickwork outfalls. That was in the 1960s, when agriculture was somewhat different from today. There was then perhaps less of a conscience about the use of chemicals.
The Berkshire countryside around my constituency is much softer and, in many ways, more accessible to the rambler and bird watcher than the arable prairies of eastern England. There too, however, diversity is decreasing and the protection of species and habitats is insufficient.
It is only a few years ago that the late and unlamented Berkshire county council thought that it would be a good idea to build a dual carriageway across the mouth of the Kennet, where it flows into the Thames. That is one of the few places where the loddon lily, a rare and endangered plant, flourishes. A dual carriageway would clearly have not allowed it to do so. The then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) took the right decision in squashing the plan. It has gone and I trust that it will not return.
Measures that allow access to the countryside must be linked with wildlife conservation measures so that we can experience diverse habitats and so that seemingly insignificant life forms—whether butterflies, plants or larger animals—can continue to flourish.

807
I shall not take up any more of the House's time except to congratulate all hon. Members who have had the opportunity to speak in this debate. I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly, I know that my constituents do, and I wish it success in its progress through the House.
9.24 pm
Mr. Tom Levitt: The Bill comes during the Government's phase of delivery, as I believe this period is called. I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on Second Reading.
My Derbyshire constituency contains large areas of open access land, as much of it opened by voluntary agreement as is part of the Peak national park. About 60 per cent. of England's voluntary open access areas are in the national park and a large proportion of those areas are in my constituency. The Pennine way starts in my constituency, and many areas that are not currently covered by open access agreements are crossed by footpaths and rights of way.
I receive a great deal of correspondence on the subject of people using motorised vehicles where they should not, thereby making a nuisance of themselves and a mess of the landscape. My constituents and I therefore welcome the provisions to tighten up restrictions on the unauthorised off-road use of motorised vehicles.
I am told that, especially on Sundays, there are more mountaineers in my constituency than in any other English constituency. I am therefore pleased by the indications that the Bill will not only encourage and foster mountaineering opportunities, but will allow no ambiguity about the fact that those who want to climb or clamber over Stanedge and similar features should be able to reach such sites without let or hindrance.
The activities of mountaineers, climbers, ramblers and traditional users of the peak park and the open access areas will be facilitated by the Bill. Walking is one of the most common pastimes enjoyed by the people of this country, and millions of people participate in the activity every weekend. They respect the countryside and, by and large, they want to use it in a positive way. They respect this country's wildlife and landscape, acknowledge the legitimate needs of landowners and respect crops and livestock.
The Bill provides opportunities to enhance our use of the countryside for leisure, pleasure and study, and it gets the balance right by allowing nature to take its course in rural areas. I welcome the Bill and I wish it godspeed.
9.28 pm
Mr. Damian Green: The debate has proved what a sad waste of opportunity the Bill is. It need not have been so. Every Member of Parliament wants better protection for wildlife and wants to promote responsible enjoyment of the countryside. If the Government had been both competent and sensible, they could have achieved what they and we want. Instead, they have produced a Bill whose welcome aspects are dragged down by anti-farmer ideology, ignorance of the workings of the countryside and sheer risible incompetence. The parade of complacency combined with an undertone of spite that has passed for argument among Government Members tonight shows why the Government are an object of
808
derision in the English and Welsh countryside. I shall deal first with what is in the Bill but should not be, and then with what should be in the Bill but is not.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I am pleased to understand that the hon. Gentleman is broadly in favour of the Bill and thinks that it presents us with a great opportunity. He decries the Government's proposals, but does he acknowledge that, although the Conservatives were in power for 18 years, they never made any attempt to introduce constructive legislation dealing with these matters?
Mr. Green: The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Some of the best provisions in the Bill update and improve the 1981 Act. If he can contain himself for a few minutes, he will learn that, although I welcome the wildlife protection parts of the Bill, I think that too many of the measures on access are wrong both in principle and in practice.
To help the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, I shall start with the access provisions, which have been so well dissected by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), and my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick). I am in favour of greater access to the countryside, but I want it to be introduced in a workable form and in co-operation with those who live, work and farm in the countryside.
The access provided in the Bill is perverse. The Bill creates most access on the land that is least accessible to most people. When the vast majority of people say that they want the right to roam, they mean that they want well-signed footpaths in green areas near the towns in which 80 per cent. of us live. What they do not want is people wandering around land that may contain endangered species of birds or plant life, where one act by a single thoughtless person could create an environmental disaster. That is where the Bill focuses, however.
Even in its own terms, the Bill is inconsistent. For instance, the exceptions that it introduces to access land are limited and inconsistent. Access is banned in quarries, but allowed when the former quarry is being filled with waste. It is banned in buildings, but allowed in mobile homes. It is banned around mobile telephone transmitters, but allowed around television transmitters.
Access land is not shown on maps at present. Landowners and walkers will have to try to apply exceptions as they come to land. For example, a walker will have to work out what the curtilage of a building is. Last month there was a case in the Court of Appeal in which it was admitted that even lawyers often do not understand what a curtilage is. If the walker gets it wrong, he is a trespasser. If the landowner gets it wrong and puts a notice in the wrong place, he commits a criminal offence.
There are worse inconsistencies in the activities that are allowed or forbidden on access land. The activities allowed are anomalous. Paragliding is banned, but hot air ballooning is allowed. It is against the law for a person to swim in a lake, but letting a dog swim in a lake is allowed by the law. Playing football is banned; holding a political demonstration is allowed. Camping is banned, but holding a religious service at a stone circle to mark the spring equinox is allowed.

809
The Bill is full of such anomalies. We are in the third year of the Parliament. The Minister said in his opening remarks that this is an historic Bill, for which many Government Members have been waiting for most of the century. One would have thought that when the Government produce such an historic Bill, they might try to produce a half-way competent historic Bill.
The ludicrous 28-day exemption introduced by the Bill was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)—that is, the 28 days during which access may be denied. The Minister quoted Lloyd George in one of the oratorical flourishes in his speech. I shall quote back at him a real live Welsh farmer, farming in Caernarfon, Mrs. Karen Jones, who sent me a long letter pointing out a large number of anomalies and idiocies in the Bill.
Mrs. Jones notes, as many of my hon. Friends pointed out, that the right to roam would be allowed over the weekends and bank holidays, even inside the 28 days allowed for the owner. As she puts it,
I must tell the ewes not to lamb at the weekends.
It is not just lambing that will be affected. Presumably, the agencies that will be involved in taking the decisions can decide what forms of activity they will permit. I dare say that in different areas of the country, different kinds of activity will be allowed.
I am not clear whether the Minister is aware that if he gets the wrong kind of bureaucrats in some areas, he will threaten not just a few landowners, but gymkhanas, village fetes, occasional friendly cricket matches and other activities that many people who once thought of themselves as new Labour supporters will not want to be banned.
The Government claim that local people judge how access works, but Government agencies rather than elected local councillors will decide about exclusions and restrictions. The Government need to tell us what they mean by land management; they should publicise exclusions and restrictions at public expense.
Land management is central to the Bill, yet there is no attempt to define it. Such a definition is essential if the Bill is to be workable. For example, most of the heather moorlands are managed for and funded by sporting interests. Many are designated sites of special scientific interest because of the careful management they receive. Unless shooting, burning bracken, spraying, gamekeeping and related activities are recognised as land management, the Bill will render vast areas of moorland unsustainable. It must therefore fully define land management.
The Bill fails to explain in detail how notification will be managed, or the source of funding for the wardens who will be needed to police the new restrictions. The Bill currently states that local authorities "may" appoint access wardens. They must appoint such officers to make the Bill remotely enforceable and to minimise the burden and potential loss inflicted on landowners and managers of access land.
The access provisions include further absurdities. Many of my hon. Friends have commented on the curiosity of the provision for 24-hour access. All hon. Members agree that one of the glories of living in this country is the ability to enjoy the scenery and views of the English
810
countryside. How many people want to enjoy them in the dark? The Association of Chief Police Officers supports the case for restricting access to daylight hours, simply because of the likely effect on crime.
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ms Atherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Green: I think the hon. Gentleman was first.
Mr. Bennett: Last night, there was an extremely good moon. Many people would have enjoyed walking in the moonlight. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some measure is required for ensuring that mountain walkers get off the mountains safely? If those walkers had to be off the mountain by dusk, it would substantially limit the time that they could spend there.
Mr. Green: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman wants the pleasure of walking in the countryside by moonlight when the Government ban doing so in urban parks. I know that he cares about that because we debated the matter in Westminster Hall last week. It is anomalous to claim that people can walk in the countryside in the dark, but not in urban parks.
The Association of Chief Police Officers believes that the provision is bad for crime prevention. The Government acknowledge the need to tackle crime, and threats to schools in urban areas, by providing for stopping up or diverting rights of way by night. They seem far less interested in preventing crime in rural areas. That is characteristic of them.
We must also consider the wider human rights element. I know that many Labour Members do not believe that human rights apply to landowners, but I should be interested to hear the advice that the Minister received on whether refusing compensation is legal under the Human Rights Act 1998. The statement on the front of the Bill claims that the provisions comply with that Act. The Government know that, according to many legal opinions, it does not.
Beyond the basic problem with human rights legislation, there is severe disparity in the enforcement of the access provisions. Any walker who does something wrong can be required politely to leave for a few hours, yet a landowner who does something wrong faces heavy fines and potential imprisonment. Labour Members believe that landowners deserve to be treated in that way. I would simply point out that in many areas where allowing access will prove most controversial, the landowners will be upland farmers. The average income of an upland farmer in England this year will be £4,600. In Wales, it will be £2,700. The Government are not attacking fat cats, but struggling upland farmers.
The final key point about access is that there should be well-signposted access points. That represents possibly the single biggest necessary improvement to the Bill. Those access areas need to be planned, practical and funded, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) said, the access provisions will achieve none of that.
Rights of way provisions form a large section of the Bill, and the Minister, with the characteristic honesty for which we all respect him, gave the game away at the start

811
of the debate by saying that they are very complex and that he would accept any changes made in Committee. That ministerial code is easy to crack. His words meant, "The legislation is a complete mess; we haven't got a clue how to proceed; and we hope that someone tells us in Committee." Roads used as public paths were meant to be replaced by footpaths, bridleways or byways open to all traffic. Some local authorities have reclassified in that way and some have not, but, rather than a simple and complete reclassification, the Government propose to create a further type of right of way. Why do they insist on making an already complicated system more complicated? There are already at least six ways to stop up or divert highways under the highways and planning legislation: the Bill simply provides four new ones, making a bad situation worse.
We heard from the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) that 25 years is too brief a time in which to do proper mapping, but it is far too long for many people in the countryside who seek some certainty in those maps. I think that the Minister used the words, "25 years, as resources allow," which is not jam today or even tomorrow, but jam at no time this side of the event—jam never, that is.
The nature conservation and wildlife protection measures have some merit. We support the improvements to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which strengthen the protection of SSSIs, but the Government should do more. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) made that point, as have many others. The Woodland Trust says that the Bill should protect important sites outside the SSSI framework if it is to make a lasting contribution to protecting our native woodland heritage—85 per cent. of all ancient woodland lies outside the SSSI designation.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England points out that the Bill
fails…to deliver promised improvements to the protection of…hedgerows, landscape features and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The Wildlife Trusts wants
greater recognition and protection to…wildlife areas…outside SSSIs;
legal underpinning to the UK biodiversity process; and
better protection for species.
The organisation Plantlife says that the Bill fails to safeguard
wild plants from non-native invasive species;
protection of the habitats of species which are in danger of extinction…
I am sure that the Minister will recognise that much more needs to be done—even to the wildlife protection provisions—in Committee. I do not wish to be churlish, but even the good parts of the Bill are inadequate and they are heavily outweighed by the badly thought out ones.
The Government have missed their opportunity to make practical improvements to access and rights of way. Instead, they are luxuriating in an ideological spasm. Labour Members may enjoy that short-term pleasure, but they are putting at risk the very countryside about which they care. I fear that, in 10 years' time, we shall look back on the Bill and say, "They should not have tried to protect wildlife with one hand while allowing a thoughtless few
812
to endanger it with the other." Those genuine concerns about the countryside are not confined to a privileged few, but are shared by millions who care for our countryside and our wildlife. If the Government continue to get it wrong, they will stand condemned by the many, not the few. I commend our amendment to the House.
9.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): We have had a wide-ranging debate.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: It is the aviation Minister.
Mr. Mullin: I am the Minister of many things: today I am a countryside Minister—tomorrow, who knows?
Many sensible points have been made, and some not so sensible. I am sorry to say that quite a few of the not so sensible points came from members of the Opposition Front Bench. The contribution from the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was a little disappointing. I felt that his heart was not entirely in it—I shall put it no higher than that. I know that he is a reasonable man, and I suspect that he knows that much of what is in the Bill, including the access provisions, are good, common sense.
I commend the views of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) to his Conservative colleagues. He described the present access arrangements as a legacy of feudalism. That sentiment will find widespread support in the House. I felt that the Opposition's heart was not entirely in their opposition: they were just going through the motions. I take heart from the fact that the squirearchy has been virtually unrepresented in the debate. There have been contributions from one or two aspirant toffs, but with the exception of a fleeting visit from the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) we never got a real toff. It has probably dawned on the more sensible and perceptive Tory Members that many of their supporters are likely to be in favour of the Bill.
There were one or two predictable contributions, including, I am sorry to say, the ideological spasm that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). There has been a cynical attempt to piggyback on the undoubted crisis in the farming industry so as to extract some cheap mileage. There is no basis for that.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) said that we were on a collision course with the countryside. That is absolute nonsense. The Bill has widespread support in the countryside. As he may have noticed, these days we represent rather a lot of it.
The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) accused the Bill of being anti-landowner. Many sensible and enlightened landowners would not recognise that description, and have long allowed access to their land. I predict that they will enter into the spirit of the Bill and will extend access.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), with characteristic understatement, compared the confiscation of property rights that he thinks are entailed in the Bill with those that occurred in Soviet Russia some years ago. He did not rest his case there. He went on to say that the situation was even worse than in Soviet Russia. I feel that he failed to carry the House with him on that point.

813
We have, by and large, had a sensible debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made it clear that one of the reasons for that was because the Government have gone to great lengths to consult those whose interests are directly affected. The result is a balanced Bill. The Government have bent over backwards to be reasonable and to enter into a constructive dialogue with the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and others whose legitimate interests are affected. When the huffing and puffing dies down, most reasonable people will realise that this legislation is inherently sensible.
After all, the right to roam already exists in millions of acres of our countryside. I have already referred to enlightened landowners who have allowed it for many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to Sir Charles Trevelyan. There was an enlightened landowner, if ever there was one: I have spent many hours enjoying the rights of access on his magnificent estate at Wallington in Northumberland.
The right to roam has been conceded for years on most Forestry Commission land, and on most National Trust land. There is a de facto right to roam in Scotland. None of that has had any of the dire effects that have been alleged. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—who is not quite in his place—knocked a lot of this nonsense on the head. He represents some of the most beautiful countryside in England, containing numerous sheep farmers and hill farmers. He said that, in 20 years of representing his constituency, he had never received a complaint from a farmer who had been adversely affected by the right to roam, which exists throughout his constituency.
Mr. Soames: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: Most certainly: let us hear from a real toff.
Mr. Soames: The Minister, who has spent a good deal of time in the hills, knows perfectly well that what he has just said is not strictly true. Many farmers suffer regularly from the activities of people who walk, who leave gates open, who let their dogs run free and whose dogs attack animals. The problem is not so serious that such activities should not be allowed to happen, but it is foolish of the Minister to pretend that farmers, especially livestock farmers, do not experience a great deal of trouble from people walking.
Mr. Mullin: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not treat it lightly, but I do not think that such problems—which, as he says, do occur—are on quite the scale that some of his colleagues have alleged.
I believe that, when the smoke and fury clear, it will all go very quiet, and in a few years' time no one will recall what the fuss was about. I anticipate a day when a Conservative spokesman will come to the Dispatch Box to announce that he accepts the access provisions. After all, many of us never thought we would live long enough to see the day when a Conservative spokesman came to the Dispatch Box to acknowledge that the national minimum wage was a good thing. If it can happen with the national minimum wage, I am optimistic about the right to roam.
814
Some practical matters will, of course, have to be ironed out, and in many cases that will have to happen in Committee. Let me stress the importance of local access forums. It is important not to push such matters through in the teeth of local opposition, but to ensure that all local interests are properly represented. Some hon. Members asked who would be on the forums. The people whose rights will be affected must of course be represented.
The hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned the confiscation of ownership rights.
Mr. Gill: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: In a moment. The right of access is a modest one—
Mr. Gill rose—
Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, he will have something to reply to in a moment.
The right of access is a modest one. The Bill has been carefully constructed to minimise any adverse impact on landowners. It strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the needs of landowners, and landowners will be able to continue to use their land as they think best. I put it to the hon. Gentleman, however, that no rights are absolute: they must be balanced with the public interest.
Mr. Gill: All I wanted to say to the Minister, before he referred to me again, was that he should tell the truth, and not misrepresent what I had said.
Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark. No Member of Parliament speaks anything other than the truth.
Mr. Gill: I do withdraw the truth. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can speak the truth. I ask him to withdraw just the remark that he made.
Mr. Gill: I do withdraw that word. May I draw the Minister's attention—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me deal with the matter. The hon. Gentleman is withdrawing the remark. Is that correct?
Mr. Gill: That is correct.
Madam Speaker: What is the hon. Gentleman saying then?
Mr. Gill: The Minister took my words inaccurately earlier. What I actually said was that my constituent, Mr. Parish of Lydbury North, had said that not even Soviet Russia did what the Government propose to do, which is slightly different from what the Minister said that I said.
Mr. Mullin: As I said when the hon. Gentleman made the point the first time and, indeed, the second, he did not entirely carry the House with him, but I have no desire to rub him up the wrong way as I am rather fond of him.

815
We believe that there is no case for compensation. The public benefits outweigh the limited interference with landowners' rights. The statutory right will be limited and will not prevent agricultural activities or development of land. In addition, it will be possible to close the land for part of the year. We believe that a fair balance has been struck between the rights of landowners and the general interest and that there is no justification for compensation.
May I clear up a misunderstanding about the 28 days closure? It is for any purpose that the landowner wants. It is a bonus; it is on top of any closure that may be necessary for conservation reasons.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: Forgive me. I am running out of time and the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been here.
Therefore, there is no basis—
Mr. Garnier: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Mullin: No.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells talked of criminalising landowners. That will not happen. The civil law will be adequate in just about every case. Local authorities will rarely need to use the enforcement procedures against landowners. Criminal procedures are very much a long stop. They cannot be used until the civil procedure has been exhausted.
There are many points that I should like to have replied to, but time does not permit me. No doubt in Committee, we shall have the opportunity to go over some of the points.
The Bill is a vital part of the Government's agenda to allow all people the opportunity to improve their quality of life. It fulfils our manifesto pledges. There has been extensive consultation and it is emphatically backed by public opinion. It offers the first opportunity in more than 50 years to legislate for improved access for the quiet enjoyment of our natural environment. It will bring rights of way into the 21st century, while at the same time protecting and conserving our natural heritage and native species.
The Bill is a balanced measure that recognises the needs and obligations of the many different groups affected: landowners, tenants, walkers, riders, conservation interests, local authorities and national park authorities. In taking it through the House, we will endeavour to maintain that essential balance. There will be a spring in my step when I walk through the Lobby to vote for it. I suspect that there will be a spring in the step of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
9.59 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I am grateful to be allowed to comment on the Bill at this late stage.
I wonder whether the Minister could stop talking to himself and address the public. Will he let us know which article in the European convention allows him not to allow compensation to those who are affected by the Bill?
Mr. Kevin Hughes rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 334.

Division No. 117]

[10 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Jenkin, Bernard

Amess, David

Key, Robert

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Beresford, Sir Paul

Lansley, Andrew

Blunt, Crispin

Letwin, Oliver

Body, Sir Richard

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Boswell, Tim

Lidington, David

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Brady, Graham

Loughton, Tim

Brazier, Julian

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Browning, Mrs Angela

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Burns, Simon

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Butterfill, John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Major, Rt Hon John

Malins, Humfrey

Chope, Christopher

Maples, John

Clappison, James

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

May, Mrs Theresa

Moss, Malcolm

Collins, Tim

Norman, Archie

Cormack, Sir Patrick

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Cran, James

Ottaway, Richard

Curry, Rt Hon David

Page, Richard

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Paice, James

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Paterson, Owen

Day, Stephen

Pickles, Eric

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan, Alan

Prior, David

Duncan Smith, Iain

Randall, John

Evans, Nigel

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Faber, David

Robathan, Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Robertson, Laurence

Fallon, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Flight, Howard

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Ruffley, David

Fox, Dr Liam

St Aubyn, Nick

Fraser, Christopher

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gale, Roger

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Garnier, Edward

Shepherd, Richard

Gibb, Nick

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gill, Christopher

Soames, Nicholas

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Gray, James

Spicer, Sir Michael

Green, Damian

Spring, Richard

Greenway, John

Steen, Anthony

Grieve, Dominic

Streeter, Gary

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Swayne, Desmond

Hague, Rt Hon William

Syms, Robert

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hammond, Philip

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hayes, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Heald, Oliver

Tredinnick, David

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Trend, Michael

Horam, John

Tyrie, Andrew

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Viggers, Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Wardle, Charles

817

Waterson, Nigel

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Wells, Bowen

Yeo, Tim

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Whittingdale, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

Willetts, David

and

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Mr. Peter Luff.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Coaker, Vernon

Ainger, Nick

Coffey, Ms Ann

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cohen, Harry

Alexander, Douglas

Coleman, Iain

Allan, Richard

Colman, Tony

Allen, Graham

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Corbett, Robin

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Corbyn, Jeremy

Atherton, Ms Candy

Corston, Jean

Atkins, Charlotte

Cotter, Brian

Austin, John

Cousins, Jim

Banks, Tony

Cranston, Ross

Barnes, Harry

Crausby, David

Barron, Kevin

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Battle, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Beard, Nigel

Begg, Miss Anne

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Bennett, Andrew F

Dawson, Hilton

Benton, Joe

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bermingham, Gerald

Denham, John

Berry, Roger

Dobbin, Jim

Best, Harold

Donohoe, Brian H

Betts, Clive

Doran, Frank

Blizzard, Bob

Dowd, Jim

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Borrow, David

Edwards, Huw

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ennis, Jeff

Brake, Tom

Fearn, Ronnie

Brand, Dr Peter

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Breed, Colin

Fisher, Mark

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Flint, Caroline

Browne, Desmond

Flynn, Paul

Buck, Ms Karen

Foster, Don (Bath)

Burden, Richard

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Burgon, Colin

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Foulkes, George

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Fyfe, Maria

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Galloway, George

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Gardiner, Barry

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gerrard, Neil

Cann, Jamie

Gibson, Dr Ian

Caplin, Ivor

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Casale, Roger

Godman, Dr Norman A

Caton, Martin

Godsiff, Roger

Cawsey, Ian

Goggins, Paul

Chaytor, David

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clapham, Michael

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Grocott, Bruce

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Grogan, John

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gunnell, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clelland, David

Hanson, David

Clwyd, Ann

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

818

Harris, Dr Evan

Maxton, John

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Healey, John

Meale, Alan

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Merron, Gillian

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Heppell, John

Mitchell, Austin

Hesford, Stephen

Moffatt, Laura

Hill, Keith

Moore, Michael

Hinchliffe, David

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hoey, Kate

Morley, Elliot

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

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

Hope, Phil

Hopkins, Kelvin

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Howells, Dr Kim

Mountford, Kali

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hurst, Alan

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hutton, John

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Iddon, Dr Brian

Norris, Dan

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Oaten, Mark

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jenkins, Brian

O'Neill, Martin

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pickthall, Colin

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Pike, Peter L

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Plaskitt, James

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pollard, Kerry

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pond, Chris

Keetch, Paul

Pope, Greg

Kemp, Fraser

Pound, Stephen

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Khabra, Piara S

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kidney, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Kirkwood, Archy

Primarolo, Dawn

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Prosser, Gwyn

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Purchase, Ken

Laxton, Bob

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Lepper, David

Quinn, Lawrie

Levitt, Tom

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Raynsford, Nick

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Rendel, David

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Lock, David

Rogers, Allan

Love, Andrew

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

McAvoy, Thomas

Rooney, Terry

McCabe, Steve

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Rowlands, Ted

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Ruane, Chris

Ruddock, Joan

McDonagh, Siobhain

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Macdonald, Calum

Ryan, Ms Joan

McDonnell, John

Salter, Martin

McFall, John

Sarwar, Mohammad

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Savidge, Malcolm

McIsaac, Shona

Sawford, Phil

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Sedgemore, Brian

McNulty, Tony

Shaw, Jonathan

MacShane, Denis

Sheerman, Barry

Mactaggart, Fiona

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McWalter, Tony

Singh, Marsha

McWilliam, John

Skinner, Dennis

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

819

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Soley, Clive

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Spellar, John

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Tyler, Paul

Steinberg, Gerry

Tynan, Bill

Stevenson, George

Vaz, Keith

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wallace, James

Stinchcombe, Paul

Walley, Ms Joan

Stoate, Dr Howard

Ward, Ms Claire

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Watts, David

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Webb, Steve

Stringer, Graham

White, Brian

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Stunell, Andrew

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Sutcliffe, Gerry

(Swansea W)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Willis, Phil

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Winnick, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wise, Audrey

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Wood, Mike

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Woodward, Shaun

Timms, Stephen

Woolas, Phil

Tipping, Paddy

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Todd, Mark

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Touhig, Don

Tellers for the Noes:

Trickett, Jon

Mr. Mike Hall and

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

COUNTRYSIDE AND RIGHTS OF WAY BILL [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to the Countryside Agency or the Nature Conservancy Council for England;
(b) any administrative expenses of a Minister of the Crown which are attributable to the Act;.
(c) any other expenditure of a Minister of the Crown or government department which is attributable to the Act; and.
(d) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which under any other enactment are payable out of money so provided.—[Mr. Touhig.].
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
  That the draft Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
  That the draft Community Legal Service (Scope) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 160.

  Division No. 118]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coaker, Vernon

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cohen, Harry

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coleman, Iain

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Colman, Tony

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Austin, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Banks, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Jean

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Best, Harold

  Dawson, Hilton

  Betts, Clive

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Borrow, David

  Doran, Frank

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Edwards, Huw

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Burgon, Colin

  Fisher, Mark

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Cann, Jamie

  Foulkes, George

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fyfe, Maria

  Casale, Roger

  Galloway, George

  Caton, Martin

  Gapes, Mike

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chaytor, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  821

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Grogan, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Gunnell, John

  Maxton, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Meale, Alan

  Hanson, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mitchell, Austin

  Healey, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heppell, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith

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

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hoey, Kate

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil

  Mullin, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Norris, Dan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hurst, Alan

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hutton, John

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Alan (Fettham & Heston)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Laxton, Bob

  Rogers, Allan

  Lepper, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ruane, Chris

  Lock, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Love, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Steve

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McDonnell, John

  Singh, Marsha

  McFall, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  MacShane, Denis

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  822

  Spellar, John

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Stevenson, George

  Tynan, Bill

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Watts, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  White, Brian

  Stringer, Graham

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wise, Audrey

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Timms, Stephen

  Woolas, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Todd, Mark

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Turner, Dennis (Wolveth'ton SE)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Allan, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Amess, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gale, Roger

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gibb, Nick

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Gill, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gray, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Green, Damian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Greenway, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brady, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Brake, Tom

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Brazier, Julian

  Hammond, Philip

  Breed, Colin

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hayes, John

  Butterfill, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  Horam, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Keetch, Paul

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Key, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Collins, Tim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cotter, Brian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cran, James

  Letwin, Oliver

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lidington, David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Day, Stephen

  Livsey, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Loughton, Tim

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Evans, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  823

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Streeter, Gary

  Maples, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Page Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice James

  Trend, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyler, Paul

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Prior, David

  Wallace, James

  Randall, John

  Walter, Robert

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles

  Rendel, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Robertson Laurence

  Wells, Bowen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Whittingdale, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ruffley, David

  Willetts, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willis Phil

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  LEGAL SERVICES
  That the draft Conditional Fee Agreements Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved,—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Question agreed to
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  ACCESS TO JUSTICE
  That the Funding Code prepared by the Legal Services Commission in accordance with section 8 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and as first approved by the Lord Chancellor in accordance with section 9(4) of that Act, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved,–[Mr. Touhig.]
  The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 149.

  Division No. 119]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Banks, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barron, Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Battle, John

  Allen, Graham

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Austin, John

  Bennett, Andrew F

  824

  Benton, Joe

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Berry, Roger

  Galloway, George

  Best, Harold

  Gapes, Mike

  Betts, Clive

  Gardiner, Barry

  Blizzard, Bob

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  Borrow, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Goggins, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Burden, Richard

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hanson, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Casale, Roger

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Caton, Martin

  Healey, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chaytor, David

  Heppell, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hill, Keith

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Colman, Tony

  Hurst, Alan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hutton, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corston, Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Crausby, David

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kidney, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Levitt, Tom

  Edwards, Huw

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lock, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Love, Andrew

  Filzsimons, Lorna

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flint, Caroline

  McCabe, Steve

  Flynn, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  825

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonnell, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McFall, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Singh, Marsha

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McWalter, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spellar, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Martlew, Eric

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Maxton, John

  Stevenson, George

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Meale, Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Merron, Gillian

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mitchell, Austin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stringer, Graham

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

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

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Todd, Mark

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Neill, Martin

  Trickett, Jon

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tynan, Bill

  Pike, Peter L

  Vaz, Keith

  Plaskitt, James

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pond, Chris

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pope, Greg

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pound, Stephen

  Watts, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wise, Audrey

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wood, Mike

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rooney, Terry

  Woolas, Phil

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Allan, Richard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Amess, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Boswell, Tim

  826

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brady, Graham

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brake, Tom

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brazier, Julian

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Malins, Humfrey

  Butterfill, John

  Maples, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cash, William

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Moore, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chope, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Clappison, James

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Ottaway, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Page, Richard

  Cotter, Brian

  Paice, James

  Cran, James

  Paterson, Owen

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Pickles, Eric

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Prior, David

  Day, Stephen

  Randall, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Rendel, David

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence

  Faber, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Fallon, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Flight, Howard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gale, Roger

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Garnier, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Gill, Christopher

  Streeter, Gary

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Green, Damian

  Syms, Robert

  Greenway, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hammond, Philip

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tredinnick, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Hayes, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Viggers, Peter

  Horam, John

  Walter, Robert

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles

  Hunter, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Webb, Steve

  Key, Robert

  Wells, Bowen

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Whittingdale, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Willetts, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Willis, Phil

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Yeo, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Mr. Peter Luff and

  Loughton, Tim

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Madam Speaker: By leave of the House, I put together motions 7 and 8.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Object.
  Madam Speaker: Which motion is the hon. Gentleman objecting to?
  Mr. Blunt: I should like motion 7 to be taken on its own, Madam Speaker.

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Question agreed to.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made,
That the Competition Act 1998 (Director's Rules) Order 2000 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Touhig.]
Hon. Members: Object.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Nigel Beard be discharged from the Science and Technology Committee and Dr. Brian Iddon be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Touhig, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    Free Television Licences
    10.41 pm
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: I present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The petition seeks an extension to the Government's initiative—under which more than 12,000 pensioners aged 75 and over living in my constituency will be entitled to a free television licence, to all persons over the retirement age, of whom there are more than 30,000.
    I beg to submit to the House the petition of residents in the Harwich constituency, which
    Declares that we consider that free television licences should be provided for all persons over the retirement age. Many of these people before the age of 75 years are living on their own, and TV can be the only communication with the outside world.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to consider this proposal.
    And the Petitioners therefore remain, yours faithfully, Mrs. Irene Farrow and Mrs. Eileen Murphy of Clacton-On-Sea and others.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Entry Clearance
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: For almost 1.5 million people every year, their first contact with Britain and the British Government is the experience of submitting to the entry clearance operation at a consulate or high commission overseas. Submitting to an interview about one's income and intentions can be an intimidating process at the best of times, and when an important visit abroad to meet family, perhaps for a wedding reception or to see grandchildren for the first time, depends on it, that process can prove extremely stressful.
  It is important therefore that this first impression of Britain is a good one, and that entry clearance procedures are perceived to be transparent, fair and just. I want to detain the House this evening because I believe that in some cases our entry clearance operation falls short of that standard, and I am concerned by the proposals to introduce a visa bond pilot scheme, which will in my view further impair our entry clearance procedures.
  First, let me say that entry clearance officers do an extremely professional job on the whole, often in the most difficult circumstances. Their duty is to be the first step in the control of illegal immigration into the United Kingdom. They must satisfy themselves principally of three things: first, that the applicant's trip can be properly financed; secondly, that there is suitable accommodation for the applicant in the UK; and thirdly, that the applicant will return home before, or at the end of, the visa period.
  Ninety-four per cent. of non-settlement visas are granted through the good offices of entry clearance officers. I accept that, as Members of Parliament, we invariably see more of the 6 per cent. of cases that, from the applicant's and sponsor's point of view, go wrong rather than the 94 per cent. of satisfied customers. None the less, there is cause for concern.
  I remind my good and hon. Friend the Minister of the words of the independent monitor for asylum and immigration, Dame Elizabeth Anson, in her report of July last year, when she writes of
  the concern I have expressed in my last three reports on the fairness of some refusals of late, middle aged and elderly parents seeking to visit families in the UK.
  She goes on to say:
  it is felt that insufficient consideration is given to many real reasons that endorse their claims that they only intend a short visit and will return home.
  In one case that I have been dealing with, a relative had been invited by grateful constituents of mine to visit them in the UK. They wanted to return the care and hospitality that the lady had given them when they had visited her in Sri Lanka—she had, in fact, nursed their two sick children during that visit—and sent her the flight to the UK as a gift.
  The entry clearance officer in Sri Lanka based the decision to refuse the application on her answer to one specific question. The entry clearance officer had asked her, "And if it were possible, would you like to stay longer?" to which the lady had innocently replied,
  830
  "Oh yes, of course." Such trick questions are on a par with the old Vaudeville gag of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Is my hon. Friend surprised to hear that many relatives of my constituents who wish to visit this country are asked questions about the cities, towns and culture of the United Kingdom? When they cannot provide answers to those questions, they are told that they are clearly not bona fide visitors and the visa is refused, yet the whole purpose of applying for the visit is to see those very sites on which they are quizzed in Mumbai or Kalkata.
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically perceptive point. Which resident of the United Kingdom could speak with authority on Ahmedabad or Chandigarh as applicants at consulates overseas are sometimes requested to do for places in the UK?
  The case that I mentioned was topped by a family from Goa—an area in which I know my hon. Friend the Minister has a particular interest. The mother and father are my constituents and they have been visited by their daughter, who is a nun, on many occasions without any immigration problems. Her brother has a good job in Dubai. It is not very highly paid, but it pays significantly above his previous earnings in India. He was refused a visa not because he did not earn enough to provide him with an incentive to return to Dubai, but on the ground that he was likely to overstay because he admitted that he missed his family. It might appear obvious that any family visa application could be turned down on that basis. People do not apply to visit their families unless they miss them and want to see them.
  I accept that entry clearance officers must properly consider whether an applicant will return, but the House, I am sure, will be appalled to hear that applicants already accepted for student nurse training under the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting scheme are regularly refused student visas on the ground that all good nurses are encouraged to stay in the UK because of the national shortage of nurses.
  Slightly more than 12 months ago, the Department for Education and Employment agreed that a number of qualified nurses from Manila and Accra would be given work permits. Unfortunately, nobody informed the entry clearance officers in Manila and Accra of the decision to allow in those nurses outside the immigration rules, because of the national shortage of nurses. Those nurses were refused. That is hardly joined-up government.
  I come to the specific question of family visits by elderly relatives. Often, parents have previously visited and returned without incident, but, especially if the mother is widowed, entry clearance officers often assume that an application to visit will be abused to enable the elderly mother to settle with the family in the United Kingdom. In my experience, refusals often ignore the existence of family in the country of origin, who provide an equally strong motive for the mother to return. Such cases are extremely distressing.
  I am concerned that entry clearance officers sometimes demand documentation and detailed answers to complex financial questions about income, family support and relatives' business affairs, without taking adequate

  831
  account of the fact that some widows have never had to take any responsibility for financial dealings because tradition made them the preserve of their deceased husbands. That, added to the fact that many elderly people become genuinely muddled under sustained questioning about financial affairs, makes the case for a far more sympathetic approach to family visits by elderly people.
  Dame Elizabeth, discussing family visits in her report, makes the point that
  Sponsors often offer to provide a bond to guarantee a relative will leave.
  That is borne out by my experience: sponsors have on many occasions come to my surgery and made such an offer. Dame Elizabeth believes that
  these would be very suitable for elderly relatives.
  On that point, I disagree with her.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I support tight enforcement of our entry clearance rules, but does my hon. Friend share my view that Foreign and Commonwealth Office procedures used in considering such applications need to be applied with sympathy and sense? They should recognise the distress caused to citizens of this country when their elderly relatives are denied access.
  Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a doughty champion of his constituents and has made many representations on behalf of sponsoring families in his constituency.
  I have deep reservations about the proposed visa bond pilot scheme, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give those reservations serious consideration. He will know that I recently visited the deputy high commission in Mumbai, where I spoke at length with entry clearance officers about the proposed scheme. I believe that my reservations are shared by a number of the oficers with whom I spoke.
  The discussion took place on 20 February. The officers reported a dramatic drop in applications following the publicity that the pilot scheme received after what I can only describe as a mendacious piece of journalism published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 January. That report caused extreme anxiety in the Asian community in this country and throughout India. My hon. Friend the Minister will be able to testify to that because he was on an official visit to the country at the time. During my visit, more than a week later, the repercussions of that article were still being felt in entry clearance operations throughout the country.
  The perception reported by officers in Mumbai has now been confirmed by official Foreign and Commonwealth Office statistics, which show a drop of more than 10 per cent. in applications from Mumbai, month on month, from February 1999 to February 2000.
  Let me say immediately that I understand that the pilot scheme proposal came out of a genuine desire by the Government to respond to the representations that they had received from sponsors in the UK. The scheme is supposed to operate on the basis that entry clearance officers will assess an application in the usual way and confirm whether an applicant can show the necessary financial resources and accommodation in the UK to make the visit.
  832
  Being satisfied on those points, the entry clearance officers must then consider whether, on balance, the applicant will return to the country of origin after the stay. If they consider that the applicant will do so, the visa should be granted. If they consider that, on balance, there is doubt that the applicant will return to the country of origin, under the provisions of the pilot scheme they are supposed to consider the application of a bond.
  It is at this point that my reservations about the proposal come into play. There are fundamentally two reasons to doubt whether the desired effect of the pilot scheme will be borne out in practice. The first was made plain to me by the entry clearance officers at Mumbai. They pointed out that it would be an extremely complex and time-consuming procedure for them to go that extra stage.
  If a bond were applied to an applicant who the entry clearance officers had not been satisfied would return to the country of origin, it would take considerable resources on their part to administer and put in place the bond scheme. That is time that they would not be spending administering the usual run-of-the-mill applications. Therefore, unless substantial extra resources were put into the entry clearance operation, one must assume that the time that the entry clearance officers spent processing the bond application, for an applicant who would otherwise have been rejected, would not be spent processing the greater number of applications that would have proceeded in the usual way.
  My second concern is that pilot schemes are all very well; practice is another matter. It might be possible for a pilot scheme along the lines set out to operate and be seen to operate quite properly. However, once the constraints of the pilot scheme were lifted, when it was no longer a case of separating those who had not managed to persuade the entry clearance officer of their bona fides to return from those who had, and when that area of discretion was no longer the norm, it is likely that entry clearance officers would simply say, "Well, I am not sure whether this person will return or not, therefore I will apply the bond."
  I believe that over time, even the best-intentioned scheme would become misapplied by the entry clearance officers, to the detriment of genuine applicants. When constituents come to us as Members of Parliament and make representations about their relatives who wish to come and visit them in this country, it is important that they can be advised clearly about the immigration regulations in the United Kingdom.
  I have always been able to say to my constituents, whey they come to me and propose a bond, "In this country, whether or not you can come in is not a matter of money. It is a simply a matter of whether you meet the regulations. If you can show that there is financial support and accommodation for you such as to make the trip possible, and if you can show that there is good reason why you will return to the country of origin afterwards, you are admitted. If you cannot show any of those things, the application is refused."
  That seems eminently clear. It would be befuddled by giving the entry clearance officers discretion in a case where they have already reached the conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant would not return to the country of origin. To say that if that applicant were to lodge a financial bond—the very applicant who has not managed to persuade the entry clearance officers of his

  833
  bona fides—and that he should then be allowed to come in, is in my view to mix finances with the clear immigration procedures of this country in a most unfortunate way.
  11 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for the opportunity to debate our entry clearance services. I know that he takes a close interest in those matters and, as he said, he recently visited our operations in India. I, too, have always taken a close interest in visa and immigration matters, and I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary invited me to take on the responsibility for entry clearance as part of my portfolio at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  A clear priority for me in the job was to ascertain what I could do to improve the service that we provide, not only to visa applicants overseas, but to Members of Parliament and sponsors in this country. There is always room for improvement. My hon. Friend has made helpful points, which I shall consider carefully. Room for improvement exists because our operation is large and global. However, in most cases the visa operation works well to facilitate visits and travel to this country.
  Overall we provide a good service. In 1999, we processed more than 1.5 million visa applications. Of those, fewer than 7 per cent. were refused. A very high percentage—more than 90 per cent.—of applicants for non-settlement visas were granted visas in 24 hours. That is a good service by any standard.
  I do not suggest that entry clearance officers get it right every time—they do not. However, we should keep that in perspective. The number of cases that go wrong represent only a small percentage of the overall number of applications. We aim to correct any wrong decisions quickly, and to tackle the root cause or causes of any poor quality decisions. Our aim is for all entry clearance sections to operate to the standards of the very best.
  Entry clearance officers have a duty to apply the immigration rules approved by Parliament. Some applicants—again, only a minority—seek to abuse the system. Our visa sections rightly watch out for that.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Home Office work together closely on all those matters. We are fortunate to have as Home Secretary my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He has worked tirelessly to ensure that we have an immigration system that is firm but fair. As the House knows, he is the Home Secretary who abolished the infamous primary purpose rule.
  I mentioned the service that we provide to Members of Parliament and sponsors in this country. Since I took over, I have tried to improve those services. First, we have established regular visa surgeries for hon. Members to come to talk to me about difficult constituency cases. Hon. Members know that my door is always open and that my telephone number is readily available to those who believe that they have urgent or important cases.
  Secondly, we have tried to improve communications between Members of Parliament and constituents by publishing a Visa News bulletin. It aims to highlight
  834
  changes and advise hon. Members about how best to make representations. We arranged a meeting on 12 January between hon. Members with an interest in the subject and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. That was the first time a Foreign Secretary had ever attended such a meeting. His attendance demonstrates the commitment in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to providing high quality visa services.
  Delay in responding to hon. Members' letters has been a problem for some time. I know that from my case load. By the end of last year, a backlog of almost 1,000 letters from hon. Members had built up in our visa correspondence unit. Some hon. Members will know that, on 24 January, we established an outstanding casework unit to tackle the backlog. I am pleased to inform the House that the backlog is now substantially reduced. My officials are considering ways of maintaining the improved standards of service on a long-term basis.
  We are also in the process of restructuring the visa correspondence unit to make the overall operation of the system more effective. I want my office to respond to MPs quickly, especially on urgent and exceptional cases.
  In considering ways to improve the service to visa applicants, my priority was to pay an early visit to the Indian subcontinent, where seven of our visa offices account for some 18 per cent. of all visa applications worldwide. I was therefore delighted to have been able, as my hon. Friend said, to visit India and Bangladesh earlier this month. I wanted to examine our operations there and see what we could do to improve our services. I was impressed by the dedication and commitment of our staff in those countries. I also had the opportunity to meet visa applicants, who seemed happy with the service that they were getting.
  Let me describe the figures. Last year, our high commission in New Delhi handled 67,000 visa applications. Fewer than 17 per cent. were refused and more than 70 per cent. of non-settlement visas granted were available for collection within 24 hours of the application being lodged. The figures for Dhaka were 19,700 applications received and 25 per cent. refused. All non-settlement visas were processed within 24 hours.
  I concentrated on considering ways in which we might improve the service to those living in rural areas, who have to travel long distances to the visa issuing centres. During my visit, I launched feasibility studies in three subcontinent cities—Chandigarh and Ahmedabad in India and Sylhet in Bangladesh—into how that might best be achieved. Those studies are now under way and we are examining a wide range of options, including the possibility of issuing visas in those centres. I shall look at the results very carefully before making any decisions.
  My visit to the subcontinent also coincided with some rather inaccurate and misleading press reports of the Government's plans to pilot a financial bond scheme for certain visa applicants. I am glad that my hon. Friend identified The Sunday Telegraph as the newspaper that started those inaccurate reports. They fuelled misunderstandings about the proposed scheme that are still current, despite all our efforts to set the record straight. The subject is of course one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but it may be helpful if I briefly explain the background.
  The Government's commitment to exploring the possibility of introducing a bond scheme through a pilot study was set out in the immigration and asylum White

  835
  Paper published in 1998. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides the powers to run such a study. We followed that with a consultation paper on the design of the pilot study, offering interested parties—particularly the ethnic minority groups—the opportunity to comment. One of the specific issues addressed in the consultation paper was the location of the pilot study. We explained that, as the scheme is all about facilitating family visits to the UK, it would be desirable to choose posts that receive a large number of visit visa applications in countries whose people have already settled in the UK and make up well-established ethnic minority communities.
  I want to make three points. First, the Government are committed to carrying out a pilot project to test the scheme—nothing more. The initiative is a response to requests from communities in this country with an interest in those matters and from many Members of Parliament. Secondly, the bond scheme would not apply to all applicants for family visits, but to only a small number of borderline cases in which the applicant's intention to leave the UK was in doubt. The scheme could therefore increase the number of visitors eligible to come here. Finally, the next step is to analyse the results of the consultation exercise and decide where the pilot should operate and at what level the bond should be set. No final decisions have been taken on those issues.
  I should add that if the pilot scheme is successful and if the scheme is eventually introduced worldwide, it would apply to all visa nationals and is therefore not, as some have said, discriminatory. We shall take all views into account in the consultation process, particularly when deciding on the location of the pilot project. I must repeat that no final decisions have been taken. However, I am very pleased to announce to the House that the pilot will not be undertaken at any of our posts in the Indian subcontinent—not in India, Bangladesh or Pakistan. I am certain that hon. Members will be very pleased about that. The decision was taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and is fully supported by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am extremely grateful to the Indian high commissioner, Mr. Naresh Dayal; the Bangladeshi high commissioner, Mr. Mahmood Ali; and many organisations for their representations.
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brent, North, for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), among others, for their helpful representations on this matter.
  I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, West and for Harrow, East for the points that they have made about elderly relatives. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is unable to speak for obvious reasons, but he and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West have led a successful campaign to highlight the plight of elderly relatives. That campaign
  836
  has been echoed eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North. As a direct result of what they have said tonight, I have decided to have a special meeting to discuss elderly relatives with my hon. Friends and any other hon. Members who wish to come and see me. I and my officials believe that such a meeting would help us to consider this sensitive and important area.
  The Government's White Paper on immigration and asylum and the resulting 1999 Act bring other challenges to the entry clearance service. For example, our manifesto commitment to restore appeal rights for those applying to visit family members in this country will be implemented in October 2000. I warmly welcome that, because it will mean that refusal decisions can be examined by an independent adjudicator. That is surely in the interests of all concerned. Introduction of this appeal system will be a big challenge for our posts and for the other Departments involved—the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. We are doing everything we can to ensure a smooth introduction.
  Another significant step has been the establishment of a joint entry clearance unit. The unit has recently begun its work under its new head, Robert Brinkley. The establishment of that unit is the clearest example of joined-up Government in this area of work. We may soon have joint reference numbers to make it easier for cases to be tracked.
  It is inevitable that an operation such as the entry clearance service, which processes more than 1.5 million applications each year, will make some mistakes. I pay tribute to the excellent work of entry clearance officers, often in difficult and trying circumstances. Where there are problems, we shall seek to address them quickly. We are working hard to reduce waiting times and have had some successes, particularly in Bombay and New Delhi.
  I was not able to visit Islamabad during my recent trip to the Indian subcontinent. I plan to do so at the earliest opportunity. I know that our visa operation there is the source of much concern to hon. Members, and rightly so. I have made it clear to the managers in Islamabad, whom I called to London recently, and to my officials here, that the service in Islamabad must improve greatly. I have set them the target of reducing waiting times by half by June, and we have already made progress on that.
  Our record is good: 1.24 million visas were issued in 1998 from 164 visa issuing posts. A record 1,025 person-years were spent on entry clearance work—15 per cent. of the Foreign Office staff—in the same year.
  Working with my excellent officials in London and the hard-working ECOs abroad—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at thirteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Press Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000, what was(a) the number of occasions on which couriers were used to distribute news releases from his Department and (b) the total cost of using couriers to distribute news releases. [113977]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: As far as I am aware couriers have not been used, by MAFF, to distribute news releases.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) national, (b) regional and (c) local newspapers and media bodies to which his Department sent news releases during the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000. [113989]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: News releases are made available to all press and media bodies through the Central Office of Information (COI) managed News Distribution Service and the interne, and until recently via the Royal Mail postal service.

  I will write to the hon. Member with a list of all those we believe have received news releases.

  Farmers' Ages
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the most recent figures are regarding the average age of farmers and the trend in average age. [113878]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: The estimated average age of holders on main holdings in the UK for the years 1990 to 1997 are contained in the table.

  Year

  Estimated average age

  Percentage of holders aged 65 and over

  1990

  53

  23

  1993

  53

  23

  1995

  54

  25

  1997

  53

  22

  Notes:

  1. The EC Farm Structure Survey is held across all member states of the European Union four times every decade, to assess the agricultural situation across the Community and to monitor trends in the structure of holdings.

  2. The holder of the holding is that (natural or legal) person in whose name the holding is operated. The holder can own the holding outright or rent it, or be a hereditary long-term leaseholder, or a usufructuary or a trustee. A natural person may be either a single individual or a group of individuals, for example married couples, siblings, joint beneficiaries under a will or intestacy.
  386W
  3. The data is collected by age bands and, to calculate the average, the mid-point of each age band is used. The mid-point of 67 is assumed for the age band Aged 65 and over.

  Source

  EC Farms Structure Survey

  Fisheries
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of the proposed reduction in grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency in support of its fisheries work. [114436]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 27 October 1999,Official Report, column 922W.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in relation to the proposed cut in grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency in support of its fisheries work. [114435]

  Mr. Morley
  I have received representations from a number of individuals and organisations, including some 120 letters from Members of Parliament and over 60 letters from the general public.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of job losses resulting from the proposed cut in grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency in support of its fisheries work. [114434]

  Mr. Morley
  The planned reduction in grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency to fund its work on salmon and freshwater fisheries in England will come into effect in 2001–02. It will be for the Environment Agency to determine its spending priorities for that year in the light of the fall in grant-in-aid. Until it has done this it is not possible to assess the impact of the reduction.

  GM Crops
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what maximum percentage of the diet of(a) animals reared for meats, (b) animals kept for dairy produce and (c) poultry may originate from a GM crop or a mixture of GM crops. [113769]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: There are no specific rules on the proportion of animal diets which are permitted to originate from GM crops.

  Irish Sea
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what progress has been made on the development of a regional fisheries forum for the Irish Sea area; [114706]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing a regional fisheries forum for the Irish Sea area. [114707]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: Although ideas for the establishment of a Forum for Fisheries in the Irish Sea are not currently being pursued, substantial progress has been made in the context of the Irish Sea Cod Recovery Programme in the involvement of

  387W
  fishermen in fisheries management decisions which affect them. At UK prompting, the European Commission and Council agreed on 17 December last that each stage of the Programme should be developed through a regional consultation group bringing together fishermen, scientists and administrators from the Member States concerned in the Irish Sea cod fishery. This group will also review progress towards meeting the stock recovery objectives of the Programme.

  This marks an important step forward in strengthening the regional dimension of the Common Fisheries Policy.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Bus and Priority Lanes
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to extend bus lanes on congested motorways and trunk roads; what plans he has to introduce priority lanes on motorways and trunk roads for lorries; and if he will make a statement. [112706]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government are committed to making the best possible use of existing trunk road systems in tackling problems of traffic congestion. This may, at certain specific locations, involve the provision of designated lanes but I do not envisage their widespread use in the immediate future on the motorway and trunk road network outside urban areas. Where such lanes are appropriate, consideration needs to be given on a case by case basis as to what vehicles, including buses and heavy goods vehicles, may use them and at what times.

  A3 (Hindhead)
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the public were last consulted about proposals to remedy blockages on the A3 near Hindhead; when he plans next to consult the public on this issue; if he will estimate the cost of the current study of the A3 near Hindhead; and if he has consulted the National Trust about the A3 near Hindhead; [114368]

  (2) when the public will next be involved in the problem of the proposals to remedy blockages on A3 near Hindhead problem. [114425]

  Mr. Hill
  The public were consulted on options for a road solution at Hindhead, including the proposed tunnel scheme, in 1992. As part of the study now under way the public are being involved on an on-going basis through a comprehensive programme of consultation and communication. This includes setting up local focus groups, a wider reference group, telephone interviews with longer distance travellers and a formal public consultation exercise. The commission for the study was awarded on the basis of a tender price of £188,066. Mr. Peter Griffiths, Director of the National Trust for the South Region, is a member of the study's steering group.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place 388W
  in the Library a copy of the invitation documents sent to consortiums selected to bid for the two deep-level tube PPP contracts, together with the draft contract for the proposed PPP; and if he will list the members of each consortium which was selected. [114195]

  Mr. Hill
  The invitation to tender and PPP draft contract contain commercially confidential material whose release could undermine the public sector's negotiating position and prevent best value from being achieved. London Transport has made an overview of the invitation to tender publicly available and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.

  London Underground announced the consortia selected to bid for the two deep-level tube contracts on 7 October 1999. The bidding consortia and their members are as follows:

  LINC:
  Bombardier Prorail, John Mowlem and Company, Fluor Daniel, Alcatel Telecom and Anglian Water

  Metronet:
  Adtranz (Daimler-Chrysler Rail Systems), W. S. Atkins, Balfour Beatty (BICC), Seeboard plc and Thames Water

  Tube Lines Group:
  Bechtel/Halcrow, Amey, Hyder Investments and Jarvis

  TubeRail:
  Brown and Root, Alstom Transportation Projects, Amec and Carillion

  The Tube Lines Group has been invited to bid for only one of the two contracts.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he is expecting PPP bids for the sub-surface London tube lines by 31 March. [114985]

  Mr. Hill
  No. London Transport will be inviting bids shortly.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what London tube lines and stations will be closed during the proposed PPP; and if he will make a statement. [114984]

  Mr. Hill
  Under the PPP, the private sector will take over responsibility for delivering a massive programme of work on the Tube network, totalling around £8 billion of investment and around £5 billion of maintenance over the next 15 years. This will reduce passenger journey times and make services more reliable, as well as improving the quality of the travelling environment.

  As now, it will be necessary from time to time to close some parts of the network for limited periods to undertake essential work. Bidders' proposals in this area will be closely examined when London Underground evaluates the PPP bids.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is his policy on continuing with proposals for the London Underground PPP if none of the bids undertakes best value against the appropriate public sector comparator; [114986]
  389W
  (2) what public sector comparators he will employ to assess whether potential bidders for the London Underground PPP are offering best value for money; and if he will make a statement. [114931]

  Mr. Hill
  To test that the London Underground PPP represents value for money, London Underground, with their professional advisers, are developing a rigorous public sector comparator. A paper explaining the principles underlying the comparator will be published shortly. The cash values produced by the comparator will also be released, but only once negotiations with bidders are complete. To publish them any earlier would risk jeopardising the taxpayer's negotiating position.

  To ensure that the public sector comparator proves a rigorous and fair test, it is to be audited by London Underground's independent, external auditors. In addition, the comparator will be open to detailed scrutiny by the National Audit Office in the usual way.

  We will not contemplate deals being done if they do not offer best value to the taxpayer.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations about the political risks associated with the proposed contracts for the London Underground PPP he has received from potential bidders; and if he will make a statement; [114932]

  (2) what commitment the Government have entered into to underwrite the bidders' costs of bidding for the contracts for the London Underground PPP; how much he estimates this will cost public funds; and if he will make a statement. [114934]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about political risk associated with the PPP contract. My officials have, however, received a small number of representations about political and other risk associated with the bidding competition.

  Under the terms of the Invitation To Tender for the deep Tube infrastructure service contracts, London Underground may make payments to bidders for bid costs:

  (i) should the PPP competition be terminated on grounds other than the fact that the bids do not present value for money; or

  (ii) where costs are incurred by an unsuccessful shortlisted bidder after London Underground has required offers with committed finances to be submitted.

  We are confident that PPP will represent best value and go ahead, and therefore expect there to be no cost to public funds in the first case. If costs are incurred in the second case, arising from the successful completion of the PPP programme, it may be necessary to reimburse the eligible costs from public funds up to a limit of £1 million per shortlisted bidder.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been spent on professional and consultancy fees in respect of the London Underground PPP; and if he will estimate how much will be spent in total by the time of completion of the PPP. [114933]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 21 December 1999,Official Report,
  390W
  column 525W. London Transport will not know the overall requirements or costs for external advice until the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) transaction has been completed, but the Government are working with LT to ensure that we receive the best advice while minimising the overall costs of implementing the PPP.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of how much public funding will be required to support the London Underground PPP; and if he will make a statement; [114980]

  (2) what is his latest estimate for the total funding requirement for the London Underground for the period of the proposed PPP; and how this will be met. [114981]

  Mr. Hill
  Under the PPP, we expect to see around £8 billion invested in the Underground over the first 15 years with around a further £5 billion spent on maintenance. It would not be sensible at this stage, before London Underground have received bids, to estimate how this will be funded. However, we have made clear that if it should prove value for money, then Transport for London will receive the appropriate level of central government grant to allow for London Underground's need to make any payments to the PPP contractors.

  The PPP is about obtaining best value in the way that farebox revenue and any public subsidy is spent. The evidence indicates that the PPP will be better value than the wholly public sector alternatives, even if central government grant continues to be paid.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from potential bidders for the PPP contracts on the London Underground concerning shortfalls against costs of the PPP. [114982]

  Mr. Hill
  None.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what cap he will set on increases in fares on the London Underground under the proposed PPP. [114983]

  Mr. Hill
  Fares on the London Underground will be a matter for the Mayor. The economic analysis London Underground and their advisers have undertaken for the PPP assumes that fares will do no more than keep pace with inflation once the PPP is in place.

  Welded Vehicles
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the number of motor vehicles that were welded together and offered for resale during 1999; and if he will make a statement. [114494]

  Mr. Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department. Our aim is to ensure that all vehicles comply with prescribed roadworthiness standards and that the tools are there to see they are enforced. Through its oversight of the MOT testing regime the Vehicle Inspectorate enforces the relevant roadworthiness requirements. Local authority trading standards officials have powers to deal with unscrupulous traders who offer unroadworthy vehicles for sale. As must be the case, the
  391W
  best advice we can give is for buyers to arrange for an independent technical inspection of a vehicle and to obtain information on its background prior to purchase.

  Rema (Sinking)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recommendations were made to him by the Marine Accident Investigation Board following the sinking of the Rema. [114525]

  Mr. Hill
  The Marine Accident Investigation Branch Report into the sinking of the Belize-registered MV Rema made one recommendation to this Department, addressed to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. The Agency is recommended to advocate through the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the fitting of hold bilge alarms in all single hold vessels.

  An identical recommendation was addressed to the International Merchant Marine Registry of Belize (IMMARBE), therefore the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will be consulting IMMARBE and the United Kingdom marine industry for their views on how this recommendation should be supported and taken forward to the IMO.

  The other four inspector's recommendations contained in the report are addressed to IMMARBE and propose measures to improve its safety record.

  O Licences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will increase the minimum deposit for the grant of an O licence from £5,000 to £20,000. [114518]

  Mr. Hill
  New European Union rules on the level of finances required by holders of international operator licences came into effect in this country for new applications in October 1999. Existing operators have until October 2001 to meet the new requirements. They require an amount equal to or exceeding 9,000 euro for the first or only vehicle authorised under the operator's licence and 5,000 euro for each additional vehicle. This represents a significant increase over the previous financial requirements. Traffic Commissioners assess the level of financial resources required by domestic operators as a proportion of these figures. For standard national licences this is normally some 80 per cent. of the figure set for an international operator's licence and about 50 per cent. for Restricted licences. We are planning to carry out a consultation exercise seeking views on whether these remain appropriate levels of funding for domestic operators.

  Rail Yards (Telephony Equipment)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidelines identifying(a) the correct telephony equipment for use in railway freight yards and (b) suitable training courses for operatives. [114515]

  Mr. Hill
  There are no plans to issue guidelines identifying what communication equipment, including telephone equipment, should be used in railway freight yards.
  392W
  The provision of communication equipment, including telephones, and the suitable training of staff in its use, is a matter for the train operating companies.

  Greater London (Select Committee Report)
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps are being taken to prepare a response to the recommendation in the Twentieth Report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1998–99 (HC 477), about Greater London; [114561]

  (2) what plans he has to include in the preparation of the White Paper on rural issues investment in and support for the management of green and open spaces within conurbations, with special reference to London. [114554]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government's Response was published in January 2000 (Cmnd 4550). It identified a number of recommendations to be considered further in the White Paper on urban policy. The White Paper will set out policies and proposals for improving the quality of life in our towns and cities. An important part of this will be our proposals for improving the management of the public realm, including our parks and open spaces.

  Parks and open spaces are important to the quality of life in all our towns, cities and conurbations. The proposals set out in our Response and being developed in the White Paper are for national application.

  Green and Open Spaces
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanisms exist to ensure that initiatives across London which affect green and open spaces and the public funds invested in them can be co-ordinated. [114560]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A large proportion of the open space surrounding the built up area of London is designated as Green Belt or Metropolitan Open Land. As such it enjoys a high degree of protection from development, through existing national planning guidance and local planning policies. In addition, Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities (RPG3) issued in 1996 urges local planning authorities to encourage the maintenance and support of agriculture as a major economic activity in the Green Belt.

  The new Mayor of London will be required to produce a number of important strategies including a spatial development strategy, a number of environmental strategies and biodiversity action plan. Each of the strategies should be consistent with the others. Together, these strategies will enable the Mayor to devise an holistic approach to the protection and enhancement of green and open spaces of strategic importance in London.

  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what hectarage of green and open space land open to the public is (i) owned and (ii) managed by the(a) Corporation of London, (b) Royal Parks Agency, (c) Lee Valley Regional Park, (d) London boroughs, (e) English Heritage and (f) other agencies. [114558]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally.
  393W
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much public funding was spent within the boundary of the M25 on (1) management and maintenance and (2) the development, conservation and restoration of public and open spaces, parks, gardens and estates by(a) the Corporation of London, (b) the Royal Parks Agency, (c) the Lee Valley Regional Park, (d) the Heritage Lottery Fund, (e) the London boroughs, (f) English Heritage and (g) other agencies and by way of (i) grants made available via the Government Office for London for Single Regeneration Budget or related green space projects, (ii) ESF Objective 2 grants related to green space enhancement and (iii) grants made by London TECs for country green space development projects in the last 12 months. [114559]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information requested in respect of the Corporation of London, the Lee Valley Regional Park, the London boroughs and other agencies is currently not available centrally in the form, and for the geographical area requested. I am however able to say that the estimated net current expenditure of the London boroughs and the City of London on managing and maintaining parks and open spaces totals £100,896,000 for 1999–2000.

  Responsibility for the Royal Parks Agency, Heritage Lottery Fund and English Heritage falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. My right hon. Friend informs me that the information requested in respect of the Heritage Lottery Fund is not currently available for the geographical area requested. The total grant paid to the Royal Parks Agency for 1999–2000 is £26.389 million, which is currently not broken down in the form requested. The English Heritage budget for 1999–2000 for the management and maintenance of properties and land within their care is a total of £3,597,618. The budget for development and conservation projects on English Heritage owned properties for 1999–2000 is £539,500.

  No grants have been offered to third parties for management of open space, parks, or gardens in the last 12 months by English Heritage. However, London Region has commissioned a management plan to advise on proposals for College Farm at a cost of £15,000, and English Heritage contributed £37,000 to the Thames Landscape Strategy in 1999–2000.

  Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will conduct a review of sections 92 and 122 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984, with particular reference to compatibility between those two sections and the personal injuries and damage to vehicles caused by rising bollards. [114795]

  Mr. Hill
  We have no plans to conduct such a review. Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 places a duty on local traffic authorities to exercise their functions under the Act so as to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic, so far as practicable having regard to certain matters such as amenity and need for access to premises. This includes the exercise of their power under section 92 to place bollards to prevent vehicles from using roads from which 394W
  they are prohibited. It is the responsibility of individual traffic authorities to ensure that they exercise their road traffic regulation functions in a manner that is compatible with their statutory duty under section 122.

  Highways (Works)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take powers to require utility telecoms companies and local authorities to co-ordinate their work programmes so that disruptive excavations of the highway are minimised; and if he will make a statement. [114996]

  Mr. Hill
  Street works undertakers are required under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 to co-operate with highway authorities and one another, and the authorities for their part are required to co-ordinate works in their streets. Section 66 of the 1991 Act provides that undertakers must carry on and complete works with all reasonable dispatch, and a street authority can require an undertaker obstructing the street more extensively or for longer than is reasonable necessary to comply with a restraining notice. Where there is a risk of serious traffic disruption from street works, section 56 enables the street authority to direct the undertaker to carry out work only at certain times, if the disruption can be avoided or reduced by this means.

  In a further development, the 1998 Integrated Transport White Paper made a commitment to consult on options for an incentive system, with penalties, to minimise disruption to road users, and to encourage improved co-ordination of street works. A consultation was launched last October and my Department is considering the responses to the consultation in order to decide on the best way forward.

  Finally, Regulations have been made under powers in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, and came into effect last year, to facilitate and encourage the electronic transfer of information about street works and other works in the highway between utilities such as telecoms companies and highway authorities. This will ensure greater consistency and speed in transferring and registering the information, which in turn will help authorities in their co-ordination role.

  Accident Reduction Targets
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that local authorities meet the Government's accident reduction targets; and if he will make a statement. [114890]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government's Road Safety Strategy, "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", included new national casualty reduction targets to be met by 2010. To achieve these targets we must work in partnership with
  395W
  others, including local authorities. The strategy outlines what we expect of local authorities. Within their local transport plan (LTP) authorities must devise a local road safety strategy including local casualty reduction targets in support of the national targets. We are providing authorities with additional resources for implementation.

  The integrated transport element of capital allocations, which includes road safety schemes, will be £250 million in 2000–01, 20 per cent. higher than in the current year. Authorities will be required to produce annual progress reports setting out performance against the indicators and targets contained within the LTP. Authorities will be asked to look again at LTPs which fail to deliver against their targets and we reserve the right to reduce allocations to poorly performing authorities or introduce the selective ring-fencing of resources.

  Office of the Rail Regulator
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many full-time staff worked in the Office of the Rail Regulator at the time that the present Regulator was appointed; how many new appointments have been made since then; how many staff have left since then; how many vacancies exist; how many staff are due to leave within the next six months; and how many staff the Regulator employs. [114917]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: At the time the present Regulator was appointed—on 5 July 1999—there were 140 full-time staff in the Office of the Rail Regulator, including the staff of the Central and regional Rail Users' Consultative Committees. Since his appointment, there have been 53 appointments—16 of which were new posts. Thirty-three staff have left since the current Regulator was appointed. There are 27 existing vacancies and there are five staff due to leave within the next six months. The Regulator currently employs 160 staff.

  Cycle Lanes
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many kilometres of cycle lanes have been built in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and how many are projected to be built in the next five years. [114814]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 March 2000]: Information about the lengths of cycle lanes provided and projected by local highway authorities is not held centrally. The responsibility for the provision of all cycle facilities, including cycle lanes, rests with individual highway authorities.

  We are encouraging local highway authorities to respond to the National Cycling Strategy by including local strategies to increase cycling in their local transport plans.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what investigations the Health and Safety Executive is making into the potential health hazards of telecommunications masts. [115066]
  396W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: The Health and Safety Executive, in common with other Government Departments, is advised on health hazards from radiation emitted from telecommunication masts by the National Radiological Protection Board. The Government's view, based on advice from the NRPB, is that the validated scientific evidence does not suggest that radiofrequency emissions from telecommunication masts present a health hazard if they comply with NRPB guidelines, but that there is a need for more research.

  HSE is supporting national and international research programmes into the suggested harmful effects of radiofrequency emissions, and will contribute to the review of the UK research programme in the light of the recommendations of the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones due in May.

  Multiple Property Owning
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Treasury regarding taxation to discourage multiple property owning. [115125]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: My Department has regular discussions with the Treasury on a range of issues of mutual interest. Final decisions on taxation are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Seat Belts
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that seat belts are worn by rear-seat passengers. [115537]

  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 16 March 2000,Official Report, columns 329–30W.

  Home Energy Efficiency Programme
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money was allocated to the Home Energy Efficiency Programme for each financial year since 1990–91 to the present for(a) the United Kingdom as a whole, (b) England, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales; and if he will make a statement. [115139]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) covers Great Britain only. Northern Ireland has always had its own separate scheme. Until 1999, the scheme had shared administration and delivery costs and no separate allocation for England, Scotland and Wales. During 1999–2000, the scheme was devolved to Scotland with a set budget. The total allocation for each year from 1990–91 is as follows, together with the approximate proportion spent in Scotland and Wales:
  397W

  Financialyear

  Total allocation (£ million)

  Of which approximately allocated to Scotland (percentage)

  Of which approximately allocated to Wales (percentage)

  1990–911

  1.5

  3-

  3-

  1991–92

  26.1

  9

  4

  1992–93

  33.6

  8

  3

  1993–94

  41.5

  8

  4

  1994–95

  83

  8

  5

  1995–96

  107.2

  8

  5

  1996–97

  76.1

  8

  5

  1997–98

  76.1

  8

  4

  1998–99

  76.2

  7

  6

  1999–2000

  74.9

  2-

  5

  1 Expenditure in 1990–91 was for three months only.

  2 From 1 July 1999, Scotland set up its own separate scheme "Warm Deal". The total amount transferred to Scotland for the whole year (including expenditure during 1 April to 30 June) was £5.9 million. This figure does not include any additional monies allocated by the Scottish Executive to the programme.

  3 Not available.

  Housing (Newcastle Great Park)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the housing densities of the housing areas of the proposed Newcastle Great Park planning application now referred to him, using the net site density method set out in Annexe C of the revised Planning Policy Guidance 3. [115285]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The application for Newcastle Great Park, which is currently before the Secretary of State, is for outline planning permission, so the information provided does not enable the net housing density to be calculated in accordance with Annexe C of the revised PPG3 on Housing. To do so, we should require many more details, such as the housing layout and area of open space, that the applicants are legitimately seeking to reserve for later approval if outline permission is granted

  All vacant residential properties at 1 April 1999

  Dwellings leased to, or by, the authority at 1 April:

  1999

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  To LA

  By LA

  To LA

  By LA

  To LA

  By LA

  To LA

  By LA

  To LA

  By LA

  Gateshead

  2,608

  0

  416

  0

  399

  0

  372

  0

  356

  0

  335

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7,905

  0

  792

  0

  732

  0

  701

  0

  658

  0

  648

  North Tyneside

  5,008

  0

  326

  0

  314

  0

  312

  0

  283

  0

  273

  South Tyneside

  2,341

  0

  386

  0

  364

  0

  353

  0

  339

  0

  558

  Sunderland

  4,298

  8

  426

  8

  357

  8

  345

  8

  301

  8

  431

  Source:

  Annual HIP (Operational Information) returns

  Rural Public Transport
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the provision of public transport in(a) rural areas and (b) West Cumbria; and if he will make a statement. [115144]

  Mr. Hill
  Many of the measures within the Integrated Transport White Paper and the Transport Bill currently before Parliament benefit rural areas. We are also
  398W
  If the application is approved, the planning authority concerned (either the local authority or the Secretary of State) could impose conditions on the outline permission relating to housing density. The Secretary of State would expect any decision on this application to take into account the policies in the revised PPG3, as well as any other relevant policy guidance.

  Vacant Properties (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many vacant residential properties there were in each local authority area in Tyne and Wear on the most recent date for which figures are available; and how many residential properties have been leased in each such local authority area in the last five years. [115283]

  Mr. Mullin
  The latest information reported by local authorities on Housing Investment Programme returns is as follows:

  developing a Ten Year Plan for transport to set out a long-term investment programme and a Rural White Paper to set out our objectives for rural areas.

  The system of Local Transport Plans, which are five year integrated transport strategies prepared by local authorities, are the cornerstone of delivering better transport in local ares. Authorities are specifically required to address the accessibility needs of people in rural areas in their Plans and to recognise the interrelationship between rural and other areas.
  399W
  We appreciate that rural areas have particular transport problems, which is why we have made £170 million available for rural transport over the three years to March 2001. The bulk of this money is delivered through the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant. In England this provides £32.5 million a year to fund new or improved bus services for rural areas. In February we announced the extension of the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant until at least 2004.

  We are also conscious of the importance of rural railways. Our guidance to the Franchising Director seeks improvements through the re-negotiation of franchise agreements. We have also made available additional funding for a new Rail Passenger Partnership scheme aimed specifically at providing support for locally sponsored services that are not commercially viable.

  We look forward to receiving the full Local Transport Plan for Cumbria to be submitted in July. This will set out the authority's plans for transport in the area for the next five years. We have also been working with the many local bodies on the development of a Lake District Transport Strategy to improve and co-ordinate public transport provision across Cumbria. The strategy recognises the importance of links with both West Cumbria and the Furness area. A range of measures to improve public transport are under way, including upgrading information displays and new bus shelters. Further work is planned, including through ticketing, marketing and promotion, travel point information, improving existing interchange between bus and rail and new multi-modal interchanges.

  Cumbria has received £957,300 a year in Rural Bus Subsidy Grant and has established 27 new and 64 improved services. The county has also recently been awarded £722,000 under the Rural Bus Challenge for a project to enhance bus links between Cockermouth, Keswick and Penrith. Feeder bus services to the core route (including one from Workington), interchange and waiting facilities and travel information are all to be improved. This work will complement the improvements achieved through the Local Transport Plan, particularly those planned for Penrith rail station to enhance linkages with bus services. A feasibility study is also being undertaken with interested companies and Railtrack to establish detailed proposals to improve the Furness and Cumbrian coast rail services.

  The Countryside Agency has provided grant to support three Rural Transport Partnerships, including one in West Cumbria, to secure additional resources for rural transport supporting local communities and in particular to reduce rural isolation and social exclusion through enhanced access to jobs and services.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action is being taken permanently to correct the signal failures affecting the Jubilee line. [114820]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for London Underground. I understand that software improvements are currently being carried out which will improve the reliability of the signalling system on the Jubilee line. The implementation programme for this work is expected to be completed by the end of June. Other improvements in 400W
  the Stratford area have already been carried out or are in hand and will help to provide a more consistent and regular service. Further, line-wide, signalling-related work is also scheduled to take place throughout the year.

  Publicity Costs (Greater London Authority)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money the Government have spent on publicity costs in relation to the Greater London Authority and associated bodies. [115513]

  Mr. Hill
  In the run-up to the London Referendum between May 1997 and 7 May 1998 the total publicity budget was £1.6 million. There was no publicity budget for publicising the Greater London Authority between the Referendum and Royal Assent for the Greater London Authority Act 1999 in November 1999.

  The Government are currently running a multi-media information campaign to ensure that Londoners know about the new voting process on 4 May and understand how the Mayor and Assembly will affect their daily lives. The total budget for this campaign is £4.1 million—about 81p per London elector. Approximately £2.9 million will be spent in the current financial year and £1.2 million in 2000–01.

  In addition, following the recent amendment to the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Government have agreed to spend £1.7 million on a booklet prepared by the Greater London Returning Officer containing election addresses by Mayoral candidates.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated level of capital investment by National Air Traffic Services for(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02; and how much of that investment will go to the New Scottish Centre in each of these years. [115509]

  Mr. Mullin
  The 1999 NATS Business Plan estimated capital investments are at the following levels.

  £ million

  1999–2000

  55.6

  2000–01

  47.5

  2001–02

  53.7

  NATS are currently developing a long-term investment plan, which will be completed in the next few months.

  It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the likely expenditure on the New Scottish Centre over the next few years as the contract for construction of the centre building has yet to be let. However the cost of the centre is expected to be of the order of £400 million, and is expected to come into operation in the winter of 2006–07.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the civil airports in the UK, specifying which use National Air Traffic Services to provide air traffic control services. [115508]
  401W
  Mr. Mullin
  The following is a list of the civil airports in the UK. Those which use National Air Traffic to provide air traffic control services are marked with an asterisk (*).

  Aberdeen*

  Alderney (States of Guernsey)

  Belfast City

  Belfast International*

  Birmingham International Airport*

  Blackpool

  Bournemouth International Airport

  Bristol Filton

  Bristol International Airport (Lulsgate)

  Cambridge

  Cardiff International Airport*

  Carlisle Airport

  Coventry

  Cranfield Airport

  Dundee

  Dunsford Aerodrome

  East Midlands International Airport

  Edinburgh*

  Exeter

  Glasgow—Prestwick

  Glasgow*

  Gloucestershire Airport

  Guernsey States Airport

  Hawarden

  Highlands and Islands Airports (includes 10 airports—not all have ATC)

  Humberside International Airport

  Isle of Man (Ronaldsway) Airport

  Jersey

  Leeds Bradford International Airport

  Liverpool

  London—Biggin Hill

  London—Gatwick*

  London—Heathrow*

  London—Luton

  London—southend

  London—Stansted*

  London City*

  Lydd

  Manchester*

  Manston—Kent International

  Newcastle International Airport

  North Denes Heliport

  Norwich

  Oxford

  Plymouth City

  Sheffield

  Shoreham

  Southampton

  St. Marys

  Swansea

  Teeside

  Warton

  Woodford Aerodrome

  Green Transport Plans
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the budget was for promoting green transport plans in 1999–2000; and what is the predicted outturn of expenditure for 1999–2000. [115514]
  402W
  Mr. Hill
  The original budget was for £2 million. The predicted outturn is around £0.5 million.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Government transferred £500,000 for the green transport plans budget in 1999–2000 to other uses. [115515]

  Mr. Hill
  £500,000 was transferred to make the best use of predicted underspend. This is a new programme to promote the take-up of travel plans through guidance and advice to employers and schools. We have decided to wait for the results of a pilot programme of site specific advice before rolling out a more substantial programme.

  Housebuilding (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the impact his statement of 7 March on housebuilding will have on the Chelmsford Local Authority area; and, as a result of his statement, how many houses will have to be built in Chelmsford,(a) over the next five years and (b) over the next 16 years. [114782]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [pursuant to her answer, 16March 2000, c. 330W]: The Secretary of State's proposed changes to the Regional Planning Guidance for the South East and for the East of England will now be published on 27 March.

  Housebuilding Statistics
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he will publish the housebuilding figures announced on 7 March broken down by county; [114413]

  (2) what balance of brownfield and greenfield development he expects to take place in each of the English regions in the next 15 years as a result of his statement on 7 March; [114412]

  (3) how many new homes will need to be built in West Sussex in (a) the next 15 years and (b) over each of the next five years as a result of his housebuilding policy announcement on 7 March. [114402]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [pursuant to his answers, 13 March 2000, c. 31–32W, 34–35W]: The Secretary of State's proposed changes to the Regional Planning Guidance for the South East and for the East of England will now be published on 27 March.

SCOTLAND

  Poindings and Warrant Sales
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent(a) advice he has received and (b) representations he has made in respect of the impact of abolishing poindings and warrant sales on the Government's ability to recover unpaid tax or VAT. [112043]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: I have not received advice or made representations in respect of the impact of abolishing poindings and warrant sales on the Government's ability to recover unpaid tax or VAT.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) national, (b) regional and (c) local newspapers and media bodies to which his Department sent news releases during the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000. [113983]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: All media outlets can request press releases. Targeted distribution will rely on the subject and content of the specific press release. The numbers involved in listing these outlets would incur disproportionate costs. Press releases are available electronically to all media outlets via Cable and Wireless. The are also available on the Internet.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for the period 2 May 1997 to 29 February 2000 what was(a) the number of occasions on which couriers were used to distribute news releases from his Department and
  (b) the total cost of using couriers to distribute news releases. [113973]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 10 March 2000]: All press releases are distributed electronically via Cable and Wireless. Couriers have not been used to distribute press releases.

PRIME MINISTER

  Staff (10 Downing Street)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list those staff paid for by the Labour Party who are working in No. 10 Downing Street, indicating their function in each case; [112055]

  (2) if the marginal costs which result from the employment of Labour party staff in No. 10 Downing Street are met from public funds. [112056]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The information requested is as follows:

  Sally Morgan—Political Secretary

  John Cruddas—Deputy Political Secretary

  Faz Hakim—Assistant Political Secretary

  Michael Stephenson—Assistant Political Secretary

  Plus six secretarial and administrative support staff, four of whom work on a job-share or part-time basis.

  As has been the case under successive Administrations, marginal costs associated with the Political Office are met from within the overall budget for No. 10 Downing Street.

  Roger Liddle
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister on what occasions, and at what venues, during November and December 1999 his Defence and Foreign Affairs Adviser, Mr. Liddle, made speeches at seminars in(a) the UK and (b) other European countries. [112001]

  The Prime Minister
  Seminars attended by Mr. Liddle during this period were informal. On all occasions he made introductory remarks that formed the basis for discussion. He did not speak from a written text.
  404W
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will answer the question from the hon. Member for Croydon, South tabled on 22 February 2000, concerning Mr. Roger Liddle (ref. 112076). [115370]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today. The question referred to by the hon. Member bears the reference number 112001 and not 112076.

  Joint Ministerial Committee
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Prime Minister how many plenary meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee on the relationship between Westminster and the devolved Administrations have been held. [114585]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) has not met to consider the relationship between Westminster and the devolved administrations. However, the guidance note on "Common Working Arrangements," agreed by the official committee of the JMC, includes guidance on handling relations between the Administrations and Westminster. This note is available in the Library of the House and on the Cabinet Office website (at www.cabinet-office.gov.uk /constitution/2000/devolution/).

  Official Visits Abroad
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to paragraph 72 of the Ministerial Code and the answer by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, of 13 March 2000,Official Report, column 33W, if it is his policy that Ministers should be willing to provide information on their overseas travel more frequently than once a year. [115207]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: A detailed list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas, and information on spend by all Ministers on travel overseas for the period 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the current financial year. It is reasonable that, in response to a Parliamentary Question seeking information similar to that which is currently being assembled, the hon. Member was informed that he would have to wait for the published list.

  Union with Ireland Act 1800
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to commemorate the date of the 200 Anniversary of the Union with Ireland Act 1800; and if he will make a statement. [114546]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: None.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will publish the correspondence between the Government and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank concerning the appointment of peers to the House of Lords; [115423]

  (2) what discussions he has had with opposition parties over the appointment of peers to the House of Lords; [115421]
  405W
  (3) what discussions have been conducted between the Government and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank over the appointment of peers to the House of Lords. [115422]

  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice under section 8(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to information, opinions and assessments given in relation to recommendations for honours.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs as of 1 April 1999, which of the executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department(a) were required to publish annual reports, (b) were required to publish annual accounts, (c) were subject to a full audit by the National Audit Office, (d) were under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Ombudsman or other ombudsmen, (e) had their own complaints procedure, (f) were required to observe the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, (g) possessed a register of Members' interests, (h) allowed the public to inspect a register of Members' interests, (i) were subject to a public right to attend board meetings or committee meetings, (j) were obliged to release reports of meetings, (k) were subject to a public right to inspect agendas of meetings, (l) were subject to a public right to see minutes of meetings, (m) were required to hold public meetings, (n) (i) maintained an internet site and (ii) were developing an internet site and (o) had been subject to a quinquennial review within the last year, including a continuing review. [114166]

  Mr. Hain
  All executive and advisory NDPBs sponsored by our Department on 1 April 1999 were required to publish annual reports; to publish annual accounts (where they had significant expenditure of their own); to operate in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; and to draw up, and make publicly available on request, a Register of Members' Interests. All NDPBs were also encouraged to hold meetings in public and to release or otherwise make available records of meetings. There was, however, no statutory requirement or obligation for them to do so.

  Information on audit arrangements for executive NDPBs is set out in Public Bodies 1999. Information on which NDPBs maintain their own website can be accessed from the Cabinet Office quango website (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/quango).

  The Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission was subject to a quinquennial review during 1998.

  Uganda
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has taken to encourage the peaceful resolution of the conflict in Northern Uganda; and if he will encourage the Ugandan and Sudanese Governments to enter into negotiations with all the warring parties. [115219]
  406W
  Mr. Hain
  We welcomed the bilateral agreement signed by Uganda and Sudan last December in Nairobi. Successful implementation will increase stability in the region and help secure the release and return of abducted children. We are encouraging the Governments in both Kampala and Khartoum to honour these commitments.

  We have consistently urged the Government of Uganda to seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Northern Uganda. I welcomed the Government's decision to pass amnesty legislation when I saw President Museveni last October. But this is just one element towards a negotiated settlement which must also involve commitment on all sides to reconciliation and rehabilitation. We continue to encourage the Government of Uganda to open direct dialogue with the Lords Resistance Army (LRA). The Department for International Development is also supporting a number of projects in the North aimed at promoting peace, rehabilitation and development, as well as responding to some humanitarian needs.

  Peat Compost
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 2000,Official Report, column 941W, on peat compost, what percentage of the compost used in his Department's estate gardens is peat; when use of peat compost will be phased out on his Department's estates; and if he will make a statement. [115236]

  Mr. Hain
  No peat is used on the FCO's estate. There is no information available on what our overseas Posts use, but FCO purchasing guidance states that peat should be avoided.

  Fundamental Rights Charter
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in respect of the Convention on a draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, if he will list(a) the participant from each member state or other appointing body, (b) the composition and tasks of its, (i) working groups, (ii) drafting Committee and (iii) Editorial Committee, (c) the dates when these groups and the Plenary of the Convention (1) have met and (2) plan to meet and (d) what (x) oral and (y) written evidence from his Department has been reported by select committees of the House concerning the Convention. [115249]

  Mr. Vaz
  (a) The current membership of the EU Charter Convention is:

  Member States Representatives

  Lord Goldsmith, QC—United Kingdom

  to be announced—Austria

  Jean-Luc Dehaene—Belgium

  Dr. Erling Olsen—Denmark

  Paavo Nikula—Finland

  Guy Braibant—France

  Roman Herzog (Chair)—Germany

  George Papadimitriou—Greece

  Michael O' Kennedy—Ireland

  Stefano Rodota—Italy

  Paul-Henri Meyers—Luxembourg

  Frits Korthals Altes—Netherlands

  Professor Bacelar de Vasconcelos—Portugal

  Professor Alvaro Rodriguez Bereijo—Spain

  Daniel Tarschys—Sweden

  407W
  National Parliamentary Representatives

  Win Griffiths, MP—United Kingdom

  Lord Bowness—United Kingdom

  Dr. Heinrich Neisser—Austria

  Dr. Harald Ofner—Austria

  Roger Lallemand—Belgium

  Karel de Gucht—Belgium

  Claus Larsen Jensen—Denmark

  Ulla Tornaes—Denmark

  Gunnar Jansson—Finland

  Tuija Brax—Finland

  Hubert Haenel—France

  Francois Loncle—France

  Professor Doctor Jurgen Meyer—Germany

  Jurgen Gnauck—Germany

  Georgios Romeos—Greece

  Michael Liapis—Greece

  Desmond O'Malley—Ireland

  Bernard Durkan—Ireland

  Piero Melograni—Italy

  Andrea Manzella—Italy

  Ben Fayot—Luxembourg

  Simone Beissel—Luxembourg

  Michiel Patijn—Netherlands

  Ernst Hirsch Ballin—Netherlands

  Jose Barros Moura—Portugal

  Maria Eduarda Azevedo—Portugal

  Gabriel Cisneros—Spain

  Jordi Sole Tura—Spain

  Goran Magnusson—Sweden

  Lars F. Tobisson—Sweden

  Members of the European Parliament

  Inigo Mendez de Vigo

  Charlotte Cederschiold

  Thierry Cornillet

  Ingo Friedrich

  Timothy Kirkhope

  Johanna Maij-Weggen

  David Martin

  Pervenche Beres

  Hans-Peter Martin

  Martin Schulz

  Elena Paciotti

  Andrew Duff

  Johannes Voggenhuber

  Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann

  Georges Berthu

  Jens-Peter Bonde

  Commission

  Antonio Vitorino

  Most of the delegates also have Alternates. Lord Goldsmith's Alternate/Deputy is Martin Eaton, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Deputy Legal Adviser.

  (b) The Convention agreed that instead of meeting in smaller working groups they would hold formal plenary sessions and more frequent informal sessions. First readings of draft articles should take place in the latter, with more formal decisions and additional readings left to the former.

  A Drafting Committee ("Praesidium") composed of the chairperson, the vice-chairpersons (one from the EP representative, one from the national parliament representative, and the representative of the member state currently president of the Council), and the representative of the Commission, and assisted by the General
  408W
  Secretariat of the Council, prepares and circulates working drafts taking account of drafting proposals submitted by any member of the Body.

  (c) The Convention has met five times so far, most recently on 20–21 March (plenary). Previous meetings were on 17 December 1999 (plenary), 1–2 February (plenary), 24–25 February and 2–3 March.

  A further 12–13 meetings are planned on 27–28 March, 3–4 April, 27–28 April, 11–12 May, 22–23 May, 5–6 June (plenary), 19–20 June, 29–30 June, 17–18 July, 11–12 September (plenary), 25–26 September, 9–10 October (to be confirmed), and 18–19 October (plenary).

  (d) My letter of 8 December 1999 to the chairs of the two European Scrutiny Committees has been placed in the Libraries as have papers by Lord Goldsmith to the Charter Convention. Both Lord Goldsmith and I are scheduled to give oral evidence on 5 April to the House of Lords Inquiry on the Charter. There have also been other opportunities—such as the adjournment debate on 16 February—to discuss the Charter. Parliament's two delegates to the Charter Convention provide a further channel for information on the negotiations.

  Honduras
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department have made to the Government of Honduras about the murder of Edy Ortega and Francisco Espinoza. [114842]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: Sadly these two cases are just an example of the abuses suffered by street children in Honduras. The majority of cases happen when a child is detained for a petty crime and tries to flee detention. Our Embassy in Tegucigalpa makes regular representations to the Honduran authorities on these and other issues on human rights abuses.

  We are also in touch with several Human Rights NGOs working in Honduras and through these we lobby for progress on several cases including Edy Ortega's and Francisco Espinoza's tragic deaths. We continually reiterate our position on the treatment of minors by the authorities.

  We remain committed to the continued improvement in the overall lot of children throughout Central America, and in particular in their treatment. We are supporting projects throughout the region bilaterally and through the EU and other multilaterals in areas such as constructing community centres and hostels, health, rural development, and training and education which involve the police.

  Trade Attachés
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the(a) job description and (b) person specification for trade attachés appointed to British embassies. [115363]

  Mr. Battle
  Each commercial job overseas requires a combination of skills and attributes relevant to the specific post. Since these jobs can differ in certain respects, reflecting the particular requirements of a market, there is no standard job description covering all such posts. As a general guide, duties for a substantive First Secretary
  409W
  Commercial post involve management of our commercial operation and staff; provision and analysis of local market research; local contact building; advising British business visitors; coordinating arrangements for trade missions and other visitors (including ministerial and VIP visits); responsibility for specific market sectors; research and provision of commercial input into economic reporting; and implementation of initiatives agreed with British Trade International headquarters.

  A typical job specification would highlight the need for the person taking up the post to have effective interpersonal, management and communication skills with knowledge of the business world. A comprehensive training and briefing programme is provided prior to any posting.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the trade attachés recruited from the private sector and currently serving in British embassies, with their date of appointment and special areas of expertise in each case. [115364]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), on 15 March 2000,Official Report, column 223W.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are used for the appointment of specialist trade attachés to British embassies; and if he will make a statement. [115365]

  Mr. Battle
  Decisions on all commercial appointments are made by FCO Selection Boards. Candidates are considered on the basis of their suitability in terms of the competences, skills and experience required for each post.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many suspected war criminals have been apprehended by British forces in Bosnia. [113722]

  Mr. Vaz
  British SFOR troops have successfully detained nine war crimes suspects indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. They have also been involved in the arrest of a further two suspects with other SFOR forces. A further indictee was shot dead by British SFOR personnel acting in self-defence during a detention operation.

  Millennium Civil Society Forum
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have pledged money towards the Millennium Civil Society Forum to be held in May; and if he will make a statement. [114243]

  Mr. Hain
  The Millennium Forum has yet to announce details of any financial pledges they have received. In response to a request from the Forum's organisers, the Government have in principle offered funding to help the Forum secure participation by civil society representatives from less developed countries.

  Iran
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the continued use of Sharia law punishments in Iran; and if he will make a statement. [115498]

  Mr. Hain
  Hudud punishments in Iran, though in recent years used less frequently, are allowed under Sharia law. Sharia law forms the basis of the Iranian legal system, as well as the legal systems of some other countries in the region.

  With our EU partners the UK tabled the United Nations General Assembly resolution on human rights in Iran adopted on 17 December 1999. This resolution calls on Iran to take the necessary steps to end the use of torture, the practice of amputation, stoning and other cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the reportable accidents and incidents that occurred at(a) BNFL Chapelcross, (b) BNFL Calderhall, (c) BNFL Springfields and (d) BNFL Capenhurst since 1992–93; and if he will breakdown the figures by (i) fatalities, (ii) major injuries, (iii) other injuries, (iv) dangerous occurrences and (v) disease. [113309]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The tables contain information on accidents and incidents reported to HSE since 1992–93 at specified BNFL premises. Brief details of events occurring at licensed nuclear sites relating to nuclear safety are published in the site Quarterly Reports, which are placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  1. Notifications are made under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 and their predecessors.

  Table 1A: Chapelcross

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Other injuries

  Dangerous occurrence

  Diseases

  1992–93

  0

  0

  5

  1

  0

  1993–94

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1994–95

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1995–96

  0

  0

  3

  3

  0

  1996

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  1997

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  1998

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1999

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Table 1B: Calderhall

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Other injuries

  Dangerous occurrence

  Diseases

  1992–93

  0

  0

  7

  3

  0

  1993–94

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1994–95

  0

  1

  9

  0

  0

  1995–96

  0

  1

  6

  3

  0

  1996–97

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  411W

  Table 1B: Calderhall

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Other injuries

  Dangerous occurrence

  Diseases

  1996

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1998

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Table 1C: Capenhurst

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Other injuries

  Dangerous occurrence

  Diseases

  1992–93

  0

  0

  4

  1

  1

  1993–94

  0

  0

  12

  0

  0

  1994–95

  0

  1

  5

  0

  1

  1995–96

  0

  0

  4

  1

  0

  1996–97

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1996

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1997

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1998

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1999

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Table 1D: Springfields

  Fatal

  Major injuries

  Other injuries

  Dangerous occurrence

  Diseases

  1992–93

  0

  8

  39

  3

  0

  1993–94

  0

  1

  40

  1

  0

  1994–95

  0

  5

  25

  2

  2

  1995–96

  0

  2

  10

  0

  0

  1996–97

  0

  0

  7

  1

  0

  1996

  0

  1

  14

  1

  1

  1997

  0

  7

  5

  2

  0

  1998

  0

  3

  7

  8

  0

  1999

  0

  2

  6

  3

  0

  2000

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  Note:

  The Health and Safety Executive transferred responsibility for enforcement of the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 at licensed nuclear installations from its Field Operations Directorate to the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in August 1996. The figures up to August 1996 are recorded by financial year and those after are recorded by calendar year.

  2. Notification of nuclear events to HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in accordance with the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended) and published in the sites' Quarterly Report.

  Table 2

  Site

  Event

  Date

  Chapelcross

  Employee momentarily exposed to radiation from irradiated fuel element

  25 May 1993

  Chapelcross

  Defect in heat exchanger

  1 June 1997

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from the EU Environment Commissioner in respect of the application of the provisions of Article 34 of the Euratom Treaty to Sellafield. [114088]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None.
  412W
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library copies of communications between his Department's Director General for Energy and the atomic energy counsellor in the British Embassy in Tokyo made since 1 August 1999. [114082]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Communications between the British Embassy in Tokyo and energy policy officials in my Department constitute information whose disclosure would harm the frankness of internal discussion, and as such are exempt under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the cost of his Department's Director General for Energy's visit to Japan on 7–10 February; and under which budget sub-head costs were met. [114085]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The cost of the Director General for Energy and other Department of Trade and Industry officials' visit to Japan on 7–10 February was in the region of £23,000.

  I understand that these costs are to be met by my Department's Running Cost budget sub-head.

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Nolan Rules on public appointments apply to non-executive directors of British Nuclear Fuels; and if he will make a statement. [115067]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I can confirm that all appointments, and re-appointments, of non-executive directors to the Board of BNFL are subject to the Code and Guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Nuclear Energy (Emissions Reduction Targets)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by how much generation of electricity from nuclear sources would have to be increased over current levels to(a) save two million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and (b) meet all the Government's current carbon dioxide reduction targets. [114819]

  Ms Hewitt
  The table sets out the required increase in nuclear generation to achieve savings of 2 MtC and 22 MtC. The latter figure represents the additional reduction required, based on existing policies, to achieve the domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2, by 2010. The provisionally estimated generation from nuclear plants in 1999 was around 88 TWh. This amount of generation is estimated to be saving between about 10 and 21 MtC, depending on the mix of fuels assumed to be displaced.

  Extra nuclear generation required (TWh) if displacing:

  CO2 savings required

  Coal

  Gas

  2 MtC

  9

  21

  22 MtC

  94

  234

  National Grid Company (Compulsory Purchase Order)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received
  413W
  concerning the' Inspector's report closing the inquiry following the withdrawal of all compulsory purchase orders on the line of pylons from Picton to Shipton by Bellingborough; and if he will make a statement. [114338]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Two written representations have been received following the withdrawal by the National Grid Company plc at the public inquiry on Thursday 2 March 2000 of the National Grid Company plc (Nunthorpe to Newby) Compulsory Purchase Order 1999. That inquiry related to the compulsory purchase of certain rights to underground part of the proposed 400 kV electrical connection between Lackenby, Picton and Shipton at privately owned land between Nunthorpe and Newby. The Secretary of State is now awaiting the Inspector's report on the proceedings, but understands that the company considered it had obtained all the necessary voluntary agreements from the landowners along the route of the proposed compulsory purchase order.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the average number of construction jobs which will be created by each of the gas-fired power stations for which approval has been sought but not yet granted. [114156]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The actual number of construction jobs will vary according to the size of the power station and the stage reached in its construction. From information available to the Department, we estimate that construction of 1 Gigawatt could generate peak employment of around 800 jobs, including an allowance for employment in production of the gas turbines themselves.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will lift the moratorium on the construction of new gas-fired power stations. [114158]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government expect to be able to relax the stricter consents policy for new gas-fired power stations as soon as it concludes, on the basis of advice from the Director General of Electricity Supply, that the reform programme has been undertaken and the distortions in the electricity market have been removed. The Government expect the reforms to be substantially complete across the picture before the consents policy is relaxed.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on which dates Lord Levy has had meetings with(a) ministers and (b) senior officials in his Department since 1 May 1997, giving in each case the purpose of the meetings; and if he will make a statement. [113502]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: Records of meetings with officials are not held centrally, but to the best of my knowledge, no Minister or senior official in the Department of Trade and Industry has met Lord Levy since 1 May 1997 in his capacity as the Prime Minister's personal envoy delivering messages in the Middle East.

  Electricity Requirement (South-East)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what is his estimate of the extra electricity requirement to supply the proposed new housing build in the South-East; [114184]

  (2) what is his estimate of the extra electricity transmission lines and their cost, that will be needed by new-build homes in the South-East. [114186]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No such estimate has been made.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to encourage the building of new power stations in the South East. [114185]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As was made clear in the October 1998 White Paper the Government intend to leave the initiative for proposals for new generation capacity entirely to developers. Power stations are run by private companies which must make market investment decisions, subject to the usual environmental and planning/consent constraints. It is therefore a matter for power station developers to consider where they wish to locate their stations.

  Counterfeit Goods
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the value of counterfeit goods seized by trading standards officers in the United Kingdom during 1999. [114991]

  Dr. Howells
  Information about the value of counterfeit goods seized by trading standards officers is available in a National Counterfeiting Survey compiled by Warwick University, but the latest figures available only cover the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999. The replies from 75 per cent. of Trading Standards Departments in England, Wales and Scotland show that during this period goods with an estimated street value of £22,445,580 were seized, this being equivalent to a value of £65,053,217 if they had been genuine goods. These figures are not, though, comprehensive, but it is hoped that better estimates covering the whole of the UK will be available in the future. One initiative that should, among other things, help to deliver an improved understanding of the extent of all intellectual property crime is the new Counterfeiting and Piracy Forum. The Forum will meet for the first time later this month bringing together industry, public sector enforcers, consumers, retailers and Internet service providers with Government. This Forum will be able to explore issues such as better record keeping of criminal activity, greater co-operation and co-ordination of enforcement effort and how to make consumers more knowledgeable about short and long term damage to both themselves and others caused by the purchase of fake goods.

  Industrial Diseases
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by region of residence the numbers of(a) claims received in respect of respiratory disease, (b) interim and expedited awards in respect of respiratory disease by (i) number and (ii) value, (c) claims in respect of vibration white finger and (d) interim and general damage awards in respect of vibration white finger by (i) number and (ii) value. [115043]
  415W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is as follows:

  Respiratory Disease

  Interim payments

  Expedited payments

  Postal region

  Total claims

  Number of claims

  £

  Number of claims

  £

  Anglia

  327

  46

  208,250.00

  0

  0.00

  Midlands

  19,545

  3,505

  6,772,233.51

  327

  857,385.75

  North East

  37,895

  5,675

  10,867,100.00

  695

  1,753,281.10

  North West

  6,407

  789

  1,554,850.00

  46

  137,667.84

  Northern Ireland

  11

  1

  2,000.00

  0

  0.00

  Scotland

  8,477

  1,377

  2,699,550.00

  325

  799,584.11

  South Central

  150

  13

  26,000.00

  0

  0.00

  South East

  1,507

  265

  488,350.00

  18

  38,037.87

  SouthWest

  633

  41

  79,850.00

  10

  22,243.83

  Wales

  24,295

  3,874

  7,384,800.00

  330

  878,674.05

  London

  203

  20

  40,000.00

  0

  0.00

  No postcode

  100

  8

  16,000.00

  0

  0.00

  Total

  99,550

  15,614

  30,102,983.51

  1,751

  4,486,874.55

  Vibration white Finger

  Interim payments

  General damages

  Postal region

  Total claims

  Number of claims

  £

  Number of claims

  £

  Anglia

  168

  5

  15,572.21

  27

  150,083.04

  Midlands

  14,666

  1,602

  1,672,738.05

  1,602

  9,074,958.80

  North East

  30,545

  6,065

  10,681,785.76

  6,065

  32,699,739.99

  North west

  2,529

  514

  264,456.71

  514

  1,512,530.00

  Northern Ireland

  4

  0

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  Scotland

  3,967

  1,328

  1,610,503.83

  1,328

  3,392,825.84

  South Central

  42

  8

  14,629.37

  8

  26,094.68

  South East

  524

  73

  57,888.35

  73

  165,014.48

  South west

  61

  9

  5,869.37

  9

  16,503.02

  Wales

  8,756

  2,380

  754,584.83

  2,380

  8,194,798.15

  London

  39

  0

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  No postcode

  207

  173

  0.00

  173

  127,310.00

  Total

  61,508

  12,179

  30,102,983.51

  1,751

  71,037,886.72

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of state for Trade and Industry how many claims his Department has received in respect of respiratory disease; and in respect of how many claims spirometry has been completed. [115045]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 5 March the Department's claim handlers had received in received 98,803 claims. 66,077 of these are from live claimants, of which 44,797 have received spirometry tests, with a further 12,619 invited to make appointments.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been made in respect of respiratory disease by(a) the sufferer and (b) widows and dependants where the claimant has died after the date of claim. [115044]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 16 March IRISC, the Department's claims handler, had been informed of 4,249 claims where the sufferer has died since their date of claim. Details are not available of the number of widows or dependants who have died after submitting claims.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the locations, dates of opening or proposed dates of opening are of centres for mdical assessment of claims for vibration white finger. [115049]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are currently 13 centers open for medical assessment of claims for vibration white finger. The location and dates of opening for the centres are as follows:416W

  Location

  Dates

  Newcastle

  9 August 1999

  Sheffield

  23 August 1999

  Mansfield

  1 September 1999

  Cardiff

  8 September 1999

  Glasgow

  13 September 1999

  Edinburgh

  6 October 1999

  Barnsley

  10 November 1999

  Wakefield

  12 December 1999

  Nottingham

  7 January 2000

  Manchester

  10 January 2000

  Birmingham

  21 February 2000

  Stoke

  1 March 2000

  Swansea

  6 March 2000

  An additional centre will be opened in London (Victoria) by the end of March.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total subsidy for the generation of power from wind turbines in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [114913]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: The support to wind energy from the Fossil Fuel Levy in England and Wales was:

  417W

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  36.8

  1998–99

  35.1

  1999–2000

  16.5

  1 estimated

  The support to wind energy from the Fossil Fuel Levy in Scotland was:

  Year

  £ million

  1997–

  3.9

  1998–

  5.4

  1999–2000

  15.7

  1 estimated

  Correspondence
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when Bruce Crawford MSP will receive a reply to his letter, dated 31 January, to the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe regarding compensation payments to ex-miners. [115534]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A reply was sent on Friday 3 March 2000.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the hon. Member for Broxbourne will receive a reply to her letters of 21 September, 20 October, 17 November, 14 December, 11 January and 8 February relating to Mr. James Gardiner, a constituent. [113929]

  Mr. Byers
  [pursuant to the reply, 14 March 2000, c. 341-42]: The hon. Lady's letters of 21 September and 20 October have been traced. The letter of 7 March arrived on 14 March. The other correspondence does not appear to have been received. I replied to the hon. Lady on 16 March.

  Post Office
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-postmasters there are in the UK; and how many of them are(a) from ethnic minorities and (b) women. [115205]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: There are at present some 16,000 sub-postmasters. A number of these cover more than one post office.

  Approximately 40 per cent. of this total are women. The Post Office's estimate is that 12.4 per cent. of sub-postmasters are from ethnic minorities. This estimate derives from data provided on a voluntary basis by sub-postmasters.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce measures to allow post offices to sell alcoholic drinks. [115484]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Items such as stationery and greetings cards, which complement postal services, may be sold in post offices by Post Office Counters Ltd. However, where a post office is located alongside a retail outlet, the decision to sell alcoholic drinks rests with the shop owner.
  418W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contracts the Post Office has with haulage contractors for the delivery of UK mail in foreign-registered trucks; and if he will make a statement. [115268]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The names of the Post Office's contractors are a commercially confidential matter for the Post Office, who tell me that they use a range of hauliers, some UK based, some based in other countries. They have no records of where their suppliers register their vehicles.

  Export Guarantees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what involvement Mr. David Harrison, of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, had in the decision of the ECGD to support the ACESITA stainless steel strip mill in Timoteo. [114785]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: In his capacity as a banking member of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, Mr. David Harrison may be asked for his advice from time to time on cases which are being put forward for underwriting decisions. Such advice is sought only from a Council Member who has no direct business interest in the relevant transaction.

  This case did not involve submission to Mr. Harrison or to any other member of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council.

  Science and Engineering
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is he taking to draw public attention to the importance of science and engineering. [114787]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: National Science Week launched on Friday, now annually attracts well over a million visitors to more than 7,000 events, and is the flagship project of our Public Understanding of Science, Engineering and Technology programme. This programme currently supports 15 pilot projects with a total value this financial year of £1.46 million.

  More generally, the Department grant-aids relevant activities throughout the year organised by the Royal Society, the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Research Councils.

  We have also consistently supported the engineering community in its efforts to raise the profile of engineering in the mind of the public and past initiatives such as "Action for Engineering" have received substantial financial assistance. One of the key aims of the latest such initiative to receive DTI support, the "Campaign to Promote Engineering" is to present engineers and engineering as key contributors to the nation's wealth and quality of life. The campaign's patrons include Professional Engineering Institutions, Trade Associations and companies both large and small within all sectors of UK industry. DTI also continues its financial support for SETNET (Science Engineering Technology Mathematics Network) whose key objective is to bring coherence and co-ordination to the myriad schemes and resources aimed at fostering the teaching and learning of engineering related subjects in schools.
  419W
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in activities relating to Science Week commencing on 17 March organised by the British Association. [114788]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: My Department is a strong supporter of National Science Week and continues to be the main core sponsor of the week. The British Association for the Advancement of Science receives grant aid worth £160,000 each year from the Office of Science and Technology's Public Understanding of Science, Engineering and Technology budget to cover core costs. In addition we have also provided almost £90,000 to support 56 National Science Week projects around the United Kingdom through the COPUS grants scheme.

  My Department also runs a small number of events to mark National Science Week, targeted at a Whitehall audience. This year these include an event co-hosted by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee at the Palace of Westminster on 23 March entitled "Putting Science To Work".

  Cable & Wireless Communications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will accept the recommendations of the Competition Commission's report into the acquisition of Cable & Wireless Communications cable business by NTL; to what extent he will be guided in his decision by representations made outside the Competition Commission process; and if he will make a statement. [115244]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish the Competition Commission's report into the acquisition by NTI., Incorporated of the cable business of Cable & Wireless Communications as soon as is reasonably practical. In publishing the report he may comment on it.

  If the report finds that the merger may be expected not to operate against the public interest, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have no power to take any action in respect of the merger.

  If the report finds that the merger may be expected to operate against the public interest, then the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) will advise the Secretary of State on the report. The DGFT's advice will also consider any representations that may have been made subsequent to the CC's report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide on his response to the merger in the light of the CC's report and the DGFT's advice, taking into account any matters which he considers relevant.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he received from(a) BSkyB and (b) News International with regard to the acquisition of Cable & Wireless Communications cable business by NTL (i) before and (ii) subsequent to his receipt of the Competition Commission's report on this subject. [115213]

  Dr. Howells
  I do not think it appropriate in general to disclose either the identity of those who make representations on cases or the substance of their views.420W
  This allows interested parties to comment freely without concern that their comments might then be disclosed, which could prejudice the future supply of information.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Art and Business
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list those organisations which have received funding under the Pairing Scheme administered by Art and Business (formerly ABSA), together with the relevant amount in each case in(a) 1997-98, (b) 1998-99 and (c) 1999-2000; [114743]

  (2) if he will list those organisations which agreed funding arrangements under the Arts Council Pairing Scheme administered by Art & Business (formerly ABSA) for schemes lasting more than (a) one year, (b) two years and (c) three years in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, and (iii) 1999–2000, together with the planned funding agreed for each year. [114742]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: During the three years in question, Arts and Business agreed 1,890 Pairing Scheme awards totalling £12,080,157. These are summarised in the following table. A full list of awards has been included in a report prepared by Arts and Business, and I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  £

  Year

  Value of 'one-off' awards (i.e. awards not covered by a three-year contract

  Value of awards made as part of a three-year contract

  Total

  1997–98

  1,979,129

  2,087,962

  4,067,091

  1998–99

  1,294,082

  2,677,812

  3,971,894

  1999–2000

  2,047,554

  1,993,618

  4,041,172

  Total

  5,320,765

  6,759,392

  12,080,157

  Note:

  The Pairing Scheme did not make two-year awards

  National Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made in locating a site for a new national athletics stadium. [114908]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport England has submitted an analysis of the cost and design issues related to the brief for an athletics venue proposed by UK Athletics, along with an evaluation of a number of potential sites in London against criteria discussed and agreed between my Department, the Government Office for London, UK Sport, UK Athletics, the 2005 World Athletics Championships Bid Team and the British Olympic Association. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I chaired a meeting of all interested parties on Wednesday 15 March to consider
  421W
  these papers at which it was agreed that my Department will co-ordinate further detailed work on a short-list of sites and a further announcement will be made shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will reply to the question tabled on 15 February, ref 110728, from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham concerning peat compost. [115191]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 15 March 2000,Official Report, columns 253–54W.

  Olympic Bid
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if it is the policy of his Department that any stadium selected as a London bid venue for the 2005 World Athletics Championships should be capable of being upgraded to 80,000 seats in the event of a successful London Olympic bid. [115227]

  Kate Hoey
  We are looking at a number of options to ensure that we develop a venue capable of staging major domestic and international athletics events, which creates a permanent legacy for future generations of UK athletes and will not rule out a future Olympic bid.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to reply to the Fourth report of Session 1999–2000 of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Wembley National Stadium (HC 164). [115232]

  Kate Hoey
  We are considering the conclusions and recommendations in the Committee's Fourth report of Session 1999–2000 carefully and will respond shortly.

  BBC Funding
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to reply to the Third report of Session 1999–2000 of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Funding of the BBC (HC 25). [115231]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government welcome the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's report "The Funding of the BBC" and is grateful to the Committee for its inquiry into this area. Command Paper 4674, which constitutes the Government's response to the report, is due to be published on 22 March. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Baltic Exchange
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with English Heritage concerning the heritage and architectural merits of the Baltic Exchange; and if he will make a statement. [115262]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: No such discussions have taken place.
  422W
  Nevertheless, I am aware that an application for demolition of the building and redevelopment of the former Baltic Exchange site has been made to the City of London Corporation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions has issued an Article 14 Direction the effect of which is to prohibit the City Corporation from making a decision, pending consideration by my right hon. Friend as to whether the case should be called in for his own decision and whether an environmental impact assessment should be carried out. English Heritage are my right hon. Friend's advisers on listed building matters and their views will be taken into account at the appropriate stage.

  It would not be right for me to comment on merits of the case, since to do so could prejudice my right hon. Friend's decision.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library copies of the results of market research commissioned by NMEC in 1999 into the Millennium Dome. [110243]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 15 March 2000]: Much of the market research commissioned by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) in 1999 was specifically oriented to particular business development aspects of the project. It was commissioned on the basis that it would not be published, but would be used internally by NMEC to inform its marketing and business strategies. Copies of the more general market research undertaken as part of the overall development of the project in 1997 and 1998 have been placed in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Defence Medical Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much in addition to existing spending plans the Government plan to spend in real terms on the Defence Medical Services over the next four years. [113707]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following the Strategic Defence Review we allocated an additional £140 million to the Defence Medical Services over the four years 1998–99 to 2001–02. Funding for subsequent years is currently under consideration as part of my Department's annual planning process.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost to the UK(a) of operation Desert Fox and (b) of subsequent operations in Iraq; and what is the current monthly cost. [113710]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information on the total cost of Operation Desert Fox cannot be reliably differentiated from the overall costs of military operations in the Gulf, which in 1998–99 cost £35 million. The figure for 1999–2000 is forecast to be £30 million, a reduction of £3 million on the previous estimate I gave to the House on 22 February.
  423W
  Our costs are not collected on a monthly basis, nor do they relate, always, to regular monthly activities.

  Army Numbers
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current strength of the Army; and what was its strength in March 1999. [113712]

  Mr. Spellar
  The current strength of UK Trained Army Personnel as at 1 February 2000, the latest figures available is 96,607. This represents an increase of some 147 personnel over the comparable figure for March 1999 of 96,460.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made by his Department of the threat to the UK from weapons of mass destruction. [113714]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our assessment is that there is no significant threat to the UK from weapons of mass destruction at present, but developments continue to be monitored closely.

  Chinook Crash, Mull of Kintyre
  Mr. Martin Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the cause of the crash of RAF Chinook ZD 576 on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994 has been established absolutely beyond doubt. [113715]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes. The finding of gross negligence required there to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever over the cause of the crash. The aircraft was being flown towards the high ground of the Mull of Kintyre at high speed, at low level and into fog.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the sales of Eurofighter in the first five years of operation. [113717]

  Mr. Hoon
  I am pleased to say that the export prospects for Eurofighter are excellent. As my hon. Friend will be aware from the announcement made of 8 March, Greece has made a commitment to purchase 60 aircraft, with an option for a further 30. A number of other countries are showing interest in Eurofighter and I am sure that the Greek commitment represents the first of a number of opportunities for future sales of this excellent combat aircraft, bringing benefit to the UK defence industry, as well as those of our Eurofighter partners.

  Invincible Replacements
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the Government's plans to procure replacements for the current Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [113718]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to procure replacements for the Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [113727]
  424W
  Mr. Hoon
  Competitive contracts, each potentially worth about £30 million, for the future aircraft carrier assessment phase were awarded on 23 November to BAe Land and Sea Systems, now BAE SYSTEMS, and Thomson-CSF Naval Combat Systems. The assessment phase will investigate options for carrier design and, by 2003, will deliver proposals for the demonstration and manufacture of the vessels. The carriers, which will be built in the United Kingdom at an estimated cost of £2 billion, are scheduled to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

  Training and Education (Forces Personnel)
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to increase the proportion of accredited training and education in the armed forces. [113719]

  Mr. Spellar
  Civilian accreditation of military education and training is an important recruiting and retention issue for the armed forces. As such all three Services are working closely with a number of key accreditation and awarding bodies to increase the amount of civilian recognition given to military courses, leading to the award of academic, vocational and professional qualifications.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the actions of British forces defending(a) Serbs and (b) Albanian civilians in Kosovo. [113720]

  Mr. Hoon
  The role of British forces in Kosovo is to provide a secure environment for all Kosovans, whatever their ethnic origin.

  British forces, based in Multi-National Brigade (Centre), provide round-the-clock patrols, static guards, protection of churches, patriarchal sites and businesses, as well as checkpoints at permanent and varying locations.

  British forces remain available to COMKFOR, to assist where the need is greatest.

  Boeing C17 and Antonov 100–124
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the(a) payload, (b) range, (c) fuselage volume, (d) cost and (e) availability of the (i) Boeing C17 and (ii) Antonov 100–124 aircraft for the Royal Air Force's short-term strategic aircraft requirements. [113721]

  Dr. Moonie
  On the basis of information publicly available, the C-17 has a maximum payload capability of 77 tonnes at the military limit of 2.25g, which it can carry an approximate range of 2,400 nautical miles, whereas the An124–100 has a maximum payload capability of 120 tonnes at the civil limit of 2.5g, which it can carry up to a range of 1,790 nautical miles.

  The C-17 has a fuselage volume of 592m3, whereas the An124–100 has a fuselage volume of 1,270m3. I am withholding commercially sensitive details of costs and availability under Exemption 13 (third party's commercial confidences) of the Code of Practice on access to Government Information.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received seeking the payment of ex-gratia compensation to prisoners of war held in the far east during world war two. [113723]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since the beginning of 1999, we have received three Parliamentary Questions relating to this subject and over 450 letters. These have come particularly from Members of Parliament, Ex-Service Organisations and former Far Eastern Prisoners of War and their families, the majority of which have been in response to the Royal British Legion campaign. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces also met officers of the Royal British Legion last year.

  Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Life Extension Programme
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of private sector firms invited to tender for the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) Life Extension Programme. [113724]

  Dr. Moonie
  The CVR(T) Life Extension Programme was a single source procurement for which only Alvis Vehicles Ltd. were invited to tender. Since Alvis are the Design Authority for CVR(T) and hold the Intellectual Property Rights for much of the vehicle, the MOD could not issue information to a third party to have the vehicle redesigned. There was therefore no practicable alternative but to contract with Alvis. However, this covered only the design of the modifications and the conversion of the first 200 vehicles and a limited competition is being run between Alvis and the MOD's Army Base Repair Organisation to convert the remaining vehicles.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all support from the services sent to Mozambique to assist flood victims; and what was the income to his Department from leasing equipment and aircraft. [113725]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has, at the request of the Department for International Development (DfID), provided four Puma helicopters with around 100 support personnel, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort George with an additional five helicopters to Mozambique to assist in the international flood relief efforts.

  The current estimate of the MOD's additional costs, which the DfID agreed to reimburse, is around £1.15 million for the four Puma aircraft and support personnel, which includes the cost of both deployment and recovery by civilian charter and RAF transport aircraft. The deployment of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Fort George is estimated at £1.4 million. It would be highly misleading to refer to this as income; the DfID will merely make good the additional costs the Ministry of Defence incurs in giving assistance.

  Overseas Emergencies
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for 426W
  International Development a plan for future provision of helicopters and other aircraft, as well as personnel, in cases of emergencies in countries overseas. [113726]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are well-established procedures between the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence for calling on military support in response to emergencies in countries overseas. These procedures are reviewed as a matter of routine following every operation, and will involve discussions between both Departments at every level.

  Leave Entitlement
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to improve leave entitlements for Service personnel. [113704]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of our "Policy for People" in the Strategic Defence Review we undertook to introduce a Common Annual Leave Allowance of 30 working days for all Service personnel. This was implemented in April 1999.

  Additionally, we announced the introduction in July 1999 of post-operational tour leave, which is a guaranteed period of leave when personnel return from operational detachment.

  We are now confident that the recently introduced measures are fully in keeping with the best standards in practice in either the public or private sector. None the less, we keep the position under review.

  Service Quarters
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) single quarters and (b) married quarters there are at (i) RAF Halton and (ii) RAF High Wycombe; and how many of such quarters in each station are unoccupied. [114208]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 13 March 2000]: At RAF Halton there are currently 539 families quarters, of which 120 are unoccupied. Of these 80 are surplus for disposal and the remainder are awaiting incoming Service families or modernisation.

  At RAF High Wycombe there are currently 748 families quarters, of which 65 are unoccupied. Of these all are either awaiting incoming Service families or modernisation.

  Accommodation for single personnel is in the form of either individual rooms, rooms accommodating two to four people, or multiple occupancy rooms in barrack blocks which have nine to ten bed spaces per room. Based on a count of available bed spaces the figures for single accommodation are as follows:

  Total capacity

  Unoccupied

  RAF Halton

  2,553

  1,193

  RAF High Wycombe

  641

  184

  No-fly Zones (Iraq)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are involved in patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. [114516]
  427W
  Mr. Hoon
  As at 10 March, we had some 1,048 Service personnel involved in or supporting operations in the northern and southern no-fly zones. This is further supplemented by the HMS Illustrious Carrier Task Group that is currently operating in the region, which consists of 1,895 Service personnel.

  Military Exercises (Kenya)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates have been made of the quantities of unexploded munitions left behind after exercises in Kenya; and what assessments have been made of the costs of clearing such unexploded munitions. [114445]

  Mr. Spellar
  The quantity of unexploded munitions left behind by British units after exercises in Kenya is constantly monitored by collecting information in range log books. It is not possible, however, to estimate the quantity of unexploded munitions attributable to British units on those areas upon which the Kenyan Army also trains.

  The UK has deployed advisory teams to assist the Kenyan Department of Defence (KDOD) in the planning and conduct of field firing and range management. In addition, Exercise Pineapple, the annual exercise to clear ranges of unexploded munitions, has been expanded to incorporate the KDOD training area at Archers Post, and will be significantly enhanced in 2001. The in-country cost of this exercise this year will be some £7,000, rising to some £30,000 next year.

  RN Vessels
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy ships will take part in Naval Task Group 2000; if a round the world voyage is to be part of the deployment; and if he will make a statement. [114765]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Naval Task Group 2000 deployment will be headed by the Type 22 frigate HMS Cornwall and will comprise of HMS Sutherland (Type 23 frigate), HMS Newcastle (Type 42 destroyer), HMS Tireless (Fleet submarine) supported by the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries Fort Victoria, Bayleaf, and Diligence.

  The Task Group will deploy to the Asia Pacific region via the Suez Canal and return via the Pacific Ocean and Panama Canal.

  The deployment will provide a clear demonstration of the Royal Navy's ability to maintain an operationally effective and self-sustaining maritime force out of area for a prolonged period and provides an excellent opportunity for pursuing defence diplomacy objectives.

  SERCO
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 February 2000, Official Report, column 210W, when he will deposit in the Library(a) the list of contracts held by SERCO, their date of execution, their length and location and (b) his reply to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. [115035]
  428W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: I replied to my hon. Friend on 12 March and a copy of my letter was placed in the Library of the House on 14 March.

  Servicemen's Allowance (London)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the loss of gross earnings per month attributable to withdrawal of the London allowance for Servicemen serving in Greater London in the financial year starting in April 2000 for(a) aircraftsman second class, (b) aircraftsman first class, (c) corporal, (d) sergeant, (e) flight sergeant, (f) warrant officer, (g) pilot officer, (h) flying officer, (i) flight lieutenant, (j) squadron leader, (k) wing commander, (l) group captain, (m) air commodore, (n) air vice-marshal, (o) air marshal and (p) air chief marshal and their army and navy equivalents. [114807]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Disaster Relief
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of providing equipment and civilians and military staff for disaster relief purposes. [113700]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 20 March 2000,Official Report, columns 708–09W.

HEALTH

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra resources will be made available to help providers deliver the National Service Framework for mental health; and when such resources will be made available to providers. [114199]

  Mr. Hutton
  Additional investment of £700 million has been provided for health and social services over the three years 1999–2002 to modernise mental health services.

  Circulars Allocation Working Paper (99–00) Health Authority 27 and Health Service Circular 1999/038: Local Authorities Circular (99)8 notified health and local authorities of their modernisation fund allocations for 1999–2000.

  HSC 1999–243 "Health authority revenue cash limits: 2000–01" set out how each health authority's individual cash limit is made up for 2000–01. Local Authorities Social Services Letter (99)25 "Personal Social Services (PSS) Funding: 2000–01" set out the Mental Health Grant, including modernisation fund, for each local authority for 2000–01.

  Health authorities will wish to be assured that robust plans are in place to ensure that this money is spent on the priorities locally which are based on the Mental Health National Service Framework (MHNSF) standards before

  429W
  confirming allocations to providers. The plans for spend of new money will be incorporated into the mental health joint investment plans due to be submitted to regional offices on 31 March 2000. Allocation of funds to National Health Service providers will then be staged to coincide with actual cost demands.

  Mental Health Grant allocations to local authorities are made in September and January of each financial year on receipt of claims confirming take up of the grant and compliance with conditions set by the Department in line with MHNSF implementation and, from April 2000, confirmation that money is identified in mental health joint investment plans.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the incidence of MS is(a) in North Staffordshire and (b) in the United Kingdom. [114472]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures are not available on the incidence of Multiple Sclerosis in North Staffordshire. However, it is estimated that multiple sclerosis affects between 80–90,000 people in the UK.

  Population

  New cases per year (Incidence)

  Total number of cases (Prevalence)

  England (Approx. 50m)

  4 per 100,000 (2,000)

  100 per 100,000 (50,000)

  Under 16

  2.5 per cent. of all new cases (50)

  50

  Over 60

  2.5 per cent. of all new cases (50)

  12,500

  Over 70

  Very Few

  3,750

  These figures are derived from epidemiological research studies. These studies all give slightly different figures. The table provides current best estimates for England. National Health Service figures do not provide accurate estimates of the epidemiology of MS. This is because many patients are not admitted to hospital and outpatient diagnostic data are not comprehensive.

  Dental Services
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died as a result of an anaesthetic for a dental procedure in a community dental practice since 1970. [114555]

  Mr. Denham
  Records show that since 1970 there have been 84 deaths associated with general anaesthesia for dental treatment outside hospital.

  The review of general anaesthesia and sedation, which will be reporting to Ministers shortly, discusses the difficulties that exist in collecting data on mortality associated with general anaesthesia for dental treatment.

  Domiciliary Care Charges
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue guidelines to local authorities to ensure that domiciliary care charges are consistent, transparent and equitable. [114720]
  430W
  Mr. Hutton
  Our White Paper "Modernising Social Services" recognised that the scale of variation in discretionary charges is unacceptable. We are considering the recommendations from the Royal Commission on long-term care and will consider the Audit Commission's report on home care charges when it is published. We will consult representatives of service users, carers, local authorities, and other interested parties about possible changes.

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the basis underlying the calculation of the number of medical laboratory scientific officers who will benefit from the 26 per cent. pay offer for 1999–2000 given(a) by him on 31 January 2000, Official Report, column 453W, and (b) by the Minister of State on 8 March 2000, Official Report, column 228WH. [115129]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 14 March 2000, Official Report, column 132W.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from Age Concern, the British Pensioners and Trade Union Action Association and other interested parties in relation to the report from the Royal Commission on long-term care for the elderly. [115304]

  Mr. Hutton
  A large number of representations to the Government on a variety of issues refer to long-term care. There have been 980 letters to the Department specifically focused on the Royal Commission's report. Many of the representations have broadly supported the recommendations in the Royal Commission's majority report; others have been critical and some have put forward alternative proposals.

  Representatives of Age Concern have spoken to Ministers and officials on numerous occasions on Royal Commission issues.

  We have received one representation from the British Pensioners and Trade Union Action Association. The East Grinstead and District branch collected 85 signatures on a petition which called for the end to means-testing of local authority funding of placements in residential care homes and nursing homes.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the report of the Royal Commission on long-term care for the elderly. [115303]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have had frequent discussions with ministerial colleagues in the Department and in other Departments on the issues covered by the Royal Commission on long-term care.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what conclusions he has drawn concerning the report from the Royal Commission on long-term care for the elderly. [115302]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 2 December that the Government were broadly accepting one of the Royal Commission's
  431W
  main recommendations by establishing a National Care Standards Commission. We are also implementing several of the Royal Commission's other recommendations—such as extending direct payments to people over 65. We are looking at other changes as part of the Year 2000 Spending Review, which will be completed this summer. We will then publish a White Paper.

  Asylum Seekers (Children)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government plans to spend from his Department's budget on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [115511]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department plans to spend £52.386 million towards reimbursing local councils with social services responsibilities the costs they have incurred in providing accommodation and support to unaccompanied asylum seeking children in 1999–2000.

  It is not possible to forecast how much the Department might spend in 2000–01 as this will depend on the numbers of unaccompanied minors looked after by local councils and on the conditions of any special grant.

  Domestic Violence (Children)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) in how many cases in England and Wales in each of the last three years contact or residence orders had been made by the courts in cases where children(a) were killed during contact visits with parents who had a history of domestic violence and (b) were killed in circumstances where the parents had separated due to domestic violence and were disputing contact or residence; [113947]

  (2) how many children have been killed in England and Wales since 1 January 1995 in circumstances where the parents had separated as a result of domestic violence and were disputing contact or residence. [113948]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Just over 50 children a year in England and Wales are killed by their parents, but those killed during contact visits and in cases of disputed contact cannot be separately identified in the statistics collected centrally.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Staff Bonuses
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the new year period; what were the(a) maximum and (b) minimum bonuses paid; how many people received the (i) maximum and (ii) minimum payments; and if he will make a statement. [104494]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Civil Service and Northern Ireland Office spent a total of £1,187,877 on extra bonuses for staff working over the new year period.

  The maximum bonus paid was £550 and 877 people received this and the minimum bonus was £75 received by 268 people.
  432W
  The remaining expenditure was made up by a range of varying amounts between the minimum and maximum totals, depending on the individual circumstances.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the expenditure was on Education Maintenance Allowances by each education and library board in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [114651]

  Mr. Ingram
  Expenditure over the last three years on the maintenance element of Boarding, Maintenance and Clothing Allowances paid by each Education and Library Board in Northern Ireland is as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Belfast

  5,599

  8,518

  8,687

  North-eastern

  5,232

  7,272

  5,109

  South-eastern

  9,406

  10,294

  4,304

  Southern

  14,711

  11,697

  13,437

  Western

  16,521

  11,707

  11,654

  Total

  51,469

  49,488

  43,191

  These allowances are not directly related to Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMAs), which are presently being piloted in a number of areas in England and Wales. The progress of these pilots will continue to be monitored by the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and their possible application in Northern Ireland will be evaluated in due course.

  Social Security Benefits
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate his Department has made of the cost of restoring general student entitlement to social security benefits at current levels in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [114663]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My Department has not estimated the cost of restoring social security benefit entitlement to students generally. The primary source of financial support for full-time students comes from the education system and most full-time students are not eligible to claim income-related benefits. However, certain students in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents, can claim these benefits under the current rules.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students are currently in receipt of Income Support and Housing Benefit in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [114665]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Social Security Agency does not hold statistics in such a way as to enable us to identify the number of students currently receiving Income Support and Housing Benefit. However, available information shows that 109 students are currently in receipt of Housing Benefit.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's policy on linking and twinning arrangements between local authorities in the United Kingdom and local authorities in Zimbabwe; and what plans she has to review this policy. [114177]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are not supporting any twinning arrangements with local authorities in Zimbabwe at present. We have no plans to review this. A copy of our Country Strategy Paper for Zimbabwe is available in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Schoolchildren (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children of school age resident in Newcastle are educated in(a) independent schools and (b) local education authority maintained schools outside Newcastle; and how many children from outside Newcastle are educated in schools maintained by Newcastle local education authorities. [112135]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 28 February 2000]: The total number of children of school age resident in the Newcastle upon Tyne local education authority area and educated in independent schools is not collected centrally. However, in January 1999 the number of children of school age resident in the Newcastle upon Tyne local education authority area and educated in non-maintained special schools was 30 and a further 39 were receiving special educational treatment in independent schools.

  The total number of children of school age resident in the Newcastle upon Tyne local education authority area and educated in local authority maintained schools outside the area was 35 in January 1999.

  In January 1999, the total number of children of school age resident in other local authority areas and educated in maintained schools in the Newcastle upon Tyne local education authority area was 113, including 38 children without statements who were in hospital.

  New Deal
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information he collates on the number and percentage of 18 to 24 year olds who leave(a) Gateway and (b) each New Deal option for (i) jobs lasting more than 13 weeks but less than six months, (ii) jobs lasting more than six months but less than nine months and (iii) jobs lasting more than nine months but less than 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [113676]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: We issue currently information, by Unit of Delivery, on participants who leave New Deal for a job and have not returned to claim Jobseeker's Allowance within (a) 13 weeks and (b) 26 weeks.

  Pre-school Education
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average charge for an(a) childminder, (b) private nursery place and (c) local authority nursery place for children aged (i) nil to one, (ii) one to two and (iii) two to three years in each local authority. [114792]

  Ms Hodge
  The Department does not have information on child care costs in the detailed form requested.

  Research commissioned by the DfEE last year, "Parents' Demand for Childcare", includes information on households' payments for child care. Among households with one or two children in England and Wales, the average hourly cost of child care was £1.93 per child. The cost varied between regions and was on average £1.62 in the north of England and the Midlands, and £2.22 in the south.

  Nationally, registered childminders were paid on average £2.51 per hour and nursery provision on average cost £2.11 per hour. In the south, households paid on average £2.68 per hour to registered childminders and £2.52 for nursery provision. The survey sample size does not enable similar analysis for the north and Midlands.

  In this analysis nursery provision covers all types of nurseries, including nursery classes, independent day nurseries as well as nurseries run by local authorities.

  Employment and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of the Employment and Social Affairs Council held in Brussels on 13 March; and if he will make a statement. [114906]

  Ms Jowell
  I represented the UK at the Employment and Social Affairs Council and the Standing Committee on Employment held in Brussels on 13 March.

  The Presidency summarised preparations for the Lisbon Summit on 23–24 March which will focus on four themes: consolidation of the Luxembourg Process, modernising social protection, co-ordinating mechanisms for tackling social exclusion and dovetailing the Cardiff, Luxembourg and Cologne Processes.

  The UK urged the Summit to focus on concrete outcomes and cautioned against setting EU level growth targets. The Presidency's strategic goals on the quality and quantity of employment and its concentration on social exclusion and lifelong learning were welcomed. The UK also called for measures to improve work/life balance and to promote investment in human resources, in particular through a European standard for investing in people and the further development of a European on-line learning and jobs bank.

  As part of its contribution towards the Lisbon preparations, the Commission introduced its package of Communications on mainstreaming employment, combating social exclusion and social trends in Europe. The Commission called on the Summit to make a commitment to full employment and to adopt quantified commitments to increased economic activity, and decreased unemployment and poverty.
  435W
  The Presidency reported on progress in the negotiations on the Commission's package of measures to tackle discrimination under Article 13 of the Treaty. The Presidency aims to achieve political consensus on these proposals during its term in office.

  ONE Service
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures are in place to assess the effectiveness of the ONE service in assisting people with a mental illness. [114674]

  Ms Jowell
  The new ONE service provides a coherent and seamless service for people of working age, by providing a single point of access for help in finding the best way to work, and help in securing benefits. All advisers in the ONE pilots have been trained to work sensitively with all ONE clients, and have benefited from the expertise of stakeholders, e.g. with experience of working with people with mental illness, who participated in the training process.

  We will assess fully the effectiveness of the ONE service for all clients. As part of the ONE evaluation, we will be carrying out in-depth interviews with ONE staff and clients to examine the effectiveness of the ONE service in identifying and meeting the needs of individual clients, including people with a long-standing illness or disability. Where particular individual needs, such as those for people with a mental illness, are identified and have a significant impact for the ONE service this would be picked up in these interviews

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the answer of 9 March 2000,Official Report, columns 791–92W, if he will make it his policy to collect statistics on the numbers of people with a mental illness attending ONE meetings and the numbers who subsequently gain employment. [114673]

  Ms Jowell
  The ONE service is built upon the principle of treating people as individuals, with their own unique needs, abilities and circumstances, and not categorising them as members of particular groups. ONE advisers encourage everyone to use their skills and talents to the full.

  Further to my reply of 9 March, we are not yet in a position to provide information on the numbers of people with mental illness who are using the ONE service. The ONE evaluation database will capture information on ONE claimants receiving sickness and disability benefits and whose main disabling condition is 'mental and behavioural disorders'. This will enable us, in due course, to provide information on those in this group passing through ONE. However, this will only given an indication of the numbers of people using the ONE service who have a mental or behavioural disorder and have claimed a sickness or disability benefit as a consequence. It will not be possible to identify clients who have not claimed a sickness or disability benefit in respect of such disorders.

  Student Support
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the criteria determining residence by a UK student in the various component parts of the UK for the purpose of student 436W
  support; and if the circumstances determining such deemed residence can change during the course of study. [115009]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: The eligibility criteria are set out in the various regulations which cover the component parts of the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) and are broadly comparable. To qualify for support, a student must normally satisfy three criteria on the first day of the first academic year of the course:
  be settled in the UK for the purposes of our immigration laws; be ordinarily resident in the UK;
  have been ordinarily resident throughout the three year period preceding that date other than wholly or mainly for the purpose of receiving full-time education.

  Exceptions to the ordinary residence requirement are made where the applicant, their parent or spouse:
  are or have been temporarily absent or employed abroad; have been recognised as refugees;
  are EEA migrant workers working in this country who have been ordinarily resident in the European Economic Area (EEA) for the three year period, and
  EU nationals (including British students) who have been resident in the EEA for three years, will be eligible for means tested fee support only.

  Students who are recognised as refugees after the start of their course and students who satisfied the ordinary residence requirement but failed to satisfy the immigration requirement and who are granted exceptional leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom after the start of their course are entitled to student support for the remainder of their course.

  Qualifications
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the relationship between the proposed foundation degrees and the higher national diplomas. [115001]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: The Foundation Degree is part of a deliberate strategy to diversify higher education to meet the differing demands of a knowledge-driven economy. Although it will build on the best elements of existing two year higher education provision, including Higher National Diplomas, this new qualification will offer a distinct combination of features. It will equip students with the employability skills, specialist technical knowledge and broad understanding needed in the new economy.

  Higher Education Fees
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what obligation there is on higher education institutions to charge higher fees for part-time study to overseas students than to United Kingdom residents; if this fee regime applies to EU residents studying in the United Kingdom; and if the same fees regime applies to UK-national students whose home is in another EU country. [115002]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: There is no obligation on higher education institutions to charge higher fees for part-time study to overseas students than to UK students. Under our European Community Treaty

  437W
  obligations, other UK-based EU students must be treated no less favourably than UK students for tuition fee purposes. This also applies to UK and other EU nationals studying in the UK whose home is in another European Economic Area country.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedure will be adopted for appointment of members to the local learning and skills councils; and if such appointments will be subject to local advertisement and consultation. [115008]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: Members of the local Learning and Skills Councils will be appointed on merit and in accordance with the seven principles of public appointments of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA). All posts will be advertised in the appropriate local press.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the reasons which underlie the revision of the timetable for appointments to the Learning and Skills Council as explained in a letter to the hon. Member for Daventry from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary dated 13 March. [115010]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: The Learning and Skills Council Bill was published in the House of Lords on 16 December. When we published the Learning and Skills Council Prospectus, we had anticipated that the Bill would be published first in the House of Commons. We have revised the timetable for appointments to reflect the changed circumstances. I wrote to the hon. Member with details on 13 March.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements will be made for the continuation of local Education-Business Partnerships and partnerships with other public education providers and local authorities when TECs are replaced by local learning and skills councils. [115007]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: From April 2001 Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs) will be responsible for ensuring effective systems are in place to foster links between education and business, including the maintenance of an effective network of Education Business Partnerships and other education business link organisations. My Department has published a consultation document about how best to achieve this under the Learning and Skills Councils.

  The network of local Learning Partnerships—which involve colleges, local authorities, schools and a wide range of others—will have a crucial role to play alongside local LSCs. The two bodies will work closely together to identify the key actions needed to continue to improve provision in local areas with Learning Partnerships perfectly placed to provide the necessary in-depth understanding of local needs. I am making available £10 million to Learning Partnerships in each of the next two years to help them fulfil this vital role.

  Personal Careers Interviews
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a personal careers interview is now available to all 16-year-olds who request one. [115005]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: Every 16 year old will get the careers information and guidance they need to enable them to make well-informed decisions. This may include a careers interview if this is appropriate to help them make a successful transition to post-16 learning.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the national roll out of individual learning accounts. [115004]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: We are seeking to establish a public/private partnership to run a Customer Service Centre to administer individual learning accounts. As part of the tendering process, discussions will take place about the roll out of the national system.

  TECs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many TECs have merged their operation with chambers of commerce; and what arrangements will be made for continued business involvement by membership of their successor bodies. [115006]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: Of the existing 72 TECs, 16 have merged their operations with chambers of commerce.

  In developing our plans for the LSC, we have listened closely to business and acted on their recommendations. We recently announced that on both the national and local Learning and Skills Councils 40 per cent. of the LSC members, together with the national Chair and most local Chairs, will have substantial recent business or commercial experience.

  We are also taking a wide range of steps to ensure continued involvement in the LSCs by business leaders with a strong interest in learning and skills. For example Nick Reilly, the Chairman and Managing Director of Vauxhall Motors Ltd., has set up a Business Champions Group to raise awareness in the business community about the Learning and Skills Council and to encourage business involvement.

  Disabled Student Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of full-time students are claiming disabled student allowance; and what was the total cost in each of the last three years. [115003]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: The number and value of disabled students' allowances made by local education authorities in England and Wales as part of the mandatory awards scheme in the academic years 1995–96 to 1997–98—the latest years for which figures are available—are shown in the following table.

  439W
  The percentage of award holders in receipt of DSAs is not available since students can receive more than one allowance. There is a general disabled students allowance as well as separate allowances for specialist equipment, non-medical helpers and travel costs resulting from a

  Number1 and value2 of Disabled Students Allowances paid by LEAs in England and Wales academic years 1995–96 to 1997–98

  Academic year

  Number of allowances

  Value of allowances (£ million)

  Total award holders

  1995–96

  6,550

  9.1

  770,820

  1996–97

  8,120

  10.4

  765,090

  1997–98

  10,770

  13.3

  769,660

  1 Students can receive more than one type of allowance

  2 All figures are shown in cash terms. The amounts shown are the gross amounts of the allowances. Because of the effect of income assessment, the net cost of disabled students allowances paid as part of the total award will be lower.

  Source:

  F503G

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many state secondary schools in England(a) with (b) do not have a sixth form. [115072]

  Mr. Wicks
  As at January 1999 there were 3,560 maintained secondary schools in England, of which 1,831 schools have a sixth form.

  GCSE Performance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on differences in performance at GCSE between state secondary schools(a) with and (b) without a sixth form. [115070]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Provisional figures for 1999 show that the GCSE achievements of 15 year old pupils in maintained mainstream schools with and without sixth forms are:

  (a) with

  (b) without

  (c) Total

  Percentage achieving 5 or more A-C grades

  49.9

  40.9

  46.5

  Percentage achieving 5 or more A-G grades

  91.6

  89.6

  90.9

  Percentage achieving no passes

  3.9

  4.5

  4.1

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  (a) In Newcastle

  11th (out of 11)

  11th (out of 11)

  11th (out of 12)

  (b) In the North East

  162nd (out of 164)

  160th (out of 164)

  161th (out of 166)

  (c) In England

  3,075th (out of 3,130)

  3,096th (out of 3,137)

  3,073rd (out of 3,150)

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimants of family credit there were in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in each of the last three years; and how many claimants of the working families tax credit there are in the city. [111360]
  440W
  disability. However, the number of mandatory award holders in each year is shown in the following table for comparison. Information on the number of students claiming DSAs in 1998–99, when DSAs were no longer means tested, should be available in April 2000.

  (a) with

  (b) without

  (c) Total

  Average GCSE point score per pupil

  39.5

  35.4

  38.0

  Westgate College, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students have achieved five grade A to C passes at GCSE at Westgate College, Newcastle, since the College was formed; what proportion of students at the College this represents; and what is the position of Westgate College among schools in(a) Newcastle, (b) the North East and (c) England ranked in descending order of achievement of five grades A to C at GCSE in the last three years. [115307]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The proportion of 15-year-old pupils achieving 5 or more GCSE passes at grades A*— C at Westgate College, Newcastle are as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1994–95

  6

  1995–96

  7

  1996–97

  8

  1997–98

  6

  1998–99

  10

  The position of Westgate College among maintained schools in the last three years is as follows:

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 February 2000]: It is estimated that 3,300 families in Newcastle upon Tyne local authority have been awarded the Working Families Tax Credit by the end of January 2000. A further 1,300 families were stillin receipt of Family Credit giving a total of about 4,600 on either Working Families Tax Credit or Family Credit. The number of Family Credit cases in payment in earlier years is given in the table:

  441W

  Family Credit cases in payment in Newcastle upon Tyne

  Month/year

  Number

  February 1997

  4,200

  February 1998

  4,600

  February 1999

  4,300

  Notes:

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

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims and what percentage take-up of the working families tax credit he is assuming is necessary to meet his target of taking 800,000 children out of poverty. [113786]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 9 March 2000]: The estimate that 800,000 children will be lifted out of poverty is based on the combined effect of the tax and benefit changes announced in the last two Budgets—in particular the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, the 10p starting rate of tax, the introduction of the Children's Tax Credit, reforms to National Insurance and increases in Child Benefit and child premia within Income Support.

  For more detailed analysis behind this estimate I refer my right hon. Friend to the written answer which the Economic Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 14 April 1999, Official Report, columns 241–15W.

  The Government estimate that around 1.4 million families will benefit from the WFTC. They will be on average £24 a week better off compared with Family Credit.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the publicity material his Department has published, aimed at low-income families, to encourage take-up of working families tax credit. [114477]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: A complete set of the relevant Working Families Tax Credit publicity material has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will amend housing benefit regulations so as to increase the value of working families tax credit to low-income families. [114480]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The Working Families Tax Credit increases the take-home pay for around 1.4 million low income working families. The Government currently estimate that one in eight Working Families Tax Credit recipients will also be in receipt of Housing Benefit. By comparison, around one in three Family Credit recipients were receiving Housing Benefit.

  Changes to Housing Benefit regulations are a matter for the Department of Social Security and the wider issues will be considered in the Housing Green Paper.

  Increases in the child credits in the Working Families Tax Credit from April 2000 will be matched by increases in the child credits in income-related benefits. This means that all families receiving benefits will see the extra gain because Housing Benefit entitlement will not be affected.
  442W
  Housing Benefit regulations are currently being amended to ensure that gains from the child care tax credit will be received in full by all eligible families because they are disregarded in Housing Benefit. The gains from the child care tax credit are particularly targeted on those on the lowest incomes who were not able to take advantage of the child care disregard in Family Credit.

  Petroleum Products Smuggling
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the loss of revenue through the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [113539]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: HM Customs and Excise assess the total revenue lost (excise duty and VAT) through cross-border shopping and smuggling of road fuels in Northern Ireland was about £100 million in 1998.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the level of smuggling of petroleum products into England in 1998 and 1999. [113540]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 March 2000]: HM Customs and Excise do not have any estimates of the level of smuggling of petroleum products into England, due to a lack of sufficient information on which to base such estimates.

  Diesel Fuel (Illegal Imports)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent talks his Department has held with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on behalf of HM Customs and Excise on restrictions on illegally imported diesel fuel. [114521]

  Mr. Timms
  HM Customs and Excise take this matter very seriously and have introduced a range of measures to counter it.

  City of London
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of(a) the contribution to the gross national product and (b) total revenue to the Exchequer of the activities of the City of London. [114704]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Office for National Statistics does not publish estimates for the contribution to GNP of the City of London, nor does it have any plans to. No estimate has been made by the Government of the revenues to the Exchequer from the activities of the City of London.

  Banking Industry
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Bank of England will respond to the Treasury on progress by the banking industry in addressing the issues and recommendations highlighted by the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team report No. 3; and if he will make a statement. [114358]

  Mr. Timms
  The report of Policy Action Team 3, "Enterprise and Social Exclusion", was published in November 1999. It recommended that the Bank of
  443W
  England should be invited to report regularly on finance for business among deprived groups and communities. The Bank of England has agreed to take on this role, and it will report in due course.

  Publicity Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total expenditure of his Department and its agencies on publicity for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for (d) 1999–2000, (e) 2000–01 and (f) 2001–02; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (i) advertising and (ii) Press and public relations. [113891]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The information requested could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been allocated from the landfill tax to environmental trusts(a) nationally and (b) in each local authority area in the County of Essex. [114885]

  Mr. Timms
  Contributions totalling £246 million have been made under the environmental bodies credit scheme since the introduction of the tax on 1 October 1996 to 15 March 2000. I have asked the Regulator for the scheme, ENTRUST Ltd., to provide such data as it holds on the amounts contributed to bodies in Essex, and will place a copy of their response in the Library.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the maximum sum which could have been allocated from the landfill tax to environmental trusts(a) nationally and (b) in each local authority area in the County of Essex. [114884]

  Mr. Timms
  If site operators had contributed to environmental bodies from the introduction of the tax on 1 October 1996 at a level entitling them to claim the maximum tax credit of 20 per cent. of their liability, the maximum credit that could have been claimed nationally, up to 29 February 2000, is £292 million. This represents contributions of £324 million. Operators are not constrained in how they allocate these credits between local authority areas.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will return to local authorities the full value of the landfill tax to fund schemes for reduction, re-use and recycling of waste; and if he will make a statement. [114887]

  Mr. Timms
  No. Revenues from the landfill tax contribute to Government spending on its priorities.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been allocated from the landfill tax to develop new waste management strategies in each year since its introduction(a) nationally and (b) in each local authority area in the County of Essex. [114886]
  444W
  Mr. Timms
  The information requested about support for waste management strategies is a matter for the Regulator for the environmental bodies credit scheme, ENTRUST Limited. I have asked them to reply, and will place a copy of their response in the Library.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been collected since the landfill tax was introduced(a) nationally and (b) in each local authority area in the County of Essex. [114883]

  Mr. Timms
  Total landfill tax receipts net of credits claimed in respect of contributions to environmental bodies since the introduction of the tax on 1 October 1996 to 31 March 1999 were £806.6 million. The forecast for the financial year from 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2000 is £400 million. No figures are available for individual counties or local authority areas.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer of exempting Aberdeen from air passenger duty. [115073]

  Mr. Timms
  Based on existing passenger numbers and duty rates, exempting flights departing from Aberdeen from air passenger duty would cost approximately £10 million in a full year. Also exempting flights from other UK airports to Aberdeen would approximately cost a further £5 million.

  Aviation Fuel Duty
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of a tax on aviation fuel on air passengers; and if he will make a statement. [115300]

  Mr. Timms
  I have made no such assessment. The Government support removal of the international ban on taxation of aviation fuel, but only in the context of a world-wide agreement.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on revenue of introducing duty on aviation kerosene in line with the amount of fuel in aircraft leaving the United Kingdom. [114805]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 March 2000]: No such assessment has been made.

  Drug Searches
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many citizens of the United Kingdom, or their relatives, have been stopped and their belongings searched for drugs at air or sea entry points equipped with separate entry arrangements for these persons. [115281]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Information is not available in the form requested. In 1998–99 Customs conducted a total of 19,018 personal searches of travellers from all parts of the world including British citizens.

  Bank Branch Closures
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has made to Barclays Bank plc over its branch closure policy; and if he will make a statement; [114910]
  445W
  (2) what representations he has made to Barclays Bank plc over its branch closure policy in respect of the Government's policy on social exclusion; and if he will make a statement; [114881]

  (3) what representations he has made to Barclays Bank plc over its branch closure policy; and if he will make statement. [114907]

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what representations he has received concerning the closure of bank branches in rural areas; and if he will make a statement; [114946]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the impact of bank branch closures on rural areas. [115203]

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to encourage banks to install ATM machines that both dispense cash and accept cash deposits; [115255]

  (2) what plans he has to encourage high street banks to co-operate in sharing premises and overheads to avert closures in villages and rural towns; [115253]

  (3) what plans he has to encourage high street banks to set up mini-branches in rural sub-post offices in areas where no high street bank is present. [115254]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to Barclays Bank plc over their branch closure policy in rural areas; what reply he has received; and if he will make a statement. [115243]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury have received such representations from time to time. The Treasury Policy Action Team (PAT 14) report "Access to Financial Services" said that the way forward lies in developing new and alternative means to deliver and provide banking services, including through the Post Office network. A number of banks already have agreements with the Post Office to provide banking services through post offices.

  National Pay Awards
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what support he has provided to local government under the Comprehensive Spending Review to take account of pay pressures arising from national pay awards. [115140]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Comprehensive Spending Review provided a generous settlement for local government. The details are set out in "Modern Public Services for Britain: Investing in Reform" (Cm 4011). The Government have made it clear that all pay awards will need to be paid from within the spending limits set in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Government Debt
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 516W, and 8 March 2000, Official Report, column 774W, if he will estimate the interest which would have been saved in the 1998–99 financial year if Government debt in the period 1990–91
  446W
  to 1998–99 had been issued in the form of (a) Treasury bills and (b) floating rate notes and continuously rolled over. [114725]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Hypothetical calculations of this kind are meaningless. A wholesale change in financing of this kind would have had a major effect on relative yields. The only sure way to reduce debt interest and make room for worthwhile public spending is steadfast pursuit of disciplined fiscal and monetary policy within strict frameworks, as the present Government have done.

  Industrial and Provident Societies
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to bring forward amendments to the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts arising from the recent consultation exercise; and if he will make a statement; [114248]

  (2) how many submissions were received in his consultation on industrial and provident societies; in what format the submissions were published; what were the main representations made to him by the Co-operative Movement; and if he will make a statement. [114308]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government recognise the wish to modernise the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts. 76 written responses to the consultation document were received. They have not been published. Responses were received from the Movement's promoting bodies, other interested organisations and a number of individual industrial and provident societies, who made a number of wide ranging comments on the issues and questions raised in the consultation document. Discussions with the Movement are continuing.

  Gold Reserves
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on the price of gold of sales to date of UK gold reserves; and what effect this will have on the revenue from IMF sales of gold intended to benefit poor countries. [112862]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The Government's policy is to sell gold in an orderly, prudent and transparent way, in order to minimise the impact on the market. The price of gold is at around the same level as it was on the day prior to last May's announcement.

  Unemployment Count Leavers
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a breakdown of leavers of the unemployment count by duration, using the categories of destination and duration used in Table C.34 of "Labour Market Trends", broken down into those aged(a) under 25 and (b) 25 years or above, for each of the six most recent half-year periods for which figures are available. [109572]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  447W
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Peter Lilley, dated 20 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about leavers of the claimant count by destination, duration and age.
  The information you requested for the six most recent half-year periods is given in the attached tables. These are large tables and copies of them are being placed in the House of Commons Library rather than reproduced in Hansard.

  Jobcentre Vacancies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of official jobcentre vacancies consisted of(a) armed forces and (b) other vacancies which are counted more than once by reason of being registered in more than one job centre, for each of the last three years. [114684]

  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 Tim Holt to Mr. Graham Brady, dated 20 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on double counting of armed forces vacancies in jobcentres.
  Armed forces vacancies are not counted more than once by reason of being registered in more than one Jobcentre. The armed forces vacancies displayed in Jobcentres are only a small sample of the overall numbers available. Some 40 Jobcentres around the country are nominated to take vacancies from their local armed forces careers office. There will be some duplication in the displays, as information about vacancies is shared between Jobcentres, but there is no problem with overcounting in the statistics which are obtained from the computer records.
  Similarly other vacancies are only counted by the Jobcentre which takes them. Any duplication, if it exists, is likely to be minimal as employers have no need to notify a vacancy to more than one Jobcentre.

  Electors
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many electors there are on the electoral registers for 2000–01 in(a) Essex and (b) England. [114513]

  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 Tim Holt to Mr. Bill Rammell, dated 20 March 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the 2000–01 electoral registers for Essex and England.
  These data are still in the process of being collected. They will be published in a First Release on 12 April. A copy of this press release will be available in the House of Commons library on that day.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any of the other European Community member states' customs services have taken measures in the past three years to recover duties or collect security deposits in connection with goods of any sort that have been imported 448W
  from Israel under preferences in cases where (a) the documents submitted in support of their originating status referred to locations in the West Bank, Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip or the Golan Heights or (b) the goods were labelled or otherwise identified in a fashion indicating that they were produced or had undergone substantial processing in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967. [115323]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise are not aware of any such action taken by other member states.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 1 March 2000,Official Report, columns 266–67W, whether examination of the documents accompanying the consignments referred to in those answers has substantiated the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Agreement between the EC and Israel. [115319]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is still being evaluated. The results will be passed to the European Commission.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 1 March 2000,Official Report, columns 266–67W, what measures to recover duties and collect security deposits have been taken in connection with importations from Israel under preferences of consignments accompanied by documents identifying the location of their suppliers as within the West Bank, Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights. [115320]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such measures have been taken.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 1 March 2000,Official Report, columns 266–67W, whether, upon their examination by Customs and Excise, the information contained in the documents accompanying the consignments referred to in those answers, together with the maps and other information available to Customs and Excise, justifies imposing duties and collecting deposits from the importers of those consignments under UK and Community law. [115311]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No decision has yet been taken by Customs and Excise to impose duties or collect deposits.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where the responsibility for ensuring the appropriate application of Community treaties, including external trade agreements, lies and if the United Kingdom will ask the Commission to indemnify it against liability for losses to the Community's own resources consequent on failures of UK customs enforcement that may arise out of a misapplication of EU-Israel agreements by Israel's customs service. [115317]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The responsibility for ensuring the appropriate application of Community treaties lies with the Community, and, where member states are also party to the agreement, with the member states.

  The question of indemnity does not arise given that the United Kingdom, in conjunction with other member states, is co-operating fully with the European Commission.
  449W
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has demanded security deposits from importers claiming the benefit of preferences under the Community's preferential trade agreements for importations from Israel based on evidence indicating that the products being imported may have been produced or undergone substantial processing in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including in Israeli settlements. [115322]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 447W, and 1 March 2000, Official Report, columns 266–67W, whether the documents referred to in those answers referred to (a) importation of dates and (b) importation under preferences of other products, with particular reference to wines and carpets from the area Barkan and the Golan Heights. [115318]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Yes, and the evidence from the further checking referred to in previous answers has been passed to the European Commission.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps HM Customs and Excise can take if Israel's customs service has been systematically misapplying the territorial clauses and origin rules in its trade agreements with the EU to prevent fraudulent preferential importations into the United Kingdom of products from settlements without the co-operation of Israeli customs. [115316]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The question of further action by HM Customs and Excise will not arise until the European Commission has completed its assessment of the situation.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account Her Majesty's Government have taken, in connection with imports from Israel under preferences, of public communications by the Government of Israel stating that Israel issues certificates of origin according to its own definition of territoriality. [115312]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The content of these communications has been noted.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which achievement of the objects and purposes of the EC's trade agreements with Israel depends on the provisions of the agreement relating to the scope of territorial applicability and to bilateral customs co-operation. [115324]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such assessment has been made.

  EU Preferential Trade Agreements
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has demanded security deposits from importers claiming the benefit of preferences under the Community's preferential trade agreements in cases where the documents accompanying 450W
  the consignments being imported, or the labelling or other identifying details of the goods themselves, have given rise to strong doubts regarding their originating status under the agreements in question. [115321]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice he has received on the legality of the reduction in employers' National Insurance contributions in connection with the climate change levy for the purposes of complying with EU competition regulations; and if he will publish it. [115263]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 17 March 2000]: The proposed reduction in the rate of employers' National Insurance contributions in April 2001 is in accordance with EU competition rules and is therefore a matter for the UK Government.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports he has received of the level of tobacco smuggled into each European Union member state in each of the last five years. [115408]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No information on this basis has been published. HM Customs and Excise do have information on levels of tobacco smuggled into the UK but there is no standard reporting of levels of smuggling into each member state of the European Union.

  Customs however regularly receive and give qualitative information from and to colleagues in other member states about tobacco smuggling.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to include energy generated from waste incinerators in the 100 per cent. first year investment allowance for companies moving from environmentally unfriendly to environmentally friendly technologies and processes. [115351]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government published a consultation paper on the additional support for energy efficiency measures available under the climate change levy package (including the proposed scheme offering enhanced 100 per cent. first year capital allowances for energy saving investments) on 9 December 1999. The consultation paper proposed that five energy saving technologies (combined heat and power plant, boilers, motors, variable speed drives and lighting systems) would be made eligible for the enhanced capital allowances. Responses received to the consultation paper are currently being assessed and further announcements will be made shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will answer the question from the right hon. Member for Hitchen and Harpenden of 15 February (ref. 109572). [115579]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I did so earlier today.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those games which have been produced with European Community money to teach people about the euro; what age groups are targeted; and how many have been produced. [115577]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The UK Government have not produced any educational games to teach people about the euro, nor have any such games been funded by the Commission in the UK.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 13 March; and if he will make a statement. [115547]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) on 17 March 2000,Official Report, columns 352–53W.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children were living in poverty in each year from 1979 to date in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [107253]

  Mr. Bayley
  There is no single official measure of poverty. Poverty and social exclusion are complex multi-dimensional issues, affecting many aspects of people's lives; their income, health, housing, the quality of their environment and their opportunities to work and to learn. There is no single measure which captures the complex problems which need to be overcome.

  We are determined to tackle the problems that condemn many individuals and communities to poverty. That is why we set out our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion in our first annual report "Opportunity for all" (Cm 4445). The report includes a range of indicators that capture the many aspects of poverty and social exclusion.

  We are unable to present low income statistics for Shrewsbury and Atcham and Shropshire local authorities because they are not statistically robust for areas smaller than geographical regions. However, information for the whole of the West Midlands is shown in the table:

  Number of children below 60 per cent. median income in West Midlands, including the self-employed

  Million

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  1994–95

  0.3

  0.4

  1995–96

  0.3

  0.4

  1996–97

  0.4

  0.4

  1997–98

  0.4

  0.4

  Note:

  Some of the fluctuation in numbers between years may be due to sample variability.

  Source:

  Households Below Average Income

  Some indicators of poverty and social exclusion are available at the local authority level. For example, the table shows the number of children in families receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Number of dependants under age 16 included in Income Support and Jobseekers Allowance (income based) claims for Shrewsbury and Atcham and Shropshire

  Thousand

  Period

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Shropshire

  May 1993

  3.0

  9.3

  May 1994

  3.3

  8.4

  May 1995

  3.0

  7.9

  May 1996

  3.0

  7.9

  May 1997

  2.6

  7.4

  May 1998

  1.9

  5.8

  May 1999

  2.0

  6.4

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are taken from the Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiries for May 1993–1999, which is a point in time survey based on a 5 per cent. sample of Income Support claimants.
  454W
  2. The figures include the unemployed who until 1996 were included in Income Support caseloads. Income Support for the unemployed was replaced by income-based Jobseeker's Allowance from October 1996.

  3. Numbers are based on sample cases and will therefore be subject to sampling error.

  4. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  5. The local authority district is assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant 1995–1999 version 1 postcode directories.

  Improving educational attainment is an intrinsic part of our strategy for tackling the causes of poverty and social exclusion. In 1997 in Shropshire, 62 per cent. of students in English and 61 per cent. in Maths achieved Level 4 and above in Key Stage 2. By 1999 this had improved to 74 per cent. in English and 72 per cent. in Maths.The health of our children is also an important indicator of levels of poverty and social exclusion. In Shrewsbury and Atcham in 1997–98, the rate at which children (aged under 16) were admitted to hospital as a result of an unintentional injury resulting in a hospital stay of more than three days was 1.5 per thousand (to the nearest 0.5 per thousand). This is broadly unchanged from 1995–96.

  Further information on the indicators we will use to monitor its progress in tackling poverty and social exclusion, including definitions and baseline data, was placed in the House of Commons Library on 21 September to accompany "Opportunity for All".

  Independent Tribunal Service
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many doctors who are panel members for the Independent Tribunal Service are also employed by SEMA to report on the condition of applicants for incapacity or disability benefit. [113647]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Contractual Terms of employment for Sema Group Medical Services state that any employee must not, at any time during their employment with Sema Group, enter into any contract of employment with an outside employer which might lead to a conflict of interest.

  In view of the conflict of interest, which would arise if a doctor employed by Sema Group Medical Services were to be employed by the Tribunal Service, no doctors would be given permission to work for the tribunal service.

  We do know that some doctors employed by Nestor Disability Analysis (NDA) to work on a sessional/EMP basis for Medical Services sit on Appeals Services panels. Neither we, nor Sema Medical Services, have any details of numbers. It is however for the Appeals Service and the Lord Chancellor to ensure that panellists they appoint are sufficiently independent and impartial under paragraph 6 of the Social Security Act 1998.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on 7 March 2000,Official Report, column 612W, on what date he estimates these savings in respect of instrument of payment fraud will be achieved; [114689]
  455W
  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on 7 March 2000, Official Report, column 612W, on what is the basis for his calculation of the amounts automated credit transfer will save from the elimination of instrument of payment fraud. [114668]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 March 2000]: The move to Automated Credit Transfer as the normal method of payment will bring significant savings from reduced levels of fraud. The move will begin in 2003, but full savings will not be realised until 2005, when the transition from current paper based methods of payment is complete.

  Anticipated savings from the elimination of instrument of payment fraud are based on estimates of current losses due to the fraudulent encashment of girocheques and order books, and our best estimate of the potential for further losses.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will backdate awards of the pensioners' minimum income guarantee to the date when he announced that there would be a take-up campaign for all pensioner claimants who would have qualified had they applied earlier. [114718]

  Mr. Rooker
  No. An announcement of our plans to encourage pensioners to take-up their entitlement to the Minimum Income Guarantee will be made shortly.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's programme of inspections for the forthcoming year(a) generally and (b) with special reference to housing benefit administration. [114832]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BR) reports to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the administration of Social Security benefits by local authorities and seeks to drive up standards of administration. This work is part of a process that will transform the delivery of Housing Benefit so that local authorities provide a faster, more accurate service, which is more secure against fraud.

  To date, we have published 42 reports following BFI inspections of Housing and Council Tax Benefit administration in local authorities. The BFI programme includes a further 55 local authority inspections, which are due to be completed before April 2001. This includes the inspections that were announced last September, which focus on the 30 local authorities with the highest benefit spend. A further programme of inspections, some of which will be completed in the coming year, is due to be announced in April.

  In addition to the programme of inspections in local authorities, the BFI will be completing a further inspection in the Benefits Agency during the coming year.

  With the advent of Best Value, the BFI will be responsible for undertaking Best Value inspections on HB/CTB issues working, as necessary with the Housing Inspectorate and the Audit Commission. This programme
  456W
  of work will depend on the local authorities performance plans, which are due to be submitted by the end of this month.

  SERPS
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown for each of the next 20 financial years of the estimated cost of(a) his proposed deferral until October 2002 of the cuts in widows' SERPS and (b) his proposed preserved rights scheme. [115527]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  £ million, 1999–2000 prices

  Year

  Cost of deferral

  Illustrative scheme costs assuming 30 per cent. reduction in expenditure that would ohterwise have occurred

  2000

  60

  0

  2001

  160

  0

  2002

  260

  0

  2003

  270

  40

  2004

  260

  70

  2005

  260

  110

  2006

  250

  150

  2007

  240

  190

  2008

  240

  220

  2009

  230

  260

  2010

  220

  300

  2011

  210

  330

  2012

  200

  370

  2013

  200

  410

  2014

  190

  440

  2015

  180

  470

  2016

  170

  500

  2017

  160

  530

  2018

  150

  560

  2019

  140

  590

  2020

  130

  610

  Notes:

  1. Estimates of gross SERPS are provided by the Government Actuary's Department in 1999–2000 prices, rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  2. In order to produce long-term estimates, the figures are based on those used in the Government Actuary's Department's latest quinquennial review.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his proposal to give preserved rights to those who were given incomplete information about their widow's SERPS entitlement will include those who were given no information. [115526]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State made on 15 March 2000,Official Report, columns 307–21.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his targets are for the number of people taking out stakeholder pensions; over what time-scale this is set; and how many such people he expects to be people who do not currently have a pension. [114990]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's targets will be set out in the Public Service Agreement covering the period from April 2001 to March 2004. It will be published later this year.

  Exceptional Hardship Payments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the budget for the exceptional hardship payment scheme was(a) spent, (b) unspent and (c) retained by local authorities in each year since it was introduced. [115310]

  Exceptional hardship payments

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Government contribution

  2.50

  18.25

  18.25

  20.00

  20.00

  Amount spent

  0.10

  3.13

  6.42

  7.49

  1—

  Amount unspent

  2.40

  15.12

  11.83

  12.51

  1—

  1 Not yet known

  Source:

  1995–96 to 1998–99 Housing Benefit Subsidy claim forms from Local Authorities

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the DETR/DSS publication, Housing Benefits and the Private Rented Sector, concerning(a) the availability of private rented accommodation for people aged under 25 years, (b) the ability of people aged under 25 years to negotiate lower rents and (c) the impact of the single room rent restriction; [115305]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the DETR/DSS report, "Housing Benefit and the Private Rented Sector", on the average weekly difference between rents charged and housing benefit paid to people under 25 years affected by the single room rent restriction. [115306]

  Angela Eagle
  The findings of the report concluded that the single room rent restriction is causing difficulties for some young people under 25 years in accessing and maintaining accommodation. We are considering the future of the single room rent as part of our wider review of housing. We will be taking account of all the available research which will include the localised reports we received from a variety of organisations on the effects of the single room rent.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of people aged under 25 years affected by the single room rent restriction who have successfully applied for an exceptional hardship payment. [115309]

  Angela Eagle
  We do not collect statistical information on the number of single people aged under 25 years affected by the single room rent restriction who have successfully applied for an exceptional hardship payment. However, research done in 1997 showed that overall 3 per cent. of a sample of tenants affected by the Single Room Rent and Local Reference Rent restrictions interviewed in the survey had successfully applied for and received exceptional hardship payments.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many single pensioners claiming housing benefit live in accommodation comprising two bedrooms or more. [114988]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available.
  458W
  Angela Eagle
  The exceptional hardship payments scheme was introduced from 1995–96. The amounts spent and unspent from the local government contributions to the exceptional hardship payments schemes are in the table. The amount that is unspent is retained by local authorities, and therefore, for part(c) of the question the amounts are as shown in the third line of the table.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the impact of the single room rent restriction for people aged under 25 years. [115308]

  Angela Eagle
  Representations about the impact of the single room rent (SRR) provision for under 25-year-olds have been received from hon. Members, members of the public and a variety of voluntary and charitable organisations. The representations we have received from voluntary organisations and others suggest that the single room rent restriction is causing localised difficulties for some young people under 25 years in that the accommodation to which the restriction relates is not readily available.

  Benefit Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of calls received by the Benefit Fraud Hotline in each month since January 1999. [114987]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Number of calls received at the national Benefit Fraud Hotline from January 1999 to February 2000

  Calendar month

  Calls answered 1999

  Calls answered 2000

  January

  13,925

  14,272

  February

  13,798

  19,285

  March

  16,901

  —

  April

  11,996

  —

  May

  11,303

  —

  June

  13,415

  —

  July

  10,491

  —

  August

  10,336

  —

  September

  12,971

  —

  October

  9,291

  —

  November

  14,683

  —

  December

  10,906

  —

  Sick Notes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health about sick notes signed by doctors for those on long-term sick leave. [114989]

  Mr. Bayley
  There have been no such discussions.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Home Affairs Research and Statistics Directorate
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the titles of projects(a) undertaken and (b) completed by the Home Affairs Research and Statistics Directorate in the past six months, indicating which have been published and how their findings have otherwise been made available. [114647]

  Mr. Straw
  I have placed a table in the Library providing the information requested.

  In addition to publication, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate findings are available on the Home Office website and may also be referred to at seminars and conferences. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 164–65W, concerning the Department's policy for releasing research reports.

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will investigate means of rationalisation of the system for funding fire authorities in metropolitan authorities, county councils and combined fire authorities. [114912]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is leading a fundamental review of local government finance, which is being carried out in partnership with local authorities. The review is looking at the distribution of revenue support grant for all local authority services, including the fire service, to investigate whether there is a way of distributing the grant which is simpler, more stable and fairer than the present arrangements. The review is also considering options for improving and simplifying the local authority capital finance system. The aim is to publish a Green Paper in the summer.

  Secure Facilities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the stage reached in the planning process for all sites under consideration for future use(a) as prisons, (b) secure training centres and (c) other secure facilities. [114758]

  Mr. Boateng
  As I stated in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 21 February 2000,Official Report, columns 813–14W, tenders for two new prisons have been let and these prisons are currently under construction at Rye Hill, at Onley near Rugby and Marchington in East Staffordshire. Later this year it is planned to issue tenders for the procurement of a further two prisons at Ashford in Middlesex and Peterborough. There is outline planning permission for both but detailed approval will be needed once the designs are finalised. The Prison Service also has outline planning permission for a new prison at Maghull on Merseyside and is discussing with the local planning authority the submission of a planning application for a new prison in Woolwich, South East London.
  460W
  The Home Office recently acquired the site of the former Youth Training Centre at St. Charles in Brentwood for development as a Secure Training Centre (STC). An application for outline planning permission will be submitted to the local planning authority shortly. This, with the STCs already open at Medway near Rochester, Rainsbrook near Rugby and Hassockfield near Consett in Co. Durham, would bring the STC estate to four establishments with a fifth site yet to be identified.

  Other secure facilities for which the Home Office is directly responsible are immigration detention centres. A planning application to redevelop the former Aldington prison near Ashford in Kent as a new purpose-built immigration detention centre has been submitted to the local planning authority. The Immigration and Nationality Department is also preparing a planning application to redevelop its Harmondsworth site near Heathrow Airport to provide another new purpose-built immigration detention centre. These form part of the proposals for implementing the recent White Paper about firmer, fairer and faster immigration controls.

  Prison Working Group
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the findings of the working group set up under Lord Laming on prisons. [114759]

  Mr. Boateng
  Lord Laming is due to submit his report to me by 1 May. In the interests of thoroughness I have informed him that this may take the form of an interim report, with the full document to be completed as soon as possible. When this is done I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Marsham Street Offices
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the former Government offices in Marsham Street are to be demolished; and what will replace them. [115074]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 558W, to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).

  Forest Bank Prison
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current prisoner population at HMP Forest Bank; when it will reach capacity; what is the current staff/prisoner ratio; what is the expected staff/prisoner ratio at full capacity; how many prisoner custody officers and managers have transferred(a) from HMP Blakenhurst, (b) other privately run prisons and (c) the Prison Service; what incidents have been reported at the establishment since it opened; what amounts have been calculated for financial penalties for contract failures to date; and if he will list the reasons for financial penalties being imposed so far. [114761]

  Mr. Boateng
  As at 14 March the prisoner population at Forest Bank prison and young offender institution was 420. It is due to reach full capacity on 11 May this year. The current staff/prisoner ratio is one member of staff to 1.27 prisoners and the expected staff/prisoner ratio at full capacity is one member of staff to 2.29 prisoners.
  461W
  The details requested about the number of custody officers and managers who transferred to Forest Bank from other prisons are given in the table. Incidents which have occurred at Forest Bank are detailed in the table.

  The imposition of financial penalties does not start until the prison reaches full capacity on 11 May; therefore, no financial penalties have yet been calculated or imposed.

  Prisoner custody officers and managers transferred to Her Majesty's Prison/Young Offenders Institution Forest Bank

  Transferred from

  (a) Her Majesty's Prison Blakenhurst

  Managers

  7

  Senior Prisoner Custody Officers

  5

  Prisoner Custody Officers

  5

  (b) Other privately run prisons

  Managers

  10

  Senior Prisoner Custody Officers

  9

  Prisoner Custody Officers

  4

  (c) The Prison Service

  Managers

  13

  1 One of whom is on secondment

  Incidents reported at Her Majesty's Prison/Young Offenders Institution Forest Bank to 14 March

  Incident

  Fights

  3

  Concerted indiscipline

  2

  Assaults on other prisoners

  7

  Assaults on staff

  6

  Fires in wastebins

  2

  Drug finds

  3

  Total

  23

  Police Recruits
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police recruits began training at Hendon for the Metropolitan police on the course due to commence on 13 March. [115495]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the information requested is 65.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum number of police officer recruits that can be trained at Hendon for the Metropolitan police(a) on each course and (b) during a year. [115494]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the Recruit Training School at Hendon can normally train a maximum of 190 recruits on each course. There are 10 intakes per year, giving an annual provision for 1,900 recruits. This capacity could be increased, exceptionally, to meet additional demand.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the anticipated start dates of police officer recruit courses for the Metropolitan police during 2000 as at 1 January 2000. [115493]
  462W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the information requested is: 4 January; 7 February; 13 March; 17 April; 22 May; 26 June; 31 July; 4 September; 9 October; 13 November and 18 December.

  Football Offences and Disorders Act
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) charged with and (b) convicted of an offence under the Football Offences and Disorders Act 1999 since it came into force. [115381]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of people charged by offence is not collected centrally.

  The Football Offences and Disorders Act 1999 came into force on 27 September 1999. Provisional court proceedings data for the fourth quarter of 1999 will become available in June and provisional data for subsequent quarters at three monthly intervals thereafter.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences have been recorded in respect of(a) confectioners and tobacconists and (b) other retailers of the sale of tobacco products to those aged under 16 in each of the last five years; how many police cautions have been issued; and what has been the average fine levied. [115141]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The offence of selling tobacco to persons under the age of 16 is a summary offence and does not form part of the recorded crime series.

  Available data taken from the Home Office Cautions and Court Proceedings Databases are given in the table. We do not hold the type of retailer for this offence because information is not recorded on the characteristics of all cases held on the database apart from those that are evident from the description of the offence with which the defendant has been charged.

  Number of offenders cautioned, defendants presecuted and convicted and average fine given for offences relating to the sale of tobacco to persons aged under 161, England and Wales, 1994–98

  Year

  Total cautioned

  Total prosecuted

  Total convicted

  Average fine (£)

  1994

  13

  108

  83

  228

  1995

  8

  173

  142

  230

  1996

  1

  140

  119

  226

  1997

  5

  138

  119

  242

  1998

  —

  173

  135

  225

  1 Offences under Section 7 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 as amended by Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991.

  Infanticide
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the(a) parliamentary constituency of residence, (b) age, (c) date, (d) location and (e) manner of death of each child who was killed (i) during child contact visits with parents with a history of domestic violence and (ii) in cases of disputed contact in instances of domestic violence by parents since January 1995; [113950]
  463W
  (2) how many children have been killed in England and Wales since 1 January 1995 during child contact visits with parents who had a history of domestic violence. [113949]

  Mr. Boateng
  Just over 50 children a year in England and Wales are killed by their parents, but those killed during contact visits and in cases of disputed contact cannot be separately identified in the statistics collected centrally.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Government plan to spend from his Department's budget on asylum seekers in 1999–2000 and 2000–01. [115512]

  Mrs. Roche
  Responsibility for the budget for supporting asylum seekers transferred to the Home Office from April 1999. It is anticipated that the total cost of operating the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and supporting asylum seekers for the financial year 1999–2000 will be in the region of around £800 million.

  The Home Office has a provisional allocation of £300 million for supporting asylum seekers in 2000–01. Estimating support costs for 2000–01 is subject to a large number of variables such as the level of new applications, the speed of processing claims and the resources directed at processing cases and other work. Those estimates and the overall resourcing of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are currently under review.

  Illegal Diesel Fuel (Prosecutions)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place in the last 12 months relating to the use of illegal diesel fuel. [114520]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  In the financial year to date 11 prosecutions have taken place which relate to the smuggling of diesel fuel with a further 14 cases awaiting trial.

  Customs and Excise also prosecute cases arising from the misuse of rebated oils but I regret that figure is not readily available.

  Ballot Procedures
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on regulations appertaining to(a) trade union and (b) other organisations' ballot procedures which for public policy reasons were laid down by Parliament. [114995]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  So far as trade unions are concerned, when conducting ballots they must comply with the relevant legal requirements set out in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as amended (including
  464W
  by the Employment Relations Act 1999). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly be commencing provisions of the 1999 Act which provide for balloting in connection with union recognition and derecognition. He has no plans for further changes to the law governing trade union balloting procedures.

  As to "balloting" by other organisations, my Department published last year a consultative document setting out the Government's proposals for strengthening the current regulatory and best practice frameworks governing the level of company directors' remuneration. The document expressed the Government's concern that many listed companies have failed to respond adequately to the current best practice provisions on transparency, linkage to performance and accountability to shareholders and canvassed views on a number of options, including some involving additional shareholder voting requirements. The Government expect to announce the outcome of their consultation shortly.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Westminster Hall (Costs)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council what estimate she has made of the running costs of sittings in Westminster Hall; and if she will make a statement. [114094]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I understand that no readily available separately identifiable costs arise from the use of permanent staff of the House, but that certain extra running costs for security, for printing the Official Report and for the provision of sound services for the extra debate and scrutiny Westminster Hall provides will amount to approximately £155,000 in a full year.

  Legislation (Environmental Impact)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the President of the Council how many bills published since the Queen's Speech were accompanied by a statement of their implications for the environment; and what proportion this represents of the total number of Bills published in the current session. [114703]

  Mrs. Beckett
  There is no formal requirement on Departments to either produce or publish full environmental appraisals. However, environmental appraisals have been published alongside two Government Bills this session, representing 5.5 per cent. of the number of Government Bills published in the current Session, including the Financial Services and Markets Bill which was published last Session but carried over to complete its passage in this.

  The assessment of the environmental impacts of draft legislation should be integral to the broader appraisal of policy that takes place but may not be set out in a separate statement.

  Environmental appraisals are part of the overall policy appraisal process and are therefore carried out alongside, for example, regulatory impact appraisals and health impact assessments where necessary.

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

Winter Fuel Payments
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest in a winter fuel payment.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect that all those entitled to winter fuel payments will have received them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, perhaps I may discourage the rest of your Lordships from making similar declarations of interest. 'This winter (1999–2000) for the first time all winter fuel payments were made before Christmas. We plan that that should happen again next 'winter.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is it not the case that although the Government have made winter fuel payments to a number of people who are not on low incomes, by the end of the winter they will not have made similar payments to a number of men aged between 60 and 65 who may well be on low incomes? First, did no one in the department realise that the European Court was likely to make a ruling which would result in men aged between 60 and 65 being entitled to payments? If so, why were no contingency plans made? Secondly, the Government make winter fuel payments without a means test but last Session
2
used their majority in the Commons to force through a major long-term contributory benefit for disabled people on a means-tested basis. On what principle do the Government now decide whether a particular benefit should be means tested?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, immediately the European Court gave its judgment the Secretary of State announced that the Government would respond to it in the spirit in which the Court intended. As the noble Lord will be aware, the original proposal was that winter fuel payments were to be awarded to pensioners over the age of 65 in the case of men and over the age of 60 in the case of women. The judgment in Taylor insists that men should get the payments on the same terms as women. It is worth emphasising that by 2020 women's retirement age will match that of men. Therefore, at that stage men and women alike will receive winter fuel payments at age 65, on the presumption that they still exist. The matter is complicated. Well over 50 per cent of the new recipients are in work, and as a result we do not have easy access to their records. The details of the delivery arrangements, including the claims process, will be announced shortly. We plan that both back-dated payments and payments to the newly eligible should be made by Christmas.

Kosovo: Civic Reconstruction
2.38 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosbyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What machinery has been established by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to assess its experience in reconstructing civil society in Kosovo, and to reform and reduce the bureaucratic delays that have damaged its effectiveness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the mission of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in Kosovo is doing a vital job under difficult circumstances as part of the United Nations-led international effort to lay the foundations for democratic stability. Management of the mission is primarily the responsibility of its head, who provides weekly reports to member states and regularly reports in person to the Permanent Council of the Organisation. However, participating states routinely feed in comments and advice gathered in particular from their offices in Pristina and from senior officials who visit the mission to review its work and operations. The combined effort has helped to ensure that the mission continues to make a vital contribution to the efforts of the international community in Kosovo, particularly in the area of human rights, preparing for elections, police training and establishing an effective judicial system.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister has my sympathy for what is an extraordinarily difficult operation. Does the noble Baroness accept that the relative slowness of the establishment of the civilian mission meant that the PBTK, the political wing of the KLA, was able to establish itself in a great many parts of the local administration in Kosovo? First, can the Minister inform the House whether the lessons learnt at the Istanbul Summit about the need for rapid reaction forces in the civilian as well as military spheres is being taken on board? Secondly, will the OSCE now work more closely with local NGOs, local women's groups and others so that the people of Kosovo feel that they themselves own the process of democratisation and that it has not been largely brought in from outside?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure the noble Baroness that, the Istanbul Summit having agreed with the OSCE that a civilian rapid response mechanism known as Rapid Expert Assistance and Co-operation Teams should be developed, the point has been taken on board. Those teams will be operational by 1st July and will link an operations centre in Vienna with matched national databases.
The noble Baroness is right to say that the OSCE has faced a huge challenge in the work that it has undertaken. The systems in place have had to be modified as time has gone on to try to meet the changes in the situation. The matter has been taken very seriously to try to ensure that the process is as smooth and seamless as possible, but we are challenged and those challenges are being met.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is unfortunate, to say the least, that this situation has occurred? Does it not strengthen the developing view that the entire NATO operation against Serbia was a mistake?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it does not. Kosovo creates huge difficulties for all of us. I do not need to remind noble Lords that for 10 years Kosovar Albanians lived in fear under the menace of Serb repression. They lost their jobs, institutions and, in many cases, their lives. In 1998 and 1999 innocent civilians were subject to systematic violence reminiscent of Europe in the 1940s. The international community had a choice: to intervene or turn away. Both were difficult; either would have led to controversy or criticism; and neither would have avoided further violence. There was no simple solution which we chose to overlook. Notwithstanding the challenges that Kosovo made us all face, we could not but have done what we did. Otherwise all of us would have been covered with shame.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that effective policing is an important part of civil society? Has the UN contributed only 2,000 of the promised 6,000 policemen? Do many of them speak neither the local language nor English? Since it will take time to train local policemen, what is being done to fill that gap?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have responded to the request regarding provision of police officers. Another 60 police officers are likely to go from the MoD. Twenty police officers will be helping. Your Lordships will know that 40 are already training. Training of the police service is essential. We are putting a huge amount of energy into ensuring that we make an effective and proper contribution.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the Minister says that we had a choice of turning away or intervening. That is accepted by, I think, all noble Lords. The next question is: how do we do that? Does the noble Baroness agree with the implication of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that what we did might have been done rather better?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with that. Noble Lords in this House will know how keenly all the issues were considered during the period. The reaction and response undertaken by Her Majesty's Government, together with our partners, were cogent and sound. We did that which was necessary to meet the needs of the circumstances as they then appeared. It is too easy to forget that what we did was in fact successful. Milosevic did withdraw.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not everyone will agree with her version of the history of intervention in Kosovo. However, is not the problem at present that the KLA is determined that it will have an independent Kosovo, possibly attached to Albania as a single country? Because of that, it is increasing the violence against its Serb neighbours in the hope that NATO will once again come to its rescue and fight the Serbs to ensure that the KLA achieves its objective—an independent Kosovo?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. But we have done everything within our power to make it plain that we do not agree with that. KFOR, including General Jackson, is satisfied that demilitarisation was genuine and effective. KFOR continues to seize illegal weapons when it finds them. The Kosovo protection corps is there to support UNMIK and specified humanitarian tasks. We are facing that issue squarely.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, in the week of the anniversary of the start of NATO's campaign against Serbia there is worsening violence in the northern state of Mitrovica, where KFOR troops are targets. There is a law and order vacuum. There are not enough police, as noble Lords made clear today. There is no justice system to speak of. Organised crime is increasing. The UN Secretary-General has pleaded with the international community to provide funds and resources. Can the Minister say when this Government—they rightly prided themselves on taking a lead in winning the war—intend to take a lead in winning the peace in Kosovo before it is lost?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have already taken that lead. We are working very energetically with our partners to ensure that we do not, as the noble Lord said, lose the peace. In most of Kosovo the security situation has improved since last year. Mitrovica is a particular problem but the population movements have polarised that city—largely the Serb north and Albanian south. Tensions are being exploited by extremists on both sides. The goal of UNMIK and KFOR is an undivided Mitrovica in an undivided Kosovo; and the first step is enhanced security. We are doing much to ensure that that takes place.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I admire the contribution Her Majesty's Government are making to the police force. However—it is possible I did not hear well—I felt that the Minister failed to answer whether Her Majesty's Government were satisfied with the total response of the United Nations.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are satisfied that we are taking all the steps necessary to meet our commitments. We are encouraging all our partners to do likewise.

Sellafield: Thorp and Mox Plants
2.48 p.m.
Lord Razzall Lord Razzall asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of recent events at British Nuclear Fuels Limited, what is their policy regarding the future of the Thorp and Mox plants at Sellafield.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government's policy on reprocessing and on the export of Mox remains unchanged. The Health and
6
Safety Executive's report published on 18th February identified serious failures in BNFL's management of safety at Sellafield. Nevertheless, HSE confirms that the site is currently operating safely. BNFL needs to take action urgently to restore confidence and a good start has been made with the appointment of Norman Askew as the new Chief Executive.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is now the time for a complete re-think of our nuclear waste strategy? Does the noble Lord agree that the Thorp plant at Sellafield, which reprocesses nuclear waste primarily for Japan and Germany, has proved to be a massive white elephant? Does he also agree that if the Government give full approval for the mixed oxide fuel plant at Sellafield, this will compound the previous government's error over Thorp?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is not the time for a complete reappraisal. We have a serious failure of management, not a failure in the policy or design of the processing plants. Far from being white elephants, they have huge contracts stretching into the future which are of enormous value.
Lord Northbrook: My Lords, does not the Minister believe that the best way to solve BNFL's management problems is to privatise it and that the Government should not be put off from doing so by the problems with Germany and Japan?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, no. Clearly, this is a setback for the company and has implications for its performance and readiness for the introduction of a PPP. We shall continue to work on that, but it is dependent on proper safety and regulations.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, can the Minister give the up-to-date position on the Japanese contracts?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, discussions are taking place with the Japanese about the fuel at Takahama and all the options are being examined as regards progress.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the falsification of documents, particularly in a dangerous nuclear plant, is very serious and that the people who perpetrated such action ought to be prosecuted? Are they going to be prosecuted?
Secondly, is the Minister aware that for a long time fears have been raised about the plant not only members of this Government, but by members of the Irish Government, too?
Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has always had a permanent presence at Sellafield? Why was it unable to pick up the bad running which, in the light of what has happened, was always evident?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope I made it clear at the beginning that we believe there to have

7
been serious management failures. That is why we have a new chief executive and why five members of the staff have been dismissed. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate picked up the failures and reported on them and steps have been taken to correct them.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the Minister can answer some of these questions, is it not necessary to know for what purpose the security procedures were falsified, how it was possible to do that and what steps will be taken to ensure that it never happens again? When shall we be told that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is clear from the reports that the records were falsified simply because the workers in the area did not want to do the work; it was easier to produce false documentation. That is why the breach of management procedures was outrageous and why serious action has rightly been taken.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is this not another reason why the Government should return to their emphasis on the coal industry? Is my noble friend aware that this country has millions of tonnes of unmined coal and that we are producing it more cheaply than any other country? Is that not another good reason?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we are talking about a reprocessing plant rather than about the nuclear power stations. Again, I reiterate that we should not confuse a failure of management with the need to revise our energy policy.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, do not the events show that reprocessing breeds a climate of deception and is likely to do so in future? Therefore, should we not abandon the whole proposition of reprocessing?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is nothing to suggest that there was any disaffection in relation to the matter. As I said, it was a failure of both management and workers and it can happen in other plants and factories—and it does from time to time. It is important to correct the situation and regain the confidence of the public and the customers as soon as possible.

Ascension Island: Control of Feral Cats
2.55 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to eradicate feral cats from Ascension Island in pursuance of their obligation under the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has agreed to fund a £30,000 feral cat control programme on Ascension Island. That should kill 90 to 95 per cent of the feral cat population. The control programme will promote a successful breeding season for sooty terns on Ascension.
With our non-governmental organisation partners, especially the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, we are seeking funding for the Ascension Island management plan. The plan includes an invasive species eradication programme. Any remaining feral cats will be picked up by that eradication project.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am delighted to learn that the Government have had the sense to enter into partnership with the RSPB and to take it up on its offer to clear the island of feral cats. Are they aware that there are in the St Helena dependencies some of the most important biodiversity treasures in the world and that this is an important test of their willingness to put forward enough money—and by the standard of most issues which are discussed in this House it is minor—to ensure that the programme works?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are taking the issue most seriously. The noble Lord is correct in saying that we should be rightly concerned with the biodiversity of the region. The initiative is part of the Ascension Island management plan. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are seeking funding for the plan, which will need in the region of £1·5 million.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the Adelaide Hills of South Australia a somewhat unusual professor, who wears a hat made from a cat and says that the only good cat is a dead one, has fenced off an area of 25 acres in order to keep out feral predators such as cats and foxes? The scheme has been so successful that platypuses and other animals which had found it almost impossible to breed are multiplying in the enclosed, safe area. Is she further aware that feral cats are a danger not only to birds but to mammals? Scores of Australian mammals have been wiped out this century, almost more than in any other country in the world.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will be surprised to know that I was not so aware, but, as always, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing it to my attention. Regrettably, it is not possible to erect fencing in the Ascension Islands. There are more than 1,200 cats, only 300 of which are domestic, and 900 people. Therefore, regrettably, fencing is not promoted.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, may I make a plea that the unfortunate cats are dealt with humanely? If the Government are calling on the RSPB, perhaps they can also call on the RSPCA or a similar organisation for advice on the matter.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Baroness that such advice has been sought. In the plan, we are assured that the most humane method of disposing of the cats will be undertaken. However, I should tell your Lordships that we need to sweep away the cats in order to protect the sooty terns.

Terrorism Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 46 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 17th March), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Financial Services and Markets Bill
3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [The Authority's general duties]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert ("and market abuse").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 47, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 to 69. As Members of the Committee are well aware, the intention of Amendment No. 47 is to add to the objective contained in Clause 2(2)(d), which reads,
"the reduction of financial crime",
the expression "and market abuse". It seems to us extraordinary that in a Bill whose main innovation is the concept of market abuse, reducing market abuse does not appear as one of the Bill's four objectives.
That would be more understandable if the Government had been prepared to designate market abuse as a criminal offence. As the noble Lord is well aware, setting market abuse in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is the Opposition's view that market abuse is indeed a criminal offence. However, as the Government do not accept that approach, I simply cannot understand why
10
the objective clause contains the reduction of financial crime but not the reduction of market abuse. That is the reason for Amendment No. 47.
The remaining amendments—Amendments Nos. 63 to 69—to which I shall now speak, have a more technical objective. Most of those amendments simply add the expression "market abuse" to "financial crime" in order to be consistent with the amendment of the objectives. However, I shall say something in a little more detail about Amendments No. 66 and 68.
As the Minister is aware, Clause 6 relates to the Financial Services Authority's reduction of financial crime objective. Members of the Committee are aware that in considering that objective, the Financial Services Authority must have regard, among other things, to the desirability of regulated persons taking appropriate measures to prevent financial crime. Amendment No. 66 seeks to delete the word "prevent" and insert the expression "reduce the risk of their businesses being used for". The reason for the amendment is that regulated persons cannot be expected to prevent financial crime, but they can reasonably take measures to reduce the risk of their businesses being used for financial crime.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 68. The focus of Clause 6 and the Financial Services Authority's reduction of financial crime objective relates to reducing the extent to which it is possible for a business, which is carried on by a regulated person in contravention of the general prohibition, to be used for a purpose connected with financial crime. Therefore, there is no express obligation on the Financial Services Authority to identify financial crime or to alert consumers and other users in the market place to persons who are suspected of engaging in financial crime. This amendment is intended, at least partially, to redress that situation by requiring the authority, so far as is practical, to alert regulated persons to the activities and identities of those engaged either in financial crime or market abuse. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: This may be an opportune moment to say a few words about Amendment No. 69, which is in this grouping. It is opportune that this amendment is before your Lordships on the same day as the report on banking has been received by the Government. I have not yet had the opportunity of seeing that report. However, from what I have heard on the radio, the report contains a reference to the appalling delay that we in this country all suffer from the way that the banks hang on to our cheques before clearing them. It seems that the banks have slowed down in clearing cheques through accounts in a ratio converse to the advance of technology and the benefits of speed which that has brought about. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something on that particular point this afternoon.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the noble Earl. These amendments fall naturally into two groups. The effect of the first group would be to convert the present objective on the

11
reduction of financial crime into an objective concerned with the reduction of financial crime and of market abuse; in other words, to associate market abuse with that objective in particular. Although I acknowledge that there is overlap between market abuse and financial crime in some areas, the insertion of "market abuse" into this objective is not necessary and, I believe, could cause confusion and send the wrong messages.
The purpose of the market abuse regime is to protect the UK financial markets from the damage that can be caused to them by abuse. In order to operate effectively and efficiently, the markets rely on market users to observe expected standards of conduct, as we shall discuss when we reach that part of the Bill. If people do not do that, and if they abuse the trust of the markets, then confidence will be damaged. The markets will work less well as people seek to protect themselves from the risks of abuse by entering into transactions at higher prices or by entering into fewer transactions.
Therefore, the ground is covered by the objective on maintaining confidence in the financial system. That, of course, includes maintaining confidence in financial markets and exchanges. That is what the market abuse regime is all about. That is not to say that there is no overlap with the territory covered by the financial crime objective. However, the objectives all overlap to a certain extent; for example, market abuse will often also adversely affect consumers. For example, if people buy shares on the back of misleading information, they lose money.
It is true that some forms of more serious market abuse, such as insider dealing, criminal fraud, which is a matter for the common law, or money laundering, will also be criminal offences under this Bill or under other enactments. However, that will not always be the case. Behaviour which comes within the offences of insider dealing and market manipulation, for example, will, broadly speaking, be subsets of behaviour which can come within the market abuse regime. To that extent, the financial crime objective already covers some forms of market abuse. The matters which the FSA will have to consider as regards systems and controls in Clause 6(2) will also be relevant to market abuse. In any event, we should expect the FSA to have an interest in systems and controls designed to detect and prevent market abuse as a result of the market confidence objective.
However, I believe that there is a danger of confusion if we insert a reference to "market abuse" in that objective, which is concerned only with regulated business or business which should be regulated. Doing so would appear to restrict the FSA's objectives in the area of market abuse. The new regime extends to the unregulated as well as to the regulated.
I believe that market abuse is adequately and properly covered by the objective on market confidence. Maintaining market confidence is at the heart of what the market abuse regime is intended to achieve. I prefer to keep that clear, as I believe it is clear under the Bill as drafted.
12
The second group of amendments deals with the scope of the financial crime objective. I understand the thought underlying the first of those amendments, which would replace the reference in subsection (2)(b) to regulated persons taking measures to "prevent" crime with a requirement that those measures "reduce the risk of crime". I can see that the amendment is intended to reduce the burden on business. But I still do not believe that it is necessary.
The provisions of this clause do not impose obligations on anyone other than the FSA. The clause does not impose a responsibility on regulated persons. It is all about the responsibilities of the FSA. In deciding what to do in pursuit of the objective, among other matters, the FSA must have regard to the principle in Clause 2(3) that a burden should be proportionate to the benefits.
Clearly, the regulated community has a key role to play in reduction of financial crime, but of course we appreciate that business should not be asked to take on tasks that it cannot reasonably be expected to carry out. "Taking appropriate measures to prevent crime" does not steer the FSA into requiring that firms spend vast sums on taking the possibility of financial crimes down to zero.
We have already made changes to respond to concerns on that score. Following consultation on the draft Bill, the Government replaced the reference to "adequate" measures in the objectives to "appropriate" measures. I do not believe that the suggested amendment would have any further effect beyond that.
While I understand the aim of Amendment No. 68, I think it would be unhelpful to place a requirement on the FSA to alert regulated persons to the activities and identities of those engaged in financial crime or market abuse.
There is a whole range of functions which the FSA will be able to exercise in relation to the reduction of financial crime; for example, giving guidance, mounting prosecutions, co-operating with other agencies and putting out information. The general approach in the Bill is not, however, to tie the particular aspects of the FSA's statutory duties to particular functions. That would reduce flexibility.
If a person is convicted of an offence involving financial crime or is found to have engaged in market abuse, then it will be possible to publicise that fact. In many circumstances that will be the right thing to do. It will be right for the regulator to alert people to the activities of criminals or those engaged in market abuse. If it is appropriate, the FSA will do that.
Amendment No. 69 has been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, particularly in the context of the Cruickshank report which was published this morning. I am sure that he will appreciate that that is a 350-page report to which the Government have made no formal response, although it is entirely possible that in his Budget tomorrow, the Chancellor may wish to pay some attention to the recommendations of Mr Cruickshank. But in advance

13
of any formal government response, which may take some time, it may be inappropriate for me to make any further comment on that point.
The Earl of Caithness: I accept that the noble Lord cannot comment on the Cruickshank report, but will he comment on the principle of the amendment?
3.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment has not been spoken to by its mover. Therefore, it is not entirely appropriate for me to do that without some stimulus.
The Earl of Caithness: I disagree with the noble Lord. The amendment is in the hands of the Committee. It has been spoken to. Whether or not that is by the mover of the amendment is totally irrelevant. That is a poor excuse for not giving me a reply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to give a reply but I should rather have given it, having been given the opportunity to hear the arguments put forward by the mover of the amendment. I seek only to defer a reply rather than to avoid giving a reply.
However, I shall give the noble Earl my initial thoughts on the subject. Without prejudging any response that the Government may give, I understand that the Cruickshank report pays considerable attention to the issue of cheque clearance, which is included in this amendment. I have no doubt that we shall consider very carefully our response to that.
I understand also that the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry have referred those aspects of the Cruickshank report to the Competition Commission. Therefore, the matter will certainly be an issue of public debate in the months to come.
Lord Elton: Perhaps the Minister will take us a little more carefully through his opening objections to my noble friend's Amendment No. 47.
He started by resisting it on the grounds that coupling it so closely with financial crime in the same objective would confuse the issue because financial crime and market abuse are only partially coterminous. I take it that that difficulty would be removed by making the reduction of market abuse free-standing within that subsection.
But the Minister then put the pith of his argument almost into a single sentence. He said that in his view the regulatory objective of market confidence was sufficient for the purpose of creating a duty on the authority to regulate market abuse and making that an objective because, if there was market abuse, confidence would be diminished.
But if that argument is valid in relation to market abuse, which is not to be included, it must surely be valid in relation to financial crime because financial crime will also reduce confidence in the market. Therefore, what is sauce for the regulatory goose must be sauce for the regulatory gander. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell the Committee his other reason for
14
resisting this amendment, other than that which could be overcome by tabling my noble friend's amendment as paragraph (e) rather than as part of paragraph (d).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The two parts of the argument complement and strengthen each other rather than being separate arguments which could he overcome in the way which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested.
I said at the beginning that it would be wrong to associate market abuse only with financial crime as one of the objectives. I said that that was because market abuse overlaps with a number of the objectives but is associated in particular with market confidence, although I acknowledge that there was an overlap both with financial crime and with the protection of consumers.
But the implication of that is not that it would be right to have a fifth objective—market abuse—but that the coverage of market abuse was adequately achieved by the market confidence objective, with which we shall deal in more detail in the later clauses of the Bill. I said also—and it is another reason for rejecting the noble Lord's suggestion—that market abuse is covered separately for a significant reason; that is, it is designed to apply not only to the regulated community but to everyone. It must therefore be dealt with separately from the objectives and principles which relate specifically to the regulated community. For those reasons, if the noble Lord were to return with a fifth objective, it would not be acceptable to the Government.
Lord Elton: To clear my mind entirely on the matter, is the Minister in effect saying that there are both regulatory and non-regulatory objectives for the authority; that the regulatory ones are set out in Clause 2(2) and that the others are to be deduced, as it were, from the titles of the succeeding parts of the Bill, Part VIII being concerned with market abuse?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They are all regulatory objectives. It is not that there are non-regulatory objectives, but that the objectives set out in Clause 2 with the principles set out in the subsequent clauses relate to the regulated community. There can be regulatory objectives which go beyond that, as indeed, market abuse does.
Lord Peston: I have no great strength of opinion on the amendment itself, but do I understand my noble friend rightly? Is he saying that the authority will he able to consider all aspects of market abuse in their entirety, to expose all aspects of market abuse in their entirety and to deal with all aspects of market abuse in their entirety under the "market confidence" heading? It does not matter whether anything is specifically said, so long as the Minister can assure us that those three aspects of market abuse are all dealt with by the Bill and can and will be dealt with by the authority. I speak as someone who is a consumer in that regard and, as

15
always, as someone who believes in Adam Smith's dictum that only consumers matter when such phenomena are judged.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is certainly true that all market abuse can be thought of as damaging market confidence and therefore as coming under the heading, "market confidence". But I made it clear also that there are forms of market abuse which are damaging in terms of financial crime and of consumer protection.
Lord Elton: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I are seeking a response on the same issue: will the authority be capable of dealing with market abuse when the market abuse is conducted by someone who is not a regulated body?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes. That is what the whole of Part VIII of the Bill on market abuse is about.
Lord Peston: Will my noble friend reflect again on the amendment of my noble friend Lady Uddin and the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in regard to it? It seems to me absurd that we should ask my noble friend to comment on a 350-page report today. However, purely a priori in terms of first principles, in a world where one can send an e-mail message which reaches the United States virtually instantaneously and all sorts of other transactions take place through computers in such a way, does not my noble friend agree that it is ridiculous that it takes five days for a cheque to clear?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer I can best give is the statement made this morning in response to the Cruickshank report by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Stephen Byers said that the health of small and medium firms is crucial to the success of the economy and the employment of many people. The provision of banking services is an important influence on their prospects for growth and success in the future. The Cruickshank report considers that there is a substantial case for a reference of the market. He considers the issues identified and the concerns expressed about this important area to be such that the provision of banking services to SMEs should be fully investigated by the competition commission.
I believe that that answers my noble friend's point about the seriousness with which the Government take the recommendations from Mr Cruickshank. It enables me also to confirm that the Chancellor will make a further response covering other recommendations of the Cruickshank report in the Budget statement tomorrow.
Lord Kingsland: I yield to no one in my admiration for the draftsman of the Bill. It is a monumental achievement, but, on occasion, even giants stumble. My noble friend Lord Elton surely put his finger on the real problem: if market abuse is subsumed in "market
16
confidence", why is not financial crime? We are entitled to conclude from the way in which the subsection is drafted that, if financial crime is incapable of falling within market confidence, then surely the same must be true of market abuse.
It would therefore be reasonable to conclude, on the current drafting, that control of market abuse is not one of the regulatory objectives. That conclusion would be extremely inconvenient for the Government, because there is no doubt whatever that where a regulated party commits an alleged act of market abuse, it will be much easier to attack that party under the rules relating to regulation than it is under the rules relating to market abuse. This is not a party political point. It is simply a question of making the Bill clear. There will be serious consequences for people who transgress under the Bill. Their lives may be ruined by it. They are entitled to understand the law clearly. Why will the Minister not add that clarification?
With enormous respect to the Minister, we had exactly the same problem on day one of Committee stage in relation to non-executive directors. We tabled four amendments to clarify the Bill. The Minister said that he agreed with the substance of each amendment, but he believed that the Bill did not need changing because it was absolutely clear. With great respect, it must have been absolutely clear only to him. It was certainly not absolutely clear to any of the Opposition Front Bench, nor indeed to any of those who advise the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that the Minister will reconsider non-executive directors by Report stage. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to reconsider now the objectives clause. Why on earth would the insertion of "market abuse" not clarify something which clearly is not clear at present?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am afraid that I disagree about both non-executive directors and about market abuse. It seemed to me at the time and seems to me now that the amendments about non-executive directors appeared to be based on a misunderstanding of the role of non-executive directors. Noble Lords opposite have persistently referred to the functions of the non-executive directors committee, which is the committee comprised only of non-executive directors, while ignoring the fact that all of the points they were making were perfectly well covered by the role of non-executive directors as directors; in other words, as members of the board, which is wider than their responsibilities as members of the non-executive committee. That misunderstanding eviscerated the arguments for the amendments relating to non-executive directors. That is as true now as it was then.
When the noble Lord talks about the danger of confusion, I can say only that what I said at the outset seems entirely clear. There is a danger of confusion if we insert a reference to market abuse in this set of objectives, which is concerned only with regulated business or business that should be regulated. If we were to insert a reference to market abuse, we should appear to be restricting the FSA's objectives in the area of market abuse because the market abuse regime extends to the unregulated as well as to the regulated.

17
Of course, it is possible, as the noble Lord said, that financial crime may reduce confidence in the markets. Financial crime such as insider dealing and market manipulation can damage markets and the interests of consumers. There is an overlap between the objectives, but not all financial crime damages market confidence and it would be as inappropriate to put market abuse under the heading of financial crime as it would be to put it under the heading of consumer protection.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: Having heard two-thirds of this discussion, 1 ask the Minister whether he can indicate whether the point of anxiety as expressed by other noble Lords could be met if we added to Clause 3(1), which states:
"The market confidence objective is: maintaining confidence in the financial system",
the words:
"including the prevention of market abuse".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That seems to me to suffer from the same objections to which I have referred.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I understand that Clause 3(1) not only applies to regulated activities but also to the activities of those who are not regulated. Therefore, that subsection could include a provision on the prevention of market abuse.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, the objectives as set out in Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the regulatory objectives that are set out in Clause 2. Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 expand on the detail of those objectives but they do not go beyond the objectives that are concerned with regulated business or business that should be regulated. If the noble Lord or any other noble Lord were to table an amendment to that effect I would consider it with all due seriousness.
Lord Elton: Doubtless we shall return, with great pleasure, to this issue in Part VIII. In so doing I believe that we should have regard to the language used as it will impinge on those who are not professionals in this area or lawyers. As the noble Lord has said, Part VIII applies to the unregulated market and it applies a code of conduct, with the assistance of the courts, that will regulate that market quite tightly. It seems to me that we shall need another word to describe that when we get there. However, I do not want to delay matters at this stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Lord has put words into my mouth, perhaps I should make it clear that market abuse applies to the unregulated as well as to the regulated community.
Lord Kingsland: I am deeply disappointed with the series of replies that the Committee has received from the Minister. Tempted though I am to divide the Committee on this issue, I shall content myself with the
18
task of reading his labyrinthine observations and return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("any exercise of its general functions") and insert ("anything done in the discharge of those functions").
The noble Lord said: Clause 2 sets out the FSA's general duties. The FSA's general duties are that in discharging its general functions under the Bill it must act in a way that is compatible with its objectives, as set out in Clause 2(2), and that it must have regard to the matters in Clause 2(3). The FSA's objectives concern the aims of regulation. The matters in Clause 2(3), commonly referred to as the "principles", condition the manner in which the FSA regulates.
Their effect is to act as checks on regulation, helping to ensure that the FSA regulates in the optimum way. Optimal regulation will rarely be the absence of regulation. Unless appropriate protections are in place, consumers will be loathe to trust their money to the industry. The result would be under-investment, under-insurance and too little saving in the economy.
Well regulated markets attract consumers; they are more efficient and more effective at doing their job, allocating resources within the economy to where they are best employed. However, one can have too much of a good thing. Over-regulation can have the same effect as under-regulation, driving out consumers, this time by increasing the prices that they must pay rather than the risks that they face.
The overall effect of Clause 2 is to help to ensure that we get the right amount of regulation—neither too much nor too little. Among the key things to which the regulator must have regard in achieving that is the need for players in the market to be able to engage in healthy competition. Healthy competition between firms is in the interests of consumers, firms and the industry itself. It is a vital element of economic growth.
Clause 2(3)(f), therefore, places the FSA under a duty to have regard to the need to minimise the adverse effects on competition that arise from any exercise of its general functions. The FSA has to consider carefully, whenever it makes rules, whenever it prepares codes, whenever it gives general guidance or whenever it determines its general policy, the need to come up with a result, in terms of how it regulates, that causes the least damage to competition. That is vital. Regulation, of necessity, will almost always have an effect on competition. That is simply the effect of imposing restrictions on people.
Government Amendment No. 49 is a technical amendment which makes a drafting change. At present Clause 2(3)(f) refers to the exercise of the FSA's general functions, which repeats what is said,.n the chapeau to the clause. I did not know what a chapeau to a clause was, but it is the centred, italic

19
heading to be found above a clause which, strictly speaking, is not part of the Bill. The amendment just tidies up the drafting.
In the spirit in which I was urged to respond to an earlier amendment which had not been spoken to, perhaps I may be allowed to refer to Amendment No. 50, tabled by my noble friend Lord Eatwell, together with the noble Lords, Lord Taverne, Lord Newby and Lord Sharman. It would have the effect of deleting Clause 2(3)(g). That subsection was inserted into the Bill in another place in the light of the recommendations of Don Cruickshank's interim report on banking services. I have not checked on the concordance between the interim report and the final report, but the thrust of that report's recommendations was that the FSA should ensure that it takes full account of competition concerns in the way that it regulates.
Clause 2(3)(g) builds on the requirement in Clause 2(3)(f) to minimise adverse effects on competition by placing the FSA under a further duty to have regard to the desirability of facilitating competition between those it regulates as well. This is very much in line with the duty in Clause 2(3)(d) concerning the facilitating of innovation in connection with regulated activities.
Clause (2)(3)(g) requires the FSA, in going about its job, to consider whether there are ways of doing things which can make it easier for regulated firms to compete, just as it has to consider whether there are things that it can do to make it easier for firms to come forward with innovative products or ways of doing things. The whole area of transparency and giving consumers information, for example, is relevant to that principle. In deciding whether and in what form to publish aggregate information—for example league tables—it is right that the FSA should be influenced by the desirability of facilitating competition as well as the need to minimise adverse effects. In other words, it is about doing things rather than not doing things.
I must emphasise that that does not turn the FSA into a competition regulator, nor does it give it a function of promoting competition. That is not an objective. It conditions the way in which the FSA goes about meeting its objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: Perhaps it is convenient for me to speak to Amendment No. 50, which is grouped with Amendment No. 49, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell has asked me to move it on his behalf, together with those who have added their names to the amendment. My noble friend is unavoidably absent at the moment but may be present in the Committee later.
I believe that all noble Lords will agree that prudential regulation, to which a lot of this Bill refers, should not stifle competition. Clause 2(3)(f) deals with it by saying that,
"In discharging its general functions, the Authority must have regard to … the need to minimise the adverse effects on competition".
20
However, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell has already emphasised, one of the key roles of the authority must be the management of risk. In response to my noble friend a few days ago, the Minister agreed that the management of risk is clearly part of the authority's statutory objective of securing market confidence.
Unfortunately, "facilitating" or "promoting"—I am not sure that I yet understand the Minister's distinction between those two activities—competition, as set out in paragraph (g) of this clause, may very well involve an increase in risk both to consumers and, indeed, to the financial system as a whole.
When the Financial Services Authority is properly seeking to protect the public against financial risk, in what way should it have regard to the need to facilitate competition? Does paragraph (g) mean that the authority should expose consumers to certain risks simply in order to facilitate competition? Does the Minister envisage extra risks for the consumer which he or the authority will be prepared to tolerate in order to assist competition?
To my mind, paragraph (f) is one thing, while paragraph (g) is another and they do not necessarily combine correctly in the Bill. Of course the authority should always test its activities against the criterion of any adverse effects they may have on competition. However, that is covered in paragraph (f) and also in the detailed competition scrutiny provisions set out in Part X and Part XVIII of the Bill, which we shall no doubt come to in a few weeks' time. In my view, what the authority should not be doing is promoting competition or, I suggest, facilitating it.
Lord Newby: Along with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I have also put my name down to this amendment which seeks to delete paragraph (g) in Clause 2(3). We on these Benches support the amendment because we felt that two kinds of confusion might arise in the Bill. First, there may be confusion in terms of the role of the FSA, as has already been mentioned. Secondly, we felt that confusion might arise over who is to take responsibility for competition between the FSA, the OFT and the Competition Commission.
On one of the rare occasions when it could be argued that a little delay in your Lordships' House has been beneficial, we have today received the Cruickshank report, which explicitly deals with this matter. As I began reading the relevant section, I was relieved to see that he reached a conclusion which states:
"Getting the regulator's primary statutory duties right is essential. These drive the way the regulatory body recruits, organises and rewards its staff. A competition objective that is weak relative to the regulator's other objectives is unlikely to be delivered effectively".
I feel that I can strongly agree with that statement and therefore Don Cruickshank must agree with our amendment, in that a weak competition provision in the Bill—which is what this will amount to—is clearly unsatisfactory.
Unfortunately for those on this side of the argument, Mr Cruikshank then goes on to argue that the competition responsibility of the FSA should be

21
greatly strengthened and, indeed, that the FSA should be given primary responsibility for competition. He further states that the optimum outcome,
"will be most efficiently and accountably delivered if responsibility for it is internalised within the FSA".
Clearly, he envisages a structure in which the FSA will have primary responsibility for competition within the sector, with the OFT and the Competition Commission providing a review mechanism and some external oversight if the primary body falls down on the job. For that reason, the second part of the Cruikshank report is, in one sense, deeply depressing because it goes directly against our argument.
Having heard the Minister's initial comments on this point, in which he seemed to argue that the FSA should not have that kind of responsibility, perhaps we now all need to study the Cruickshank report. For our part, I believe that we shall need to be persuaded of the merit of giving the FSA all the additional powers proposed in the report. If the Cruickshank proposals are to be implemented, that will almost certainly require further amendments, which no doubt the Government will wish to bring forward on Report. However, given the very short time we have had to examine the report, I suspect that we all need an opportunity to read it in more detail and perhaps return to this matter at the next stage.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am full of admiration for those who have found the time even to go along to the Printed Paper Office to collect a copy of the Cruickshank report, let alone to have begun reading it. I saw the headline announcing its publication in the Evening Standard, but that is as far as I have got.
Perhaps I may advert to what I believe is the thinking that lies behind both of these paragraphs. Those of us who were involved in financial services at the time when the first rulebooks came out following the initial raft of legislation in this field will recall feeling appalled by the amount of detailed regulation being put forward. The regulations appeared to prescribe in the most minute detail precisely how products should be described, marketed and sold. Indeed, the regulations seemed to form a salesman's handbook as to how a financial representative should present himself and his product to his customers. I can well remember the angst that was loudly voiced at the time. It was said that it would make competition between life and pension companies—I cite those because that is my area of experience—very difficult. Everyone would have to offer the same projections and present products in much the same way.
The fear was then voiced that if we continued on down that road, we would end up with a system rather like that in Germany, where for many years a new financial product in, for example, the insurance field could not in fact be marketed until it had been approved as a product by the regulators. The result was that when markets began to be opened up in the European Union, there was great demand on the part of British companies who recognised that this would be a tremendous opportunity. The UK industry was
22
vastly more vibrant, thrusting, inventive and innovative than anything on the Continent. However, liberalisation came only extremely slowly because it did not at all suit the regulators on the Continent. They felt that their regulation would be interfered with in a profound and detailed manner.
As I read both the paragraphs in the clause, I believe that they indicate that the FSA must not go down that road. The Minister has already made the point that innovation and competition must lie at the heart of the FSA's method of operation. Whenever phrases such as, "When exercising its functions" are used, provision must be made to facilitate and encourage the industry to use the freedom it has to be competitive, while obeying the regulatory requirements in order to avoid those ills aimed at by the rest of the Bill. If that is what is intended, I have to say that I totally support that. It must be right that we do not fall into the same trap, as did the early regulators, of specifying in minute detail the requirements to be imposed on the industry.
Happily, with experience, the regulators have moved back from that early position. The rule books became progressively less detailed, less mandatory, less prescriptive and moved towards setting out the requirements in terms of principles. If that is what the amendment is aimed at, it must be right.
In relation to the point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, perhaps I can say this. One of the early actions taken by regulators of life insurance at the instance of the Competition Commission—or the Monopolies Commission as it was then called—was to outlaw the minimum commissions agreement which existed between companies and had done for a long time. The ostensible objective was that if the minimum commission rule was removed, then competition would force commissions down. Exactly the opposite happened.
Once companies were free from what had been seen by the industry as something which they had followed in the interests of the consumers, commissions generally rose. That is an object lesson in not trying to regulate competition too precisely. The Monopolies Commission got that wrong. It worked to the disadvantage of consumers. Nevertheless, it happened and it should be an object lesson for the Financial Services Authority. So I would emphatically resist taking out paragraph (g). That ought to be retained. The paragraph which wants to,
"minimise the adverse effects on competition",
is entirely right.
I spent some happy hours over the weekend catching up with the amendments tabled by the Government, and some of those of my noble friends. Amendment No. 49 is what the Minister described as a technical amendment to paragraph (f). It is not entirely clear to me how it changes the meaning, but one has to accept the view that the draftsmen have their mysteries to which sometimes Ministers and others have to bow. But I am appalled to see the huge number of amendments that appear to be being tabled at regular intervals and are now running into hundreds. Perhaps the Minister can give us some indication as to how

23
many more amendments of this kind, or indeed of greater substance, will be tabled during the passage of the Bill through this House.
A huge number of amendments were made—some of them very welcome—during the Bill's passage through another place. But it is somewhat shattering to discover that hundreds are still being tabled, most of which do not appear to reflect specific points made in another place or on which representations were made. They are simply the result of the Government having second thoughts as to what is the best way of putting this into legal language. While one is always searching for the optimum way of doing that, one wonders whether it is a sensible way to legislate. I have been told that we are likely to have up to 500 or 600 government amendments. In that case, one-third are already before us. Are we expecting twice as many again? Can the Minister help us on that?
Lord Alexander of Weedon: Perhaps I may follow up my noble friend's last point. As chairman of the Delegated Powers and Scrutiny Committee, I am conscious that the House invites us to consider amendments whenever we can. We do so whenever we can. But it is easier when all the proposed amendments to the Bill come in one tranche rather than piecemeal. I say that at the same time as acknowledging that no one could be more scrupulous and helpful than the Minister in seeking to facilitate the work of the committee by giving us both the amendments and the explanatory memorandum as early as he can. But for all that, the need to look at them piecemeal is neither particularly attractive, nor does it make for an efficient way of working.
Even on the day that the Cruickshank report is published, perhaps I may say that I am happy to declare that I once worked for a bank. One of the reasons why I am happy to make that declaration is that, as we all know, the SME sector in this country is one of the most powerful contributors to the private economy; it has been one of the most spectacular growth engines over the past 15 years; and it is the most successful within Europe. Across that period it has had the readiest access to finance of any SME sector within Europe.
But, as I understand it, the view of Mr Cruickshank that the regulator should have the additional objective of responsibility for competition has been known for some time. As I recollect it through exchanges, so too has the view of Mr Howard Davies. But it would be absolutely inappropriate for that objective to be included in the Bill. It only takes a moment's thinking to see why. The reason is that the authority is already the largest regulatory authority in the world with a huge task. We can imagine the difficulty if it had to take on the quite separate responsibility for competition.
That is the practical objection. The principal objection is that one of the key responsibilities of the authority is consumer protection. If it were also to have the responsibility of promoting competition, it would be set two objectives that could, from time to
24
time, come head on into conflict. It is my understanding—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that Mr. Cruickshank's views on this issue were known to the Government when they decided (absolutely rightly) not to include a market confidence objective in the Bill.
We all know the difficulty of consumer protection in this area. We all know the extent to which, increasingly, as a society we are expecting people to take responsibility for their own pensions, insurance needs, secondary pensions and long-term healthcare. We all know the dangers if those products are mis-sold. We saw it vividly in the pensions mis-selling scandal throughout a large part of the last decade. The Institute of Financial Studies says that we are already hearing of such matters anecdotally in regard to the new ISAs. It is critical that the system of consumer protection works. It is unrealistic to say that caveat emptor can operate very far in this complex area of life where most people, unlike some in this Chamber, lack access to an independent financial adviser, let alone have the ability to understand the advice.
It is paramount that the consumer protection objective should come first. But I welcome the retention of paragraph (g). That requires the authority to take into account the desirability of promoting competition. It makes clear that if that ever comes into conflict with proper regulatory protection of consumers, the promotion of competition must take second place to consumer protection. The Government have the balance right in the Bill and I hope that we can preserve paragraph (g).
Lord Walker of Worcester: I share the view of my noble friend in relation to retaining paragraph (g). There have been a series of innovations in the history of the City of London over the decades that have given it enormous international strength. I can recall two such innovations. I was involved in the 1960s in the introduction of the first-ever equity-linked life policy in this country. All of the establishment in life insurance were against it and said that it was not safe and added to risk. However, I am pleased to say that over the years they followed our example.
In recent times we have seen direct selling of insurance. The established houses would say to their policy holders that the established insurance company, with branches all over the country, is much safer than the direct selling operations by Direct Line and other companies. In practice, it has been a great and successful innovation, bringing benefit to policy holders throughout the country.
I welcome the inclusion of paragraph (g) and hope that it will be retained.
Lord Kingsland: The Opposition Front Bench also supports the retention of paragraph (g). Two years ago there was a long debate during the passage of the Competition Bill on the relationship between the contents of paragraphs (f) and (g). The origin of paragraph (g) in this Bill is misplaced. Unlike the Bill, most of the industries that were the subject of the Competition Bill debate were nationalised industries.

25
They all started off as public monopolies that were then privatised following which the process of facilitating competition had to be injected into them by the regulators.
It was very clear that the draftsman of the Competition Bill, quite rightly, did not wish to give the responsibility of initiating competition to the Director-General of Fair Trading. In the Competition Bill there was a clear distinction between the task of the Director-General of Fair Trading, to deal with the traditional problems of competition, and the task of initiating competition, or facilitating the initiation of competition, which were issues for regulators. I am not sure that it can be said that paragraph (g) represents a long tradition, but in the world of regulatory operations two years is a long time. The Minister will be surprised that at least on this occasion I support the Government's position.
4 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to make it clear from the outset that I am not Don Cruickshank, and I shall resist the temptation to comment favourably or unfavourably on what he says. That does not mean, however, that I can resist the temptation to quote him when he seems to be supporting the Government—which I am sure is forgivable.
Paragraph 2.130 states:
"The Review welcomes the progress the FSA has made in setting out how it will align its new regulatory approach with these objectives."
In addition, the report notes in relation to the review's interim report:
"The Government, in response, committed itself to securing that the FSA gave full weight to competition concerns and took account of the effect of its rules on competition in the light of market developments. It has since brought forward a number of amendments to the FSMB to achieve this".
My noble friend Lord Borrie used the description "a weak competition objective". He appeared to think that facilitating was the same as promoting. I rebut both those claims. This is not a weak competition objective; it is not a competition objective at all. Competition is a matter for the competition authorities. As I said at the outset, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, recognised, it is not the FSA's job to tell people how they should compete. The purpose is not to steer the FSA to tell the markets how they should operate where there are no consumer protection or market confidence concerns; it is to encourage it to remove unnecessary competition barriers, as in the earlier example in relation to removing unnecessary barriers to innovation.
This principle of good regulation—and perhaps we should always be talking of principles of good regulation, which is how the FSA describes it, rather than just principles, as described in the Bill—should guide the FSA in deciding its policy on how quickly it processes applications for newcomers, the level of entry requirements and the issue of league tables. The more players there are in the market, the more competition there is. Provided adequate protections
26
are in place, this can only be a good thing. These matters are not so precisely covered by the requirement to measure the adverse effects of competition as they are in paragraph (f).
I do not accept that facilitating is the same as promoting; and I do not accept what my noble friend Lord Borrie says about exposure to risks. None of the examples that I have given involves any increase in exposure to risks. Clause 2(3)(f) does not override the FSA's duty to provide consumers with an appropriate level of protection. The point is simply that the desirability of facilitating competition is something to which the FSA should have regard in meeting its primary objectives, including consumer protection.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have pointed out the different roles of the FSA, the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. There would be confusion between the three if the FSA did not have a competition objective, but the matters in Clause 2(3) do not concern the aims or purposes of regulation, because that is the role of the objectives, but the manner of regulation. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin stated, in discharging its general functions, the FSA shall have regard to the desirability of each of these items.
There are those who wish to remove paragraph (g) and those who wish to strengthen it—although they have not been so vocal today—but I think we have the right balance. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 51.
Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
("(h) the desirability of facilitating as far as possible access to financial services for disadvantaged consumers.").
The noble Baroness said: I speak on this occasion as a consumer, although many years ago I worked for an insurance company and also had some connection with the PIA when I was chair of the PIA Ombudsman Council.
This is a probing amendment. It concerns the access of low income households to financial services. According to the National Consumer Council, which has kindly sent me some briefing, 1·5 million low income served households use no financial services at all. That is a serious matter.
Governments, including this Government, have increasingly turned away from social provision provided by state agencies, and the present thinking looks to the private sector to fill the gap. The Minister will not be surprised to hear from me that this is not a development that I welcome; nevertheless it appears to be a fact of life and we have to come to terms with it.
I can remember that when I was very young my mother used to put money aside for the man from Liverpool Victoria, who duly entered it in a book that she held. That kind of home insurance cover is gradually disappearing. I recently met representatives

27
of Liverpool Victoria in my capacity as a member of an all-party financial services group. They informed us that they were no longer involved in this market because the amount of form-filling and general regulation involved in selling a £10 a month policy meant that the business was no longer profitable. Despite the criticisms often made of home service business, it did at least mean that poorer people had some access to financial services. But that is largely a thing of the past.
The Government recognise the need for suitable financial services to be available and accessible to consumers across a whole range of needs. I welcome the consumer protection objective, but it does not guarantee that the particular interests and needs of disadvantaged customers will be met or even properly considered. The FSA ought to be able to consider and act according to the interests of the most needy. This could, for example, involve cross-subsidy on the costs of regulation for smaller, non-profit-making organizations—perhaps credit unions. There could possibly be an information campaign to highlight products most suited to those on a low income.
Incidentally, I believe that mutual societies have done a much better job than the ordinary financial services industry in providing services to marginalised communities. I wish that some way could be found to protect mutuals from carpet-baggers. I looked very closely at the Bill but, unfortunately, I could not find a way of writing an amendment that would enable me to raise the issue. No doubt I lack the appropriate technical expertise. Nevertheless, I draw the attention of the Committee to that issue because it is a pity that such mutual societies are disappearing. In view of the social role played by financial services, it seems that a statutory requirement to facilitate access for the disadvantaged would be appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Newby: I rise to express my support for the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61. Amendment No. 51 was moved in almost identical terms by my colleague Dr Cable in another place. In replying to his arguments, which were almost identical to those advanced by the noble Baroness, the Minister in the other place said that the Bill did not need such a provision for two reasons: first, there was already a consumer awareness objective in Clause 4; and, secondly, the consumer protection objective in Clause 5 had a bearing on the issue and, therefore, the amendment was simply unnecessary.
Much of the debate on amendments has centred around whether the Bill is permissive or specific in the sense that on many amendments both today and last Thursday we have heard the view that one can actually do things under the Bill that such amendments seek to specify and that, therefore, we do not need them. We wish to have regard to the problems of disadvantaged consumers. We want to try to ensure that this requirement is given greater weight than is currently the case. In Clauses 2 and 5 the Bill already sets out a
28
whole raft of considerations to which the authority must have regard but there is nothing specific there about disadvantaged consumers.
Therefore, we have tabled an amendment not to amend the earlier part of the Bill but to amend Clause 5, which already specifies a number of types of consumer and types of business to which the FSA must pay particular attention. We believe that the interests of the disabled or chronically sick, pensioners, individuals on low incomes and individuals residing in rural areas should be mentioned specifically in the Bill so that the FSA has a positive duty in this area. In doing so, we chose our words relatively carefully. The amendment employs exactly the wording in both the Utilities Bill and Postal Services Bill as regards dealing with disadvantaged consumers. Quite frankly, if such wording is good enough for those Bills, we cannot see why it should not be included in this legislation.
One of the key thoughts in our mind is that, among the plethora of considerations that the FSA has to take into account, the concern for disadvantaged consumers should be given greater weight. There is also the question which may or may not be a problem in reality but, which, nevertheless, concerns both us and the National Consumer Council; namely, the extent to which the FSA can under this legislation do the kind of thing that it may wish to do to support disadvantaged consumers.
In respect of credit unions, Howard Davies has already said that he hopes that the way in which the FSA regulates such unions will help that movement,
"to achieve its full potential to offer low-cost efficient financial services to local people, and make an important contribution to offset the serious problem of financial exclusion".
We agree; indeed, there could be cases where the cross-subsidy on the costs of regulation might be relevant to credit unions. However, in the absence of a statutory requirement to aid disadvantaged consumers, the FSA might find it hard to justify such measures in the future. Moreover, the authority might feel constrained from funding information campaigns that specifically highlight products most suited to those on low incomes or that warn elderly people to guard against unfair sales practices. When considering such issues, we must bear in mind that there have been many examples of unfair sales practices.
In our view, the argument for encouraging disadvantaged people to take up financial products and financial services, especially where they find it very difficult to do so, is an extremely strong one. The argument for the FSA having this as an explicit duty is equally strong. By not adding to the objectives of the authority but simply specifying a distinct group of consumers who need particular protection and care, we believe that Amendment No. 61 should be welcomed by the Government.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: Perhaps I may express a few words of sympathy with these amendments. During my time in banking, it was clear to me that there were key issues regarding both financial literacy

29
and availability of banking services that affected a significant part of the population. I saw various estimates of numbers, but I never saw an estimate lower than 20 per cent. Driven as they are by the demands of their shareholders, and however much their management would like to do so on personal grounds, it is very difficult for the mainstream banks to pursue areas of banking activity that, though not immediately profitable, would benefit the health of society as a whole.
I realise that there may be difficulties in the extent to which the FSA can act to implement such amendments. That is possibly one of the reasons why the noble Baroness tabled this as a probing amendment. However, I can see areas that the authority could consider in terms of financial education. Indeed, the noble Baroness mentioned the encouragement of credit unions.
There is also one other area for consideration in this respect. In the United States—the home of the free markets—there is, none the less, legislation that requires mainstream banks to engage in a proportion of community redevelopment banking activity. When I surveyed the US scene it seemed to me to be healthy and, interestingly enough, to be capable, when properly handled, of generating profitable clients. I do not pretend that this is an easy issue because it goes with the wider issues of inadequate literacy and numeracy across the board, to which Sir Claus Moser drew our attention with such clarity last year. I have sympathy with the desirability of an amendment that would give the FSA not only the obligation but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, the express freedom to be active in these areas.
Lord Kingsland: We support this amendment and hope that the Government will also do so. In that context, I was particularly struck by the words of the Minister in response to Amendment No. 47 earlier today. I sought then to say that the FSA would find it very difficult to prevent financial crime, but the Minister was not prepared to accept that. If the noble Lord thinks that the FSA can prevent financial crime, he surely must think it well within its grasp to facilitate, as far as possible, access to financial services for disadvantaged consumers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before I discuss my noble friend's amendment I wish to say a few words about the home service insurance business, to which she referred. The Government have announced that the industrial assurance Acts, which have always been so burdensome and have regulated home service insurance business, will be repealed. The business will be regulated under the Bill. This has been welcomed by the insurance industry. We are also taking steps to help credit unions and friendly societies to conduct their business more effectively. We recognise the importance of the role they play in helping the financially excluded.
Amendment No. 51 would introduce into Clause 2 a requirement that the IFSA has regard to the desirability of facilitating access to financial services
30
for disadvantaged consumers. That would move the FSA towards trying to tackle financial exclusion. This is an issue that has come up before and it has been considered carefully and seriously, both by the Government and by those who have scrutinised the Bill in Parliament.
When the Joint Committee published its first report its conclusion was that, if the Government wished to impose social and ethical obligations on financial services businesses, they should do so directly rat her than via the FSA. The Government agree with that conclusion. The Joint Committee stated at paragraph 62 of its first report that additional duties,
"would make life unnecessarily difficult for a regulator responsible for prudential supervision, and would damage lines of accountability. If the Government wishes to impose social or ethical obligations on financial services business, it should do so directly".
Of course this is a matter of serious concern. My noble friend raises an important point. However, I do not believe that this is something which should be tackled through the Bill. Adding in the requirement proposed in the amendment would distract from the FSA's core role as a financial regulator, cutting across its main objectives. If we are to maintain clarity as to duties and lines of accountability, and allow the FSA to act effectively as a regulator, it is important that we should be clear in the objectives that we are setting.
In any case, the terms of the consumer protection and public awareness objectives are relevant to tackling financial exclusion. The objectives do not exclude disadvantaged consumers; they are applied to all consumers. For example, the appropriate level of protection will depend on the nature of the consumer and of the product and will affect our proposals for the deregulation of business carried on by a number of mutual societies. They will enable those societies to provide services which they are not able to provide at present.
I turn to Amendment No. 61. Clause 5 expands on what is meant by the FSA's regulatory objective of protecting consumers. It deals with the protection appropriate to different types of consumers. There will, of course, be wide experience and expertise across society as a whole. Therefore the needs of consumers for advice and information will differ, and their particular circumstances will be one factor in that equation.
But this clause already requires the FSA to have regard to that spectrum of needs. Adding a paragraph requiring that the interests of particular social groups should be taken into account would at best muddy the waters and at worst lead to an unfair focus on the needs of particular groups, possibly at the expense of the needs of consumers in other groups. I do not want to be too particular because obviously the noble Lord could have produced a whole range of disadvantaged consumers. However, I suggest that his list would place particular importance on the needs of, let us say, an experienced financial adviser who is retiring to the countryside—two of the criteria on the noble Lord' list would apply to such a person—but would exclude people who were, for example, poorly educated, or

31
particularly inexperienced in financial matters, or who belonged to ethnic minorities, or had language difficulties, and many others. If one includes such a list, one immediately gets into all kinds of difficulties.
It is essential that the FSA, in seeking to secure the appropriate degree of protection for consumers, takes account of the various needs of all consumers, whatever the origin of those needs. Clause 5(2) currently embraces all consumers, including those consumers who might fall into one of the groups referred to in the amendment.
I appreciate that Amendment No. 51 has gained support from all sides of the Chamber. I can only repeat my sympathy with its objectives. However, it would not be an appropriate measure for a regulatory body concerned with prudential supervision. I hope that my noble friend will treat it as a probing amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before the noble Baroness decides whether or not to withdraw the amendment, I wish to ask the Minister a question. He has advanced a clear and coherent argument as to why this measure should not be imposed on a financial services regulator. At the present time the Utilities Bill is progressing through another place. I understand that the Government intend to impose certain social and ethical duties on utilities regulators which would cover disadvantaged customers. If that is an appropriate course to follow in the case of gas, electricity or water, I am baffled as to why that should not apply also to financial services.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: After many years in this Chamber I have learned never to look at Commons Bills until they have finished their passage through the Commons. In that way I concentrate only on the final version rather than on a version which may be before another place at any particular time. The Utilities Bill is a particularly good example of that philosophy. I would have wasted my time had I spent days mugging up on the telecommunications and water parts of the Utilities Bill. There are differences as between financial services, utilities and postal services, which have been referred to. I can best illustrate that point by referring to what happened this morning. We take seriously the needs of disadvantaged consumers of banks. That is why we have referred the relevant aspects of the Cruickshank report to the Competition Commission. We do not intend to do nothing, but we think that such action is not appropriate for this Bill.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that response. I described the amendment as a probing amendment. I wrote it and I was not absolutely certain whether it was technically correct. I hoped that if I spoke to it my noble friend might agree to consider it and bring back a government amendment along the same lines on Report. Unfortunately, my noble friend has not said that. However, he has commented helpfully on home service insurance and on credit unions, for which I thank him.
32
Nevertheless, I still feel that there is, or should be, a responsibility on the FSA to take some account of the socially disadvantaged, mainly because, as I said when I moved the amendment, the Government expect the financial services industry to play a social role and to provide services for people who many years ago may have looked to the state to provide those services. In other words, the financial services industry is expected to fill the gap, as it were, that is left by the withdrawal of the state from a number of welfare services.
I do not intend to seek the view of the Committee on the amendment this afternoon. I shall consider what has been said. The issue is sufficiently important to return to it on Report, having considered what my noble friend has said and having considered the contributions that those on all sides of the Chamber have made. I thank those who have contributed to the debate. I am grateful for the level of support that has been evidenced this afternoon. I hope that it will have convinced my noble friend that the Government should reconsider this matter before Report. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to. Clause
3[Market confidence]:
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 57 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4
[Public awareness]:
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.] Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [The protection of consumers]:
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 3, line 14, after ("take") insert ("reasonable").
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading I ventured to quote from the late Professor Gower, a sometime professor of commercial law at the London School of Economics who conducted the one-man inquiry on behalf of the previous government prior to the Financial Services Act 1986. He said that legislation should not try to protect consumers from their own folly but should properly seek to protect them from being made fools of.
Consumer protection is one of the Bill's four regulatory objectives. It is amplified in Clause 5 to mean:
"securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers".
In considering what degree of protection may be appropriate, the authority must have regard to a number of items, three of which I have no objection to at all; I think they are eminently reasonable. It should have regard to:

"(a) the differing degrees of risk involved in different kinds of investment;

(b) the differing degrees of experience and expertise that different consumers may have;

33

(c) the needs that consumers may have for advice and accurate information".

I have no quarrel with any of those. But then paragraph (d) states that the authority should have regard to:
"the general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions".
I am not happy with that because, even allowing for the factors in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) which I have just quoted, it seems to amount to a very crude exemplification of caveat emptor, which for the ordinary non-business consumer is quite wrong. It is inappropriate when one considers the normal imbalance between the degree of knowledge, skill and expertise typically available on the part of the provider of the financial services compared to the relative inexperience and non-expertise of the ordinary consumer.
As long ago as the 19th century, the common law recognised that in selling goods, even to business consumers and traders, the crude rule of caveat emptor was modified by a condition that the goods be reasonably fit for their purpose and be "merchantable": a word which is out of date and is now translated in modern language as "of reasonable quality". In more recent years in the 20th century, any contractual clause seeking to exclude such a condition that goods be reasonably fit for their purpose and of reasonable quality has been rendered void in the case of ordinary consumers and is subject to a test of reasonableness in the case of business consumers.
In regard to the requirement that the consumer takes responsibility when buying financial services, my amendment seeks to qualify the consumer's responsibility for his or her decision to buy a financial product by requiring the authority to have regard to whether in any particular case it is reasonable for the consumer to take responsibility for his or her decision. If the product is not reasonably fit or suitable for the consumer's purpose, where the provider has completed a so-called "fact find"—as he normally has to do nowadays—and therefore knows all about the consumer's circumstances, it would not be reasonable for the consumer to take the full, unqualified responsibility and to have no come back on the provider. Financial products are very often more important than ordinary consumer goods; they are normally less frequently purchased than ordinary consumer goods, and it is odd that the consumer should have so much less protection.
The Minister will be aware that the annual report for 1999 of the Financial Services Consumer Panel recommended a complete deletion of this part of Clause 5 of the Bill; it recommended the deletion of the so-called general principle that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions. I do not want to quote all of the report, just one sentence. The consumer panel said:
"Caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) already exists as a general principle in contract law and we believe that its unnecessary insertion in the Bill could be interpreted as demanding a further degree of consumer responsibility—an ambiguity that leaves the door open for mischievous legal challenges to the FSA's consumer protection activities".
My amendment does not go so far as the Financial Services Consumer Panel in wanting to delete the provision altogether. I do not deny that the consumer should have a responsibility for his or her decision: I am simply saying that the word "reasonable" should be inserted. Surely the Minister must feel bound to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 60, which is grouped with Amendment No. 59. The amendment seeks to write into the Bill a requirement for the provision of "best advice". I am sure that we all appreciate that many of the people who become dependent on the private insurance business to provide what amounts to social support—whether through savings or to provide for retirement and so on—will have very little experience of utilising financial services at all.
When I was chair of the PIA Ombudsman Council, many of the complaints we received arose because people had no idea of what they might reasonably expect and often they had been sold a product which was not suitable for their needs. The Bill states that people must accept responsibility for their own decisions. I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Borrie which seeks to write "reasonable" into the clause. That is fair. But the national Consumers' Association points out that this is the reverse of the situation with ordinary goods. The Sale of Goods Act provides a statutory guarantee that goods are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are needed—my noble friend referred to that in support of his amendment—and that is surely important when it comes to financial products. Purchasers may be making decisions which are desperately important for them and for the financial security of their families.
There is of course a need for better education in relation to financial issues. When I was at the PIA. I had to produce a report each year on the work of the Ombudsman Bureau, and we made a particular point each year of emphasising that. It would be a good idea to emphasise in legislation a requirement to provide a product suitable for the client's needs, a "best advice" requirement. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may say a word, principally in response to the speech of the noble Baroness. The phrase "best advice"—which entered into the language because it was included in many of the rule books—is a misnomer because no one really knows in most circumstances what would be the best advice. "Good advice" can generally be described, and one can form a view as to whether the advice that was given to a particular consumer was good. In the vast majority of cases it should always be sufficient to say that the consumer had good advice. I hope that the Financial Services Authority may come to recognise that that is a better test of advice than "best advice" when, with the best will in the world, most people are not able to say which is the best advice that the consumer might have been given.

35
Perhaps I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. He referred to the Sale of Goods Act. That Act was the first statutory provision for the balance between buyers and sellers in the sale of goods. I was brought up to believe that it was one of the finest Acts on the statute book. It was short and made clear to everyone exactly what the duties were. My recollection is that it contained no more than 20 or 30 clauses. The Bill we are discussing must be 100 times longer in terms of the number of pages and words simply because this legislation deals with matters infinitely more complex than the sale of goods 100 years ago.
Nevertheless, the principle must remain: if someone spends money on a product, some part of the responsibility must rest with the buyer. One has heard a great deal about mis-selling. There undoubtedly was mis-selling. But, equally, there was a great deal of "mis-buying". People were no doubt induced by stories and by friends to rush in. Look at what is happening presently in the ".com" revolution. I suspect that there is a great deal of mis-buying rather than mis-selling going on. I believe that there is some responsibility on buyers, whether of goods and services or of financial products.
I am not sure whether the word "reasonable" is necessary. It always sounds churlish and unreasonable to resist the inclusion of the word "reasonable" in a statute. But I am not sure that it adds anything to this provision. The clause is based on the general principle that consumers should take responsibility: that should be enough. If this amendment is intended to water down that concept, I should resist it. I believe that consumers should take responsibility. Equally, a huge burden of regulation is being imposed on those who sell products to make sure that they sell them responsibly.
Lord Lipsey: I am tempted to speak partly because the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the difficulties with the concept of "best advice". As I am sure he knows, the rule book of the existing regulator also contains a concept of "better than best advice". If noble Lords have three or four hours to spare after our debates, I shall be delighted to explain its impact.
This is a tricky issue, and we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for raising it. The trouble is that in this area it is very hard to get consumers to take responsibility. People who will not buy a microwave without touring every shop in south London before forking out £100 will, however, buy an extremely expensive pensions policy on the least possible examination. Every salesman will tell you that when he hands over the "key features" document, which he must hand over before selling a product, the customer will say, "Do I really have to read this?" That is a very difficult question for the salesman to answer. The regulator would have to say that he should answer "yes", and the salesman would like to think that he could say "no", so he probably says "yes" and "no".
36
It is important that the Bill should emphasise the responsibility of consumers with regard to financial products. If they rely entirely on those who are flogging them to take the full responsibility, that will never work. A much better understanding of the products and what they can deliver is needed on the part of customers in order to fulfil their objectives. But at the same time it is important that regulators, and those of us who are discussing the Bill, should realise that there will never be consumers out there in the real world who are able to give the full force of their attention and who have the full range of concepts available to assess every aspect of the product that is laid before them.
The amendment seeks to move the balance just a fraction in favour of not relying too much on consumers. It goes to the essence of that balance. I would lean by a millimetre towards accepting it and accepting the point made by my noble friend Lady Turner in speaking to her amendment. It is a narrow point. If Ministers feel that this is a carefully negotiated balance, they would be justified in saying that they believe the balance lies the other way.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Sharman: In rising to support these amendments, I should like to develop the thought introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that this is an issue of balance. The amendment seems to suggest that in Clause 5(2)(d)the balance of responsibility has moved too far towards the consumer and away from the provider. We see that as particularly important, because financial services are complex. They are purchased relatively infrequently—probably less frequently than the microwave referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. In many cases their performance can be judged only over a relatively long term. It is therefore important that the balance between the responsibilities of the provider and those of the consumer should be somewhat more in favour of the consumer than under the Bill as presently drafted.
I was struck by the comments of the Financial Services Consumer Panel. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to the panel's report. In the letter that transmitted that report, the chairman of the panel, Barbara Saunders, said:
"The FSA is working in an area where few consumers are confident or knowledgeable about financial products and financial advisers may not explain things well".
She went on to refer to a survey which confirms absolutely the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, namely, that,
"few consumers shop around for investment products—one third of people in the survey looked at only one product provider".
One of Barbara Saunders' conclusions is that,
"almost one in three consumers did not feel confident about trusting banks and insurance companies with their long-term savings. And almost one quarter felt that long-term savings in the UK were not secure".
When we ally the results of that kind of survey to the balance in the Bill as it stands—very much in line with caveat emptor rather than "fitness for purpose"—

37
I believe that the balance is wrong, and that the Bill needs the kind of adjustment that both amendments provide.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: For me, too, the balance comes down fairly and squarely in support of both amendments. I understand the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Jenkin regarding the concept of "best advice" to which the noble Baroness referred. "Best advice" is an elusive ambition. It is very difficult, given the multitude of products on sale, to expect "best advice" to be achieved by every independent financial adviser. As I understand it, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness does not import the concept of best advice; it imports effectively the concept of "sale of goods".
If that applies, say, to the purchase of a microwave, as already mentioned, I have no doubt that it ought to apply to something as important as people's long-term savings. I remain of the view that, however well products are explained to people, the choice is not easy to understand. It may be that I am over-scarred by memories of the Securities and Investments Board and the need to redress the pensions mis-selling issue. But that issue was wide in scale. It affected very respectable organisations and smaller providers alike. No one within the market was immune. The damage to confidence in the industry was considerable and there was a need for consumers to take responsibility for their pensions. Considerable anxiety was caused to consumers by the need to enter into the process of redress.
This is a dynamic industry and—I know that I have come back to this point several times—there has been a growth in the type of services, including long-term healthcare, which consumers are having to take for themselves, in my view rightly. In that sense consumers are taking rightful financial responsibility for their future. I should like to see that develop further. But I see the counterpoise as being proper consumer protection. On that basis, I think both amendments are wholly reasonable.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I rise to speak in support of the amendments. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, has pre-empted me by quoting from the letter sent by Barbara Saunders, which I received only today along with the annual report of Financial Services Consumer Panel. The survey to which the noble Lord referred and from which he quoted is very telling. I was struck by the panel's strong plea about the Bill's caveat emptor provisions. Early on in its report the panel fairly makes the point that the inclusion of the consumer panel as a statutory requirement was inserted at the instigation of the Joint Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
The amendment of the consumer protection objective also tilts the balance a little further in the consumer's direction as it acknowledges the consumer's need for advice and accurate information. The panel states:
"Caveat emptor already exists as a general principle in contract law and we believe that its unnecessary insertion in the Bill could be interpreted as demanding a further degree of consumer
38
responsibility, an ambiguity that leaves the door open to mischievous legal challenges to the FSA's consumer protection activities".
That is right. The degree of ignorance that there is about financial products and the degree of mistrust that exists, which I suspect will not have been lessened by the publication of Mr Cruickshank's report today, and the fact that only 6 per cent of the people surveyed—this is the part of the survey which the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, did not quote but it is also important—could name the FSA as the official watchdog, show that the balance is still not quite right.
I hope very much that the Government will take on board the comments made by my noble friends Lord Borrie and Lady Turner in considering whether the Bill can be strengthened in favour of the consumer in this very modest way.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Perhaps I may suggest that the two amendments should be looked at in a slightly different light. As far as concerns the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, it is a pure question of construction. Construction of an Act of Parliament must always have regard to its context. I find it difficult to believe that a court approaching subsection (2)(d) of Clause 5 would construe it as meaning other than "reasonable" responsibility. That is no reason for not putting in the word. However, we have now taken 22 minutes on this amendment so I suppose there must be a degree of doubt. Perhaps the Minister will tell me and the Committee whether what the Government really intend is that paragraph (d) should be read as meaning that the general principle is that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions even in circumstances in which it is quite unreasonable to expect them to do so.
I cannot believe that the Government intend that in the light of paragraph (c), which draws attention to,
"the needs that consumers may have for advice and accurate information".
That is why I lay stress on the context. As far as concerns the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I would respectfully suggest that, while it may be highly admirable and desirable in principle, the actual wording needs to be looked at rather more carefully. I am troubled by the words "as far as possible". It certainly would be possible to undertake an enormous number of activities in order to ensure that a proposed product was suitable for the consumer, but it would be wholly unreasonable to expect it to be done. I suggest that such words as "as far as is reasonably practicable" or "in all the circumstances" should be inserted and that the amendment as currently drafted should not be accepted.
Lord Blackwell: Despite the thoroughly reasonable arguments that have been put forward for the amendments, I would be worried about either reaching the statute book. I say that because the cost of compliance and the cost of providing information and advice on many of these products have been so great as to make it uneconomic to sell them to the consumers

39
who need them. There is no regulation that does not impose costs and, ultimately, costs on consumers. The danger of the amendments is that they would build in another degree of caution and another degree of prejudice which would require more compliance costs around the sale of products, which again would make them uneconomic in major parts of the market.
We should bear in mind the development of some of the new channels and the Internet selling of these products which will, in an ideal world, enable them to be sold much more effectively with adequate information. In many cases there will be tools which people can use to reach better decisions than may have been possible in the past without the provider having to be involved in any face-to-face discussion or fact finding with the consumer. Building anything into the Bill that provides a barrier to such cost-effective channels developing in the future is likely to work against the interests of consumers. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2), which refers to,
"the needs that consumers may have for advice and accurate information",
must be taken into account. To my mind, that says it all. The caveat emptor provision which follows is then a healthy rejoinder which ensures that we do not go too far overboard in the balance to which many Members of the Committee have referred.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: Before my noble friend sits down, I want to understand what he is saying with regard to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I understand his point that sales may be effected on the Internet. However, does he cavil with the fact that even on the Internet the seller should have a responsibility for ensuring that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the product should be suitable for the consumer?
Lord Blackwell: I am grateful for that question. The wording as it stands suggests to me that the seller has some obligation to understand the particular circumstances of the consumer and to ensure that the product is tailored to that consumer whereas the circumstances I envisage are where the seller may ultimately know nothing about the consumer. He may provide tools that the consumer can use but there is nothing in what he does that ensures that the product is suitable for that consumer. That is up to the consumer to determine, based on the information provided. I may have misunderstood the implications of the wording, but that is my fear about the wording as it stands.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may suggest that the parallel which some Members of the Committee have tried to draw between investing £100 in a microwave and £100 in a unit trust is an inaccurate one. The only legal duty on the seller of a microwave is to ensure that the microwave itself functions properly at the time of sale, that it is properly insulated, and so on. The seller does not have to ask the purchaser whether he or she has a 13 amp socket fitted in his or her kitchen or
40
whether his or her baking dishes fit into the microwave. But that is what in essence the seller of the unit trust would have to do if the second of the amendments were to be accepted.
Lord Walker of Worcester: I wish to express concern about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I hesitate to do so because we are neighbours in the same village in Worcestershire and divisiveness in one small village might cause concern. There is a difficulty when a word like "reasonable" is introduced. No noble Lord who has spoken in favour of it has defined what "reasonable" means. Those who would be pleased by the insertion of the amendment are the lawyers. The amendment would give enormous scope for legal disagreement about what was reasonable and not reasonable. Perhaps I may also say that from the Government's point of view it gives enormous scope for further amendments. If the Minister decides that he cannot reject the word "reasonable" because that would be unreasonable, we could insert the word "reasonable" into virtually every clause of the Bill and into every other piece of government legislation. The noble Lord would have the same problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Without anticipating the end of the debate on this amendment, I must inform the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, that later I shall move a number of amendments which seek to insert "reasonable" into the Bill.
5 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: I have some sympathy with the general purport of the amendments. While I note the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, about the wording of Amendment No. 60, I believe that the idea behind it has merit and hope that the Government will respond to it. Like my noble friend Lord Walker of Worcester, I am a little concerned about introducing "reasonable" into subsection (2)(d). I am not sure to what "reasonable" is related. Is it related to the care that the consumer takes or the behaviour of other parties in relation to the other sub-paragraphs in the subsection? I hope that the noble and learned Lord is correct in saying that it is not necessary. I believe that some confusion may be caused if the four plain statements that we now see must be looked at according to the actions of the various parties involved. I believe that there is merit in having a fairly plain statement of the matters to which the authority must have regard, provided the Government can assure the Committee that a degree of reasonableness is a thread that runs through all of them.
Lord Elton: The great danger in arriving late is that the point one raises may already have been taken in the debate. The amendment of the noble Baroness appears to be much more appropriate to people who buy life assurance than, say, stocks and shares. It is rather

41
extraordinary that the same degree of responsibility should be placed on the sellers of both when in one case it is clearly very relevant and in the other it is not.
Lord Kingsland: In approaching the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, it is important to recognise that Clause 5(2)(d) does not describe the legal position of the provider in relation to a particular transaction. It is one of four considerations to which the authority must have regard in determining the degree of protection which is appropriate to the consumer. The first three characteristics lean very heavily in favour of looking carefully not only at the particular type of instrument involved but also the susceptibility of the consumer. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) lean heavily in the direction of the consumer and it is not surprising, therefore, that the Government felt it necessary to reintroduce a balancing expression in paragraph (d) of the kind now before the Committee.
I have not yet heard the Minister. Perhaps he will support the amendment moved by his noble friend Lord Borrie, in which case I shall find myself in disagreement with the Government. However, I support the text of Clause 5(2)(d) of the Bill. I am further reinforced in that view by sharing, with great respect, the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to the construction of the expression itself. As to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, I believe that everything that she seeks in her new paragraph (e) is already provided for in Clause 5(2)(a) to (c). Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that her amendment is otiose.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I like to hear the arguments before I respond, and I hope that the Committee does not disagree with that. As has been said, it is a matter of balance. I am urged to go a little bit in one direction and then in another; or, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested, to stand firm on the text of the Bill. I start by reminding the Committee of the recommendation of the Joint Committee:
"We recommend that the principle of caveat emptor should feature in the Bill; but that it should be redrafted in such a way that it could not be used to negate the consumer protection objective and excuse exploitation of sections of the general public".
Our response to that was to amend Clause 5 to require the FSA to take into account the need for consumers to have advice and accurate information. I believe that, as amended, the clause achieves the right balance between what is reasonable for consumers to expect and their own responsibility, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred.
Consumer protection is an important objective, and I am sympathetic to the intentions behind the amendments. We do not wish to place an unreasonable burden on consumers. It is certainly not our intention that firms should be allowed to mis-sell products, but we believe that the amendments are unnecessary. After all, instead of a variety of schemes we have introduced a single compensation scheme, the financial services compensation scheme, and single ombudsmen
42
schemes. Clause 2 sets the FSA the regulatory objective to protect consumers. The general rule-making power in Clause 129 is aimed directly at the protection of consumers' interests, and we must look at all of the provisions of Clause 5 against that background.
Amendment No. 59 is designed to qualify the principle that consumers should take responsibility for their actions, but Clause 5 sets out matters to which the FSA should have regard. We must look at the whole of the provision, which includes: the differing degrees of risk involved in different kinds of investment; the differing degrees of expertise and experience that different consumers may have; the needs that consumers may have for advice and accurate information; and the general principle that they should take responsibility for their decisions. The consumer protection objective is already designed to ensure that the FSA must take account of the fact that some consumers should be expected to take more responsibility for their actions than others. The effect of the amendment may be to undermine that balance. The insertion of "reasonable" as proposed could imply that the same test should apply to all consumers, which would run counter to the idea that regard should also be had to the other matters in Clause 5(2).
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, is correct in saying that by leaving out "reasonable" we certainly do not mean that consumers should take unreasonable responsibility. I am sure the noble and learned Lord agrees that no court would suggest otherwise. Imagine if we put in "reasonable" elsewhere. The authority would have to have regard to the differing degrees of reasonable risk involved in different kinds of investment; the differing degrees of reasonable experience and expertise; and the needs that consumers may have for reasonable advice and reasonably accurate information. One could go on for ever inserting "reasonable" in clauses of this kind without adding very much. We believe that, taking the clause as a whole, we have achieved the right balance.
The same point applies to Amendment. No. 60, which provides that the FSA should take account of the responsibility of the seller for ensuring that a product is suitable for the consumer. Of course we do not want the mis-selling scandals that have occurred in the past. However, the Bill gives the FSA adequate powers to prevent the mis-selling of financial products. The clause explicitly requires the FSA to take account of the experience and expertise of consumers and their need for accurate information. With this amendment, we could end up with the FSA attempting to prevent an experienced consumer, who had made an informed decision on the basis of all the relevant information, from exercising his right to choose how to invest his money. I do not believe that it would be right for the FSA to have such an objective. While we support the thinking behind the amendments, we do not believe that they add positively to the Bill.
Lord Borrie: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this somewhat lengthy debate—in particular the noble Lord,

43
Lord Sharman, the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—who expressed support.
I was intrigued by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington. Most particularly, I listened to see whether the Minister endorsed those statements. If he had done so, the rule of Pepper v. Hart would come into play and I should be extremely happy. The curious factor about Pepper v. Hart is that although the noble and learned Lord the former Master of the Rolls has given a view in this House, it is not that which apparently matters; it is whether the Minister accepts that interpretation.
I shall read the Minister's words with great care to see whether he endorsed to a degree what the noble and learned Lord said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 3, line 16, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 21 and insert ("—

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

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

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 88, 125, 227, 229, 229A (as an amendment to Amendment No. 229), 240, 241, 261 and 262.
All these amendments are intended to achieve greater consistency in references to "consumer" in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 227 and 229 put the core definition of a consumer in Clause 129; and they ensure that those using the services offered by the appointed representatives of authorised persons and by trustees, and those who "deal" with authorised persons, are within this definition, thereby eliminating potential gaps in coverage. The amendments also give appropriate protection to people using the services of non-authorised persons who are nevertheless carrying on regulated activities—some lawfully, some unlawfully—such as Lloyd's underwriters, recognised exchanges and clearing houses, and persons acting in contravention of the general prohibition. These amendments fulfil a commitment given in another place to review the provisions dealing with consumers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendment No. 229A which seeks to restrict the core definition of a consumer in Clause 129. If I may anticipate what he will say, his concern is that the definition of "consumer" is too wide and that this will mean the FSA trying to make wide and detailed rules to protect consumers who stand some considerable distance from the use of financial services.
I believe that that concern would be unfounded. I should make clear, first, that government Amendment No. 229 does not introduce the provision
44
which he seeks to remove. The provision is already within Clause 129. Its purpose is to ensure that the FSA is not prevented from affording certain types of consumers, such as trust beneficiaries, protection just because of the particular arrangements surrounding the use of financial services on behalf of the trust.
It is misleading to attempt to analyse this one particular provision in isolation. The provisions relating to the interests and protection of consumers need to be viewed within the context of the Bill as a whole. The FSA must exercise its functions in the light of the regulatory principles set out in Clause 2. These include the need to use its resources in the most economic and efficient way, and the desirability of facilitating competition. Both those principles apply important balances to the scope of FSA regulation. However, the key principle in this context—it is also set out in Clause 2—is that regulation must be proportionate to the benefit. Clause 5 makes it clear that the FSA should seek to secure the appropriate degree of protection.
It is clear from the Bill that the FSA must exercise its powers and seek to meet its objectives in a balanced, proportionate and appropriate way. It is therefore unnecessary to amend the Bill as proposed.
Perhaps I may say a word about the individual amendments. The main amendments are Amendments Nos. 227 and 229. Clause 129 gives the FSA its general rule-making power. As amended, the clause will be clear that this power is to be used to protect the interests of "consumers". It will now be clear that this category includes people who use the services of appointed representatives or who "deal" with authorised persons carrying on regulated activities, for example by buying shares from a market dealer. It may seem self evident that people like that are "consumers" of authorised persons, but it is necessary to clear the issue up because it could be argued that they do not use the services of an authorised person which could mean that they were denied protection.
The other amendments are largely designed to bring all the various provisions into line with each other—generally by replacing individual definitions of the term with cross-references to Clause 129. The amendments to Clause 319 (Amendments Nos. 261 and 262) are slightly different in that they deal with a more limited group of people—clients of professional firms—but they bring the definition of a "client" into line with that of a "consumer" where the two overlap.
The amendments to Clauses 5, 9 and 12 refer to those people using the services of non-authorised persons. This brings them into the frame for the purposes of the provisions of the Bill dealing with the FSA's objective of protection for consumers, the setting up of the consumer panel, and the Treasury's ability to initiate independent inquiries into the

45
effectiveness of regulation. I hope that it will be agreed that these are an appropriate response to the debate which took place in another place. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: During debate of an earlier government amendment, I asked how many more amendments we could expect on the Marshalled List before we completed the Committee stage of the Bill. I do not think that I received an answer. Perhaps this is another occasion on which I may ask.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord is right. I did not answer; I am sorry. We said at Second Reading that we might have between 500 and 600 amendments in Committee. The number will be somewhat lower. The good reason is that we have found ways of turning the figure of between 500 and 600 amendments into a lower number. The bad reason is that some of the amendments are still not ready and will have to be laid at Report stage. It is a serious burden for which we are deeply apologetic.
Lord Stewartby: Is there a special reason for having this definition of "consumer" just for the purposes of Clause 129?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is not just for the purposes of Clause 129. If the noble Lord looks at the other amendments, there are differences but they are all based on the core of the definition which is to be found in Amendment No. 229 in Clause 129.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I thank the Minister for having already answered the point that I was about to make. In the light of his answer, I am a little concerned about the extension of the definition to persons who have rights or interests which may be adversely affected by the use of services by other persons. That broadens the definition by moving away from some sort of causation to a general adverse effect. That causes me concern. It may well have unintended impact. It may make it necessary for the FSA to broaden the scope of the ombudsman scheme beyond complainants with a contractual customer relationship with the authorised firm to include all third parties such as third parties under motor policies following road traffic accidents. It would extend protection to third parties injured under liability policies. It might extend the definition of customer to those adversely affected by a polluting incident.
I mention those examples. I do not wish to press the point now but ask the Minister to reflect on that aspect. I can supply further details in due course.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord was good enough to write giving me notice that he would put down the amendment. However, we saw the amendment only this morning. It is a complicated issue. Perhaps he will allow me to write to him in more detail with the benefit of more reflection.
Lord Peston: I have lectured on consumer theory for about 40 years and believed that I understood what a
46
consumer was. I thought that the Bill as drafted was clear. I do not understand the amendments; they are supposed to improve the Bill. The Bill states what a consumer is. I nod my head and agree with it. Paragraph (b) refers to other people who may be acting in ways for a consumer. That is perfectly clear to me. I have no difficulty with the Bill.
However, I find the amendment completely incomprehensible. With no disrespect to my noble friend I find the Minister's explanation even more incomprehensible. I cannot understand what is wrong with the Bill as drafted.
I do not want to prolong the debate, but as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked my noble friend to think again, could he persuade those who are advising him to do so, too, in case they got it right the first time?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Without the amendments, there are different definitions of "consumer" in different parts of the Bill. I do not know where my noble friend looked, but he would have found different definitions in different places.
In Amendment No. 229, the core amendment in the group, the bulk of the explanation is not about who a consumer is—he is a user of services, which no doubt is what my noble friend has been saying for 40 years—but about whose services he uses. As the Bill is all about authorised and unauthorised persons, trustees and people carrying on financial services as representatives of someone else, it is important to be precise about the definition of the providers of the services. That is why, unfortunately, there are still differences between the definition of "consumer" in different parts of the Bill. At least they are all referenced to and rooted in Amendment No. 229.
Lord Elton: I am sure that we all recognise the Government's difficulty when faced with amendments which they have only recently seen. The Minister will realise that from time to time Members of the Committee are in a similar difficulty. Therefore, he will forgive me if I ask whether in advance of h:.s correspondence he could expand on his reply to my noble friend Lord Hunt. Presumably, the issue is simple for him to explain, but not so simple for me to understand.
As regards Amendment No. 229, I understand the direct links and interests held by persons,
"who have rights or interests which…are derived from, or otherwise attributable to…the use of services by other persons".
That is a clear link. However, I cannot get my mind around the link, and therefore the right to protection, to someone whose interests may be merely adversely affected by a person with such rights. It seems to me that the world is full of people who may be adversely affected by my decision to buy, sell or insure something, but that can be of no possible interest to the regulator or impose any moral obligation on the person making the sale.

47
I am speaking at leisure in the hope that some succour might be granted to the Minister, but it appears not. Therefore, I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his consideration. Rather than attempt to reach a final conclusion on an amendment that has been available for only a few hours, it is better to include the noble Lord in my correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Indeed, if a meeting is desirable, I shall be only too happy to meet them and anyone else concerned.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful for the offer.
Lord Kingsland: As the Minister proposed to take my noble friend's amendment away and subject it to a certain degree of textual exegesis, perhaps I may add one or two reflections from the Front Bench on Amendment No. 229. It adds three subsections to Clause 129. The government amendments propose that the definition of "consumer" in Clauses 5(3), 9(7) and 12(5) would be replaced by reference to the definition in new subsection (7) in Clause 129.
We are happy with new subsection (8) and, I think, new subsection (9), although it may need consideration should occupational pensions be brought within the scope of the legislation. However, we share the concern of my noble friend Lord Hunt about the effect of new subsection (7)(b)(ii). That paragraph extends the definition to persons,
"who have rights or interests which…may be adversely affected by, the use of any such services by other persons".
In the context of Clause 129, which deals with the scope of the authority's rule-making powers, such a wide-ranging definition is perhaps understandable. But our concern is that it could extend the consumer protection objective in unpredictable ways. For example, if a company, using the services of an authorised firm in speculative dealing, loses money and has to lay off employees, would the employees be persons whose interest had been adversely affected by their employer's use of the authorised firm's services? If so, it would seem that the FSA might need to take such interests into account when determining how the consumer protection objective worked. Can that really be the Government's intended result?
Surely, the real problem is that there is no nexus, no contact, between authorised firms and the persons covered by Clause 129(7)(b)(ii). For example, the new definition of "consumer" is used in Clause 177(2)(b), which deals with the approval requirements which the FSA must assess when considering whether to object to the acquisition of control of an authorised firm. It would seem that under the definition in Clause 129(7)(b)(ii), the authority is obliged to consider the position of persons who have rights or interests which may be adversely affected by the use by other persons of the service which the authorised firm provides. It is
48
not apparent to us how the authority can do that. Nevertheless, it seems that it would be obliged to do so because Clause 177(1) states that the FSA must be,
"satisfied that the approval requirements are met".
There is nothing between us on seeking to have a common definition of "consumer" which covers the Bill, but it is in the interests of us all to ensure that the clause does not have the unintended effects that we believe that it might have. We do not believe that the authority would be in a position successfully to deal with transactions in those unexpected situations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who asks why we need a reference to persons,
"who have rights or interests which…may be adversely affected by, the use of any such services by other persons".
Perhaps I may give an example. Trust beneficiaries and members of a pension scheme would not otherwise be protected where somebody apart from themselves—namely, the trustees—had used financial services offered by a third party. In that case, the beneficiaries' rights or interests continue to derive from the trust and not from the use of the services. Clearly, it would be wrong to deny them protection. These people would not necessarily be protected under the new subsection (8) of Clause 129, which is designed to protect consumers where trustees themselves are providing the service.
I realise that giving one example might not satisfy the noble Lord on the general principle, but I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: we shall look again at the scope of Clause 129 to see whether there is a danger that it might be interpreted too widely. We shall consult before deciding what to do, if anything, at a later stage.
Lord Kingsland: I am grateful to the Minister and I am sure that that is an appropriate point to leave the matter. Unless I misunderstood him, the example he gave to me concerned new subsection (8) and not new subsection (7). I am content to leave the matter there and to return to it at the Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It referred to new subsection (8), but it was about new subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 6 [The reduction of financial crime]:
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 69 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [The Authority's general duty to consult]:
Lord Sharman Lord Sharman moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("practitioners and consumers") and insert ("authorised persons, consumers and other practitioners").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 70, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 72. This group consists very much of probing amendments, designed to establish in a broad term what comprises "practitioners" and the manner of their consultation.
As it stands, the Bill requires the FSA to consult only with practitioners and consumers. The term "consumers" is defined for these purposes in Clause 9(7), but the term "practitioners" is not defined and no reference is made to the categories of practitioners or the practitioner panel as set out in Clause 8(5). In any event, I believe that the issue here is that the FSA should be seen to be consulting as widely as possible and should be required to have in place effective arrangements for consulting all relevant parties, including other professionals; for example, the Law Society company law committee, and so on.
In terms of the current definitions within the Bill, it is also unclear to me whether the status of "representing" is a formal requirement—for example, for a person nominated by the recognised investment exchange to represent its interests on the practitioner panel—or whether it is a less formal arrangement. I believe that it should also be noted that, under the current definition, the persons whom the authority may appoint to the practitioner panel under Clause 8(5) would not necessarily include members of professions who would be subject to regulation under Part XX of the Bill, since they are not authorised position persons, they would not be representing authorised persons, they are not persons representing recognised investment exchanges, and they are not persons representing recognised clearing houses.
I believe that it is important that we should know what the Government have in mind in terms of "practitioners" in the broadest sense. Then we can deal quite properly with how they should be consulted. I beg to move.
Lord Saatchi: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 73, which is intended to ensure that members of the practitioner panel should feel free to report in an independent and, if necessary, critical manner about any area with which they are concerned. We must remember that, as it stands, all the members of the panel are appointed by the FSA with the exception of the chairman, whose appointment and dismissal are subject to Treasury approval.
This amendment would require that, before the FSA appoints any person to the practitioner panel, it must consult others who represent the interests of practitioners with a view to identifying suitable candidates for appointment. I do not believe that the amendment imposes on the FSA too onerous an obligation; only one to consult such persons who represent the interests of professions as the FSA considers appropriate. The amendment would go some way to ensuring that the panels have independence and can be a force to be reckoned with.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 74B, which is grouped with these amendments. In introducing the group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharman,
50
spoke of the need to define the practitioners. I believe that my amendment fits more comfortably with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Saatchi, to which he has just spoken. That amendment seeks to ensure that all practitioners, however defined, are embraced in the consultative and advisory process. Accordingly, I sought to draft words which would ensure that the whole of the field of market practitioners was in some way embraced in the panel.
In discussion with the BBA, it has been drawn to my attention that, by referring to those people as "representing" parts of the market, the wording of my amendment might encourage them to believe that they had some sort of constitution which they must represent in competition with other members of the panel. That, of course, is very far from what I intended. I should say that this amendment is drafted purely as a probing amendment to discover how the Government expect it to work. However, if it seemed necessary to do anything at a later stage, I would prefer wording which excluded the constituency element but which might ensure that individuals appointed between them have experience of each of the activities listed in Part I of Schedule 2, which is where the definition of where those people are drawn from lies.
The important point is that the panel should not be a "pick-and-mix" selection by the authority. The authority should be required to produce a mix which is genuinely representative of practitioners as a whole and which cannot be skewed in any one particular way to suit the inclinations of the authority at any particular time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: With these amendments, we turn to the questions of how the practitioners panel should be appointed and the interests which it might represent. It is important to understand the way in which the arrangements for the practitioner panel are to work. The purpose of the panel is not to create a super-trade association for the industry or, indeed, a super-trade union to represent the interests of those who work in the industry. Indeed, if we tried to do that, I believe that we would arouse considerable antagonism both from, for example, the British Bankers' Association and from the banking and insurance trade unions. Neither is it the case that the consumer panel is intended to be a loud but single voice for consumers. Again, if we tried to do that we might arouse the antagonism of the National Consumer Council and the Consumers' Association.
The role of the practitioner panel is to enable the authority to have access to dedicated expertise to improve its ability to perform the functions conferred on it by the Bill. I shall not rehearse at length the arguments about what the panels should do. That is the subject of another group of amendments. However, it is enough to say that the same considerations apply in determining the role of the panels as apply when we consider who they are to represent and how the members are to be appointed.
I turn, first, to the representation on the panel. Clause 8(5) sets out certain minimum requirements; that is, individuals who are authorised persons,

51
representatives of authorised persons, recognised investment exchanges and clearing houses. That list is indicative; it is not intended to be inclusive.
Perhaps I may first explain the distinction between the classes of person in paragraphs (a) and (b). The first category is aimed at ensuring that sole traders will be represented; that is, they will be authorised in their own right. The second is aimed primarily at giving a voice to incorporated firms. Of course, a corporate bank, insurance company or securities firm cannot itself be a member of the panel. Therefore, the body must be represented perhaps by a director of such a company, just as the chairman of the panel is the chairman of Schroder. However, the wording in paragraph (b) would already cover authorised persons who are represented through trade associations.
The other two categories in Clause 8(5) make express reference to recognised bodies under Part XVIII of the Bill. Those bodies need to be represented in their own right because of the special role that they play—distinct from the authorised community—in the markets for investments, using investments in the sense that they are used in the Financial Services Act 1986.
Amendments Nos. 70 and 72 would add to the categories of persons who must be represented. A new category introduced by Amendment No. 72 is approved persons, such as certain employees and directors under Part V of the Bill. I must say that I do not see appointments to the practitioner panel as being made on a self-interest basis; on the contrary, I rather think that membership of the panel is a public service. Panel members are not paid at the moment. Therefore, if a director of a bank is appointed, he may well be appointed on the basis of the contribution he has to make to the panel.
Secondly, approved persons are in any event likely to be represented by default, since we would expect many, if not all, of the appointees to the panel to be persons who perform functions that we expect to be controlled functions for the purposes of Part V of the Bill. So most members of the panel will anyway be approved persons in their own right. That is certainly the case on the basis of the panel's current membership. It is the case also that, as representatives of firms employing approved persons, they will be able to consider relevant issues from an appropriately informed perspective.
Thirdly, it is important to remember also that the authority's legislative powers and much of the work of the panel will focus on the activities of authorised persons; that is, the firms and the regulatory implications of the authority's action on those firms. The powers in relation to approved persons form a relatively minor part of the total area of responsibility.
Another suggested addition is such other bodies as the authority considers appropriate. The clause as drafted already allows that since it specifies only the requirements imposed on the authority, not the powers which the authority has in any event.
52
Amendment No. 74B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, also seeks to specify the persons who should be represented on the panel, but instead of referring to them in terms of whether they are authorised, approved and so on, he sets out a list on sectoral lines. The amendment may be defective in any event since I should have thought that the different types of investment were the issue and not the activities which a person carries on in relation to that investment. However, it starts to create a potentially long list of people who would need to be represented on the panel.
We believe that it is unnecessary and undesirable to be too prescriptive about the constitution of the panel. Our approach must be to specify certain minimum categories of persons who we believe must be represented if the panel is to meet the requirements under Clauses 7 and 8. Clause 8 does not exclude the possibility of other persons being members; it simply does not require them to be. One reason for our approach is that we wish members of the panel, once appointed, to act objectively on behalf of practitioners as a whole and not to represent the interests of particular individuals, companies or industries.
I turn now to Amendment No. 73 spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. Again, to a degree, the appropriateness of an amendment of this kind depends on the purpose for which the panel is established. Certainly, where the intention is to provide the industry with a voice from which it can make its views known to the authority, the amendment makes perfect sense. But it is not for the authority to create and fund a trade association. The requirements for the panel are being introduced to ensure that the authority has access to the professional expertise it needs to be able to carry out its functions effectively and efficiently.
Of course, I do not rule out the possibility of enabling the authority to seek nominations for candidates to the panel from industry sources. It has done that in the past. The Bill will not prevent it from doing so in the future. But that is a decision for the authority. It should not feel obliged to accept candidates forced upon it by the industry. It may feel that it would be appropriate to adopt a Nolan approach to appointments, as I believe it has done in regard to the consumer panel.
I hope that that gives Members of the Committee who have tabled amendments some reassurance about the practitioner panel and, indeed, the consumer panel when we come to it.
Lord Elton: I am obliged to the Minister for what he said but I am not altogether convinced by it.
He said that the introduction of activities as the criteria on which people were recruited to the panel would confuse matters. He said that people in fact should be recruited from certain categories. But my narrow experience of operation in this field is that people of those few categories may become involved in widely different and highly complex activities.
The advice of an authorised person on an activity in which he has taken no previous part, and a highly technical one at that, may be insufficient, absent or

53
flawed. With my amendment I was seeking to elicit an explanation from the Government as to how it would be incumbent on the authority to make sure that those advising it on operations of different kinds, within the highly variegated field which it is to regulate, had personal knowledge of each of those fields.
I suppose that if the answer is that that cannot be guaranteed, then I ask how, in that case, the deficiency may be made good by other means.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It certainly cannot be guaranteed because Part I of Schedule 2 contains a very long list indeed. That would mean that we should have a very large panel. I am sure that the noble Lord remembers that his government used to set great store by the argument that bodies of people meeting together should be as small as possible. We used to have terrific arguments about the size of committees, panels and bodies of that kind.
We could not possibly cover all of them. We are slicing it in the other direction: slicing it by those activities which cross-cut the sectoral description which is in Part I of Schedule 2. We do not wish to be entirely prescriptive and so it is for the authority to make its judgment about how to cover the activities.
Lord Elton: I am handicapped by a momentary lack of attention earlier in the day when the noble Lord gave the Committee the very important definition of the italicised words in the middle of the page. There are only 8 chapeaux in Part I of the schedule and perhaps I should be referring only to those wearing those eight hats.
The noble Lord's answer begins to throw an interesting light on how the panel is expected to work. It will work by meeting together. Another way of using panels is to bring forward selected people from a panel to give advice on particular issues. I hope that at this or a subsequent stage, we shall be told whether the advice of the panel is always to be tendered corporately; whether it is to be sought individually or in parts. All that will be a matter of great interest to practitioners. If that information is not forthcoming now, I hope that it will be forthcoming before too long.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall answer that point now. It is for the panel to decide how it tenders its advice, whether corporately or individually.
Lord Elton: Then it is for the panel, is it not, to decide whether or not the number of categories which I have suggested is too many? If the number of chapeaux means a very large committee, then it will be constrained to act through sub-committees, as a later amendment of mine suggests that it should.
It seems that we are perhaps at a disadvantage in trying to determine the composition of this panel if we do not know how it is to work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not trying to determine the composition of the panel. I am saying
54
that, fundamentally, it is a matter for the authority. The control, independent of the authority, which is contained in the clause, is that the appointment of the chairman must be with the approval of the Treasury. But the composition, size, origin and destination of the individual members of the panel is a matter for the authority. What I am trying to say—and it should apply to all the amendments and not merely the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton—is that we must not be too prescriptive. The panel is there to help. It is not part of the independent inspection process which plays such a prominent part in the rest of the Bill.
Lord Peston: I was hoping to be helpful. One difficulty that arises is that Clause 7 includes practitioners and consumers as though they are on a par, when, in fact, the two panels are completely different. One can easily be misled simply by starting with Clause 7 and thinking that other things should be added to Clause 7.
However, I concentrate on Clause 8. Will my noble friend confirm that the role of the practitioner panel is to give expert advice? It is not a representative body in any sense, whereas in Clause 9 there is a body which may well be representative. However, in Clause 8 we are looking for expert advice of the kind we are all used to; namely, someone who knows about this or that part of the market will say to the authority, "You are doing that and, if you really understood what you were doing, you just would not do it. You do not understand this or that point because you do not have the experience", and so on.
I could easily put up a case for not having a practitioner panel at all. In fact, listening to the remarks just made, it seems to me that the authority simply should be asked to obtain expert advice as and when it needs it. I believe that my noble friend said that that is what it will do in any event, if such advice were not available through the practitioner panel. But if there is going to be a practitioner panel, will my noble friend at least confirm that its role will be simply either to be asked, "What do you think of what we are doing?", or, perhaps more importantly, to say, "Oh, we see what you are doing and you're stupid; you shouldn't be doing it"; or, "We are not the right people for this. We have a sense that it is not right, but go and ask X who knows about these things"?
I see all that as the role of the practitioner panel, if there is to be one, or as the role of the authority, which I hope we can trust to do its job correctly if we suddenly decide to save some money by not having a practitioner panel. It is all to do with obtaining good expert advice. Simply trying to advise noble Lords of what we should not do is to fall into the trap of assuming that Clauses 8 and 9 are on a par because Clause 9 is about representation and representing interests, whereas Clause 8 should not remotely be about representation, interests, or anything of the sort. It should simply be about expertise.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the noble Lord sits down, the first subsection of Clause 8 states that it shall

55
represent interests. Therefore, I really do not understand what the noble Lord is saying. The practitioner body is surely intended to be as much a representative body as the consumer panel.
The Earl of Home: I find myself, unusually, in agreement with quite a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, says. I accept that the Minister does not want to be too prescriptive about the number of people on the panel. But will he tell us what the minimum number on the panel must be? When advice is sought, can there be a panel of one? What is a panel quorate going to be? How many representatives of those people who are all listed in the plural under the existing drafting will be required to make up a panel before its advice can be taken seriously?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The panel is 12-strong at present. The constraint on the size and membership of the panel is in Clause 7, which states,
"The Authority must make and maintain effective arrangements for consulting practitioners and consumers on the extent to which its general policies and practices"—
that is, what it does—
"are consistent with its general duties under section 2".
If it was seriously skewed in favour of particular sectors, or indeed, missed out certain absolutely essential interests, one could doubt whether it was effective. Beyond saying that it must be effective, the Bill does not seek to prescribe its size, composition, times of meeting or any of those things which a panel might do. We should be accused of over-regulating by far if we were to seek to make the kind of provision implied in some of the comments noble Lords are making.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Will the Minister make it perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the panel is indeed intended to represent the interests of practitioners? It is not there simply as a body to be consulted. It is perfectly proper that it should say, "We don't like this and we don't like the way you're doing it. Will you now make changes?". In a sense, it is a hangover from the earlier system of what was called, quite wrongly, "self-regulation". It was never self-regulation. It was practitioner regulation. The practitioner panel is the element of that which remains; of the practitioners being in a position to make effective representations—and to report outside if necessary and to gain support for their views—against the way in which the Financial Services Authority is running its business. Is that not right?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not accept the noble Lord's historical description. I am not saying that he is right about why the practitioner panel was set up, but he is certainly right in saying that Clause 8(1) states that the practitioner panel represents the interests of practitioners and that Clause 9(1) states that the consumer panel represents the interests of consumers.
Lord Elton: In that case, the Minister must surely recognise that, if those people are to represent the
56
interests of a regulated industry, there will unavoidably be times when the industry feels that it is being unfairly constrained, trammelled, or treated and it will be at odds with the authority and pass complaints and advice to the authority. I then ask your Lordships whether it is altogether sufficient to leave it to the authority, which may receive perhaps quite valid and justified complaints, to be entirely in control—except for the need for the Treasury's approval of the appointment or dismissal of the chairman—of the way in which the panel operates; and, it would seem, the extent to which it can satisfy the requirements of listening to its advice? Should there not be something more prescriptive on the statute book after all?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are back to square one. The British Bankers' Association will still exist. If it feels that it is being traduced or badly treated, it will say so. The panel is not a trade association; that is not its job. Its job is to provide effective arrangements for consulting practitioners and consumers on the extent to which what the authority does—the "general policies and practices"—is consistent with the general duties under Clause 2. That is not the only way in which practitioners abut on the work of the authority. The trade would not like it if it were.
Lord Elton: That is for later discovery, but it seems that the Minister has entirely endorsed what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding said; that the panel is a representative body. Indeed, the Bill states that it is,
"a panel of persons…to represent the interests of practitioners".
If practitioners see that their interests are being ridden over roughshod, I presume that it is their job to say so. If they are to say so effectively, they must have effective means of expressing that dissatisfaction. The simple question I am asking the Minister is not whether I am right in those assumptions; I cannot see how I can be wrong. I am asking him whether it is altogether prudent to leave the doorway through which representations come from the panel to the authority entirely under the authority's control.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are discussing the membership of the panel in these amendments. Shall we discuss the other issues which the noble Lord is raising when we come to the amendments which deal with them?
Lord Elton: They seem germane to the conversation that we have already had, but I am quite happy to resume at a later stage when I have had time to sharpen my arguments.
Lord Sharman: I have listened with great interest to noble Lords batting the argument back and forth, if I may say so. The purpose of the amendment was, as I said, to get a clearer view as to what comprises practitioners. I am conscious that the Bill, as presently drafted, deals with the practitioner panel using the words,
"to represent the interests of practitioners".

57
I am conscious of the words that the Minister used in saying that he did not want to be too prescriptive. Nevertheless, the Bill is prescriptive to a degree, because it sets out a number of categories which must be represented. The purpose of my amendment—in particular, the addition of "authorised persons"—was deliberate. It is important to understand that, where a representation issue arises in the corporate sphere, those who represent a corporation represent the corporation's views and, I suggest, probably disagree with them publicly in panels at their peril. There is a vast body of opinion and expertise called "authorised persons". The purpose of adding such a category was to enable the panel to have a different perspective from that of the corporate perspective. I ask the Minister to consider that point further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Saatchi Lord Saatchi moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 4, line 5, after ("on") insert—

("(a) whether any proposed rules, codes, general guidance or statements, or amendments to them, are appropriate in light of the Authority's general duties; and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I shall address also the principles behind other amendments grouped with it. I hope that that will give my noble friend Lord Elton an opportunity to pursue his inquiries. My noble friend Lord Kingsland will specifically address Amendments Nos. 74A and 75A.
We have just heard the Minister say several times that we must riot be too prescriptive and that it is unnecessary to be prescriptive. Our Benches take the opposite view. I shall try to explain why. Under Clause 7, the FSA,
"must make and maintain effective arrangements for consulting practitioners and consumers on the extent to which its general policies and practices are consistent with its general duties under section 2".
Therefore, the consultation takes place only in relation to general policies and practices. The purpose of Amendment No. 71 is to require the FSA to consult also on,
"whether any proposed rules, codes, general guidance or statements, or amendments to them, are appropriate in the light of the Authority's general duties".
Clause 8 gives the authority a specific duty to set up the practitioner panel which is designed to represent the interests of this community. It sits alongside the consumer panel. The authority is obliged to have regard to any representations made to it by the panel, but that is the extent of its statutory consultation duties. There is no obligation on the FSA actively to consult the panel.
In our view, the authority should be obliged to consult the panels in advance of any general public consultation. Amendments Nos. 74A and 75A tabled by my noble friend Lord Kingsland will deal with that point directly. The APCIMS, LIBA and the Burns Committee have all recommended that, at the very least, if the authority does not act on recommendations made by the panel it should be obliged to publish its reasons for riot doing so.
This matter is important because David Challen, the chairman of the panel, currently called the Practitioner Forum, expressed his fears to the Joint Committee that in the absence of strong statutory obligations to involve practitioners, they could easily end up being marginalised. He argued that the Bill should include an obligation on the FSA to give reasons if submissions by the panel were ignored.
The first annual report of the Practitioner Forum reiterated its concern:
"In the absence of this requirement [to publish reasons for ignoring Forum/Panel submissions], we feel it would be possible for a future administration to sideline the Panel and make it difficult for the Panel to assert its viewpoint".
However, the Government have so far strenuously refused to strengthen the consultation obligation.
Amendment No. 77 applies to Clauses 8 and 9 respectively. At present, there is no requirement on the FSA to consult either the practitioner panel or the consumer panel before issuing draft rules, codes, general guidance, statements and other matters for more general public consultation. The amendment would make it a requirement that, before publishing draft rules, codes, and so forth, for public consultation, the FSA must have given the two panels a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the draft rules and codes, and so forth. We believe that that will have the benefit of establishing clearly the way in which the panels would fit into the consultation procedure and would result in draft rules, codes, and so forth, which are published for public consultation already incorporating suggestions and improvements made by the two panels. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am puzzled as to why the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, believes that this amendment is necessary. Extensive consultation requirements are listed in Clause 146, so that every time the FSA wants to make rules it has to take into account matters such as cost benefit analysis and the reasons for believing that the rules are compatible with the FSA's general duties as set out in Clause 2. Similar provisions would apply to codes of practice and so on.
It seems to me that the industry, consumers and everybody else will have ample opportunity under Clause 146 to comment on those draft rules. I would have thought that the practitioner panel and indeed the consumer panel, to which we shall turn in a moment, would be able to feed in views along with everybody else. I am puzzled as to why it is felt necessary that those two panels should be given a special position in terms of consultation when the provisions that the FSA makes under Clause 146 are so extensive.
I do not believe that the authority is backward in seeking consultation on its various procedures and plans. Since its introduction it has published no fewer than 45 consultation papers and has actively sought the views of the public, consumers and practitioners

59
on what it is doing. Therefore, I feel that these amendments are not necessary and that we should be able to rely on the provisions contained in Clause 146.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend referred to the evidence of Mr David Challen, the chairman of the FSA Practitioner Forum. It is worth while reminding ourselves what Mr Challen told the Joint Committee. I quote from page 104 of the evidence in the second column:
"we ask ourselves what power do we have to enforce accountability in terms of the question we are addressing? The answer of course is none except the threat of public dissent. As things currently stand, however, I think we will exercise real influence. The trouble of course is that arrangements have to be inspected for their durability not just in relation to the present incumbents in the job".
We have to look at that. At the moment it is working well and there is delight, in which I join, that it will be statutory. We have to have regard to what may happen. In other walks of life one has seen that people who have substantial regulatory powers come to think of themselves as, not immune to criticism, but certainly as not having to pay too much attention to it. In relation to this panel—the same can be said of the consumer's panel where there is probably common interest—a way has to be found whereby the authority can be made to listen. As I understand it, this group of amendments is intended to make that more explicit. I believe that if we accepted these amendments we would reflect Mr Challen's concerns. I hope that the amendment will be pressed.
Lord Boardman: I support the amendment. It is important that the authority runs smoothly. Instead of imposing changes to the rules or guidelines which could lead to complaints, before the rules or the guidelines are altered there should be consultation with the practitioner panel and the consumer panel. I believe, in the interests of the smooth running of the whole operation, that it is right to accept this amendment.
Lord Elton: In the exchanges in relation to the previous amendment I was told to withhold any further interventions until we came to the more relevant amendment, which I take to be this one. I see from the noble Lord that it is.
We return to the matter of the actual weight and manner of the operation of the panel. The practitioners will be a major issue. When we suggested that the consultation as proposed might not be sufficiently wide, we were told that it was not the only route for consultation because of the requirement on the authority in Clause 7. When we said that they may be tempted to act as representatives as they were so described in the statute, we were told that that would be against the interests of existing trade associations. It becomes increasingly difficult. I remember the noble Lord saying that the BBA itself would object. If that is not resistance from what I venture to call a trade association, it is difficult to know what is.
60
We remain uncertain as to what the relationship is to be between the panel and the authority, except that the panel will be appointed by the authority with the single limitation that the chairman thereof shall be appointed only with the agreement of the Treasury. My noble friend rightly asked what weight will be given to its recommendations. To my mind, Amendment No. 75A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kingsland, is the nub of the matter. The authority will be required to explain the reasons if it should reject the advice of the panel. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston—now sadly absent—suggested may be the manner in which the panel conducts itself and the fact that, from time to time, it may be called upon to give detailed advice on small issues, I would have thought that the amendment of my noble friend should read:
"The Authority shall give reasons in circumstances where it intends to proceed against the Consumer Panel's formal advice".
and that there should be provision for informal advice which should not be the subject of a full disagreement or discussion between the panel and the authority and that the normal traffic of every day would be without that sort of procedure. However, if there were a major issue on which the panel felt that there were strong views and that the authority had not taken sufficient account of them, it should give formal advice and the authority should then be required to give a formal reason for rejecting that advice.
Lord Newby: I wish to speak in support of our Amendment No. 279, the last amendment to be included on this Marshalled List, and to other amendments in this group. Our amendment deals with one particular form of rule-making on which we believe that the practitioner panel and consumer panel should be consulted and whose comments should be taken formally into account before the authority can move on to the next stage of the promulgation of those rules. We are concentrating specifically on orders here, and we argue that any orders made under the Act must be referred to the practitioner panel and consumer panel for their comments.
However, the same principle applies equally to the less formal layers of guidance to be issued by the FSA; namely, the rules, codes, general guidance, statements, schemes and other matters referred to in the amendment tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Saatchi. I agree with the principle that these two panels, having been established, should in every case where the FSA is about to issue guidance in any form—whether statutory or non-statutory—should be consulted and asked formally to submit their comments. Furthermore, in cases where the FSA proposes not to agree with their comments, the FSA should give its reasons, as proposed in Amendment No. 75A.
One area where I have a little difficulty with the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Saatchi, is the two-stage process that they have in mind. They propose that, at the point at which the FSA has a draft with which it is satisfied, it should go to the panels. The panels will give their

61
comments which the FSA will consider. The FSA would then publish the draft for more general comments. It seems to me that that intermediate stage could produce delays which would be particularly unfortunate during the early life of the FSA when it will be producing so much guidance and will have a great deal of work to do. Our general view on that point is that the panels should see the draft guidance at the same time as everyone else, but unlike everyone else, they should be specifically expected to comment on it and the FSA should be formally expected to respond to those comments.
The principle that lies behind all the amendments in this group is that, having set up the panels, it is of crucial importance that they have a clear view of what is expected of them and, equally, that the FSA has a clear view of its responsibilities in respect of them; namely, that any formal comments required by the authority on rules, guidance and so forth made by the panels should subsequently be promulgated.
Lord Burns: I intervene briefly to speak in support of Amendment No. 74A, which proposes that the authority should give reasons where it disagrees with the practitioner panel or the consumer panel. That follows a recommendation made by the Joint Committee.
When we were taking evidence, I was impressed by how often we heard witnesses state that one of the most frustrating aspects of any form of consultation on a proposal is when the Government do not give a clear answer and an explanation of why they disagree with that proposal. Often, consultation can appear to be a one-way street. Many arguments are put forward, but in the end those arguments are met with silence. Many witnesses found the functions of the Joint Committee helpful because they provided circumstances in which the Government were forced to give reasons why they disagreed with certain advice and proposals.
We thought it was important to provide a mechanism whereby pressure is put on the Government to give reasons. Indeed, part of my frustration at the Government's responses to some of our recommendations was the absence of clear reasons. In the longer term, I support the proposal to introduce mechanisms to ensure that the FSA—not all the blame can be laid on the Government here—must respond with reasons where there are disagreements.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I am particularly pleased to speak in support of my two amendments in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has said about them.
I should like to reflect on one or two points in Amendments Nos. 74A and 75A. First, these amendments are even-handed; they refer not only to the practitioner panel, but also to the consumer panel. They have a balanced approach to consultation.
Secondly, the Minister will recall that, in the early stages of the first clay of our debate in Committee, it became clear that the powers the FSA is to exercise through these codes and rules are legislative powers.
62
The authority's ability to use legislative powers is confined to financial regulators in this country; they are the only authorities outside Parliament which can act in a legislative manner. In the case of these codes, Parliament will not be consulted on them. For that reason, the responsibilities on the FSA in this area are boundless.
I acknowledge what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on Clause 146. It is true that the clause states that the FSA will be required to give notice of what it is going to do and to have regard to representations. However, as a number of noble Lords have already indicated, receiving representations is not the same as having the right to comment on them and the right to have those comments made public where they disagree with a draft code.
Two years ago when the Access to Justice Bill, now an Act, was going through your Lordships' House, a similar issue arose in relation to the code-making powers of the new legal services authority and the requirement for it to consult. That is reflected in the relationship it now has with the respective consumer consultee. At the time, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was perfectly content to provide for the publication of any disagreements between the legal services authority and the consumer panel. Indeed, I recall that he said something along the lines of, "We are the Government who believe in transparency". If a disagreement arises during consultation with a body set up under statute then it is only right, in the interests of transparency, that that disagreement should be made public.
It is in that spirit that these amendments have been drafted. I look forward with great interest to hearing the comments of the Minister.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am glad to have an opportunity to respond to the amendments in this grouping and to clarify the Government's view of how the arrangements for consultation will work, in particular as regards the panels to be established under Clauses 8 and 9.
Perhaps I may first explain the background to the whole of the consultation process. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner pointed out, the Bill contains a number of specific obligations to consult. The obligation under Clause 7 is a general duty that ties to the general duties of the authority under Clause 2(4). Other obligations to consult are set out in the context of specific legislative provisions, for example, on rules under the arrangements set out in Clause 146 or on statements of principle and codes of practice for approved persons issued under Clause 63.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of what is stated in Clause 146. If rules are to be made, a draft must be produced and, under subsection (2),
"notice that representations about the proposals may be made to the Authority within a specified time".
Under subsection (4) it states,
"Before making the proposed rules, the Authority must have regard to any representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2)(d)".

63
Furthermore, in subsection (5) it states,
"If the Authority makes the proposed rules, it must publish an account, in general terms, of—

(a) the representations made to it in accordance with subsection (2)(d); and

(b) its response to them".

I shall return shortly to certain points on the wording, such as "in general terms", but I believe that it cannot be said that there is no provision for consultation, for the publication of the content of that consultation or of the responses to that consultation. We regard these obligations as significant. They are part of the accountability packet that will ensure that the authority exercises its powers appropriately. It is for that reason that we brought forward these amendments to reinforce and standardise the specific consultation arrangements under the various legislative proposals.
Let me say specifically that the feedback requirements of Clause 146(5) which I have just read out were brought into the Bill after Mr Challen, the chairman of the Practitioner Forum, made his observations to the Joint Committee which have been quoted in debate this afternoon.
The obligation under Clause 7 plugs a number of gaps. It requires the authority to maintain effective arrangements for consulting consumers and practitioners on the extent to which its policies and practices are consistent with its general duties. There is no need to make it cover other matters such as rule-making; they are already covered in the provisions I have been quoting. So the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, introduces unnecessary and undesirable duplication into Clause 7.
Clauses 8 and 9 supplement the general proposition about maintaining appropriate arrangements for consultation with practitioners and consumers by imposing an obligation on the authority as part of its arrangements under Clause 7 to establish and maintain a panel of practitioners and consumers. The panel has already been established. It is operating and making its voice felt, as we heard.
It is important to get clear that the panel is there to advise the authority, whether pro-actively or responsibly, on matters of concern to the members of the panels and the constituencies they represent. It is in a unique position because of its proximity to the authority. It will have easier access to directors and senior staff and external bodies. But we must not lose sight of its purpose or status. We are not creating competition to the existing trade associations. The role of the panels will be quite distinct. Of course, we are not saying that they should be subservient to the interests of the authorities. They are there to be independent and challenging, and that is what is happening.
I turn to the specific amendments. The Government are not unsympathetic about the points made in relation to Amendments Nos. 71, 74 and 77. We expect the panel to be consulted on proposals for rules. The relevant provisions I have been reading out require
64
consultation and bring the panels squarely within the scope of the consultation arrangements. The point that is more difficult is the requirement on the authority to consult the panels before issuing proposals for wider public consultation. The Bill does not say, "We cannot do that", and should not say that.
Where rules are being made in response to specific anxieties made known in reports by one or other of the panels, one may well feel that the authority would speak to the relevant panels as a matter of course to ensure that their views have been fully understood. All of that can be read into Clause 146. However, to make it a statutory obligation would be quite excessive. The current practice is to allow the public three months to respond. I understand it is not uncommon for the authority, before issuing proposals, to take the panel's views on the broad policy issues. But to delay rule-making in order to give the panels an opportunity to comment prior to consultation would make the whole process slow and bureaucratic.
Clearly the panels may not need very long to give their responses. That point was made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. However, I am not sure we could always assume that that would be the case. But even if they did respond quickly, the authority would need to prepare papers for the panels to consider their responses. Perhaps there is comfort to be drawn from the fact that the panels would he aware of the consultation timetable in advance and may be able to give a public response to the authority in advance of the end of the consultation period for the benefit of others who are being consulted. They could also, in a purely pro-active way, be well-placed to consider issues that they know to be current and make recommendations during the policy-formulation process that will inform the rule drafting.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 74A and 75A. The Bill already requires the authority to make a statement in general terms in relation to representations made to it during consultation. The relevant provisions which I have read out apply to representations whether they are made by the panels, representative bodies, individual practitioners or consumers. The same is true of Clause 63 when we come to codes.
The reason for qualifying the coverage of the feedback statement in general terms is to ensure that the authority is not unduly burdened in having to respond to umpteen specific but related points, rather than explaining the crux of the points that have been made and giving a general answer. It may also be the case that in some situations the authority will need to generalise its report in order to protect the identity of a firm or consumer who had raised a valid point in confidence. Any suggestion that the authority can ignore representations from the panels is nonsense. It is expressly required to have regard to representations made to it by provisions such as Clause 146(4) and those provisions feature in the consultation provisions for all the authority's legislative powers under the Bill.
The panels have an advantage in that they will have facilities to publish their responses. I cannot see how the authority can fail to address serious issues which

65
are raised with it in public when it issues its feedback statement. I entirely appreciate what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in relation to the frustration which he described when government stay shtumm and do not respond to representations made to them. I suspect that he may have seen some of that from the other side from his time in the Treasury. I hope he will accept that the wording of the Bill as it now stands in practice makes that impossible.
Lord Burns: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that subsection (5)(b) simply allows the authority to say, "We disagree"? As the Minister says, I have spent a good deal of my life answering some of these questions. The skill, as we know, of some of my former colleagues in giving an answer without giving an answer is one of the things we are brought up to do. That is my worry.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are too close to this. I experience difficulty in getting the Treasury to answer questions which I am asked in parliamentary terms and wish to answer straight. There is reluctance sometimes to do that. But it would be difficult for the authority to do it. It would get itself into public trouble, particularly after this debate, if it ignored the representations made to it, particularly by panels.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 279. Clause 404 specifies the procedures applying to powers under the Bill that are exercisable by statutory instrument. The effect of the amendment would be to require the Treasury to consult the panels before making regulations and orders under the Bill. It would impose the same requirements on the Lord Chancellor when making tribunal rules for the purposes of Part IX.
There are two aspects to this. The first is whether the Treasury and other departments should be under an obligation to consult before making secondary legislation. I suppose one could argue that they should. But if we are going to do that, it should apply to all secondary legislation and it might lead to a considerable slowing down in government. The delegated powers to make secondary legislation by statutory instrument and the procedures applying in each case were examined in the Treasury's memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The committee substantially endorsed the approach in the Bill and the Treasury subsequently responded positively to the committee's seventh report of 16th February 2000.
The Treasury does not believe it is appropriate or desirable for there to be a statutory duty to consult. The order and regulating powers are subject to the approval of Parliament and Ministers are answerable to Parliament for their actions. The considerations are quite different as compared with the arrangements for the exercise of delegated legislative powers by the authority. Of course, as a matter of policy and practice the Treasury, like other departments, seeks wherever possible and appropriate to consult those likely to be affected by secondary legislation. It will continue that practice under this Bill and some noble Lords will be
66
aware that the Treasury consulted publicly on a number of draft orders that it proposes to make under the powers of this Bill.
The second part concerns the role of panels in consultation. I assure noble Lords that the Treasury, when consulting on draft statutory instruments, would be interested to hear any comments from the panels, just as it would from any other person. The practitioner and consumer panels are to be established and maintained by the authority under arrangements for consulting consumers and practitioners. They are created for a specific purpose, and that purpose does not include becoming a trade association or lobby group; they are there to advise and inform the authority. It would not be appropriate for them to have a special role in scrutinising the exercise by government of its legislative functions.
We have returned to the issue that was raised in relation to the previous group of amendments when we discussed what was prescriptive and what was too prescriptive. The Bill already permits the things that the amendments seek to achieve, but there is no need for them to be set in stone. The more we seek to set put what the panels must or may do, the more we serve to cast doubt on the ability of the panels to set their own agendas. I hope that the noble Lords will not persist with the amendments.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: I hope that the noble Lord will not think me obtuse, but he has frequently illustrated in relation to Clause 146 how the authority is bound to consult and be open, and he has also referred to Clause 63. The requirements contained in Clause 146 are mostly internal to it, but the requirements to consult and to be open in Clause 63 appear to be entirely external to it. I would be most grateful if the Minister could remind me how the behaviour of the authority, about which he has given an assurance, is a requirement in statute under Clause 63.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say that they were exactly the same, but the analogy is quite close. Clause 146 is about rules and Clause 63 is about statements and codes of conduct. Although the wording is not identical, the purpose is the same.
Lord Elton: Clause 146 contains many requirements in relation to the authority's behaviour, but they ire not contained in Clause 63. I take it, therefore, that the Minister is looking to Clause 7 for the requirement in relation to consultation and openness.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord will have to read Clauses 63 and 64 together. Clause 63 sets out the details of the code and Clause 64 sets out the procedure, including the draft, the representations and the response, in exactly the same words as Clause 146.
Lord Elton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I said that I was probably being obtuse, and indeed I was. My only purpose in again rising to my feet, apart from that embarrassing admission, is to say that

67
Amendments Nos. 74A and 75A in the name of my noble friend Lord Kingsland have survived the defences of the noble Lord, and I hope that my noble friend will persist in them at some stage.
Lord Saatchi: In trying to sum up this group of amendments, I should like to say that it is always a pleasure to see the Minister both inside the House and outside it but, having sat through nearly a day and three-quarters in Committee, I am beginning to wonder why he feels it necessary to come along. On the basis of his responses so far, he might just as well have popped along to Dixons and got a tape recorder and tape recorded the words "I am sympathetic to the amendments, but no".
This case in point is perhaps the most striking example of that approach. Each noble Lord who has spoken, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has supported the principle behind the amendments. In addition, two very powerful voices have spoken for the amendments: the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said that at the very least the FSA should publish its reasons and that there should not be a silence. He pointed out that if the Government do not feel an overwhelming need to give reasons to a joint committee for both Houses of Parliament in rejecting its recommendations, what possible hope does the practitioner panel have?
We do not need to speculate about the meaning of the words in the Bill because we have Mr Challen saying that it would be possible for a future administration to sideline the panel. That is the concern. I am not aware that Mr Challen has withdrawn that view. Therefore, I think that the Minister and the Government could give a more practical demonstration of their sympathy for the amendments rather than just warm words.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [The Practitioner Panel]:
[Amendments Nos.72ߝ74B not moved.]
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 74C.
Page 4, line 21, at end insert—
("( ) The Authority shall provide such resources as it considers necessary for the effective operation of the Practitioner Panel.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 74C. I hope that more light will now be thrown on how the panel will operate. I do not put this forward as the proper means of securing proper funding but as the proper means of learning the Government's intentions for the operation of this panel. I presume that what goes for the practitioner panel goes for the consumer panel as well, although I have not linked them together.
The panel, if it is to be effective, will require a secretariat and make its own, perhaps quite wide, inquiries among practitioners, whether by fax, e-mail, post or telephone. These duties will have to be conducted by somebody who will have to be paid,
68
unlike the panel members, and the communications bills will have to be paid. Can the Minister state the funds from which those expenses will be met? If they are to be met from the funds of the panel, how will the requirement be met in assessing the total requirement of the panel?
Amendment No. 74D, which is grouped with Amendment No. 74C, has been tabled to try to draw the Minister further. However, I think he will say that all these matters are entirely in the hands of the authority and nothing to do with him. Whether we think that that would be a satisfactory reply is another matter, but I assume that that is the present intention of the Government.
Will the panel act only as a group? Will it be able to form sub-committees to deal with specialist questions, and will it be able to co-opt practitioners with expertise that is not represented on the panel? I understand that the Minister is anxious that the panel should remain fairly small, a situation that will inevitably cause gaps. I should like to know how that difficulty will be met and whether co-option will be permitted.
These are probing amendments and I hope that the Minister will not strain himself to point out their drafting defects but use the opportunity, which I hope is welcome to him, to give us further insight into what he has in mind.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I welcome the opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 74E, which is grouped with the two amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Elton.
Under the amendment there would be established a panel known as a small business practitioner panel, which would have to be established in the general duty to consult arrangements set out in Clause 7. I have previously drawn the attention of noble Lords to the need for the small investment business to be regulated with particular sympathy and a different approach than that accorded to a much larger entity. The amendment would put on the face of the statute a requirement for the regulator to have available a source of advice which could inform him of the likely impact of its proposals on smaller firms.
I contend that it is precisely those smaller firms for whom regulatory changes can have the greatest impact. A large institution can often absorb the cost of change with greater ease. The bureaucracy of regulation can often be adapted to its own internal bureaucracies. But a small business may find it much more difficult to accommodate a regulatory requirement and, at the same time, run a healthy and profitable enterprise. There may be ways in which the regulation can be adapted to meet the needs of the smaller business without compromising the objectives of regulation but, surely, the regulator needs to be aware of the implications of his proposals before he can contemplate remedial action.
My amendment would give the regulator a source of information and would require it to be used. I am, of course, aware that such a panel already exists. Its co-chairmen are actually on the practitioner panel. But I

69
believe that the standing and significance of the small business panel would be greatly enhanced by appearing on the face of the statute. A clear signal would then be given to the regulator, and to the regulated community, that the needs of small business were going to be taken properly into account. I have already mentioned that the panel exists. It meets monthly; it has had seven meetings, the first of which was in May 1999; it has 13 members; and it is very ably chaired by Roger Saunders and Michael Quick. They have led the panel with great expertise and experience. As I said, both sit on the existing practitioner panel.
I seek to entrench what is already existing practice and, as I understand it, welcomed by the present chairman of the FSA. The panel works very well with the staff of the authority. It has on it representatives of the IFAs. Perhaps I may add here how much I appreciate the references made to independent financial advisers. As Members of the Committee know, I speak as chairman of the Association of Independent Financial Advisers. Under recent work carried out by IFA Promotion, those with fewer than 10 employees represent 86 per cent of all the firms. I have set the limit here as being,
"businesses which employ fewer than fifteen persons".
I hope that the Minister will concede that not only does this work very well in practice but also that it should not be something that is subject to the whim of the FSA. It should be placed clearly on the face of the statute.
As I said, a practitioner who runs a small financial services business does not have the time or the resources to devote himself—as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, reminded us—to 45 consultation documents. Although he welcomes them and has a very good dialogue with the regulator, he cannot spend the time that others may be able to devote to so doing. The effect of regulatory action can have a disproportionate effect on the success and survival of that business. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to have a mechanism in place for assessing the impact upon the smaller business and for recognising it on the face of the Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: Members of the Committee are very much indebted to my noble friend Lord Elton for having drawn attention to the need to have such panels properly resourced. That will have a major impact on the panel's effectiveness and its ability to communicate the concerns of practitioners. It will also help it to maintain a public profile.
My attention was recently drawn to a survey of practitioners, which found that only one-quarter of small organisations and one-third of chief executives had even heard of this non-statutory practitioners' forum. It must have the resources to tell the industry what it is doing, what representations it is making and what impact it thinks it is having. The worth of its annual report, which it intends to publish, will equally be subject to its having enough resources properly to do so.
70
At present, as no doubt the Minister will tell us, the forum has no budget. It has no staff and all its activities are being paid for on an ad hoc basis by agreement with the authority. This leaves the forum—and, indeed, if it continues, this will also apply to the panel—entirely dependent on the largesse of a body towards which it is meant to adopt a pretty arm's length relationship and of which it may from time to time be extremely critical. Its annual report admits that it is not equipped to comment fully on all the issues under consideration by the authority.
We now have an opportunity with this Bill to put some of these things right. I do not know whether the amendments of my noble friend achieve that aim. However, reinforcing the points made on the previous amendment, if this body is to succeed—this app lies equally to the consumer panel as it does to the practitioner panel—it must have the resources to enable it to be effective. If such a panel is simply dependent on what it can get from the authority, I fear for its influence. I hope that the Minister will feel able to comment on the issue.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: I should like to lend my support to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I have some scepticism about the desirability of a panoply of panels with resourcing and functions prescribed in this way. I fear that such panels will just end up creating more delay and bureaucracy without having any consequent impact. I would favour a much looser requirement for the FSA simply to consult all those who have interests. That would save a great deal of wording in the legislation.
However, if we are to have them, the danger is that panels constituted as simply representing practitioners and consumers would tend towards answers that are in the interests of large practitioners and consumers as a mass market; and, indeed, possibly bring forward solutions that are adverse in cost and competitive terms to the smaller practitioners where, as my noble friend said, the regulatory burdens are often heavier. Therefore, I strongly support the notion that one of those panels should be charged with looking after the interests of small practitioners so as to give them a particular voice.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendments before the Committee relate to the arrangements for the funding of the practitioner panel and the structure of the arrangements for representing the interests of practitioners. Perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 74C, which deals with funding. This is really unnecessary. There is a clear obligation on the authority to consult under Clause 7. When taken with the requirements under Clause 8, it is clear that that obligation will include the provision of funding where that is appropriate or necessary. If the authority failed to ensure that adequate funding was available, it would be failing to meet its obligations under these provisions.

71
The same applies to the arrangements for the practitioner panel as for the consumer panel under Clause 9, although I noticed that the noble Lord did not seek to provide amendments to deal with the consumer panel. The difference—and this may be the reason why the noble Lord has not done so—is that the consumer panel originally had an allowance for three full-time equivalent staff and now has an allowance for four full-time equivalent staff. But, as has been said, the practitioner panel does not have its own budget. The members are pro bono and any commissioned research is paid for by the FSA. It has in fact commissioned research of the order of £100,000, which is not insignificant funding for the panel.
However, if the issue is whether there should be a statutory requirement to have funding for the panel, I am afraid that Amendment No. 74C would not provide it. It states,
"The Authority shall provide such resources as it considers necessary".
That is a matter for the authority, not the panel.
Lord Elton: I made it clear that this is a probing amendment to find out how the funding is to be achieved and that at the next stage, if it is appropriate, we can produce something which will actually work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to return to the real situation; namely, that where funding has been requested, it has been made available and there has been no difficulty with that. The Joint Committee recommended that the panels should report annually on the adequacy of their budget. We have no difficulty with that. There is no need for the Bill to spell it out, but the authority has undertaken to include in its annual report a report from the chairman of each of the panels which contain—
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Has my noble friend seen the report from the consumer panel which reached a number of noble Lords today, which points out that its budget for the 13 months to 31st December was £538,000? It states modestly that it spent only £334,000. There is no hint at all that the panel is under-resourced. It states,
"We have provided much 'behind-the-scenes' policy advice to the FSA's Board and staff before the FSA embarks on full public consultation and before it reaches final decisions. In addition, in 1999 we made 19 formal responses to consultations by the FSA, Government, Parliament and trade bodies. We publish all our responses and research".
Surely this is not an under-resourced body or one that is whining for more money.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I knew that but I was hoping not to tell the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, as he does not want all these panels and all this formality and prescription. However, the damage is done now.
The other two amendments in the group address the question of the representation to the authority of the views of particular groups. Amendment No. 74D addresses the way in which the practitioner panel
72
might be advised on the way in which the authority carries out its functions. It envisages a tiered approach of consultants and advisers who are able to reflect the interests of particular groups within the practitioner community.
In the light of what I have said about the fact that the authority has funded research for the panel to the extent of £100,000, I hope that it will be recognised that there is no difficulty as regards spending money where that is necessary, but that the kind of formal approach proposed in Amendment No. 74D goes too far. There is no reason why the practitioner panel should not consult industry representatives. Indeed, where members of the panel do not think that they have enough expertise, it would be sensible for them to speak to those with a more direct interest. The authority itself might consult relevant bodies directly. It might, for example, talk with the Association of British Insurers about matters directly related to the insurance industry. Nothing in the Bill prevents the panel from doing any of these things. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, we consider that we must avoid excessive bureaucracy.
Amendment No. 74E would put the small business practitioner panel on a statutory footing alongside the practitioner and consumer panels. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, was right to remind the Committee that the panel already exists and appears to be quite active. I would rather not say so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, but there is a huge list of panels which the authority has set up. I refer to the Financial Advisory Group, the IMRO Training Standards Panel, the Regulation of Market Abuse Practitioner Group, the Handbook Advisory Group, the FSA Lloyd's Steering Panel and the Lloyd's Panel. I shall stop there, although the list is longer.
Lord Elton: Surely the noble Lord has just demolished the whole case for having a big central panel, which I asked for earlier.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have demolished the whole case for having statutory provision for these panels and a degree of bureaucracy in the way they operate which these amendments would introduce. I do not think that there is anything wrong with consulting. It could be done in the way the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, suggests; that is, that the authority will have a duty to consult tout court. However, this is the way in which the current position has been interpreted, and surely that is right.
I return to the small business practitioner panel. Quite apart from the fact that there are other panels, I do not want to underestimate the important role of small businesses, which is as clear in the financial sector as it is in any other. As someone who has been involved with a small business all my life, I am well aware of that. However, the amendment would simply beg the question of what other kinds of people should have their own voice. I said earlier that I did not think that it was necessary for the practitioner panel to have representatives of every conceivable category of

73
person who might be regulated by the authority. We should not place an obligation on the authority to create different statutory panels for every conceivable group of practitioners.
The arrangements in Clauses 7 to 9 were supported by the Joint Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. In response to a specific recommendation of that committee, the position of the panels has been enhanced by the addition of the requirement that appointment and dismissal of the chairmen should be subject to Treasury approval. We believe that we have the balance right. We believe that these amendments would be too prescriptive. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that I am sympathetic to his arguments, but I do not accept them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was immensely excited when the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said how important it was that those who take part in a consultation exercise should occasionally receive an echo from the authority that they seek to address. I, for one, greatly admire the skill of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. However, his remarks gave the impression that he had never heard of Jones. Jones is an important person in our country; everyone wants to keep up with him. If one finds that one is excluded from a list of people to be consulted, or one is excluded from a list of panels, one will probably feel rather affronted and upset. One finds it hard to explain to one's constituents how one allowed the Government to get away with that and not to accord one the recognition that they have given to everyone else.
I am not against the Bill; it is a splendid attempt to deal with a problem. However, it constitutes a fairly large affair now. I do not think that I am breaking all bounds of forecasting when I say that it is quite likely to be a fairly potent and fertile breeder. By the time it is finished, the rules, procedures, customs and so on that it establishes will constitute a large forest for people to find their way around. Some lawyers will enjoy that very much, but the ordinary citizen will not. I see the difficulty that the Government are in, but I should like to be given some indication of how they intend to get out of it. Having produced a huge amount of material, the Government suddenly say, "Goodness, this is getting awfully complicated. We are getting into a bureaucratic tangle and we must stop it". No one else is allowed to turn on the tap. No one else is allowed any of the largesse which has been handed out so freely to others. I believe that many people will have considerable grounds for complaint. I know that the noble Lord wishes to be fair to everyone. I am trying to express my profound sympathy with his efforts and my earnest hopes that he will be successful.
Lord Blackwell: I am grateful to the Minister for reading the list of practitioner groups that have been set up, and for stopping when he did! However, I was reminded of how consultation was conducted in the past. I am thinking particularly of NEDO, as was, and the wonderful principle—that no one could disagree with—that the Government should consult with industry and with the unions. Then we had little
74
Neddys and, before long, we had hundreds of people spending hours in all kinds of sector groupings, until one day someone said, "Does anything practical or useful come out of any of this?" The answer was "No". Noble Lords on both sides of the House may need to reflect more on what is being set up and its value, and come back to the matter at a later stage.
7 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am disappointed with the Minister's words. I hope he will not think me unreasonable, but, on behalf of the small business sector—particularly as the noble Lord has widespread experience of that sector—I take some offence at the amendment being dismissed on the grounds that if one extends a panel to small businesses one extends one to every conceivable group of practitioners. Surely the Minister accepts that small businesses have always received special status, not only in legislation but in directives and regulations from the European Community. In that capacity, what is working well must continue. Although I recognise why he is reluctant to accede, I think that when the moment comes I shall test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Elton: I am not sure whether my noble friend intends to test the opinion of the Committee at this stage or the next stage, but I should like to say a word in his support. I have been engaged with very many small businesses—and with very many very small businesses—in the regulatory field of finance for a number of years and I have witnessed very closely the distress that some of them labour under with enormous amount of regulatory work, paper and returns required of them under the relatively small agency of the Securities and Investment Board. The FSA is many times bigger and more powerful. It is proper that small businesses should be accorded special protection—or at least the notification of a special interest by Parliament in their affairs—because bureaucracies eat up small businesses quicker than anything.
Turning to my amendment, I should like the noble Lord to tell the Committee two things. First, why should the passage, read out with such pleasure and enthusiasm by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, about the good conduct of the authority now, when it is a voluntary agency, make us feel that there is no need to ensure that that good conduct continues after it has become a statutory body—any more than the good conduct of a private mine owner should have been enshrined in the statute which nationalised the mines many years ago?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Because the authority will have a statutory duty to maintain the panels listed in the statute.
Lord Elton: Yes, it can maintain them, but will it maintain them to the standard to which they are accustomed—as I remember asking prospective sons-in-law sometimes? In legislation one must not assume the best but prepare for the worst.

75
There should be a source of funding. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding is right that that source should not ideally be in the hands of a body with which this panel might quite possibly be at odds. He gave examples of how the authority had funded research by the voluntary panel. Supposing the request was for research to verify a statement which the panel had made to the authority saying that the way it was behaving was grievously damaging to a part of one sector of the market, and the authority was not of that opinion. Would it as liberally provide the resources to make those inquiries? I doubt it.
The noble Lord looks horrified. He keeps thinking of an individual known to him as the conductor of all the affairs of the authority. We know no such person. We know not who will be there in five years or ten; we do not know who will be on the authority; indeed, we do not know who will be appointed to the panel. We are trying to prepare grounds for the proper conduct of an industry vital to this country, and that must be properly financed.
My second question is whether the noble Lord will remind the Committee whence this money comes? I know that he will tell us that we will be dealing with funding later in the Bill, but am I right in thinking that the money that has so far been liberally given is drawn from the practitioners themselves? How much will it amount to in the years to come? I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer to the first question is, as I said, that Clause 7 states that the authority must make and maintain effective arrangements for consultation. That is not a statutory requirement at the moment. The fact that the authority does so before there is a statutory requirement hardly leads us to think that when there is one it is likely to break the statute and refuse funding to either of the panels.
Lord Elton: I am sorry. Again I am asking a question to which the noble Lord obviously thinks I know the answer. Whose money is it that the authority will be giving?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord asked two questions. I had answered one and before I had a chance to answer the second one the noble Lord stood up again. That is his privilege—we are in Committee—but I should like an opportunity to answer the second question. The answer is that the Financial Services Authority is a company, limited by guarantee, which is funded by fees from the regulated community.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful. The Minister made a small gesture. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I read into his movement that he was sitting down when he was not. I am grateful for that answer.
I shall read with great interest the answers that we have had so far. I reserve the right to come back to this issue at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
76
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74D not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 74E:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
THE SMALL BUSINESS PRACTITIONER PANEL
(" .—(1) Arrangements under section 7 must include the establishment and maintenance of a panel of persons (to be known as the "Small Business Practitioner Panel") to represent the interests of practitioners who are in businesses which employ fewer than fifteen persons.
(2) The Authority must appoint one of the members of the Small Business Practitioner Panel to be its chairman.
(3) The Treasury's approval is required for the appointment or dismissal of the chairman.
(4) The Authority must have regard to any representations made to it by the Small Business Practitioner Panel.").
7.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 74E) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hooper, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Bagri, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blackwell, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blatch, B.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Lyell, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Buscombe, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Byford, B.

Mancroft, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Colwyn, L

Monson, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

O'Cathain, B

Dean of Harptree, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Saatchi, L.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Flather, B.

Seccombe, B.

Fookes, B.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharpies, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Geddes, L.

Strathdyde, L.

Glentoran, L.

Vivian, L.

Goschen, V.

Waddington, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Weatherill, L.

Home, E.

Windlesham, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Blease, L.

Alli, L.

Borrie, L.

Amos, B.

Bragg, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Bach, L.

Brookman, L.

Barker, B.

Burlison, L.

Barnett, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Blackstone, B.

Christopher, L.

77

Clarke of Hampslead, L.

Lipsey, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Crawley, B.

McCarthy, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

David, B.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

DaviesofCoity, L.

[Teller]

Davies of Oldham, L.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Desai, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Dixon, L.

McNally, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mar, C.

Dubs, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Elder, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Newby, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Nicol, B.

Filkin, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gale, B.

Peston, L.

Gilbert, L

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goudie, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gould of Poiternewton, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Grabiner, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hamwee, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sharman, L.

Harrison, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hooson, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Tomlinson, L.

Chancellor)

Tope, L.

Islwyn, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Uddin, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. {Lord

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Warner, L.

Privy Seal)

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Jeger, B.

Whitaker, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whitty, L.

Joffe, L.

Wilkins, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.16 p.m.
Clause 9 [The Consumer Panel]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 4, line 35, after ("or") insert ("are or may be").
The noble Lord said: spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 75A not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 4, line 37, leave out from second ("persons") to end of line 39 and insert ("—

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

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

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Saatchi Lord Saatchi moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION BY THE AUTHORITY
(" .—(1) The Authority shall, subject to subsection (2), publish or disclose information to any person on request with a view to enabling members of the public to make informed judgements about the way in which it is carrying out its functions.
(2) Before deciding not to publish or disclose information, the Authority must decide that the public interest is outweighed by any considerations of confidentiality attaching to it.").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Wilcox, who is unavoidably absent, I shall address Amendment No. 78.
The noble Baroness's amendment seeks to provide the Committee with an opportunity to debate the extent to which the Financial Services Authority will be open about its activities. We should like it to be required to operate under a presumption of openness. That means that everything should be open unless there is a good reason for it not to be. The Minister may like to confirm that the FSA will be among the bodies that will be covered by the provisions of the Freedom of Information Bill. That will be most welcome. There are well-documented concerns relating to provisions in that Bill which we shall no doubt consider in more detail when the Bill comes before this place.
As a general principle, however, we favour the introduction of a more stringent openness requirement on regulatory public bodies. The Food Standards Agency—curiously, another "FSA"—is required to operate more openly than it would be under the freedom of information legislation. So the wording of the amendment deliberately echoes the wording to be found in the Food Standards Act. The public would be placed in a position to make informed judgments about the performance of the Financial Services Authority.
Following the widespread mis-selling of pensions and endowments, the FSA has a vital role in restoring public confidence in the industry. Market confidence is indeed one of its prime objectives in Clause 2(2)(a). An open regulatory system is a fundamental aspect of the attempt to rebuild trust. Because the public need to be satisfied that their interests are being given due weight in decisions that impact on them, recommendations made by the consumer panel to the authority and the authority's response to them ought to be in the public domain. Transparency about information flowing between the FSA and government would also be very welcome.
We think that the new clause is balanced. It recognises that there are sometimes important considerations of confidentiality which may justify a decision not to publish or disclose information. But

79
the amendment would ensure that the FSA, before reaching such a decision, must first have to have concluded that those interests do outweigh the public right to know. The amendment introduces a general presumption of openness. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a positive response to this most modest proposal. On behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hardly dare say that I am sympathetic, but no. The purpose of the amendment is entirely admirable. It is to enable members of the public to have access to information on request which would help them to make informed judgments about the way in which the FSA is carrying out its functions. Access to information to enable greater understanding and transparency is of course right, but the new clause is in fact unnecessary because the authority will be a designated body, as the noble Lord anticipated, for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Bill, which was not published in its present form when the Food Standards Agency Bill was first introduced and therefore will be required to make disclosures in accordance with the requirements under that Bill when it is enacted. One of the stated purposes of the Freedom of Information Bill is to extend progressively the right of the public to have access to information held by public authorities.
It is not only that the suggested clause is unnecessary, but it would allow access to information relating to a fairly narrow range of activities; that is, information relating to the way the FSA is,
"carrying out its functions".
The FSA's responsibility to allow access to information under the Freedom of Information Bill means that it has to provide access on request in connection with all of its public functions and not just the way it is carrying out its functions. Subsection (2) of the amendment provides a carve out for confidential or commercial information. Of course it is important that the authority is able to protect sensitive information. Indeed, it is under a legal obligation to do so. The Freedom of Information Bill makes appropriate provision to afford such protection, as indeed does Part XXII of this Bill.
The Government are sympathetic to the intention of the amendment but believe that it is an unnecessary addition, given that it is already provided for by the Freedom of Information Bill.
Lord Saatchi: I fear that this is another example of what I described previously. The Government are prepared to express sympathy but are not prepared to act slightly more decisively. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
7.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 78) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 84.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blackwell, L.

Joffe, L.

Blatch, B.

Kingsland, L.

Boardman, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Liverpool, E.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Buscombe, B.

Lyell, L.

Byford, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Mancroft, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L

Marlesford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Northbrook, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Denham, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elles, B.

Saatchi, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Fookes, B.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sharpies, B.

Geddes, L.

Stewartby, L.

Glentoran, L.

Vivian, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Waddington, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Wakeham, L.

Home, E.

Windlesham, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Alli, L.

Islwyn, L.

Amos, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Bach, L.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lipsey, L.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bragg, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brookman, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Burns, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Christopher, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Crawley, B.

Mar, C.

David, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dixon, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donoughue, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Dubs, L.

Sawyer, L.

Elder, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Shepherd, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon, V.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Filkin, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gilbert, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Goudie, B.

Uddin, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Warner, L.

Grabiner, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Whitaker, B.

Harrison, L.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Commit tee stage of the Bill should not reconvene before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 2000
7.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this order in another place last week my right honourable friend the Home Secretary indicated that this could be the final debate on the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act if, as the Government hoped, it was replaced with a new Terrorism Bill to be debated in this House shortly. The proposal to replace the Act recognises the sad fact that even the establishment of a lasting peace in Northern Ireland does not entirely remove the threat of terrorism. But I do not propose to dwell too much on the proposed new legislation which noble Lords will soon have an opportunity to debate in detail. Instead, I shall concentrate on the renewal of the existing Act.
We must ensure that those in the front line against terrorism continue to have all the tools necessary to do their job effectively. The PTA is a critical part of that tool kit, and that is why it is essential for it to be renewed, probably for the last time, until, subject to parliamentary approval, new legislation can be brought into force.
I should first comment on the human rights aspect of the order. Noble Lords will recall that the Government undertook on 2nd November 1999 to ensure that where a draft order was subject to the affirmative resolution procedure the Minister moving the instrument would inform Parliament whether he or she was satisfied as to its compatibility with convention rights. This House will have expected my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and me to have given this matter very careful consideration. The question of human rights has been raised on many occasions in respect of this particular piece of legislation, not least in comments by members of the present Government while in opposition.
The mechanism for extending detention under Section 14 of the Act has caused most disquiet over the years. Detention can be for a period of only 48 hours unless the Secretary of State extends the period for anything up to a further five days on application by the
82
police. In the case of Brogan this was found to be at odds with the requirement under Article 5.3 of the ECHR to bring a detainee promptly before a judge or other judicial power. The Brogan case led the UK Government to derogate from that requirement under Article 15.1 of the convention in respect of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. This was notified to the Council of Europe on 23rd December 1988.
Noble Lords will have the opportunity to note that the Terrorism Bill seeks to address this particular concern by requiring applications for extension of detention to be made to a judge, sheriff or designated magistrate, as the case may be. We believe that the judicial character of the hearing for an extension will fulfil the procedural requirements of the convention in relation to Article 5.3 and enable the removal of the derogation. In the meantime, the derogation continues to be necessary.
The House may also have been aware of judgments last year in the Divisional Court in respect of Sections 16A and 16B of the Act in the case of Kehilene and others. Noble Lords may recall that Section 16A makes it an offence to be in possession of an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that it is possessed for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, while Section 16B makes it art offence to collect or record any information which is of such a nature as is likely to be useful to terrorists, or to possess a record or document containing such information, unless the accused can show that he has lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
The Divisional Court held that both offences breached Article 6.2 of the ECHR because the reverse burden of proof provided for violated the presumption of innocence. But in the Judicial Committee of this House the Divisional Court's finding regarding Section 16A was not upheld, and proceedings in the case under Section 16B had meanwhile been discontinued.
The Government continue to believe that these offences are a proportionate response to the circumstances of the fight against terrorism. I hope that the House will understand if in the time available I restrict my detailed comments on the issue of ECHR compatibility to those provisions and I report that, like my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I am satisfied that all of the provisions that we seek to renew tonight comply with convention rights.
Before I move away completely from discussion of ECHR issues I turn to the report on the operation of the Act in 1999 prepared by John Rowe, QC. As ever, I am indebted to him for the care and attention that has gone into the compilation of that report.
It is clear that Mr Rowe has sought deliberately in the course of his review to assess the degree of awareness of human rights issues. For example, at paragraph 21 he says:
"I asked questions to see how far [officials, departments and members of the security forces] were aware of the need to avoid arbitrariness, or the need to monitor regularly the exercise of the particular power. On many occasions the person himself or herself

83
volunteered, before I mentioned it, the question of the HRA, or breach of human rights. I learned that in many spheres there is active training going on about the elements of the HRA and human rights; and the general impression I received was that people are aware of the need to have in mind the Convention".
Like my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I should say how encouraging I found those comments to be.
Now let me look at the events of the past 12 months. In the context of Northern Ireland it has been a period of mixed emotions. Full implementation of the Good Friday agreement has dominated the headlines. The year has been characterised by periods of immense optimism interspersed with the concern that the momentum generated by the signing of the agreement in April 1998 was slipping and the decision of the House and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to suspend the devolved institutions.
In respect of terrorism related to the affairs of Northern Ireland, 1999 witnessed a welcome reduction in terrorist activity both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. Even so, there were 124 shootings and 82 bombing incidents recorded in Northern Ireland; and there we see still tragic and unnecessary deaths. In all, seven people died in Northern Ireland in 1999 as a consequence of terrorist violence. Perhaps I may remind the House of two of those deaths. In June, Elizabeth O'Neill was killed in her home by a pipe bomb thrown through the window. And the House will, I am sure, recall the horror of the death, just over a year ago, of Rosemary Nelson, murdered in an act of sheer brutality as she left her home in her car. They are terrible reminders of a time all of us in this House and beyond wish so much to see relegated to the past. But they are reminders, too, of why we should not be distracted from the search for peace.
We need not look far either to be reminded of the threat international terrorism poses. Two explosions in the space of an hour in the centre of Madrid left an army officer dead and heralded the start of a new campaign of violence by the Basque separatist group, ETA, following the announcement in December of an end to its 14-month cease-fire. Further attacks, sadly, have since followed. The Italian terrorist group, the Red Brigade, has also recently resumed attacks.
These are not, of course, campaigns that will necessarily affect our shores, but the occupation early last year of the Greek Embassy in London, and similar types of demonstrations in Europe and further afield in support of the PKK leader, Abdullah Ocalan, show only too readily that terrorists do not recognise borders and will ply their trade wherever they can. We shall continue to play our role on the international stage and do our utmost to secure peace and stability, but it is equally important to have in place effective counter-terrorist measures to deter those who would seek to perpetrate terror and to assist those whose task it is to investigate their crimes.
Perhaps I may at this point remind noble Lords that only last month my right honourable friend the Home Secretary paid tribute, and rightly so, to the skill,
84
patience and professionalism of Essex police in bringing to a successful conclusion a hijacking incident at Stansted. I am sure that noble Lords will share that sentiment.
I return now to the report prepared by Mr John Rowe QC which informs our debate today. Mr Rowe concludes that the powers in the PTA, including the powers of arrest, detention and stop and search, were used carefully, appropriately and proportionately in 1999. There are similar comments on the importance of port powers to the overall police effort, and he is satisfied that they have been used properly. This is very reassuring, and I am pleased to note his conclusion that they should remain in force.
I have noted in particular his comments on the security situation in Northern Ireland. I have already recognised that there are still those in Northern Ireland who remain wedded to the old ways of violence and intimidation; and, tragically, there has been evidence supporting his assertion that attacks on the community were in preparation. Only last week police in Northern Ireland discovered 500 pounds of explosives in a vehicle as a result of which four people have, I understand, been charged with offences related to the possession of explosives.
But we should not lose our sense of perspective. Politicians on all sides are striving to make politics work, to make those who advocate the use of violence realise the futility of their ways, and the overall level of violence remains far below that experienced prior to the main paramilitary cease-fires.
Looking at some of the other issues raised in Mr Rowe's report, I was pleased also to note the reference to the smaller number of complaints from the public about the operation of the Act in 1999. It is pleasing also that Mr Rowe felt able to comment on the apparent care that was taken when looking into those complaints.
In conclusion, while the Terrorism Bill to which I have referred will, I believe, provide new, modernised counter-terrorism legislation proportionate to the threat, we cannot in the meantime expect those fighting terrorism to do so without the present powers of the PTA. It is vital that we maintain continuity and that the existing powers remain available for the next few months through the renewal of the current legislation until new legislation is enacted and can be implemented. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. It is clear from Mr Rowe's extremely clear report that it is right and necessary to extend the Prevention of Terrorism Act, as the order does, for a further 12 months. I join with the Minister in thanking Mr Rowe for his diligent and very thorough review of the workings of the various provisions.

85
As the Minister said, before long we shall debate at some length the new Terrorism Bill. Therefore I do not need to discuss much of the detail at too great a length at this point. However, I am satisfied both from Mr Rowe's report and my own observations that the threats from terrorism to our democracy and to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland and Great Britain remain real and dangerous.
The situation as regards Northern Ireland is not as bad as it has been at some periods over the past few decades, but the Minister referred rightly to the murders and beatings of recent months and the findings of explosives and other bomb-making equipment. Mr Rowe records that in his report, together with evidence of planning, preparation and training. This is no time to relax.
We all know, too, as Irish history tells us, that when in the past there has been a settlement there has also been, I think on every occasion, a break-away group of those who did not accept the terms agreed but carried on with violence. At present the Good Friday agreement has its problems, as we know. There is, therefore, double reason to continue the protection to our people, our society and democracy against both break-away groups and perhaps mainstream groups of terrorists. One can be very sure that if they thought that we had dropped our guard in the slightest, some would seek to take advantage of that apparent weakness.
I want to draw attention to three aspects of Mr Rowe's report. First, in Chapter 3 he records that the number of complaints against the usage of port powers—one of the most important powers in this legislation is" infinitesimally small". In a later paragraph he states that there were only 31 complaints resulting from 16,000 patrols in Northern Ireland. We can take comfort from those figures that the powers are not being misused but are being properly used.
The second matter concerns terrorists' finance. Since having responsibility for these matters in Northern Ireland, I have emphasised the importance of that aspect. Extortion and rackets form the basis of a high proportion of terrorist crime; that is terrorists of all opinions. Mr Rowe points out that in the past 12 months there have been an average of eight armed robberies a week in Northern Ireland. They are in addition to the counterfeiting, extortion and so forth, referred to in paragraph 36. That is an important aspect and it must receive great attention.
Finally, I was interested in Mr Rowe's comments in Chapter 5 on the international situation. In paragraph 41, he points out:
"Members of dissident and separatist groups reside here, or visit conspirators here, and especially raise money here. Our laws are liberal".
Later, he states:
"Furthermore, the United Kingdom may be used as a base from which to make attacks elsewhere".
That shows that not only is the Irish dimension addressed by these powers, but so is the international terrorist situation. The United Kingdom has important responsibilities for the preservation of
86
democracy and the protection of our citizens in countries other than ours. We shall return to the matter during our debates on the Terrorism Bill, in particular Mr Rowe's points in Chapter 8 about the funding of international terrorism and the seizure of assets.
As regards this order, the Home Secretary assured another place that this year there are no gaps in it—there was previously an unfortunate gap—and that is a welcome reassurance. I am in no doubt about the need for the order and I believe that the House should support it.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cope, speaking as he does with experience of both the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office. In particular, I associate myself with his concluding remarks. When we debate the Terrorism Bill, which deals with broader issues, we must take into account the global nature of terrorism and the need to keep our domestic law as free as possible while recognising that there are those willing to use that freedom and liberal approach abusively in order to further their interests in foreign counties. That will be a big issue in our debates on that Bill.
As the Minister indicated, this is probably the last time we shall discuss this order in this form. My right honourable friend Alan Beith, in another place and at another time, described this legislation as a regrettable necessity. That remains our view.
A year ago we were much more optimistic. Sadly, our hope that the Good Friday agreement would quickly lead to normality proved over-optimistic. That does not mean that we should give up the efforts to further the process. As President Clinton reminded the main protagonists in Washington last week, it remains the best hope for this generation of achieving a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
But even if Northern Ireland takes its opportunity, it is clear that terrorism in the 21st century will know no frontiers. The Liberal Democrats see the need for the legislation and for the security services to protect our way of life from terrorist violence. But extremism cannot be fought and overcome unless democratic societies retain the support of their people. To do that, the security services and security legislation have to be kept under review and made subject to parliamentary accountability. So our first base is that democratic societies have a right and duty to protect themselves against the terrorists.
However, the powers which the state takes should be no more than sufficient to the task. I liked the Minister's phrase that they should be proportionate to the threat. If, in the fight against terrorism, we constrict our liberties and civil rights, we give a victory to the terrorists. Therefore, we on these Benches make no apology for saying that we will scrutinise anti-terrorist legislation with an eye to the implications for civil liberties and human rights.
Members on both Front Benches mentioned the report of J.J. Rowe QC. I have had the pleasure of meeting him; he is a most impressive public servant.

87
That is reflected in the thoroughness of his report. Like the Minister, I was impressed by his assessment that he found care and fairness on the part of those exercising the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. He also stated that there was active training on the implications of the Human Rights Act and an awareness of the need to have in mind the convention when operating these powers. That is greatly reassuring for Parliament.
The Minister mentioned the decades of terrorism that we have had to endure. It is 25 years since my noble friend Lord Jenkins produced the first Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Yet it is amazing how much terrorism has failed. No atrocity or outrage has moved opinion in Parliament or in the country to make us weaken our resolve as regards our commitments and duties in Northern Ireland. The issue in Northern Ireland is not British imperialism, but the ability and the capacity of the people of Northern Ireland to find a way to live one with another in peace. I am afraid that on that the jury is still out.
We note with approval that the Government have excluded internment without trial and exclusion orders from the measures before the House tonight. These are, I believe, genuine confidence-building measures against the background of the peace process. It would be even more reassuring to hope that the terrorist organisations had stood down on training and recruitment. Alas, that is not the finding of Mr Rowe in his report. He believes that training and recruitment continue. If that is the case, what we have is not a ceasefire and a peace process, but an armed truce.
The reality of terrorism was brought home to me by an article in this morning's Independent on the death of Tim Parry in Warrington seven years ago today. It stated:
"He has told the story a thousand times but there is still a rawness in Colin Parry's minute recollections of his 12 year-old son's last morning. 'I remember giving him a big squeeze', said Mr Parry. 'His head came up to here, beneath my chin. It fitted into you nicely". Father and son went their separate ways and by nightfall that Saturday 'a surgeon in his greens' was standing before Mr Parry, tipping a St Christopher chain and a watch out of an envelope. They were Tim's. It was the first confirmation that his son had been injured, let alone killed, by that 1993 IRA bomb attack on Warrington".
In its starkness, it brings home the vile futility and wickedness of terrorism. The report goes on to explain that Warrington's response is today's opening of the Tim Parry/Jonathan Ball Young People's Centre. Jonathan Ball was a 3 year-old, also killed at Warrington.
Our response should be threefold: first, to continue to work for the peaceful resolution of conflict in Northern Ireland and elsewhere; secondly, to continue to resist terrorism and extremism; and, thirdly, to continue to protect civil and human rights. Only by resisting terrorism and protecting basic freedoms do we honour and keep faith with Tim Parry, Jonathan
88
Ball and all the others who have been killed and maimed by terrorists over the years. These Benches support the renewal of this order.
8 P.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the support shown from the Opposition Benches by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord McNally, for the renewal of the order. I, too, feel very moved by the description which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, repeated to us from the Independent newspaper. It reminds us in a timely way of why we need this legislation on the statute book and why we need the legislation that we shall bring forward later in this parliamentary Session. The discussions around that legislation will obviously be important because they will frame the way in which we tackle the threat of terrorism over the next years and decades.
I have no doubt that we shall continue to require that legislation. It is important and it provides our society and communities with the kind of protection that legislation has given over the past 25 years. I do not wish to go into great detail about what we shall bring forward. However, I believe that its importance lies in continuing the accountability to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred. It continues to demonstrate the Government's vigilance and the continued vigilance that extends, I believe, across the parties.
I hope that over time the terrorist threat in Northern Ireland will diminish further. Although the peace process may not be making the rapid progress that your Lordships' House would wish to see, there have been encouraging signs that the civilian population, quite understandably, retains its enthusiasm for peace, and that the activity of terrorists has continued to diminish. However, we need to be ever watchful. This legislation will enable us to do that within a framework of the law and of democratic accountability. That is the tradition to which we must adhere. For those reasons, I am grateful that this evening noble Lords have given their support to the legislation. I commend the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.3 to 8.35 p.m.]

Financial Services and Markets Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 10 [Reviews]:
Lord Saatchi Lord Saatchi moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("may") and insert ("must on the second anniversary of the day on which section 1 comes into force and every two years thereafter").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 79 and 81 to 83 relate to the intervals at which reviews of the FSA should take place. I should like to discuss also the next

89
group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 80 and 84 to 86—which deal with who will carry out the reviews. If it is for the convenience of the Committee, I shall try to cover the key issues in relation to those amendments.
One would have thought that having a review of the FSA would be a reasonable suggestion. But extraordinarily, there is no provision for it in the Bill. The Bill states:
"The Treasury may appoint an independent person to conduct a review".
However, on the other hand, it may decide not to conduct a review. It is up the Treasury. Therefore the clause is what is called an enabling clause.
Any doubt about that is removed by the Explanatory Memorandum which states that,
"the Treasury can commission independent reviews".
The fact is that the Treasury can do just about what it likes under the clause. Not only can it decide whether to have a review in subsection (1), but in subsection (2) it can decide to limit the scope of the review, and subsection (3) specifically excludes the opportunity for a fundamental review. Nor is the independence of the reviewer guaranteed. The Treasury can also decide what "independence" means. Subsection (7) states:
"Independent' means appearing to the Treasury to be independent of the Authority".
We believe that the Bill hands too much power to the Treasury. The enabling provisions amount to an unacceptable level of discretion in the hands of the Treasury and we should like to find ways to limit it. I hope that the Minister will concede that reviews should take place, not merely when the Treasury decides but even when the Treasury and Treasury Ministers might not find it convenient to have a review. I hope that he will concede also that leaving the scope of the review entirely in the hands of the Treasury cannot be satisfactory. I do not believe that the industry considers that to be satisfactory.
I expect that in a few moments the Minister will say that the FSA is accountable to the Treasury and the Treasury is accountable to Parliament. He will probably point out also that there are the consumer and practitioner panels to assist with the review process. It is true that the Government have conceded some form of review. The clause as it stands was a concession after consultation. But their concession starts to disappear the more that one looks at it. Is it not true that, as we heard earlier, the consumer and practitioner panels have serious shortcomings, as many noble Lords have said? It is not clear how much notice the FSA and the Treasury will need to take of the panels' recommendations. The chain of accountability from the FSA and the Treasury to Parliament is weak and it does away with questions on the Floor of the House. We believe that we need something stronger for such a powerful body.
Where can we go to get: something better? That is where Amendments Nos. 80 and 84 to 86 arise. They deal with the question of who should conduct reviews and they suggest that the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office should take that
90
role. One cannot compare the Treasury and the independence of Treasury Ministers with the NAO's role. Treasury Ministers have a government to run and a party political agenda to pursue. The NA0 is and has on many occasions been seen to be unimpeachably independent. It has the power to produce reports which go to the Public Accounts Select Committee. It can provide a more thorough and detailed form of parliamentary scrutiny than the proposed system. The NAO already conducts reviews of other public bodies, some of which include the other principal regulators, such as those for the electricity, gas, rail, telecom and water industries.
The Government have argued before that the FSA does not receive public funds, so it should not be scrutinised as a public body and should not be subjected to such a review. But who can argue with the fact that Parliament is entitled to ask for an independent full review of a body in which it places so much power and public trust? That is what the two groups of amendments seek to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord Barnett: I have been reluctant to participate in the debates to lengthen the time that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, wishes to take on amendments. However, I have a good deal of sympathy with all that he says—he was extremely brief—about the Comptroller and Auditor General. I declare a past interest, in the sense that I have been chairman of the Public Accounts Select Committee of another place, where I had quite considerable experience with Comptrollers and Auditors General. All of them, without exception, were excellent people. I do not know the current Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, as well as the others, but I gather that he is excellent. I note that the noble Lord could not help but refer to the following grouping of amendments, because once one says "must" instead of "may" one must mention to whom one is referring. He rightly talked about the Comptroller and Auditor General. I have a great deal of sympathy with his view.
On the other hand, I am bound to say that to lay down categorically that the Government, or the authority, must appoint a particular individual, no matter how good, is not sensible. (It sounds as though someone agrees with me—or disagrees, as the case may be. I hope that they will not be ejected too forcibly, whoever it may be.) It sounds rather like my noble friend Lord McIntosh to say, "I have a great deal of sympathy, but—", but I have great sympathy with the amendment because if, by any chance, the authority were to appoint the comptroller, in certain instances I should be extremely pleased to see that happen. I do not know whether this does in fact sound like my noble friend. He may in fact be about to disagree with me and to say that he will accept the noble Lord's amendment. It would be foolish to do so. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not accept the amendment. If we are pressed to a vote, I am bound to say that I shall oppose the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, much as I should regret to do so. He knows how fond of him I am and that. I

91
know how much he cares about his public service which demands that he should move such amendments.
Baroness O'Cathain: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, realised what he actually said. He said that he believed that there was some merit in the Comptroller and Auditor General being involved, but that he would object to that being put on the face of the Bill. There is a case for limiting the powers of the Treasury. Everyone seems to go terribly tippy-toed every time the word "Treasury" is mentioned, as though its Ministers are somehow on a completely different planet from the rest of us. Of course they are, I suppose, but should they be? After all, they are servants of the state and they probably still have to do what is right for the general populace. We are kowtowing too much to the Treasury. I should like to see the amendment carried—or, at least, agreed to. I hope that the Minister will feel that way too.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Boardman: For an awful moment I believed I was going to find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I have agreed with him from time to time, when he has been sensible. Tonight he began with support for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which I entirely endorse. He is absolutely right. That appointment should be made. The Bill describes the post as "an independent person". No one has the hallmark of an independent person better than the Comptroller and Auditor General. Where I disagree was that in the endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, it was left open as to whether or not "may" should be used. In my view, "must" is correct. The independent person must be the Comptroller and Auditor General. For that reason I support the amendment.
Lord Newby: I shall deal with the two groups of amendments separately. The first amendment seeks a two-year review covering the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the FSA. I can see why that provision is needed in the Bill, but having had some discussion on Thursday about the annual report which the FSA will be required to provide on the assumption that our extremely sensible amendment proposing a joint committee of both Houses were acted on, I wonder whether such a wide-ranging report—a kind of "Ofsted for the FSA" every two years—is absolutely necessary, in particular, during the first period of operation of the body when it is setting itself up. The first set of amendments is probably rather too prescriptive.
On these Benches we see a logic in the Comptroller and Auditor General being specified, in that he is the servant of Parliament. We are relying on Parliament in our concept of the operation of the FSA to be the body which exercises effective control. There is a strong prima facie case for that. However, there are many other bodies which could carry out the role which the Comptroller and Auditor General might perform.
92
They may do so more effectively and there is an argument for having some proper competition. Perhaps we should have a look to see who else might be able to do the job most effectively and most cost-effectively. Equally, even if it is not the Comptroller and Auditor General, a body appointed to look into the effectiveness of the FSA could report to Parliament just as well as the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I wonder whether the noble Lord might give way. Was he about to suggest that perhaps a leading firm of chartered accounts might be invited to do the job?
Lord Newby: There is a range of possible bodies which could do the job.
Lord Elton: One of the great anxieties which the Bill stirs in my heart is the impenetrability of the actions of the new body to parliamentary inspection. The great advantage of my noble friend Lord Saatchi's proposal in the second group of amendments is that the FSA shall be made open to inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor General who, under the 1983 Act is, I understand, an officer of the House of Commons, thus bringing parliamentary inspection back into the circuit, which is so missing. It is a neat and sensible solution which I warmly endorse.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed in this debate. However, I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench why they have changed tack from the line that their colleagues adopted in another place. On Report they proposed that the FSA should be subject to independent scrutiny in 2002 but did not specify who should be responsible, and said that the review should be conducted, not at two-year intervals, but at five-year intervals. In another place there was no reference made to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Is it the case that if the Comptroller and Auditor General is involved in such a process, the only body that exercises scrutiny is the Public Accounts Committee in another place? Along with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I would welcome the continuation of the Joint Committee approach which examined the Bill in its pre-legislative mode. I would not have thought that the Public Accounts Committee was the most appropriate body to exercise that function. Indeed, it is interesting to see that the plan and the budget of the FSA was considered as recently as last Tuesday, not by the Public Accounts Committee, but by the Treasury Select Committee in another place. It strikes me that we are in danger of establishing rather too much parliamentary scrutiny in another place and denying ourselves the opportunity of carrying out the role in this House.
Another point is that the non-executive board members of the FSA are given the specific responsibility of controlling the budget under Schedule 1 to the Bill. I am fearful that if we go too far

93
down that road we shall find that the role of the non-executive board members will be greatly diminished. I hope that that is something that can be addressed as we consider the issue further.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, chides my noble friends because they have not put forward the same amendment in this place as was tabled by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place. As the Government rejected the amendment tabled in another place, surely we are entitled to try another one. Ministers may say the same in both Houses, but happily Oppositions do not. When the noble Lord has been in this House a little longer and sits on this side of the House—that may happen sooner than he believes—he will realise that that is one of the advantages.
Having had some experience of such matters, I am impressed by the amount of support for the idea that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have responsibility. As a former Financial Secretary at the Treasury, I was an ex-officio member of the Public Accounts Committee in another place. I believe that proposal is right. The alternative, which may be considered, is the Audit Commission.
However, I believe there may be room for doubt on whether the period of two years is correct. That is a short period. Conducting a review will be a long process. It will be like painting the Forth Bridge. As soon as the procedure is started for one term, it will need to be started again I shall listen to what the Minister has to say, but I believe the idea of the linkage mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, between the Comptroller and Auditor General and, as I hope it will be, a Joint Committee of both Houses, is a good one. I do not believe that the Comptroller and Auditor General has to report to the Public Accounts Committee. If that turns out to be the law, we can amend that law in this case.
Has the Minister yet had time to hold discussions with his noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip to find out whether there may be a possibility of a Joint Committee being appointed to undertake the parliamentary scrutiny? If the Comptroller and Auditor General conducts reviews, not necessarily every two years, and reports to a Joint Committee, I believe that that would provide a pretty good chain of command whereby this uniquely powerful institution can be subject to proper professional and parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Elton: In view of the rapidity with which these markets develop and the relative slowness with which committees come to conclusions, does my noble friend believe that a quinquennial meeting, taking a year to report, will look more at history than current affairs?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I did not say the period should he five years. I felt that every two years would be too frequent. Somewhere in between, say every three years, may be better.
Lord Burns: I want to join with those who have expressed their admiration for the Comptroller and
94
Auditor General. In my previous life I worked closely with him. I have been scrutinised and audited by him. Sometimes such a process went well and sometimes not so well. I can vouchsafe for his dedication and skill. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in questioning whether it is necessary to give him a monopoly position. In my previous life we had an ongoing debate about the Comptroller and Auditor General and whether he should follow public money wherever it goes. Of course, with contracting out and with more services being bought in, the border line has become more difficult to define.
Here we have a private sector company with no taxpayers' money involved and the finance for the organisation will come from the private sector. Therefore, it seems strange that we should give the Comptroller and Auditor General a monopoly position. There is nothing to stop the Treasury appointing him to this task. But why should he get the job by default rather than through some process of competition? I am reluctant that this situation should be part of the legislation rather than being considered on an ongoing basis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to leave the tape recorder behind. I am thoroughly antagonistic to all these amendments, except government Amendment No. 83. I believe that they would severely diminish the effectiveness of the value for money review procedure proposed under Clause:10. Currently Clause 10 provides the Treasury with the power to appoint an independent person to conduct a review of the efficiency, economy and effectiveness with which the FSA has used its resources to discharge its functions—that is to say, a value for money audit. It is intended to be a flexible power allowing the Treasury to commission reviews on a large scale or into particular aspects of the FSA's operations as often as appropriate.
Amendments Nos. 79, 81 and 82 would remove that useful element of flexibility. They would set in stone a requirement to have a value for money review every two years following the coming into force of the Bill and on no other occasion and covering nothing except the whole of the activities of the FSA.
The reason that there is no provision in the Bill requiring value for money reviews to be carried out at a particular time is a simple one. We see nothing to be gained by holding a review for the sake of it and quite a lot could be lost by having it at regular fixed periods.
Clearly, reviews are an important tool in keeping costs down and ensuring that the regulator carries out his job efficiently, but they should only take place when necessary. Reviews are not cheap. They tie up a lot of the time of staff and management and divert the regulator from the job of regulation. The FSA has expressed concerns, which I share, that there could be a planning blight in the run-up to the review.
If a value for money review happens more often than is necessary, less often than necessary or at the wrong time, that could have the opposite effect to the one intended. The amendment would also have the

95
unfortunate effect of making it impossible for the Treasury to commission a review at other times. Depending on the circumstances, two years may be too short a gap between reviews, as some noble Lords believe, so we need a flexible power.
We have made it clear that we shall hold a review if and when there is evidence suggesting that that would be useful. There is nothing unusual in that. Indeed, it is the same approach taken in the National Audit Act 1983 which says that the Comptroller and Auditor General may carry out examinations of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of departments. It does not say that he must do so.
We will not be short of indicators as to when a review is appropriate. The non-executive directors will conduct a report annually on whether the FSA is using its resources in the most effective and economic way. There is a great deal of transparency around the FSA's budgeting and the setting of fees for regulated persons. Of course, it is open to anyone to suggest to the Treasury that a review may be appropriate. It could be the Treasury Select Committee of another place or, if the Deputy Chief Whip were so minded, it could be a review of a joint committee or a committee of this House. Incidentally, at the present time, no discussions have taken place with the usual channels on this point.
Of course, Treasury Ministers will be answerable to the House for their use of the powers conferred by Clause 10, as they will be accountable for the use of any other powers which they can exercise under the Bill. I thought that the attack of the Opposition would be to claim that it is the FSA which is the monster that has got out of control. However, we hear that it is the Treasury, which is accountable, but which appears to be out of control.
Amendment No. 82 presents the same problem. The deletion of subsections (2) and (3) would remove the restrictions on what area of the FSA's work the reviewer could examine. Subsection (2) is simply a reflection of the fact that the Treasury might decide to commission a review for a particular purpose. If, for example, a review was triggered by events in the building society sector, the Treasury might wish to direct the reviewer to look at the FSA's work in regulating building societies, as opposed to, say, insurance regulation.
Subsection (3) is rather different. Under the National Audit Office Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General has the right to carry out reviews of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of spending by government departments and various other bodies. However, the same statute goes on specifically to prohibit the comptroller from examining the merits of the policy objective underlying this spending. I must point out to noble Lords that this was enacted under a Conservative administration. It is now being attacked from the Opposition Front Bench.
This does not mean, of course, that these policies should be beyond question, but rather that it would compromise the independent nature of the comptroller's office for him to become involved in
96
these policy questions. Subsection (3) plays a similar role in respect of this Bill. That is not to say that the FSA's performance in terms of making policy is not to be open to scrutiny. The Bill provides for a number of ways in which the FSA can be called to account in respect of its policy and principles.
Schedule 1 provides that it must comment in its annual report on how its regulatory objectives have been met. The report will be laid before Parliament and will be open to discussion at a public meeting. In addition, Clause 7 requires the FSA to make arrangements for consulting practitioners and consumers about its policies and practices, including the consumer and practitioner panels. Furthermore, it would always be open to committees of this House or of another place to decide that they wished to examine the FSA's work, just as a committee of this House examines the work of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.
Finally, there is a government amendment to this clause, Amendment No. 83, which I commend to the Committee. Its purpose is to allow reviews commissioned under Clause 10 to cover any functions of the FSA under Part VI of the Bill, which is the part concerned with official listings. We shall come to debate the changes that we are making to take account of the proposed transfer of the competent authority function from the London Stock Exchange to the FSA when we debate Part VI of the Bill in due course. However, it is necessary to put in this amendment first.
I shall now turn to the second group of amendments which concern the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Again, these would restrict the scope of the Treasury's powers under Clauses 10 and 11. At present, the Treasury can commission a value-for-money review of some or all of the functions of the FSA. The clause allows the Treasury to appoint any person it thinks is best equipped to do the job, provided that that person is someone appearing to the Treasury to be independent. The amendments would remove the Treasury's discretion, placing instead a duty on the Comptroller and Auditor General to carry out reviews.
The key to Clause 10 is flexibility; getting a review of the right things at the right time by the right person. The right person might well be the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is nothing in the Bill which would preclude the Treasury from asking him to carry out this task. However, I do not believe that we would gain anything by making it a requirement that the Treasury should appoint him on every occasion. We would lose some useful flexibility.
This is no reflection on the expertise and professionalism of the comptroller or his staff at the National Audit Office. It is simply the case that it may be that a body more familiar with how the financial markets work might be more appropriate in a particular instance. I do not believe that the NAO would always be the most appropriate body, given its separate role in relation to local government and the National Health Service. For example, in 1996,

97
the value-for-money review of the Securities and Investment Board was carried out by a private sector organisation.
I do not think that there is very much between us in what we seek, but I believe that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would diminish the value and effectiveness of the review procedure provided in Clause 10 of the Bill. I hope that he will not press them.
9 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: Given the Minister's response, I have a suggestion on how drastically to cut short our deliberations on the Bill this evening and, indeed, all the other stages. We could scrap the Bill as it is presently drafted and have instead a one-line Bill. That would say something along the lines of, "The FSA will be a body which will carry out duties as determined by the Treasury from time to time".
What we have heard from the Minister suggests that he wants actively to maintain the maximum possible degree of discretion and flexibility for the Treasury. However, we want actively to do the reverse; namely, to limit the Treasury's powers of discretion and flexibility. Surely this is now becoming the main gulf between the Government and the Opposition on this Bill. It is the theme that we have rehearsed on the subject of the chairman of the FSA, the role of its non-executive directors, the construct of the panels and their rights, obligations and duties, and now, on the subject of the review of the FSA. A fundamental gap is emerging between us in our approach. The Minister wishes to see less prescription and more flexibility, while we wish to see the exact opposite. We shall see how this can be worked out on Report.
Perhaps I may respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on the question of timing. As the noble Lord will have gathered from the speeches of my noble friends, we are not particularly set on one period rather than another. However, we are determined that there ought to be a period. The point as regards timing should not be one of the Minister's discretions for the Treasury.
The noble Lord's second point concerned who should carry out such reviews. I think that he can rely on the fact that we are a "joined up" Opposition. For that reason, what the noble Lord hears from this Front Bench is joined up to my right honourable friends in another place. As regards which committee might emerge as the ideal committee to carry out reviews, that would depend very much on the Minister's response to other amendments to be moved later. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 to 82 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 5, line 5, at end insert ("or in exercising functions under Part VI").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Right to obtain documents and information]:
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Cases in which the Treasury may arrange independent inquiries]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 5, line 40, leave out ("serious").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 87 and 90 to 93 relate to inquiries, which are dealt with under Clauses 12 to 16.
Amendment No. 87 is to page 5, line 40. As members of the Committee are aware, Clause 12 allows the Treasury to arrange for independent inquiries to be held in certain circumstances. The first set of circumstances, in Clause 12(2), is where,
"events have occurred in relation to [either] a collective investment scheme, or … a person who is, or was at the time of the events, carrying on a regulated activity … which posed or could have posed a grave risk to the financial system or caused or risked causing significant damage to the interests of consumers".
However, there is a further requirement in Clause 12(2)(b) that,
"those events might not have occurred, or the risk or damage might have been reduced, but for a serious failure in
the regulatory system or the operation of that system.
Amendment No. 87 deletes the word "serious" in Clause 12(2)(b) on the basis that, if the events which occurred had posed,
"a grave risk to the financial system or caused or risked causing significant damage to the interests of consumers",
it should not be necessary to establish that those events,
"might not have occurred … but for a serious failure".
in the regulatory system or the operation of that system.
I now turn to the remaining Amendments Nos. 90 to 93 to Clause 15. If an independent inquiry as contemplated by Clause 12 takes place, the person holding the inquiry must make a written report to the Treasury. Under Clause 15(2),
"The Treasury may publish the whole, or any part, of the report".
Amendment No. 90 would require the Treasury to publish the whole of the report. Amendment No. 91 is a consequential amendment and relates to Clause 15(3). Under subsections 15(3) and (4) the Treasury may remove from any report material,
"which relates to the affairs of a particular person whose interests would, in the opinion of the Treasury, be seriously prejudiced by publication of the material; or [where] the disclosure of which would be incompatible with an international obligation of the United Kingdom".
Amendment No. 92 makes it clear that the authority cannot be a person whose interests would be prejudiced by the publication of any material.

99
Amendment No. 93 would require the Treasury to publish a statement if any material was removed from a report before publication, to the effect that,
"material relating to a particular person has been removed",
from the report. I beg to move
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Treasury power to commission independent public interest inquiries into regulatory matters is an important new element of the accountability framework. For the first time it will ensure that there would be proper statutory backing for any future inquiries such as the Bingham Inquiry into the collapse of BCCI in 1991, or the inquiry by the Board of Banking Supervision into the failure of Barings in 1995.
This is a very important step. The Bingham Inquiry was an important inquiry and produced an authoritative report. But it was conducted in the absence of any formal power, for example, to call witnesses. It is inherently unsatisfactory that such a vital inquiry should have to rely on witnesses coming forward on a voluntary basis.
Clause 12 provides a new statutory power to set up an inquiry, and Clause 14 ensures that an inquiry can be conducted with the full range of powers to gather evidence of the High Court.
I will deal with each of the amendments in turn. Amendment No. 87 is the trigger for the inquiry. It deletes the word "serious" from the provision in Clause 12 to allow the Treasury to arrange a public inquiry where there has been a serious regulatory failure. It would widen the circumstances in which the Treasury could arrange an inquiry to merely where there has been a regulatory failure, however small. This would confuse the purpose of providing this new power with other mechanisms under the Bill.
We do not want inquiries of this kind to become a matter of routine. They can become very disruptive of the day-to-day working of the regulatory system and it would confuse the regulatory responsibility of the FSA if every other decision was liable to be the subject of a full-scale inquiry.
The complaints investigator is there to help call the FSA to account for failures or lapses which do not have serious implications. It is therefore right that the Bill should contain explicit provision stating that the purpose of the power is to look into serious regulatory failures.
There is nothing to be gained from removing the adjective; it would just cause unnecessary pressure to have a full independent inquiry into all sorts of regulatory decisions, which is what the Government are trying to avoid. The triggers have been deliberately set high because we do not want these inquiries to become commonplace.
Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 would have the effect that the Treasury would be required to publish the entire report of an inquiry, subject to the required excisions under Clause 15(3). We do not think it would
100
be right to remove the discretion of the government of the day to take a view on whether publication of the whole report was in the public interest. Of course we want to see as much of the report published as possible, subject to considerations of fairness, our international obligations and the wider public interest.
It must be a decision for the government of the day. The report may well include sensitive material. Much of the Bingham report was not published. The previous government took the view that the public interest lay in publishing some but not all. People gave evidence to the Bingham inquiry in confidence, and publishing their evidence could have prejudiced future inquiries. We agree that that confidence should be respected.
It is right for the Government to exercise judgment on where the public interest lies, in the light of the particular circumstances, and to be answerable to Parliament for that decision. If we were to make publication of the whole report mandatory, it would be less likely that this valuable power would be exercised in the circumstances that warranted it; so the lessons of a serious regulatory failure might not be fully or adequately learned.
Amendment No. 92 would exclude the FSA from the protection against prejudice that is being given to other persons. Subsection (3), as currently drafted, restricts the discretion of the Treasury in that it expressly prevents publication of material that would be prejudicial to a particular person or which would be incompatible with an international obligation. This is an important restriction, given our desire to provide for fairness throughout this legislation.
It is not clear why we should make a special case for the FSA if there was material published which might prejudice the ability of the FSA, or members of its staff, to defend themselves against charges brought in connection with events in this report. We must remember that the purpose of inquiry is to learn the lessons of regulatory failure, not to facilitate other legal actions. In particular, we would always expect the FSA to co-operate fully with an inquiry, but it would be less likely if the FSA was not afforded the same protection as other witnesses.
Amendment No. 93 on disclosure of excisions would require the Treasury to make public material that is related to a particular person that has been removed by means of a statement. I understand the intention behind the amendment. In the interests of openness and transparency, we would expect to make it clear when parts of the report had been removed, but we cannot rule out circumstances where even this disclosure would be prejudicial or contrary to the wider public interest.
These inquiries are not intended to become commonplace. They are to enable lessons to be learned from serious regulatory failures. As much as possible should be made public, but it should not be at the expense of basic principles of fairness, our wider international obligations or the public interest. These judgments must be taken by the government of the

101
day, as they were taken in relation to the Bingham report. I hope that noble Lords will not press the amendment.
Lord Boardman: I regret that the Minister does not feel able to accept the amendment. The damaging aspect of publishing only part of a report is that it creates an atmosphere of great suspicion about the parts that are concealed. Very often, an amendment of this kind will mean that those who are supposed to be protected will face even greater exposure.
I hope that the Minister will reflect again on that matter. People can be severely damaged by omission, far more than by a statement of the material facts.
Lord Kingsland: The most remarkable thing about the Minister's statement is that he succeeded in reading it out while maintaining a completely straight face. With the greatest possible respect to the Minister, his reply to the amendments is wholly inadequate. The noble Lord said that these inquiries were established and pursued in the public interest. Can it really be right that, at the end of this process, the Treasury can say that it is not in the public interest for a report produced in the public interest to be published? That seems to me to be "nonsense upon stilts", to quote a famous 19th century philosopher.
I also wholly endorse the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Boardman. It was not just that the Minister said that it was wholly proper for the Treasury to allow only the partial publication of a report; if I heard the noble Lord correctly, he also went on to say that the Treasury was not obliged to say that it was only permitting partial publication. In that case, what is published would appear to the general public to be the whole story. That simply cannot be right.
Moreover, your Lordships find that the authority is allowed to protect itself by not publishing certain passages in the report or not revealing the identity of certain of its employees, even though, in another part of the Bill, the Minister seeks total statutory immunity for the FSA and its employees. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I find his answer wholly unsatisfactory. It is not a matter that I intend to press on behalf of the Opposition at the moment, but the noble Lord can be assured that we shall return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 6. line 11, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 16 and insert ("—

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

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Powers of appointed person and procedure]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 7, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 226, 234, 236, 237, 244, 245, 252, 258 and 277, as well as addressing the question as to whether Clause 401 (privileged communications) should stand part of the Bill. These amendments bring the definition of "legal professional privilege" in the Bill into line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. At the same time they provide a consolidation, in a single clause, of existing provisions in the Bill that prevent powers being used to require a person to disclose or permit the inspection of material that is subject to legal professional privilege.
The new clause will ensure that no powers under the Bill can be used to require disclosure or access to privileged material. Adopting the PACE definiton also makes it clear that privilege attaches not just to legal advice but also to documents and other material enclosed with legal advice where those were brought into existence for the purposes of legal proceedings and are in the hands of someone who is entitled to possession of them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Conclusion of inquiry]:
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 93 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Restrictions on financial promotion]:
Lord Kingslandhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 93A:
Page 8. leave out line 24 and insert—

("(a) an invitation to engage in investment activity: or

(b) any other information with the purpose of inducing another person to engage in investment activity")

The noble Lord said: I must apologise to the Committee for having introduced into today's proceedings some manuscript amendments which I trust noble Lords have to hand. In any event, I understand that under the rules of this House I am obliged to read out these amendments verbatim. Those noble Lords who do not have the amendments before them therefore will not be inconvenienced or prejudiced in any way. I shall not move Amendment No. 93A.
[Amendment No. 93A not moved.]
Clause 19 [Restrictions on financial promotion]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 8, line 24, leave out ("or inducement to engage in investment activity") and insert ("to engage in investment activity or information which is intended or might reasonably be presumed to be intended to induce any person to do so").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to excise the expression,
"or inducement to engage in investment activity",
and insert the expression,
"to engage in investment activity or information which is intended or might reasonably be presumed to be intended to induce any person to do so".
Clause 19 prohibits companies which are not authorised under the Act from issuing communications which constitute invitations or inducements. As the Committee is undoubtedly aware, the trouble with inducements is that they look only to the effect on the recipient of the communication. Thus good news about a company may persuade someone to invest even if there was no intention to induce that person to do so. The term "inducement" is unsatisfactory since a communication could operate as an inducement whether or not the person making the communication intended it to do so. The term "inducement", in short, would reinstate much of the confusion which has surrounded the 1986 Act's definition of "investment advertisement", but in a wider sphere, given that the new law will apply to a much wider group of communications.
I shall not move or speak to Amendment No. 94A. I now turn to Amendment No. 95, which states,
"Page 8, line 30, leave out from ('(1)') to ('in') in line 31 and insert ('does not apply unless the communication is intended or might reasonably be presumed to be intended to be acted on by a person')",
in the United Kingdom. Clause 19(3) extends the prohibition to communications from outside the United Kingdom if they are capable of having an effect in the United Kingdom. This is far too wide, as it covers, for example, any communication relating to shares registered or quoted in the United Kingdom. In addition, Clause 19(3) does not reflect either host or home country control, which is all the Treasury, as I understand it, has said that it wanted to achieve.
The Government have tabled an amendment to this clause which would introduce a new subsection (5A). The amendment is helpful in that it enables the Treasury to switch to a country of origin approach, in circumstances such as the proposed e-commerce directive, where the Government consider that another state's requirements provide sufficient protection to United Kingdom customers both to allow mutual recognition of home state control and to disapply control over promotions originating from that state, even though they may be capable of having effect in, or be directed at, the United Kingdom.
Nevertheless the application of the general prohibition to both outgoing and incoming promotions still exposes United Kingdom firms to the possibility of overlapping and potentially contradictory requirements in respect of countries where a subsection (5A) order does not apply. The Government have partially recognised this problem by the provision in Article 15 of the draft exemptions order that "foreign source" communications are saved from being illegal—because they are capable of having an effect in the UK—if they are not directed at the UK.
However, this exemption applies only to investment business activity and not to foreign-source deposit or insurance advertisements. The "capable of having an effect" wording is widely regarded as unclear and could cover all foreign banks and insurance companies using the Internet since, in theory at least, someone in the UK could act on the information in those websites. It is in order to avoid uncertainty and the possibility that promotions might need to comply with more than one regime that Amendment No. 95 has been tabled.
I now turn to manuscript Amendments Nos. 96A to 96E. Amendment No. 96A reads:
"Page 9, line I leave out ("an") and insert ("a specified")".
Amendment No. 96B reads:
"Page 9, line 2, leave out ("an") and insert ("a specified")".
Amendment No. 96C reads:
"Page 9, line 8, after ("of") insert ("subsection (6)(b) and")".
Amendment No. 96D reads:
"Page 9, line 9, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("those subsections")".
Amendment No. 96E reads:
"Page 9, line 11, after ("by") insert "subsection (6)(b) or")".
The purpose of these amendments is as follows. Under Clause 19(6)(b), "Engaging in investment activity" is defined as including,
"exercising any rights conferred by an investment to acquire, dispose of, underwrite or convert an investment".
Under Clause 19(11), "Investment" is defined to include "any asset, right or interest". This could clearly extend to assets, rights and interests which are beyond the field of financial services. The legislation should therefore contain a power for the Treasury to limit its application by order.
These are manuscript amendments. The next one is Amendment No. 116A. I am not sure whether I should deal with the remaining manuscript amendments in this group or wait until we come to deal with Clause 28. I shall not deal with them now. I beg to move Amendment No. 94. I have spoken to the other amendments in the group.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall do my best to keep up. The noble Lord has introduced manuscript amendments and then not moved them; he has brought Amendment No. 95 from a different group into this one and I am struggling to keep the argument together. Perhaps I may be excused from giving a general introduction on financial promotion and, with some diffidence, speak to Amendments Nos. 93A and 94, even though Amendment No. 93A has not been moved. They concern alternative approaches and I have to discuss them both in order to enable the Committee to understand them.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for giving way so generously. I can only say, on this occasion, mea maxima culpa.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We all do our best. No doubt I shall have to do the same at some stage.

105
Opposition Amendments Nos. 93A and 94 propose two alternative strategies to Clause 19 on financial promotion. Amendment No. 93A proposes to limit the prohibition to,
"an invitation to engage in investment activity; or … any other information with the purpose of inducing another person to engage in investment activity".
Amendment No. 94 proposes to limit the prohibition to invitations "to engage in investment activity", or to,
"information which is intended or might reasonably be presumed to be intended to induce any person to do so".
I thought that Amendment No. 93A would be the preferred approach, but 1 was wrong.
The Government have reiterated the policy behind Clause 19(1) on several occasions. In their consultation paper, Financial Promotion—Second Consultation Document, issued last October, they indicated that the prohibition now applies only to those communications containing a degree of "incitement"—invitation, inducement, incitement—and not to communications comprising purely factual information where the facts are presented in such a way that they do not amount to an invitation or inducement. The Economic Secretary said in Committee in another place that Clause 19 is intended to catch "promotional" communications, which is the common-sense way in which one would understand the clause.
However, we should appreciate a further opportunity to review whether the policy behind the clause could be clarified. We may possibly bring forward amendments at Report stage. The provision in the Bill as drafted is the best way of tackling these issues; however, we shall take the noble Lord's points away in a constructive spirit, perhaps talk to him between now and Report, and see what there is of value in his amendments. I am by no means saying that there is nothing of value in what is proposed.
Manuscript Amendments Nos. 96A to 96E relate to subsection (6)(b) and related subsections in Clause 19, as well as Clause 98, limiting engagement in investment activity in Clause 19(1) to activities in relation to investments which are specified in secondary legislation.
Amendment No. 116A, 'which amends Clause 28, is consequential upon this amendment. I am sorry that I said that the noble Lord should not speak to it. If I thank him for the amendments and agree to consider them, perhaps he will not feel too bad about my telling him not to debate them now.
I do not know whether the noble Lord has spoken to Amendment No. 104. I understood that it was included in this grouping as printed. I wonder whether I may respond—
Lord Kingsland: I was about to suggest that if the noble Lord responds to the amendment before I speak to it, perhaps I shall not need to speak to it!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, all right. The Opposition also propose to add to Clause 23 a further
106
subsection. Under Clause 23 as amended, subsection (1) setting out the criminal offence of contravention of Clause 19(1) would not apply to,
"an oral communication which does not constitute an invitation to engage in investment activity",
although contracts made as a result of such promotion would presumably remain unenforceable. I am afraid that we cannot accept this amendment. The impact would be to create a two-tier regime with regard to penalties for breach of Clause 19 whereby some communications which breach the prohibition are subject to criminal sanctions while others are exempt.
It is not just invitations that can lead to people entering into investment agreements but material that does not constitute an invitation but nevertheless contains a promotional element. The impact of the promotion will be the same if there is something less than an invitation but if it nevertheless contains a promotional element. In any event, an exclusion of the kind proposed would lead to arguments as to whether what had actually been said constituted an invitation. That is the kind of uncertainty that we want to avoid.
We have already proposed, in our second consultation paper in October, that solicited real time communications, including oral communications which are not part of a co-ordinated promotional strategy should benefit from an exemption. However, we remain convinced that unsolicited real time communications of a certain character should be subject to controls and restrictions. It is important that we adopt a stronger line on unsolicited calls, given the risks to which they expose consumers.
In any event, it is in the interests of consumers that a uniform approach be taken on the face of the Bill with regard to all communications, oral or otherwise, that amount to an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity. The debate on the draft financial promotions exemption order which will take place after Royal Assent will be the appropriate point at which to discuss which real time communications should be classified as exempt from the prohibition. In any event, Clause 19 prohibition can have no effect and cannot be brought into force until the necessary subordinate legislation has been made. So in regard to this as opposed to the other amendments, I can only say that we cannot accept the amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
The noble Lord went on to speak to Amendment No. 95. That is grouped with Amendment No. 94A, which the noble Lord does not intend to move, and my Amendment No. 96. Amendment No. 95 would amend subsection (3) of Clause 19 so that subsection (1), which deals with communications originating outside the United Kingdom, applies only to communications which are intended or might reasonably be presumed to be intended to be acted on by a person in the United Kingdom. That would be similar in effect to Amendment No. 94. It would apply the limitation sought in that amendment, to limit the prohibition to invitations to engage in investment activity or information which is intended or might reasonably be presumed to be intended to be acted on by a person, to subsection (3), which establishes the

107
territorial dimension of the financial promotion prohibition. The amendment is certainly worthy of further consideration in the light of the discussion we have been having. I hope that the noble Lord will not move it on the basis that we will reconsider the issues involved.
Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to refer to my Amendment No. 96, which is grouped with Amendment No. 95. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the Treasury can adjust the scope of the Bill's financial promotion regime to take full account of international and technological developments. Clause 19 prohibits financial promotions unless the promoter is authorised by the FSA or the promotion is approved by a person who is authorised. Subsection (5) of Clause 19 allows the Treasury by order to specify circumstances in which this restriction does not apply. The amendment makes it clear that the circumstances that can be specified under subsection (5) extend to the circumstances for which subsection (3) expressly makes provision. Subsection (3) prohibits communications originating outside the United Kingdom if the communication is capable of having an effect in the United Kingdom. In other words, the amendment makes it clear that an exemption can be made for a communication which originates from outside the United Kingdom even if it is capable of having an effect here. Paragraphs (b) to (d) of the amendment deal expressly with the possibility of exemption for communications originating in specific countries, or in specific groups of countries, such as EU member states, and would allow all communications originating overseas to be exempted if that became appropriate.
The exemption for groups of countries would allow the UK to move to a full home state regime if and when EU legislation to that effect comes into force or, in an appropriate case, before any binding obligation. Subsection (5B) provides that the Treasury may at some point in the future repeal subsection (3) of Clause 19.
I know that that sounds complicated but the principle behind the provision is that we have to adopt a host state regime at the present time. It is the intention of the European Union to move towards a home state regime. We do not wish to leave anyone unprotected in the interval. But until a full home state regime exists in which all member states of the European Union have a regulatory system that is satisfactory for the purpose, we will operate, so to speak, a hybrid of host state and home state regimes which will be fail-safe and will protect the users of financial services. I realise that this is not an easy concept but I hope noble Lords will accept that the thinking behind it is reasonable.
Lord Kingsland: I realise that one swallow does not make a summer, but I am rather heartened by most of the noble Lord's observations. I shall reflect on what he said about Amendment No. 104. If the Minister engages in a spot of archaeological reconstruction in respect of the speech with which I introduced these amendments, he will note that I did in fact speak to
108
Amendment No. 95 and indeed made some fairly detailed observations on his Amendment No. 96. I hope that he will be able to take those comments into account when he considers these matters later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94A and 95 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 8. line 38, at end insert—
("(5A) An order under subsection (5) may, in particular. provide that subsection (1) does not apply in relation to communications—

(a) of a specified description;

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

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

(d) originating outside the United Kingdom.

(5B) The Treasury may by order repeal subsection (3).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 96A to 96E not moved.]
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 [The classes of activity and categories of investment]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I must advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 97 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 98.
Lord Sharman Lord Sharman moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 9, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) An activity is a regulated activity for the purposes of this Act if it is—

(a) an activity of a specified kind which is carried on by business and—

(i) relates to an investment of a specified kind: or

(ii) in the case of an activity of a kind which is also specified for the purposes of this paragraph, is carried on in relation to property of any kind;

(b) an activity which is carried on by business and relates to loans secured on land or any other property.").

The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 97 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 100 to 102. This group of amendments deals with mortgages. As the Committee will be aware, this matter was added at a rather late stage in the passage of the Bill through another place. I am somewhat hopeful that at this stage in the proceedings the recently found flexibility of "Dr No" on the Government Front Bench may indicate some willingness to consider these amendments.
Amendment No. 97 seeks to extend the regulatory regime beyond coverage of the providers of mortgages and products related to them to those who intermediate in those transactions. The Committee will be aware that often a mortgage is the largest single

109
transaction ever undertaken by a consumer. It is important that the Bill should cover those who provide advice on mortgages and intermediate in that regard.
Amendment No. 100 seeks to help the Minister to find a better definition of "mortgage". At the moment the Bill defines a mortgage as a loan that is secured on land. Loans, commonly referred to as mortgages, may be secured on many types of physical property; for example, leaseholds, boats, aircraft and even caravans. Currently, mortgage lending leans heavily on what is called churn and involves both second mortgages and the provision of finance for other physical property. Frequently, a mortgage that is secured on a boat may be two or three times the size of that secured on the average house. These definitions, which I hope are well drafted, certainly have merit. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I support the amendment. My Amendment No. 101, which is included in this group, was tabled at the instance of the National Consumer Council. That body wrote to me to express disappointment that the Government had not chosen to include full regulation of mortgages within the authority's remit. As has just been said, a mortgage is probably the largest investment that the average person makes in a lifetime. The only other investment of similar size is that related to pension provision. These are major decisions which matter awfully to most people. I understand that regulation is partially extended to this area. I should like to hear from the Minister precisely what that means because the amendments before the Committee this evening seek to provide full regulation of mortgages by the FSA.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I speak from my former experience as chairman of a life insurance company. The life insurance industry found itself increasingly affected and disadvantaged by the fact that almost identical products were able to be sold under the guise of mortgages which were not subject to the full regulatory impact of the financial services legislation. They were in competition with similar products sold by life insurance companies. On a number of occasions and on a number of different platforms I argued that that was a very uneven playing field.
Therefore when the Government decided finally that mortgages should come within the scope of the Bill, I was pleased. My reaction at the time was to say, "Not before time". However, until the National Consumer Council and others reacted with disappointment, I had not realised that the people who sell them—brokers and others throughout the country—are not to be subject to the controls provided by the Bill. I find that quite extraordinary. How one can divide the market in mortgages between the providers— building societies, banks and others which advance money on the security of property (and I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, made; it is not just land)—without at the same time bringing within the control the people who deal face to face with the public who have to borrow in order to finance their purchase leaves me deeply puzzled.
110
One has half the control. But consumers may not be particularly sophisticated and may have difficulty in understanding some of the projects they are being invited to buy. As we discussed earlier, we seek to protect them and to make sure, for instance, that there is a proper fact find. Is a mortgage backed by an endowment policy right for them; or should it be an interest-only mortgage? Those are important questions almost wholly decided between the customer and the mortgage broker.
As I understand the changes that the Government have made to the Bill, the mortgage broker is not within that control. The Government have not taken even two steps forward but only half a step forward and one step back in bringing in the building societies but not the brokers. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, in asking Ministers to justify what seems at first sight to be a somewhat extraordinary division.
Lord Burns: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. When the issue was discussed in the Joint Committee a variety of views was expressed. However, the majority decided in favour of including mortgage advice. We recognised that a timetable for implementation would be required. The costs could be high. It might be a problem for the FSA to implement it quickly. Nevertheless, there was concern for a number of reasons: the importance of the transaction; and the growing complexity of choice available, in particular between fixed and variable rate mortgages. There is a wide range of discounts on offer; and there is the question of penalties on repayment.
I understand why the Government have opted for a balance between having the mortgage providers fall within the regulations and trying to keep mortgage advice out. The majority of the problems which arise are concerned with the mortgage providers and the hope is that one can deal with many of them by setting out in more detail the facts and the commitment that the customer is making.
However, we shall be faced with enormous problems in the future. When people believe that they have been given bad advice there will he a great debate as to where the fault lies. To what extent does it lie with the providers and to what extent does it lie with those who gave advice? Mortgages are a large financial product and play a big part in people's lives. To leave people in doubt as to which part of the process falls within the regulations and which part does not can only cause great confusion.
I understand the problems of cost and the number of people who will be brought within the framework of the regulations. I can also understand why there is no hurry to act. However, I should be greatly surprised if the balance between what is in and what is out were sustainable. The time will come when everything must be included.

111
I had hoped that we could move forward with a general expression of intent and then worry about the timetable. The Government have chosen not to do that and I, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, am sorry about that.
Lord Joffe: I, too, support the amendment. I share the puzzlement of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, at the rationale behind the Government's proposal to introduce the regulation of mortgages on only a piecemeal basis. In order to recognise the dangers of the proposal, it is helpful to explore what happens at the point of sale. The borrower seeking a mortgage is often engaging in the largest and most complex financial transaction of his life. He often has no experience of such transactions. And even if some of the options are explained to him, there are, as the Treasury's press release on mortgage regulation points out, some 4,000 to 5,000 different mortgage deals to choose from.
Perplexed by all the options—and often they are not explained at all—the borrower normally turns to his friendly mortgage broker, who is trying to sell him a mortgage, asks for his advice and then follows it. If that advice is inappropriate, it may be many years before the borrower realises it. And when he does, under the Government's proposals he will have no redress.
When I was chair of the complaints committee of LAUTRO, the regulator that preceded the Personal Investment Authority, time and again we were prevented from redressing the obvious mis-selling of life insurance products for the very reason that mortgage advice was not regulated. The FSA ombudsman will find himself in an identical position. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, it is difficult to understand the reasoning behind the Government's decision to exclude mortgage advice. On the one hand, sales people who sell life insurance products, which are often simpler than the current range of mortgage products and of a relatively lower value, are regulated while mortgage brokers, who sell the complex and often high-value mortgages, are not. It is difficult to understand the rationale behind the approach.
Experience of mis-selling of life insurance policies has demonstrated how difficult and costly it is to deal with the consequences of mis-selling. The aim of regulation must surely be to prevent poor advice being given in the first place and the proposed amendment will help to achieve that.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It may be helpful if I begin by explaining briefly the context in which these amendments are being debated. The announcement by the Government about the inclusion of mortgages in the scope of the Bill did not require an amendment to the Bill. That is the way in which Clause 20 and Schedule 2 are constructed.
Under Clause 20, the scope of regulation is to be set out in secondary legislation. Schedule 2 contains an indicative list of the core activities and investments
112
which might reasonably be regulated by a financial service regulator. However, the list is not exhaustive and Schedule 2 does not limit the Treasury's power to make an order under Clause 20(1). Clause 36 gives the Treasury the power to make orders which exempt specific natural or legal persons or classes of person from the general prohibition under Part II and, therefore, from the need to be authorised by the FSA.
With that, I move to the substantive issue which, I accept, is more important than the amendment because an amendment would not be necessary to give effect to what Members of the Committee want. I should stress that although the general scope of regulated activities is indicated in Schedule 2, the scope of regulation will be marked out in the Regulated Activities Order, where regulatory issues can be handled more flexibly. The first order made in exercise of this power and all subsequent orders which extend the scope of regulation will be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure, giving both Houses the opportunity to voice their views on regulatory issues.
I turn to the issue of whether and how much mortgages should be regulated. The Government plan to cover most residential mortgages as we are determined that lenders should not be able to take advantage of mortgage borrowers at a time when they may be vulnerable because they are focusing on a home purchase. I go along with what every Member of the Committee has said about the importance of a decision of this kind in people's lives.
As for "any other property", referred to in Amendment No. 97, the Government are concerned about protecting people's homes. On the whole, caravans and yachts do not fall into this category; nor does any other non-residential property. We recognise that mortgage borrowers need better information. Regulation through the FSA will ensure that they receive it in a form which will readily enable comparisons to be made in order to help people to decide what suits them. Therefore, so far as concerns Amendment No. 97, I hope that that meets noble Lords' concerns and that they will be able to withdraw their amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 101 in the name of my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. The Treasury consulted last year on whether mortgage advice should be regulated. Evidence from the consultation showed that the main area of preventable consumer detriment was poor quality or misleading information which resulted in consumers buying an inappropriate mortgage product. In other words, consumers wanted clear, comprehensive and reliable information.
The Treasury received little evidence of specific cases where consumers were receiving bad or biased advice. When that was mentioned, it was in the context of selling commission-based products, such as endowment policies. I hope that it is clear, because it was not clear to me at the beginning, that commission-based products, such as endowment policies, are already FSA-regulated and did not need to be included in the Bill under the change which was made in relation to mortgage regulation.

113
On that basis, most problems in the mortgage industry could be dealt with by a combination of a disclosure regime and CAT standards, together with action taken by the DTI banning the tying-in of insurance policies and standardising annual percentage rates. Therefore, there is no need to regulate advice.
I turn now to Amendment No. 102. I have already indicated my reasons for resisting the amendments to Clause 20. I hope that this amendment may be withdrawn, too. It is not that we do not want to cover mortgages; we shall be covering most residential mortgages, first legal charges, home income plans and equity release schemes on property occupied by the borrower. The Bill will cover mortgage lending on property to be occupied by the borrower or the family.
It will not cover mortgage brokers, who will not need to be specifically authorised unless they also carry out investment business such as advising on endowment policies. We certainly shall not cover second charges on homes; for example, for loans on replacement windows or kitchens and so on. That is partly because roost transactions of that nature are covered by the below £25,000 limit contained in the Consumer Credit Act. Therefore, they are covered by the CCA.
I hope that I have persuaded Members of the Committee that we have covered the most important elements of mortgage regulation at a price which is acceptable and at an addition to the FSA's resources and responsibilities which is also acceptable.
Lord Sharman: Sadly, that was a false dawn. I am in a state of total confusion. I really do not understand what the Minister has been saying to us. I wish to reserve my position until I have had an opportunity to read in detail in Hansard what he said.
I make two observations which struck me as he was making his remarks. Clearly, the noble Lord does not consider that a caravan can be a home, which it is to many families in this country. The same can be said about a boat. Both may have valid legal mortgages on them and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they should not be considered in the same manner.
However, I shall look in some detail at what the Minister said before returning to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 9, line 25, at end insert—
("() The Treasury shall within 28 days of the passing of this Act make provision under subsection (1) in respect of buying, selling, subscribing for, carrying out or underwriting contracts of insurance against the provision of long-term care or offering to do so, either as a principal or as an agent.").
The noble Lord said: First, I thank noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber who have been kind enough to support this amendment. In recent weeks, I felt rather like the Ancient Mariner as I prowled the
114
Corridors of this House, stopping one in three and telling of the woes which will arise if this amendment, or at least its substance, is not accepted by the Government. However, I have been received with nothing but patience, understanding and a great measure of support. I extend that thanks to my own Front Bench and to the Minister, in particular, who has been endlessly generous with his time and patience in discussing this matter.
When I spoke on this matter on Second Reading, I pointed out that there really was a very wide consensus that long-term care products should be brought into regulation in view of their nature and the vulnerability of those to whom they are sold. That extended to the PIA, the new FSA, both the majority and minority members of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care and, perhaps most significantly, to the Joint Committee chaired with such distinction by the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
In the past few weeks, we have been reminded of that by some of the letters that we have received from outside. Many Members of the Committee will have received a letter from Age Concern. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in her place. Age Concern states that it believes that it is,
"vital that people arc given appropriate financial advice from a competent professional and hence we believe these products ought to come under the rules of the Financial Services Authority".
I have received a letter from the Continuing Care Conference which is an umbrella organisation, a very fine organisation, embracing all the interests from producers to those who are cared for. It too says that it believes that,
"regulation and consumer protection is essential".
since it says that,
"by their very nature. they involve large sums of money and entail a long-term relationship with the customer".
It is striking that that is also the view of the industry. I have received a briefing from the Association of British Insurers which says that it is supportive of regulation. Even the industry wants to be regulated.
Today, the fourth estate has rowed in. In its leader this morning, the Guardian stated that,
"peers should step in where pusillanimous ministers fear to tread".
Needless to say, I should resist absolutely any suggestion that anyone on our Front Bench has any pusillanimity of any kind whatever. But I agree with the broad thrust of the Guardian's leading article. So it seems that everyone is out of step except our Treasury. That is a puzzle, particularly to people like me who believe that the Treasury does little wrong. The problem is that the Treasury has not been terribly good at communicating its problem. It has taken more positions on the issue than appear in the Kama Sutra. I have argued through each of them, only to find that behind it lies yet another position. I hope that we are now getting somewhere near the top of the mountain and that we shall see what it is really on about.
In the course of saying that, I shall deal with the argument eloquently put by the Minister at Second Reading where he hinted that CAT standards might be enough to control the product. But the, are not

115
enough in this area. I take the example of a lady of 90 who has no dependants, no heirs; no one to whom she wants to leave her money. She is going into a home. A salesman comes up to her and says, "Listen dear, unless you take out my insurance policy, you will be on the streets". He gives her his insurance policy. That policy may be absolutely perfect. It may meet CAT standards in every regard, but she does not need it, because under the existing arrangements, even before the Royal Commission's report is implemented, as soon as her assets go down to a certain level, she will be paid for by the state. She does not need the product, although it is an excellent product. What is needed is a salesman who is regulated, so that he cannot say that to the old lady, at least not if he wants to be reasonably sure of keeping his job.
As the debate went on, however, we found a different argument coming forth from the Treasury; the argument that we are hearing. When I was on various broadcasts the other week debating the matter, I was told that a Treasury press spokesman had said that the idea was premature. What a great, "Sir Humphrey" word "premature" is. "Premature", when 30,000 policies have already been sold. "Premature", when it is 12 months since the Royal Commission reported and 10 months since the Burns committee reported. "Premature", when the Government have only just got around to setting up a committee to consider the issue, which has met—I asked the other day—precisely once. "Premature"—this is the most important point, because it matters to consumers—because, by this summer, the Government have promised to give their response to the Royal Commission and to tell us what is to happen. When that response comes—the Royal Commission majority and minority reports both found a role for long-term care insurance—many people will realise for the first time that, contrary to their present expectations, the state will not fund all their care needs for them and, if they want to leave legacies to their children or to keep their money, they must insure for it.
There is an issue of timing here. If the matter goes on being "premature" for too long, we shall find that we are just getting out to look at the bolt on the stable door while in the meantime the horse is galloping off, four fields away. It will then be too late to deal with the matter. It is not premature; it is overdue.
From what I am saying, it will be clear to the Committee that I believe that the matter should have been dealt with before now. Having said that, we are where we are. I accept that there are certain hoops which must be gone through before regulation may be put in place. For example, it is clearly right in terms of general government policy that a proper regulatory impact analysis should be carried out before the form of regulation is finalised. Equally, it is clear also that the matter is urgent. As the time for the Government's answer to the Royal Commission looms closer, it is becoming more urgent.
Having spoken to many noble Lords about the matter, I do not believe that the House will ever forgive itself if it allows the legislation, which gives it a grip on
116
the issue, to go through unless and until it is satisfied that the Government have seized the point and are moving to action on it. I look with my customary optimism—perhaps with a little more than my customary optimism—to my noble friend the Minister for comfort. By the time we reach Report stage, I shall be looking for more than comfort. I shall be looking for commitment. I do not believe that we should let the Bill pass unless we are reasonably assured by Ministers that the interests of such a vulnerable group of consumers will really be protected.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Burns: I too want to support the amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. It is a puzzle that we are debating this matter. Just over a year ago, on, I believe, 16th March—I stress that date—in evidence to the Joint Committee, Howard Davies put the case for the regulation of long-term care better than I could. He took the committee through the methodology he wanted to deploy in looking at the new product area. He argued:
"I would say that long-term care insurance probably also scores quite highly … I suspect that if you ran a complete cost-benefit analysis on that you would find that scoring quite highly".
Having listened to the arguments, the Joint Committee also concluded that long-term care should be included.
In response to the report of the Joint Committee, the Government offered some optimism. They said that they also appreciated the thinking behind the recommendation that long-term care insurance be brought within the remit of the FSA. That has been considered in the context of the Government's response to the recent report of the Royal Commission on long-term care which reached a similar conclusion.
That is good. But almost nothing has happened. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out, we have had radio silence. That has caused a number of noble Lords to wonder what is going on. Those of us who know the Treasury well know that it can work fast when it needs to. We also know that sometimes it does not necessarily want to move too quickly.
I would like to believe that it is merely the pressure of work and the huge effort that has gone into this Bill that explains the silence. I hope that there is no joined-up decision-making problem with other departments. The best gloss I can put on it is that a decision in principle has been taken but that it will take time to complete the work.
It would be sad if the Government decided on the basis of all the talk about this over-mighty and unaccountable organisation that somehow or other we should draw a line in the sand on this point and that these products should be left out of the ambit of the FSA. That would be a bad mistake. There may be worries that if we have regulation here it may stifle growth in the market. It is equally possible to argue that if we had regulation it would make the market grow faster than otherwise because of the extra security that it would give to people.
The Minister said in relation to the previous amendment that in practice this provision does not need to be in the Bill. I believe the scope is already

117
there. However, several noble Lords want some reassurance, not only that it is possible, but also that there is a good chance that it will happen. I believe that we need a decision in principle about this matter, even if all the detail cannot be announced now. At a minimum, we require a strong indication that the Government are minded to include long-term care within the scope of the Bill.
I do not believe that there is any reason to make a fuss over this issue. 1 hope that the Minister can give us the comfort that we need to go quietly because that is what we want to do. But it is important to say that to some of us that it is beginning to look a little too difficult.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I was happy to add my name to this amendment. Most of what needs to be said has been said, but I want to make a few points. First, if this Bill has any popular support, I suspect that in this area it will have more support than in any other for the simple reason that it affects a great and growing number of people. Recently, in these times of difficulties for the National Health Service, we have read of the growth in private health generally. That is true too of the subject about which we are talking. Secondly, it is a matter that affects old people for a long time. They will enter into such a contract for life and it will take a sizeable part of their assets if not, in extreme cases, all of them.
Thirdly, it is clear to me that these products are very complex and sophisticated. The numbers and types of product are legion and none is simple. One has to add to that the personal complications that can beset old people, in particular lonely old people, when trying to decide what is best for them. They need to embark on what one might in effect call a series of gambles on the future. How is their health going to fare? What demands will be put on their assets? What will those assets amount to and what will their families need of them? This is a difficult set of issues for people to face, both personally and legally.
Finally, I turn to a point that is most important to me: the very people who need to confront these issues are those who have reached a stage in their lives when they are least capable of dealing with them. One does not need to conjure up black tales of wicked salesmen. Far more often it is simply the case of an old person pretending to understand that which he or she does not understand and failing to put those questions which in the prime of life he or she would have leapt to ask. Old people are highly suggestible and vulnerable.
I am absolutely convinced that if there is only one amendment that deserves to be accepted without demur by Her Majesty's Government, it is this one or something very like it.
Lord Gralbiner: Perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lord Lipsey is to be complimented on his persistence in this matter. This amendment identifies a very vulnerable group in society. To omit regulation in relation to this group would send out all the wrong signals. I do not believe that it is an exaggeration to say that these are potentially shark-infested waters, but
118
with regulation it is probable that good competition will emerge in the market-place for this kind of business.
Finally, I should like to say that 1 am not aware of any argument of substance against the amendment.
Baroness Greengross: I rise briefly strongly to support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has already told the Committee how complex these products are, as is the whole market. People need to have confidence in it and to be given a feeling of security. For example, for those purchasing an immediate care plan dealing with a situation of personal crisis, it is of particular importance that this area is regulated.
Disputes are another reason for providing good regulation. Disputes that may arise at the time or a claim need a form of independent complaints procedure. The voluntary jurisdiction by the Pl A ombudsman is not sufficient.
Finally, I should like to mention training and competence. A person selling this type of product needs a great deal of knowledge of the area. That person needs to be able to explain to the purchaser the interaction between the long-term care insurance product and the state support system. It could be very damaging to some people if they purchased such a scheme. However, in order to explain it, a salesman does need to understand it thoroughly because it is not an easy area.
Furthermore, when selling these products, up-to-date advice needs to be given, balancing the benefits of the different options that are available. Also, a good knowledge of the variations in local authorities' procedures, what they make available, their rules and practices is also necessary. A new classification in training is desperately needed. For those reasons, I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Boding: I agree with virtually everything that has been said on this amendment. I wish to add two points. The first is that this is a market which, despite the figure stated by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, of 30,000 policies—that surprises me but of course I accept his word—is still in embryo. The products are extremely expensive. I made a few inquiries a couple of years ago to see whether this was perhaps a way of providing for myself and my wife, but was put off in the end because it was an extremely expensive option.
The second difficulty, which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, has come across, is the test of eligibility when one comes to claim. A year or two ago I took part in a series of discussions initiated by the Medical Research Council—by Professor George Radda—and addressed to the Association of British Insurers and particularly those engaged in underwriting. The MRC wanted to find out if there was a need for research to establish more appropriate tests to find out whether or not an individual would qualify under a long-term care policy. Surprising though it may seem, the tests—certainly the ones I

119
saw—were still those used in World War I in relation to military pensions; that is, the simplest tests as to whether or not a person could dress themselves, feed themselves, look after themselves and so forth. But medical science has advanced a long way from that. As the MRC said, there should be more effective and sophisticated ways of establishing a claim.
This is a market which is developing quite fast. I lost touch with the discussions taking place with the MRC. I hope that they are continuing because they seemed to me to be important. In the circumstances of expensive policies in a branch of insurance which is still developing and the vulnerability of individuals as expressed by other Members of the Committee, these plans are crying out to be brought into the Act.
I too am puzzled at the Government's reluctance. It was said in reply that they are considering this along with the response from the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly. Having been both a Treasury Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Services, I understand the Government's difficulty with the Royal Commission. It will surprise me if anything substantial comes forward on that in the next few years. But that is not a reason for refusing to bring long-term care insurance within the Bill. I hope that the Government will respond to the pleas that have come from all parts of the Chamber for that.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: I too support the amendment and everything said in its favour this evening. It is probably appropriate that I declare an interest. I am a member of the General Insurance Standards Council. I do not seek to speak for the council tonight. Indeed, I have no idea what its members' views are. I am sure that if the majority of my colleagues on the council were asked, their view would be that we have not discussed it because we assumed that this area would be covered by the Financial Services and Markets Bill. It is right that it should be.
I am pleased to support the amendment. I am reluctant to be drawn into the view that regulation will deter growth in this sector. Rather, I believe the reverse. If we look at sectors which are well regulated, the consumer has confidence in them to support and buy the products. We are still suffering from the mis-selling of pensions. Many people who would be in the appropriate bracket to buy long-term care packages, will be the very people who were victims of mis-sold pensions. They will be looking for some kind of confidence and guarantee that what they are entering into—an enormous financial commitment for the individual—will be properly regulated.
The proper way to regulate would be for it to come within the purview of the Bill from the beginning, not waiting to see if there is any mis-selling and, if there has been, what damage has been done when it is too late to rectify that damage. Many of these people will be elderly. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: If the Government are minded not to follow the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it is all the more necessary that the market should be regulated. That should be the most important priority.
I have read that most of us use care services or health services in our lifetime, and 90 per cent of that use is in the last two years of our lives. Therefore, these decisions will be very important to a lot of people. Their anxiety about choosing the right product will be all the greater. Given the mental strain that people are under when they are elderly, it is very important that they can be sure that what they buy is guaranteed to deliver the service that is claimed.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am more used to taking part in health and social service debates, and precisely for that reason I should like to express very strong support for the amendment.
Long-term care insurance is extremely important because so many people are potentially affected by it. There are currently half a million people in nursing and residential homes, and the costs per annum are extremely high, of the order of £18,000 to £23,000 depending on the area of the country in which you live.
Most of us can confidently predict that the Government are unlikely to pick up a substantial part of that cost, and in view of their very delayed reaction to the report of the Royal Commission, it appears that they are terrified to make a decision on the subject. In view of those costs, I am not surprised.
Even personal care that is provided at home can be a substantial cost. It can be of the order of £15,000 per annum. The investment required in order to cover those costs is potentially very large indeed.
The products designed to provide all or part of these costs and to allow older people to plan with confidence are extraordinarily complex. I have carried out an exercise in relation to some of these products. I have looked at them as if I were insuring for my own future at the age of 50. It is as if there is a huge set of multiple choice hurdles in front of the intending insured. These are some of the questions. Will it be a lump sum capital bond? Will there be an insurance product linked to it? Will the capital growth pay the premium? Will it be a pure insurance product with a single premium or a monthly payment? If it is a bond, what type of bond will it be? One company has three types of bond: capital growth, capital reserve or the protection select option. Others have more types of capital bond. What conditions are excluded from the insurance? Mental health conditions like schizophrenia are often excluded from this type of insurance. When is the insurance triggered?
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, spoke of the rather archaic activities of daily living that are included in these insurances. How many of these activities of daily living must a person be unable to carry out before they are regarded as being severely or moderately disabled? Is there an option of a capital sum to pay for assisted devices, for example stair lifts? Are the services of an

121
independent care consultant provided? What extra frills are provided, such as a bed reservation benefit? Is respite care included for carers? Is so-called accelerated care cover included?
All these options affect the cost of the insurance or the bond, and I have not even begun to address the issue of growth assumptions and how much a person may need to insure or put aside for this purpose. There are widely differing assumptions about what the cost of care will be in 10 or 20 years' time, and insurance companies use a very wide range of cost projections indeed, some of them of doubtful accuracy. In that context, is the product indexed? What charges are made and what is the administration fee? What is the establishment charge? What is the annual fund management charge? What are the encashment charges? What commission does an independent financial adviser receive?
Just looking at some of these options—this multiple choice set of hurdles—one can see that there are clearly massive traps for the unwary. At the very least, such products should be brought within the scope of the Bill. At present, they are covered only by the ABI codes of practice. In the light of the ABI's performance as regards genetic testing, I suggest that a voluntary code is not good enough. If anything, the ambit of the current amendment is rather narrower than it should be. Some of the products are not insurance products, yet they still purport to be long-term care products. Disputes and complaints should also be covered by the Bill, but the amendment does not cover them. Nevertheless, I very much hope that the Government will see the enormous sense in these proposals and that they will agree to accept the amendment.
Lord Joffe: I, too, wish to express my support for the amendment. As other noble Lords have said, the products are very complex. I know just how complex they are because, with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I sat on the Royal Commission for the care of the elderly and we were required to analyse these products. With some experience in the field, I, frankly, was unable to understand them, or certain sections of them.
It seems strange that consumers of even simple products like unit trusts are fully protected, even when the amount at risk and the risk of mis-selling is small. If this is so, what is the logic for the decision not to regulate long-term care products when they are so complex and the most vulnerable members of society are at risk? Indeed, it could be interpreted as a caring government discriminating against the elderly rather than in their favour.
Every organisation that is concerned with consumer protection, ranging from Age Concern to the Consumers' Association, has underlined the importance of regulating long-term care products. Even the insurance industry, which has opposed much regulation over the years, has called for the regulation of long-term care products. The reason is self-evident: the industry knows the extent of mis-selling that is likely to take place and is desperate to avoid yet another assurance mis-selling scandal.
122
Based on my 30 years' experience in the life assurance industry, my five years campaigning for effective regulation and my chairmanship of the complaints sub-committee of LAUTRO, the previous regulator, I reluctantly predict that if the Government do not regulate long-term care products now they will have no alternative but to do so within the next five years. By the time they then do so, there will be a significant number of elderly people to whom products will have been mis-sold and it will take much time and effort to seek to compensate them. Just as with the Home Income Plan selling scandal, a significant number of these victims will go to their graves before they have been compensated, with their last years having been blighted by the mis-selling, that the Government had the opportunity to prevent.
Lord Newby: In rising to speak in the debate at this stage, I realise that I am in danger of exemplifying the old adage that everything has already been said but not everyone has said it. Therefore, in associating these Benches formally with this amendment, I want to stress what is, in a sense, the central juxtaposition of the reasoning behind the amendment. On the one hand, as we have heard, there is the immense complexity of the product being regulated and, on the other hand, there is the peculiar vulnerability of many of the people who are considering whether to purchase it.
In many cases, the person who is considering whether to buy the product for the first time is already frail. But, more importantly, such a person may have recently become a widower or a widow and will, therefore, feel much more vulnerable than he or she has ever felt before. There is a particular need for such people to have confidence in the products that they are being asked to purchase. Moreover, those products should conform in such a way as to make it easier for such people to consider them rationally. Therefore we on these Benches—both Front-Bench and Back-Bench speakers—have no difficulty at all in enthusiastically supporting the amendment.
Lord Saatchi: As my noble friend Lord Jenkin has said, these Benches are in favour of the amendment. I wish to express that clearly. Given the range of support for the amendment throughout the Chamber, it would be a great pity if the Minister did not say something positive and constructive about the attitude that the Government might adopt to the clause we are discussing. It would be sadly backward looking on the part of the Government if they did not take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey; namely, that this market is bound to grow. For the reasons that have been stated by the Liberal Democrat Benches, the time is overdue for these products to be brought within the regulatory guidelines.
I do not mention the following figures to make a party political point, but do so strictly in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. Every opinion survey shows that the public consider that the state of the NHS and healthcare is the number one issue facing the country. Research which probes more

123
deeply what the crisis in the NHS means to people reveals that one of their greatest worries is how they will pay for their parents' or, indeed, their own old age. It is a sad fact that 72 per cent of the public now believe that the NHS is in crisis. They are considering private healthcare. I believe that I saw a figure today which claimed that 160,000 people have paid for their own major operations. The assumption behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is 100 per cent correct; this area is bound to grow. It would be deeply sad if, through some ideological distaste of private healthcare, the Government were unable enthusiastically to support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I assure the noble Lord that ideological distaste of private healthcare has nothing to do with the Government's response to the amendment. It is important to state that we do not place any emphasis on whether the amendment is technically correct. I said in response to the previous debate on mortgages that we were able to introduce regulation of mortgages without any amendment to the Bill. We would be able also to introduce regulation of long-term healthcare products without any amendment to the Bill. That is not the issue between us. We are talking about content, not form. If we want to introduce such regulation, we could do it by means of a statutory instrument subject to an affirmative resolution procedure in both Chambers. That would be the correct way to do it without introducing a regulated activities order within 28 days of Royal Assent.
We understand the nature of the amendment. We understand the nature of the arguments which have been unanimous as between speakers on all sides of the Committee. We have listened carefully to what has been said. I think that it is recognised that we are discussing a new market where products are at an early stage of development. The market could evolve rapidly and most Members of the Committee appear to think that it will. We need to take account of that in our decisions about regulation. That is why we are working with industry to understand the way in which the products and the market are developing and have established a committee which comprises industry, the public sector, charities which represent the elderly population's interests and the financial services regulator, with a remit to see how long-term care insurance and other financial products could be made more attractive to a wider audience. We are concerned at all times to operate on the basis of sound regulatory practice. This means that before introducing new regulation we are anxious to carry out appropriate consultation and assessment of the costs and benefits.
We have made that guiding principle clear. We wish to see a light touch where possible, but we want to ensure that there is consumer protection where necessary. This considered approach to consultation and assessment of costs and benefits is implicit in the Opposition's Amendments Nos. 103 and 137—which we shall discuss shortly—which would require the Treasury to consult before extending regulation.
124
The same concerns underlie Liberal Democrat Amendment No. 279—which we have already debated—which would require draft statutory instruments to be submitted to the consumer and practitioner panels.
We do not take lightly decisions to impose new regulations, but that does not mean that we will let the need for proper consideration cause unnecessary delay. On the contrary, we have no intention of waiting until evidence of actual consumer detriment occurs before taking action.
When the Committee reports in the summer we shall have a better idea of the future size and shape of the market. We should then be able to assess in more depth the risks to vulnerable consumers; we should be able to form a judgment as to their needs in respect of information and other forms of protection; and we shall be better able to assess the products, including the complexity described, whether sales of those products fall technically within areas already subject to regulation, and the costs and benefits of further regulatory options.
I have listened with great sympathy to all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of regulation. I think that there is less of a gap than there may appear to be at first sight between the Government and those noble Lords. We shall want to mull over the debate between now and Report stage to see whether we can find a way forward that meets the concerns expressed by noble Lords today.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: Before the Minister sits down, he mentioned dealing with these issues about mortgage regulation and long-term care by way of regulation. I do not understand why they cannot be put on the face of the Bill if he is genuinely sympathetic with the comments made on both subjects.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not know how much of the previous debate the noble Lord attended, but we have debated in considerable detail the relationship between Clause 20 and Schedule 2. We have debated the fact that Schedule 2 is an indicative list of the scope of regulation, but not a complete list. We have made clear that the Government will implement, if you like, both Clause 20 and Schedule 2 by the regulated activities order which will be introduced after Royal Assent. That will set forth on a committed basis, on a formal basis, those activities which are to be covered. But it will be done through secondary legislation rather than by amendments on the face of the Bill. It will be done that way because financial markets change over the years and we shall want to change the regulatory activities order from time to time when new products appear and new financial markets arise. We shall want to do that without having to change primary legislation by amendments to this Bill.
Lord Lipsey: I thought I was to have the rare pleasure of participating in a debate in which I could say I agreed with every single word said by noble

125
Lords —until the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that nothing would come of the Royal Commission report. My noble comrade-in-arms on that commission and myself are entirely optimistic that the sensible and carefully weighted recommendations of the minority will be accepted by the Government.
I am grateful for the strong support offered by all sides and for the many different angles from which it has come. It represents a formidable case. From the tone of the Minister's remarks—especially the tone on which he finished—it is clear that he recognises that a formidable case has been made. In view of the assurances that he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Regulated Activities]:
[Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 226, line 30. at end insert—
(".—(1) The Treasury must publish a draft of any order proposed to be made under section 20(1) in the way appearing to them to be best calculated to bring it to the attention of the public.
(2) The draft must he accompanied by—

(a) an explanation of the purpose of the proposed order; and

(b) notice that representations about the proposals may be made to the Treasury within a specified time.

(3) Before making the proposed order, the Treasury must publish an account in general terms of—

(a) the representations made to them in accordance with subparagraph (2)(b); and

(b) their response to them

(4) If the order made by the Treasury differs from the draft published under sub-paragraph (1) in a way which is, in the opinion of the Treasury, significant, the Treasury must (in addition to complying with sub-paragraph (3)) publish details of the difference.
(5) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (4) do not apply if the Treasury consider that the delay involved in complying with them would be prejudicial to the interests of consumers.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 137 which is listed in the same group.
Clause 20 provides that,
"An activity is a regulated activity for the purposes of this Act if it is an activity of a specified kind which is carried on by way of business and … relates to an investment of a specified kind; or … in the case of an activity of a kind which is also specified for the purposes of this paragraph, is carried on in relation to property of any kind".
Part I of Schedule 2 describes in general terms the types of activities which are likely to be considered to be regulated activities; and Part II of the schedule sets out, in general terms, the types of investments which will be considered to be investment of a specified kind. Part III of Schedule 2 gives details of the order-making power of the Treasury under Clause 20 to specify regulated activities and investments.
Throughout the Bill, the powers of the authority to make rules, codes and so on are subject to a requirement to carry out a public consultation on
126
drafts of the rules and codes. Included, as part of the consultation procedure, is a requirement for the authority to publish an account in general terms of the representations made to it, as part of the consultation exercise, and the authority's response to those representations.
No such requirement to carry out a public consultation applies to the Treasury's order-making powers. In practice, the Treasury usually does carry out a consultation exercise. However, there is no obligation to do so; and there is no requirement on I he Treasury to give an account of the representations made to it or its response to those representations.
This amendment—and indeed Amendment No. 137 in a different context—introduces to Schedule 2 the requirement to carry out a consultation exercise. The exercise is not as onerous as would apply to the authority in relation to its rule-making powers because the authority is also required to carry out a cost-benefit analysis in relation to proposed rules. No requirement to carry out a cost-benefit analysis has been included in this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Newby: This is a slightly broader variant of our Amendment No. 279, which deals simply with a requirement on the FSA to consult the practitioner panel and the consumer panel. The amendment takes the provision, in a more elegant form of drafting, beyond that, and gives scope for wider consultation. I have every sympathy with the mover of the amendment. I hope that not only will the Minister be sympathetic, but that he may also be able to say yes in this case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These amendments seek to impose on the Treasury requirements to consult on draft regulations and to make statements about the comments it has received during the consultation. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has looked at the consultation requirements that are imposed on the authority when it exercises its delegated legislative functions and he has clearly looked on them with favour, because he seeks to reproduce them here—
Lord Kingsland: Oh.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wondered whether I should get away with that.
We need to remember that the consultation arrangements imposed on the authority are there because they form part of what we sometimes refer to as the accountability package; that is to say, the Bill imposes a number of obligations on the authority to ensure that, in carrying out its functions, it does so in a way that is compatible with its general duties under Clause 1 of the Bill and to ensure that it is properly accountable. The need for the accountability package reflects the legal status of the authority—a company on which a range of statutory powers and functions are conferred by the Bill.

127
The same arrangements are not necessary in the case of the Treasury because the Treasury is answerable to Parliament for its actions. That is why I am here. Indeed, when it comes to the exercise by the Treasury of its powers to make delegated legislation, those powers are exercisable by statutory instrument subject to the different procedures set out in Clause 404. Any orders and regulations under the Bill, excluding commencement orders, will either be subject to annulment by either House of Parliament or subject to approval by both Houses. The procedure that applies in particular cases will depend on the nature of the statutory instrument and the power in the Bill under which it is to be made.
That leads me to two points. First, orders under Clause 20, which are the subject of Amendment No. 103, are already to be subject to an affirmative procedure when orders are first made under the power or, where such orders have the effect of bringing new types of activity within the scope of regulation, under the Bill. The second amendment, Amendment No. 137, relates to the power to make exemption orders under Clause 36. In its memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, the Treasury drew attention to the fact that it was reconsidering the procedure which should be applied to the exercise of that power. The Bill currently applies a negative procedure resolution. The committee recommended that the power should be subject to an affirmative procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, may be aware that the Government have already indicated that they have accepted the committee's recommendation and will be bringing forward an amendment to achieve that result. My point therefore is that the two powers in question will be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure. The House will be able to debate the orders at the time they are made.
My second point—this will be apparent from what I have already said—is that the arrangements we have proposed have been approved by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It is the case that government departments are increasingly consulted on secondary legislation and, indeed, primary legislation, such as this Bill, before it is introduced into Parliament. The whole history of the Bill is extensive—one might almost say exhaustive—consultation. The Treasury's commitment to consulting on draft legislation has already been proven by this Bill. It has also consulted, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, recognised, on a number of draft regulations and orders to be made under the Bill, including a draft of the orders under Clauses 20 and 36. Where it is practicable or helpful to do so, the Treasury will continue to consult on its draft legislation.
In concluding my response, I should make one final point. The amendment seeks to impose an obligation on the Treasury in the specific case of orders under Clauses 20 and 36. That is unprecedented. I am aware of only one other piece of legislation that requires consultation by a government department before an
128
order is made; namely, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. But the kind of things that may be provided for in an order under that Act are very different. By their nature, orders under that Act do not define the detail of basic propositions that are set out on the face of an Act, which is the case with the powers that we are currently debating. A deregulation order under the 1994 Act can do away with vast swathes of legislation without being subject to parliamentary controls. That is certainly not the case with orders under Clauses 20 and 36. I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for that response and I shall look carefully in Hansard at what he has said. I hope he will recognise that the fact that something has not been done in the past is not necessarily a good argument for not doing it now or in the future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had always assumed it was a Conservative principle that nothing should be done for the first time.
Lord Kingsland: Irrespective of my own party's principles, the fact that the party opposite introduced the European Convention on Human Rights and devolved power to Scotland and Wales in a very short period of time indicates that the philosophy just adumbrated by the Minister in relation to my amendment had no role whatever in the thinking of his Government in 1997 and 1998. Nevertheless, I shall read carefully the words of the Minister. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Contravention of section 19]:
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Agreements made by unauthorised persons]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 10. line 34. leave out ("purchaser")") and insert ("counter-party")").
The noble Lord said: I now have the daunting task of moving Amendment No. 105 and speaking to Amendments Nos. 106 to 119. Amendment No. 105, together with Amendments Nos. 106 to 108, all relate to the same point, which admittedly is relatively minor. Clause 24 concerns,
"An agreement made by a person in the course of carrying on a regulated activity in contravention of the general prohibition".
It is provided that the agreement is unenforceable against the other party, who is defined as "the purchaser". The same definition is used in Clause 25 in relation to an agreement made with an authorised person,
"in consequence of something said or done by another person … in the course of a regulated activity carried on by the third party in contravention of the general prohibition".

129
In practice, the party to the agreement, who is defined as "the purchaser", could be both the purchaser and seller of an investment. It is confusing to define a person as the purchaser when an appropriate less confusing alternative—in this case, we suggest "counter-party"—is available.
Amendments Nos. 109 to 111 all relate to Clause 26 which is concerned with agreements that are made unenforceable under Clauses 24 and 25. Under Clause 26(3) the court may allow the agreement to be enforced, or money or property paid or transferred under the agreement to be retained, if the enforcement conditions are met. The enforcement conditions set out in Clause 26(4) are,
"that it is just and equitable for the agreement to be enforced or (as the case may he) for the money or property paid or transferred under the agreement to be retained",
and that either of the requirements of paragraph (a) or (b) is satisfied. Given that a court must be satisfied,
"that it is just and equitable for the agreement to be enforced or (as the case may be) for the money or property paid or transferred under the agreement to be retained",
it is unnecessary to stipulate further conditions which must be satisfied. In exercising its judgment as to what is just and equitable, a court will take into account a number of factors, including the belief of the relevant party to the agreement and the state of his knowledge. Accordingly, the further enforcement conditions in Clause 26(4) are unnecessary.
I turn next to Amendment No. 113. In passing, I note that the amendment seeks to insert into Clause 27 the verb "made" after "(`the deposit-taker')" in line 8 on page l2. The reason is that the word "made" appears to have been omitted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes. Move on!
Lord Kingsland: It is a simple drafting amendment to correct the omission and perhaps a triumph for the Opposition to hear the Minister so spontaneously, and without rising to his feet, concede the point.
Amendment No. 114 is a corresponding amendment to, I think, Amendment No. 109 in the context of agreements entered into in the course of a deposit-taking business. Again it appears unnecessary in order for an agreement to be enforceable to go beyond what a court would regard to be just and equitable in the circumstances.
On Amendment No. 115, although Clause 27 refers to the activity of deposit taking, there is no definition of what is meant by deposit taking. The amendment is intended to remedy that omission.
I turn now to Amendment No. 116. It provides a new clause after Clause 27. Clause 24 deals with agreements made by a person in the course of carrying on a regulated activity in contravention of a general prohibition; while Clause 25 deals with agreements made by an authorised person in the course of carrying on a regulated activity, not in contravention of the general prohibition but in consequence of something
130
said or done by another person in the course or a regulated activity carried on by that person in contravention of the general prohibition.
Neither Clauses 24 nor 25 applies to deposit taking. Clause 27 relates to deposit taking and corresponds to Clause 24. However, there is no provision relating to deposit taking which corresponds to Clause 25: that is, an agreement made by an authorised person in the course of carrying on deposit taking but in consequence of something said or done by another person in the course of a regulated activity carried on by him in contravention of the general prohibition.
The Government have argued that an equivalent provision to Clause 25 is not required in the context of deposit taking because it is not proposed to make giving advice on deposits a regulated activity. The difficulty with that approach is that the question of what is a regulated activity is determined by an order made by the Treasury. If, as subsequently may be the case, it is decided that the giving of advice on deposits should be a regulated activity, the Bill will be deficient as it will not deal with the case in relation to deposits in the same way as Clause 25 deals with agreements not involving deposits.
The better approach is to include a new clause in the Bill covering the point and, if appropriate, to exclude its application by determining that the giving of advice in relation to deposits is not a regulated activity. If subsequently it is decided that the giving of advice in relation to deposits should be a regulated activity, the clause will then apply without the need for primary legislation to amend the provisions of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 117 to 119 correspond to Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 except that Clause 28 deals with the enforceability of agreements resulting from unlawful communications. However, the same points apply as before. I beg to move. I think that I have spoken to most of the amendments of note between Amendments Nos. 105 and 119.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I start by saying that I shall consider most of these amendments sympathetically and agree to Amendment No. 113, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I do what I think is my duty: to explain our attitude to each of them. There is some point in that; it is not simply resistance.
The clauses we are dealing with broadly take forward existing provisions which confirm the normal presumption against enforcement by a person who enters into an agreement as a result of his own illegal activity or who enters into an agreement in the knowledge that the agreement results from the illegal activity of another person. However, the clauses provide some discretion for the courts to enforce where the person seeking to enforce can show that he reasonably believes that he was not acting illegally or did not know that the agreement resulted from the illegal activity of another and where the court considers enforcement just and equitable.
The purpose of this is to provide a greater degree of certainty than would be provided by the general law. The boundary of what constitutes regulated activity is

131
inevitably quite grey in some place. However, the point has been made to us that there are bound to be hard cases and that even the degree of discretion we have allowed the courts may not provide enough leeway.
We acknowledge that. We have been considering further amendments to these clauses but thought it would be useful to consider the matter once more in debate. Broadly speaking, we agree that the principal test for the court should be whether enforcement would be just and equitable. However, unlike the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, we think that the courts should be directed in particular to have regard to whether the person reasonably believed he was not breaching the prohibition or did not know that the agreement resulted from a breach by a third party.
The compromise would still send a strong signal to the courts that reasonable belief or knowledge were factors to be accorded particular significance but would provide the kind of pressure valve which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is seeking to enable the court to respond to a hard case and, where appropriate, allow enforcement.
On that basis, I invite the noble Lord not to move Amendments Nos. 109 to 111, 114 and 117 to 119.
As regards Amendments Nos. 119A and 119B, to which the noble Lord did not speak but which are included in the group, I hope that by establishing "just and equitable" as the principal test we will meet the concerns that lay behind two of the more recent amendments, Nos. 119A and 119B. They were printed during the weekend.
Naturally, the question of whether the illegal promotion actually misled the purchaser in any way is something that the courts might consider. But we deliberately moved away from tests that focused on the content and effect of the promotion as a result of debates in another place.
The main factor we are proposing should be taken into account by the court in determining what is just and equitable is whether the provider either reasonably believed that he was not breaching the financial promotion prohibition or did not know that he was doing business as a result of an illegal promotion by others. If the provider cannot satisfy those tests, he is in a sense complicit in the offence and it is not clear why the courts should be directed towards enforcing the contract.
The same argument applies to a test which, like Amendment No. 119B, depends on what might have been envisaged when a breach of the financial promotion prohibition occurred. If the provider does not reasonably believe that he is not committing a breach, or knows that the agreement results from a breach by another, what may or may not have been envisaged by the person committing the breach should be neither here nor there.
We have dealt with the substance of Amendment No. 116A in the context of Clause 19. However, we shall take away that amendment, too, and consider it further.
132
As regards Amendments Nos. 105 onwards relating to "counter-party", we have reflected on the points that have been made about the potential confusion arising from the use of the term "purchaser" to denote the other party to the agreement. We accept that in some circumstances that party might be selling. To some extent, that does not matter as the term "purchaser" is just a label. However, we can see the scope for confusion. We are not convinced that simply switching to the label "counter-party" resolves the situation.
We are not against the word "counter-party"—it may be the right word—but, arguably, it is confusing for one party to be a counter-party but not the other. That is not how the term is usually used. We shall resolve the potential confusion with the amendments we bring forward at Report stage. I hope that that will enable the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 105 and not move Amendments Nos. 106 to 108 and 112. As he rightly said, Amendment No. 113 corrects a minor error in the drafting and I am grateful to him for tabling that amendment.
Penultimately, I refer to Amendment No. 115, which concerns the definition of deposit-taking. I am afraid that I cannot accept this amendment, although I appreciate the intentions of proposing a definition. We have sought deliberately not to define deposit-taking. The existing provision works as it stands. The clause applies to deposit-taking which is carried on in contravention of the general prohibition. The extent to which the activity of deposit-taking comes within the scope of regulation will be defined by the regulated activity order made under Clause 20. It is that definition that is important for these purposes. Whatever the regulated activity order defines as being deposit-taking and carrying on a deposit-taking business for the purposes of the general prohibition will and should have the same meaning here.
Perhaps I may explain why it is so important to keep these concepts tied together. The existing concept of a deposit-taking business for the purpose of the Banking Act includes various exclusions and exemptions which will be carried forward into the orders that we shall be making. For example, the current definition excludes the issuing of commercial paper, subject to various conditions. We do not want to create a situation whereby commercial paper issues that were perfectly legal would nevertheless become unenforceable under this clause. It may be argued that that is why the amendment refers to the "regulated activity" of accepting deposits.
However, if that is the effect of those words, that definition merely applies whatever definition is included in the regulated activities order, which is the position that would hold anyway. In that case, what benefit is gained by including the definition here? The hidden danger is that this apparently substantive definition will create uncertainty. A separate definition which applies to this clause only is bound to create some risk of divergence between this clause and the regulated activities order. I hope that I made it clear in

133
my response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, why it is being done in the form of an order, rather than on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 116 would introduce a new clause dealing with deposit agreements entered into as a result of illegal regulated activity by a third party. The need for third party provisions in Clauses 25 and 26 arises from the fact that advising on and arranging deals in investments are currently regulated activities and will remain so under the regulated activities order. In the case of deposits, it is only the activity of accepting deposits that is intended to be a regulated activity. As now, there will be no third party activities, such as advising or arranging, which could be carried on by a third party in contravention of the general prohibition in relation to deposits. Therefore, equivalent third party provision would be an unnecessary complication.
We accept in principle the main thrust of many of the opposition amendments in this group. Perhaps I may summarise by saying that we wish to consider further Amendments Nos. 105 to 108 and 109 to 112. We propose to accept Amendment No. 113 now and to consider Amendment No. 114. We must resist Amendments Nos. 115 and 116. We propose to consider further Amendments Nos. 116A, 117, 118 and 119, but we must resist Amendments Nos. 119A and 119B. Where we are considering further, we shall bring forward amendments on Report which will give the courts broader discretion than is the case under existing law or has been envisaged in the provisions to date.
We are grateful to noble Lords for making this debate possible and for enabling us to make what I believe will be agreed progress on these matters.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his careful response to this long line of amendments, and especially so for allowing me such a high hit rate. I am not talking about hitting the Minister; I am talking about hitting the statute book. However, I must express not only disappointment but a certain amount of surprise at what he said about Amendment No. 115; and I want to go away and think about that. It is a matter to which I may return at Report stage. I know that the Minister will understand that. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Agreements made through unauthorised persons]:
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Agreements made unenforceable section 24 or 25]:
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 112 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Deposit-taking in breach of general prohibition]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 12, line 8, after ("deposit-taker")") insert ("made").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 not moved.]
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 28 [Enforceability of agreements resulting from unlawful communications]:
[Amendments Nos. 116A to 119B not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to
Clause 29 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [EEA Passport Rights]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 230, line 49, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment:, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 132 and 259. Where an application for permission is granted under Part IV, the Bill used to require the authority to issue the applicant with a certificate of authorisation and provided that certificate with evidential weight in other matters relating to the authorised person's permission under the Bill. The intention was to ensure transparency.
Practical concerns were raised about giving evidential weight to certificates of authorisation. Those concerns involve whether the certificate of authorisation takes precedence over the register and. if it were to be discontinued, whether it would have to be physically repossessed and whether that may meet a refusal or whether it could have been lost; in other words, whether it is a suitable document for these purposes.
Therefore, those provisions were removed in another place so as to enable the courts to exercise discretion as to the weight to place on the documentation issued to a person.
Consequent on those changes, Amendments Nos. 120, 132 and 259 delete provisions which refer to certificates of authorisation. The Government propose also to remove Clause 193 which deals with the reissue of certificates of authorisation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed o.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty four minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Iraq: Sanctions Exemptions
  Iraq: Sanctions Exemptions
  Discrimination Against Women: Optional Protocol to UN Convention
  Discrimination Against Women: Optional Protocol to UN Convention
  Belgium: British Missions and the Union Flag
  Belgium: British Missions and the Union Flag
  UNHCR: Financial Management
  UNHCR: Financial Management
  Mozambique: Disaster Response
  Mozambique: Disaster Response
  Humanitarian Emergencies: Advance Information
  Humanitarian Emergencies: Advance Information
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Disaster Response
  Disaster Response
  Imports from US: Duty
  Imports from US: Duty
  Consolidated Fund Bill
  Consolidated Fund Bill
  Chinese President: Policing Arrangements for State Visit
  Chinese President: Policing Arrangements for State Visit
  International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar
  International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar
  Representation of the People Bill: Compatibility with Human Rights Convention
  Representation of the People Bill: Compatibility with Human Rights Convention
  Human Rights Convention: Compatibility of Legislation
  Human Rights Convention: Compatibility of Legislation
  Refugees: Integration in Britain
  Refugees: Integration in Britain
  Bi-centenary of Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland
  Bi-centenary of Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland
  Public Sector Ombudsmen Review
  Public Sector Ombudsmen Review
  Electoral Reform Ballot Services
  Electoral Reform Ballot Services
  Black and Ethnic Minority Detained Patients
  Black and Ethnic Minority Detained Patients
  Mental Health Services: Funding Allocation
  Mental Health Services: Funding Allocation
  St John's Wort
  St John's Wort
  Smoking and Food Preparation and Consumption
  Smoking and Food Preparation and Consumption
  NHS Dentistry
  NHS Dentistry
  Teachers: Stress-related Disorders
  Teachers: Stress-related Disorders
  Government-owned Vacant Housing Stock
  Government-owned Vacant Housing Stock
  Termite Infestation at Saunton
  Termite Infestation at Saunton
  GM Food
  GM Food
  Badger Culling Trials
  Badger Culling Trials
  Flood Defence Emergency Response Project
  Flood Defence Emergency Response Project
  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom"
  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom"