Sitting of 7 November 2000

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

    CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 14 November.

    ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 14 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    IGC Agenda
    Mr. Christopher Gill: If he will make a statement on the agenda for the current intergovernmental conference regarding Community law. [135160]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): The intergovernmental conference is about making the institutional reforms necessary to allow enlargement to proceed. The issues remain those set out at the beginning of the conference; that is chiefly the size and composition of the Commission, the reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers, the extension of qualified majority voting and closer co-operation between individual member states.
    Mr. Gill: I know that you, Mr. Speaker, prefer brief questions, so will the Minister simply tell us whether the Government of whom he is a member will, at Nice, veto article 280A which seeks to create the position of a European public prosecutor?
    Mr. Vaz: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have made it quite clear that we do not support the idea, the concept or the proposal of an EU public prosecutor.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my hon. Friend aware that double standards are to be found in the position adopted by Conservative Members given that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who went the furthest to abolish the right of veto and introduced majority voting?
    140
    Is it not a fact that, in any enlargement of the European Union—which the Opposition claim to support—it would be necessary to have an extension of qualified majority voting; otherwise the whole institutional framework would came to a grinding halt?
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. As he correctly said, what is important is that the European Union and the Commission operate efficiently. As I have said to the House before, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)—St. Francis of Maastricht as I have described him—signed the Maastricht treaty and agreed to qualified majority voting on 42 occasions during the passage of the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. In 1996, 80 per cent. of the votes taken at the European Council were taken on the basis of qualified majority voting. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that in 1998 Britain was on the losing side only twice. Therefore, we want an extension of qualified majority voting when that is in our interests.
    I say to my hon. Friend that the issue is not a question of double standards, but of treble standards. Conservatives have so many different views on Europe that I have lost count of them.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May we have an assurance that the Government, in any consideration of the expansion of the European Union, will not contemplate smaller countries being treated as second-class nations within the European Union?
    Mr. Vaz: I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. We believe strongly not in a two-speed Europe, but in a Europe where all the member states are treated equally. That is why we have said on several occasions that we support enhanced co-operation. However, we support it only on the basis that the decisions to be taken do not undermine the single market and treat all states the same. We will not tolerate a Europe with a hard core of countries; all countries should be treated equally.

    EU Modernisation
    Dr. Stephen Ladyman: What support has been received from other EU member states for the ideas on modernisation of EU institutions expressed in the Prime Minister's speech in Warsaw. [135161]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): My right hon. Friend's speech in Warsaw has been widely supported throughout EU member states and was warmly welcomed by the four Prime Ministers of candidate countries who were among his audience. My right hon. Friend set out a vision of Europe that harnessed the economic and political strengths of its member nations to achieve more together than they can alone, but which respected the separate identity and democracy of each member state. Yesterday, President Prodi said:
    I agree entirely with the British Prime Minister. I do not want Europe to become a superstate.

    141
    I am sure that my hon. Friend will take this opportunity to welcome that clear support for British policy from Romano Prodi.
    Dr. Ladyman: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be aware that my constituency of South Thanet receives objective 2 aid and, because it is in east Kent, most local businesses look to the continent as their natural trading area. Both those benefits would be put under threat if the British public continue to feel disconnected from the institutions of Europe. In that context, does my right hon. Friend not agree that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's idea of a second Chamber in Europe where national parliamentarians can be heard is not only exciting and innovative, but might be exactly what the British people need to make them feel connected again to Europe?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend states one of the great truths about our membership of the European Union, which is that almost 60 per cent. of our exports go to other EU members. That is why it is so important for us to make a success of that membership. Part of that success will be reconnecting the democracy of Europe with EU institutions, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister proposed that there should be a place in those institutions for British democracy and the democracy of other states through their national Parliaments.
    Mr. John Redwood: As part of the modernisation of the EU, how many of the 50 British vetoes will have to be surrendered to pursue the national interest as the Foreign Secretary is suggesting? Will not the British veto and our right to self-government disappear into the Bermuda triangle that is the Government's European policy, and that they are not in line with the EU and their colleagues, but are struggling from the rear?
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that we are confident that we will keep to our bottom line of having no extension of majority voting to defence, taxation, social security, treaty changes or border control. Those will remain subjects for unanimity, and I am sure that he will welcome that.
    I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be disappointed to hear that the Government could not, even if we wished, increase majority voting and abolish the veto to the extent that the previous Government did when he was in the Cabinet.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to protect the democracy of member states is to preserve the veto, and that any erosion of the veto erodes that democracy?
    Mr. Cook: I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that any erosion of the veto is necessarily against British interests. We are pressing for majority voting on a number of matters in the treaty. For example, it would be in our interest to have majority voting on the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice to get round those who impede its effectiveness and efficiency. It would be in our
    142
    interest to remove the veto on the site of the European Parliament which enables France to insist that it continues to sit in Strasbourg.
    Majority voting would be in our interest in several matters. In the past two years, we have succeeded in majority votes more than any of the other large countries, which could have exercised their vetoes on proposals that we supported if they were subject to unanimity.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Why does the Prime Minister still refuse to press for the flexible, multi-system European Union that the mainstream majority of the British public want? If he is serious, as he says he is, about wanting to make way for enlargement, why does he not press for reform of the biggest single obstacle to enlargement—the common agricultural policy? Why have not the Government even asked for that to be on the agenda at the Nice IGC?
    What is the difference between the European Union becoming a superpower, as Mr. Prodi and the Prime Minister have suggested it will, or becoming a superstate? How reassured is the Foreign Secretary that the President of the Commission, who has talked about the Commission becoming the Government of Europe, says that he agrees with and supports the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Cook: On the issue of a superpower, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech that we want Europe's economic strength to be harnessed, but not in ways that create the mechanism of a superstate. In Nice, we will be preparing for a treaty that will pave the way for enlargement by making reforms, so that Europe will be ready to receive a record increase in membership.
    The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) has pledged that his party will demand a referendum on that treaty and campaign strongly against the treaty. Would he care to go to Warsaw and make a speech explaining to the countries of central Europe why the Conservative party will block steps that are necessary to enlarge the European Union?
    Mr. Maude: I make it very clear that nothing in the Nice treaty that is controversial is essential for enlargement. The right hon. Gentleman well knows that the biggest roadblock to enlargement is the common agricultural policy, and the Government are not even discussing that.
    On the charter of fundamental rights, which is part of the modernising agenda, does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Commission, which has said that the charter will become mandatory through the courts' interpretation of it, whether or not it is incorporated in the treaty, or does he agree with his Minister for Europe, who says that it will be no more useful than the Beano? Will he confirm that whatever the treaty of Nice contains, it has already been agreed that another intergovernmental conference will be held to discuss further treaty changes when the ink is barely dry on the last?
    Mr. Cook: If the right hon. Gentleman is insisting that I choose between the Commission and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I will happily choose the view of my Minister of State, who expressed himself robustly and clearly.

    143
    Returning to the right hon. Gentleman's position on the treaty of Nice, is he now telling us that there is nothing controversial in the treaty? If so, why do the Tories continue to resist it? Has the right hon. Gentleman dropped his demand for a referendum on that treaty? Has he dropped his commitment to campaign strongly against it? Is that because the penny has dropped that it would make the Tory party as totally unpopular among the 12 applicant countries, as they are already with the 15 member states?

    Telecommunications (Gibraltar)
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will make a statement on telecommunications in Gibraltar. [135162]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): As we made clear in our response on 31 October to the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Gibraltar, we have stayed in close contact with the European Commission, emphasising the urgency of the situation and our expectation that the Commission will uphold Gibraltar's rights in the European Union. We have informed the Commission that we consider the complaints made by operators in Gibraltar to be well founded. In consultation with the Government of Gibraltar, we are continuing our efforts with the Spanish Government and the Commission to resolve this important issue.
    Mr. Hoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern at the fact that Spain still refuses to recognise the international code for Gibraltar and that businesses in Gibraltar are being held back by the lack of available telephone numbers. That has been highlighted recently by the failure of the Spanish Minister of Defence to telephone the Chief Minister over a visit to the submarine HMS Tireless. We are all aware of the difficulties, and I look forward to an early resolution of them.
    Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. I know of his great interest in these matters as a member of the Gibraltar parliamentary group and owing to his many visits to the country. The issue is important. As he knows, 30,000 telephone numbers have been allocated through the Cadiz exchange, and they will run out next year. Therefore, for the people of Gibraltar, the issue is very serious. I have discussed the matter with Chief Minister Caruana, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). I spoke yesterday afternoon to the Governor of Gibraltar. I assure my hon. Friend that we have raised the concerns with the Commission and expect it to do something positive to resolve the situation; otherwise, my hon. Friend will not be able to ring his friends in Gibraltar and they will not be able to ring out.
    Mr. John Bercow: These soothing bromides simply will not do. What is the precise nature of the renewed efforts to which, in their response to the recent Foreign Affairs Committee report, the Government committed themselves? Did the Prime Minister raise the matter at the Anglo-Spanish talks last month? What exactly was the result?
    Mr. Vaz: I shall not rise to the challenge to appoint the hon. Gentleman as our special envoy to sort out the problem because it requires very careful dialogue.
    144
    That dialogue has continued over the past few months. Of course the matters have been raised. The Prime Minister raises issues concerned with Gibraltar on every occasion when he meets the Spanish Prime Minister; my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done so with the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs; and I have done so. We will continue to work carefully and appropriately in order to resolve the issue. That is a better approach than that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [135163]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): We welcome the successful and peaceful conduct of the local elections in Kosovo on 28 October. It sends a clear message that Kosovo is making further progress towards democracy and tolerance. We look forward to working with the newly elected members of the municipal authorities in tackling the many tasks ahead.
    Mr. Wareing: The Defence Committee has reported that 98 per cent. of the unguided bombs dropped by the Royal Air Force on Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia during the recent conflict missed their target. Would it therefore be an appropriate gesture at this time for Her Majesty's Government to send an apology to President Kostunica and to offer compensation? How many times has the Minister visited Kosovo and other Balkan countries?
    Mr. Vaz: I am surprised at my hon. Friend. Here is a golden opportunity to welcome the elections and to look forward to a period of peace, democracy and stability in the Balkans. We are not in this House to be apologists for Milosevic. We believe firmly that the people of Kosovo deserve our support—not empty gestures, but practical support, such as that the Government have put into KFOR and UNMIK. We shall continue to provide the people of Kosovo with such support, so that there is real peace and stability in the region. I would have thought that my hon. Friend would support that process.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: What progress is being made with the Balkan stability pact, with special reference to Albania, Kosovo's neighbour?
    Mr. Vaz: My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will continue to work with the stability pact. The Government have a duty to ensure that it is a success. We receive reports from time to time at the General Affairs Council and will continue to support the work of the pact. It is not just a matter of individual countries in the region. The pact is intended to bring peace and stability to the whole region, and to make sure that the people of the Balkans, and Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia, have a stable future.
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What would be the impact on the delicate situation in Kosovo, were George W. Bush ever to have the opportunity of carrying out his threat to withdraw United States forces from the Balkans?
    Mr. Vaz: I do not have a vote in the election today. I understand that the report has been denied.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does the Minister realise that on the ground in Kosovo there is considerable concern about the apparent lack of co-operation between certain of the military forces and, even worse, as I tried to expound in the defence debate last week, there is uncertainty about where and how the United Nations is carrying out its mandate? Will the Minister look into that? The last thing that we want is to let the people down by not ensuring that what we are doing is helpful to them.
    Mr. Vaz: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He will know that that is an agonisingly difficult problem. We give full support to the work that is being undertaken by UNMIK, which is there to implement resolution 1244 and bring communities together. There are 4,200 civilian police officers trying to keep the peace between the communities and rebuild the confidence that was destroyed by Milosevic. It will take time, but the way forward is to make a contribution and to support the work of KFOR and UNMIK, which the Government will continue to do, following the work of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and the initiatives that they have taken.

    International Criminal Court
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about progress on the establishment of an international criminal court. [135164]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): Good progress is being made. Twenty-two countries have already ratified the treaty, out of the 60 needed for establishing the international criminal court.
    Mr. Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that a Bill in the Queen's Speech to ratify the international criminal court would have cross-party support? Does he also agree that whoever is the new President of the United States, that country should take a greater role and ensure that those who commit crimes against humanity are brought to justice?
    Mr. Hain: We would, indeed, like to see the US sign up to the treaty and give the international criminal court its agreement, as its participation would be important. My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on the contents of the Queen's Speech, but I hope that when the Bill is introduced into Parliament, which we hope to achieve as soon as possible, it will receive all-party support. I hope that the official Opposition, and in particular those on the Front Bench, will not obstruct the
    146
    Bill, but will allow it a quick passage, so that Britain can become one of the first 60 countries to ratify the treaty and bring it into force.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Given that the Minister believes in an ethical foreign policy, can he tell the House what active steps he has taken to encourage Libya and China to sign up to the international criminal court?
    Mr. Hain: We encourage all countries, including Libya and China, to sign up to the international criminal court. In our bilateral diplomacy with all countries in the world, we consistently pressure them to do so. We are committed to the court. It is a way of catching war criminals and ending the situation whereby the Pol Pots, Pinochets and all the dictators of the world continue to act with impunity. It is part of our agenda for human rights, of which we are proud. Our record is a proud one.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: In common with many other hon. Members, I welcome the publication of the Bill to ratify the Rome statute and look forward with optimism to its inclusion in the Queen's Speech. Does my hon. Friend accept that as long as the Bill remains silent on the issue of state immunity, there will remain a potential legal loophole through which past and serving Ministers who may seek refuge in this country may be able to escape?
    Mr. Hain: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. We have listened closely to representations made to us during the consultation period on the draft Bill. I think that he will be encouraged by the response when he sees the Bill published in its final form.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: May I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) set out in his main question? When the war crimes tribunals sit, there should be retribution for the past and a deterrent to obscene atrocity in future. I express some concern that it is taking as long as it is for Britain to ratify the process and to get it under way.
    Mr. Hain: We are committed to achieve ratification as quickly as possible. I am delighted that we shall have the hon. Gentleman's support. It is a unique experience for me, but I am delighted to agree with virtually everything that he said.

    Israel
    Mr. Bob Laxton: If he will make a statement on the situation in Israel and the occupied territories. [135165]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I visited the countries of the middle east peace process last month. In the course of three days, I twice visited Prime Minister Barak and twice visited President Arafat. In all my meetings and in every public statement, I appealed for an end to the bloodshed and a return to the negotiating table.

    147
    Britain continues to press these two urgent priorities on all parties to the peace process. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received the Foreign Minister of Israel. This afternoon, after Question Time, I shall meet Nabil Sha'ath, the foreign spokesman for the Palestinian National Authority.
    No one should underestimate the challenge to the peace process from the bitterness and hostility created by the recent bloodshed. Both Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat have agreed to visit Washington over the next week. We hope that this can pave the way for substantive talks on a peace settlement, without which there will be no secure peace for the peoples of the middle east.
    Mr. Laxton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that what has happened over the past five weeks clearly demonstrates that the Palestinian, people want the removal of 33 years of military rule over the occupied territories? Does he agree also that the Camp David agreement appears not to be working? Will he join with me in calling for a peace negotiation that is based upon UN resolutions 242 and 338, and following from that the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the west bank and Gaza?
    Mr. Cook: The peace process, which was launched at Oslo, is built upon those resolutions. Britain played a key part in the drafting of resolution 242, and is cognisant of its terms. Unfortunately, no agreement was reached at Camp David. However, we came much closer to it at Camp David than we have ever been during the other eight years of the peace process. The area of territory that was still in dispute at the end of the Camp David talks was down to 2 or 3 per cent. I hope that the bloodshed of the past two months will not prevent us from returning to where we were after Camp David and completing the task. If we do not, it is difficult to see an outcome in which there can be any permanent guarantee against future bloodshed.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman, acknowledging the great difficulties that exist, nevertheless, with all his support and authority, impress upon the Israelis the essential nature of a more proportionate response to these difficulties? Will he agree that all of us who understand the awful history, difficulties and tragedies of the Israelis over the years, find it impossible to understand how they can use heavy guns, machine guns and heavy weapons on children?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the sensitive way in which he has approached a difficult issue. I can assure him that we have already raised in our high level meetings with leaders of the Israeli Government our concern about the need for a proportional response to crowd control. We will continue to do that.
    Many people throughout the world, whatever their view may be of the peace process, have been moved by the death of, and injury to, young children, often those who may not have been taking part in the throwing of rocks. It is important that we find a way forward in which we
    148
    do not escalate the violence. Every fresh funeral breeds another crowd and breeds also further bitterness, which prevents us from securing a peace settlement.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the current situation has been the failure to increase the living standards of the Palestinian people? How much of the blame for that does he attribute to the Palestinian National Authority, and Yasser Arafat in particular, for diverting aid intended for education and economic development to other activities, including training terrorists?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend correctly draws attention to the fact that, during the peace process, the living standards of residents of Gaza and many west bank towns went down, not up. There are many reasons for that.
    Israel has to accept its role in the development of Gaza and the west bank. An immediate problem involves the closure of access to the Israeli labour market—more than 100,000 residents of Gaza have been put out of work. If the residents of Gaza and the west bank are to move away from violence and street demonstrations, it is important for them to find a way back to employment and to give them the opportunity to have an occupation.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although the security of the state of Israel is of paramount importance, does the Foreign Secretary agree that equality of treatment between the Palestinian state—the Palestinian authority—and the state of Israel is critical? In my view, the Palestinians believe that they do not get a fair deal.
    Whatever the outcome of today's United States elections, will the United Kingdom Government contact the new President with a view to steering peace back on to the real agenda in the middle east?
    Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall of course make early contact with the new Administration, who will not take over until the end of January. President Clinton will remain in office until then, and I am sure that any incoming President will support his work in the middle east peace process. His knowledge of and commitment to the peace process is wide and deep. During his remaining two or three months in office, I hope that both sides will use his commitment and expertise to find a way forward.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: I support all my right hon. Friend's efforts in the peace process. Does he agree that Israel's determination to dominate, control and set out the future of the Palestinians is the biggest obstacle to peace in the region? Does he also agree that if there are to be future negotiations, the Israelis should treat their partner in those negotiations—the Palestinians—as equals? That failure to do so made it clear to Palestinians—young and old, and angry and moderate—that what was achieved at Sharm el-Sheikh, Camp David and Oslo was not good enough. A successful future must be based on the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) and,

    149
    in particular, on Israel's acceptance in the peace process that Palestinian refugees have the right of return. If not, there can be no peace.
    Mr. Cook: I have already discussed with the Israeli Foreign Minister the importance of including refugee return in any overall package. I stress that good progress was made at Camp David. I strongly suggest to the House that we return to first principles in the peace process—we should pick up from the progress that was made and appreciate how far we got at Camp David. In the immediate future, we must try to secure an absence of bloodshed, which will enable the negotiations to recommence. That is why it is important for both sides—not simply Israel—to honour the commitments that they made at Sharm el-Sheikh to put an end to violence.
    Mr. Francis Maude: The whole House will share a common concern about the recent, tragic turn of events in Israel and the occupied territories, and the Foreign Secretary's hope that the agreements made at Sharm el-Sheikh will be implemented. We of course recognise Israel's right to live in peace and security and the right of Palestinians to self-government.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that one lesson of the past few weeks may be that it might be unhelpful to press impracticable issues—I refer in particular to the final status of Jerusalem—further and faster than the parties feel able to move? With hindsight, the situation may have moved too far, too fast, with the result that events have moved decisively backwards and the peace process has taken a turn for the worse.
    Mr. Cook: In reality, the peace process has reached the stage of final status talks, to which all the difficult issues were reserved, including that of Jerusalem. It is important for Israel that any peace settlement should include a statement of an end of the conflict by the Palestinian side, but it is difficult to see a Palestinian leadership making such a statement without a resolution to the division of Jerusalem. That is why we may now be in a position in which those difficult issues have to be resolved as part of a package, and both sides will have to recognise that they will not necessarily obtain everything that they want on every element of the package, but that the package itself offers them security, stability and peace for their people, which is the greatest prize of all.

    Iraq
    Mr. Donald Anderson: If he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Iraq and those items which the Iraqi Government are currently allowed to import. [135166]
    Mr. Steve McCabe: If he will make a statement on the impact of sanctions on the humanitarian situation in Iraq. [135171]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): We continue to take the lead in alleviating the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of a ruthless dictator who cares nothing for their welfare. Under Security Council resolution 1284, the oil for food programme will provide more than $16 billion for the Iraqi people this year alone, paying for a wide range of
    150
    civilian imports from food and medicine to equipment to improve water and sanitation facilities, to spare parts for the oil industry.
    Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the solution to sanctions is in the hands of Saddam Hussein himself by his taking the comparatively simply step of complying with the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. An hon. Member is censuring me for the way in which I call Members. I will not allow that, and the hon. Gentleman should take himself from the Chamber.
    Mr. Anderson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the solution to sanctions is in the hands of Saddam Hussein by his complying with the relevant United Nations resolutions in respect of informing the international community of his weapons of mass destruction? My hon. Friend has mentioned the sums available to Saddam Hussein, but to what extent is that being spent for the benefit of the people or on self-aggrandisement and palaces for the dictator himself?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend. Britain wants to see sanctions suspended, but the only vehicle for achieving that is the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1284. In return for allowing in arms inspectors—a new team headed by the widely respected international diplomat Hans Blix—who will check on the capabilities in nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, sanctions could be suspended within a matter of months. We should all unite—critics of sanctions as well as supporters of the United Nations policy in international law—in achieving that, rather than playing Saddam Hussein's game and allowing him to score cheap propaganda victories by humanitarian flights. We should also bear in mind that, while his people have been suffering over the years, he imports thousands of bottles of whisky, wine and beer and cigarettes by the million, and surrounds himself in obscene luxury.
    Mr. McCabe: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that Saddam Hussein must bear considerable guilt for the suffering experienced by the poor people of Iraq, but does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that it is right for Britain to pursue an open-ended sanctions policy against Iraq, which results in suffering for innocent children and others, while simultaneously pursuing a preferential trade arrangement with the authorities in Iran? Is my hon. Friend aware of the extent to which the mullahs in Iran are acquiring weapons of mass destruction?
    Mr. Hain: We are concerned about Iran's capability in weapons of mass destruction, especially its acquisition of large numbers of missiles, and we continue to press the Iranians on that matter. But I do not think that my hon. Friend will compare the Iranians' relations with their neighbours and with their own people with Saddam Hussein's record, which is uniquely brutal.
    I must disagree with my hon. Friend on sanctions. Our commitment to sanctions is not open-ended. We want to see the sanctions suspended. We spent eight to nine months at the United Nations in New York achieving the new resolution which provides for that very opportunity.

    151
    All that is required is for Saddam Hussein to sign up to that resolution and the sanctions could be suspended within six months. Everyone should work together to achieve that objective.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is not it obvious that policy towards Iraq is based on containment by utilising the deterrent effect of credible military force? What possible contribution do non-military sanctions make to that policy? They do grievous harm to the ordinary people of Iraq, they have no effect on Saddam Hussein, his whisky or his brutality, they give him an enormous propaganda advantage and they cause grave disquiet throughout the Arab world. Ten years after the end of the Gulf war, is not it time for the United Nations to lift the non-military sanctions?
    Mr. Hain: I respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record on the matter, and his broad support, which I acknowledge, for the policy of the Government and the United Nations. However, $16 billion of oil for food money is now available to alleviate and end the suffering of the people of Iraq. That sum, per Iraqi, is equivalent to three times the amount that each Egyptian spends on food and medicine each year. It is a massive amount of money, and we must work to ensure that Saddam Hussein stops blocking it and allows all of it to reach his people.
    On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about targeted sanctions, lifting commercial sanctions could allow the entry of dual-use goods, and allow Saddam Hussein to re-equip his infrastructure and rebuild the weapons of mass destruction, which he has used against his people in the north—the Kurds—and his neighbours.
    Sir David Madel: The Minister said that sanctions could be suspended provided that United Nations weapons inspectors were allowed back into Iraq. Will he confirm that that is the unanimous view of the Security Council?
    Mr. Hain: It is the policy of the Security Council, which Britain will work extremely hard to implement. There is no hidden agenda; if we can get Saddam Hussein to comply with admitting the arms inspectors, we shall work tirelessly to implement the full Security Council resolution. I am confident that we shall be able to achieve that.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What methods do we use to harm Saddam Hussein that do not harm his people?
    Mr. Hain: We implement sanctions that contain his ability to threaten his people. He has done that repeatedly, for example, by inflicting chemical weapons on the Kurds. He has also threatened his neighbours by invading Iran and Kuwait. From oil smuggling—equivalent to a small proportion of his total oil production—he has been able to surround himself with a considerable security blanket and amass considerable wealth. However, like Slobodan Milosevic, all dictators learn that they cannot survive for ever.
    152
    In retrospect, our sanctions policy will be perceived to have worked to achieve our objective.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Does the Minister agree that Iraq's humanitarian predicament must be viewed in the light of its treatment of 605 mostly Kuwaiti prisoners, including women and students? What pressures can be brought to bear to get the Iraqis to provide information, even information such as whether those prisoners are dead or alive? Does he agree that humanity and decency demand that?
    Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I pursued it with the Kuwaitis when I visited Kuwait last week. Hundreds of Kuwaiti families are in the dreadful position of simply not knowing what has happened to their relatives who have disappeared. The Iraqis have shown no accountability. We continue to take all opportunities to press them to deal with the issue, and to discuss with Ambassador Vorontsov his work on behalf of the United Nations to resolve the problem.

    Sweden
    Mr. Martin Linton: What assessment he has made of the state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Sweden. [135167]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Relations are excellent. A month ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had talks in London with Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Sweden in May, and I visited in September. There have been 25 other substantive ministerial visits in both directions so far this year, covering most Departments, as well as ministerial contacts in the margins of the European Union and other multilateral forums. The main aim has been policy co-ordination on European Union issues, especially with a view to the Swedish European Union presidency, which begins on 1 January.
    Mr. Linton: Is the Minister aware of the Swedish Government's determination, forcefully expressed to me in Stockholm last week, to drive forward European Union enlargement during their presidency? Will he ensure that the United Kingdom Government do all that they can to support them in their desire to make clear progress on broadening European Union membership and negotiations with applicant countries?
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his highly successful visit to Stockholm last week. As he knows, the United Kingdom is the best friend of enlargement. Through the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in Budapest and Warsaw, we have set out clearly our desire for the European Union to be enlarged as quickly as possible. That is why we need to complete the intergovernmental conference on time. It is essential that we give a message to those countries that we want them in.

    153
    As my hon. Friend knows, there are three Es to the Swedish presidency: employment initiatives, environment and enlargement, to which I add a fourth—Mr. Sven Goran Eriksson. I am sure that his appointment will build on relations between our two countries.
    Mr. David Heath: Is not Sweden our natural ally in securing major reform of the common agricultural policy? Is it not a tragedy that, over many years, we have failed to build effective coalitions of like-minded nations which would have secured that reform much earlier?
    Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right. We failed to build those alliances because we had a Conservative Government until May 1997, but, since then, British Ministers have been out there in the European Union fully engaging with their European counterparts, ensuring that Britain's interests are put first and foremost on the agenda of Europe. We will continue to do what we have to do to reform the CAP.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: May I point out that the enthusiasm for the success of Mr. Eriksson is not universally shared in the Chamber?
    The Swedish Government intend to push the creation of employment as one of the objectives of their presidency. If they are successful, it will clearly demonstrate that employment generation does not depend on a single currency throughout Europe.
    Mr. Vaz: I thought hard before adding the fourth E, for the reasons that were outlined by my hon. Friend.
    I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with the Swedish Government on a range of issues. On the single currency, he knows that our position is absolutely clear. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) has recently resigned from the No Turning Back group. He cannot, however, turn his back on the likes of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Members for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), whose policy is completely different from the policy of Conservative Front Benchers.
    Our policy is very clear. In principle, we are in favour of joining the single currency. In practice, we will do so only when the economic conditions are right. We will assess those conditions early in the next Parliament in the interests of this country and this country alone. In the final analysis, the people of Britain will decide whether we join the single currency.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Has the hon. Gentleman discussed how Sweden's traditional neutral defence posture can be reconciled with the proposed EU defence structure, given its concerns? I remind him that the Prime Minister described plans for a merger between the Western European Union and the EU as an "ill-judged transplant operation". What has changed?
    Mr. Vaz: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we on the Government Front Bench have to deal with real Ministers and have real bilateral contacts. We do not have to quote selectively from documents. I assure him that we are totally at one with the Swedes on those initiatives.
    154
    They are fully involved in the initiative that was put forward by the Government, with the support of the French. We will continue to work with them as EU partners to ensure that the common security and defence policy is a success.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Tom Brake: If he will make a statement on the situation in Sierra Leone. [135168]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I spoke to President Kabbah of Sierra Leone at the weekend. He warmly expressed his people's strong welcome for Britain's continued commitment to building a safe future for them.
    We have completed the initial training of the first three battalions for the Sierra Leonean army. We will continue our programme to equip the Government of Sierra Leone with an army that can defeat the rebels. In the past week, we have confirmed that we will provide the United Nations headquarters with a British chief of staff. We will pursue with determination our goal of a Sierra Leone free from fear and rid of the rebels.
    Mr. Brake: The Foreign Secretary will know that 1 million people in Sierra Leone are not receiving humanitarian aid because they happen to be in rebel-led areas. He will also be aware of the risk of the conflict spreading to neighbouring countries. Will he confirm that the United Kingdom will adopt a higher profile in Sierra Leone, that it will commit itself to UNAMSIL, and that it will remain committed in Sierra Leone until stability is achieved in the region?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman has raised real concerns about the gravity of the situation, and I strongly agree with him about the humanitarian position. I should point out, however, that the Government have done more for humanitarian aid to Sierra Leone than has any other country: in the past year alone, we have provided £30 million worth of such aid. We will, of course, continue to do all that we can to get it to the people who need it.
    As for UNAMSIL, I stress to the hon. Gentleman that Britain is already making a bigger military commitment to Sierra Leone than any other western nation. We have more troops on the ground there than many contributors to UNAMSIL. We are performing a task that no one else is performing: we are equipping the Government of Sierra Leone with an army that can take the fight to the rebels. We have also committed ourselves to a rapid reaction response in the event of its being needed by the UN forces. We cannot do all that and also contribute to UNAMSIL. I am confident that ours is the right priority, and it has been agreed to by President Kabbah.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend is right in saying that this country has done more than any other western nation to support the legitimate democratic Government of Sierra Leone. If, however, we are to create a climate in which people throughout Sierra Leone can live without fear, what more pressure can be brought to bear on those who profit from its diamonds—

    155
    neighbouring African countries—on those who are happy to provide the rebels in Sierra Leone with arms without asking any questions about their use, and, in particular, on those who seek closer relations with the European Union while at the same time providing weapons with which the people of Sierra Leone are being murdered?
    Mr. Cook: Speaking from experience, my hon. Friend draws attention to an important dimension of the problem: the extent to which some neighbouring countries—one in particular—support the rebels, and profit from the conflict and atrocities in Sierra Leone. Britain has taken the lead in proposing a scheme to monitor the diamonds that are leaving Sierra Leone, and we have UN backing for it. I hope that that will make it increasingly difficult for the rebels to sell their diamonds, and to acquire the weapons that they need to maintain the conflict.
    I assure my hon. Friend that, together with the United States, we are increasing the pressure on countries in the region that are assisting the rebels rather than assisting peace.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Foreign Secretary provide a clear statement of purpose, telling us exactly what we are trying to achieve in Sierra Leone, what resources—both military and civil—we are putting towards that, and when he expects the task to be completed?
    Mr. Cook: The House has been given a number of statements explaining precisely what military commitments we are making.
    The hon. Gentleman asks what we are trying to achieve. I will answer that very simply. I went to Sierra Leone in the summer, and visited a camp for amputees where I saw 2,000 people whose arms or legs had been lopped off by the rebels—including babies who were unable to crawl before their arms were lopped off by crazed rebels. My objective in Sierra Leone is to prevent anyone else from having arms lopped off by the rebels.

    Conflict Diamonds
    Judy Mallaber: If he will make a statement about conflict diamonds. [135169]
    Mrs. Betty Williams: If he will make a statement about conflict diamonds. [135173]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Hain): The Government have led the way in the creation of an international certification scheme to deny conflict diamonds access to world markets, and help to protect the legitimate trade on which so many livelihoods depend.
    Judy Mallaber: I welcome the hard work done by my hon. Friend and the Foreign Office in cleaning up the diamond trade; but does my hon. Friend accept that sanctions-busters are still taking diamonds from Revolutionary United Front rebels in Sierra Leone and from Unita in Angola, and supplying them with weapons that are used to perpetuate these murderous wars?
    156
    Does he agree that Victor Bout is a major supplier of arms to the rebels? What action is being taken to stop him breaking UN sanctions?
    Mr. Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend that sanctions-busters are continuing to perpetuate the conflict in Sierra Leone and Angola, with the result that countless lives are being lost and mutilations are taking place. Victor Bout is indeed the chief sanctions-buster, and is a merchant of death who owns air companies that ferry in arms and other logistic support for the rebels in Angola and Sierra Leone and take out the diamonds which pay for those arms. All the countries that are allowing him to use their facilities and aircraft bases to ferry that trade in death into Sierra Leone and Angola are aiding and abetting people who are turning their guns on British soldiers, among others, in Sierra Leone. It is important that they stop doing that.
    Mrs. Williams: Will my hon. Friend tell me what pressure has been put on the Governments of Liberia, Rwanda, Togo and Burkina Faso to stop sanctions-busters dealing in illicit diamonds and operating in their countries in blatant defiance of United Nations sanctions?
    Mr. Hain: I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter, as one of the cruel ironies and tragedies of the appalling conflict in Sierra Leone and Angola is the fact that fellow Africans are allowing sanctions-busters to operate within their boundaries, and carry in arms and take out diamonds. That practice perpetuates such conflicts. All the Governments named by my hon. Friend, including some Presidents and senior Ministers, have been complicit in that barbarous trade, and it is vital that they cease it immediately, comply with UN sanctions and help end those wars
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is not it essential that the conflict diamonds in Sierra Leone cease to be such as soon as possible, and that the areas affected are returned to the control of the Government? Would it not have been better if that had been achieved by a British-led UN force or, indeed, a British-led Sierra Leonean force in the first instance, so that the Sierra Leonean Government had regained control of those diamonds early on? How long will it take us to train the Sierra Leonean army to achieve that task on its own?
    Mr. Hain: We have already helped to train 3,000 members of the Sierra Leonean army and another 3,000 will receive further training in the coming months. One will not end the conflict, win the war or create peace unless one takes control of the diamond-mining areas, and the hon. Gentleman is right to point that out. The way to achieve that is for the Sierra Leonean army to go in, with UNAMSIL filling in behind, to take control of those diamond mines and stay there permanently, or at least for the foreseeable future.
    The new national certification scheme that the Sierra Leonean Government have introduced will allow the proceeds from those diamonds to make the people of Sierra Leone rich, instead of poor and torn apart by war.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Although I welcome the initiative on conflict diamonds, will the Minister explain what happened to joined-up government? He will be aware of the civil war in the Congo and the problems there, and know that the Zimbabwean army is operating in the Congo. I am sure that he is also aware that a British Army team is training the Zimbabwean army that has gone to the Congo, where its sole purpose is to protect the diamond trade that is lining the pockets of Mugabe and his henchmen.
    Mr. Hain: I agree that it is intolerable that the Zimbabwean army is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo helping to perpetuate that war, draining Zimbabwe's own budget and assisting with the collapse of that beautiful country. However, the British military advisory and training team in Harare is not contributing to that effort. It is not there to train the Zimbabwean army, but to support a regional peacekeeping initiative and work with the UN to bring stability to the region. That is the purpose of that British team's operation.

    Yugoslavia
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: What help the UK will be giving the new Government of Yugoslavia to further advance its integration into Europe. [135170]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We warmly welcome the powerful rejection of Milosevic by the people of Serbia. We acted immediately to lift European sanctions. We have admitted Yugoslavia to the European stability pact for the Balkans. Britain is also supporting Yugoslavia's admission, at the ministerial meeting later this month, to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Since the fall of Milosevic, the European Union has allocated 200 million euros for immediate aid and reconstruction. We promised that if the people of Serbia voted for democratic change, we would bring down the barriers between them and Europe. We are delivering on that promise.
    Mrs. Mahon: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks on aid for Yugoslavia. One of the main consequences of the war was the blocking of the Danube, because bridges over it were bombed. I am therefore glad that the Secretary of State has made it clear that aid and not loans will be made available. However, does he not agree that circulating planted questions—in the hope that a hapless Back Bencher will stand up and call those of us who opposed the bombings abusive names—will do nothing towards achieving peace and reconciliation in the Balkans?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the House that I did not plant the question that my hon. Friend asked.

Far East Prisoners of War (Ex Gratia Payment)
3.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): With permission, I should like to make a statement.
In April this year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held a meeting with representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the British groups who had been held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war. He subsequently initiated a reconsideration of the longstanding policy of the Government towards those far eastern prisoners. The review took time to conduct because of the complexity of the issues involved, but it has now been completed.
I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that, as a result of the review, the Government have decided to make a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to each of the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity. In cases in which a person who would have been entitled to the payment has died, the surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead.
As hon. Members will recall, on a number of occasions in recent months, in debates in which many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken, the House has debated the situation of those who were held prisoner in the far east during the second world war. We had those debates because what happened to those prisoners was often so appalling that, for many, it has remained with them for the rest of their lives.
Many hon. Members will be aware of the stories told by now frail constituents about that terrible time, and members of the public will be familiar with the books and films about it. However, if we look back at the histories, we come across a simple, stark fact that makes clear to everyone the enormity of what happened: of the 50,016 British service personnel who were reported captured by the Japanese, 12,433 died or were killed in captivity. In other words, conditions were so bad that one in four did not survive.
We are all very thankful that such a situation did not occur anywhere else during the second world war and has not recurred since. The unique nature of Japanese captivity in the far east was recognised in the 1950s, when those who had been held became eligible for modest payments from Japanese assets, made under the provisions of the 1951 San Francisco treaty of peace with Japan. As hon. Members are aware, the maximum payment available at that time was £76 10s.
In the intervening years, the former far east prisoners pursued the issue of additional compensation with Japan. More recently, they have also campaigned for the British Government to make a payment. However, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will be well aware, it has been the policy of successive Governments over many years not to make payments in such circumstances.
We are now making an exception for the British groups that were held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war in recognition of the unique circumstances of their collective captivity. Those who will be entitled to receive the payment are former members of Her Majesty's
160
armed forces who were made prisoners of war, former members of the Merchant Navy who were captured and imprisoned, and British civilians who were interned. Certain other former military personnel in the colonial forces, the Indian army and the Burmese armed forces who received compensation in the 1950s under United Kingdom auspices will also be eligible. As I said earlier, in cases in which a person who would have been entitled to the payment has died, the surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead.
We estimate that up to 16,700 people may be eligible for the ex gratia payments, which will accordingly cost up to £167 million to make. I will not go into detail about the new payment scheme now, except to say that this single ex gratia payment will not be taxable, nor will it be taken into account for benefits purposes. We intend to make these payments as quickly as possible, although it will take a little time for the appropriate regulations to be made. We expect everything to be in place by February.
Further details of the scheme are being published today in a leaflet by the War Pensions Agency, which will be administering it. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The leaflet and a claim form will also be available on the agency's website.
The Government recognise that many UK citizens, both those serving in the armed forces and civilians, have had to endure great hardship at different times and in different circumstances, but the experience of those who went into captivity in the far east during the second world war was unique. We have said before that we believe the country owes a debt of honour to them. I hope that I am speaking for everyone here when I say that today something concrete has been done to recognise that debt.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: On behalf of the Opposition, I wholeheartedly and without reservation welcome what is frankly a generous settlement. As the Minister knows, we support the inquiry and the settlement and there is no question but that he has our support today. I also congratulate the Royal British Legion and far east prisoners of war on conducting a dignified and successful campaign that has finally brought their case to the Government's attention and resulted in a settlement.
The Minister was clear about the appalling death rate and special circumstances that apply to all those who were Japanese prisoners of war, and on that basis we all welcome his statement today. The settlement applies to all service men, to those who served in the merchant marines as well as to civilians. That was a key area of concern and I welcome the Government's generosity.
I particularly welcome the Minister's reference to widows. There is no question but that war widows occupy a very special place in the hearts and minds of the British public for the privations that they suffered, first not knowing what had happened and then discovering the terrible circumstances under which their husbands suffered. I also welcome the generous inclusion of those who served in the ex-colonial forces—the Indian army and the Burmese forces. It is a generous gesture and quite right and proper. The fact that the settlement is not being taxed and will not affect benefits is also a welcome gesture.
This week of all weeks, it is absolutely right that the Government should make a proper and final settlement. During the war, those who served in the far east became

161
known as the forgotten army. Sadly, after the war, they became known as the forgotten heroes. It is so right that we have remembered them today.
Dr. Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words and associate myself with everything that he said. I am glad to say that this is not a party political issue. Governments of successive hue have held a consistent line on the issue for many years. I am glad to say that today we have changed that.
Mr. David Winnick: This is indeed good news, including for the widows. Are we not today recognising our debt of honour to these very brave people who suffered so much? Obviously, compensation should have been paid by the Japanese; failing that, we have done our duty and rightly so. Would it not be appropriate at this stage for us to remember again all those who were held as prisoners—military and internees—who were never to return home and who suffered and died as a result of the starvation diet, the slave working conditions, the cruelty and often the torture? It would be a sad day if this country ever forgot them or forgot to honour their memory.
Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He, with other Members on both sides, has played a major part in keeping the matter at the forefront of our attention. We shall take on board all that he has said about recognition.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: This has been a victory—if victory it be—for Back Benchers, and I congratulate those on both sides who have pressed the case with vigour and robustness over a long period. Does the Minister agree that, welcome though £10,000 may be, the true measure of his announcement for many of those who will receive the money will be the public recognition, albeit belated, of the terrible privations that they had to endure? I hope that that will help the recipients, if not to forget, at least more easily to come to terms with those terrible experiences.
Dr. Moonie: I entirely agree. No financial sum can be adequate compensation for what those people suffered. This token ex gratia payment will, I hope, go some way to relieving their distress.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend pass on to our Government the congratulations of my constituents, particularly ex-service men? Does he agree that we, as a civilised and decent society, should recognise all the—often young—men and women who have put their lives or health on the line for their country? Does he agree that they all deserve recognition of this nature? That said, I do not wish to spoil today's events, and I congratulate the Minister and thank the Government.
Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend. The announcement will clearly be welcome in all parts of the country, and I join him in paying tribute to all those who have given their lives or suffered for their country.
Mr. Mark Oaten: On behalf of the all-party group, I thank the Government for the
162
announcement. When the Government come to organise the detail of the payments, will they consult the Royal British Legion and POW groups so that we can be sure not to miss any individual who may be entitled to claim compensation?
Dr. Moonie: I pay tribute again to the work of the all-party group on this subject. I guarantee absolutely that we shall consult all those involved to ensure that no one misses out on the payment.
Mr. Bruce George: I am delighted to participate in a rare moment of unanimity in a defence-related debate. On behalf of my constituents and the Select Committee on Defence, which I chair, and in my role as honorary adviser to the Royal British Legion, I am delighted to express my gratitude to all the Departments that participated in this welcome statement. The Government appear to have covered all possible angles of criticism by including widows, merchant seamen, civilians and those from the Commonwealth and empire who fought on our behalf.
I ask the Minister to pass on our rare collective congratulations to the many organisations that fought through all adversity and overcame every obstacle to achieve justice. Finally, and without ringing a note of disharmony, I hope that the Japanese Government are hanging their heads in shame at the fact that it was left to the British and Canadian Governments to repair the damage caused by something that was not their fault and to take the responsibility for it.
Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend. It has taken us a long time to come to this decision, largely because of its complexity and the need to ensure that all those who are properly due the payment will receive it. A lot of hard work was done by our officials, and I am happy to say that it has paid off.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank and congratulate the Government, but must ask the Minister to ensure that the old and frail are not faced with filling in complicated forms before they can have the money.
Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall do all in our power to ensure that compensation is as simple and easy to understand as possible. I am well aware of the difficulty that elderly people have with filling in forms.
Jane Griffiths: I join my hon. Friends and other hon. Members in expressing a heartfelt welcome for the statement. Many of us have hoped for such a move for a considerable time. Can the Minister confirm whether compensation for civilians who were prisoners will be paid to those who were children at the time, or whether it will apply only to their parents? Does he join me in hoping that there will be no move in the House to condemn the Japanese Government at this time? Demands have been made for an apology from the Japanese and I understand the feelings behind those demands, but at this time we should welcome the move by the British Government, and that of the Canadian Government previously, to give some—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"]

163
Does my hon. Friend agree that, today, we should simply be glad that the veterans and former prisoners of war will now at last receive some compensation?
Dr. Moonie: I can confirm that all the prisoners are entitled to the payment. Of course, those who were children then are no longer children now. The position of the Japanese Government has been clearly stated and recognised in international law. They have expressed regret for what happened and, today, I think that I should leave it at that.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate this Labour Government on taking a courageous decision—a decision that was deferred for far too long by successive previous Governments. In congratulating the Government and welcoming the announcements, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the decision, which will be widely welcomed by all who were affected, would be greatly enhanced if, even at this late stage, the Japanese Government had the decency to apologise?
Dr. Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. There is little that I could say to disagree.
Mr. Denis MacShane: In welcoming this announcement, for which many of us have campaigned, I must mention Arthur Titherington and Keith Martin, who have steadfastly maintained the campaign for many years. We must also have regard to the Prime Minister's victory. For 50 years, Foreign Office lawyers said that the money could not be paid, Ministry of Defence bureaucrats said that it should not be because it would set a precedent, and Treasury officials said that it must not be because it would cost money. While those wonderful people resisted the Japanese army for five years, this Labour Prime Minister has defeated Whitehall—and for that we should all give thanks.
Dr. Moonie: I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have listened closely to my hon. Friend. Something was needed to break the logjam of many years and my right hon. Friend provided it.
Mr. Julian Brazier: May I underline the comments of the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), including those on the Japanese? I congratulate the Government. This announcement will be very welcome in Kent among members of the Buffs, the Royal West Kents and other elements of the armed forces who served in the far east. Finally, as the grandson of an Indian army officer, may I say how welcome are the provisions on certain members of that army?
Dr. Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has for some time been associated with the efforts of Labour Back Benchers in this matter and I recognise his contribution.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: May I add my congratulations to the Government on behalf of the many far east prisoners of war in my constituency who were caught up in the surrender of Singapore, in particular Mr. Ian Mitchell and Mr. Bill Griffiths, both of whom have written moving books on the subject? On top of all
164
the generous tributes that have rightly been paid to the Government for removing a logjam of 40 years, as has been said, this may be an occasion at least to press the Japanese Government, however gently—even if they feel incapable of offering a formal apology at the moment—to make more effort in their schools, education and curriculum to tell the truth about the second world war and the situation of those prisoners of war.
Dr. Moonie: We are well aware of the situation, and recognise what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. Martin Bell: On behalf of the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association, of which I am president, I thank the Minister for the announcement. It is a debt of honour, long overdue, paid to a band of British heroes to whom we owe so much for their service and sacrifice. As politicians generally—because this is not a party political issue—perhaps we might reproach ourselves that it has taken so long.
Dr. Moonie: I pay tribute again to the sterling work undertaken by the hon. Gentleman on this matter. After his three and a half years in this place, he will realise that it is sometimes difficult to move Governments from their chosen path—especially when the Government are trying to do that to themselves. I am happy that we have managed to succeed on this occasion.
Mr. Chris Pond: May I add my thanks on behalf of many of my constituents? I also congratulate those organisations and individuals involved in the matter. I add personal thanks because my father fought in Burma and never lost the fear that he might be taken prisoner.
As we prepare for the weekend when we shall honour the dead of those wars, is this not the best way in which we can repay our debt of honour to many of those survivors who are still living, and to surviving spouses?
Dr. Moonie: It is significant that we have managed to do so at a time when we shall be returning to our constituents at the weekend to join them in remembering those who died in successive conflicts.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Minister will remember our exchanges over the years on this subject. I offer my unreserved congratulations on his announcement today. The statement was comprehensive; he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are rightly to be complimented on it.
I remind the Minister of the remarks made by Members on both sides of the House—his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was the first to mention the matter: a Japanese Government should have been making this gesture. If the Government of Japan want to see their country join the full community of civilised nations, they will hang their heads in shame that we have had to make this gesture today.
I have a question on one detail—not to carp, but to ensure that no problem arises. After the Minister's statement today, it will inevitably take several months to see the whole matter through. Am I right to assume that the announcement refers to those survivors or widows of survivors who are alive today? Unhappily and inevitably,

165
some of them will no longer be alive by the time the process is complete. If the Minister cannot clarify the matter now, will he write to me?
Dr. Moonie: I am happy to pay tribute to the passion with which the hon. Gentleman fought his case during several debates. I am also happy to assure him that what he says is absolutely right. All those alive today will benefit. We shall do everything in our power to make the payments as quickly as possible; we do realise that some people will die before we can make them.
Mr. John McFall: I thank the Minister for his statement. For many of my constituents who were Japanese prisoners of war, the Japanese Government's expression of regret is still not enough.
It must be recognised that, despite the Minister's modesty in pointing out that the issue is not party political, it took a Labour Government to deliver the settlement. For many of the survivors, the £10,000 is not the real point; it is the fact that they carried a psychological burden for many years and that society has now recognised the trauma that they suffered. This is a day of celebration for those former prisoners of war, because they have finally received that recognition.
Dr. Moonie: Yes, I am happy to associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend about the many people who suffered during that conflict.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I thank the Government and I congratulate the Minister on the announcement. After hearing the graphic account of my constituent, Arthur Christie of Porthmadog, who suffered with many of his colleagues at unit 731 in Manchuria, I know why the statement was necessary; it should have been made a long time ago.
The Minister mentioned that widows alive today will all—quite rightly—benefit. Does that include widows who have subsequently remarried?
Dr. Moonie: That is the case.
Mr. Peter Bradley: The announcement is welcome not least because it is inclusive and generous and also because it is based on an ethical decision rather than on the expediency of the past.
Will my hon. Friend join me in regretting that it has taken so long? In fact, it has taken so long that my constituent, Mr. Ian Mason-Summers, who waged a long and futile battle with the War Pensions Agency for some recompense, has died. I am glad that his widow will now benefit.
Will my hon. Friend give the House a clear assurance that the Government will continue to put pressure on the Japanese Government to issue an apology to those who were subject to such persecution that we had to make this payment? For those who survived, it is a matter not of
166
compensation but of principle. That principle demands that in due course—indeed, the sooner the better—there should be an apology from the Japanese Government.
Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will be bringing his views and the views of many here to the attention of my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Given that a number of the far east prisoners of war will have died since the 1951 treaty of San Francisco, either unmarried or without a surviving spouse, will the Minister—I accept the generosity of his statement and congratulate him on it—consider making a payment to a suitable military charity or charities in memory of those prisoners of war and to assist with their work?
Dr. Moonie: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have managed to be generous today and to recognise the unique suffering and the unique collective experience of those who were in Japanese prisoner of war camps during the second world war.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: As one of those who have pursued this issue with the British Government and the Japanese Government in the past 17 years, I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said this afternoon; but is it not important that we remember that, for former prisoners of war and their families, money can never compensate for what they endured in the wartime years? Should we not recognise that most of them believe that the Japanese Government should be paying the money, not the British Government, and that Japan's financial position now is very different from what it was at the time of the San Francisco agreement in 1951?
Dr. Moonie: I am happy to take full note of what my hon. Friend says.
Mr. David Rendel: I welcome the fact that all members of families who were interned will receive the payment, and that there will not be just one payment per family. May I bring it to the attention of the Minister that it is in the nature of such families that many have not returned to Britain or may not live here? Will he assure me that where they are living will make no difference to whether they receive the payment?
Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is certainly the case.
Mr. Jim Murphy: In welcoming this good news, may I relate to the Minister my experience of only this morning? I spoke with four constituents of mine who are survivors of the far east prisoner of war camps. When I spoke about the announcement, it was telling that not one of them asked, "How much?". What was important for them was that the statement was taking place at all. While £10,000 may change the financial position of some of the survivors, my conversations with them reinforced for me the fact that what was important was that at last a Government of whatever political persuasion had recognised their unique suffering, and for that I thank the Minister.
Dr. Moonie: I am happy to accept what my hon. Friend has said and to recognise the quiet dignity with which

167
people have borne over many years the suffering that resulted from their captivity. We all know that money is no full recompense for that, but we have at least marked our recognition of what they went through.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish to call every hon. Member who is standing. I will be helped if the questions are brief.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I thank the Minister and the Government for the statement. I, like the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), am the son of someone who was lucky enough not to be captured, but did serve in a far east theatre. May I ask for a couple of points of clarification? Will the Minister's colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office request that the money be repaid to the British taxpayers by the Japanese Government? Where someone is the surviving widow of a far east prisoner of war, will she still receive compensation even if she has remarried, perhaps after nursing her first husband for many years?
Dr. Moonie: It is not a matter of making a request to the Japanese Government. They are well aware of our views. They have been repeated many times. I am happy to say again that if someone has remarried following the death of her husband, she will still be eligible.
Mr. John Cryer: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the announcement and I hope that he accepts the congratulations of my constituents who are surviving POWs and their relatives. I have to say that the Japanese Government should be making the payments. Does my hon. Friend accept that on days such as this I realise how important it is to be a Labour Member of Parliament, because it has taken a Labour Government to make this announcement and make the payments?
Dr. Moonie: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and I recognise what he says on the subject.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As the daughter of a Japanese prisoner of war, may I on behalf of my mother and my constituents, particularly the civilian internees, thank the Government for the announcement? Will the Minister clarify whether the War Pensions Agency's records on pensioners will enable it to pay the £10,000 without their even asking for a claim form? May I double-check that the £10,000 will not be taken into account under the capital rules for benefits?
Dr. Moonie: As a point of amplification, I confirm the latter point. One of the reasons it has taken so long to make the announcement is that we have had to ensure that we get the regulations watertight.
On the hon. Lady's first point, clearly, not everyone will be registered with the War Pensions Agency. Although to some of us it might appear to be a simple form, many elderly people might require help to fill out what they regard as a complicated form. I am sure that many organisations are ready to give a hand to identify all those who are entitled to the payment and to ensure
168
that they receive help in filling out the necessary forms. We shall also ensure that additional staff are available at the War Pensions Agency to cope with the extra work.
Dr. George Turner: My hon. Friend the Minister will probably be aware that people from Norfolk were disproportionately represented among those imprisoned in Japan. I probably have met, know and represent disproportionately more former prisoners of war than any other Member. I therefore thank my hon. Friend wholeheartedly for this decision. However, given that the one thing that will be said almost universally about the decision is that it is late, will he ensure that, whatever computer hiccups there are, everything will be done so that, in the weeks to come, we do not have to apologise for any further delays? Will he ensure that, having made the right decision, it is followed through and payments follow rapidly?
Dr. Moonie: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, but it will take a little time to make sure that the regulations are properly in place to allow us to implement our decision. However, we shall do that with all possible expedition.
Mr. David Heath: I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's announcement and thank him on behalf of my constituents, including Mr. Yerbury, who came to my surgery in Frome soon after I was elected and expressed to me in no uncertain terms just how bitterly the view that these prisoners had been ignored and perhaps actively misled by successive Governments was held.
I have one specific question. I very much welcome the extension of the provision to civilian prisoners of war, but do we have adequate records to ascertain the whereabouts of those of them who do not receive war pensions and are therefore much more difficult to trace?
Dr. Moonie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. He has put his finger on a problem. We do not know where all these people are; it would be impossible for us to do so. Initiative will be required by the people involved or by their relatives and friends, who, I am sure, will know who might be eligible for the payments. As I said, we are happy to employ extra staff to deal with the matter and to ensure that all inquiries are properly answered. I am certain that the decision will be widely publicised, and we shall do everything that we can to ensure that everyone who is entitled to the payment receives it.
Mr. Desmond Browne: On behalf of my constituents—in particular, Brian Brown, James Miller and Hugh Irvine—I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the statement and congratulate the Government on the decision. Those constituents were former Japanese prisoners of war and they have campaigned for decades for this day; thankfully, they have lived to see it. However, will my hon. Friend take this early opportunity to lay to rest the speculation in today's

169
press that some of the money may be creamed off the top to pay the lawyers who have represented far east prisoners of war in litigation in Japan?
Dr. Moonie: I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the payments will be made to the individuals concerned and not to the lawyers.
Mr. Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for the announcement. Although he said that it can be only a token payment, it is more than a gesture; it is a recognition of the sacrifice that so many have made for us.
On a practical note, in the search for the former prisoners of war and their relatives, will special targeting be carried out, with the assistance of the Royal British Legion and other associations, of the nursing and residential homes where former prisoners of war and their relatives may now be?
Dr. Moonie: That is an excellent idea and we shall follow it up.
Mr. John Wilkinson: In expressing my appreciation of this thoroughly welcome announcement, may I ask to what extent Her Majesty's Government have been able to discuss the matter with the Governments and service authorities of India, Pakistan and Nepal, to identify potential recipients? People in those countries served the empire, shared the sacrifice and, as the Minister said, are equally entitled to the benefits.
Dr. Moonie: I am not sure of the exact mechanisms involved, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will
170
take steps to ensure that all those people in the categories that I mentioned receive the payments for which they are eligible.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In welcoming what the Minister said, I note that he referred to the appalling conditions in which far east prisoners of war were held. Will he confirm for the record that many thousands of people did not come back because they were deliberately executed, including several members of Her Majesty's Fleet Air Arm who were killed after the war had ended? Will he also confirm for the record that, as the late Lord Cheshire VC explained, the Japanese would have murdered all remaining prisoners of war in their captivity, but that that was pre-empted by the dropping of atom bombs? Will he also consider a small group of members of the British services who were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps? They have not been mentioned, but they underwent similar experiences and suffered similar privations.
Dr. Moonie: I recognise that other groups suffered. Today's announcement recognises the unique collective nature of what happened in the far east, as the hon. Gentleman's remarks graphically illustrate.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the payment will also apply to the widows of those who died in captivity before the end of the war. In dealing with the veterans of the Indian army who have properly been included in the statement, will he make it clear that it would be wholly unacceptable if members of the Indian army who deserted in captivity to join the Indian national army received the payment?
Dr. Moonie: I should point out that only a relatively small number of people who served in other armed forces are eligible for the payment. As for widows, we have tried to be as inclusive as possible.

Points of Order
4.7 pm
Mrs. Ann Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I correct a comment that I made yesterday following the statement on floods? I am delighted to say that Yorkshire Electricity has assured me that it will not levy any charge on victims of the floods who have had to be reconnected. My constituents at Stockbridge should refuse to pay any future reconnection fees and should report such requests to the West Yorkshire police.
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not totally out of order for a Member of the House to stand by your Chair and harangue you in the middle of Foreign Office questions, thereby disrupting a very important question on Iraq? For how long will that Member be banished? Will you make it plain that you will no longer stand for such bully-boy tactics?
Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with the matter.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the forthcoming business, some hon. Members find the motion on the business of the House somewhat opaque. It would help the House enormously if you could give an idea of how business will be conducted. Irrespective of whether the House agrees to the business motion—I hope that it will not—do you propose that debates should be structured, or should different elements of the motions and the amendments be dealt with separately?
Mr. Speaker: I have been very good to the right hon. Gentleman—two of his amendments have been selected for consideration. I intend to make a statement that will explain the structure, which will be fair to all concerned and will, I think, satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.

Business of the House
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That at today's sitting the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Programming of Bills and Deferred Divisions not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
4.9 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This motion is yet another attempt by the Government to truncate debate on—arguably—one of the most important matters that has come before the House, perhaps in its history, but certainly for a very long time. It proposes to alter the balance between the Government, the Executive and the House of Commons. Given that, one would have thought that even this Government would want the House of Commons to have sufficient time to consider properly the matter in its totality, including the amendments to the motions, which you, Mr. Speaker, have kindly selected.
However, we find that the opposite is the truth. In what can only be a calculated insult to the House, the Government have had the gall to suggest that such vital matters, affecting, as they might if hon. Members agreed them, the very balance between the Executive and the House, can be disposed of at an arbitrary hour—in this case 10 o'clock. That strikes me as gratuitous and completely unnecessary—and, might I add, insulting.
That is even more true given that the Order Paper on Thursday and then yesterday revealed that the Government were to attempt to cut this business even shorter, by finishing it at 8 o'clock. That is notwithstanding the fact that we have had an important statement today, and therefore time is even shorter. That cannot be right. One would have thought that agreeing such radical and fundamental changes to Standing Orders, and therefore the relationship between the Executive and the House—and, in the matter of deferred Divisions, the basis on which the House has been used to debating and voting for many centuries—required proper time for consideration.
Under the motion, the House is asked to agree that justice can be done to such matters by 10 o'clock, even though we have started to consider them after 4 o'clock. Indeed, the situation is worse than that, because, subject to your guidance in due course, Mr. Speaker, the Government are suggesting that we debate all matters at once and then vote on them in a group after 10 o'clock. In other words, the House will not be able to consider its decision on one matter before it moves to another. That is unnecessary and highly irregular.
Surely it would have been appropriate, in this of all debates, to have given Members, as has happened in debates not just in this Parliament but in many previous Parliaments, proper and ample opportunity to deliberate these matters until whatever time we think appropriate, rather than presenting us with what can be described only as a guillotine on the ending of the traditional role of the House of Commons.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is particularly ironic that the Government should be seeking so to undermine

173
parliamentary democracy in the few days immediately after Guy Fawkes night? Nearly 400 years since the successful foiling of the previous attempt to damage this House, the Government are trying to blow up parliamentary traditions.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; with much greater elegance than I am ever able to muster, he has summarised the nature of the decisions before us. [Interruption.] Labour Members obviously find this amusing. The distressing thing is that they would, wouldn't they? Given what we have come to know as the collective contempt of Government Members for this House, its traditions and conventions, and more particularly for the role that Members of Parliament have assumed until now that they can play in holding the Government to account, it would appear that there is a remarkable similarity. The Government, in the guise of the Modernisation Committee—for this purpose the two are identical—have decided to assault the House of Commons.
As has become the custom in such cases—I regret to say this, with the Leader of the House in her place—there has not even been an attempt by the Government or anyone else to explain to the House why the motion is on the Order Paper, and why the Government believe that discussion of these vital issues, which touch on the most fundamental relationship between the House and the Government, must be truncated and limited as is proposed.
As usual, we are all at sea. We do not know the rationale behind the proposal. The assumption seems to have been made, as ever it is by the Government, that the House will meekly accept this outrageous attempt to limit us before we get to the substance of the matter, when the Government and the Modernisation Committee will attempt irrevocably to change the relationship—
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the normal practice has been that we would debate such matters, and orders would later be tabled for the House to decide on, having considered what the debate had produced? That will not happen today.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is yet another flaw in the proceedings. Neither the Government nor the so-called Modernisation Committee have any idea at this stage how far the House agrees with the thrust and the principle of what they are trying to do, Not for them an attempt to seek the views of the House, and in the light of those to present proposals to change Standing Orders. Instead, we are faced with a peremptory effort to change the principles and the subject of the matter, and rolled within that, an attempt to change Standing Orders.
Mr. Speaker, you have said kindly that you will guide us as to the procedures that will be followed—but if I may say so, even subject to that, I doubt very much whether we will be able to do justice to the issues before 10 pm. That should be a matter for the House to decide; it is not for the Government to say that we have from now until 10 o'clock to decide these matters.
The business motion that we are considering represents as good a summation as one could get of the contemptuous attitude with which the Government are
174
dealing with the matter. It is not good enough, and I shall seek to divide the House on the motion, so that hon. Members who are as unhappy as I am about it will be able to express their views on this attempt to gag the House even in such a vital matter.
4.17 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: I support the general remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Leader of the House to fulfil that role, as she well can and as she frequently has, and to serve the House by withdrawing the motion and allowing us to debate the general principles behind a number of very different issues.
It is possible that some Opposition Members are in favour of some of the Government's propositions and violently opposed to others. I hope that this will be a parliamentary occasion on which hon. Members on both sides will examine each proposal on its individual merits and decide whether it will advance the interests of Parliament to pass the motion.
The only sensible, logical and fair way of doing that is for the Leader of the House to allow us to have a general debate this afternoon on the principles proposed. After all, we do not have the state opening of Parliament until 6 December and we need not prorogue until 4 or 5 December. We have ample time for each of the orders to be tabled separately and for the House to concentrate on it, debate it and pass it or reject it.
The Leader of the House would be serving the House and fulfilling her historic role if she listened to this plea for common sense and logic, as I hope she will.
4.19 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Sometimes in the House of Commons the language used seems to suggest that particular items of discussion are considered solely on a party basis. I therefore want to make my position clear. I have looked carefully at the wording of the motion and I am deeply disturbed that we should be proceeding with major changes, apparently on a timetabled motion. I am not quite clear why the Leader of the House has not chosen to introduce the business motion; presumably, she will comment at the end of the debate.
These are not small matters. They may be presented as a moving of the furniture and an alteration here and there. They may even be presented as modernisation, by those who basically do not approve of the close examination of legislation and somehow feel that whatever the Government say must automatically be right. Long acquaintance with Governments of all parties has taught me that Members are wise to examine carefully what is being presented to them—and not only in terms of whether it fits in with their individual ideas or with the ideas of their party, on which they accepted nomination. They should consider carefully whether what is being presented affects the interests of their constituents.
Timetable motions, however they are presented, reduce the time available to the House to debate major matters. It is not only a matter of convenience. Were I a cynic, I might say that the accident of the decision to have the debate today, when many Members might be expected to want to go elsewhere and to enjoy the no doubt abundant

175
hospitality of well known embassies, might have an effect on the attendance within the Chamber. I am sure, however, that that is not the case.
I have opposed timetable motions under many Governments, not only the present Government. I feel strongly that the Back-Bench Member has only one real weapon, and that is careful scrutiny. Back Benchers can be bought off occasionally with patronage; they can be encouraged and frightened. Occasionally they get themselves into positions which some of us would feel are slightly uncomfortable in relation to their masters and mistresses. However, they have the power to question what lies behind particular pieces of legislation. They can examine the use of particular words—the semantics that present major changes as minor changes, and present essential alterations as though they were methods of making life convenient for individual Members.
I am delighted to know that the proposals are being presented so that I may know in future more securely what my day will be like. That will be a tremendous improvement on the past 35 years. But I did not think that I was coming to Parliament to have my day secured. I rather thought that I was coming to this place to examine in considerable detail laws that carry sanctions against people's lives.
There are parts of the reports that make it clear what we are supposed to be doing in the House. Parliamentary draftsmen have spelt out the difference between the wording of laws and the wording of information leaflets. They have made it clear why Members must accept the responsibility of dealing with complex legislation, which in its terms and in its English leads them to experience difficulty, and to require explanation.
I say sincerely that I shall accept some of the suggestions that will be discussed today, while others I find unacceptable. However, they are major changes, not small alterations. They will have an enormous impact, and every Government will benefit from them. In due course, every Front-Bench team will want to agree them, irrespective of its political power and irrespective of where it comes from, or what it presents itself to the electorate as representing. That should be a warning signal to individual Members, and make them ask why suddenly such matters can be dismissed so quickly. Is it because awkward questions may be asked?
I support the strange old-fashioned idea that a lot of us are elected to the House to ask awkward questions and to get some fairly straight answers. My experience is that those who seek to curtail debate—whatever their reasons and however they express them—should be distrusted, if only mildly. We should treat them with affectionate respect, but we should also listen carefully to what they say. That is not simply a question of saying, "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." Believe me, it is always wise for Back-Bench Members to beware of motions proposed by Front Benchers who argue that the proposals in the motion are for the convenience of Back Benchers.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You safeguard the interests of Back Benchers. Bearing in mind the opaque nature of the motion, would it have been appropriate for the Leader of the House, whose role is to represent the interests of all Members of the House, to have begun with an explanation of that motion? That would have made it clear where
176
we stand. Alternatively, Sir, bearing in mind the fact that you announced that you intended to make a statement, would it be appropriate for you to say, on behalf of the House, how you believe that those important questions, which are about the fundamental nature of the House, should be dealt with? The decisions that we take today will be binding.
Mr. Speaker: The answer is no.
4.26 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: I, too, oppose the motion. First, although it is deplorable for any debate to be curtailed, it is particularly deplorable and appalling for debate on a motion that will curtail our rights to be curtailed. Those important rights—rights of debate and of assent to legislation—are central to our work.
Secondly, the proposed changes are fundamental. In essence, they, and in particular the proposal to defer Divisions, will change the parliamentary week. They could turn us into a one-day-a-week Parliament.
Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, the changes will be convenient for Ministers of either political complexion, and may be convenient for some hon. Members, but they will be irreversible, and should therefore be debated at greater length.
If the motion is agreed to, we shall bury one of the principles of our democracy tonight. If we are to do that, we should at least do it with some thought, without curtailment and with a certain amount of dignity. I very much regret that a procedural change designed to stifle debate should itself be stifled by a guillotine motion. I join my hon. Friends in asking the Leader of the House: why the rush? There is no other urgent business on the Order Paper, and there is plenty of time before the end of the Session. Big issues are at stake on programming motions and deferring Divisions. If the Leader of the House is so keen to have a vote by the 10 pm deadline tonight, why do we not have a longer debate, and why does she not try out the proposals? We could defer the Division until tomorrow, which would allow us to debate the motion at greater length.
4.29 pm
Mr. Ian Pearson: I shall be brief. I share many of the concerns that have been expressed.
I have always supported the sensible programming of Bills, and although I have some concerns about the orders, Parliament should take that step. I have many more concerns about the proposal to defer voting.
In many ways, the proposals fundamentally alter my terms and conditions of employment. I was sent here to do a job, and it has been put to me that in many ways, the proposals will make my job easier. But I was not elected to have an easy job; I was elected to scrutinise legislation. When I ask the fundamental questions—whether the proposals will make the business of Government easier, and whether they will make it more difficult to scrutinise legislation—I have to answer yes to both. Therefore, it is imprudent of the Government—
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the

177
hon. Gentleman, whose contribution the House is listening to with interest, but I hope that you have noticed that the hon. Member speaking is incorrectly recorded on the monitor as being the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We did not need that explanation. It is fairly obvious to all of us. We all know who we are.
Mr. Pearson: I certainly know who I am, and I am prepared to say what I believe on the matter before us, even though it might not be acceptable to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I was not put here to have an easy job; I was put here to scrutinise the Government, and I believe in doing that. It is imprudent for the Government to timetable a motion on a fundamental change to my terms and conditions of employment that will make life easier for Government and for Back Benchers, but which will produce a result which is far worse for democracy. Therefore I shall vote against the timetable motion.
4.31 pm
Sir Peter Emery: I rise to make two important points. The Modernisation Committee has not seen, let alone discussed, the orders on the Order Paper. The principles behind them have appeared in reports, but when it comes to the detail of how the orders will apply, they may well represent a different view and approach, which the House might wish to consider and debate.
Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that the words before us today are the Government's interpretation of what the Modernisation Committee wanted to say?
Sir Peter Emery: I do not know if "wanted to say" is right. The words are the Government's words, interpreting the reports which have been before the House for some time. In as detailed a matter as this, I should have expected the method by which the alterations would be applied to have come before the Committee, which has been dealing with the matter for some months, so that it could have seen the way in which the Government wanted matters to operate in the House.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does not that reinforce my plea to the Leader of the House that we should debate the principles this afternoon, and the motions should be tabled at a later date?
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to have given way to my hon. Friend, but he has stolen the last line of my speech.
My second point is that it is most unusual for the person who leads for the Opposition on the Modernisation Committee to come forward with a detailed Opposition paper on the recommendations under consideration. That report is a detailed outline by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) of how the procedures might better be applied. I urge all hon. Members to read the report; it will not take more than a few minutes. It suggests a different pattern and sets
178
out a slightly different view of the final proposal, which was agreed only by the Government and the Liberal Democrats; Conservative members of the Committee opposed it.
Helen Jackson: I do not want to continue a Modernisation Committee discussion, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the principle of better timetabling in the House has been the subject of numerous debates? Was not it the view of the Modernisation Committee that the place to discuss the important matter that we are considering today was the Chamber, so that the whole House could make a decision by the end of the Session? That was the wish of the whole Committee, and we are realising it today.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Lady is an assiduous member of the Modernisation Committee, and has most ably contributed several views, which are not always popular with her party. Her comments reinforce those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). She is right to say that the Modernisation Committee believes that the changes should be presented by the end of the Session so that they can apply next Session. However, that does not mean that we have to do it all in a rush tonight; after all, the Queen's Speech will not take place next week. We are sent away Friday after Friday; the Government therefore do not have so much business that they cannot hold a debate on the matter, hear the views of the House, consider them and present recommendations.
I am most critical of one matter. I believe that there are ways in which one should assist in getting measures through the House, but every aspect of a Bill should be considered in Committee. That does not often happen; it should happen far more. For a long time I have argued that when timetabling, we should ensure that every part of a Bill is considered. However, that point is not made in any of the orders. If it is not in order to ensure that a Committee considers every aspect of a Bill, I wonder whether it is right to proceed with the motion that we are considering, because it will curtail the sort of discussion that the House has the right to expect the Leader of the House to provide for our convenience. Although the Leader of the House is a Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, whose expertise in procedural matters is widely acknowledged in the House, but I must direct his attention to the fact that the contents of the motion relate not to whether we should proceed but to whether the correct amount of time has been allowed.
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted that you interrupted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you remind me of what I am trying to say. I am obviously not saying it well enough, and I need much longer, to ensure that I do.
The timetabling that the motion suggests is unfair to the ordinary Back-Bench Member. The duty of the Leader of the House to the House means that she must always be fair to hon. Members from all parties, not only to the Government. I perceive no reason—if there is a reason, perhaps the Leader of the House will provide it—for not proceeding with a general debate on the two reports, with reference to a third. Any thoughts that arise from those could be put forward in a new motion to the House,

179
which would alter Standing Orders. All that can be done before we rise. We have the time. Why will the Leader of the House not consider that appeal? I hope that from the noise that greets me when I sit down, she will realise how strongly the House feels about it.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
4.40 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: I have listened with no small interest to the contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the House in this short debate. I confess to a sense of stupefaction at what I have heard. The image of the Chamber that has been presented is in marked contrast to my practical experience of the Chamber during the years that I have been a Member.
I acknowledge that my experience of this place is not as long as, for example, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who posited the possibility that the debate had been introduced because there was an overwhelming desire among the majority of Members to be the guests of friendly embassies, but she will be aware of at least two occasions, which I experienced, when debate in the Chamber was kept deliberately long in order that the majority of Members would not be distracted from watching television screens during an important football match. On another occasion, a debate was kept deliberately long to facilitate some dinner organised by Her Majesty's Opposition to celebrate someone who requires no kind of celebration at all. The basic argument that we have heard is that the Chamber's overriding business is to scrutinise the Executive—would that it did.
Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Lady has missed the point. We are asking for the same treatment that the Government and the Leader of the House will give to the Liaison Committee report on Thursday. It will be debated in principle on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Presumably, at a later date, there will be a proper opportunity—there certainly should be—to vote on the report's specific recommendations. We are asking for a debate in principle on the Modernisation Committee report's far-reaching proposals—some of which might be acceptable, some of which will not—so that the House can come to a general view and then specifically debate each order when it is laid.
Ms Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but I regret to say that I disagree. He has markedly failed to understand my point. He is arguing, as the majority of Members consistently do, that longevity equates with acuity. It does not. As I am sure he is aware, it is simply not the case that, via these proposals, a debate in the Chamber will be in any way curtailed. The Chamber will be allowed—
Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Jackson: May I finish the point? I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
The Chamber will be entirely capable of debating any issue until 4, 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning if that is its wish. There is no basic change in that respect. If Members
180
genuinely wish to hold the Executive—this or any other Executive—to account, surely we should be looking for much longer and more detailed Question Times and the shortening of Back-Bench speeches. If Members cannot say what they wish to say within 10 minutes, they have little to say.
Mr. Redwood: In that case, can the hon. Lady explain how modernising has so far helped us to hold the Executive to account? We have had a halving of the number of Prime Minister's Question Times, no statement on Biarritz and no statement on the fuel protests because Parliament was on an extended holiday. How does that help us to hold the Executive to account?
Ms Jackson: By failing to listen to what anyone else says and being more concerned with producing some party political soundbite, the right hon. Gentleman has yet again fallen into the terrible trap that reduces the respect that my constituents believe they should be able to have for the Chamber. What is proposed by the Modernisation Committee is, despite the outrage that has emanated in the Chamber, minor in the extreme. What is not minor is what I believe to be serious inroads into the democratic remit of this place in relation to those who send us here to represent them. What happens in the Chamber, certainly as far as my constituents are concerned, is becoming increasingly irrelevant because of the games that are played in it—games that have nothing whatever to do with genuine scrutiny of legislation, and do virtually nothing to enable our constituents' concerns to be represented at a time when they wish them to be.
Why is there such a vast lobby out there? Why have we seen people organising themselves in various ways? Because this Chamber—via its Standing Orders, which were created by Members for a different age and, in the main, for an exclusively male representation—does not meet the needs of our constituents, and cannot do so until we begin to examine those Standing Orders in detail and argue for modernisation.
4.46 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I support the six right hon. and hon. Members who have so far spoken against the imposition of the guillotine. They have expressed very different political opinions, they have spoken in different tones of voice, and they have made different kinds of plea to the Leader of the House.
I find it sad that the Leader of the House is not listening, and has made no statement about why she wishes to crash on with the business in this thoroughly undemocratic way. She does not even listen to the sensible advice of her hon. Friends, let alone Opposition Members who have a passion for Parliament similar to that of many Labour Members who are offended by the proposal.
The Government have already gained the all-comers record for the imposition of the guillotine. Guillotines are always very contentious. When they were imposed by Conservative Governments, there were times when some of us felt uncomfortable about that; but Conservative Governments imposed nothing like the number—with nothing like the ruthlessness and consistency—imposed by this miserable Government so far.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to give the House incorrect information. It is not true that the present Government hold the record for guillotines; it is held by the Conservative party.
Mr. Redwood: If the right hon. Lady looks at the annual rates, she will see that—as she well knows—the Government hold the all-comers record by a mile. It was foolish of her to try to make that point.
Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to qualify his statement by giving the actual figures?
Mr. Redwood: They are on the record in Hansard, having been given in an earlier debate. I shall not delay the House by putting them all on the record again—although my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who is now looking for them in the text, may well return to them himself. However, I well remember the burden of the argument, and the evidence of the figures is overwhelming—as the hon. Lady will find if she cares to check them.
We are engaging in an important set of debates, or perhaps a single debate, on the big issue of how the House of Commons is to hold the Government to account.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Perhaps I can assist my right hon. Friend by answering the point made by the Leader of the House. Between 1946 and 1949, under Labour, there were three timetabled Bills; between 1951 and 1963, there were 15; between 1966 and 1970, under Mr. Wilson, there were five; under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), there were five; under the subsequent Governments of Wilson and Lord Callaghan, there were 12; under Lady Thatcher, there were 34; under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), there were 17; and under the present Prime Minister, between 1997 and 2000, there have been 34.
Mr. Redwood: I hope that the Leader of the House will now withdraw what she said. I did indeed remember correctly, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
This is symptomatic of how the House is treated by the present Government. Not only do Ministers not want to come here and make statements; not only do they not want to come here and answer questions; but when they do come here, they attempt to mislead the House in an appalling way. The only statements that they wish to make are those that will gain cross-party support, or show them in a good light.
This place is here to hold the Executive to account. How can we do that this afternoon and this evening if major procedural changes are to be rushed through, and if we cannot even have an explanation of why time is so limited that the debate must be truncated?
Mr. Bercow: Given that the Order Paper contains no fewer than 10 specific proposals from the Government and 11 amendments tabled by other right hon. and hon. Members, does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is essential for the public to understand that the Leader of
182
the House thinks it appropriate that, on average, each of those matters should receive approximately a quarter of an hour of the House's attention?
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I fear that several big issues will receive no attention whatsoever because the Leader of the House is proposing to the House that debate should take place in a dreadful way.
Why are we short of time today? We had 13 weeks off, but when the Opposition asked for the House to be recalled to discuss important matters, we were denied the opportunity to do our job in September or early October. We have now been sitting for two weeks, but the business does not often stagger through to 10 o'clock because it is not of great interest to many right hon. and hon. Members, especially those on the Government Benches. We have now been told that we are so short of that precious commodity, time, that our debate has to be steamrollered.
Conservative Members and, I believe, some Labour Members, think that this matter is being deliberately steamrollered on a busy news day outside this place. The Government want to make their life easier and do not want difficult questions to be asked, and certainly have no intention of answering them. They do not want to find time to debate legislation in detail because so much of it is drafted so appallingly badly that they know it would not stand up to proper scrutiny.
The Government are trying to push the matter through on a day when the United States of America is busy electing the most powerful man in the world and an awful lot of briefing is taking place on what will be in the pre-Budget statement tomorrow—which, of course, should be kept quiet until the Chancellor makes his speech to the House. Once again, the Government are showing contempt for the House by briefing the press and speaking to journalists long before Members of Parliament.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: A moment ago, my right hon. Friend referred to bad drafting. Is he aware that the motion that we are debating is badly drafted? A careful reading makes it clear that if our current debate goes on until after 10 o'clock, it will not be possible for us to vote on the following two motions, which will be dropped.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for the important point made by my hon. Friend. If the timetable motion is passed tonight, followed by that on the business of the House, Parliament will get an unflattering name for itself. Historians and the British people have a habit of giving Parliaments names, so we have had the Merciless Parliament, the Addled Parliament and the Parliament of the Saints—which one could hardly call this Parliament. I fear that this Parliament will go down in history as the Useless Parliament without backbone, thanks to the reluctance of so many Government Members to hold the Executive to account and stand up against the guillotine tonight. All that they seem to want is to do their knitting at the base of guillotine as the tumbrel falls.
The silence of the babes on this matter is eerie, and it is about time that they started to represent the views of their constituents to the Government, instead of just

183
representing the Government to their constituents. They could start tonight by speaking out in favour of proper parliamentary procedure.
Ms Julia Drown: My constituents tell me that they find this place embarrassing. They find contributions such as those of the right hon. Gentleman the most embarrassing, as they are the yah-boo of this place. One reason that my constituents sent me here is that they want Parliament modernised and changed. They want the Executive to be held to account and they want legislation to be properly scrutinised. I want that to happen, but I do not see it happening under current procedures. Today, we are debating a way of improving that.
Mr. Redwood: I look forward to the hon. Lady joining us in the Division Lobby, should there be a Division on this matter. She must accept that there cannot be proper accountability if guillotines are imposed on every piece of business and votes are divorced from the argument. Everyone outside knows that when a discussion or debate takes place, the issue is put to the vote, and voted on then and there. One does not invite people who were never part of that debate to come in up to a week later to vote on the matter. However, the House is being asked to do that, and the motion is designed to strengthen the power of the Executive, not the House.
Of course, people out there want change. They want a Parliament of people who speak up for their rights and they want Members of Parliament who tell the Government that they are wrong on the fuel tax, the Budget and how they are trying to run the country.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel at all guilty about the night on which the Conservative party forced through 17 orders on the poll tax—which consisted of 32 pages on matters including imprisonment and other things—when there was only an hour and a half to debate all those orders?
Mr. Redwood: I think that that was a mistake, and, eventually, the previous Government saw that it was a mistake. Eventually, the previous Government listened to public opinion and removed that tax. If the hon. Gentleman would like to look at the record, he will see that I was the Minister who was given the rotten task of removing that tax and introducing one that was a bit more palatable. It is a very good example of why Parliament should not have been sidelined. That Government should have listened then, when the voices were very clear. This Government should now listen to the fuel protesters and to all the other members of the public who dislike what the Government are doing in health and education and in the Budget.
Above all, however, will Labour Members join us today in demanding proper scrutiny and discussion, and tell the Leader of the House that she speaks for no one but the Government in trying to stifle debate and stop proper voting?
4.55 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I did not plan on speaking in the debate, until the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke. If I
184
remember correctly, when he was the Government spokesman on the poll tax, I was an Opposition local government spokesman and, therefore, had to endure the same procedures that he had to endure. I am sure that members of the public watching this debate who are familiar with the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is nothing quite like the zeal of the convert.
I remember when the right hon. Gentleman was pushing and prodding through legislation, and he and I had the type of private chats that spokespeople have. He would say, "I have to do this because there is no other way that we can get the business through." He knows how Governments work.
Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not remember that, when I was a Minister, I asked the shadow spokesmen how they would like to organise the time? I was always very keen that the Opposition had sufficient time to deal with the two or three big issues that mattered most to them. Will he confirm that that is so?
Mr. Henderson: I can confirm that the right hon. Gentleman used to consult Opposition spokespeople on statements that he was about to make to the House, and I thank him for doing that. However, he was not his own man, as his Whips sometimes had other ideas about how business should be conducted, and his view did not always prevail. The Whips often wanted to timetable business, because they recognised that the Government had to get their business through.
I am speaking in this debate not as an apologist for the Government, but as someone who has constituents to represent. My constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), would laugh us out of court if they saw this debate, in which some hon. Members seem to be saying that the future of democracy depends on how and when we do our business. Consumers do not judge cars on the basis of when they were made or the circumstances in which they were made, and people do not judge lawyers on the basis of when they gave advice or the circumstances in which they gave it. People, and consumers, care about results.
I believe that the public hold this place in disrepute more than ever before in my lifetime, largely because of the way in which we conduct our affairs. The public want decisions to be taken well and Government legislation to be scrutinised. I think that any British citizen would tell us, however, that the best way of scrutinising legislation is not to use 650-plus people, but to use small groups of people to examine the detail, to cross the t's and dot the i's. That belief is based on their experience of life—the way in which they work, participate in social clubs and become involved in charities.
The public are far too wise to believe that relying on set-piece speeches in the Chamber that last halfway through the night is a sensible way of conducting parliamentary affairs. They are far too wise to believe that there should be seven or eight Divisions when one would be enough to clarify the issue. I believe that the public are looking for the results of our action to improve health, education and other services, and that, at the next general election, they will be judging all of us on those results. It surely makes sense for us to have procedures that lead to good decisions being made as efficiently and effectively as possible.

185
I shall support the guillotine motion. I have said all I wanted to say, but I should like to do hon. Members the courtesy of allowing them to intervene.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he not realise that the logic of what he is saying is that the ability of hon. Members to speak for their constituencies would be reduced to a series of administrative decisions? Indeed, one way in which we could produce very rapid decisions with apparently a certain amount of consultation would be to have us all e-mail our views and then to collate the result. Does he not realise that one of his privileges here is to be able to speak openly? Although many people may deeply disapprove of hon. Members expressing views that are not regurgitated from their Front Bench, that is fundamentally what Parliament is about.
Mr. Henderson: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend about the fundamentals of Parliament; I am arguing about how it is done. I do not think that it takes 20 minutes to make a point. It is possible to make a point in two or three minutes, as many other Parliaments around the world require. Quite frankly, to be flippant and derisory about e-mail is to live in the last century. The business community does not spend endless hours at face-to-face meetings dealing with detail. Most people deal with the principles face to face and leave the detail to e-mail. We may have to involve e-mails in Committees in future. I do not know about that, but I would not be derisory about them.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Does he not appreciate that although some people will have the privilege of serving on a Committee and examining legislation in detail and at length—but even that is likely to be programmed—others, for whatever reason, will not be selected to serve on that Committee? We, as Back Benchers, have a responsibility to examine legislation in detail, if we so wish and if we have responsibilities as constituency Members of Parliament representing particular interests. We should not be denied that.
Mr. Henderson: Of course I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but when the opportunity arises on Report or whenever for an hon. Member to make an observation on a Committee recommendation that he or she has not been part of, it should be expressed succinctly at a reasonable hour and we should vote on it at a reasonable hour. That is what the public would expect.
Sir Robert Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he realise that we are being asked to vote on a motion that the public would find perverse as it says that we should vote at 10 o'clock regardless of where the discussion has reached and whether or not we have had an informed debate or reached the end of business? Does he really support the idea of a guillotine on our procedures?
Mr. Henderson: The public, like many right hon. and hon. Members, would find the wording of the motion
186
rather strange, but they would expect us to be able to discuss it in a set time, to allow various points of view to be expressed and for the House to reach a decision. I believe that if we cannot do that in four or five hours tonight, we will never do it. Not everyone who wishes to continue the debate after 10 o'clock tonight wishes to extend it in order to demoralise those who seek change and encourage them to go to embassy parties a little earlier. I am not saying that every hon. Member who seeks an extension of the debate is motivated by that, but those of us who have been here a little while know that an awful lot of them are.
5.3 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was correct in saying that this Labour Government have imposed more guillotines than any other Government since the war. In fact, annexe C to the Select Committee report indicates that there have been 36 guillotines, 18 of them having been agreed between Front Benches and 18 having been imposed by the Government. Of course, the report was written before the Government got into their full stride and before the end of July, since when there have been at least another two.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so early in his remarks, but he has said something very important and I am grateful to him for placing it clearly on the record. He makes no distinction—and it is a perfectly legitimate point—between programme motions that have been agreed across the House for the convenience of scheduling proper debate and guillotines that have been imposed by the Government. It is important that we recognise that he has made that point.
Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for clarifying her position. The fact remains that the Government have imposed more than 20 guillotines, in addition to, as she and I agree, guillotines agreed between the Front Benches. We have rehearsed the arguments about guillotines over many years. I lived through 34 guillotines during the Thatcher years—but that was 11 years. I lived through 17 guillotines during the Major years, and have since lived through more than 20 during the Blair years.
To curtail freedom of expression used to be considered one of the greatest offences against parliamentary practice. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, if this House stood for anything, it was for the right to stand up and speak, no matter how lonely that task might be, for one's constituents or for one's country. That is an important consideration. The House can justify itself to the outside world in no other way.
Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Shepherd: Not for the moment.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) spoke true when she said that the House is in crisis. No one believes that Members of Parliament have any role. As I go around my constituency, I encounter, as do other hon. Members, business men and constituents who ask what is the point of us. "You never change anything the Government say", they tell me.

187
We have reached the stage, in this modern world, in which Governments may talk directly to the nation. Traditionally, the nation responded through its elected representatives, but we are no longer a House of representatives in any true sense. In fact, those elected here are impatient to support their Government. That, ultimately, is why we have a motion before us that will ensure that we guillotine everything. There lies the essence of what has gone wrong with the House. No one knows how to talk back to the Government. We are all, in a sense, bought placepeople.
I recognise the role and importance of party, but surely some importance must be attached to being ourselves and standing up for what we believe. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate was right in one sense. I have no problem with the hours at which the House sits. The motion before us is incomprehensible to almost anyone; it was probably written by someone with a PhD from the London School of Economics. I doubt whether many hon. Members have actually troubled to read it from beginning to end.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the business motion? I hope that he will not anticipate what he might say if he catches my eye later on the substantive motion.
Mr. Shepherd: Of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point is that this outrageous guillotine is inappropriate because of the nature of the business that it would guillotine. That must require some discussion of the length and complexity of that business. That must be a fair point.
The motion is inexplicable, and we have, indeed, had no explanation of it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) have made the important point that this debate is the only one in which we may discuss the principles—if one can call them that—set out in the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, "Programming of Legislation and the Timing of Votes". We shall come later to the substance of what is a change to our Standing Orders.
No one had seen the motions before last week. Some principles had been enunciated in the report, but the proposals were never put before the Modernisation Committee in the form before us now. Nor were they referred to the Select Committee on Procedure so that it might deliberate on whether they provided an appropriate way to achieve an end.
We need time to debate many issues. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) was very concerned about our sitting hours. Did the Modernisation Committee discuss those? Does the issue appear in the report? Is it the way to solve the problem?
Essentially, this—the business that we are being denied the opportunity to discuss fully within the terms of this motion—is a bluff. We never looked into whether, in this modern world, the House could sit at 9 am and rise at 7.30 pm. We never looked at the rhythm of the parliamentary year. Why? All those matters have been discussed long ago. If we look at the Crossman diaries, which were circulated to all the Committee members, we can see where the power lies in this matter—it lies in the Cabinet. So, create a diversion and grab something while one is at it.
188
I am convinced that this proposal will mean the aggrandisement of Government on a scale that is unacceptable to the House, or should be. It is saying, "We shall get our business." That rules out the views of individual Members, as the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) said, and of the hundreds of others who have served in the House in the years that I have been here. The Government should not always get—
Mrs. Fitzsimons: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the final verdict is in the Lobby? That is the most powerful way to express how one feels.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady forgets our traditions. Our process has never been merely a question of x divided by 2 + 1; it is the process by which one gets there. The Opposition, or those who oppose the might and weight of a Government's argument, must be allowed to make their case. The hon. Lady, who will doubtless support the timetable motion, asks, "Why have a debate? We have just announced our policy. We can determine the matter in the Lobby." That is essentially what is behind all such arguments. We are asking the outside world to listen to these arguments. When we speak, we are meant to be the people's elected representatives.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not the essential difference between the two sides of the House the fact that far too many Labour Members think that they were elected to support the Government, not to represent their constituents?
Mr. Shepherd: To be fair, I have been in enough Parliaments in which that could have been said of Government Members of whatever party.
This is meant to be a House of Commons debate about us as Members of Parliament. I am trying to point out that this guillotining of a debate on a fundamental principle, without allowing the House first properly to discuss that principle, is wrong. It is as simple as that. The Committee did not consider whether the House could meet at 9 am or 10 am and rise at 7 pm or 7.30 pm, without the need to impose such guillotines.
Let us remember what is behind this guillotine on a motion to guillotine for ever—albeit initially only for the next Session. It is meant to assure the Government that they own the House in the most positive way.
Mr. Clive Soley: To put the record straight, I spent 18 years practising what the hon. Gentleman claims is a good method. It fails because we play with time in this place, which brings the House into disrepute. The proposal before the House is a way to improve the quality of legislation and of not legislating in the middle of the night. That is what it is about and that is what we should get on with.
Mr. Shepherd: That failure is no reason to insist on how another Opposition should conduct their business, but that is the conceit behind the proposal. Now, Governments tell Oppositions how they should perform their job. That is outrageous, and yet the outrageousness marches through the business motion, and through the next motion on the programming of Bills.
How do we discuss in detail these individual parts that are the jigsaw that makes up the totality of the absoluteness of the Government's control over this

189
House? In truth, the House is nothing but an instrument of the Executive as long as we do not pause to ask why Labour Back Benchers could not have insisted that sitting hours were a reasonable matter for consideration by the Modernisation Committee—whose Chairman, the Leader of the House, is a member of the Cabinet—and should be in the proposal before us, and further insisted that the Committee should examine why the House cannot sit.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate made a fair point, which is appreciated by many Conservative Members, that the House will seem dead to the outside world if it discusses business at 10 pm, 11 pm, midnight or 1 am. We want to be vital contributors to the arguments in the country. This proposal does nothing to meet that need. It ensures only that our debates will take place at the traditional times—perhaps starting at 5 or 6 pm.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has pointed out that we are putting the House into the hands of the Government. Are not Governments—whoever is in power—resistant to changes in hours, because Ministers cannot be in the Chamber in the morning? That is why the House cannot sit in the morning. The Government and the Cabinet resist changes that some Members might find convenient.
Mr. Shepherd: That is why I drew the attention of the House to the Crossman diaries—the entry to which I referred is that for Thursday 17 November 1976. Cabinets oppose such changes. However, Ministers are in the House at an early hour. They have to take Bills through Standing Committees and answer Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall. It would liberate the House if we could all go out and make our party political speeches after 8 o'clock. It would enable Opposition Front Benchers to do so.
Until this Session, the Prime Minister voted extremely casually—in only 5 per cent. of the votes. He is now up to 10 per cent. No Prime Minister has either attended the House so rarely or voted so little. That is also true of Ministers, who expect their measures to be voted through by Back Benchers—such as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate—at 10 or 11 o'clock at night. That is what we have come to. So confident are they—so assured in their hold over those elected to the Chamber—that Back Benchers will do almost anything, Ministers do not have to give any time to such matters.
The matter is all in the Crossman diaries—what goes around comes around. Such matters are repeated time and again, but never so much as under the Labour Government. In Opposition, Labour Members vigorously criticised the Conservative use of guillotines—I agreed with the Labour Back Benchers who did so—but the Labour Government now say that was all a terrible waste of time because they are in government and they must use the guillotine as often as they want.
The assumptions in the report—we will not have the opportunity to consider it now—are extraordinary: the Government must get their business. What new constitutional principle do the Government propose by that? If the House believes that is right for the country, we must accept that principle; but if the House believes
190
that it is wrong for the country, we must reject it. That is the most basic assertion of the representative functions of the House, but we are setting it aside.
Mr. Pike: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House. Does he agree that the whole purpose of today's motions is to move away from the use of the guillotine and towards sensible programming? That will ensure better scrutiny of legislation. That is why we are holding the debate.
Mr. Shepherd: The distinguished hon. Gentleman is a member of the Modernisation Committee. The only evidence offered to us on the supposed programming of Bills was mixed. It is set out in an appendix written by the Clerk. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, even when such programming was agreed between Members of the Front Benches, we did not discuss all parts of a Bill.
The debates on the poll tax offer a powerful and instructive example. Individual Members on both sides of the House took the opportunity—and had the time—to set out why the tax was defective and could not be borne. That began to turn the tide of opinion in the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said, he eventually had to ameliorate the legislation under another Prime Minister. Do not doubt the importance of holding in the hands of the House the ability to check Governments. However impatient we are, if business were conducted during the day, most of us would not regret being here for an extra half hour or hour. There would not then be the need to impose guillotines. I hope that the new Labour hon. Ladies and Gentlemen are not fooled by this device of guillotining everything.
A distinguished Leader of the House, now Lord Biffen, when confronted with the precursors to the Jopling proposals said, from where the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), is sitting now:
All Governments are tomorrow's possible Opposition.—[Official Report, 27 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 1088.]
As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the hon. Member for Dudley, South said, that is the truth of the situation. Do not deny that right.
Ms Glenda Jackson: The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument up to this point has been that Back Benchers must be assured that they will have the time to hold whatever Government are in power to account. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is simply not the case that the present structures of the House afford that opportunity to every Back Bencher. If we are genuine about affording to Back Benchers of whichever party the opportunity to hold the Executive to account, we must consider structures that will afford that opportunity to all Back Benchers. They certainly do not do so at the moment. Unless the Speaker chooses to limit speeches to either 10 or 15 minutes, the majority of debating time in the Chamber is taken up by the most asinine, childish debate, usually rooted in empty party political badinage, which has nothing to do with scrutiny and not only brings this place into disrepute, but is contemptuous of the people who sent us here to represent them.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Lady is talking about Second Reading. We are talking about Report stage. The hon. Lady does not give evidence that she has even troubled

191
to read the report that is before the House. Annexe C deals with what has happened to what we call agreed guillotines as opposed to imposed guillotines. If she had troubled to read that, she would know that her analysis is not borne out. The evidence is not there to support her contention.
Ms Jackson: My analysis was not of the report, which I have read: my analysis was of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Mr. Shepherd: I do not see how, by guillotining absolutely everything, the hon. Lady achieves what we are arguing for on this side of the House.
Mr. Redwood: The great weakness in the hon. Lady's argument is that if everything is guillotined, a small group of trusties who support any Government can come in and take up practically all the time available for debate and prevent independent-minded Back Benchers on either side from getting their views across. That is what we object to.
Mr. Shepherd: That is the fundamental argument. I am not rehearsing all the arguments, I am talking about the guillotine.
Helen Jackson: I appreciate the fervour with which the hon. Gentleman regularly talks to the House about guillotines, but does he agree that he is making a blinkered refusal to recognise the difference between the old-fashioned guillotine, which stops debate on a Bill, and the new modern approach to programming legislation, which is fully supported by the Hansard Society and many other Parliaments around the world? The new approach has at its heart the need to discuss and scrutinise Government Bills thoroughly. Such a distinction exists and, by basing his argument on the assumption that there is no distinction, the hon. Gentleman loses the whole point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention was far too long, but it illustrates that we are becoming much more involved in the substance of the motions to come. I realise that this motion cannot be entirely divorced from the others, but the hon. Gentleman has had some scope to develop his argument. We should not have too much more debate on the substance, given that the House has yet to reach a decision on when it will tackle the other motions.
Mr. Shepherd: I absolutely agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, this is a guillotine motion and the issue is whether we shall have the time to discuss the substantive issues. The Modernisation Committee's report examined whether guillotine motions allow for full consideration of all the constituent parts. It considered the programmes motions on the Northern Ireland Bill and the Transport Bill. About the Transport Bill, it said:
42 groups of amendments were selected by the Chair; 11 of them were debated, but 31 (of which 4 consisted of minor and drafting amendments) were not reached.
The belief that one can fix a timetable that is necessarily appropriate means that we do not discuss legislation. That is now done by the other place, which is the working part of our constitution. We have become the dignified part of the constitution.
A Cabinet Minister tabled a motion that proposes fundamental changes to the Standing Orders of the House in the hope that it will fulfil the half-baked idea that a
192
fixed programme will get people home at 10 o'clock. However, that will make the House more and more irrelevant and that is why this debate is so timely.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we vote for a guillotine on such extraordinarily important matters, we shall not be able to discuss sitting hours or what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) believes is the abuse and misuse of Question Time? We will not be able to discuss those points, because we will not have the time.
Mr. Shepherd: I am only too conscious of that point. I regret that my speech has already lasted 25 minutes, but the fact is that more Members have attended this debate than any other on a procedural matter. That suggests to me that many of them wish to speak.
I know full well what will happen, because I have served in many Parliaments. Therefore, I put the hypothesis to the Leader of the House—a Cabinet member—that if we discuss the procedural motion until 10 o'clock, the attitude will be, "Go hang the debate on the substantive matter. We'll just pass it on the nod." People will then say, "You see just how ridiculous the House of Commons is."
Mr. Forth: It might help my hon. Friend if I inform him that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), the Government Deputy Chief Whip, is hovering by the Speaker's Chair and that he is on the point of asking for a closure motion. The Government might not even allow us a proper amount of time to finish this debate.
Mr. Shepherd: I do not know what the Deputy Chief Whip will do, so I shall not consider that point.
As I understand the Order Paper, the business of the House may be discussed until any hour. However, if we discuss this motion until 10 o'clock, we shall not be able to discuss the motions that the Government so desperately want.
Mr. Tyrie: To reiterate a point that I made earlier, if this debate goes beyond 10 o'clock, the House will not have an opportunity to vote on the motions on the programming of Bills and on deferred Divisions. The business will therefore fall.
Mr. Shepherd: I would have loved the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire to have been taken on board. There should have been a debate on the principles that lie behind the motions and on the report itself. The Government should have made their proposals after such a debate.
5.30 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want to make a brief contribution, not only because I care about the House, but because I am also a member of the Modernisation Committee and as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) knows, I am happy to support some of the proposed changes to Standing Orders. However, I want the House, and the Leader of the House in particular, to know that I think that the Government's handling of the matter is totally unacceptable.

193
I share the view expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) who, picking up on remarks made by the hon. Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), said that we should debate the general principles and issues contained in the Modernisation Committee's report as it relates to programming, the establishment of business sub-committees and, of course, deferred Divisions.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is it not the case that the Leader of House could help the House enormously if, when my hon. Friend finishes his speech, she accepted the principle that has been raised by so many hon. Members?
Mr. Winterton: As an eternal optimist and a believer in democracy, I would—to use a most unparliamentary phrase—love the right hon. Lady to do just that. She has it within her discretion and power to heed the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I found some contributions rather sad, not least the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the new programming. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said that programming is another word for guillotine. I think that it is a more rational word and that programming might lead to improvements that are not available within the guillotine system. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North appears to think that under this guillotine motion, which covers all the business that will subsequently come before the House, the concerns, responsibilities and role of Back Benchers will be properly safeguarded. I do not believe that they will be.
I am deeply worried about some of the proposals—in particular, the fact that Back Benchers will have less opportunity to do what they are here to do. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we are here to represent our constituents. As hon. Members have said, Members of the House might not have the privilege of serving on a Standing Committee and, because of the number of people who want to speak, may not be able to speak on Second Reading of an important Bill. Therefore their only opportunity to make a contribution would be on Report or during remaining stages. If even those stages are to be programmed and limited, many Members on both sides of the House will be very unhappy that their responsibilities are being removed, reduced and undermined.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North—who, as a distinguished Minister, did very well in the positions that he held—has so little understanding of the impact of what the House, under a guillotine motion, will decide this afternoon.
Mr. Doug Henderson: Did the hon. Gentleman understand my point? I did not say that Back Benchers should have less opportunity to speak, but that they should have at least as much opportunity as they have now. My point was that they should speak more succinctly within a programmed motion. [Interruption.]
Mr. Winterton: I am hearing murmuring to the effect that that is not in the proposed amendments to the
194
Standing Orders. I must agree with my hon. Friends and those on the Government Benches that that point is not dealt with. However, I must still say to the hon. Gentleman—a distinguished ex-Minister—that there are occasions on which Members believe that the interests of their constituents or constituency deserve more than two or three minutes, in which he says hon. Members should be able to get their point across. If he is right, why do Ministers and shadow Ministers take so long to speak from the Dispatch Box? Even the hon. Gentleman when a Minister took rather longer than two or three minutes. Why should he as a Minister be treated any differently from me, an evergreen Back Bencher?
Mr. Henderson: I hate to prolong the debate, but I was not for a second advocating that Ministers should be allowed lengthy periods in which to speak. They should be equally succinct.
Mr. Winterton: I note what the hon. Gentleman says—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must debate the business motion. How long Ministers have spoken or intend to speak has nothing to do with the business motion—perhaps another time.
Mr. Winterton: I accept your courteous reprimand, Mr. Speaker, and shall seek to keep my remarks to the business motion.
Mr. Redwood: Has my hon. Friend noticed that one of the many ironies of this debate is that we have now spent almost two hours discussing how the business is to proceed? If the Government had let us debate the substance right from the beginning, we might have found that six hours was sufficient to expose the problems with the proposals. Have not the Government contributed to making it impossible for the House to consider the matters properly?
Mr. Winterton: I believe that I implied that in saying that I fully support the request of my hon. Friends the Members for South Staffordshire and for Aldridge-Brownhills and of Government Members.
Mrs. Dunwoody: As someone who has been in the House a very long time, can the hon. Gentleman tell me of an occasion on which debate on a business motion of such importance was not opened by a statement from the Government Front Bench?
Mr. Winterton: I have to be a little careful in how I respond to that question because I fully accepted the Speaker's reply to my point of order on that matter. I felt that the debate might have been so opened, but I must fully support our Speaker: he does not have any role in who wants to speak and who does not. If the Leader of the House had provided an explanation of the business motion, it might well, as the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire suggested, have enabled the House to make more progress and proceed with the debate in a much more orderly and informed way.
Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that is upsetting so many hon. Members on both

195
sides of the House is the constitutional outrage of the Government's guillotining something which itself will guillotine future debate?
Mr. Winterton: I was intending to begin my brief speech by saying that the motion is the guillotine of all guillotines. I am sad because, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the former shadow Leader of the House, would agree, we had established some common ground for progress. However, in certain other areas of the Government's proposals, the Opposition are deeply concerned that their role and that of Back Benchers will be eroded.
One great problem in debates on matters that relate entirely to the House, and should therefore be House of Commons matters, is that, however impartial the individual in question may seek to be, these are presided over by a member of the Cabinet. That causes me some concern because, as has been said, none of the details on the Order Paper today have been discussed by the Modernisation Committee. The motions have clear implications for the way in which the House can operate. The House would be far better to proceed by having a general debate on the issues contained in the Select Committee's report, and then having separate debates on the important changes to Standing Orders.
I make a plea to the right hon. Lady. I know that she has a difficult job to do, and that in general she does a very good job in the Committee. I respect her for it and praise her for it, but will she not listen? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who is no longer in his place, said, referring to words originally spoken from the very position in which the right hon. Lady is sitting, today's Government is tomorrow's Opposition. The House needs to proceed with agreement and by agreement on such important matters.
5.41 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Leader of the House has heard representations from both sides reflecting how strongly right hon. and hon. Members feel about the two motions before us.
The House will recall that only last week, the right hon. Lady proposed that our deliberations tonight should be curtailed at 8 pm, rather than 10 pm. I ask her to reflect carefully on the reason that she gave me at business questions on Thursday for the timetabling of debates of such importance to the House:
It is more time than we spent debating the parliamentary calendar and as much time as we spent debating whether we should set up the experiment in Westminster Hall. There is therefore nothing unprecedented about the time allowed for the debate.—[Official Report, 2 November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 854.]
From the contributions that she has heard tonight, the Leader of the House must know that there is a world of difference, particularly in respect of parliamentary representation of the democratically elected representatives of the people. There is a world of difference between motions of the magnitude of those before us, and the arrangements for Westminster Hall and the parliamentary timetable.
I hope that the right hon. Lady has taken on board the feeling of the House. As several hon. Members on both sides have said, this is not a party political matter; it is a
196
matter for Parliament. It is at the heart of our democratic proceedings. The way that we deal with it tonight will be seen as a reflection of the extent to which the Government, of which the right hon. Lady is a member, respect the right of individual hon. Members to challenge the Executive, and the right of an official Opposition to have sufficient time and opportunity to challenge the Government of the day, whichever party is in government.
I see the right hon. Lady's papers on the Dispatch Box. I hope that she will address that issue. No doubt the House will want to consider other important matters of a constitutional nature, and it would be wrong of the Modernisation Committee—I say this as a new member of the Committee—to give equal weight to matters such as Westminster Hall and the motions before the House tonight.
There is one litmus test that should be applied to our deliberations tonight, whether in this debate or on the substantive matters to follow: do the proposals strengthen the Executive, or do they strengthen the right of hon. Members to scrutinise, question and debate? That is the test. It is not a matter of hon. Members' personal arrangements for attendance in the House. The fundamental question has been reflected in many of the contributions that we heard.
I shall not take up any more of the time of the House, but I hope that there will be an opportunity later to make a more substantive contribution to the discussion of matters that will change the House and our proceedings in the next Session, to the detriment of hon. Members on both sides, who are here to represent their voters.
I hope that the right hon. Lady will reassure us that she understands the importance of the motions and that, as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, she will reflect carefully on the differences between matters that have constitutional significance and those that are simply procedural and deal with the efficient running of the House.
5.45 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall speak briefly because I want the substantial debate to begin as soon as possible. The past hour and a half has demonstrated to my mind beyond doubt how much better it is for the House to come to an agreement between the parties, including Back-Bench Members as far a possible, on the programming of business.
Over the past hour and a half we have taken up time when it is important to discuss substance, not the ethereal issue of whether we think that a guillotine is a guillotine or a programme motion. To my mind, a programme motion is the sensible way to make our business more orderly and to provide opportunities to Opposition Members to ensure that their issues are properly addressed. There have been occasions when we have managed to do that.
I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against a timetable motion that is a guillotine. We should not use a guillotine for business of this sort. However, I believe that a programme motion is a proper way for us to undertake our business, and to do so in an orderly fashion. I am extremely disappointed that we have spent an hour and a half discussing the various merits of these different procedures, and during that time have not heard from the Leader of the House. I hope that we shall hear from her now.
5.46 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): In line with the many injunctions that I have received, I do not propose to detain the House for long. It was because I thought, and still think, that the substance of what we are here to debate was what was really important, that I did not take the time of the House to explain the business of the House motion. It is unfortunate, to put it no higher, that the use of the word "guillotine" has become so commonplace that it is used for any motion of any sort that seeks in any way to curtail debate.
I am aware that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who I am sorry is not in his place, takes and expresses the view that any curtailment of the length of speech that an hon. Member wishes to make is a guillotine and something which he regards as an abuse of our procedures. We all know that we would never complete any business if that were the approach adopted by the House as a whole.
I shall repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) last Thursday. We are not dealing with a guillotine. Before us is a business of the House motion that is designed to ensure—[Interruption.] It is a normal sort of motion that appears on the Order Paper every day of the week. It is designed to ensure that the House can come to a view on the orders that are before it at a sensible time.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No, not for a moment.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton quoted some of the examples that I gave about time. To be frank, I am astonished that the House thinks that an ordinary full parliamentary day is wholly inadequate to discuss the business that is before us, all the more so given the precedents that I gave the hon. Lady from this Parliament and the previous reports from the Modernisation Committee. In addition, I am sure that she will recall an occasion when the previous Administration made changes to the Welsh Grand Committee. Those changes were of such weight that they were considered an alternative to devolution.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: Not for the moment, please.
That was the importance and the weight that the previous Administration put on those changes, and they were debated for only half a day. In allowing a full parliamentary day for the processes of the debate, the Government were not acting in any way that was out of the ordinary.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I ask the right hon. Lady to reflect on what Opposition Members have been saying. The debate is not about programming. We are asking for a proper debate on the principle of the Modernisation Committee's reports, such as the right hon. Lady is providing for on Thursday when the Liaison Committee's report can be debated in principle, so we can later address in detail the specific orders.
198
As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) has said, even the members of the Modernisation Committee have not seen the terms of the orders. They have not had a chance to discuss them in that Committee. Can the right hon. Lady not accept what so many of us are asking for in the interests of the House, and allow us to have the debate in principle and then allow us to debate the orders at a later date?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall return to that point in a moment, but first I want to discuss another matter. Inadvertently, I am sure, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) gave the House what I understand to be incorrect information. It is not the case that the greatest number of guillotines in a Parliament or in one year occurred during this Government—that record continues to be held by a Conservative Government.
Mr. Redwood indicated dissent.
Mrs. Beckett: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. The facts, I fear, are not on his side. During the Parliament of 1987–92, there were 27 guillotines, and more were used during one of those years than during any year of this Parliament.
Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Lady is misleading the House.
Speaker: Order. I do not think that the right hon. Lady is misleading the House. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) may wish to withdraw that statement.
Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Lady is mistaken.
Mr. Speaker: To say that the right hon. Lady is mistaken is better.
Mrs. Beckett: I simply inform the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that that is my information, which I have had checked and cross-checked. He believes that any motion that curtails debate, whether by agreement in a programme motion or by imposition by the Government, is a guillotine. The distinction that I use is recognised by the Clerks of the House and everyone else. If he has other information that he wants to share with us, I would be happy to give way to him.
Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Lady makes the common mistake of counting the number of guillotines used. Current jargon refers to the number of Bills guillotined, but a Bill may require one, two, three or four guillotines during its passage through the House. I thought that that was clear in the right hon. Lady's mind. I do not seek to contradict her, but she is genuinely wrong to say that the number of Bills guillotined during the 1987–92 Parliament was greater than the number guillotined during this Parliament. This Government hold the record.
Mrs. Beckett: I accept that the hon. Gentleman makes his point in good faith, but on every previous occasion when Conservative Members have alleged that fewer questions are being answered, that recesses are longer or

199
that more guillotines are being used, their information has never proved more accurate than ours. I leave that thought with him.
Mrs. Browning: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am anxious not to take up the House's time discussing this matter at length.
Mrs. Browning: I hope that the right hon. Lady will examine annexe C of the report of the Modernisation Committee—her own Committee. The language and methodology used to put the information into the public domain was at her and her Committee's discretion. Annexe C refers to the
Numbers of Bills timetabled since 1945.
The list that I read out earlier clearly shows that during the past three years, 34 Bills have been timetabled.
Mrs. Beckett: This matter will no doubt be aired time and again. I do not accept the hon. Lady's point. If one calculates the figures in exactly the same way, it is clear that there was a heavier use of the guillotine in previous Parliaments.
That brings me to my second point, which was raised by, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—not, I believe, by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson). My hon. Friend said that hon. Members came here not to discuss the daily timetable but to examine what affects people's lives. She is correct—that is why we are all here. Unfortunately, however, we are discussing the timing rather than the substance of the debate. That is, I fear, a very good parallel. We have spent a long time discussing how long we should discuss what we are all told is an important matter.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I want to make one further point in response to my hon. Friend, who has already made several contributions to this debate. She went on to say that we are concerned with the curtailing of debate. My response to her and to other hon. Members who made the same point is that this discussion is not about whether we curtail debate, unless we adopt the legitimately held attitude of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who said that any attempt to end a debate involves curtailment. Others would argue that the ordinary process of having a measured debate in a suitable time allows people to focus that debate better and that it is not necessary to cut the time that is available.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The way the House organises its debates, including their time, date and place, directly impinges on the quality of those debates and on their meaning. Even in the Labour party, we normally appreciate the connection between the way in which agendas and debates are organised and the effect that that has on the discussion that ensues.
Mrs. Beckett: We have debated, and will undoubtedly continue to debate, whether there is merit in changing the way in which debates are focused to ensure that they cover all the important and substantive issues. Is that more important than not limiting the length of time that is available, which does not provide a structure to the debate?
Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. I want to bring my remarks to a close. I am anxious to turn to the substance of our debate. I remind Conservative Members, who talk as if these are unprecedented proposals—the words "binding" and "irreversible" have been used on several occasions—that the motion, should we ever reach it, involves Sessional Orders, which would expire if they were not renewed. The order contains an experiment, and no proposals would be binding or irreversible. I refer those Conservative Members who said that our approach is unprecedented to the remarks of another of my distinguished predecessors, Lord Newton of Braintree. He said that
the voluntary timetabling of legislation, has improved the sensible scrutiny of legislation. It has certainly taken us away from the rather absurd situation that existed when I first became a Member of Parliament, in which, almost routinely, the Opposition, of which I was then part, talked endlessly about the early clauses of a Bill, which inevitably drove the Government to impose a guillotine, and the later parts of the Bill got very little discussion.—[Official Report, 11 July 1996; Vol. 281, c. 628.]
This debate has moved to and fro not for some hours today but for at least 10 years in the House, and probably for much longer. To some extent, I take issue with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), whose views I know and respect. There is a world of difference between the issues that we are discussing today and those to which he alluded. This is not the first occasion on which the programming of discussion in the House has been considered—it is probably the 155th occasion. The principles that lie behind the motion raise matters of importance—the Government do not dispute that. That is why we are anxious for those proposals to be discussed. The ideas that underlie our proposals are not new, and the substance and the principle about whether to structure debate or to leave it unstructured are not new; what is new is the detail of the proposals.
Mr. Tyrie: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene later in our debate, I shall certainly give way to him. I have concluded the remarks that I wanted to make, and I am anxious to move on to the substance of our debate.
Mr. Keith Bradley (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to protest at the timing of your acceptance of the closure motion moved by the Government Deputy Chief Whip.

201
I and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) were present throughout the debate and we were the only two Members to rise regularly as soon as an hon. Member had finished speaking. We had shown our interest by some brief interventions and we had hoped to contribute. I submit that it would have been more appropriate not to accept the closure motion until after our speeches had been made.
Mr. Speaker: Any hon. Member can move, That the Question be now put. Whether to accept the motion is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, and there can be no discussion about that.
The House having divided: Ayes 251, Noes 164.

Division No. 321]

[5.59 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cox, Tom

Ainger, Nick

Cranston, Ross

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Alexander, Douglas

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Allen, Graham

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Ashton, Joe

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Atherton, Ms Candy

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Atkins, Charlotte

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Austin, John

Davidson, Ian

Banks, Tony

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Barnes, Harry

Dawson, Hilton

Barron, Kevin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Beard, Nigel

Doran, Frank

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Dowd, Jim

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Drew, David

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Drown, Ms Julia

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Benton, Joe

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Berry, Roger

Edwards, Huw

Best, Harold

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Blackman, Liz

Etherington, Bill

Blizzard, Bob

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Flint, Caroline

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Flynn, Paul

Bradshaw, Ben

Follett, Barbara

Browne, Desmond

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Burden, Richard

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Foulkes, George

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Fyfe, Maria

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gardiner, Barry

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Godman, Dr Norman A

Caplin, Ivor

Goggins, Paul

Casale, Roger

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Caton, Martin

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Cawsey, Ian

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chaytor, David

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clapham, Michael

Grocott, Bruce

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Grogan, John

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clwyd, Ann

Hanson, David

Coffey, Ms Ann

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Colman, Tony

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Connarty, Michael

Heppell, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

Hinchliffe, David

Cooper, Yvette

Hood, Jimmy

Corbett, Robin

Hope, Phil

Cousins, Jim

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

202

Howells, Dr Kim

Pearson, Ian

Hoyle, Lindsay

Perham, Ms Linda

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pickthall, Colin

Hurst, Alan

Pike, Peter L

Hutton, John

Plaskitt, James

Illsley, Eric

Pollard, Kerry

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Pond, Chris

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pope, Greg

Jamieson, David

Pound, Stephen

Jenkins, Brian

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Rammell, Bill

Keeble, Ms Sally

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Kemp, Fraser

Rooney, Terry

Khabra, Piara S

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kidney, David

Rowlands, Ted

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ruane, Chris

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Ruddock, Joan

Kingham, Ms Tess

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ryan, Ms Joan

Lammy, David

Savidge, Malcolm

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Sawford Phil

Laxton, Bob

Sheerman, Barry

Lepper, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Leslie, Christopher

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Levitt, Tom

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Skinner, Dennis

Linton Martin

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Love, Andrew

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McAvoy, Thomas

Snape, Peter

McCabe, Steve

Soley, Clive

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Southworth, Ms Helen

McFall, John

Spellar, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

McIsaac, Shona

Stevenson, George

McNulty, Tony

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

MacShane, Denis

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

McWalter, Tony

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

McWilliam, John

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Mallaber, Judy

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Martlew, Eric

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Maxton, John

Timms, Stephen

Meale, Alan

Tipping, Paddy

Merron, Gillian

Touhig, Don

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Trickett, Jon

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Mitchell, Austin

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Moffatt, Laura

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Tynan, Bill

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Morley, Elliot

Walley, Ms Joan

Mountford, Kali

Ward, Ms Claire

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

White, Brian

Mullin, Chris

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Worthington, Tony

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

O'Hara, Eddie

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Olner, Bill

Wyatt, Derek

O'Neill, Martin

Organ, Mrs Diana

Tellers for the Ayes:

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Mr. Clive Betts and

Palmer, Dr Nick

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

203

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Allan, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Amess, David

Horam, John

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Baldry, Tony

Hunter, Andrew

Beggs, Roy

Jenkin, Bernard

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Bercow, John

Beresford, Sir Paul

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Blunt, Crispin

Keetch, Paul

Boswell, Tim

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

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Key, Robert

Brady, Graham

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Brake, Tom

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brand, Dr Peter

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brazier, Julian

Lansley, Andrew

Breed, Colin

Letwin, Oliver

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lidington, David

Burnett, John

Livsey, Richard

Burns, Simon

Loughton, Tim

Burstow, Paul

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Butterfill, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Malins, Humfrey

Maples, John

Chidgey, David

Mates, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Clappison, James

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

May, Mrs Theresa

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Moore, Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Norman, Archie

Collins, Tim

Oaten, Mark

Corbyn, Jeremy

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Öpik, Lembit

Cotter, Brian

Ottaway, Richard

Cran, James

Page, Richard

Curry, Rt Hon David

Paterson, Owen

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Prior, David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Randall, John

Day, Stephen

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Duncan, Alan

Rendel, David

Duncan Smith, Iain

Robathan, Andrew

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Evans, Nigel

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Fabricant, Michael

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fallon, Michael

Ruffley, David

Flight, Howard

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Foster, Don (Bath)

St Aubyn, Nick

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Sanders, Adrian

Fox, Dr Liam

Sayeed, Jonathan

Fraser, Christopher

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gale, Roger

Shepherd, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

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

Gibb, Nick

Soames, Nicholas

Gill, Christopher

Spicer, Sir Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Spring, Richard

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gray, James

Streeter, Gary

Green, Damian

Stunell, Andrew

Greenway, John

Swayne, Desmond

Grieve, Dominic

Syms, Robert

Hague, Rt Hon William

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hammond, Philip

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hancock, Mike

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Heald, Oliver

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

204

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Whittingdale, John

Townend, John

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Trend, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Tyler, Paul

Willetts, David

Tyrie, Andrew

Willis, Phil

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Viggers, Peter

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Walter, Robert

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wardle, Charles

Waterson, Nigel

>Tellers for the Noes:

Wells, Bowen

Mr. Eric Forth and

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Sir Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question put accordingly:—
The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 168.

Division No. 322]

[6.11 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Alexander, Douglas

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Allen, Graham

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Davidson, Ian

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Ashton, Joe

Dawson, Hilton

Atherton, Ms Candy

Dean, Mrs Janet

Atkins, Charlotte

Doran, Frank

Austin, John

Dowd, Jim

Banks, Tony

Drew, David

Barron, Kevin

Drown, Ms Julia

Beard, Nigel

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Edwards, Huw

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Etherington, Bill

Benton, Joe

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Berry, Roger

Flint, Caroline

Best, Harold

Flynn, Paul

Blackman, Liz

Follett, Barbara

Blizzard, Bob

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foulkes, George

Bradshaw, Ben

Fyfe, Maria

Browne, Desmond

Gapes, Mike

Burden, Richard

Gardiner, Barry

Butler, Mrs Christine

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Godman, Dr Norman A

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Goggins, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caplin, Ivor

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Casale, Roger

Grocott, Bruce

Caton, Martin

Grogan, John

Cawsey, Ian

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Chaytor, David

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clapham, Michael

Hanson, David

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Healey, John

Clwyd, Ann

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Heppell, John

Colman, Tony

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Connarty, Michael

Hinchliffe, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hood, Jimmy

Cooper, Yvette

Hope, Phil

Corbett, Robin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cousins, Jim

Howells, Dr Kim

Cox, Tom

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cranston, Ross

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hurst, Alan

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hutton, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Illsley, Eric

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

205

Jamieson, David

Plaskitt, James

Jenkins, Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatheld)

Pond, Chris

Pope, Greg

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Keeble, Ms Sally

Quinn, Lawrie

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Rammell, Bill

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Khabra, Piara S

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Kidney, David

Rooney, Terry

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Rowlands, Ted

Kingham, Ms Tess

Ruane, Chris

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ruddock, Joan

Lammy, David

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Ryan, Ms Joan

Laxton, Bob

Savidge, Malcolm

Lepper, David

Sawford, Phil

Leslie, Christopher

Shaw, Jonathan

Levitt, Tom

Sheerman, Barry

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Linton, Martin

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Skinner, Dennis

Llwyd, Elfyn

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Love, Andrew

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McAvoy, Thomas

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McCabe, Steve

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Snape, Peter

McFall, John

Soley, Clive

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Southworth, Ms Helen

McIsaac, Shona

Spellar, John

McNulty, Tony

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

MacShane, Denis

Stevenson, George

Mactaggart, Fiona

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

McWalter, Tony

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

McWilliam, John

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Mallaber, Judy

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Martlew, Eric

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Maxton, John

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Meale, Alan

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Merron, Gillian

Timms, Stephen

Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Tipping, Paddy

Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

Touhig, Don

Mitchell, Austin

Trickett, Jon

Moffatt, Laura

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Morley, Elliot

Tynan, Bill

Mountford, Kali

Vis, Dr Rudi

Mullin, Chris

Walley, Ms Joan

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Ward, Ms Claire

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Wareing, Robert N

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

White, Brian

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

O'Hara, Eddie

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Olner, Bill

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

O'Neill, Martin

Worthington, Tony

Organ, Mrs Diana

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Wyatt, Derek

Pendry, Tom

Perham, Ms Linda

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pickthall, Colin

Mr. Clive Betts and

Pike, Peter L

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

206

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hammond, Philip

Allan, Richard

Hancock, Mike

Amess, David

Hawkins, Nick

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Heald, Oliver

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Baldry, Tony

Horam, John

Ballard, Jackie

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Barnes, Harry

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Beggs, Roy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Berth, Rt Hon A J

Jenkin, Bernard

Bercow, John

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Beresford, Sir Paul

Blunt, Crispin

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Body, Sir Richard

Keetch, Paul

Boswell, Tim

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

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Key, Robert

Brady, Graham

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Brake, Tom

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brand, Dr Peter

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brazier, Julian

Lansley, Andrew

Breed, Colin

Letwin, Oliver

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lidington, David

Burnett, John

Livsey, Richard

Burns, Simon

Loughton, Tim

Burstow, Paul

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Butterfill, John

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Malins, Humfrey

Maples, John

Chidgey, David

Mates, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Clappison, James

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

May, Mrs Theresa

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Moore, Michael

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Norman, Archie

Collins, Tim

Oaten, Mark

Corbyn, Jeremy

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Öpik, Lembit

Cotter, Brian

Ottaway, Richard

Cran, James

Page, Richard

Curry, Rt Hon David

Paterson, Owen

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Pearson, Ian

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Prior, David

Day, Stephen

Randall, John

Duncan, Alan

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Duncan Smith, Iain

Rendel, David

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Robathan, Andrew

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Evans, Nigel

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fabricant, Michael

Ruffley, David

Fallon, Michael

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Flight, Howard

St Aubyn, Nick

Foster, Don (Bath)

Sanders, Adrian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Sayeed, Jonathan

Fox, Dr Liam

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Fraser, Christopher

Shepherd, Richard

Gale, Roger

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Garnier, Edward

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

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Soames, Nicholas

Gibb, Nick

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gill, Christopher

Spring, Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Streeter, Gary

Gray, James

Stunell, Andrew

Green, Damian

Swayne, Desmond

Greenway, John

Syms, Robert

Grieve, Dominic

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hague, Rt Hon William

Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

207

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Whittingdale, John

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Wilkinson, John

Townend John

Willetts, David

Trend, Michael

Willis, Phil

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tyler, Paul

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Tyrie, Andrew

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Viggers, Peter

Walter, Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Wardle, Charles

Mr. Eric Forth and

Waterson, Nigel

Sir Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That at today's sitting the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Programming of Bills and Deferred Divisions not later than Ten o'clock, and such Questions shall include the Questions on any amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; and those Questions may be decided, though opposed, after the expiration of the time for opposed business.

Programming of Bills
[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 1999–2000, HC 589, on the Programming of Legislation and the Timing of Votes. First Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 1997–98, HC 190, on the Legislative Process. Report from the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, Session 1991–92, HC20.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I shall read out a statement. It may assist the House if I indicate how the debate on the motions relating to the programming of Bills and deferred Divisions will now proceed. There will be a joint debate on the two motions and on the amendments which I have selected. If proceedings are not concluded before 10 pm, I shall call Members formally to move the selected amendments (d) and (g) to the first motion, before the House decides on that motion.
I shall then call the Leader of the House formally to move the second motion and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) formally to move his amendment (d) to it, before the House decides on the motion itself. I hope that that will assist the House.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could guide me. We have just had a Division on a closure motion to curtail debate on motion No. 1, but on the Order Paper—the Government's own Order Paper—it clearly states that debate on that motion may continue until any hour; that is marked on the top right-hand corner. What is the relevance of the markings that suggest that debate can continue until a certain time if they can be overridden so easily by a closure motion?
Mr. Speaker: That would have arisen only if the 10 o'clock motion had been agreed to. "Until any hour" applies only if the 10 o'clock motion is agreed to. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having read the Order Paper earlier, I was confused. Under "Main Business", we have the business of the House motion, which we have just discussed. Then the Order Paper says:
At 10.00 pm
Business of the House
and then there is a motion tabled in the name of the Prime Minister saying
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Business of the House relating to Programming of Bills … may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.
That suggests that the Government are prepared at least to consider extending the debate beyond 10 o'clock tonight. Am I right?
Mr. Speaker: The 10 o'clock motion that the hon. Gentleman sees on the Order Paper is no longer necessary.

209
We will stop at 10 o'clock. That is why I have made the statement. I will call for the amendments that I have selected to be put before the House at 10 o'clock.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you clarify one point about which we were not entirely sure? I take it that you have selected no amendment to motion No. 3. Is that correct?
Mr. Speaker: Amendment (d) has been selected. Is that clear?
Sir Patrick Cormack indicated assent.
6.26 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move,
That in the next Session of Parliament Orders A to I below shall have effect:

Programming of Bills

  A. Programme Motions
  (1) If, before Second Reading of a Bill, notice of a motion providing for—

  (a) committal of the Bill, and

  (b) an allocation of time to proceedings in Committee on the Bill,

  is given by a Minister of the Crown, the motion may be made immediately after Second Reading and Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills) shall not apply to the Bill.
  (2) Such a motion is to be called a programme motion.
  (3) An order made by the House as the result of a programme motion is to be called a programme order.
  (4) A motion to vary or supplement a programme order is also to be called a programme motion.
  (5) The question on a programme motion to vary or supplement a programme order shall be put forthwith unless paragraph (7) applies.
  (6) Otherwise, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion shall be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
  (7) This paragraph applies to a programme motion to—

  (a) reduce the amount of time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on the Bill (whether or not it also increases the amount of time allocated for other proceedings on the Bill);

  (b) bring forward the date on which the bill is to be reported to the House in accordance with a programme order; or

  (c) add to the proceedings to which a programme order applies.

  (8) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) applies to proceedings on a programme motion.
  (9) Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of time) does not apply to a programme motion.
  (10) If a programme order applies to a Bill, neither Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) nor Standing Order No. 120 (Business Sub-Committee) applies to the Bill.

  B. Programming Committees
  (1) This order applies if a Bill is subject to a programme order which makes provision for proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and third reading.
  (2) There is to be a Committee for the Bill consisting of—

  (a) the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is to be chairman of the Committee); and

  (b) not more than eight other Members, nominated by the Speaker.

  (3) The Committee is to be called the Programming Committee.
  (4) The quorum of the Programming Committee is four.
  (5) The Programming Committee shall—

  (a) consider the allocation of periods of time to such of the proceedings in Committee of the whole House (or on consideration and third reading) as it thinks appropriate to designate; and

  (b) report any resolution which it makes to the House.

  (6) On a motion being made in the House in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  (7) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the Bill.
  (8) Proceedings on a motion made under paragraph (6) may be entered upon and decided, though opposed, at any hour.
  (9) Resolutions of the Programming Committee—

  (a) may be reported from time to time; and

  (b) subject to the powers of the Speaker or Chairman to select the amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which designated proceedings on the Bill are to be taken.

  C. Programming Sub-Committees
  (1) If a Bill is subject to a programme order which commits it to a Standing Committee, the order stands referred to the Committee and shall be considered by a sub-committee of the Committee.
  (2) The sub-committee is to be called the Programming Sub-Committee.
  (3) The Programming Sub-Committee shall consist of—

  (a) the Chairman or one of the Chairmen of the Committee (who is to be chairman of the sub-committee); and

  (b) seven members of the Committee, nominated by the Speaker.

  (4) The quorum of the Programming Sub-Committee is four.
  (5) The Programming Sub-Committee shall report to the committee any resolution which it makes about—

  (a) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in the Committee;

  (b) the allocation of the proceedings to each sitting;

  (c) the time at which any proceedings, if not previously concluded, are to be brought to a conclusion.

  (6) On a motion being made in the Committee in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  (7) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the Bill.
  (8) Resolutions of the Programming Sub-Committee—

  (a) may be reported from time to time; and

  (b) subject to the powers of the chairman to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings are to be taken.

  D. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House
  (1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings in standing committee or in committee of the whole House to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Chairman shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others—

  (a) any question already proposed from the chair;

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

  (c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chairman for separate Division;

  (d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Chairman shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.
  (5) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those provisions.
  (6) On conclusion of the proceedings in a Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill (or such of the Bill's provisions as were committed to it) to the House without putting any question.

  E. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration or third reading
  (1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration and Third Reading to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)—

  (a) any question already proposed from the Chair;

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

  (c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate division;

  (d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.

  F. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments
  (1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
  (3) If that question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) a single question on any further amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown; and

  (b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment; and

  (b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
  (7) As soon as the House has—

  (a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or

  (b) disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to,

  the Speaker shall put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  G. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords
  (1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on any further message from the Lords to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the chair and not yet decided.
  (3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the chair.
  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.
  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords proposals.

  H. Programme orders: Reasons Committee
  (1) This order applies in relation to any Committee to be appointed to draw up Reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman.
  (3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
  (4) Proceedings in the Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than half an hour after their commencement.
  (5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (4), the Chairman shall—

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

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

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

  I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions
  (1) The provisions of this order apply to proceedings in the House or in Committee of the whole House on a Bill which is subject to a programme order.
  (2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) applies to the proceedings for any period after ten o'clock (or on Thursday, seven o'clock) allocated to them in accordance with the programme order.
  (3) The proceedings may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.
  (4) If, on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day, a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) would, apart from this order, stand over to seven o'clock—

  (a) that motion stands over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to conclusion at or before that time; and

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

  (5) If a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day is one to which a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day is postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
  (6) No dilatory motion may be made in relation to the proceedings except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion is to be put forthwith.
  (7) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of the programme order.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (d) to the above motion, in paragraph (6) of order A, leave out 'three-quarters of an hour' and insert 'three hours'.
  Amendment (g) to the above motion, after paragraph (10) of order A, insert—
  '(11) On a day on which a programme motion is to be moved, the Speaker shall put the Question on a second reading of the bill to which that Motion applies not later than 9.30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and 6.30 p.m. on Thursdays'.
  Motion relating to deferred Divisions:
  That in the next Session of Parliament the following Order shall have effect:

  (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question.

  (2) Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall apply (and this order shall not apply) to questions—

  (a) on motions or amendments in the course of proceedings on bills or allocating time to or programming such proceedings;

  (b) on motions which may be made without notice;

  (c) on motions to be disposed of immediately following the disposal of amendments proposed thereto, and on such amendments;

  214

  (d) on motions made under—

  (i) paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business);

  (ii) paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and Means motions);

  (iii) sub-paragraph (1)(a) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with bills);

  (iv) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 54 (Consideration of estimates); and

  (v) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.); and

  (e) on motions made under paragraph 3 below or to which an order made under that paragraph applies.

  (3) After the moment of interruption and the conclusion of proceedings under any other Standing Order which fall to be taken immediately after it, a minister of the Crown may make a motion to the effect that this order shall not apply to questions on any specified motions; such motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

  (4) If the opinion of the Speaker is challenged under paragraph (1) of this order, he shall defer the division until half-past Three o'clock on the next Wednesday on which the House shall sit.

  (5) On any Wednesday to which a division has been deferred under paragraph (4) above—

  (a) Members may record their votes on the question under arrangements made by the Speaker;
  (b) votes may be recorded for one and a half hours after half-past Three o'clock, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division; and
  (c) the Speaker, or the Chairman, shall announce the result of the deferred division as soon as may be after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.
  Amendment (d) to the above motion, in paragraph (5), leave out from beginning of sub-paragraph (a) to end of sub-paragraph (c) and insert—

  '(a) a list of the deferred divisions to be taken on that day shall be printed in that day's Order Paper;

  (b) deferred divisions shall be taken at the commencement of public business; and

  (c) Standing Orders No. 38 (Procedure on divisions), No. 39 (Voting) and No. 41 (Quorum) shall apply to deferred divisions.'

  Mrs. Beckett: I rise, as Chair of the Select Committee, to place before the House the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. A previous report of the Committee is also relevant, as is some of the report of the Jopling Committee from 1992.
  First, I stress the fact that the purpose of the proposals is to improve the workings of the House of Commons, to make it more efficient and effective. There are two main proposals in the report. The first is that the House should agree a proper programme for debating all legislation that is brought before it. The second is that some of the votes that may now fall after 10 pm should be able to be deferred, so that they can be taken during the ordinary parliamentary day.
  The proposals on programming offer the House the opportunity now to take a decision on issues that we have been considering in one form or another for more than 10 years. In two reports in the 1980s, the Procedure

  215
  Committee recommended programming in Standing Committee. The 1992 report of the Jopling Committee noted:
  The evidence given to us on timetabling of bills was almost without exception in favour of its general use.
  That is in paragraph 67. It went on to say:
  The arguments in favour of the proper scrutiny of all parts of a bill are compelling; and timetables applied from an early stage after second reading are probably the best way to avoid the capricious effects of a guillotine being imposed at a later stage.
  None of those proposals was fully pursued, though there have been encouraging experiments such as the voluntary timetabling of Committee discussions on, for example, the Greater London Authority Bill. In 1991, in evidence to the Jopling Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), then shadow Leader of the House, put forward on behalf of the then shadow Cabinet proposals that included programming discussion on all Bills.
  Those ideas were further advanced in the earlier recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, in paragraph 89 of its first report of the 1997–98 Session, for
  arrangements for programming legislation which are more formal than the usual channels but more flexible than the guillotine.
  That proposal was for programmed discussion on all major Bills, but it envisaged—the report was on an all-party basis—that that would be by consent, which it clearly anticipated would be generally forthcoming.
  The House will know that such arrangements began to be used. However, it then became clear that consent to the continued use of such procedure was unlikely to be obtained. Indeed, it also became clear that consent for a proportionately less demanding scrutiny for more minor Bills might no longer be available. That is the process that I have described as "working to rule". I give the House one simple example of what I mean.
  No Government would have expected, or would have needed, to guillotine a measure such as the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill, which simply remedied what I believe were unintended errors by the previous Administration—but, as a result of the process of working to rule, the Government did need to guillotine even that minor legislation.
  It has become clear to many Members that we need the capacity to manage the House's time in regard to any such business. That realisation led a majority on the Modernisation Committee to the proposal for a mechanism for universal programming—a mechanism that is in the Sessional Orders. As Sessional Orders, they allow the House to experiment with this method of managing our business.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Leader of the House suggesting that the Government have some right, divine or otherwise, to present any number of Bills in any given Session and then to subject them to this timetabling procedure? The example that she just gave may or may not be relevant, but it occurs to me that two things could happen: either the Government could present a large number of Bills, or they could introduce many Bills during a Session and then use the right hon. Lady's logic to ram them through in a virtuously timetabled way.
  Mrs. Beckett: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman means "virtually"—but I will not detain the House on that point.
  216
  It is, of course, the case now that the Government can present as much or as little legislation as they choose, although it is up to the House to decide whether or not to accept it. It is also the case that the Government can, and from time to time do, impose a guillotine on any proposed legislation.
  The advantage of a guillotine to Government is that it gives certainty about when discussion of a Bill will end. The disadvantage, for the whole House, is that it is a timetable imposed by Government for the convenience—if you like—of Government, and consequently need not take account of the range of items included in a Bill, or indeed of issues on which the Opposition, as opposed to the Government, might wish to concentrate.
  I have looked at some of the evidence given to the Jopling Committee. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has done the same, for he is assiduous in his research. If so, he will know that many members of his party—including the then Minister for women, Mrs. Angela Rumbold—argued for programming of this kind. That was not least, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]—I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me be the first to welcome you to the Chair.
  As I was saying, that was not least because Mrs. Rumbold felt that the House should behave in what she called a more grown-up way.
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: On that point, I will gracefully give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bercow: I thank the right hon. Lady.
  Further to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), why does the right hon. Lady not plainfacedly acknowledge that she is proposing less debate on more Bills of greater length? How does she justify presenting such a proposal at a time, and during a Session, when no fewer than 2,537 pages of legislation have been dealt with? That represents an increase of 947 on the number of pages dealt with during the last Session. It simply does not make sense.
  Mrs. Beckett: First, I am not proposing less debate. There may be amendments on the Order Paper that suggest some curtailment, but we are not proposing less time for debate. Secondly, nothing in these measures suggests that there will be more Bills—or, indeed, that Bills will be of greater length. Indeed, as I hope to show the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the proposals will have the opposite effect.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I echo the right hon. Lady's words of welcome to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The right hon. Lady is again missing the point, which is unlike her. The fact is that many of us would be very willing to discuss programming, so long as the Government were willing to discuss rationing—rationing, that is, of the number of Bills that they present. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), however, has made an unanswerable point. If we are submerged in reams of legislation, programming equates to guillotining.
  Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recall, we discussed rather more legislation 10 or 15 years ago than we discuss nowadays. The trend is down rather than up.

  217
  The orders allow Bills to be programmed directly after Second Reading, on a motion tabled—as is normal—by the Government.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it intended that constitutional Bills should be excluded from programming and guillotining? That has always been a tradition in the House.
  Mrs. Beckett: I believe that we have made no specific provision for constitutional Bills. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that all the provision that has been made includes a procedure to weigh the importance of the issues involved, and to decide how much time is needed. Precisely such considerations would need to be taken into account if a constitutional Bill were discussed on the Floor of the House.
  The detailed provisions needed for programming are set out in the orders. Each motion on a Bill will be able, within the framework set by the orders, to specify clearly what time will be allowed for business. The essence of what is proposed will then be put to the House, which will have a much clearer picture than is provided by the long and complex motions currently used to specify proceedings with regard to any guillotine. The programme motions will be debatable for 45 minutes, as such debate will now be focused on the detail of proposals for each Bill, rather than on the principle of timetabling at all.
  The Committee expects these procedures to enable the Opposition to identify parts of legislation that are of particular concern to them, and to concentrate debate where they wish. The Opposition have, as always, made much of the power to delay, but it has always been the case that that can, if necessary, be overridden by the guillotine. There has been no mechanism for ensuring, and no pressure to ensure, that members of all parties make considered decisions on how legislation should be dealt with, which Bills are most important, and which provisions in those Bills require most scrutiny. The Modernisation Committee's Report gives us the framework to do just that.
  Mr. John Redwood: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Does the right hon. Lady accept that we would take what she says in good faith rather more if she understood the mood of the House on this important issue? If she is to let the Opposition debate issues that really matter to them, why can we not have the two-stage discussion for which many Members on both sides of the House have asked—one debate on the principles, and one on the detail?
  Presumably the right hon. Lady will recommend that we break up for the Christmas recess at least two or three days before Christmas Eve. Could we not have a one-day debate just before that—on a free vote, so that Members who were not interested would not have to attend—enabling us to settle the issues, and enabling Members to express their own views?
  Mrs. Beckett: There is a free vote today, on this side of the House.
  218
  We are well aware that there are those who would wish to separate the decision that we make on the orders from the discussion that we are having today. Let me repeat what I have already said: we have been discussing the issues, and the principles that underlie them, for many years, so I do not think that the notion that these proposals are new to the House bears scrutiny.
  What today's report offers the Opposition is worth far more than the power to delay or simply to block debate. It is the power to choose to focus debate on the parts of legislation that the Opposition believe deserve most scrutiny, and to expose the weakness of the Government's arguments—if they can.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: What my right hon. Friend emphasises is the very thing that worries me about this programming. She is saying, quite simply, that those on the Opposition Front Bench will have a chance to agree whatever programming motion they want—that they will have a chance to decide the order in which Bills are debated. The whole point of the debate about programming, however, is that it is Back Benchers who will be unable to decide either the order or the importance of the matters that they are debating.
  Mrs. Beckett: I accept my hon. Friend's point completely. She will be pleased to know that that matter was aired, discussed and thoroughly considered by the Modernisation Committee when we discussed the proposals, as there was concern that such a problem could legitimately arise. Obviously, we all try to make provisions to cover all those matters, but any Opposition who are aware of concerns that Government Back Benchers want to be aired, but make sure that they are not aired, are a very stupid Opposition indeed. I go no further than that, but it is evident that there is an interest.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am terribly sorry, I must be very dim tonight—but is my right hon. Friend saying that if I want to raise a certain matter as a Member of Parliament, and the Opposition are in control of the programming, they will automatically assume that what I wish to raise as a Government Member is sufficiently important to be given precedence? If that is the case, I must tell my right hon. Friend that that has not been my experience over the years.
  Mrs. Beckett: It is possible to programme discussion and debate so that different points of views can be aired and heard as often as is normally possible in the House. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that it is not open to any of us to guess what is in the mind of another when that person is called to speak. On the other hand, there are sometimes indications, which are used in the House.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to move on to another issue.
  So far we have talked about the issue of the timetable for Second Readings. However, I want to make sure that the House takes on board the fact that, just as the overall timetable for a Bill will be debatable on Second Reading, it is proposed that when detailed provisions to timetable discussion in Standing Committee are suggested, the House—if the Bill is taken on the Floor of the House—

  219
  or the Committee will be able to debate those proposals for up to half an hour. As you will appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is fuller scrutiny than has been available under the conventional guillotine procedure, in which, due to a precedent set by the previous Government, discussion of the time for debate comes out of the debate of substance. Again, any detailed timetable, should one be required, would focus debate on issues identified as important by Opposition parties and Back Benchers.
  These mechanisms give the House the capacity to be flexible, or as prescriptive and detailed, as necessary. For example, we may find in practice that we need only end dates, especially for discussion of more minor Bills. It may be thought that more structure is needed to ensure that all issues are covered in debates on Bills of more substance.
  I shall touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) a moment ago. I wish to say clearly to the House what I have already said to the Select Committee and my colleagues in Government: our proposals bring greater rigour and predictability into our management of our business, as well as far greater transparency. I have no doubt whatsoever—indeed, I have warned the Select Committee and my colleagues about this—that if brought into effect, the proposals will place substantial pressure on Government—any Government—to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny, better preparation of Bills, and, almost certainly, less legislation. That will produce benefits as well as problems.
  Sir Peter Emery: On that particular point, several Members have always advanced the major argument that programming should ensure that all parts of a Bill, and all major matters in it, can be debated in Committee. That greatly benefits legislation, but I can find nothing in the order that sets out that principle. I believe that principle should be set out. Indeed, one could easily have put it in paragraph (5)(a) of order C, which deals with the programming of sub-Committees, to ensure that all parts of a Bill and major matters in it are considered. I am disturbed that the Government did not include that in the order, as I had believed that that was their intention.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, and hope that to some extent I can reassure him. As always, it is a matter of balance, and of what it is right to include in Sessional Orders, as opposed to motions and what can be covered in other ways. Obviously, the matter depends to some extent on whether one wishes to have a detailed programme motion to cover all aspects of discussion of a Bill, or simply all aspects of it until it reaches Committee. Certainly, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, it was very much the Modernisation Committee's intention, and is the thrust of our report, that the proposed procedure has the advantage that all parts of legislation could, and would, be properly considered and given their weight and due.
  The question is simply whether one puts that in the Sessional Orders. It may well be that it can be put in a programme motion, especially if at first the House wishes to have detailed programme motions for all the legislation that comes before it. That matter can be aired.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment, I may be able to answer the point that he is about to raise.
  The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) will know that the report includes a proposal for informal discussion after the Queen's Speech across the House, with representatives of all parties present, to inform the decisions that the Government need to take. Obviously the Government will have a view, as every Government have always done, on the major pieces of legislation in a programme, and on which Bills are expected to be the most controversial or need the most time. That discussion is always held in government under any Government. The informal proposals in the Select Committee report suggest that that discussion can be informed by views across the House, and that other Members of Parliament can contribute and say which matters they think are the most controversial, most weighty or time-consuming. Again, that could be reflected in programme motions.
  I should also like to stress that we considered the question whether that should be a more formal structured process. The recommendation to the Committee was that it should not deliberately tie people's hands, as sometimes in the early stages of legislation, a matter is taken to be not particularly weighty or controversial, but events may change things. or when the Bill is published, people's views may change. Therefore, it was felt that there should be room for manoeuvre for those who suggested that a certain Bill was a more minor one, so that they could come back, change their minds and inform discussion about the drafting of the programme motion.
  Mr. Grieve rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve); I apologise for making him wait.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who was not sufficiently psychic to read my mind.
  How can we take the proposal seriously, when in this Session, the Government were prepared to impose a guillotine on the undoubtedly contentious Police (Northern Ireland) Bill after only 12 hours' discussion because they wanted to ensure that the tight time frame for the Bill was adhered to? Effectively, they gave us only three weeks to discuss that Bill. There is nothing in the proposals to prevent a repetition of such a performance, as I am sure the right hon. Lady will be able to confirm.
  Mrs. Beckett: I readily confirm it and, indeed, do not seek to conceal that from the House. However, the hon. Gentleman has not chosen a good or typical example. After all, we are talking about a Bill the timing of which was driven by the peace process in Northern Ireland as much as by anything else. The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill is a piece of legislation that, under any Government, would come into the category of proposals likely to be introduced as something of an emergency, and likely to be dealt with in that way—[Interruption.]
  Opposition Members may not like that, but most people outside this place would recognise that there is something particularly special and important about the Police

  221
  (Northern Ireland) Bill. They may even recognise that the timing of that legislation might have something to do with the peace process and events in Northern Ireland. If Opposition Members—or some of them, at any rate—do not think that that is how most people would approach the matter, they are even more out of touch with public opinion than I thought. However, I do not wish to get involved in the substance of particular legislative proposals.
  I simply highlight the fact that the process that is described in the Committee's report, and specifying the framework for decisions in the Sessional Orders, will allow the House more structured debates. It will also allow—indeed, facilitate—examination of all parts of legislation. Everything that I have heard and read of the contributions of most of my predecessors in the past 15 or 20 years, and of many other long-serving and distinguished hon. Members, leads me to believe passionately that the orders will substantially improve our processes of debate.
  I also fear that the orders will have a strongly inhibiting effect on the ability of any Government to implement their legislative programme. I say this with deep respect to those who are engaged in these processes, but what is now hidden, discussed through the usual channels or—as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) would undoubtedly assert—imposed on Back Benchers by agreement among Front Benchers, will now all be open. It will all be before the House. People will have the opportunity to contribute and to make known their own points of view when the programme motion is discussed. The report also contains recommendations that on Report and in Committee, proceedings should not continue past 10 pm.
  All of that will have an impact on how long it takes any Government to pass their legislation. Labour Members are prepared to accept that consequence, because we believe that it will substantially improve the way in which the House works.
  Mr. Tyrie: I wonder if the right hon. Lady could help to clarify one point. The intention is to have programming of the Standing Committees' consideration of all Bills, except for those few Bills on which there is sufficient agreement to make programming unnecessary. We know from experience, however, that Bills are very often altered beyond recognition by amendments tabled in Committee by the Executive. What provision will there be to enable the programming to be revisited, and what guarantees can the Opposition have that that provision will be satisfactory?
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right—there has been a history of that under both the current Government and the previous one. Although we could argue about who started the practice, I will not do that now. However, there is provision for altering the programme motion, should such events occur and Bills be substantially changed. There would need to be such provision. There is provision for supplementary motions, either in Standing Committee—if such a motion becomes necessary during debate there—or, subsequently, perhaps on Report, in the House.
  Mr. Michael Fallon: The right hon. Lady has been very generous in giving way, and I appreciate it.
  222
  My point is similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). Will she explain whether, under paragraph (4) of order A, a motion to vary the programme order would include a carry-over motion? If so, and if all Bills are to be programmed—and, therefore, possibly carried over—we need not have a state opening at all.
  Mrs. Beckett: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention that the issues that we are discussing should apply to carry-over. He will know that separately, the Modernisation Committee recommended that we should experiment with carrying over some legislation—which I think that we have done only once, with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. However, the order that we are debating does not affect the proposals for the use of carry-over at all.
  I turn now to the issue of voting on stand-alone business taken after 10 pm. The whole House will know that such issues can vary sharply in importance, from relatively routine business decisions on which a vote is taken forthwith, to a statutory instrument in which a few hon. Members—but only a few—take a great interest, to an issue in a statutory instrument that arouses substantial concern on both sides of the House. The Committee had no wish to curtail debate on such issues when they are of substance, and has made no such proposal. However, all hon. Members are aware that the process of voting itself has been used to detain hon. Members late at night, even when no debate was possible, or when only a handful of hon. Members were engaged.
  I know that many colleagues, on both sides of the House, feel that the sheer unpredictability of being so detained, without even being sure that there will be a vote at all, is one of the worst aspects of our procedures—[Interruption.] I am aware that not everyone shares that view, but it is a view that is legitimately held.
  We are all perfectly well aware that 999 times out of 1000, those matters are so handled not as a matter of principle, but as a matter of tactics. On 5 October 2000, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), with commendable but perhaps embarrassing candour, said to the Daily Express:
  We have played merry hell here in a number of ways, one of which is taking votes late at night.
  There is no hon. Member who supports the proposals who does not take his or her work as a parliamentarian seriously. There is none who is not willing to put in long hours on matters of weight, substance and importance. There are, however, many who feel that we as a Parliament are not behaving seriously if we do not direct our efforts to proper scrutiny of the substance of proposals before us, rather than simply to taking up time, keeping people into the small hours unnecessarily, or deliberately setting out to make life uncomfortable for the sake of it.
  Mr. Forth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Beckett: It would be appropriate to give way to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
  Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to the Leader. Does she concede that there is an equal danger—I put it no higher than that—that if one of the outcomes of the proposals, including the deferred division proposal, were that

  223
  hon. Members attended even less often than many of them do now, the House might be brought into even greater disrepute?
  Mrs. Beckett: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish the public to get the impression that the House is ill attended. He will know as well as I do that hon. Members are here in large numbers every day and for very long hours; one has only to go into the car park to see that that is the case—[Interruption.] Indeed, the Chamber is not always as full as the car park. I invite Opposition Members, or at least some of them, to search their consciences and see whether they can imagine a reason why that might be the case.
  All hon. Members do take their work seriously, and I know of no hon. Member who seriously objects to being here for the long hours, which we all work, to discuss issues of substance. However, I know of many who have strong objections when they feel that time is being wasted.
  The proposal before us is that if a Division is called on business being taken after 10 pm, those votes should be deferred to the following Wednesday afternoon. The detailed arrangements for deferred Divisions will be under the authority of the Speaker, both to ensure their impartiality and to give flexibility. In essence, however, hon. Members will vote on ballot slips listing the decisions that have been deferred. I should stress that the proposal acknowledges that not all decisions could or should be so deferred.
  The order therefore exempts, for example, decisions in the course of debate on a Bill. Consequently, however, and as I highlighted a moment ago, the report recommends that, in programming consideration of Bills, the aim should be to end consideration at about 10 pm. Nevertheless, the Committee recognised that, whereas the process of consideration would end at 10 pm, there may be consequential Divisions, perhaps when a Bill is being considered in Committee or on Report.
  I fully recognise that many hon. Members will quite legitimately have concerns about deferred votes separating the vote from the debate. However, we have such separation now. Particularly when considering Bills in Committee or on Report, we vote when we reach the relevant point on the Order Paper, which is not infrequently entirely separate from the debate.
  I have known hon. Members, even very experienced hon. Members, to fail to call a Division by which they had hoped to embarrass the current Government, purely because they had forgotten to do so at the appropriate time. So separate were those Divisions from the debate that those hon. Members lost their opportunity. It will be within the recent memory of hon. Members on both sides of the House that, when there was an important matter of division and discussion in the House, Labour Members took the opportunity to make it plain to hon. Members exactly how and when they should call Divisions, should they wish to do so, so that the opinion of the House could be tested. We already do separate decision from debate.
  Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Lady seems to be making the most compelling case against her proposals. She is
  224
  rightly pointing out that the divorcing of the voting process from the discussion process is unsatisfactory, and yet she intends to build on that in the proposals.
  Mrs. Beckett: No. I did not say that it was unsatisfactory. I said merely that it was by no means unprecedented. We do it all the time.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I am grateful, as always, to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but she is making a wholly spurious analogy. There is all the difference in the world between the minor deferments to which she is referring and the proposal that votes should be put down on bits of paper the following Wednesday. If that is what she is after, we may as well all pack up and go home.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do not accept that it is an invalid point. First, we are talking about individual, stand-alone issues on one particular subject, not those that interact with other discussions. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it is not infrequently the case that Divisions occur on matters that the House does not debate at all, purely in order to cause inconvenience. So I do not agree that there is something wholly unacceptable about the proposal.
  Mr. John MacGregor rose—
  Mr. Christopher rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I have to give way to a former Leader of the House. I shall then make progress, because we have a curtailed debate.
  Mr. MacGregor: Quite apart from all the other objections to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) has drawn attention in his minority report, does not the right hon. Lady agree that the system will be unworkable? The idea of voting as we do in private Member's Bill ballots is not a serious analogy. That is a ballot for presenting a Bill. The proposals refer to votes that should take place in the Chamber. Does she really think that if there are a number of votes on a Wednesday and there are also votes in the House, the whole system can work?
  Mrs. Beckett: Yes, indeed. As is now the case on certain occasions, if there were Divisions in the House, the amount of time available would have to be extended in order to allow Members the certainty of having an opportunity to express their views. The Modernisation Committee gave considerable thought to these issues, although I readily concede that it will create problems for some hon. Members—I trust that I am not one of them. The Whips on both sides will have a different and possibly slightly more difficult task. Obviously, that is a matter for them, but it is not a reason for saying that the proposal would not work.
  Mr. Gill: I too welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It cannot possibly be right to vote on an issue up to a week after the debate. In the intervening time the Whips will work on hon. Members of their respective parties, the press will express their views on the rights

  225
  and wrongs of the decision that we are about to make, and our constituents may also have something to say. That smacks of double jeopardy.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike rose—
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way for the last time, to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Pike: Is it not important to remember that on two important occasions—the Budget and the Queen's Speech—we always vote at the end of five days' debate? We do not vote on each specific issue on the day that it is debated.
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I do not propose to dwell on it.
  The proposal to programme more legislation is not new. Nor is it one put forward only by Labour Members or uniquely by the Government as a means of oppressing the Opposition. It is put forward frequently by many who comment on our affairs, including recently the Norton report, and a report from the Hansard Society.
  For myself, I have long opposed—and I do not think that I have ever practised—the tactics of simply wasting time. Although my years in the House have inured me personally to the hours that we keep, I have long been conscious that they often produce bewilderment rather than admiration among the public, and that they never contribute to our effectiveness as a legislature. I fear that people only think that they are more eloquent at 2 o'clock in the morning.
  It is often said that the chief weapon of the Opposition is time, and that is held to mean only delay, but I believe that the chief weapon of the Opposition—and Labour has had more years of experience of it—is the constructive use of time. Their strength or their weakness is the strength or weakness of their argument, not how long it takes to put it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made the point that members of the Select Committee were very aware that in recommending that how time is used be primarily in the hands of the Opposition and of Back Benchers, they were creating a new and, they believed, a more potent weapon. However, what they were certainly doing, and what the House will do if it carries the motions tonight, is to place our proceedings on a clearer, firmer and more effective basis. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said quite correctly that we have not discussed in detail, although we have touched on them, the parliamentary calendar, the parliamentary year and the parliamentary day. All those issues are more than worthy of fresh consideration and debate, but the key to them all is the decision that we take tonight.
  7.5 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I, too, welcome you to the chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I am a new member of the Modernisation Committee and I begin by repeating that any proposal it makes should seek to strengthen the House and its Members in order to
  226
  enable them to hold the Government of the day to account, yet the proposals on the Order Paper tonight would not strengthen Parliament—they would weaken it. They would give the Government more power to get their business through more quickly. I shall oppose both motions tonight because they fail that crucial test.
  By definition, the word "modernisation" implies change for the good. It is used in a parliamentary context to raise the perceptions of those with conservative views who would change nothing at all and those who seek to break the mould. I do not hold that view, but I believe that the litmus test that I have described is important. I am not opposed to change, but I believe that it should be in the interests of the democratic process rather than to prioritise what is convenient and expedient for individual hon. Members.
  The debate led by the Modernisation Committee has been strongly influenced by the intake of hon. Members in 1997, many of whom did not expect to be elected and were unprepared for the terms and conditions of the job that they were elected to fulfil. The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) explained clearly that this is a job with terms and conditions and that individual hon. Members are responsible to those who elect us.
  Joan Ruddock: First, I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I have been here for 13 years and I have never found the terms and conditions of the House acceptable. I am a normal human being and I believe that I can do my job in the House effectively during more reasonable hours. Does the hon. Lady believe that the proposals would lead to fewer hours? They would not; they would organise the hours in a different way.
  Mrs. Browning: If the proposal before the House tonight had been that business should be conducted in more reasonable hours, it would have been reasonable to expect the Modernisation Committee to have at least considered the options of conducting more business during daylight hours rather than bringing before the House one proposal that clearly does not have cross-party agreement.
  Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Would the hon. Lady also support moves to start the day before 2.30 pm on the days when we currently do that?
  Mrs. Browning: I would consider it and that is why I am astonished that it was not considered by the Modernisation Committee. The Government have been judge, they have been jury, they have been cunning old fury and they have not given the House reasonable options. They have put a proposal on the table and asked us to take it or leave it.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Is the hon. Lady not aware that the main reason that the Modernisation Committee has not made those proposals is that they were consistently, regularly and routinely blocked by the Conservative Members on that Committee? That is why the House does not have those proposals before it.
  Mrs. Browning: It is nice to hear that part of the Government coalition rowing in. This is not a party

  227
  political matter, but one for Parliament and individual Members. Our need for full debate and proper consideration of proposals made it incumbent on the Modernisation Committee to put forward more than one proposal, a point clearly made in the minority report produced by Conservative Members. The proposals before us did not carry the full support of the Committee, and it would have been helpful if, instead of offering us a curtailed business motion, the Government had given us a greater chance to discuss other options for improving the conduct of our business.
  Given the views of many new Members who entered the House in 1997, it is unsurprising that the Committee's emphasis has been on the hours of work, late nights, facilities for Members and their families, and other such extramural issues as the right to breast feed in Committees. Those issues have doubtless influenced debate, but have coincided with a Government desire, for quite different reasons, to reduce opportunities for parliamentary debate, scrutiny and questions.
  New Labour Members are encouraged to spend time in their constituencies, even while the House is sitting. The Prime Minister favours the House with his presence only once a week, apart from the rare statement. Cabinet Ministers prefer photocalls to statements that can be questioned and debated on the Floor of the House. The move to change the way in which the House conducts Government business for the convenience of Members could not be better timed as far as the Government are concerned.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Congratulations on your appointment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Does the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) accept that open-ended debate is often not an effective way of holding the Government to account? Does she accept that the Opposition are being given greater power than before to decide the timing of contentious debates so that they might be available to the media and open to public scrutiny?
  Mrs. Browning: I do not agree. I shall come later to substantive parts of the motion, but first I shall discuss why the proposals before us and their timing suit the Government so well. Their agenda is to sideline the House and to prevent Members and the Opposition as a whole from challenging the Government. In March 1998, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in a speech in Germany, declared:
  It may be that the era of pure representative democracy is slowly coming to an end.
  The right hon. Gentleman and some colleagues prefer direct representation to representation through democratically elected Members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said. For new Labour, all-embracing direct contact with lobby groups, focus groups and other organisations is preferable to being accountable to those who were elected through the ballot box to represent the people in this Chamber.
  Mr. David Winnick: Not at all.
  Mrs. Browning: Given that sedentary intervention, I hope that the House may be favoured with a visit by
  228
  the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who might explain why what he said should have been put on the public record by a member of the Cabinet.
  In a recent publication by the Hansard Society, Greg Power wrote:
  The decision to focus on the constituency is an entirely logical response to a job where the principal requirement of the New Labour back bench MP is to vote with the party. The problem however, is that the constituency role has risen as an alternative and not a complementary activity to that in Parliament.
  It will not have gone without notice that even tonight's earlier debates were administered by the Labour party Whips while Conservative Members were allowed a free vote, with Tellers provided from outside the Front-Bench team.
  Mr. Bercow: Is the meagre fare proposed by the Modernisation Committee any surprise, given that that Committee is chaired by a member of the Cabinet and contains no fewer than three parliamentary private secretaries to Ministers, who are, of course, members of the Government payroll vote? The fingerprints of the Government Whips Office are all over the Committee.
  Mrs. Browning: I thank my hon. Friend for that and shall offer some suggestions later on how we might modernise in a way that pays respect to the democratic process by changing how the business of the House is conducted so that Parliament rather than the Executive gains strength. If laws and methods of scrutiny and debate are changed to meet the social needs of Members of Parliament, we will undermine the role of Members and neuter the activities of the official Opposition.
  Mr. Winnick: Whether I am new or old Labour is a matter of interest to very few people, but does the hon. Lady accept that I always place parliamentary duties alongside constituency duties? When the House is sitting, I hope that I will always be in the House or in the Chamber. Does she also accept that during my years in the House I have always noted strident opposition to change? In 1966, by just one vote, the House was not televised, and it took years before it was. Thursday morning sittings were opposed by many Members but are now regarded as quite normal. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That response merely strengthens my view that some people simply do not want to adapt the House of Commons to modern circumstances. It is essential that we should do so, because the House will die—or, at best, decline significantly—if we do not.
  Mrs. Browning: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous contributor to the House's proceedings. I do not take issue with much of what he said, but would ask him to put the motions before us to the litmus test. We are not talking only about modernisation, although I agree that persuading people of change is always difficult. We are asking whether the proposals would strengthen the people who sit behind the Front Bench on both sides of the House. I do not believe that they would. Modernisation is an all-embracing generic term, and we

  229
  should test whether the Modernisation Committee's proposals improve our democratic process or weaken Back-Bench Members.
  Mr. Winnick rose—
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I have been generous in giving way to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), so shall give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
  Mr. Redwood: I am very grateful. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party were serious about making this place more relevant and interesting to the electors who sent us here and who pay our salaries, it would have allowed the House to sit during the fuel protest so that the Government could have stated their case and we could have cross-examined them? In addition, would they not reinstate Prime Minister's questions to at least twice a week? It provides the biggest box-office draw outside the House and inside it, but is the one thing that the Government want to cancel.
  Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. On our return to government, very shortly, we shall restore Prime Minister's questions to twice a week.
  The first proposal before us is on the timetabling of all Government Bills. As the Leader of the House pointed out, by the end of the debate on the Queen's Speech, the official Opposition would have to guess how much time would be necessary for each Bill's consideration, but entirely without sight of a draft Bill.
  Efficient drafting of legislation has not been one of this Administration's hallmarks. Earlier this year, the Government's flagship Utilities Bill was well into Committee when the Government finally acknowledged that it was flawed and abandoned half of it. Conversely, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which remains in another place, has had 125 pages of amendments added to it. The Commons has not yet had a chance to consider those, and it is unlikely that we will be able to do so very fully.
  If the Modernisation Committee had been serious about improving the workings of the House, it would have addressed the cause rather than the symptoms of why the House had been kept late to deal with a backlog of legislation. We clearly have such a backlog in spite of the fact that devolution was supposed to lighten the legislative load. The Committee is instead proposing that the Opposition should be bound, at an early stage, to the Government's agenda. That sounds cuddly and friendly, but it could clearly undermine an Opposition. If the Government have an agenda in a Queen's Speech, with a list of Bills that they believe are their priority and are right for the country, they should defend their view. They should not ask the Opposition to second-guess before we have had an opportunity to see how badly drafted some of that legislation is.
  Mrs. Beckett: There is nothing to compel the hon. Lady or any Opposition Member to take part in the
  230
  discussions if they have no wish to do so and nothing to say. There is no suggestion of binding the Opposition in some way. The idea is to give them an opportunity to express a view, to consider the programme as it is set out and to say, "You may have thought these issues are not controversial, but our initial reaction is that these are the Bills on which the House should spend time." The purpose of making the process informal was so as not to bind anyone. If Opposition Members do not want the opportunity to contribute to the discussions, that is fine.
  Mrs. Browning: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, as the legislation for a Session is listed as on a menu, and given our experience of the appalling drafting of many of the Government's flagship Bills in this Parliament, it is virtually impossible for the Opposition to negotiate a timetable motion for various stages of certain Bills?
  Mrs. Beckett indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Browning: I hope that she will assure me that, to make the proposal more practical and to fulfil the outcome that she described, measures are in place to improve the drafting of Government legislation.
  Mrs. Beckett: Such measures are in place. If they are successful, legislation will be entirely different from how it used to be under the Conservative party.
  There is no suggestion that the Opposition would be bound in some way. The whole idea is to give not merely the official Opposition but representatives in the House the opportunity to express a view based on what they know in the early stages. That is one reason for making the process informal. As a Bill emerges, people sometimes realise that they have more concerns about it. Conversely, something that people thought might take a great deal of time might not turn out to be so weighty and would, therefore, require less. There is no suggestion that anyone should be bound in any way. The opportunity is merely being offered to the Opposition to contribute to how the weight of the parliamentary year should be distributed. I am never one for having meetings if they are not necessary. If the hon. Lady does not want to make her view known, that will be fine by me.
  Mrs. Browning: We understand now why the Liberal Democrats were so keen on this proposal. If they are going to take an interest in Standing Committees, I hope that their attendance in those Committees will improve; it has been lamentable.
  The minority report produced by Conservative Modernisation Committee members described the way in which Divisions are to be deferred as "a mass vote-in". The right hon. Lady described the procedure. Members will vote weekly on a Wednesday between 3.30 pm and 5 pm. I have huge concerns about that. I am amazed that she cannot understand the concerns of the House. The system would break so many principles—the right of a Member of Parliament to debate a matter and then vote on it, and also the way in which that vote is cast.
  At the moment, when a Division is called, the cry goes out, "Clear the Lobbies." There is a good reason for that—it allows all "strangers" to be excluded from the route to the Lobby. Under the proposal, a ballot paper printed on the Order Paper a week after the original debate will be

  231
  prepared, possibly outside this Chamber—indeed, even outside the House—and submitted by the Member to the Clerk in the Lobby. One can almost hear the whir of the printers in Millbank tower as they prepare the Wednesday votes for those Members whose only interest in the week's votes is to ensure that they do their master's bidding. As for those brave souls who might have indicated dissent, the Whips will have had a week to change their minds.
  I was also concerned to read on the Order Paper and to hear the right hon. Lady repeat—
  Mrs. Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: In a minute. The Leader of the House described the procedure that will be used; it will involve the Speaker, which is totally inappropriate. It is wrong to involve the Speaker, under the guise that the Chair is neutral, in a matter that could be so contentious across the Floor of the House. The Modernisation Committee should have identified a way in which the procedure was decided by the hon. Members who cast the votes. It should not involve the Speaker.
  Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Browning: Indeed, I will, but first I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons).
  Mrs. Fitzsimons: The Speaker already has powers over the selection of amendments, which can be crucial to the outcome of votes—that has been a key to Opposition lobbying for a long time—and over free votes, such as those on abortion. Therefore, the Speaker is already considerably involved in the order of debate and so forth. Does the hon. Lady accept that?
  Mrs. Browning: There is a difference between the order of debates and selection of amendments and breaking the principle that votes should be cast immediately after a debate. Those votes could now be decided outside the House, or be subject to third-party influence. The Speaker should not be required to put his name to that method. It is not only flawed, but wrong.
  Mrs. Beckett: I hope that I can ease some of the hon. Lady's anxieties. It is for the House to decide whether to carry the motion. The House has to decide to carry out the procedure. It is suggested that the Speaker should exercise a general supervisory role, as he does now, through the Clerks. The reason is simply to allow a degree of flexibility.
  The proposal is for a period of an hour and a half—to be interrupted by Divisions if necessary. After some experience of the system, hon. Members may speedily decide that they need a little extra or a little less time. The hon. Lady identified the problem of having sufficiently easy access to the Lobby. Those issues may be aired. We ought not to decide all the detail tonight, nor should the procedure be set in tablets of stone. The obvious people to supervise the process are the Speaker and the Clerks,
  232
  as they supervise all our procedures and votes now. The principle will not be in the hands of the Speaker; that is what the House will decide tonight.
  Mrs. Browning: It would be nice to know how the Committee arrived at the decision that votes on a Wednesday would be the optimum method. Clearly, it is minded to deny hon. Members a vote on substantive matters after 10 o'clock at night from the Queen's Speech onwards.
  Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have just been treated by the Leader of the House to an unbelievable description of what happens in practice? Does my hon. Friend also agree that if we are to do something about the situation that has developed in the past 100 years and to restore the role of the House as it used to be—a proper debating Chamber where Back Benchers have a proper role—it is essential that there is a Speaker' s Conference and that the role of the Whips is included? If it is not, everything that the Leader of the House has said will turn out to be simply a handful of dust.
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is of concern that the debate on this important issue will be curtailed. Matters that were not thought through by the Modernisation Committee are being brought up by Members who feel passionately about the changes and are affected by them, yet despite the importance of the matter, they will have to vote on those changes after an extremely short debate.
  Mr. Fallon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat incongruous that, under the proposals, someone entering the House on a Tuesday afternoon, after a victorious by-election, will be able to vote—on the following day—on a matter that may have been debated on the previous Wednesday night, before he or she was even elected?
  Mrs. Browning: That is why I suggested a litmus test for the Modernisation Committee's proposals: whether they enhance the democratic process. The excellent example given by my hon. Friend shows what a mockery the proposal is.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I will give way once more, but I want to make some progress as I am aware that many hon. Members want to contribute before the 10 o'clock deadline.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Leader of the House that to delay votes until Wednesdays puts phenomenal power into the hands of the Whips? As someone who rebelled on many occasions during the previous Parliament, I have experienced that power, but many Labour Members do not experience it—nor have they done so in the past. The power to register one's vote almost immediately—having worked out the issues during a debate—takes away hugely from the

  233
  power of the Whips to spend time bullying and exerting massive pressure on individual Members. That power works against them, but they do not care.
  Mrs. Browning: Indeed. That is why I drew attention to the fact that a time lag of up to a week would subject Members to external pressure that could not be exerted if votes immediately followed debates—pressure from the Whips and possibly from the media and special interest lobby groups. That would break a fundamental rule that we have always upheld: the right of individual Members to cast their vote according to their own judgment. As a result of the proposal, Members would be subject to extraneous pressures.
  The proposals would diminish attendance and interest in the Chamber. Their main purpose is to make it easier for the Government to push through not only primary but secondary legislation. The Leader of the House referred to the important votes, but for many of us, the volume of secondary legislation passed by the House is equally important. We hear from people outside this place about the burdens on business and the weight of bureaucracy and red tape, most of which comes from secondary legislation. However, such matters are to be downgraded in the deliberations of the House—at a time when we need to scrutinise secondary legislation even more carefully in this place, rather than introducing a system that makes it more advantageous for Members to be elsewhere and that permits debates to be held much later in the scrutiny process.
  The voting system recommended by the Modernisation Committee breaks with most parliamentary conventions. When we vote, we do so on behalf of our constituents. Of course, those of us elected on a party ticket generally vote with our party—with the Government of the day if our party is in power. However, many Members, of all parties, exercise the right to disobey their party Whips—we have heard some examples this evening. I voted against the wishes of my party on two occasions. I did so for principled reasons on matters of importance to me and my constituents. Important issues will be debated after 10 o'clock at night. It is essential that Members have the right to cast their vote immediately after such debates.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: As someone who not infrequently voted against the Conservative Government on matters such as free sight tests and free dental inspections—matters that appeal to Labour Members—I point out to my hon. Friend that it would not have been easy to wait a week to vote on a Wednesday. If there is to be deferred voting, we should hold it at 9 am the following morning, when Members have had a chance to read Hansard. They should then vote properly in the Lobbies. That is the most that we should do.
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend tempts me to try to tweak the Modernisation Committee's ill thought through proposals in order to improve them a little. I oppose the proposals on a point of principle. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend will want to be involved in the new policies that a Conservative Government will introduce. They would enable Members to put their responsibility
  234
  for democratic representation first. My hon. Friend is far too young to remember the Crossman experiments in the 1960s—
  Mr. Winnick: I remember them.
  Mrs. Browning: As the hon. Gentleman has first-hand experience, perhaps he agrees with the report on that experiment: in almost everyone's view, holding debates in the morning and voting later in the day was an abysmal failure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills pointed out, the change was made purely to accommodate the Government.
  Mr. Winnick: The experiments did not succeed, because the Conservatives thought that it was wrong for us to sit in the morning and for votes to be taken later. Surely, we should advance from that. As I have proposed on other occasions, the times of our Thursday sitting should be repeated on other days—certainly on Wednesdays.
  Mrs. Browning: I shall not be drawn on that. If I had wanted to tweak the proposals, I should have tabled amendments to the motions. I did not do so because I object to the motions on principle. Although I was not a Member of the House during the Crossman years, I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I remind him that the Crossman diaries show clearly that the motivation for that change was not the interest of Back Benchers but that of the then Government.
  The views of the House and its individual Members are important. If the proceedings of this place are to reflect our responsibility as the democratically elected representatives of the people, neither of the motions will strengthen that responsibility. It is for that reason that I shall vote against both motions; I urge my hon. Friends to do the same.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: Madam Deputy Speaker, I join in the congratulations on your promotion to the Chair—it fits you well.
  The way in which Conservative Members approach the subject of our debate highlights their problems in dealing with such matters. They make a fundamental mistake to assume that the Opposition's only weapon is time. When I was elected to this place in 1979, I believed in that theory, but it is deeply flawed; it has not been true for at least 50 years and probably longer.
  Part of me says that I should let the Opposition find out about their mistake in the same way as I did—trying to use that weapon to effect changes in Government policy during 18 years in opposition. During 10 years as a member of an Opposition Front-Bench team, I managed to have only one amendment accepted—by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—and it was not especially significant. I was not the only Member to experience that—we could not effect change by that method alone.
  However, something more serious was going on. People outside this place—not least in the media—began to notice that the weapon of time merely amounted to Members of Parliament talking for talking's sake. That did the House immense damage. That is why so few

  235
  people now take notice of our proceedings. However, if we follow through the process on which we are currently embarked—and there are many more reforms yet to come—the power and authority of Back Benchers will be increased.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for whom I have a great deal of respect, feels genuine anger about the lack of power for Back Benchers. I share that frustration, but as I have said to him before, he is missing the point if he thinks that we can restore that power by rowing backwards. We cannot. The great age of the House in the 19th and early 20th century occurred because the circumstances and the way in which we governed worked for that period. However, we cannot just bring that forward. We cannot live in our history; we learn from our history.
  The reason why the House became the cutting edge of democracy around the world in the 19th century was precisely that it was the most modern parliament in the world. We introduced new technology. We gave greater power to Back Benchers. I want to make a few remarks about why I believe the proposals will help us. In doing so, I say to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that his anger is misdirected. I know that he feels it deeply, but I plead with him not to get angry but to get organised.
  We must radically change a number of things in the House not only to keep up with the constitutional changes that the Government are rightly introducing but to make ourselves more relevant to the people of this country. Several Opposition Members have said that the Government are forcing the proposals through and getting their own way, and that the House does not want them. The House is governed by the majority and the majority is on the Labour Benches. The House wants more modernisation, not less.
  Mr. Tyrie: I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that some Opposition Members are not against all programming in principle and see that there might be some merit in some of the proposals, but the problem is that the proposals before the House are all take and no give by the Executive. Nothing in them would enhance the ability of Back Benchers to scrutinise the Executive, and there are many ways in which our powers will be reduced. The hon. Gentleman says that we should not get angry but get organised. Can the hon. Gentleman suggest any way in which including the proposals in the Standing Orders will give any Back Benchers, including Labour Members, a chance to influence the Executive more?
  Mr. Soley: That is precisely what I intended to do in a few moments. I was going to say that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene again if I do not satisfy him—but perhaps I should not do so because that was a long intervention. I want to make some other brief points before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
  One or two hon. Members have said that the proposals implement family friendly policies. They do not. If people think that finishing at 10 or 11 o'clock at night is family friendly for hon. Members who do not see their families during the week because they live back in the constituency, all that I can say is that they must have very funny families. The proposals are not about being family friendly. They may lead to a more family friendly approach, but they are about not legislating at 3 o'clock
  236
  in the morning, which is not sensible and not understood by anyone outside the House. They are about better scrutiny of legislation, which was the point of the intervention by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).
  Mrs. Browning: I must read to the hon. Gentleman the quote from the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons), who is in her place. She said in her article for the BBC:
  Yes, the proposals will make the House of Commons more family-friendly—I'm fed up with falling asleep on the phone to my husband—it's become a family joke. And yes, Westminster will become more women-friendly if these proposals are adopted, and it's probably true that the large number of women who've come into the Commons this session have driven through reform.
  The priority is clearly a family friendly policy, not scrutiny.
  Mr. Soley: I have no problem with that because it is obviously better for families if people are not here all night or in the early hours of the morning, but it does not follow that it is the ideal family friendly structure to finish at 11 o'clock at night and not see one's family during the week. If the Government were introducing the proposals for family friendly reasons, they would start from a differing position.
  Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the Opposition need to consider the need for family friendly policies? If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) looks behind her, she will see not a single woman on the Opposition Benches. Can she not understand the need for change?
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I return to the key issue of how the proposals can help to produce better legislation. For a start, we will no longer vote late into the early hours in order to kid people that we are giving better scrutiny to Bills. We know what the truth is. In the early hours when we come to vote, there is hardly anyone in the Chamber any way. That is not better scrutiny.
  Then we come to the more interesting and hopeful part, which is what Opposition Members ought to focus on. If we can programme legislation, we can do one of the other things for which the Modernisation Committee and other Committees have fought for years.—we can take evidence on Bills. We all know that one of the reasons why Governments are reluctant to allow evidence-taking sessions is that they do not want to lose control of the timing of proceedings on the Bill. Government Back-Bench Members who at present sit in Committees trying to catch up with their work—that happened under the Conservative Government and it happens now—will have an opportunity to scrutinise more effectively, to question and to cross-examine.
  The proposals will result in less legislation. Governments will have to face up to the fact that it will be more difficult, not easier, to get Bills through. They will make it more difficult for them to ram through lots of amendments at the last minute. It is more likely that amendments will come out of the evidence-taking sessions from hon. Members on both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?] Opposition Members doubt that, but when the late

  237
  Nicholas Ridley was a Minister, I was faced as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman with 1,200 amendments to a Bill—I cannot remember which one—tabled in the last few days of proceedings on it. I did what we all do. I took advice from all the pressure groups and lobby groups, partly because Members of Parliament are not resourced enough to do the research themselves. We get into the trap in which legislation is driven through either because increased numbers of Bills are introduced or because last-minute Government amendments are tabled and we cannot give them effective scrutiny—the very thing about which the Conservative party is complaining.
  If we want good scrutiny, we have to do several things. First, we have to make sure that Committees take evidence and scrutinise, rather than play for time. Secondly, we have to ensure that the Opposition parties and Back Benchers achieve greater control over the time of day when Bills are debated so that debates take place under the observation of the media rather than in the early hours. All Governments kick away debates into the early hours when legislation is embarrassing. Thirdly, we must ensure that when amendments are tabled as a result of better scrutiny, the Government are able to take them.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, but is not one of the problems the fact that it will still be open to the Government to do exactly what they have been doing in the past 12 months and what they did, for example, after the Omagh bombing? They have forced through on guillotine motions legislation that causes disquiet and concern to hon. Members without providing adequate time, entirely on their whim. It is a one-way system in which we are giving power to the Executive and getting nothing back.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and time will prove him wrong. We are setting up a series of structures. I readily admit that more modernisation is necessary to make the system work well, but the proposals will improve it.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: I shall make another point first. It may help to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
  About two years ago, I came to the conclusion that the argument about time in this Chamber started from the wrong position. It was almost impossible to argue about when the House of Commons should start and stop sitting unless first we made the conscious decision that we had too much happening on the Floor of the House. That is why I produced a paper calling for what was then described as a parallel Chamber. It is now Westminster Hall. I wanted to get much of the stuff that unnecessarily takes up time on the Floor of the House into a Chamber in which Back Benchers would have a greater voice and in which we could have more debates on Select Committee reports. Back Benchers now have greater opportunities and we can also increasingly carry out the work of this
  238
  Chamber in the hours in which the media can examine our work. By focusing our work in that way, we can achieve the better scrutiny that we all genuinely want.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: I shall give way for the last time, because interventions are taking up too much time.
  Mr. Bercow: Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, when there are substantial numbers of Government amendments to a Bill, the decision as to whether to alter the timetable for the consideration of that Bill will not be automatic but discretionary, and, similarly, that the extent of any such alteration will be entirely subject to ministerial fiat?
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Gentleman appears to fail to appreciate my view that the direction that our modernisation efforts are taking will impose a discipline on both Labour and Tory Governments that they have not experienced before. First, modernisation will produce less legislation because Governments will know that they will have a finite time for it. There will be clear times at which legislation will enter and exit the pipeline. Secondly, they will concentrate on getting the legislation right rather than on dreaming up umpteen amendments at the last minute and banging them on to the Floor of the House. That has happened under Governments of both colours, and it is a very bad practice.
  We have to build on these proposals. I would like the House to support the motions as part of a process and not as an answer in themselves. They form one step among many. We will then need to go for post-legislative scrutiny so that, after a Bill has become an Act, we can examine how it has worked. The Conservative Members who have told us that those who are now in opposition will be in government tomorrow and vice versa are right, but have they already forgotten the lessons of the poll tax and the Child Support Agency?
  Ms Harriet Harman: And rail privatisation.
  Mr. Soley: Yes, and rail privatisation.
  Would the Conservative Government have got into such a mess if they had had better scrutiny during the legislative process and Acts had been subject to post-legislative scrutiny? I do not think that they would.
  I take a similar view to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills on giving power to Back Benchers, even though we have a totally different approach on how to do that. We must consider the way in which Select Committees work, and I regret the fact that I shall not be present for Thursday's debate. We must also consider providing more resources to Members, so that they can do their job better, and we must examine the management of the House of Commons, which does not have a committee to address the needs of Back Benchers. That is why I would like there to be a radical reform of the House of Commons Commission. All those proposals could return the House to the position that it had when being a Back-Bench Member really mattered. Back Benchers attracted the attention of people outside and were listened to.

  239
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) does in the early hours of the morning many of the things that I did in the early 1980s. I did exactly the same, but that did not help me. We did not win, but kept losing. However, the most frustrating aspect was not losing but the fact that one's best arguments were totally lost on the general public and the wider world. They are not interested in tactics that merely bring the House into disrepute. That does the damage, and that is why we should take another step towards putting it right and putting the House in the forefront where it used to be 100 years ago when it was the leading legislature in the world. People used this place as an example, but they will not do that with the model that we followed in the late 20th century and that we are following now.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you will be delighted that, for once, the House is taking seriously the business of its own business and that we are not considering this issue rather flippantly late at night.
  There are Members on both sides of the House who genuinely come to this issue with an open mind. Without exception, all the members of the Modernisation Committee have addressed the problems to the best of their ability and by using a great deal of experience and expertise. The Committee particularly misses the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who brought to it a level-headed approach and always tried to ensure that we moved with consensus across the Committee.
  I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson)—why are we here? The hon. Member for Ealing, South and North Acton—it is something like that—
  Mr. Bercow: Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.
  Mr. Tyler: Yes, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley)—I should have remembered that it had something to do with sheep—raised the issue of what the world out there thinks of the way in which we arrange our business, and it is important that we do not become so introspective that we do not recognise that there is a real problem with the way in which people outside perceive us. It is perfectly true that Americans love watching Prime Minister's Question Time, but does anyone on either side of the House think that the Government's activities are scrutinised effectively by the House of Commons in that half hour? Of course not—it is theatre. Similarly, most Question Times may provide information, but, usually, they produce more heat than light.
  However, Westminster Hall, the Select Committees, the Standing Committees and a Committee of the whole House provide us with a real opportunity to put a Minister on the spot. It is extremely important that we recognise from the start that we are not in a golden age in which everything is wonderful. I start from the premise that we may not be totally broke, but we are somewhere near it and that it needs fixing. Hon. Members on both sides somehow think that we have achieved perfection in scrutinising the work of the Government—be that their
  240
  Executive actions or their legislation. I do not believe that, and I certainly do not believe that the electorate who put us here believe it.
  We have already heard the quotation from a former Leader of the House, Lord Newton, and I also draw attention to the interesting pamphlet produced by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), in which he advances the case for agreed programme motions. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here now, but his wisdom is to be encouraged.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Tyler: No, because I want to make progress and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to speak. We have very little time as the result of his colleagues activities earlier this evening.
  I take as my text a quotation from the minority report put before the Modernisation Committee by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. He said:
  We believe that the terms of trade between Parliament and Executive need to be tilted back towards Parliament.
  I agree, and I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush and Members on both sides would do so, too. I was here in 1974 and I remember what Parliament was like then. Under successive Governments, attempts have been made by those on the Front Benches—and sometimes in collusion, it has to be said—to prevent the House of Commons from acting as effectively as it should. That is why I welcome the Government's agreement to the Liberal Democrats' suggestion that there should be an informal ad hoc sessional business committee. That would provide Back Benchers and both Opposition parties with real opportunities to tilt the terms of trade back towards the House.
  For example, we could say that it would be more appropriate for such and such a Bill to go to the Lords first, because it is not so controversial and we want to get our hands on another Bill. At present, such decisions are made within the confines of a small group of people who sit on the Treasury Bench. The House of Commons is entitled to take a view on such issues. We are also entitled to express a view on which Bills might be better understood by being subject to scrutiny before the full Standing Committee process. That would be helpful.
  The interminable debates in the House about how to avoid interminable debates must reach a conclusion. Anyone who has read the Crossman report and the Jopling reforms will know that there were endless discussions about trying to concentrate our efforts on the issues that people wanted to discuss. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) moved a motion in the Jopling committee and it is referred to in the documents before us today. He suggested that the speeches of Front Benchers should be subject to the same restrictions as those that are often imposed on the speeches of Back Benchers. I say amen to that, and other Members have expressed a similar view. Curiously, Front-Bench Members are not very enthusiastic about that attempt to ensure succinctness.
  I am keen on the close examination of legislation to which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred. It is a pity that, having fired her Exocet, she has left her place, because she made an

  241
  important point. Anyone who really thinks that the Floor of the House of Commons at 3 o'clock in the morning is the right place to ensure close examination of legislation—and I have been here then, doing just that—has another think coming. I am sure that she would agree.
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, to the nods of Labour Members, but there is nothing in the programming proposals to prevent the scrutiny of legislation late at night when the Government decide to railroad it through the House, which they have often done by introducing last-minute guillotine motions on the grounds of some spurious emergency or need. How do the proposals help us to deal with that?
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman will have seen my colleagues and me vote against the guillotine motion, as we always do. That is common practice because we believe that such motions are always a sign of the Government's failure. Incidentally, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament at the time, but we did the same thing when Conservative Governments pushed through guillotine motions, as they did all too often, sometimes unnecessarily.
  That is why we are trying to move on and get away from guillotine motions, so that they are the exception rather than the rule. We are trying to ensure that we can usually have a sensible, businesslike discussion. Any other assembly—let alone any other business community—in the world thinks that it is better to sit down and try to work out the best way to handle business. Extreme measures must be taken when that is not possible, but let us at least make the attempt. That is why I said that the one-and-a-half hours spent on the previous debate would have been much better spent getting on with the substance of the discussion. A serious attempt to obtain agreement to a programme motion for this evening's business would have been preferable to the guillotine, and the Government are at fault there.
  In the previous Speaker's letter to the Modernisation Committee—one of my complaints about modernity is that text seems to get smaller as I get older—she reminded it that its first report set out three important issues for programming. First:
  The Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation through in reasonable time (provided it obtains the approval of the House).
  Secondly:
  The Opposition in particular and Members in general must have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance.
  Thirdly:
  All parts of a Bill must he properly considered.
  We all know that none of that happens under a guillotine. I wanted to remind the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich that we had a programme when we discussed the Transport Bill which enabled us to have a proper discussion of the important concerns, anxieties and apprehensions of some Labour Back Benchers. If we had had a guillotine and the Conservative party had had its way and gone hell for leather at that Bill, those concerns
  242
  would never have been expressed or voted on. There would have been no Divisions on the issues on which Labour rebels wanted to divide.
  That is the advantage of a programme motion. It enables hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that their voices are heard. Frankly, we on the Opposition Benches would not be doing our duty and would not be effective if we did not ensure that Labour Members behind the Treasury Front Bench had the opportunity to be heard, not only by voicing their concerns, but by voting.
  The former Speaker's letter also said that
  the artificial prolongation of proceedings, by whatever means, does the House no credit in the eyes of those whom we represent and is rarely a productive use of the House's time.
  Amen to that. If Opposition Members think that that is not true, they have been living in cloud cuckoo land—or perhaps they have just arrived there.
  It is extremely important that we make progress this evening, not because this is the end of the process, but because we can experiment in the next few months to see whether we can make some real improvements in the way in which we operate, and change the balance of trade back towards the House to enable hon. Members who are not members of the Government Front Bench to have an effective voice and a more effective vote at a more effective time.
  The first amendment to be called, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), demonstrates no understanding of the difference between the whole House taking a businesslike approach to our business and reaching agreement, and the use of the damaging, blunt instrument that is a guillotine motion. That is why I advise all Members to reject the amendment.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and a number of my colleagues, but we are just about to undertake one experiment, and I wonder whether this is the right moment to begin another. I should prefer to return to that proposal when we know whether the first experiment has been successful.
  On deferred Divisions, it is extremely important that all parties should tell the Government, fair and square, that we hope that they will avoid tackling major issues after 10 o'clock. They should impose on themselves the self-discipline that the House is accepting for itself. I do not have a problem with the discussion of motions to appoint Members to Committees—not even a motion to appoint the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to the Commission. Hon. Members can discuss those matters all night, if they want.
  However, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by Conservative Front-Bench Members, and I would regard it as a problem if the Government, because of their tight legislative timetable, so arranged their business that they had to impose on Members after 10 o'clock. That would be breaking with the spirit of the proposals.
  The idea that stand-alone motions should be subjects for debate, and Divisions on them deferred to another time is nothing new—it happens all the time. However,

  243
  it would be wrong if matters of legislative importance continued to be debated after 10 o'clock and a Division was then deferred.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman may well be aware that in this Session more than 3,800 Government amendments have been tabled in the Lords. Will the incompetent legislative drafting revealed by such amendments be improved by these reforms?
  Mr. Tyler: Yes, I think that it will, as long as there is agreement in the House about the total time that is necessary to deal with amendments. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, the problem under successive Governments has been that we have not had sufficient time for all the issues that Members want to address.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No, I want to make progress because other Members want to speak.
  It is extremely important that we recognise that, in future, the slot after 10 o'clock should be for matters that are not of supreme legislative importance; otherwise, Members on both sides of the House will think that they have been sold a pup.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Tyler: No, I want to make progress.
  We already have deferred Divisions. Indeed, when there is a Committee of the whole House, it is perfectly possible that votes will take place even a day or two after that discussion.
  I love the idea, which has suddenly emerged this evening, that Members, Conservative Members in particular, listen to every word of a debate and make up their mind about how to vote according to the merits of the discussion. I do not know how many Conservative Members were here yesterday when my colleagues and I led two important debates, on pensions and on privatisation, but it was noticeable that some Conservative Members arrived in the Lobby not knowing whether to vote or, if they intended to vote, not knowing which way to vote, and had to be given careful guidance by the Whips.
  I accept that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not one of those Members. He always thinks for himself and votes according to his conscience and judgment.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Tyler: That point is absolutely without doubt, and I will not take any interventions on it. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst can speak for himself in a moment.
  In a perfect world, of course, all Members would attend every debate, listen and make up their own mind. I recall one member of the Modernisation Committee—I shall not
  244
  identify him—wondering, at an earlier stage in the Committee's proceedings, why we could not vote at the beginning of debates. He said that he always knew which way he would vote, so why should he bother listening to the arguments? I completely reject that attitude—
  Mr. David Taylor: Name names.
  Mr. Tyler: I will not, and the hon. Gentleman might be embarrassed if I did.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No, I have said that I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman may get a chance to speak if I speed up.
  It is a grand illusion that everybody somehow reaches their conclusion on how to vote on the precise dot of 10 o'clock, and that if they were asked to do so later, they might somehow be deflected by other judgments. That is nonsense. Amendment (d), tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, on which we shall also vote, is a wrecking amendment. All he wants is to make Wednesday a total nonsense.
  It is on evolution that we have been most successful—not with great radical changes but by moving, checking, going back, monitoring, experimenting, making progress. Some hon. Members do not think that we are moving fast enough—I probably share that view—but if we take the majority of our colleagues with us, we are more likely to make sustainable improvement than have to chop and change. That is true for the sittings in Westminster Hall and several other reforms in the Parliament.
  I accept precisely the view of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush that we can make progress across the House by experimenting and being prepared to consider matters again. Our great opportunity in the next few months is to do precisely that—I accept that the run-up to the election is a sensitive time—but with a clear end point. If the new Parliament feels that our trial and error has not gone far enough, as the hon. Member for Cambridge suggests, or too far, as others suggest, we can look again.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) is not in her place, but I very much welcome the fact that she appeared to be much more open minded on some of the issues about which hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned. I hope that we see that approach reflected on the Modernisation Committee.
  However, I very much regret that, on this issue, in this debate, and on the issue in the Modernisation Committee, the Conservatives broke with our previous practice to try to make progress together. On such issues, the House always achieves a great deal more by experimentation with a degree of co-operation and consensus. Nevertheless, we should be making progress tonight, and I hope that the House will vote to do so.
  8.12 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: The proposals are a big step forward in the modernisation of the House's procedures. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, as she makes her way out of the Chamber, on producing an innovative solution to some of the

  245
  problems to which we have drawn her attention. The proposals will make the House more effective and more efficient. Yes, we need proper time to scrutinise legislation—that leads to better Bills and better law—but that does not mean that we need open-ended time or rambling speeches in which the same points are made over and again. Let us try to make ourselves much more like a modern business, which would not waste its time as we do.
  After a good summer break and a fairly light parliamentary timetable so far, most Members of Parliament—at least those on the Government Benches—are beginning to feel like normal human beings. However, I remind hon. Members of earlier in the Session, when we had votes after midnight on a number of occasions. The problem was not so much the lateness of the hour but the uncertainty of how long we would be kept here and whether we would be required to vote. The proposals would remove such uncertainty and allow right hon. and hon. Members to get home at a reasonable time and have a proper night's sleep. I believe that that is important because there is much work for a Member of Parliament both inside and outside the House. We cannot work effectively if we are tired and exhausted.
  It has been argued that the proposals will reduce the powers of the Opposition. They will reduce the power of a handful of Tory Back Benchers to hold the House to ransom. A moment ago, in a sedentary exchange, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) admitted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) that some of the proceedings that he conducted were to irritate us; he has been open about that. Under the proposals, it will no longer be possible to table amendments, which, though in order, add little to the debate—their sole purpose being to keep Government Members in the House in case of a vote.
  Mr. Swayne: Was the hon. Lady present for any of the proceedings of the Scotland Bill, which was programmed as it went through the House? If she was, did she observe that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was constantly frustrated by the programme motion, which, in effect, silenced him on points that he legitimately wished to raise? Has it not occurred to her that the programming will be a stitch-up between the Front-Bench teams to the exclusion of Back Benchers' legitimate points of view?
  Mrs. Campbell: I should be very surprised if my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) were silenced by any procedure. He is well capable of making the comments that he wants to make, and making them very forcefully and effectively.
  The handful of Tory Back Benchers to whom I referred are the sort of Opposition Members who believe in bludgeoning their opponents with tiredness and exhaustion. That is not about opposition; it is not opposition as people outside the House perceive it. They want to hear the arguments and the debate. They do not want to hear Members of Parliament who are tired and out of touch because they are here until the small hours of the morning.
  The Opposition are being offered greater powers in exchange. The Modernisation Committee proposals suggest that an informal committee meets after the
  246
  Queen's Speech to decide the length of time to consider each Bill, and there will be a programming sub-committee to decide when and for how long contentious parts of Bills will be debated. That is right. It will give people outside the House a better chance to hear the arguments.
  Mr. Grieve: In the present Parliament, it has been possible for the Government and the Opposition to arrive at informal arrangements on programming legislation that was taking time, but does the hon. Lady agree that the usual effect of that—we witnessed it when considering the Scotland Bill in Committee—has been to leave reams of amendments and clauses unscrutinised? How will the proposed system be any better in practice? Will she explain that?
  Mrs. Campbell: Programming is obviously more effective than the way in which we proceeded previously. If the hon. Gentleman goes into the matter in more depth, he will find that the Tory Whips could not deliver what was agreed between the Government and the Tory Opposition.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
  Mrs. Campbell: No, I am not giving way again. I have given way twice and I know that many others want to speak.
  It is true that the House is held in less respect than in the past. Opposition Members should reflect on that fact and ask themselves why. It is because debate is considered increasingly irrelevant to people's lives. It is because politicians are not seen to be normal people with normal lives. We do not go home in the evening; we do not watch the same television programmes as other people; we lose touch with our families, our children, our grandchildren. We impose that stress on ourselves and on the large number of people who work in this place and serve us so well. If we are so different from other people, how can we properly represent them?
  I approve of almost everything in the proposals. No one outside this place would consider them radical. On the contrary, they would consider them just sensible moves by which we can discuss business at times when people are awake. However, I have concerns, and one in particular. That is why I have tabled a very modest amendment, which has been supported by many of my hon. Friends and found support on the Liberal Democrat Benches, too.
  The purpose of my amendment is to remove an anomaly in the Modernisation Committee proposals. It is proposed that debate on a programme motion takes place after Second Reading. That means that we could finish debate at 10 o'clock, take votes, debate the programme motion for three quarters of an hour and then take votes on that, keeping right hon. and hon. Members here until 11.30 pm or later. I do not find that acceptable. I propose a very modest amendment that would provide adequate time for debate on Second Reading and on a programme motion, and still we could get home at a reasonable time in order to live like reasonable people.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady explain how her amendment would leave the amount of time for the Second Reading intact?
  Mrs. Campbell: Of course, the amendment would reduce the amount of time for Second Reading from about

  247
  six hours to five and a half hours. If the hon. Gentleman sees that as a problem, I suggest that he tries to get Opposition Members to be a little more succinct and to express their arguments in a less rambling way than some of them sometimes do.
  I believe that we would have adequate time for Second Reading debates under my amendment, which I hope will be supported by a majority of the House.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I have difficulty with all the proposals, not least because the analysis that gave rise to them is terribly flawed. I start with the proposition that seems to underpin many of the proposals—that the House does not have enough time to deal with the matters with which it wants to deal through scrutiny and by holding the Government to account. That puzzles me.
  If one examines the pattern on which the House now works, it is clear that the House does not sit on most Fridays. Friday used to be a parliamentary working day. We are told that we are desperately short of time, yet the House of Commons chooses not to sit on most Fridays.
  There are occasions when the Government artificially prolong a debate—often a Second Reading debate—that could be concluded quite early, allowing us to move on to other business fairly readily, except for the convenience of hon. Members. As we have heard from several Members on the Government Benches, they get upset if they cannot be told exactly what will happen and when. They may be forced to stay in the House or even in the Chamber, because they do not know when the votes may occur. The truth is that we could get a lot more business done in the time if we did not work simply for the convenience of hon. Members, and if the Government Whips did not have to prolong the business artificially so that delicate Labour Members could know what was happening and could return to the House.
  Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he not think that it is for the convenience of our constituents, and extremely important to them, that we are available on a Friday to deal with matters in the constituency and to conduct surgeries? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman does not conduct surgeries. We all do, and we consider it extremely important to make ourselves available in a democratic way in order that people can raise issues of great importance with us.
  Mr. Forth: When I did waste my time and that of my constituents doing surgeries on Saturdays, that allowed me to be in the House on Fridays, which I was on all or most occasions when the House used to sit on Fridays.
  The hon. Lady's comments give lie to an important consideration which has underpinned much of the debate. For reasons that I think I can begin to understand, Members on the Government Benches see their work in the House as being of little or no relevance, but see their work in the constituency, as the hon. Lady puts it, as being of overriding importance. I dispute that.
  My view is that the principal and most important work of a Member of Parliament is here, at Westminster, in and around the House of Commons, primarily holding the Government to account, scrutinising legislation and
  248
  questioning the Executive. That is what I believe should be the most important part of the work of a Member of Parliament, so I entirely reject the hon. Lady's assumption that any excuse to be away from here somehow legitimises her work and that of her colleagues.
  We can see that theme running right through the proposals, which seem to be designed—particularly the deferred Divisions proposals—to make sure that hon. Members are not here for most of the time and appear only briefly and when it is convenient for them to do so. To my mind, any proposal that starts from the assumption that it is for the convenience of hon. Members misses the whole point of the House of Commons and the relationship between the Executive and the House. That, I believe, is one of the reasons why there is a difficulty in achieving consensus, about which we heard a moment ago.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my previous point, that the difference between the convenience of hon. Members and their social lives, and the convenience of those who have a genuine complaint about what the Government are doing—this affects Government Back Benchers more than other hon. Members—is that when important debates are held after 10 pm in future, the Whips will spend the next few days making certain that there are plenty of reasons why the hon. Members concerned should not and will not be around to make their vote count in due course? That is what will inevitably happen—it is how Governments work.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall return to that point, as it highlights the worrying aspects of some of the proposals.
  I challenge the assumption that has underpinned much of the debate so far—that the Government are entitled to get their business. I dispute that. Part of what I try to do as an individual Member of Parliament is to prevent the Government from getting their business at all, or getting it easily. A Government who can get all their business and more easily and without much challenge are in danger of overriding the safeguards that we always thought existed in this House and the other place.
  Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman may recall that after Second Reading, there could be a 45-minute debate on the money resolution. He may also remember that the late Bob Cryer almost monopolised those debates. That was abolished in the previous Parliament. There was a vote on 2 November 1995, and I see that among those who voted to abolish the Back Bencher's right was the right hon. Gentleman. He may argue that he had no alternative because he was a Minister, but many Ministers did not vote on that occasion.
  Mr. Forth: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I had to make a decision whether to stay as a member of the Government whom I had the honour to serve or whether to resign in order to express my view on such matters. I made the decision that I should continue to be part of the Government, and I voted accordingly. I had many discussions with colleagues about it and I was never happy with the proposals, but that was the decision that I made. Looking back, I might rather regret it, but I am where I am now, and I feel absolutely free to make the points that I am making as a Member of the House and of the Opposition.

  249
  I want to retain as much of a right as I can, as an individual Member of Parliament, to harry the Government, to irritate them, to make their life difficult, to delay them and thereby to try to prevent the damage that they inflict through excessive and bad legislation.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Is not the point exactly the reverse of what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) argues? I remember that when the late Bob Cryer was in his place, the Government of the day used to get deeply exasperated with him, but he was effective because he forced them to come back time and again. Yes, it was wrong to do that, but does that mean that closing down more Back Benchers' rights is the route to take?
  Mr. Forth: That is the problem. Those of us who have had the privilege of being in the House for some time must inevitably draw on the experience that we have had, both in government and in opposition. Part of the difficulty is that very many of the hon. Members who are excited about the proposals and support them have experienced only what it is like to be in government. Alternatively, they spend so little time in the House of Commons that they have lost interest in its proceedings. Many of the hon. Members who are behind the proposals fit one or other category.
  Mr. Stunell rose—
  Mr. Forth: I exonerate the hon. Gentleman from the second categorisation.
  Mr. Stunell: It is always good to hear a sinner brought to repentance, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to have been. Some of us think that there might be other areas where repentance was overdue.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of us came to the House because we thought that the entire process of government in this country needed to be changed and improved? We are not discussing a trade union measure to improve our terms and conditions of service. We are trying to make this place effective, and the right hon. Gentleman might sometimes direct his efforts towards achieving that, instead of wrecking our business.
  Mr. Forth: I will be the sole judge of what I think is effective and of what I should do. I will stick by my judgment, and I will not be lectured or hectored by the hon. Gentleman or anyone else.
  Mr. Roger Casale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Forth: Knowing the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that I will not be lectured or hectored. I am sure that he will give me advice.
  Mr. Casale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Earlier in his speech, he said that he judged it to be a waste of his time to meet his constituents in his constituency surgery. Does the same apply to answering their correspondence?
  Mr. Forth: I think that I can say fairly that if one of my constituents writes to me, he or she will receive an
  250
  answer the same day. I have always rather prided myself that that works. Perhaps it is something to which we should all aspire.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as seems clear from the rather ambiguous speeches of the hon. Members for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), if the timetable for a Bill is determined in advance, and if the issue of whether to alter that timetable is entirely a matter for ministerial discretion, there is no inbuilt incentive for the Government to minimise the number of amendments that they table to facilitate the interests of the House?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has typically put his finger on one of the flaws of the argument that has been advanced so far, which is the extent to which the Government will now control the time that the House will give to each Bill. The Leader of the House said honestly and openly to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, that although discussions might take place, if the Opposition did not want to take part that would not matter very much because the Government would say to the House, "This is the time that we, the Government, believe that the House will spend on our legislative programme."
  What my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has said must follow. Why should the Government take any trouble to ensure that their legislation is any better than it has hitherto been? That really does not matter because the length of debate will be determined and Back-Bench Members will be squeezed out. Goodness knows what will happen to the inevitable flood of amendments that we have seen from the Government over three years, which they have had to introduce to almost every Bill to make it not very good but—
  Mr. Bercow: Less awful.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed.
  These measures appear to fail on every count. They appear to reduce—
  Mr. David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman seems to justify the classic style that he uses of delay, harry, irritate and obfuscate on the basis that, somehow, that will bring about a welcome change in the direction of the Government of the day, or an amendment. Given his lengthy experience in the House and the various constituencies that he has represented, will he give us examples of that approach being successful in the objectives that he claims for it?
  Mr. Forth: Yes. I think that we are seeing an example of that now. The tiny role that I have played so far this Session in delaying some of the Government's progress in this place is being reflected, at least in part, in another place. I would take enormous pride if some elements of the Government's programme were not to survive to the end of the Session. I would claim that I might have played a tiny part in that process in some of the things that I have been able to do over the past few months, when many Members here present were not in the House and were not participating in its business.
  I do not want to make excessive claims. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make a small claim. If more Opposition and Labour Members were to

  251
  attempt to delay, irritate and obfuscate occasionally, they might find the results rather pleasing and, in a way, unexpected.
  Joan Ruddock: Is it not true that the right hon. Gentleman gained his reputation, or perhaps his notoriety, by defeating about half a dozen popular private Members' Bills, which had wide support in the House and in the country?
  Mr. Forth: I hope that I have contributed to defeating many rather disgusting private Members' Bills. Many of them were driven by equally disgusting interest groups outside the House. I would stand by that on any occasion.
  I am not here to aid the process of legislation, which I regard as being almost inevitably inimical to the public interest. I wish to try to obstruct as much legislation as possible. Examples of good legislation are so few and far between and examples of bad legislation so legion that I consider it almost self-evident that it is the duty of a Member to try to prevent legislation rather than to encourage it.
  Mr. David Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give examples of the good legislation?
  Mr. Forth: I would find that so difficult that I would not want to waste either my time or that of anyone else.
  The act of programming will be inimical to quality of legislation and to the role of Back-Bench Members. It will alter adversely the balance between the Executive and the legislature.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want to deal with programming and the role of Back-Bench Members. Both sides of the House—the Leader of the House and even my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—have talked about the agreement that can be reached through the usual channels on programming. Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate with me on the opportunity that genuine Back-Bench Members will have to influence the programming of legislation?
  Mr. Forth: The mere mention of agreement between the Front Benches causes me great fear and trepidation. I hope that there will be few such agreements. If those agreements were to be made, I suspect that that would diminish yet further the role of Back-Bench Members, who after all are in the majority. There are far more Back-Benchers in the House than there are Members on the Government payroll or Front-Bench Members. It strikes me that anything that is arrived at by cosy consensus through the usual channels will be undesirable for Back Benchers.
  It seems from much of what has been said that deferred Divisions are so patently absurd that they are barely worth discussing. It is worrying, however, that Members seem to be serious in their desire to have Divisions deferred. Some may accuse me occasionally of being slightly cynical about these matters, but it strikes me that the proposals contain at least the possibility that, were the Government to wish artificially to prolong debates so that votes could not take place before 10 o'clock, we could
  252
  quite easily find that Members would no longer be required to be in the House on a Monday or a Tuesday. Members could drift into the House, take part in some rather peculiar voting process and then leave.
  In other words, we would be reducing the House, perhaps so that Labour Members could spend more time in their constituencies—I know not what. Members could turn up once a week and vote, probably on the basis of a list given to them by the Whips. They would not have been present for the debates and they would be unaware of the content of the issues. After voting, they could leave.
  In the meantime, if there were doubts about the way in which Members would vote, they would be under pressure from the Whips or others, who would tell them how to vote as the voting day approached. I fear greatly for what the results of that might be. Perhaps the Government are not as clever, cynical or subtle as I have suggested and would not organise such a system. Perhaps unwittingly I have given them a tip. If we begin to consider the implications of the formal and systematic detaching of Divisions from debates, we shall take the House into difficult territory.
  I believe that all the proposals are bad and that they should be opposed. I hope that the House does not approve them. However, having looked at the disposal of votes in the previous two Divisions, I fear that this is very much a Government versus the rest of the House matter. That is the most worrying feature of all. We see the massed ranks of Government Members coming into the House to vote these measures through, when the only beneficiary can be the Government. That is surely the final condemnation of the proposals.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words in this important debate and to take up some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I shall take a different line from his.
  I am mindful of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that many Labour Members have not experienced opposition. I spent 14 years in opposition, and since then three and a half years as a Government Member. As for the right hon. Gentleman's other stricture, I would say that I am a fairly diligent Member. My attendance is fairly good and my voting record is as good as most Labour or Opposition Members'.
  I support the Government's proposals because they are important steps forward in modernising the House and ensuring better scrutiny of legislation. We are not emphasising enough that the issues are not only about hours or a family-friendly working situation, although those are important factors. We are seeking to ensure that the House does its job better than it has done so far. The proposals before us could help to ensure that outcome.
  The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) wants to debate other modernisation issues, as do I. He knows that I want us to consider the tabling of written questions during recesses, and there should be a five-year rolling programme under which legislation could be introduced at a steady pace throughout each year. Instead of a Queen's Speech every November or December, as is the case this year, there should be a time limit—perhaps of a year—within which legislation should complete its passage. There is a lot that we could do.

  253
  Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I would like every Friday sitting to be scrapped. There is uncertainty over when constituency Fridays will fall, which does not help Members who live away from London to plan their diaries and make arrangements. I am already booking Fridays to February next year—not for advice bureaux, which I hold every Saturday, but because people want me to fulfil constituency commitments such as meeting councillors, visiting companies and considering the problems of local schools.
  Provincial Members would be helped if they could get out of Friday sittings altogether. At present, they are torn between being at the House for a vote on an important issue and fulfilling a constituency commitment. Private Members' legislation would be given a better crack of the whip if we dealt with it on Wednesday mornings and if facilities in the Chamber released by the Westminster Hall experiment were made available.
  I am a strong supporter of the programming proposal, and regret what happened during the Modernisation Committee debate on it. We bent over backwards to reach a consensus, considered different drafts week after week and tried to reach agreement with Conservative Members and with the Liberals, who were more accommodating. We tried to meet Opposition Members' concerns and make a deal on what we proposed. It was not intended that the Modernisation Committee report should be favourable only to the Government. We wanted it to be favourable to the Opposition to ensure that the House scrutinised legislation better and that a fairer deal was provided. I worked hard to that end. I accept that the Opposition of today could be the Government of tomorrow. I said that in Romania to President Iliescu, who denounced me for it, but a few years later he was in opposition. I accept that changes are inevitable, although I hope that my hon. Friends and I will sit on this side of the House for a long time to come.
  Programming would help the Government to plan their legislative timetable, but it would also ensure better scrutiny. Like me, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was a member of the Committee that considered the Transport Act 1985, and he used to groan when I, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) or one or two others rose to speak. During one sitting, even though I had only five words noted on my slip of paper, I was told that I had to speak for four hours. I managed four hours and 10 minutes. That night, we told the Government that we could progress to clause 7, however long that might take. We got to clause 7 at 2 o'clock the following afternoon and abandoned the sitting. That was nonsensical.
  As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is now, I too have been a time waster. Members can make sensible contributions briefly and the programming proposal is about having meaningful debates. That night in Committee, I could have made my speech in 10 minutes, but we knew how much progress we would allow the Government to make. As he will remember, the 1985 Act contained a pensions clause relating to the National Bus Company, but we never managed to debate that burning issue because proceedings were guillotined. Once that had happened, the debate was under the Government's control and, even though Conservative
  254
  Members had remained silent for weeks, they suddenly began to make speeches to prevent Labour Members from contributing on what we considered to be important provisions.
  The proposals represent a major step forward, and it was a tragedy that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), for whom I have great respect, produced a minority report out of the blue on the last day of proceedings in the Modemisation Committee. He made a contrary proposal, which we had to debate despite having worked for weeks to reach agreement, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and Labour members of the Committee leaned over backwards to try to reach a consensus. The timetabling proposal is sensible and will achieve much better debates.
  There should also be time limits on speeches made in Committee, because it is nonsensical that Members can make long, boring and repetitive contributions that stray from the point. They return to order only when told to do so by the Chair.
  Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend agree that a Member who cannot make a cogent case in 10 or fewer minutes should not be in Parliament?
  Mr. Pike: That is not necessarily always the case. However, on most issues most of us can make our case very clearly in 10 minutes. The timetabling proposal represents a sensible way forward and we should support it.
  The voting proposal also represents a sensible move. Let us be absolutely realistic: it is nonsensical that six Opposition Members can force 250 or 350 Government Members to remain in the House. I accept that Labour Members have used such tactics, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst knows that I was involved with them a few years ago, but that does not make that right nor does it mean that we do not want to make progress in the 21st century. Does anyone believe that a vote involving six Opposition and 350 Government Members is not an insult to democracy?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
  Mr. Pike: I shall not give way because I want to limit my speech to 10 minutes.
  Electronic voting would improve the situation and I would welcome it. Furthermore, separating a debate from a vote is established practice. For example, that happens during the Queen's Speech debate, in Committee when groups of amendments are dealt with, and after the Budget, when a mass of votes takes place after a debate lasting several days. Let us not pretend that the majority of Members attend the Chamber to follow a debate—they might be at Standing or Select Committee sittings or dealing with their mail—and those who believe that the Whips will be able to apply more pressure are kidding themselves. Such a fear is irrelevant and unfounded, and Members who are not scrutinised as they walk across the Chamber to the Division Lobby and can vote on the Wednesday of the week following a debate will be better able to rebel and take their own line. The proposals are sensible and should be accepted. Let us move forward.
  8.47 pm
  Sir George Young: I very much enjoyed my two years on the Modernisation Committee. Our discussions were largely constructive and good humoured, and we were agreeably chaired by the Leader of the House. To say that I led for the Opposition would be to overstate the case, as my hon. Friends on the Committee were impossible to lead, but I am grateful to them for their support in my minority report.
  I say to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that the Conservatives on that Committee during the past three and a half years accepted quite a lot in the interests of unanimity and making progress, and we accepted recommendations that did not always find favour with our right hon. and hon. Friends. I regret that on this occasion, for the first time in the Committee's life, we were not able to produce an agreed report.
  The report is wrong for three reasons. First, set in the context of the broader debate about the powers of the House versus the powers of the Executive, the report takes a decisive step in the wrong direction by giving more powers to the Executive. Secondly, in seeking to tackle late-night sittings—no one will be happier than I to see them go—the report ignores the real problem behind the congestion in the legislative programme. Thirdly, the proposal to defer votes is more likely to enhance cynicism than confidence in the political process.
  Two debates are taking place this afternoon—one about modernisation and one about strengthening. I regard them as two circles which overlap in part. Where they overlap, all-party agreement can be obtained on measures which modernise and strengthen. Some of the recommendations already implemented fall into that shaded area—voluntary programming of Bills rather than guillotines, shorter speeches so that more hon. Members are called, and the carry-over of Bills from one Session to the next by agreement. All that was done by agreement, as has been the tradition when changing the rules.
  Then there is a slightly separate agenda for strengthening, which is outside the modernisation circle. The report of the Liaison Committee, "Tilting the Balance", much of the Norton commission report which we debated before the recess, the work of the Hansard Society on accountability to be published next spring—those are all essentially about strengthening, rather than modernising.
  Then there is the modernisation agenda, which is not primarily about strengthening, but simply bringing us up to date, much of which I agree with—the ability to buy fax paper and batteries as well as whisky and cigarettes in the Palace of Westminster, and finding a computer on my desk as well as a telephone. That is all part of the modernisation debate.
  What we have today however is a proposal that, in the name of modernisation, actually weakens Parliament. The Opposition do not have many weapons, and the report invites us to put some of them beyond use, while the Government sit on their substantial arsenal.
  The first proposal contains no recognition that the Government have a role to play in enabling more user-friendly hours by drafting their legislation better and by exercising some self-restraint in the legislative programme. Despite all the evidence in pages 31 to 36, the verdict is that the Opposition are guilty, not the Government. The report then extends to all Bills a
  256
  procedure that has not been properly tested and which has a number of defects. For example, if the Opposition parties agree a programme motion in good faith with the Government to focus debate on certain key issues, it is possible for Members to frustrate that intention by making longer contributions than they would if the Bill was not guillotined, or to focus on earlier groups of amendments so that later ones are not reached. As the report makes clear, that has already happened in the Northern Ireland legislation.
  The proposed consultation in the report takes place only after, not before, the Queen's Speech is published. By that time, we may already have another over-programmed Session. The meaningful dialogue that the Government want may simply be impossible because the Opposition cannot validate an unacceptable timetable dictated by an over-ambitious legislative programme.
  At the moment, we spend quite a lot of time after 10 o'clock dealing with Report and Third Reading. Where will the time come from if all discussion stops at 10? There are no answers in the report to that. The notion that once we pass these resolutions the Government will produce a series of perfectly drafted Bills is simply for the birds.
  What made it impossible for me and my colleagues to go along with this section of the report was simply that the Government brought nothing to the negotiating table, as I made clear during our lengthy discussions. There is to be no discipline on the Government, just on the rest of us. For that reason, the section is unbalanced, inequitable and indefensible.
  On the second proposal, I simply say that it takes the spontaneity out of the Chamber and will be widely seen as a cynical move, divorcing decision from discussion and promoting an even more mechanistic approach to decision making. On a practical note, I am happy to say that it will be a nightmare for the Government Whips to monitor. They will have to hang around the Lobbies like tipsters at a point-to-point, offering Members a marked card so that they can correctly place their bets.
  In retrospect, it may have been inevitable that something like this should come out of the Modernisation Committee as currently configured. The Chairman of the Modernisation Committee is the Leader of the House, whose task as a member of the Cabinet is to deliver the Queen's Speech—she is its midwife. She winds up the debate on the Loyal Address and, every Thursday, she announces the business, which is inevitably dominated by the political imperative of getting the Bills through.
  Is it right to entrust to a Committee under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House the responsibility for changing our rules? Has not the House traditionally done that? Does not the concept of a Select Committee chaired by a Cabinet Minister sit uneasily with the rationale of establishing Select Committees: to strengthen the House's ability to hold the Government to account?
  The proposals are flawed and unbalanced and they derive from a flawed process. In the next Parliament, whoever wins, the House must change that process so that it can engage the Government on more equal terms.
  8.55 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: I rise to support the proposals that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House presented and the amendment

  257
  that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) tabled. I agree with the points that my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) made. I shall argue the case for those changes—and more—not only to make the House of Commons more effective but to make Parliament more family friendly.
  Parliament has always changed its hours; they are not set in tablets of stone. It is time to change again. When I became a Member of Parliament in 1982, there were 635 Members. I was one of only 22 women; one of the 3 per cent. of women in Parliament at that time. Some hon. Members have argued that, long ago, there was a golden age when the House was much better. However, I contend that the House was much worse 20 years ago. My argument is not based on convenience, although that is an issue. It is a democratic argument.
  When I became a Member of Parliament, the House was unrepresentative of women in this country. Ninety-seven per cent. of Members were men. That meant row after row of grey suits, and men talking to and sometimes shouting at other men. Women outside the House felt that Parliament had nothing to do with their lives, and they were right. I am proud that there are now more than 100 women Members, and that questions are asked about issues such as child care and balancing work and home. Such questions would have been impossible 20 years ago, but they are now mainstream. In scrutinising legislation, women raise points that were never made in a House that was almost all male.
  Most women who become Members of Parliament have family responsibilities. They are mothers of young children and they are daughters of elderly parents. Being women, they often shoulder the lion's share of their family responsibilities. The fact that it is difficult for them to debate round the clock does not make them bad representatives. Far from it. It makes them essential to represent and demand change for all the women in this country whose lives are also a juggling act.
  I am unimpressed by the argument, "You knew what the rules of the House were when you came here." My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) said that we are trying to change the terms and conditions on which we entered the House. To that, I say "Good." Many of us entered Parliament not to keep things as they are but to change them, to respect our traditions and our heritage but not to let them ossify.
  Some who argue against change say that we should choose between Parliament and a family. That argument is objectionable. What sort of people would be Members of Parliament if a condition of entry was either not having a family or having one but not caring about it? What credibility would Parliament have on family issues if hon. Members dumped their concerns for their families at the door of the House? People do not want their representatives to be martyrs; as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, they want them to be human, like them.
  There is no shame in arguing that Parliament should be family friendly. If we have mothers in the mother of Parliaments, Parliament must change to take that into account.
  258
  Some argue that we are simply trying to make life easy for ourselves and that we want to cut the hours. I do not want to cut the hours. I want to move them much further forward. We should start earlier as well as finish earlier—we should start at nine and finish at five—but I agree that London can be an expensive and sometimes a lonely place for people who are away from their home and families when they are in their constituencies. It is right that some of the facilities, such as the Library, meeting rooms and refreshment areas, could be kept open in the evening.
  Some Members have argued that late hours equal effective opposition and that time is an effective weapon in the hands of an Opposition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, I have many years of experience in opposition. Most of my parliamentary life has been in opposition, as is the case with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who introduced the proposals, I have found myself doing my fair share of going through the night. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush: time is not an effective weapon. It is a macho game; it changes nothing.
  Mr. Casale: We have discussed the matter on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend will know that I once thought that late-night sittings were a way to grind down the Executive. I now realise that I was wrong. They grind us down as legislators and prevent us from effectively discharging our parliamentary and constituency duties, especially if we have family responsibilities. Most important, they grind down the esteem of this place in the minds and eyes of the people who sent us here in the first place.
  Ms Harman: I agree with all my hon. Friend's points, but the final point he makes is absolutely right. I give an example. When I was in the shadow health team and the current Foreign Secretary was shadow Secretary of State for Health—I was his deputy—we took the House through the night, opposing the opting out of NHS hospitals into NHS trusts. It was entirely pointless. Not one single hospital remained non-opted out as a result. However, when I was shadow Chief Secretary, the Opposition won the vote to stop value added tax on gas and electricity going from 8 to 17.5 per cent. We did that not by staying up all night, but by comprehensively winning the argument in the House and in the country. It is that on which successful opposition depends.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Perhaps I can give the hon. Lady a more up-to-date example. When she was Secretary of State for Social Security and there was a huge row on the Labour Benches about cuts to lone parent benefit, by deferring the vote for three or four days, would the rebellion have been greater or smaller?
  Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that timing of votes or delay make a difference to the outcome and that that, of itself, is a weapon. I do not believe that anything that has happened since we have been in government has been changed by the tactics of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) or anyone else.
  Some people have argued that we want to weaken the Opposition. That is absolutely not my case. It is important that we have strong, effective and credible opposition.

  259
  We all know that over-powerful Governments make mistakes—we need look only at rail privatisation and the poll tax. We need to find ways of making parliamentary scrutiny of legislation more effective.
  That is one of the reasons why, when I was Secretary of State for Social Security and we embarked on the complex issue of pension sharing on divorce, we experimented by establishing pre-legislative scrutiny under the leadership of the Select Committee on Social Security—an all-party Committee, chaired by a member of the Opposition party. There are things that we can do to improve scrutiny. Staying up all night and using time as a weapon is not one of them.
  Some have said that those of us who argue for family-friendly hours do not recognise that the situation is different for Members whose constituencies are outside London. I have always argued that we should start no earlier than we do now on Mondays, so that Members outside London have time to travel to Westminster. I have also always argued that we should start earlier and finish earlier on Thursdays, so that Members have a chance not only to do the work described by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley on Fridays, but to attend evening engagements in their constituencies on Thursdays. It is not acceptable for Members to have to be here all week, and then spend all their weekend on constituency business. That makes them exiles from their families. Again, I have always argued that it is wrong for the House to rise at the end of July and not return until mid-October, thereby ensuring that Scottish Members are in London when their children are on holiday and in Scotland when their children are back at school.
  Much of what has been said today reflects a desire to return to some bygone golden era of an effective Parliament. Of course we should strive to enhance the authority, legitimacy and credibility of Parliament—otherwise Governments will always give in to the temptation to go over Parliament's head—but we shall not achieve that by moaning about others.
  The Opposition are, I think, going through a transitional period. If there is a problem, it is not the fault of the "Today" programme, or even the fault of Ministers. Looking around for others to blame for a perceived loss of our own power is just a way of avoiding the challenge to us to change ourselves—and we have the power to make that change. It is for us to build a new credibility and authority for Parliament, enabling it to scrutinise legislation effectively and hold the Government to account. I believe we can best do that by moving forward—not looking back or clinging to the past, but creating a modern, efficient, daytime Chamber, and abandoning the old night-time ways of the gentlemen's club.
  9.7 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I will be brief, because I know that others wish to speak.
  These measures have been sold to us today on the grounds that they are new, that they are modern, and that they are all about modernising and reforming Parliament. I think that they are nothing of the kind. These measures are not being introduced for the convenience of Parliament, they will not make Parliament more accountable, and they are certainly not for the convenience of the Opposition.
  260
  The fact of the matter is that these measures will act for the convenience of the Government and Ministers, so that they can get their legislation through. They will act for the convenience of Ministers who will not have to spend as much time "tied up"—as their private offices would put it—in the House of Commons. I suspect that, above all, they are being introduced—as the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has just demonstrated—for the convenience of Government Members who, having spent every available hour trying to get elected to Westminster, evidently do not like the hours that operate at Westminster during the months when Parliament is actually sitting. The right hon. Lady did not quite make that point.
  A number of conversions seem to have taken place. The most dramatic confession was the one that we heard a few moments ago, but let me remind the House that it was all very different when Labour was in opposition. The first Bill that I introduced—I was Minister of Transport at the time—was the one that became the Transport Act 1980. It was a manifesto measure, which denationalised the National Freight Corporation and reformed and abolished many traffic commissioner rules. Although it was, as I say, a manifesto measure, the then Opposition kept us in Committee for 110 hours, and there were 123 Divisions. At no stage did we introduce a guillotine.
  The extraordinary backwoodsmen of the Opposition who took us through the night were Albert Booth, who was the chief spokesman, and his chief lieutenants, the present Deputy Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the former Health Secretary and an unsuccessful candidate for the post of London Mayor. They opposed the measure, wanted to subject it to line-by-line scrutiny and knew that by taking us on night and day they might find a chink in it. I do not object to that, as that is the purpose of opposition. If the then Opposition did not find the chink or defect, they could delay the Government's legislative programme, which is entirely legitimate.
  The House must recognise that it is legitimate for the Opposition to do that. Ministers now talk about smoothing the progress of legislation, but we are not civil servants, and that is not our function. We are certainly not trying to run a business, although the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) tried to suggest that we were. We are Members of Parliament, and one of the jobs of Opposition Members is to oppose—which appears to come as a shock to certain Government Members, who seem to believe that a big majority gives them absolute power. That position was well understood by the Government when they were in opposition, in which role some of them were very good, including the late Bob Cryer, who was an excellent exponent of that art.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is right to say that delaying the Government's legislative programme is a legitimate weapon of opposition. It is not the only weapon, but it is an important one. The Leader of the House says that Members of Parliament should decide what they want to focus on in debates in the House of Commons. However, the argument goes the other way, and Governments need

  261
  to focus on deciding which legislation they will introduce, which legislation they can get through the House and which legislation they can pass through Parliament.
  Mr. Soley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not, as I have very little time.
  Above all, the Government should not try to overload the system. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and anyone who has had any experience of government will know that at one end of Westminster are civil servants who have draft Bills in the bottom drawers of their desks and are waiting for a gullible Minister to come along and introduce those Bills. We all know that that happens, whether the Government are Labour or Conservative. At the other end of Westminster are politicians who are trying to introduce legislation that will be highly controversial with the public, but perhaps not so controversial with their party, or a faction of it.
  It is a thoroughly good thing that the Opposition make the controllers of the legislative machine pause and introduce Bills that are necessary and a matter of priority. I therefore defend the Opposition's role in delaying legislation. We should be concerned, not about Parliament's hours or voting procedures, but about its status and position. I do not accept the Government's arguments on that, because above all, we should be concerned that Parliament is being marginalised by the Executive, and the Government are riding roughshod over the legitimate fears of the House. When I was shadow Home Secretary, I took part in debate after debate on the closed list voting system for the European elections. There was hardly a friend of the closed list on either side of the House, and hardly anyone, apart from the Home Secretary, spoke in favour of it. However, the legislation went through with massive majorities.
  We should be concerned about such matters, and should be fundamentally anxious that so much political debate now takes place not in Parliament, but in the studios of John Humphrys and the brothers Dimbleby. If we had any sense, we would be debating such issues.
  Although I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush—he made a good re-election speech, and I wish him well in his task—the voting method that we are introducing is best characterised as a comic opera, and it is being introduced simply to prevent—perish the thought—Members of Parliament from staying up past 10 o'clock at night.
  We are also going to separate the debate from the Division. I think that that would be wrong. It is absurd to attempt to draw an analogy between that and the ballot for private Members' Bills.
  Worse, we are going to introduce a system that fails even by its own standards. The system will produce not better, but worse legislation. It will also not reduce, but increase the volume of badly drafted legislation, for it will make it easier for the Government to pass their legislative programme by reducing scrutiny and making the Opposition's job more difficult. The only ones who will really rejoice are the Ministers who have to pass the legislation and the civil servants who have to prepare it.
  262
  As drafted and presented to the House, the proposals represent one more victory for the Executive over Parliament. The first speech that I made in the 1997 Parliament, before going into the shadow Cabinet, was on a guillotine motion. I said then that the Government were giving the impression by their actions that they were thinking:
  We are the masters now.—[Official Report, 3 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 203.]
  In the past three years, that impression has hardened and hardened. They are a Government who not only hate being held to account, but clearly resent the whole process. "Who are these MPs?" they seem to ask. "We have our majority. We will rule. Take it or leave it." The Leader of the House came very close to saying that in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
  Ministers seem to believe that arrogant government is strong government. It is not. If there is one silver lining to this debate, it is that that quality of arrogance will finally bring down this Government.
  9.17 pm
  Joan Ruddock: I am somewhat disappointed that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) should have made such a speech, as I remember him saying at one time that he sought to spend more time with his family.
  I support the proposals, and I certainly support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). I can also tell the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) that the Leader of the House certainly speaks for me. This is not a matter of the Government imposing something on their own Back Benchers or on anyone else, but a case of a Leader of this place listening to Back Benchers. That is what we have in modernisation, and that is what I have campaigned for in the 13 years for which I have been a Member. Although I wholeheartedly support the proposals, they are really very modest indeed.
  Much has been made today of the issue of scrutiny. However, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out very clearly, based both on our own general observations and on our observations of Conservative Members, spending time debating is in no way equivalent to being effective in scrutiny. Many people try to speak in debates—this debate will be no different from all other debates in that respect—but, because of the length of some of the speeches, are unable to do so. That diminishes scrutiny. The arrogance of a few Opposition Members, from whom we have heard today, holds the House hostage and prevents the most effective deliberation. The whole House has to deal with their arrogance. The issue is not one of scrutiny.
  Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Lady realise that there are many Opposition Members who, when they were Ministers, thought that time was a very useful weapon for the Opposition and that, at times, it was very well used? The reason why it works is that if one delays the Government and makes them think again and argue their case, they cannot rush through so much bodged legislation. It is important that the then Opposition did it to us, and it is equally important that we should do it to them.
  Joan Ruddock: The right hon. Gentleman is clearly wasting his time, and has not been listening to the debate.

  263
  The examples given by Labour Members about the Government in which he served—such as rail privatisation and the poll tax—demonstrate that his point about the Opposition needing time is complete nonsense. Nothing is changed by using what he and others have described as their most potent weapon. The real scrutiny that should—and does, by and large—take place in the House happens in Standing Committees, during Question Time, when there are statements in the House, and, indeed, in Select Committees. We should look at how we can enhance the role of those procedures and the opportunities that they present. How many times have I attended Question Time and been unable to get in? How many times have I listened to a statement and been unable to get in? Those are the real frustrations of Back Benchers. We want the opportunity to express our views. We certainly do not want to sit here into the early hours of the morning listening to long speeches, primarily by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Joan Ruddock: No. This is a Back Benchers' debate. Proper scrutiny depends not on the length of speeches, but on their intellectual rigour. That intellectual rigour is often lacking, because of very wordy contributions and time-wasting tactics that are frequently employed by the Opposition.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who spoke immediately before my maiden speech just over a year ago, which I well remember. One reason that my constituency sent me here is that they wished me to be their man at Westminster, not Westminster's man in Eddisbury. According to my constituents, the value of debate is that it draws on the expertise of many who may not have a formal role in discussing the legislation concerned. That might take longer, so the debate continues into the night. My constituents also expect our debates to be illuminating and educative as well as combative. I hope that the hon. Lady takes that into account.
  Joan Ruddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I wonder just how edifying his constituents found the debates that have taken place after midnight. I wonder how many of them actually read those debates or listen to them. Indeed, I wonder whether they have heard his speeches in the early hours of the morning. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman takes a poll of his constituents and finds out how many of them follow our deliberations in the House. Perhaps he should consult them before forming a view. I have consulted my constituents, and I know that they do not follow the procedures of the House. They do not identify with the people here and the nonsense that they feel is talked.
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said that the principles of democracy would be buried tonight.
  Mr. Ian Pearson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I am sure that a lot of people out there could not give a monkey's about what we do late at night. I have a great deal of sympathy for family friendly policies, but I do not want to jeopardise the traditions of parliamentary scrutiny. I should like changes that will improve scrutiny, and be more family friendly.
  264
  My hon. Friend has to decide what comes first if there is a conflict. Does she believe that any of tonight's proposals are conflicting? Some of us do.
  Joan Ruddock: Let me answer that question directly. I do not have the slightest doubt that programming legislation must come first. If we programme legislation, we can make many of the changes that he and I seek, but without programming we cannot make sense of our procedures. People cannot follow our procedures because they are so cumbersome and impossible to understand. Indeed, few people will have understood tonight's debate.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Joan Ruddock: No. I must make progress as others are waiting to speak.
  What is the principle of democracy that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks suggested would be buried tonight? I suggest that the only principle at stake here is the principle that one, two or three people can hold the House to ransom. That is the reality of what happens here.
  Since April, there have been 78 sittings days. On a quarter of those days, the House sat after midnight. During July, our finishing times included 12.10 am, 1.27 am, 3.4 am, 1.44 am, 3.26 am, and 3.50 am. What do people outside the House think about those who sit up until those hours talking and talking to themselves when no one is listening? That is not scrutiny. It is simple arrogance on the part of those who can hold us here. Hansard records that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) rose to his feet more than 400 times during that period. There is an unsurprising correlation between his getting to his feet and the hour until which the House was detained.
  Many of us want to go much further than the proposals before us tonight. Our experience is that the House does not carry out the most effective possible scrutiny at present. Our constituents do not enjoy following the House because they cannot understand what is going on. Having more time means more time for time wasting. There is much scope for improvement, and our experience is that there is no satisfactory way in which to contribute.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) complained about long holidays. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked why we did not vote in the mornings. Many of us would support a different parliamentary year. Many of us would support returning much sooner. Many of us would support a different daily schedule, with an earlier start. Most of us would support the strictest time limits on speeches, from Front and Back Benches alike.
  We do not want fewer hours. All of us are hard workers who came here prepared to do our best for our constituents. We want more efficiency and more effectiveness. Programming legislation will offer that. We shall know much more clearly what we are doing and when. It will provide greater focus, enabling us to move modernisation forward.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Strict time limits on speeches?
  Joan Ruddock: I have been interrupted many times and have taken 10 minutes. I propose to stop now.

  265
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield talked of the status of Parliament. We can improve that status if we accept the motions and proceed further with modernisation to bring Parliament into the 21st century.
  9.28 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I agree with some of the final words spoken by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who quoted the excellent speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on the status of Parliament. I have become profoundly sad as I have listened to speeches from those on the Labour Benches. Labour Members are the dupes of the Executive. They have been conned into believing that what is being proposed will enhance their status and the effectiveness of the House of Commons, but it will have quite the opposite effect.
  I am not one of those who enjoys late nights. I do not believe that our hours are immutable. We have changed the hours of Parliament many times over the centuries. I am not in favour of long speeches about very little, but I profoundly believe that this place has a prime duty to hold the Executive to account, no matter from which party that Executive come.
  I was once described as a thorn in the side of the Thatcher Administration.
  Mr. Redwood: You were, indeed.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend confirms that I was indeed. In being so, I believed that I was fulfilling my prime role as a Back Bencher. On occasions, I could not have done so without resorting to the weapon of time.
  When the measure to abolish the Greater London council was being put through by the Thatcher Government, I opposed it because I did not believe that London should be deprived of a strategic authority. I said that we would be landed with something worse in due course and, by Jove, I have been proved right. At that time, I said that we should not take powers to ourselves that we would not wish others to have. Labour Members should ponder on that. They are taking powers to themselves through these measures that they will find extremely uncomfortable when they sit on the Opposition Benches—if a Conservative Government were misguided enough to renew this sort of Sessional Orders.
  Programming is one thing and I am not against it. [Interruption.] I am not against it in all circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) makes some good points in his admirable pamphlet on the matter and I can associate myself with much of what he says. In an intervention, I said that if there is to be programming, there also has to be rationing of legislation. The more legislation we have, the less helpful programming is to anyone other than the Executive.
  The Modernisation Committee, chaired by a totally honourable Chairman—the Leader of the House—has become the creature of the Government. It has abandoned the principle of consensus in its report. All the other issues that it has put before the House have been based on
  266
  consensus. I was one of the first members of the Committee and I was involved in some of those proposals—I was happy to be so. When I sat on the Conservative Front Bench and supported, first, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and then my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I was happy to support a number of the Committee's proposals. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, knows that to be true.
  However, it was a parliamentary tragedy when the principle of consensus was abandoned to get this proposal before the House before the end of this Session. The sort of programming that we are being offered tonight will give power to one group of people—the Executive.
  I have been in the House for 30 years. In that time, the balance has moved inexorably away from Parliament—the legislature—towards the Executive. In the past three years, that process has been accelerated and has diminished the House, making it less effective. More than anything else, that has been responsible for reducing the esteem in which the House is held by constituents of the hon. Member for Deptford, and constituents of mine and of many other hon. Members.
  The proposal is inimical to true parliamentary sovereignty, in which I believe. It will concentrate power over legislation entirely in the hands of the Executive. The frank exchanges that took place this afternoon between my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and the Leader of the House demonstrated that. The right hon. Lady said in effect, "We'll discuss matters with the Opposition if they want to talk about it. If not, we'll do it just the same." That was a revealing exchange.
  I do not want to make a long speech—I believe in short speeches—but I must say a few words about the ridiculous order on deferred voting. If the Modernisation Committee had proposed that we could vote in the proper way at 9 am the next morning on certain matters debated late at night, I would have considered that a sensible way forward.
  This football coupon-type voting on a Wednesday is inimical to our freedom as Back Benchers. The intervening period allows enormous opportunity for the Whips, on both sides of the House, to influence the vote. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Deptford may laugh. She has not been here all that long—she may think she has, but she has not. It is an arrogant laugh. She believes that the proposal she is supporting will somehow make Parliament more family friendly, and, in the process, make it more effective. It will do neither. Whether the hon. Lady likes it or not, she has become a pawn in the hands of the Leader of the House. She has succumbed to the blandishments of the Government and is writing off her powers as a Back Bencher in the process.
  Joan Ruddock rose—
  Ms Glenda Jackson rose—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Both hon. Ladies are writing off those powers.
  Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has argued for a change—a shortened legislative programme—but he is

  267
  not alone among his Opposition colleagues in arguing that an Opposition's only weapon is time and that, whatever the length of the legislative programme, the first requirement of an Opposition is to use that weapon of time to attempt to delay Government legislation. What has clearly emerged from the arguments made by Conservative Members this evening is that they are actually concerned not with power—either in government or in opposition—but with their inability to exercise their power as an Opposition with any responsibility at all.
  All this smoke and mirrors on voting is absurd. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that he has never seen other Members dashing breathless for a Division, asking the Whips which Lobby they should be—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Lady had already made a speech.
  Ms Jackson: It was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I was about to ask the hon. Lady if she would give way, Mr. Speaker. I must respond to the point that she made, but I shall probably not have time to give way to the hon. Member for Deptford.
  Joan Ruddock: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I am trying to respond to the inordinately long intervention made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). It showed that the hon. Lady has completely misunderstood what has been said in the debate. Neither I nor any of my hon. Friends have argued that time is the only weapon, nor that time is the most important factor under discussion. It is a weapon that can and should be used legitimately—albeit sparingly—both by Opposition and Government Back Benchers. I make no apology for the fact that I have used it in government and in opposition.
  My fundamental criticism of the measures is that they erode the general powers of the legislature vis-a-vis the Executive. Like other Members, I have often quoted Dunning's 1780 motion:
  The influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
  The power of the Executive has increased inordinately, especially during the past three years; it is increasing and it ought to be diminished.
  The effect of the measures will be to increase the stranglehold of the Executive at the expense of the rest of the Members of the House. It is for that reason that I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against the motions.
  9.37 pm
  Mr. Frank Doran: This debate offers me my first opportunity to welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Speaker.
  I speak in favour of the programming of Bills and in favour of the motions introduced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I was especially interested in the points made by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), in a fairly waspish speech. She even went so far as to imply that the Conservatives had nothing to do with the
  268
  scuppering of previous changes introduced by the Labour Government in 1966. She referred to the Crossman diaries.
  During the 35 years in which the Conservatives held power since the second world war, they made only two constitutional changes of any significance. They introduced the modern form of Select Committees, on which they should be congratulated, and they signed the Maastricht treaty. Apart from that, they have opposed almost every proposal for change. Such opposition is exactly what we have heard tonight from every Conservative Member in the Chamber. They oppose a fairly modest scheme.
  My own views reflect some of the points made by my colleagues, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). That will come as no surprise to hon. Members, but we have to start somewhere.
  The Conservatives have opposed everything. It seems from the speeches we have heard tonight that Conservative Members have not adjusted to opposition.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Doran: I do not think that I should, because the Front-Bench spokesmen wish to speak. I shall have to ditch most of what I intended to say.
  I want to say something about the changes that I have seen in this place since I became a Member in 1987. There has been a variety of substantial changes. We have seen the first woman Speaker; she was also the first working-class Speaker. You, Mr. Speaker, are the first Catholic Speaker since the reformation, and the first not to use the wig. We do not spy "strangers" any more, and we have got rid of the blessed hat, which is great progress. However, none of those changes is of real substance because the major problem is one of credibility. One of the main contributory factors in our lack of credibility is the ridiculous way in which we work.
  I have heard Labour and Opposition Members talk about how they behaved in opposition. When I first entered the House in 1987, I was no different from any of my colleagues in opposition. I believed that the best way to oppose the then Government was to waste time by speaking. I was a member of many Committees, and I could bore for Britain. I did not quite reach the dizzy heights of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) with four hours and 10 minutes, but I operated in exactly the same way. I accepted it as the norm until I became a member of the energy Opposition Front-Bench team.
  On the Bill to privatise the electricity industry, I saw constructive opposition for the first time. We decided to prepare our timetable and work to it. We ran the Government ragged. We made sure that they could not keep up with the amendments that we had tabled. We made sure that every important issue that we wanted to have debated was debated.
  We have seen nothing from this Conservative Opposition. Everything is done with the sledgehammer of talking us through the night. [Interruption.] I am being urged to complete my speech. Before I finish, I want to include a personal anecdote about the impact of our hours. They have had a serious effect on the way we all function. They have a serious effect on many lives.

  269
  I asked the Library today to dig out the figures for the number of Members of the House who have died. Since 1989, 48 Members have died. We have had to cope recently with the death of Donald Dewar. A lot of that death toll is to do with the stress and pressures arising from the occupation that we have all chosen to follow. There are many other names; I will not go through the list. There have been five deaths a year. Only three were not the result of natural causes. That is a serious statement to which we should all have regard.
  The sittings of the House may not start until 2.30 pm, but the rest of the world starts work at least five and a half hours earlier. If I am to meet the people whom I need to meet to do my job properly, I have to conform to their working hours. Then I have to be here in the House on most business days until 10.15 pm or later and sometimes through the night, as we have heard from previous speakers.
  The culture that we have allowed to develop in the House is unforgiving. We have an ethos which is not very different from the mediaeval joust. For some of us, a joust would be just as brutal and devastating in its consequences. It is time that we changed our working practices to meet the needs of the 21st century and the much increased demands on Members of the House. Victorian rules met Victorian needs. In the 21st century, we need to introduce rules and hours that reflect the demands made of Members today.
  Mr. Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the programming of Bills motion, paragraph (2)(b) of order B and paragraph (3)(b) of order C give you the power to appoint up to eight members of the Programming Committee and seven members of the Programming Sub-Committees. Will you appoint members according to the current balance of political parties, or will you ensure that no party has an overall majority and the Chairman of Ways and Means has a casting vote?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the House agrees the orders.
  9.44 pm
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Contrary to the opinion of the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), the Minister and I decided to confine our remarks to 10 minutes each, but the programming of this debate seems to have gone astray, which is perhaps inauspicious for future agreements.
  This has been a fascinating debate, but a depressing one. It is clear why the Modernisation Committee was not able to reach agreement. There is a massive philosophical difference between the approach taken by Conservative Members and that taken by Labour Members.
  My right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) all made powerful speeches about respecting the traditions of the House and about the ability of the Opposition to oppose. The impression conveyed by the speeches of Labour Members was that they were matters to which they accorded very little account. Indeed, many of them gave the impression that they were converts, had had
  270
  a road to Damascus experience and had changed their habits now that they suddenly were Government and not Opposition Back Benchers.
  The issue is important, because we are discussing the destruction of convention. [Interruption.] I hear the word "Good", but the hon. Member for Ealing. Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) made the point that the House established its reputation in the 19th century as an independent Chamber because of its ability to debate. Ultimately, that was because of the then Governments' willingness to allow debates to take place. There was little difference between then and now in that Members of Parliament made perorations late at night. Many Members then were similar to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and saw themselves as performing a role, and they were respected by the Government for that. Members took the view that, if they did not carry out that role, proper parliamentary government was not possible and that if parliamentary government was not respected, the decisions taken in the House would not be respected by those outside who were adversely affected by them.
  I have listened to Labour Members and they seem to suggest that if one simply has a vote and a majority, one can do whatever one likes. The consequences of that have been well reflected in the past few weeks when people driving lorries have parked them and protested outside Parliament because this place has ceased to command respect as it is not where difficult issues can be discussed. That is not more important but it is as important as our ability to scrutinise legislation properly. The measure tends against our ability to scrutinise properly and it is clearly against our ability to be regarded as a place where difficult issues can be aired and people with different points of view can be respected.
  I shall try to be brief to give the Minister time to respond, but I come now to the issue of timetabling. Conservative Members are perfectly prepared to consider the possibility of trying to arrange for timetabling. Indeed, the minority report that was produced in the Modernisation Committee recommended that we should try to arrange timetabling as much as possible. However, what is the point of the House surrendering something that Back-Bench Members can use to have an impact in holding the Government to account when the Government have not made a single concession towards giving up power to allow timetabling to take place?
  We can have timetabling but, under these measures, if the Government decide that they want to alter a timetabling motion and want to behave in the way they did on the passage of the legislation—bad legislation, badly passed—after the Omagh bombing, they can do whatever they like. The Government have made no concessions either to a Speaker's Conference or to any other mechanism that would give the House an independent voice on how timetabling could take place.
  We remain completely at the Government's mercy, and, having listened to the contributions from many Labour Members, it is clear that we will not find among them the independent voices that alone will prevent the Government from abusing their powers in that respect. That is the central reason why the House should reject the motion on timetabling. It is not as though there is no need for sensible timetabling or for a review of the hours that the House might sit—although there is no mention of that in the report.

  271
  The hon. Member for Deptford said that she wanted Back Benchers to have more opportunities to participate in questions to Ministers, but nothing in the report will provide that. When will time be made available if the Government do not volunteer to review the timetable? When, in late-night business, which I shall address in more detail in a moment, will there be opportunities to hold the Government to account?
  The timetable motion is a device by which Members surrender power to the Government. It gives the Government an extra ratchet that will allow them to say in future that the convention that Members are given time to discuss business went out long ago. Far from our benefiting from such motions, we will find that the Government will use their existing powers to take more time for discussion away from us whenever they want to.
  On deferred votes, I think that we are moving into the land of fantasy. Late at night we consider, for the most part, secondary legislation. As a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I know that if ever anything is poorly considered in the House, it is secondary legislation. Late at night is the one time that we have for proper debate of such legislation, which sometimes deals with highly contentious issues. I am thinking of a number of Northern Ireland orders, on which there may have been consensus between Government Members and the official Opposition, but Members from Northern Ireland held very different views.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Where are they?
  Mr. Grieve: Well, precisely. Attendance will be much more difficult for Northern Ireland Members, some of whom have other duties in the Northern Ireland Assembly, if they have to come to this House for debates and then return on another day to vote.
  My hon. Friends have made the valid point that separating the process of decision making from the voting process, especially for debates of only one and a half hours, will degrade the status of the House. It will remove the chance that one's vote could be influenced when matters are fresh in one's mind, and it will prevent the Chamber from being a focus for any informed or sensible debate in which people can be influenced by what is said.
  One thing that I have learned since I came to the House is that if one bothers to spend six hours on the Benches listening to a debate, one learns an enormous amount, usually from one's opponents. The central and most critical point about the parliamentary process is that it makes what is otherwise unpalatable acceptable by the process of debate. That is being attacked by the motions, not because modernising and improving our procedures is not good, but because we are approaching the issues from completely the wrong angle.
  9.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): This is, of course, a House matter, and colleagues will decide individually how we should proceed. During this important debate it has become clear that there is no unanimity of view; indeed, my hon. Friends have made it clear that they will vote differently. I welcome that—it is healthy.
  272
  In 1902, Balfour remarked that he had never been able to understand
  why of all His Majesty's subjects a Member of Parliament should be the one who never knows when he is to dine or when he is to sleep.
  Important issues are raised in debates: Members discuss whether they should press schedule 1 and whether, during the debate, they have considered the matter enough; they ask whether the candlestick makers and the bell makers have been consulted. I see that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is listening, and those are the tactics that he employs on occasion. I do not blame him for that—it is called throwing grit into the machine. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) will recognise that phrase because it comes from his pamphlet. There is a great deal of activity in such debates, but no achievement. All that activity and all the time expended does not prevent the Government from dealing with our business; we can impose a guillotine to do that. As has been pointed out, Governments of all colours do just that. All that time-wasting does is to reduce us to the state of the Member who, in 1902 was reported as being
  so unoccupied that he was knitting a pair of stockings in the smoking-room.—[Official Report, 20 February 1902; Vol. 103, c. 663.]
  Our proposals in response to the Modernisation Committee report are designed to ensure that Members will know when they are to sleep, but that that should not be at the expense of proper examination of legislation or proper debate of motions.
  The proposals are not new. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made clear at the outset, they have a long parliamentary history. In 1985, the Procedure Committee recommended that Bills be programmed in Standing Committee, and even at later stages. Jopling confirmed that position in 1992. At the beginning of this Parliament, the Modernisation Committee recommended programming, and most recently, both the Hansard Society and the Norton commission have suggested it.
  Programming provides something for everyone: the Government know when they will get their business through, should the House agree it; the Opposition have the power to determine the terms of debate and to choose what will be dealt with in prime time; and all of us get some certainty about our working hours. Being able to plan leads to better use of our time and greater efficiency of our work.
  The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst are designed totally to undermine the Modernisation Committee's proposals. The Government's motions allow a reasonable period for debate on the proposed timetable: three quarters of an hour for the main programme motion and half an hour for motions on the details proposed by the programming committee or sub-committee. It is true that the allocation is not as generous as that, in theory, for a guillotine, but unlike the guillotine, debate on the programme motion will not eat into time for debating the substantive business. Amendment (d) would reverse such a process: three hours would be spent debating the programme motion, and many of us would spend our time in the Smoking Room knitting our socks.
  Strangely, given her very different views, amendment (g), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and a significant group

  273
  of colleagues, would also reduce the amount of time for debate. Half an hour would be lost from Second Reading. I take the view that debates on Second Reading have a high profile. All too often, colleagues who wish to speak on Second Reading are denied the opportunity through lack of time. Several of my hon. Friends have explained forcefully why they support the amendment. Indeed, the Modernisation Committee considered the issue very carefully. It has merit, but I think that the Committee reached the right conclusion in protecting the traditional length of debates on Second Reading.
  I should say directly to my hon. Friends that the proposed Sessional Orders on which we are to vote shortly are indeed Sessional Orders. There will be an opportunity to review how they are used, and we shall see how hon. Members on both sides of the House use them. For my part, I hope to see a consensus and a positive use of our time. Just as the House is tonight reviewing its procedures, there will be the opportunity to do so again in 12 months' time.
  I turn briefly to the issue of much controversy: deferred Divisions. It would be possible to hold deferred Divisions in the normal way on a Wednesday, as set out in amendment (d). Yes, the traditional way has its adherents, but it is important to remember the commitment that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made when she said that we have made it clear that the stand-alone issues to go to sittings on Wednesdays will be relatively uncontentious. I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) focused on that point.
  If the House decides to implement the reforms, we shall have much more orderly processing of business. It will be appreciated that the Government will have to introduce legislation in better order and perhaps in less quantity. Once we are able to predict the amount of legislation, we might be able to look at longer-term issues. We will be able to look, for example, at the timetable for the recess dates and the parliamentary calendar. I cannot promise that all that will flow from the experiment, but I can promise that it will be impossible to do that if we do not proceed with these issues tonight. I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will support the Modernisation Committee's proposals.
  Amendment proposed: After section A (10), at end insert—
  '(11) On a day on which a programme motion is to be moved, the Speaker shall put the Question on a second reading of the bill to which that Motion applies not later then 9.30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays and 6.30 p.m. on Thursdays'.—[Mrs. Anne Campbell.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 253.

  Division No. 323]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Banks, Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Barren, Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Allan, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Berry, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blackman, Liz

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Baker, Norman

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ballard, Jackie

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  274

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Kidney, David

  Brake, Tom

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Browne, Desmond

  Lammy, David

  Burden, Richard

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Lepper, David

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Linton, Martin

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  McCabe, Steve

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  McCafferty Ms Chris

  Casale, Roger

  Macdonald, Calum

  Caton, Martin

  McDonnell, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  McFall, John

  Chaytor, David

  McIsaac, Shona

  Church, Ms Judith

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Clapham, Michael

  MacShane, Denis

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  McWalter, Tony

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Maxton, John

  Colman, Tony

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Connarty, Michael

  Moffatt, Laura

  Cooper, Yvette

  Moore, Michael

  Cousins, Jim

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Davidson, Ian

  Oaten, Mark

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Dowd, Jim

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Edwards, Huw

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Flint, Caroline

  Flynn, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Follett, Barbara

  Pollard, Kerry

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Fyfe, Maria

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Gapes, Mike

  Rammell, Bill

  Gardiner, Barry

  Rendel, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Ruane, Chris

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Ruddock, Joan

  Goggins, Paul

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Sawford, Phil

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Grogan, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Soley, Clive

  Healey, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Hurst, Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Illsley, Eric

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Trickett, Jon

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Tynan, Bill

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Keetch, Paul

  Ward, Ms Claire

  275

  White, Brian

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wood, Mike

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons and

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Frank Doran.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Allen, Graham

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Evans, Nigel

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Baldry, Tony

  Flight, Howard

  Barnes, Harry

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Beard, Nigel

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Foulkes, George

  Beggs, Roy

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Gale, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Betts, Clive

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Blunt, Crispin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Green, Damian

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Greenway, John

  Brady, Graham

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brazier, Julian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Breed, Colin

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burnett, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Burns, Simon

  Hammond, Philip

  Burstow, Paul

  Hancock, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hawkins, Nick

  Caplin, Ivor

  Heald, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Heppell, John

  Hill, Keith

  Chidgey, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Chope, Christopher

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clappison, James

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Collins, Tim

  Jamieson, David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cotter, Brian,

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cran, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cranston, Ross

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Key, Robert

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Laxton, Bob

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Dawson, Hilton

  Levitt, Tom

  Day, Stephen

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Drew, David

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Livsey, Richard

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  276

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lock, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Loughton, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

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

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Snape, Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Soames, Nicholas

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spellar, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  McWilliam, John

  Spring, Richard

  Madel, Sir David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maples, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Martlew, Eric

  Streeter, Gary

  Mates, Michael

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Syms, Robert

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Norman, Archie

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Townend, John

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Trend, Michael

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Page, Richard

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyler, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pendry, Tom

  Viggers, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walter, Robert

  Pike, Peter L

  Wardle, Charles

  Pope, Greg

  Wareing, Robert N

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Webb, Steve

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wells, Bowen

  Prior, David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Randall, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Wilkinson, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Willis, Phil

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruffley, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. James Gray.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 137.

  Division No. 324]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Allen, Graham

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Allan, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  277

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Drew, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Baker, Norman

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Banks, Tony

  Edwards, Huw

  Barron, Kevin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beard, Nigel

  Etherington, Bill

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Flint, Caroline

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Follett, Barbara

  Foster Don (Bath)

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Blackman, Liz

  Foulkes, George

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gapes, Mike

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brake, Tom

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Browne, Desmond

  Goggins, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Burnett, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Burstow, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hancock, Mike

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Harvey, Nick

  Caplin, Ivor

  Healey, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Casale, Roger

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Caton, Martin

  Heppell, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hill, Keith

  Chaytor, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Church, Ms Judith

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clapham, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hutton, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Coaker, Vernon

  Illsley, Eric

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Colman, Tony

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cooper, Yvette

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cotter, Brian

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunningham Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cunningham Jim (Cov'try S)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Keetch Paul

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kidney, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Lady man, Dr Stephen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Lammy, David

  Doran, Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dowd, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  278

  Lepper, David

  Rendel, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Linton, Martin

  Roy, Frank

  Livsey, Richard

  Ruane, Chris

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lock, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Love, Andrew

  Salmond, Alex

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sanders, Adrian

  McCabe, Steve

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sawford, Phil

  Macdonald, Calum

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McDonnell, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McFall, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Singh, Marsha

  McIsaac, Shona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  MacShane, Denis

  Snape, Peter

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Soley, Clive

  McWalter, Tony

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McWilliam, John

  Spellar, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Martlew, Eric

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Merron, Gillian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stunell, Andrew

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

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

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Mullin, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Oaten, Mark

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Tyler, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Tynan, Bill

  Öpik, Lembit

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pearson, Ian

  Webb, Steve

  Pendry, Tom

  White, Brian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Pike, Peter L

  Willis, Phil

  Plaskitt, James

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Wood, Mike

  Pond, Chris

  Woodward, Shaun

  Pope, Greg

  Worthington, Tony

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wyatt, Derek

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rammell, Bill

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  279

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Amess, David

  Key, Robert

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Baldry, Tony

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Barnes, Harry

  Lansley, Andrew

  Beggs, Roy

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bercow, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brady, Graham

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brazier, Julian

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Breed, Colin

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maples, John

  Burns, Simon

  Mates, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Cash, William

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Clappison, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Page, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Paterson, Owen

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Collins, Tim

  Prior, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Randall, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ruffley, David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Day, Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Duncan Alan

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Shepherd, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Evans, Nigel

  Fabricant, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Fallon, Michael

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Flight, Howard

  Spring, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Steen, Anthony

  Fraser, Christopher

  Streeter, Gary

  Gale, Roger

  Swayne, Desmond

  Garnier, Edward

  Syms, Robert

  Gibb, Nick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Green, Damian

  Townend, John

  Greenway, John

  Trend, Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Walter, Robert

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Wardle, Charles

  Hammond, Philip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hawkins, Nick

  Wells, Bowen

  Heald, Oliver

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Whittingdale, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wilkinson, John

  280

  Willetts, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. James Gray.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That in the next Session of Parliament Orders A to I below shall have effect:

  A. Programme Motions
  (1) If, before Second Reading of a Bill, notice of a motion providing for—

  (a) committal of the Bill, and

  (b) an allocation of time to proceedings in Committee on the Bill,

  is given by a Minister of the Crown, the motion may be made immediately after Second Reading and Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills) shall not apply to the Bill.
  (2) Such a motion is to be called a programme motion.
  (3) An order made by the House as the result of a programme motion is to be called a programme order.
  (4) A motion to vary or supplement a programme order is also to be called a programme motion.
  (5) The question on a programme motion to vary or supplement a programme order shall be put forthwith unless paragraph (7) applies.
  (6) Otherwise, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on a programme motion shall be put not later than three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
  (7) This paragraph applies to a programme motion to—

  (a) reduce the amount of time allocated under a programme order for any proceedings on the Bill (whether or not it also increases the amount of time allocated for other proceedings on the Bill);

  (b) bring forward the date on which the Bill is to be reported to the House in accordance with a programme order; or

  (c) add to the proceedings to which a programme order applies.

  (8) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted Business) applies to proceedings on a programme motion.
  (9) Standing Order No. 83 (Allocation of Time) does not apply to a programme motion.
  (10) If a programme order applies to a Bill, neither Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) nor Standing Order No. 120 (Business Sub-Committee) applies to the Bill.

  B. Programming Committees
  (1) This order applies if a Bill is subject to a programme order which makes provision for proceedings in Committee of the whole House or on consideration and Third Reading.
  (2) There is to be a Committee for the Bill consisting of—

  (a) the Chairman of Ways and Means (who is to be Chairman of the Committee); and

  (b) not more than eight other Members, nominated by the Speaker.

  (3) The Committee is to be called the Programming Committee.
  (4) The quorum of the Programming Committee is four.
  (5) The Programming Committee shall—

  (a) consider the allocation of periods of time to such of the proceedings in Committee of the whole House (or on consideration and Third Reading) as it thinks appropriate to designate; and

  (b) report any resolution which it makes to the House.

  (6) On a motion being made in the House in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  (7) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the Bill.
  (8) Proceedings on a motion made under paragraph (6) may be entered upon and decided, though opposed, at any hour.
  (9) Resolutions of the Programming Committee—

  (a) may be reported from time to time; and

  (b) subject to the powers of the Speaker or Chairman to select the amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which designated proceedings on the Bill are to be taken.

  C. Programming Sub-Committees
  (1) If a Bill is subject to a programme order which commits it to a Standing Committee, the order stands referred to the Committee and shall be considered by a sub-committee of the Committee.
  (2) The sub-committee is to be called the Programming Sub-Committee.
  (3) The Programming Sub-Committee shall consist of—

  (a) the Chairman or one of the Chairmen of the Committee (who is to be chairman of the sub-committee); and

  (b) seven members of the Committee, nominated by the Speaker.

  (4) The quorum of the Programming Sub-Committee is four.
  (5) The Programming Sub-Committee shall report to the committee any resolution which it makes about—

  (a) the number of sittings to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in the Committee;

  (b) the allocation of the proceedings to each sitting;

  (c) the time at which any proceedings, if not previously concluded, are to be brought to a conclusion.

  (6) On a motion being made in the Committee in the terms of a resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee, any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion shall be put not later than half an hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
  (7) If such a motion is agreed to, its provisions shall have effect as if they were included in the programme order for the Bill.
  (8) Resolutions of the Programming Sub-Committee—

  (a) may be reported from time to time; and

  (b) subject to the powers of the Chairman to select the amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be proposed, may include alterations in the order in which specified proceedings are to be taken.

  D. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House
  (1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings in Standing Committee or in Committee of the whole House to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Chairman shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others—

  (a) any question already proposed from the Chair;

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

  (c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chairman for separate division;

  (d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Chairman shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.
  (5) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those provisions.
  (6) On conclusion of the proceedings in a Committee, the Chairman shall report the Bill (or such of the Bill's provisions as were committed to it) to the House without putting any question.

  E. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration or third reading
  (1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration and Third Reading to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following questions (but no others)—

  (a) any question already proposed from the Chair;

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

  (c) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate division;

  (d) the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

  (e) any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

  (3) On a motion made for a new clause or a new schedule, the Speaker shall put only the question that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill.
  (4) If two or more questions would fall to be put under paragraph (2)(d) on successive amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or motions.

  F. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments
  (1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
  (3) If that question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) a single question on any further amendments of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown; and

  (b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith—

  (a) a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment; and

  (b) the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment or (as the case may be) in their Amendment as amended.

  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
  (6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
  (7) As soon as the House has—

  (a) agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or

  (b) disposed of an amendment relevant to a Lords. Amendment which has been disagreed to,

  the Speaker shall put forthwith a single question on any amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

  G. Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on urther messages from the Lords
  (1) This order applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on any further message from the Lords to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any question which has been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
  (3) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the question already proposed from the Chair.
  (4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister on or relevant to any of the remaining items in the Lords message.
  (5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the question that this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords proposals.

  H. Programme orders: Reasons Committee
  (1) This order applies in relation to any Committee to be appointed to draw up Reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with a programme order.
  (2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the question on any motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
  (3) The Committee shall report before the conclusion of the sittin at which it is appointed.
  (4) Proceedings in the Committee shall be brought to a conclusion not later than half an hour after their commencement.
  (5) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (4), the Chairman shall—

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

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

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

  I. Programme orders: supplementary provisions
  (1) The provisions of this order apply to proceedings in the House or in Committee of the whole House on a Bill which is subject to a programme order.
  (2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted Business) applies to the proceedings for any period after ten o'clock (or on Thursday, seven o'clock) allocated to them in accordance with the programme order.
  (3) The proceedings may not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (4) If, on a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day, a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency Debates) would, apart from this order, stand over to seven o'clock—

  (a) that motion stands over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to conclusion at or before that time; and

  284

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time is postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.

  (5) If a day on which the Bill has been set down to be taken as an order of the day is one to which a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, in accordance with the programme order, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day is postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that motion.
  (6) No dilatory motion may be made in relation to the proceedings except by a Minister of the Crown; and the question on any such motion is to be put forthwith.
  (7) If at any sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a programme order, no notice is required of a motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of the programme order.

  DEFERRED DIVISIONS
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 152.

  Division No. 325]

  [10.27 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Chidgey, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Church, Ms Judith

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Allan, Richard

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ashton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Colman, Tony

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Connarty, Michael

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cooper, Yvette

  Banks, Tony

  Cotter, Brian

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Cox, Tom

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cranston, Ross

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Betts, Clive

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Blackman, Liz

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davidson, Ian

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brake, Tom

  Doran, Frank

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Breed, Colin

  Drew, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Etherington, Bill

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Casale, Roger

  Flint, Caroline

  Caton, Martin

  Flynn, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian

  Follett, Barbara

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  285

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fyfe, Maria

  McNulty, Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  MacShane, Denis

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McWalter, Tony

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Goggins, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Maxton, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Grogan, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hancock, Mike

  Moore, Michael

  Hanson, David

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morley, Elliot

  Healey, John

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

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mullin, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hurst, Alan

  Oaten, Mark

  Hutton, John

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jenkins, Brian

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Pond, Chris

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keetch, Paul

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kidney, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rendel, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Roy, Frank

  Lammy, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ruddock, Joan

  Laxton, Bob

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lepper, David

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sanders, Adrian

  Levitt, Tom

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Sawford, Phil

  Linton, Martin

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Livsey, Richard

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Lock, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Soley, Clive

  McDonnell, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McFall, John

  Spellar, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  286

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Tyler, Paul

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Webb, Steve

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  White, Brian

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Willis, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wood, Mike

  Tipping, Paddy

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Worthington, Tony

  Touhig, Don

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gibb, Nick

  Amess, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gill, Christopher

  Baker, Norman

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baldry, Tony

  Gray, James

  Barnes, Harry

  Green, Damian

  Beggs, Roy

  Greenway, John

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bercow, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hammond, Philip

  Boswell, Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heald, Oliver

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  Hood, Jimmy

  Brazier, Julian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Horam, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Burnett, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burns, Simon

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Burstow, Paul

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Butterfill, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chope, Christopher

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Collins, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cran, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McWilliam, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Madel, Sir David

  Day, Stephen

  Maples, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Flight, Howard

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Page, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pearson, Ian

  287

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Prior, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robathan, Andrew

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Townend, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Trend, Michael

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tynan, Bill

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Salmond, Alex

  Viggers, Peter

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wardle, Charles

  Shepherd, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wells, Bowen

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

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

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Spring, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Mr. John Randall.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That in the next Session of Parliament the following Order shall have effect:

  (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on divisions) shall not apply if, after the time for the interruption of business, the opinion of the Speaker as to the decision on a question is challenged in respect of any question.

  (2) Standing Order No. 38 (Procedure on Divisions) shall apply (and this order shall not apply) to questions—

  (a) on motions or amendments in the course of proceedings on bills or allocating time to or programming such proceedings;
  (b) on motions which may be made without notice;
  (c) on motions to be disposed of immediately following the disposal of amendments proposed thereto, and on such amendments;
  (d) on motions made under—

  (i) paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 15(Exempted Business);

  (ii) paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 51 (Ways and Means motions);

  (iii) sub-paragraph (l)(a) of Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and Ways and Means resolutions in connection with Bills);

  (iv) paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 54(Consideration of Estimates); and

  (v) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 55(Questions on voting of estimates, &c); and

  (e) on motions made under paragraph 3 below or to which an order made under that paragraph applies.

  (3) After the moment of interruption and the conclusion of proceedings under any other Standing Order which fall to be taken immediately after it, a Minister of the Crown may make a motion to the effect that this order shall not apply to questions on any specified motions; such motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, and the question thereon shall be put forthwith.

  (4) If the opinion of the Speaker is challenged under paragraph (I) of this order, he shall defer the division until half-past Three o'clock on the next Wednesday on which the House shall sit.

  (5) On any Wednesday to which a division has been deferred under paragraph (4) above—

  (a) Members may record their votes on the question under arrangements made by the Speaker;
  (b) votes may be recorded for one and a half hours after half-past Three o'clock, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division; and
  (c) the Speaker, or the Chairman, shall announce the result of the deferred division as soon as may be after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) above.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Charles Wardle and Mr. David Curry be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. David Faber be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Sutcliffe]

PETITION

  Pension Increase
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: I am pleased to present this petition to the House on behalf of more than 820 residents in Carshalton and Wallington. They consider the 75p increase to have been an insult. The petition states:
  The petition of Carshalton and Wallington residents
  Declares that pensioners deserve a substantial increase in the basic state pension.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Social Security to increase the basic state pension.
  And the petitioners remain, etc…
  To lie upon the Table.

Flooding (Portsmouth)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
10.39 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: May I say how nice it is to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I warmly welcome you to your new position.
Before I start this debate—which is essentially about events in central Southsea, on 15 September, when a considerable part of my constituency was flooded—I should like to say a big thank you to the police, the ambulance service, the Coastguard service, inshore rescue, Southern Electric staff and all those who gave such a good service on that day. I particularly thank Hampshire fire service. The help of its 20-odd units saved not only many properties in Portsmouth, but many people from experiencing an even greater tragedy than they experienced.
Many local people, despite being in great difficulties themselves, put themselves out to help others. I mention in particular Greg and Jane, the landlord and landlady of the Florence Arms, and Kieran Quade and Gareth Dupre. Both their properties were severely damaged, yet they spent a great deal of time helping others. Basement flats, low-lying bungalows and houses were all flooded, but the big difference between what happened in Portsmouth on 15 September and what is happening now in many parts of the country is that the present flooding is mainly water. In Portsmouth, it was raw sewage mixed with water. Homes, gardens, garages, shops, pubs, public parks and streets were strewn with raw sewage. Condoms, tampons and human waste were everywhere. I saw many houses which had all three in abundance.
The city council and its emergency planning officer, Alistair Hogg, did what they could, but some people suggest that local authorities just do not have the resources to cope with such emergencies and that it takes far too long for them to swing into action.
The real problem on 15 September involved Southern Water and its parent company, ScottishPower. I could mention many individuals, but I shall not list them as I am sure that the Minister wants to tell us how he proposes to prevent similar disasters from happening in future. There are many questions for Southern Water to answer. What it knew, what it did not do, what it should have done and what it has done since are all important issues.
At 6 am on 13 September, the Meteorological Office issued a special forecast. It said that heavy rain would probably deliver something like 45 mm of water over the Portsmouth area or the central Hampshire area on 15 September. Southern Water claims not to have received that severe weather warning. The warning issued on 13 September was repeated again on 14 September, when we were told that there was a 70 per cent. chance of torrential rain causing major problems in the area. Again, Southern Water denies receiving the information. What went wrong? Southern Water claims that the 30-year-old pumping station was drowned by the volume of water that came up from the sewer pipes below.
The timing raises a lot of questions. I was sitting in my office in Albert road in the heart of Portsmouth. Before 1 pm, water was coming out of the main drains in the street. Albert road was flooded not from the volume of
290
rain from above, but from water that was coming up from below and was already lifting the manhole covers. According to Southern Water, that should not have happened until the pumps stopped, which was well after 1.30 pm, but I and many others know that it started well before Southern Water claims that the pumping station stopped working.
Southern Water claims that the pumps were overcome by water and literally drowned. I visited the pumping station at 8 pm on 15 September and there was still at least 4 ft of water over the main pumps. What has Southern Water done for the people of Portsmouth? It has done very little and said simply that it will try to get the pumps back working. The local newspaper, which has done a valiant job trying to keep people updated on the issue, asked the managing director of Southern Water a number of questions. The headline was:
First he blamed an act of God. Now he says of the next Great Flood…We just haven't got a prayer.
It carries a picture of him about to pray for help. It was obvious that Southern Water did not expect to be able to save the city if there were another such incident.
What did Southern Water do? It got pumps in and pumped raw sewage and other waste straight into the sea across our beaches and open spaces in three different locations. It had to do that to protect the city, but it was pumping raw sewage into sensitive areas such as Langstone harbour, an area of special scientific interest and the habitat of wildlife, sealife and birds.
What did Southern Water do for the people? It offered £20,000 to the Lord Major of Portsmouth hardship fund. That £20,000 accounts for one hour of Southern Water's yearly profit, and for 35 minutes of ScottishPower's profit. It would pay the directors of those two organisations for two days. And the company thinks that that is enough. It has resisted all claims, saying that it has done everything expected of it. That is cynical, uncaring, unhelpful, hurtful and not good enough for a company that claims to have people's interests at heart.
The company claimed recently that upgrading the station would cost more than £4 million. Yet people's homes have been torn apart by this tragedy. People have lost the whole ground floor of their homes, or have had their floor boards taken up, wooden floors and carpets removed, walls chopped back to the brick work up to a metre above the water line. Some people will be out of their homes well into the middle of next year. Asked whether it should spend £4 million to protect the pumping station, the company could only say that its
priority since these events has been to restore it to normal capacity, and that is now being done. Our internal investigations continue with an examination as to whether it is possible or practical to improve the protection against flooding at the pumping station.
The company says "possible" or "practical", but action must be taken to give the people of a city the size of Portsmouth the protection that they deserve.
The floods came from neither the sea nor a river. People's homes were flooded from the main sewerage system running through the heart of the city. Public parks were not flooded because the sea flowed down the road or a river burst its banks. They were flooded because manholes in the streets started to seep human waste into a playground and a park.
Let me turn to agencies that are supposed to help. The Association of British Insurers, contacted on behalf of those who thought that they might have sufficient cover,

291
wrote to me to say that that is a matter for individual companies. That is not a great deal of help, and some companies have not been greatly helpful. Many people were under-insured or had no insurance.
What about Ofwat? It offered a booklet on levels of service for the water industry and a handout on its guaranteed standard scheme. For flooding from sewers, that offers a maximum of £1,000 per property for each flooding incident or the equivalent of the property's water charges for the year. That is not good enough. No one in Portsmouth has received either £1,000 or repayment of the water charge. The only offer from Southern Water has been the £20,000 for the Lord Mayor's fund.
The Environment Agency visited the station only once during the first three days, according to what it said at a public meeting held shortly afterwards. Since then, we have waited for its report with bated breath, and I hope that the Minister can update it on that response. I, and others keenly interested in the matter, have taken an independent civil engineer to the site, and his preliminary report is in the hands of the Environment Agency, where it is, we hope, assisting in its deliberations. I have also provided background papers about the site and a detailed report from an engineer who used to work there and who ran the plant.
If all that information is put together, it becomes clear that something happened in the pumping station. The capacity of the sewerage system and the station's pumps should have been enough to deal with what happened that day, but that manifestly was not so. The consequences were as I have spelled them out. I do not have the time to go into individual cases.
The Government can help with the hardship fund, a matter that I have raised with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, but as yet to no avail. They are not prepared to help as yet, but I hope that they will consider doing so. The Government could help over insurance. For some people, premiums have already been raised by 30 per cent. My local paper today carries the headline "Sunk by a postcode" over a story that says that people living in Portsmouth or West Sussex will find it extremely difficult to get mortgages or insurance on their properties. Already, the problems have begun for people not yet over the awful experience of 15 September,
Local authorities need greater help. They need ring-fenced funding to be made available, to help with emergency planning. Sadly, too few local authorities have the organisational skills or equipment necessary to deal with such problems. Their actions come far too late.
What can the Environment Agency do? It can do a lot. It can tackle the problem and take on operators such as Southern Water. The people of Portsmouth look to the agency to protect their interests and to ensure that they get justice for what happened to them.
We need to see the report sooner rather than later. The agency needs to be resourced in such a way that it can deal far sooner with such issues and report exactly what it has found back into the public domain. I urge the Minister to speed up the agency's report.
Ofwat powers must be studied. Agreements with companies such as Southern Water need to be reconsidered. As with the railways, when the Conservatives privatised water they allowed operators to get away with murder as regards their responsibilities to their customers. The token gestures mentioned in the guarantee scheme are simply not
292
good enough and should not be allowed to continue. I urge the Government to consider carefully how those can be revised in favour of the customer.
Work needs to be done. I also ask the Government to insist that Southern Water protects a city such as Portsmouth and ensures that its pumping station is not supported with standby pumps that are below sea level to start with and must always be vulnerable. When I visited the station, the operators told me that there had already been near disasters, when the station had been flooded. At least two people who were present on 15 September have told us about incidents in the station. Many people believe that some of the flooding that finally put the station out of action resulted from temporary construction and modernisation work there.
Given that it is difficult for the Environment Agency and others to get convictions or to prosecute, I would like to think that the Government can insist that pumping stations, such as the one at Eastney, are upgraded to cope with the additional flows that arise from the increased development and global warming, and are properly maintained to ensure that maximum pumping capacity is not compromised.
The stations should be thoroughly evaluated—independently, if necessary—to identify the potential risks and consequences of loss of, or a temporary reduction in, pumping capacity, or loss or interruption of electrical or fuel supply. They should be modified to eliminate all foreseeable routes to a catastrophic total loss of operational capacity, which is what occurred on 15 September. They should also be modified to introduce failsafe measures to ensure that flows either in excess of those predictable, or occurring during emergencies, are safely channelled away from sensitive residential areas. In an area such as Portsmouth, which is completely surrounded by the sea, that must be a practical suggestion.
The stations should incorporate storm prediction and remote rainfall sensors to provide advance warning of problems, or potential flows in excess of capacity, to alert emergency services promptly. Slow response diesel pumps should be brought in sufficiently early to attain full capacity when needed, but they should be put where they are out of harm's way—not below ground, inside a pumping station, where the water could flood them.
Prosecuting water companies can be difficult and slow, and is inevitably ineffective in achieving a solution. The current process can tackle problems only retrospectively. Is further regulation of the industry to be considered? I hope that it is and that the Minister will say that the Government are looking into regulation of the water industry to enforce improvements in ageing installations ahead of further disastrous flooding.
All of that and much more needs to be dealt with. Southern Water has a lot of questions to answer and it has failed miserably to deliver. We are grateful for the campaigning actions of the BBC South team, led by Freddy Rostan, and to Meridian Broadcasting, but more importantly for the campaigning skills of the local newspaper, doing what local newspapers do well. The News has pushed, dug and shoved and tried to humiliate Southern Water by putting the moral case on behalf of the people of Portsmouth. So far, we are still not getting the answers, despite the fact that the company has attended public meetings. It is not good enough for the company merely to take the flak for one night when people are so

293
disappointed because their homes, their wedding photographs, their cars and all their property have been ruined.
People expect companies as large as Southern Water and its parent company, ScottishPower, to do more. Furthermore, they expect the Government to insist that such companies do more. Justice must be done. Those events took place on 15 September; it is not good enough that, on 7 November, questions remain unanswered and people continue to live with that tragedy—as they will probably have to do for a further six months or a year.
10.55 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on the terrible incident that took place in Portsmouth on 15 September. He makes a powerful case. I realise that I may not be able to deal with all the points that he has raised, but I shall study his speech and if there are further matters on which I need to respond, I shall do so. I shall also ensure that his speech is drawn to the attention of those people who need to read it—although I imagine that he may do that himself.
I fully sympathise with those people whose properties were flooded in Portsmouth and, more recently, in other parts of the country. On a previous occasion, I was flooded—although not as seriously as the hon. Gentleman's constituents—and I am aware of how distressing it can be.
Many of the recent flooding incidents were caused by swollen rivers, but as the hon. Gentleman points out, the Portsmouth incident was different; it was due to exceptional rainfall over a low-lying area. The Meterological Office stated that, apparently, the rainfall on that day was a one in a 100 year event. The storm was extreme; it could be a further example of the global warming process to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions referred in his statement to the House last week.
Sewerage undertakings are under a statutory duty to ensure the effectual drainage of their area under section 94 of the Water Industries Act 1991, but that is not an absolute duty to prevent flooding in any circumstances. Portsmouth, like many urban areas, is served by combined sewers that carry both foul water and rainwater; they can usually cope adequately in normal storm conditions. However, in times of exceptionally heavy rainfall, such sewers will sometimes be unable to cope with the significant extra amount of flood water. That can result in their surcharging to such an extent that diluted sewage made up of storm water and foul water overflows into the street. That would be the case whether the flooding was due to swollen rivers or to exceptional rainfall.
Those people who have experienced flooding elsewhere in the country have encountered problems similar to those suffered by the hon. Gentleman's constituents. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced, we are determined to learn the lessons of that experience. However, it must be realised that flood precautions can only protect so far. In extreme conditions, such as we have seen recently, there will be problems.
294
In relation to the Portsmouth incident, I am assured that the Eastney sewage pumping station was working at full capacity and managed to cope with the rising levels of surface water until its pumps and the motors driving them were eventually inundated. The rainfall started to peak at 10 am, and the first of Southern Water's large diesel storm pumps was brought into operation at 10.25; the other pumps were used subsequently. All the pumps continued to operate until 13.07—that is the time given by the company, although the hon. Gentleman said it was at 13.30—when the diesel engines powering the pumps were themselves overwhelmed by the rising flood water in the pumping station.
Southern Water was able to restart some of the pumps by 15.30 to enable flood water to be pumped to the long sea outfall. In addition, temporary pumps were used. Since the incident, company staff and contractors have been working to bring all the pumps back on line. The Eastney pumping station houses electric and diesel pumps, and I understand that the diesel pumps suffered severe damage in the flood. Southern Water considered whether to buy new ones, but as delivery could have taken several months and might have prolonged the temporary pumping measures at Eastney until well into next year, the company decided that it would be more effective and efficient to repair the existing pumps than to buy new ones.
I understand that these pumps had never been overwhelmed before. As the hon Gentleman is aware, there have been several more extreme rainfall incidents since 15 September, and I am told that the pumping station has coped with them all. The hon. Gentleman has asked in a recent letter why the pumps were situated below ground level, and he referred to that in his speech. The reason is that the sewerage system is below ground and, to a large extent, it relies on gravitational flow. However, those pumps were protected by concrete walls at least 13 m deep in a dry well shaft which, in normal circumstances, would remain immune to flooding. On 15 September, flooding within the pumping station reached unprecedented levels and penetrated ventilation ducts situated a metre below the top of the concrete walls. Southern Water assures me that it will now be investigating whether further measures can be taken to protect the diesel engines driving the pumps.
Even after the pumps were slowly being brought back on line, Southern Water retained temporary emergency pumping plant at the Eastney pumping station as a precaution in the event of further heavy rainfall. That enabled discharges of waste water to be made into Langstone harbour, as a temporary measure which reduced the risk of more flooding of properties in periods of further heavy rainfall since the incident. The Environment Agency was consulted on those temporary discharges and did not object. It did, however, seek assurances from Southern Water that the repair work to the pumps would proceed with full speed and it continued to monitor the environmental impact of the incident. While I accept that pumping this waste water into Langstone harbour was not ideal, it was a temporary measure. I understand that no discharges have been made into the harbour since 11 October.
On the question of compensation, I hope that those affected are able to recover their losses under their normal household insurance policies, although, as the hon. Gentleman says, some of his constituents are

295
under-insured and some are no doubt not insured. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the Government will discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry might respond quickly and effectively to emergencies such as this and deal with problems of insurability of homes and businesses at risk of flooding.
For those not insured or not fully insured, I understand that limited cash help only for those on income support or jobseeker's allowance may be available from the social fund, which is administered through the Benefits Agency. Help is given in the form of a grant or interest free loan. That is obviously likely to apply to only a small number of people who have particularly low incomes.
Help may also be available, as the hon. Gentleman said, from the fund set up by the Lord Mayor following the incident, to which Southern Water has made a donation. I understand that so far grants of only £6,000 have been made out of the fund. The Lord Mayor has recently relaxed some of the qualifying conditions to enable more of the money to be made available. I am assured that its availability has been well publicised in the area and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to advise his constituents who are suffering hardship to make a claim.
Mr. Hancock: The one condition that has not been relaxed is that if there was an insurable risk, people cannot claim from the hardship fund. However, if someone is not insured, everything that they have is at risk. That is what needs to be changed.
Mr. Mullin: That is a discussion that the hon. Gentleman needs to have with the Lord Mayor, rather than with the Government.
The hon. Gentleman is already aware that the water industry operates a statutory guaranteed standards scheme, which has been further improved by the Government. As the hon. Gentleman said, under the scheme, householders are now entitled to a refund of a year's sewerage charges every time there is sewage flooding of a customer's property from a public sewer, up to a maximum on each occasion of £1,000.
There are however certain circumstances in which a rebate of sewerage charges is not payable. One of these is where the event results from exceptional weather conditions, and I understand that that is why Southern Water did not feel that it was liable to pay any rebate of sewerage charges in respect of this particular incident. In the first instance, that is a matter for its judgment. Where a dispute arises between an undertaker and a customer as to the right of a customer to a payment or credit under the scheme, the matter may be referred to the Director General of Water Services by either party for determination. That is an avenue open to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Southern Water has so far received only a handful of claims directly. It believes that the reason for this is that most people affected have been able to claim successfully from their insurance. Although it did not operate the guaranteed standards scheme, it did help with the clean-up operation. I understand that some 260 properties were affected in what is a mainly residential area of Victorian terraced houses. Southern Water's assistance involved pumping water out of properties, disinfecting the affected areas and clearing visible contamination from gardens.
296
The Government for their part are directing substantial resources to measures aimed at protecting communities in incidents such as these. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced over the weekend, we will be providing £51 million extra for flood defence work over and above that already agreed in the spending review.
We are taking a number of other steps that we believe will help people and local authorities to cope with weather difficulties. They include improvement to the working of the Bellwin system, which exists to help local authorities defray unexpected costs in floods and other emergencies. Assistance from Bellwin will now be automatic for local authorities dealing with the current floods and the rate of Government support will increase from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent. Valid claims will be settled within 15 workings days and claims for advance payment can be made. Research work at the Hadley centre and the United Kingdom climate impacts programme will be enhanced and speeded up to improve our prediction and assessment of the effects of climatic change.
I understand that Portsmouth city council has already notified my Department of the problems that it has experienced during the flooding, but officials have yet to receive a formal application for assistance under the Bellwin scheme. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman urge the council to make such an application as soon as possible.
On the calls for an inquiry, I understand that the Environment Agency is carrying out an independent investigation into the incident to assess whether an offence has been committed by Southern Water under the Water Resources Act 1991. To come to a decision, the agency has asked Southern Water to provide a large amount of information and data. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not a simple operation. It is not until all the relevant evidence has been accumulated that the agency will be in a position to reach a conclusion with respect to potential legal proceedings. The agency has given assurances that it will provide a full report in due course and that it will be publicly available. I have every confidence that the agency will be very thorough and I look forward to its report.
In the longer term, I understand that Southern Water is now well advanced towards delivery of an improvement scheme for the drainage catchments of both Portsmouth and Havant. The scheme will provide secondary biological treatment before discharge via the long sea outfall. As a direct result of the recent incident, the Environment Agency will also, in conjunction with Southern Water, review the design proposals with particular regard to protection of the pumping station.
Therefore, at the present time, I see no reason for any other form of inquiry. With the best will in the world, there is no way in which every incident of this nature can be provided for in advance. In the end, the only way to mitigate the consequences is for people to be adequately insured. As I have already said, we will discuss with the Association of British Insurers how the insurance industry might better respond to such emergencies.
I hope that I have given some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that several issues must to be resolved and, if he wishes to pursue any further points, I shall be glad to do reply to him in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
MR. MICHAEL LORD[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

National Parks (England and Wales)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
10 am
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: It is a great personal pleasure to introduce the debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who also requested an allocation of time to consider this important matter. The Adjournment debate is most timely, and I congratulate everyone who has been able to attend. I hope that we shall have a good debate. I intend to give the widest consideration to this important part of national life. I shall try to keep my comments brief to allow as many hon. Members as possible to participate.
I shall focus on the national perspective of the national parks movement, but I would be failing in my duty to my constituents, who enjoy the privilege of living in what is probably the most beautiful part of the country—the north Yorkshire coast—if I did not talk about how the movement affects their daily lives.
I was fortunate enough to be born in Carlisle in the north of England, on the edge of what is probably England's most famous national park. My two younger brothers and I lived on an out-of-town council estate and our lives were brightened by school trips to the national delights of the Lake District national park and the English lakes. My eyes and those of my brothers were opened by that introduction to an aspect of life that was different from the grey houses in which my family and others lived. It stimulated an early interest in the geology of the Lake district and a personal fascination with the natural wonders of glaciation, which led me to study geo-technical sciences and ultimately to become a civil engineer. National parks have formed an important part of my personal development, making almost as great a contribution as my parents and teachers. I challenge anyone in this place to disagree with my contention that our national parks are very special places.
Our national parks cover our most treasured countryside, comprising a unique blend of stunning landscape, extensive and diverse wildlife habitat, a rich cultural heritage and a distinctive pattern of land use and settlement. The environmental quality of national parks depends on the nature of human interaction with them, which goes back about 5,000 years. The parks attract more than 76 million visitors annually and are home to more than 250,000 people. It is 50 years since the first national park in England was designated and there are now 11 national parks in England and Wales. They will soon be joined by the New Forest, South Downs and, across the border, by Scottish landscapes. We hope that that will happen in the near future. National parks constitute 10 per cent. of the landscape across England and Wales and are managed by the national park authorities.
2WH
Following a detailed appraisal of our national parks a decade ago and the Edwards report "Fit for the Future", the Environment Act 1995 revised the purpose of the national park movement. I believe that national parks are constituted to conserve and embrace the natural beauty of wildlife and the cultural heritage of areas and to promote opportunities for the public to understand and enjoy their special qualities. That has been my family's experience.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the cultural as well as the environmental heritage of the areas, and the substantial number of visitors. Does he feel that, under the present structures, a balance can be maintained between the interests of those who live and work in the park and those who come to enjoy it? Is he satisfied that the legislation he mentioned gives adequate background to ensure that there is a proper balance.
Mr. Quinn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that important contribution. Indeed, the central purpose of the debate is to focus on that aspect. My constituents will have sympathy with his comments, and if he will allow me to proceed with my speech, I hope to develop that point later.
The 1995 Act gives the authorities a duty to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities in the national parks. Indeed, in my area and that of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), those are fundamental aspects of everyday life. We need to see a living and working community in all the national parks. If national parks do not support and sustain those communities they fail in their raison d'être. The parks' special assets need to be managed sensitively if future generations are to appreciate them. Future sustainability also depends on healthy economic circumstances and thriving communities.
Communities in these areas share many disadvantages and the problems that affect all rural communities are, if anything, accentuated in national parks. Their special environmental and cultural assets provide many opportunities for enhancement of the economy and consequently their communities' future prosperity. With the increasing recognition that environment, community and economy are linked, the parks are trying to deliver an integrated, joined-up approach to projects that meet the several objectives at once and demonstrate sustainability in practice. That can be brought about only if there is a true sense of partnership across the communities and working relationships with other authorities.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I happen to be a native of the Brecon Beacons national park. I was born and brought up there. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the agreement that has been struck in the National Assembly for Wales between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Administration provides for the direct elections of members of national park authorities from within their communities and thus makes it a far better joined-up and democratic process?
Mr. Quinn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important contribution. I am not sure whether hon.

3WH
Members have somehow got advance notice of my speech this morning. Indeed that point of view will resonate throughout the debate. As I look around I see that all the hon. Members present this morning have much experience of these communities. Again, I will come to that point later.
"Partnership" is a key word, but it remains just a word unless it is delivered in practice. At the moment the parks authorities work extensively with other public agencies, local communities and the private sector such as, for example, the many land agents and managers who manage private land within the parks area. This is all about trying to manage change effectively and deliver the sustainable future to which we all aspire. Examples from all the national parks show the commitment and the ability of parks authorities to work with others for the benefit of the environment, the economy and the communities. It would be remiss of me if I did not focus on my national park, the North York Moors national park.
The key point about the work that is done on the nation's behalf in national parks is the tremendous value for money that is achieved. The grant from the public purse for all our national parks across England and Wales is a mere £26 million a year. I shall return to that important issue and I hope that it will be the culmination of my speech this morning. At the recent conference of the Association of National Parks Authorities, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), announced that there would be a policy review of national parks and their governance. I welcome that. The North York Moors national park will be able to demonstrate how good practice in governance can be helpfully used elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will examine the examples provided by that park and that we can learn from the review not only permanently to raise the quality of services but to reinforce the connection with people who live in the park area.
Demonstrating a high quality of service to local people is one of the most important activities taking place in the national parks. A debate is continuing in the rural economy about the need for diversification, particularly in agriculture. I have many letters about national parks issues, the bulk of which are really about planning. We need to consider the planning regime carefully and to consider how we might develop a working national park that would permit us to harmonise the local population's aspirations with sustaining the environment there.
The outlook is not all bleak. The main cause of correspondence between me and the authority in the North York Moors national park area has been planning. I did some research on the park authority's attitude to planning applications. In 1998–99, 87.5 per cent. of applications relating to the North York Moors area were approved. In 1999–2000, 86.3 per cent. of applications have been approved so far. Up to the end of March, of 96 applications submitted for developments relating to economic activity, 87 per cent. were approved. A sea change in the attitude of park officers has taken place. There is some realisation of the need for
4WH
diversification in the rural community, away from the agricultural and tourism opportunities that have been traditional in the national park.
It would be remiss of me not to comment on the forthcoming rural White Paper. I hope that it will set out a clear vision and commitment to all rural areas, but I believe that the national parks should take a key role in carrying out the overall vision that I hope will emerge. The areas that we are considering this morning are sparsely populated, leading to social and economic underachievement, with a low level of services, and poor access to them across the board. The isolation of many of my constituents makes the services in question expensive.
We need to reconnect the most isolated communities in England and Wales to services. Investment in information technology infrastructure could provide opportunities for the parks' rural communities to gain access to information, services and training. Like many people, I shall observe with interest the development of rural post offices. However, we must not leave matters at that. We must recognise that national parks officers and the skills available in the national parks movement could make a vital contribution to the development of this important area.
In north Yorkshire a major new initiative has begun, in an attempt to make remote access a reality. It has been co-ordinated in conjunction with North Yorkshire county council and a wide range of partners, as well as the park authority. The project will enhance the local rural economy and give it a competitive advantage. It is attempting to build a shared base for capacity—an empowerment of local communities—and to maximise access to the full range of services for individuals, businesses and local organisations. The national authority is attempting to encourage tourism and to develop viable and improved access to local facilities. For example, the North York Moors national park has information points in village shops to encourage visitors to spend more time there. We want to see the brokering of integrated ticketing on public transport services within national parks.
Our authority is attempting also to engage with wider society with projects designed to mitigate the effects of social exclusion and to give better access to our wonderful landscapes to those in less favoured parts of the country. That is being done by the proactive management of the countryside and by promoting a better understanding of the parks. The North York Moors has a partnership of local disability action groups. That wonderful voluntary scheme allows local communities and the national park to work together to make footpaths and bridleways barrier free so as to allow greater access to the national parks for all, irrespective of people's physical ability.
The national park education service is developing links with urban schools in nearby Teesside and Hull. In-depth research, co-ordinated by Durham university, is being undertaken to examine how ethnic minority communities can be better linked to the national park service so that they can benefit from the recreational and other opportunities available in that wonderful part of Yorkshire.
Access to affordable housing within our national park is a tremendous problem for local residents. Parts of the park attract inward migration; people are tempted to

5WH
retire to that marvellous environment or to buy second homes there and commute to nearby urban centres. Many of my constituents cannot afford to enter the local housing market, so I am pleased that the park authorities are now working with rural housing trusts, housing associations and other local organisations to provide new, affordable housing. However, lack of affordable housing remains a significant problem for my rural community.
The average asking price for houses in June 2000 was £128,000, and only 12 properties were on the market for less than £50,000. For those agricultural workers and skilled estate workers who earn less than £200 a week, those properties are simply out of reach. Time and again, people come to my surgery and ask how our young people can get started on the housing ladder. There are 90 villages in the North York Moors national park. Social housing schemes to provide for local housing needs are being developed at a rate of less than one a year. A proactive and accelerated approach is needed to deal with that problem. I referred earlier to the performance of planning authorities, so I am pleased that the North York Moors national park and other national parks have pioneered local policies to help provide housing for local communities and that the new North York Moors local plan seeks to develop that approach.
Another key problem in rural communities is transport. Although car ownership seems to be high, I shall repeat a phrase that I have used many times before—I note that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) used a similar phrase this morning—which is that the private road vehicle is now a necessity of life and not a luxury. It is worth putting that on the record; I have being saying it for five years.
Car ownership in rural areas—and national parks, in particular—is a necessity of life for many people. We all look forward to finding out whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with that important point tomorrow. As I said, a significant proportion of the community—particularly the young and the elderly—do not have access to a car. Some villages in my constituency are lucky if they have one bus service to Whitby per week. The put down and collection point is right outside my office in Whitby. People from remote parts of the community have limited access to the cosmopolitan delights of Whitby—in the 21st century, that is not good enough.
Increased traffic levels, stimulated by the many visitors who visit the national parks area, is another problem. People who watch television will know of "Heartbeat", the 1960s police drama featuring the mythical village of Aidensfield. It is, in fact, Goathland and receives 2 million visitors every year. On the horizon is the filming of a Harry Potter story on the north Yorkshire moors railway. In terms of the possibilities for global tourism, the Minister and his colleagues should be aware that "we ain't seen nothing yet" in our part of the world.
The national parks have attempted to provide innovative solutions to traffic congestion. The North York Moors national park has co-ordinated the establishment of the Esk valley rail partnership. It is intended to secure the future of the Middlesbrough to Whitby rail link through increased patronage and to
6WH
promote the future of environmental, economic and community benefits: it has made a vital contribution to local life.
The Minister should also note the nationally acclaimed moors bus service, which has been successful in encouraging visitors to leave their cars behind. It provides recreational access for nearby local communities with low levels of car ownership and could be an important springboard for the development of park-and-ride and park-and-tour solutions. We want to encourage people to leave their cars behind and enjoy the feeling of being out there, communing with nature, rather than experiencing a bank holiday traffic jam around the parks area. Many people would recognise the importance of that.
I urge the Minister and his ministerial colleagues with responsibility for the development of transport policy to consider my plea for a multi-modal transport study on the A64 transport corridor, which will directly affect the North York Moors national park. I have already mentioned the "Heartbeat" phenomenon and Harry Potter, but we also want more sustainable tourism in our part of the world.
I have much to say, and feel passionately about my subject, but I also want my many colleagues present today to talk about their areas. I have one final point for the Minister—about financing and the national contribution to the national parks areas. We hope that the review will result in the empowerment of local communities, but it will not be successful if we rely solely on the good will of the local community; we rely on a contribution from the national purse.
I understand that an announcement on the national parks grant will be made shortly. The national parks do not expect anything dramatic but, as a Member of Parliament, it is my job to highlight important issues. That is why I want to put firmly on record my belief that the success of the national parks service over the past 50 years is due to the development of efficient systems by some of the most enthusiastic staff I have encountered in public service in my part of north Yorkshire. Members of the park authorities are especially good at connecting to local communities' aspirations. The Association of National Parks Authorities spends public money well; it has developed the ability to work in partnership with private sector organisations as well as with other public sector bodies. It has a good record of bringing external funding to the parks areas, but it has lost objective 5b money. Although the national parks are willing, able and keen to assist in developing the Government's agenda for the environment, they will need financial assistance to do so.
As I said earlier, at present, the national parks get about £26 million a year from the national purse to sustain their work. That is a contribution of a few pence a week from every person in the land to the wonderful service offered by the national parks. I hope that the opportunities afforded by future rural development regulations will provide the Treasury with a good route to help mitigate the lack of growth in the contribution from the national purse.
I hope that the national parks will be able to gain access to that important potential source of money and that the Minister will contact his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food urging

7WH
co-operation with the national parks movement, at least to prove that there is a genuine attempt to bring about an integrated public service across the board. That would mean best value for the taxpayer and enhance the future potential for this vital part of the rural economy.
The Minister is welcome to join those who are passionate about the future of our national parks at a reception in the Jubilee Room this evening, where there will be further debate on the subject. You would also be most welcome, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members want to take part in the debate on this interesting subject. If contributions are reasonably brief, it will allow as many Members to speak as possible.
10.28 am
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I shall try to abide by your strictures to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on securing this important debate on a subject that is close to the hearts of millions of people who visit the national parks.
I represent a large area of the Peak District national park; we estimate on good authority that we have about 22 million visitors a year, attendance levels about which the dome would be proud to be able to brag. If we could have a small proportion of the money that has been spent on that project, we would be very pleased.
I must take this opportunity to mention my constituents who are suffering as a result of the flooding, especially those in Rowsley, Bakewell and the appropriately named Ashford in the Water.
The Peak District national park is surrounded by three motorways the MI, the M6 and the M62, and by the A50, which has been upgraded almost to motorway standard. It is within an hour's drive of 50 per cent. of the population, and on some bank holidays it feels as if they are all there. That creates some special problems. The Peak district has a resident population of 38,000, second only to the Lake district's 42,000, which means that there is a tremendous amount of work for the national park to undertake. I examined the planning application figures in the annual report of the national parks authorities. In the Peak district in 1999–2000, there were some 900 planning applications and 800 approvals. As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby rightly said, that often brings problems that have to be balanced and resolved.
Even if the Minister cannot respond in detail today, will he consider the problems caused by the large number of quarry applications in the Peak district? Naturally, those planning applications are detailed and complex. To consider only overall numbers of planning applications in deciding how a national park works does not reflect the amount of work involved. In normal circumstances, a quarry application takes three to four times longer to deal with than an ordinary application, creating a tremendous amount of work for the officers of the authority.
8WH
In discussing quarrying, it is important to note that a balance must be struck between residents, visitors who want to enjoy a park's beauty and, sometimes, the need to extract stone. I am not one of the fortunate few who have an office in Portcullis House, but those who have will have noticed its stone, which came from the Twyford quarry at Birchover in Derbyshire. The minerals used in some of our best buildings are extracted in the Peak district. A number of quarry applications before the national park authority are causing local residents a great deal of anxiety. It is important to strike a balance between them and other residents who are employed by the quarrying industry.
I was interested in the description of joined-up government provided by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Joined-up government is not practicable when it means that the Peak district has to work with four different regions. The Minister looks puzzled, but it must be the only national park covered by four different Government regions: the east midlands, the west midlands, the north-west and Yorkshire. My experience of corresponding and negotiating with four different Government regions has not led me to believe in joined-up government in relation to the national parks.
There are 125 parish and town councils in the Peak District national park, and in considering the governance of national parks—I had not realised that the Minister had made this point about governance—I believe that a balance has now been struck. For many years, there was great local animosity because there were no local people directly on the national park authority. During the passage of the Environment Act 1995, I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, advanced proposals to enable parish councils to be automatically represented. That introduced an element of locally elected representation, but was attacked as not being the right way forward.
Whatever the results of the Minister's review of the governance of the national parks, I hope that that element of elected representation remains. Derbyshire county council once appointed eight people to govern the Peak District national park, only one of whom lived within the park area. It is important to get a balance of local representation. It is good to appoint people because they bring a national viewpoint to the debate, but we should not underestimate the need for local representation. It is important to understand that the national parks are not simply giant theme areas, but places where people have to live, work and earn their living. I believe that the right balance can be struck and that the competing arguments for and against development can be dealt with by having an element of local representation.
Will the Minister deal with transport, which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned? When I was fortunate enough to be drawn quite high in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I pushed for a measure to give community transport the same kind of relief received by commercial operators. I was pleased that the Government announced such a measure in their transport plan, but so far we have heard no more about it. Will the Minister let us know what is happening to that proposal and when the community transport

9WH
organisations can look forward to the fuel relief, which was announced before the House rose for the summer recess some four months ago?
The number of visitors to national parks, and the enjoyment that people get out of visiting them, should not be underestimated but neither should the problems of having so many visitors. One problem is that, despite their large numbers, they do not spend much, and so do not bring much wealth into the area. They come to the national parks and enjoy them, but they do not spend as much as we would like them to.
As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, housing is a problem that must be addressed. There is a huge development at Carver Mill in my constituency, where Gleesons has restored a mill, which is being converted into homes. However, the cost of those homes is way beyond what locally employed people could afford. In addition, planning authorities may not allow planning applications for four-bedroom houses. That would restrict people whose families are growing. They might want to move around the area but face a blanket ban on such development.
The Peak district's attractive countryside undoubtedly contributes to surrounding areas, and I welcome this debate. That countryside exists not only because of the natural form of the land that we have inherited, but because of the way in which farmers have looked after it for generations. I fear for its future as I fear for that of agriculture in those tough areas, and I hope that the Minister will address some of those matters.
10.38 am
Dr. David Clark: The Minister and I are perhaps the only Members present who do not represent national parks, although we share a great interest in them. We have almost adjoining constituencies and I often see him in one of the two northern national parks to which we are both frequent visitors. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on taking the initiative by raising the issue. I have the honour of chairing the all-party national parks group, and we will want to contribute to the review of the national parks that we understand is to be conducted in due course both as a group and as individuals.
Like the Minister, my hon. Friend and I both represent the north-east of England and we are lucky that, with a drive of an hour and a half, we can be in three of the national parks: Northumberland, Lake District and North York Moors. I know them reasonably well and spent a happy day in the summer accompanying my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby to the North York Moors national park, where I met the new national park officer, Andy Wilson, who, I am sure, will add to the excellence of the work there.
All the national parks do a great deal of good work, but I want to talk about national issues because the parks are national. Equally, we must recognise the duty of all national parks to foster the economic and social well-being of the local communities within them.
10WH
Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that it is a question of balance.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: Myhon. Friend referred to the national role of the national parks. Does he agree that, following devolution, there is a danger that the national parks, as a family, may be threatened? Does he agree that we must urge the United Kingdom Government and the National Assembly for Wales to recognise the common interests, aims and purposes of national parks, and to pursue a family approach?
Dr. Clark: It is desirable that the national parks work closely together. Indeed, all those in England and Wales do so under the Association of National Park Authorities, and we hope that those in Scotland will do so in due course. However, the devolution of power to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament has brought about a new problem and we must ensure that the right balance is struck.
I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his courageous and, in my view, correct decision to uphold his own inspector's plan to introduce a 10 mph limit on Lake Windermere, where there are more than 6,500 registered motorboats. Life has become intolerable for those who do not use motorised boats, and the overwhelming majority of locals have applauded that decision. He should not be taken in by the vociferous group of people who are campaigning against that move, especially as I believe that the main objector is the man who has the sole concession to import the powerboats, the majority of which come from the United States.
The national parks must be national. They must also retain a responsibility for planning. We welcome the possible addition of national parks in Sussex and the New Forest, and I hope that the Government will stand firm and include planning in the remit of the national parks. Like the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, I have looked at the figures.
Dr. Desmond Turner: Myright hon. Friend has reached an apposite point. Land management is a crucial issue in relation to the forthcoming South Downs national park. Most of the destruction to the landscape that has occurred until now has been caused by common agricultural practice, which is bad practice; the deep ploughing of delicate downland soil is very destructive, not only to rare species, but to people. My constituents are suffering from run-off, which happens on ground that has been ploughed for winter cereals.
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Order.
Dr. Turner: I will be one moment, Mrs. Michie.
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please sit down? This is becoming a speech. Only short interventions are permissible.
Dr. Turner: Thank you, Mrs. Michie. I was trying to avoid a speech by making an intervention.

11WH
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one vital issue that the national parks can address is proper land management, which not only preserves the landscape but protects those people who are exposed to the dangers of bad practice? They pay for farmers' profits.
Dr. Clark: Obviously, I do not want to follow that route, but I understand the point. Planning is clearly the key aspect.
I want to make two points, the first of which concerns social exclusion. The national parks have an important role because of their infrastructure. The North York Moors national park runs 13,000 bus services a year. If the Government want to encourage social inclusion, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the infrastructure within the auspices of the national park authorities, which can deliver services on time and at a price.
My final point concerns finance. We are all pleased that, following the comprehensive spending review, there will be a 10 per cent. increase in real terms in spending on the countryside and rural matters during each of the next three years and we look forward to the rural White Paper. However, I saw a letter from the head of the Wildlife and Countryside Directorate and was concerned that very little of that 10 per cent. increase is to be given to the national parks. I refer to a letter of 21 July from Miss Lambert suggesting that most of the money will go on wildlife management and laudable schemes, but if money is put into the national parks, it can provide excellent value for money and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that.
I shall draw my comments to a close and allow hon. Members with constituency interests to speak.
10.47 am
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Icongratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on initiating this important debate. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) because he knows the national park to which I shall refer, as does the Minister, and I concur with his comments.
The purpose of my brief comments is to ask the Minister in his review of national parks to resolve the conflict between the demands of military training and the statutory obligations given to national park authorities. The Minister knows that the Northumberland and Brecon Beacons national parks have extensive military training areas and a considerable military presence. More than 20 per cent. of the Northumberland national park is owned by the Ministry of Defence. The demands of both bodies have been a recipe for conflict, which has caused considerable trouble and disquiet and has made the national park authority unpopular among local people.
When the military authorities submitted an application for substantial improvements to the infrastructure on the Otterburn training ranges, the Northumberland national park authority wanted to object, but could not for technical reasons, because the objections had to come from Northumberland county council. The duty of the national park authority is to
12WH
preserve the area from such development, but the Ministry of Defence in Otterburn is the largest employer in the Rede and Coquet valleys and puts around £3 million into the local economy. That national park's stated objective is to look after the needs of local people and the conflict arises because it is opposing an essential development to maintain military training on the Otterburn ranges, which brings great economic benefit to local people.
The saga of the infrastructure improvements on Otterburn date from April 1996 when the plan was first submitted to allow the AS90 automatic mobile gun to be used in training on the ranges. The AS90 is effectively a large tank with a large gun mounted on it, and it needs special roads and infrastructure to operate on the Otterburn ranges.
The planning inquiry opened in April 1997, following the refusal of the county council to grant planning permission. A second inquiry was then deemed necessary by the Government. That ended in March 1999, when the inspector reported to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who has been sitting on the planning application since May 1999. In the meantime, the Army has experienced serious difficulty in training troops on the AS90. Were it not for the fact that some AS90s are now deployed in Bosnia, where training is allowed to take place, the military would face a real crisis in bringing the crews operating the AS90s up to the standard required. That has led to huge uncertainty among people who work for or benefit from the Army in the national park area.
The MOD has an enviable record in maintaining the environment of military ranges. Anyone who knows those ranges—as I am sure that the Minister does—will be aware that the Army has an excellent conservation record. If military training had not taken place in this part of the national parks since 1910, I have no doubt that the whole area would have been afforested along with the neighbouring forests of Kielder and Wark. The conservation of the area can be well and safely looked after by the MOD.
A solution to the conflict between the military and the national park would be to take the military training areas out of the national park. I have favoured and recommended that solution for some time. However, that would remove 22 per cent. of the national park area and would make Northumberland national park, which is one of the smallest national parks—consisting of only some 400 square miles—unviable as a national park. The problem could be solved by including the Kielder forest, an area that was deliberately excluded when the national park was formed. When the Kielder forest—the largest man-made forest in Europe—was planted, it was deemed to be unsuitable for national park purposes because it was man-made.
That situation has changed because of the way in which the Forestry Commission is remodelling commercial forestry to make it vastly more environmentally friendly and much more attractive. The growth in tourism to the Kielder dam and the forest means that the area could happily be put into the national park to compensate for the park losing considerable powers over the Otterburn training ranges. I urge the Minister to consider that solution to resolve the conflict between the two bodies.
10.53 am
Mr. David Lepper: Icongratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on having secured this important debate. Its importance for those of us who do not yet have national parks in our areas is shown by the fact that four Members who represent Sussex constituencies covering different parts of the South Downs are hoping to take part in the debate—although I suspect that we have different views about the national park.
I welcome the decision by the Minister and his Government colleagues to listen and respond to the campaign that has taken place over several years to secure a national park for the South Downs, which, in 1947, was one of the areas suggested by the Hobhouse report for the first tranche of national parks and was the only area not included in the family of national parks that was created in 1949.
The history of the campaign predates that. In 1934, there was pressure for what we would now call a national park to be established for the South Downs by the landowners and the majority of the local authorities in the area, with one exception—Brighton borough council—which effectively prevented matters from going further. That was a twist of history, because Brighton and Hove council is the only local authority in the area that took the trouble to consult local residents on whether they wished to have a national park. The residents voted in favour of the proposal, which Brighton and Hove council is supporting in the face of opposition from other parts of the region.
Mr. Tim Loughton: Iam sure that the hon. Gentleman was not expecting to avoid the point that, of the 15 local authorities that cover the proposed national park area, only one—his own—is in favour of national park status. All the others, which are accountable to their democratically elected councils, oppose it.
Mr. Lepper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for falling into the trap of making that intervention. He is right, but Brighton and Hove council is the only council that consulted its local residents. In many other local authorities, the decision to support the proposed national park was taken by council officers and rubber-stamped by a small committee of councillors. Indeed, in every case where a local authority held a public meeting concerning the proposed national park, the majority of those in attendance supported the proposal.
Why should the South Downs become a national park? There can be no doubt that the landscape is unique and needs protection. From Winchester to Eastbourne, the landscape is subject to all kinds of pressures, and needs the protection that only national park status can provide. The area is popular with visitors, and much more needs to be done to create a balance between the needs of conservation and recreation and of those who work there.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Thehon. Gentleman will be aware that some 32 million people a year currently visit the South Downs. Does he think that national park status will increase or reduce the number of visitors?
Mr. Lepper: I think that we will have better management of recreation for the South Downs, which
14WH
will affect the visitors. For example, thanks to good management, the number of visitors to the Norfolk Broads has in some respects declined since national park status was recently conferred on it. The creation of a national park does not necessarily lead, therefore, to an increase in the number of visitors.
Those who oppose a national park for the South Downs have built up certain myths about the way in which national parks are run. One such myth concerns local involvement in a national parks authority. It is suggested that such an authority is a form of quango that is run from Whitehall, but nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) expressed his support for the inclusion of parish council representatives as a move towards greater democracy in the management of national park authorities. Fifty per cent. plus one of the membership of such an authority consists of local, county and district councillors, and 25 per cent. minus one consists of parish council representatives. It is true that the remaining 25 per cent. are appointed, but as I understand it the chairman—or woman—of a national park authority is appointed by the authority itself, rather than Whitehall. Therefore, there is a degree of real local representation in national park authorities.
Another myth is that there will be a move away from local councils' involvement in the planning process. All who care about national parks regard the ability to form a strategic plan, through which the various conflicting interests of district councils and planning authorities are resolved, as one of their strengths. As I understand it, the situation that existed in the national parks until the 1995 Act was that the majority of planning decisions were devolved back to the individual local authorities. Following the 1995 legislation, the majority of local authorities decided to move in the opposite direction and to give greater decision making powers over strategic planning to the national park authority for their area. On both those counts, therefore, the opponents of a national park for the South Downs are creating myths that cannot be sustained by fact.
My final point is about funding. We have heard about the Government's contribution to funding, and I share the concerns that have been expressed about the need for that to be increased. However, it is often overlooked, especially in the important area of conservation, that a national park has access to lottery funding—or the ability to apply for it—and funding from the European Union, whereas bodies such as the South Downs Conservation Board do not. On the South Downs, therefore, conservation work would be enhanced by the possibility of attracting additional funding, not only from central Government but from sources from which the Sussex Downs conservation board is currently denied funds.
I pay tribute to the Sussex Downs conservation board for the work that it has done in the years since it was set up. It has done a lot, but its powers are limited, especially in relation to planning. It can be listened to, but it has no remit for decision making in terms of planning. A national park authority would have such a remit. That is why the campaign for a national park for the south downs is supported not only by my area's council, but by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth, the Ramblers Association, the wildlife trusts, the Youth Hostels

15WH
Association, the Open Spaces Society, the Society of Sussex Downsmen, the Sussex Archaeological Society, the Sussex Wildlife Trust, and a host of other local and national organisations. I am glad that the Government have listened to those people.
11.2 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on securing this debate, which has been a very level-headed one.
The debate takes place against the background of increasing building pressure on greenfield sites, an increasing demand for access to national parks as well as country and urban parks, an increasing threat to biodiversity both onshore and offshore, and increasing demands for safe food and the sustainable management of natural resources. All that points to the need for an increase in the number of national parks or—to put it a different way—for areas to be granted the degree of protection afforded to national parks. Greater investment is also required in the less prestigious local parks relied on by many people in urban areas such as mine. That has been well documented in the Select Committee's report on country and urban parks.
I shall focus first on national marine parks, to which other hon. Members have not referred. That is one of the major omissions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I am not suggesting that direct comparisons can be made between a species that is being fished commercially, such as cod, and other species worthy of protection. However, if cod is in such decline that whole sea areas might have to be closed to fishing, I dread to think what is happening to the less well known species. That is why action needs to be taken on national marine parks. I know that the Government have identified that as an issue, and that a working party was set up to examine it. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made on this important matter?
With regard to onshore national parks, the South Downs has been referred to, and there is also the question of the New Forest national park. The extension of protected landscapes and habitats will be welcomed, but only if local communities feel that their interests are also being safeguarded. I have some questions to which I hope the Minister will respond. Does he support proposals for the South Downs and the New Forest to become national parks? If so, what time scale does he envisage? Has he considered the funding implications for local authorities? What local community involvement would he envisage and has he made any attempt to assess the impact on access arrangements for existing and future visitors?
On the question of reforms to the way that national parks are structured, a number of hon. Members mentioned planning. How can more consultation be carried out with local communities? How can we ensure that the planning officers who carry out the work are more highly qualified? How can planning help to provide more affordable housing in these areas? There is also the question of national park rangers. I understand that they have no powers of enforcement. Do rangers demand or require additional powers of enforcement to protect wildlife in national parks? Is the Minister reviewing that issue?
16WH
One of the concerns that has been raised by various organisations in relation to national parks is bureaucracy. Leaving land in a will is an expensive, complex and lengthy process, which is a key problem when a possible extension to a national park is being considered. Do the Government have any plans to review that legal quagmire?
The public are increasingly concerned about the environment, biodiversity and also the quality of the food that is produced. Could national parks develop a campaigning role in promoting high-squality, possibly organic food that is grown in those areas on sustainably managed farms.
What encouragement will the Minister give to sustainable resource development in those areas, and what can be done to sustain rural employment? My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), who has had to leave the Chamber, wanted me to make that point in relation to Wales, because he is concerned about a net outward migration, particularly of younger people. What can be done to help to promote skills that can be used in national parks, such as stone wall building?
Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman referred to his hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who was very pleased that the Welsh Assembly was to move to direct elections for national parks. Would the Liberal Democratic party welcome direct elections for all national parks?
Mr. Brake: I am happy for my Welsh colleague to pursue his agenda through the Welsh Assembly. That is what devolution is about. I will let him deal with that and I will concentrate on English matters.
Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Brake: I am attempting to finish to allow time for other speakers and I shall not give way. I am drawing my comments to a close.
Another area to which hon. Members have referred is funding. I understand that Wales has received a significant boost to its national parks funding. Does the Minister expect similar action to be taken here? All hon. Members enjoy our national parks. The Minister must reassure us today that he will ensure that existing and future national parks, whether onshore or offshore, are adequately funded and sustainably managed, and that local communities thrive so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy them as much as we do.
11.09 am
Mr. Nigel Waterson: Icongratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on securing this important debate. I was interested by the comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) about offshore national parks, an idea that may well commend itself to the former Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson).
The debate has been very interesting and a veritable tour of the country. We have heard powerful contributions, and I am particularly pleased that Sussex

17WH
is so well represented today. I can claim particular knowledge of two relevant areas. One is the North York Moors national park. I grew up in Yorkshire and, like the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, have enjoyed visiting that national park. The other is the South Downs. My home in my constituency is on the very edge of the downs at Wannock and I get enormous pleasure, as I am sure other hon. Members in the Sussex area do, from walking regularly on the downs.
Today we have an excellent opportunity to celebrate the success of national parks. In particular I acknowledge the Council for National Parks, as it is now called—in 1936, when it began campaigning for national parks, it was the Standing Committee on National Parks. Its major contributions over the years are too many to mention, but they include lobbying for the extension of national parks and playing a role in the establishment of the 10 mph speed limit on Windermere in the Lake district.
The problem is that some national parks have become victims of their success, which has brought problems and challenges. The recent history of some national parks contains a message about the need for flexibility in the 21st century. We should tailor the excellent brand name of national parks to local needs and circumstances, as has happened in recent years in the broads, for example. A very different approach has been adopted there from that used in other national parks, exactly as one would expect given the special circumstances.
I attended a meeting with the hon. Members for Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and for Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) a year or so ago in this very building. It was addressed by Sir Chris Bonington, a distinguished supporter of national parks. He extolled the virtues of the new national park in the South Downs. It was a few days after his appointment by the Deputy Prime Minister to lead a task force to examine the problems in existing national parks, such as too many visitors, too much traffic, erosion, congestion and pollution. Those are the problems of success. It would have been pointless to set up the national parks without encouraging visitors.
I want to talk about the proposals for a South Downs national park, for three reasons. First, I know the area well and represent part of it. Secondly, it is the current live issue in the national parks context, along with the parallel proposals for the New Forest. Thirdly, perhaps the whole debate about the South Downs national park will inform a broader, and very important, debate about the future role and status of national parks. As I have explained, national parks are a concept that needs to develop and change in the light of new circumstances, not least, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has said, the explosion in the ownership of private motor cars.
The issue that I have identified is not a new one. Originally, as the hon. Member for Pavilion pointed out, the South Downs was rejected when areas were being considered for national park status. The Countryside Agency's predecessors considered the issue twice, in 1956 and 1998. In 1992, of course, the Countryside Commission decided to establish the Sussex Downs conservation board, to which I join other hon. Members in paying tribute. It does an excellent job and shows tremendous commitment.
In 1998, the Countryside Commission again considered whether national park status would be appropriate for the South Downs, and concluded that
18WH
designation was not especially desirable to ensure conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area or to implement the necessary measures in respect of recreation and so on. It advised Ministers against designation as a national park. The new Government did not take that advice, and the process is thus on-going.
It is important, however, as the Countryside Agency stated recently, to focus on the factors that might make the area a proper place for a national park. They boil down to two criteria. The first is whether the area contains qualities
that might merit the provision of a markedly superior recreational experience.
No hon. Member who represents part of the area, or who has visited it, could argue that it does not. It is a wonderful area of recreational opportunities already enjoyed by many thousands, if not millions, of people every year.
The second criterion stated by the agency is that
designation will lead to a markedly better managed recreational experience than can be achieved by local authorities alone.
That is the key issue in this context. The document also states, rather in passing, that
some regard must be had to public opinion.
It continues that
designation as a national park for better protection, should be seen as carrying low priority.
It says that because national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty have similar protection under the existing rules.
It has rightly been said that planning issues are at the heart of the debate; that is the key to the future of the South Downs and other national parks. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) said that all the local authorities in the area, with the exception of Brighton and Hove, believe that they should continue to have a strong role in the planning process. That is not just because of democratic accountability, although that is important, but because they know the area and feel that they are best placed to take planning decisions.
The average figure for planning applications is roughly the same for national parks as for anywhereelse—about 80 per cent. That point was powerfully made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. That is a double-edged sword. In the present circumstances, there will not be a major shift in the approach to planning. West Sussex county council, for example, made a strong case for joint local planning arrangements between a national park authority and the district authorities, possibly under section 62(2) of the Environment Act 1995. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views about that proposal.
The area in question is different from that of existing national parks. It is not a wilderness; it is heavily farmed and close to large centres of population. I am puzzled by the alleged advantages of national park status for recreation and access. We already have an estimated 32 million visitors a year, which is more than any of the existing national parks. The hon. Member for Pavilion seemed to think that we might end up with fewer visitors if the area was a national park, although I am not clear whether he thought that that was a good thing or a bad thing.

19WH
I advise the Government and others involved to be cautious about divining public support or opposition. There are some vociferous minority groups who are in favour of the proposal, and there have been some so-called public meetings that have not been representative of a cross-section of opinion. In my constituency, mainstream opinion is not in favour of a national park—almost every local authority in the area is against the idea.
We want a working and living community, not a theme park. Shakespeare said, "What is in a name?", which may be a wise approach. The need for national parks in the South Downs and the New Forest will be reviewed under the next Conservative Government.
Today is a time for celebration to mark the farsightedness and high ideals of those who started national parks; to congratulate existing national parks on their success; and to look to the future to establish whether, under the brand name "national park", we can produce a more democratic, more local and more workable system for the 21st century.
11.20 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): Ithank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) for raising this important issue. He made an interesting speech and other hon. Members also raised important points. I shall attempt to address as many as possible in the available time, but if I cannot deal with all of them, I shall write to hon. Members.
Responsibility for national parks is one of the better elements of my diverse brief, as hon. Members have noticed. I am familiar with the North York Moors park because I holiday there from time to time. It is about an hour's drive from my home. I am in the process of walking in four stages from Holy island to the Lake district—a distance of about 250 miles. Thus far I have reached Shap, and the walk has taken me through three national parks, so I have some familiarity with the territory.
As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, the decision taken 50 years ago to ensure the conservation of our most precious areas of countryside was indeed far sighted and it is worth celebrating. Modern pressures make the conservation of these fine areas even more important—not only on account of their great beauty but because they provide people with somewhere to go away from the hurly burly where they can truly enjoy their leisure time.
As hon. Members have argued today, we must recognise that national parks are also places where people live and work, and the benefits of increasing the number of visitors must be reconciled with the interests of people living and working there. They are not incompatible, but we are all on a learning curve and as we go along we should try to achieve that balance.
National parks are a vital part of our heritage. Each is different from the others, and between them they offer beautiful countryside and a great range of experience in recreational pursuits. It may be that no single ideological model can be imposed on all of them. I acknowledge that
20WH
in respect of the proposals for the South Downs and New Forest national parks. I have received a delegation and am taking careful account of all the different representations on the subject. I have made it clear that our minds remain open about what model will be adopted.
Mr. Wigley: The Minister will be aware from some hon. Members' contributions that the National Assembly for Wales is, for the same reason that he proposed, considering possible variations in the model. If primary legislation is forthcoming, will the Minister bear in mind the need of the National Assembly for Wales for flexibility through order-making procedures? We want to ensure that we achieve a formula that is responsive to our area's needs.
Mr. Mullin: I shall certainly bear that in mind, but many of my superiors would be annoyed if I made any commitments about future legislation.
In view of the Government's current initiatives, today's debate is timely. The initiatives include the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the introduction of rural development plans for England and Wales, the forthcoming rural White Paper and the policy review of national park authorities, which I recently announced. The review will be similar to other Government sponsored policy reviews. I expect it to cover a range of issues, including the parks' governing structures, overall policy relating to legislation that affects the parks, and the future distribution of funding. We want to ensure that the national park authorities remain forward looking, dynamic, open and innovative.
National parks contribute much to the social and economic fabric of rural areas. Tourism is just one example; it is an industry that is becoming increasingly important in rural areas. It supports about 380,000 jobs compared with just over 500,000 in agriculture, and it makes a vital contribution to the local economies of all the national parks and to the rural economy in general. In accordance with their statutory purpose, the national parks are keen to promote greater enjoyment of all their special qualities by everyone, in a responsible fashion. I hope that they will be seen as models in promoting sustainable tourism.
Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mullin: I am sorry, I have very little time.
Public transport projects are a key factor in tourism. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned the North York Moors bus scheme and the leading role taken by the Esk valley rail partnership.
Several hon. Members mentioned the need for social inclusion. That operates two ways: first, it means making the parks available to people from all backgrounds and in all income groups; secondly it means taking account of the interests of those on low incomes who live in the parks, including their need for decent local transport and affordable housing. It is imperative that we send out the clear message that the national parks are for everyone. Efforts are being made to make the parks more accessible to all by public transport, particularly disabled visitors. We are also keen to encourage greater involvement by

21WH
minority ethnic communities. The Government are playing their part in that by broadening the membership of national park authorities to make them more representative of the social and cultural mix of the countryside at large.
There has been some talk about the use of cars. These days the Conservative party is posturing as the party of the motor car, but that is rather irresponsible. We need to make more sensible use of the car. Everyone recognises that cars are essential, especially for those who live in rural areas, but we can do much to make more sensible use of them.
There have long been stricter planning controls in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, particularly in respect of major development. There are also tighter controls over permitted development rights in the parks. Those additional controls are needed to reflect the special features and qualities of protected landscape areas, and they have proved their worth. I know that concern is often expressed locally about the national park authorities' interpretation of planning controls, but it is a difficult balance to strike. Well over 80 per cent. of planning applications in national parks are granted. The Countryside Agency offers special training seminars for authority members on planning matters, so that the national experience can be more widely shared.
The new national parks have been mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) said, a number of myths exist about national parks. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne that parks are living communities, not theme parks. The Government are considering the possible designation of two new national parks, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked about the timetable for that. We intend the designation order for the New Forest to be produced in late 2001 and that for the South Downs to be published in the spring of 2002. It will then be for the Secretary of State to consider the orders, with any representations that may have been made, and to decide whether public inquiries are needed before final decisions are taken.
The national parks have received a real terms increase of about £5 million in funding over the past 10 years, and further increases will be announced shortly. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that extra money will be available—about 10 per cent. a year—but we must bear in mind the fact that some of that will be consumed by the extra responsibilities that will arise under the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, particularly the access provisions of which he is a strong supporter. Everyone expects us to fund authorities properly and not just impose extra responsibilities on them. In any case, the parks benefit from many other aspects of Government policy. We are putting a lot of money into rural buses and, through the Housing Corporation, into affordable housing, which is an important issue not only in national parks, but in all parts of the country. It is not true—
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Order. I am sorry to stop the Minister in full flight, but we must now move to the next debate.

Flooding (Vale of York)
11.30 am
Miss Anne McIntosh: Iam grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue, which is causing great concern against a background of unprecedented conditions as a result of persistent slow-moving rain. About 30 mm fell in a 12-hour period between the afternoon of Thursday 2 November and the early hours of Friday 3 November, and 50 mm fell on the northern Pennines and the North Yorkshire moors. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) regrets that he cannot be with us. He has suffered similar flooding to that in the Vale of York.
I congratulate the Environment Agency, the police and other emergency services, 38 Royal Engineers based at Ripon, local radio stations and others on all the assistance that they gave in last weekend's emergency, which is on-going. My heart goes out to all those affected: the flooding of one's home and possessions must be one of the greatest disasters that can affect an individual or a family. I accept that the Environment Agency has worked extremely hard and provided 24-hour coverage to improve flood warnings. However, that is no consolation to my constituents in the Vale of York who have been flooded.
There was a flood awareness campaign during September and a number of meetings were held during flood awareness week beginning on 11 September. Regrettably, no meeting was held anywhere in the Vale of York, but plastic cards that float have been issued. My constituents must be reassured that, if their houses are flooded, the cards will be there on their return. However, improving flood warnings is no substitute for better flood defences.
The system seemed to break down in one respect: Rawcliffe was completely overlooked and constituents there feel neglected. The flood defences were breached in the late hours of Friday night and the early hours of Saturday morning, 4 November. A request went out for sandbags to be provided, but it fell on deaf ears. For a number of understandable reasons, priority was given to the city of York, but no clear warning was given to Rawcliffe residents.
I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present, because I would like him to clarify his comments in Hansard yesterday. Referring to me, he said:
Much of her constituency is a flood plain and its flooding has taken a great deal of pressure off urban areas.—[Official Report, 6 November 2000: Vol. 356, c. 31.]
I would like an assurance that it is not all right to flood the Vale of York to save the city of York. That is causing a great deal of distress, particularly in Rawcliffe.
As I said, no sandbags were provided and no adequate warning was given. Social services were not involved on either Saturday or Sunday: they intervened only at a very late stage. Rawcliffe parish council could not have done more to help the evacuees. I went to a centre in St. Mark's grove in Rawcliffe, which is where the police were told to direct evacuees. However, I had to intervene in the case of a couple that had nowhere to go because social services were not present. I gather that people from social services did not explain why they had

23WH
not been present until late yesterday. In future, there should be greater communication between the services involved.
An array of bodies has responsibility for flood defences, including the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. The Library research note that was prepared for me on 3 November states:
Provision of flood defences relies on a partnership between Government and local operating authorities.
The involvement of that array of bodies with varying responsibilities makes for a complicated system and a confusing funding mechanism.
The funding arrangement that I would particularly like the Minister to consider is the revenue support grant. In the 1997–98 financial year, the flood and coastal defence element of the revenue support grant totalled £225.4 million. When the Local Government Association recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture, it agreed that, although it is reasonable to maintain the existing standard spending assessment methodology, additional safeguards are needed to reflect within-year changes in local authorities' spending on their flood defence systems in SSAs for subsequent years. The association believes that that would allow for consistency and certainty under the SSA procedure in strategic planning and flood defences.
The flood defence income and expenditure figures for the accounting year that ended on 31 March 2000 show that a loss was incurred in Yorkshire. Total expenditure as a percentage of the total was 22.8 per cent., whereas income was only 21.6 per cent. I am worried because the £51 million that the Government have provided, although welcome, is to be spread over four years, and £51 million is substantially less than a quarter of the total spending on flood defences in any one year, and will probably be insufficient for the unprecedented flooding crisis that we have faced.
The Minister said yesterday that the Vale of York is substantially within a flood plain area. That is apparent from the most recent indicative flood plains map, prepared by the Environment Agency in 1999, a copy of which I received in August this year. The breaching at Rawcliffe of Blue beck, causing the flooding into Rawcliffe grove, Shipton road and other areas, was apparently aggravated by the large number of houses that have been built in recent years. Will the Government consider imposing an immediate moratorium on the building of new homes on flood plains such as the Vale of York until an estimate can be made of the damage incurred?
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the impact of the flooding on the farming community—which is already in the depths of a crisis. As we have seen in the Vale of York, protecting towns often means that rural areas are flooded, including highly productive agricultural land. For example, a total of 1,000 acres across five farms on the Crown estate at Boroughbridge have been flooded. That area is not a flood plain, but prime land on which is grown potatoes, sugar beet and cereals. Many crops will not be harvested, and tenants and landowners in those areas face huge losses. Everyone agrees that it is vital to protect homes from
24WH
flooding—it is the most personal disaster that can affect a constituent. However, some form of compensation must be paid—not necessarily from the flood defence budget; perhaps from the rural development fund—to those whose incomes and livelihoods have been sacrificed in this way.
The new money that the Government have announced is appreciated. However, will the Minister confirm that it is not merely a levy on the existing county council SSA, that it will be paid directly to the flood defence committee of the Environment Agency, and that part of it will be paid to the highway authorities?
Floods have damaged many roads and bridges in the Vale of York, which was cut in two. Aldwark bridge is being repaired, Cundall bridge was flooded and impassable, and the A68 has been impassable for the best part of a week. Will emergency funds be made available not just to the Environment Agency's flood defence committees but to the highway authorities, so that they can quickly repair flood damage to roads and bridges?
New defences in Boroughbridge have been put severely to the test, although as I speak they seem to be holding. However, most of the flooded properties in Langthorpe, which is slightly lower than the adjacent defences, could probably have been saved if the Aldborough Ings scheme had been put into operation. Can the new money be made available to compensate landowners and tenants on the Ings for the inconvenience caused by temporary flooding?
There are problems in Boroughbridge. The floodline warning has proved inadequate in certain respects. The quality of information has not been sufficiently or frequently upgraded, and that has caused alarm. Flood information was often six hours old. 1 phoned the floodline on Friday evening, but Boroughbridge was not mentioned—Milby was referred to, but that is an appreciable distance away. In the past, information was given on the height of water passing under a bridge, but since the flood warning was changed that has no longer been provided. Regrettably, portable road signs were not available in Boroughbridge, so when the bridge was closed local people had to use hand signals to divert traffic, thereby incurring abuse from passing motorists.
Is the Minister aware that the Boroughbridge pumping station is controlled by a computer that is located in York? Recently, the computer failed and manual intervention was required, which led to various operational defects. Moreover, does the Minister realise that the recently installed barrage, which prevents debris passing under the bridge, could cause a sudden rush of water and lead to flooding further down the river?
As of yesterday, 50 residential properties in the Hambleton district had been evacuated, and their occupants rehoused or cared for in other sites. More than 250 other homes in Hambleton have experienced flooding, but as yet it has not been necessary to evacuate the owner-occupiers. According to Broadacres housing association, many homes that were affected by the flood had no house contents insurance, so it will be impossible to make any claim. That is a particularly worrying problem, which doubtless is not unique to the Vale of York. As the Minister will know, if an act of God—such as flood or fire—is deemed to have occurred, many of the losses are uninsurable. That has a substantial financial impact on people who can ill afford it.

25WH
I urge the Minister to discover whether, for example, dredging still takes place on rivers such as the Ouse, which used to be dredged frequently. Are local drains being cleared as often as in the past? I make a special plea for the strengthening of flood defences at Aldborough Ings and Clifton Ings, which would protect Rawcliffe. I hope that the Minister, the local authorities and all the relevant services will pay particular attention to rural areas and city outskirts such as Rawcliffe and Clifton. If possible, nowhere should be flooded, and when unprecedented conditions occur in future, sandbags must be made available to all who are affected, come hell or high water. Will the Minister consider a temporary moratorium on house building on flood plains, until we have the opportunity to assess what damage has been caused to constituencies such as the Vale of York?
On the subject of rehousing the evacuees as soon as is physically possible, can we be assured that there will be no health risk? Will the local authority, the Environment Agency or Yorkshire Water be responsible for particles of sewage being removed from people's homes? The water level is about to peak this afternoon. If the sewerage works at Rawcliffe were to burst its banks, the damage to the houses in Shipton road and to other neighbouring facilities would not bear thinking about. Help must obviously be sought, and we seek guidance from the Minister this morning.
11.45 am
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. It is very timely, given the present circumstances in her constituency and nationally.
As the hon. Lady rightly said, these extreme conditions have been caused by some of the most severe floods that this country has experienced in half a century. Moreover, they are affecting areas right across the country. They have put local authorities, the emergency services, the Environment Agency and voluntary groups under severe pressure. The latest position, reported to me this morning by the Environment Agency, is that 4,725 properties have been flooded in England and Wales. There are 45 severe flood warnings and 231 flood warnings in force. That shows the scale of the flooding and of the demands that it is making on the agency.
Yorkshire has been especially badly affected by the recent floods. The county experienced exceptionally heavy rainfall in October, and that has continued into November with the present rain belts. Nearly all Yorkshire is on flood watch, and flood warnings or severe flood warnings are in force on many rivers. The situation is changing constantly as the rivers respond to the recent rainfall, and I am afraid that more rainfall is expected in the next few days.
As the hon. Lady may know, I visited York last Friday, and I was in Selby last Saturday. The surrounding area was also visited by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. We have seen the effects of the flooding first hand, and the misery that it has caused those people who have been affected.
26WH
The one bright side to the situation is that the flooding would have been a lot worse but for the improvements that have been made to flood defences in recent years. The defences constructed in York after the serious floods of 1982 have been seriously tested, but they have managed to operate beyond their design capacity, and they continue to protect about 1,000 houses. As the hon. Lady said, substantial protection has also been given to Boroughbridge in her constituency, where I am glad to say the defences have held. However, as she also pointed out, about 50 properties in Rawcliffe and about 20 in Milby have been flooded. Flood warnings were issued in those locations, but I would like to extend my personal sympathy to all those people who have been affected. I appreciate the impact that this has had on them.
I shall deal with some of the specific points that the hon. Lady raised. The Environment Agency has issued warnings to people who live in flood risk areas, and those cards were important because they explained exactly what the warnings and the symbols meant, and what action should be taken in case of a flood. They also had the flood watch number on them. That service has been very successful, because it has allowed people to ring and obtain the information to which the hon. Lady referred. People want information: they want to know what is going on in their area, what the risks are and what the local river is doing. The agency has done a very good job in that respect.
The hon. Lady asked about the availability of much wider information on road closures and so on, and I am not saying that we cannot consider such issues when the circumstances have calmed down and returned to normal. We may be able to improve on those provisions in future, and there may be areas in which we could do better. The agency will review the situation, when it has returned to normality, and I shall ensure that the hon. Lady and all other hon. Members in affected areas receive a copy of the conclusions.
The hon. Lady mentioned the flood plain in the Vale of York. I do not want her and her constituents to get the impression that it is acceptable for them to be flooded to save the city of York or other people. That is not what the Government or the Environment Agency believe, but flood plains are part of our natural defences in flood management. Flood meadows and plains will flood as they have always done and may have flooded more in the past than now. They are a natural feature of the environment and many farmers use cropping and grazing regimes that work in harmony with annual winter flooding, although there have been huge changes over the years with intensification and a move to arable farming. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has played a role in that over the years by providing grants for draining fields or for switching from winter grazing to arable crops. The Ministry has played its part over the decades, but we must think more about sustainability and its impact.
Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that there is a case for grants to be made available to farmers on this occasion, and will he agree to press for a moratorium on house building on flood plains until we can assess the damage?
Mr. Morley: I shall come to what we can do to help farmers in the current situation and the arrangements for flood defences.

27WH
Our prime concern is to protect lives and property. Farmers may suffer loss, but the degree of loss depends on how long floodwater remains and the strength of the flood. The strength of the present floods will have a great impact on farmers wherever land has flooded.
We have given some thought to the funding arrangements and to the standard spending assessment in relation to regional flood defence committees and levies, and we have considered whether that is the most efficient method. The methods of funding flood defences will be reviewed and we shall produce a report. The present methods work well, and local people are involved through their local representatives and local authorities, which decide local priorities. That is a strength of the system, but I am not saying that there have not been problems. One is that local authorities are sometimes reluctant, for a variety of reasons, to pass the increase in the levies—it was above inflation in the previous standard spending assessment—to regional flood defence committees. That can cause problems.
I confirm that the £51 million over four years is new money from the Government's reserves and will not come from county council or local authority allocations. It will be predominantly for capital programmes for flood defence work and some will be used for whole catchment area planning. It is not destined for highway authorities for road or bridge replacement or repair, for which there are separate budgets. That £51 million, on top of increases already announced for the flood and coastal defence budget, means that we shall be able to grant-aid more flood defence schemes, and we shall want to give priority to river systems.
The hon. Lady referred to schemes in her constituency. It is for local and regional flood defence committees to decide their local priorities, work out schemes in conjunction with the Environment Agency and submit them to the Ministry for grant aid according to the criteria that we apply—engineering standards, cost benefit analysis and other criteria with which they are familiar. I am sure that they will consider those matters in their areas and take action accordingly.
The £51 million and the Ministry's budget for flood control are not intended to compensate people who have been affected by floods. The Government do not have the facility to help with insurable risks. No Government have ever done that, and we cannot do so. However, we can help local authorities with the exceptional expenditure that many of them will face as a result of the floods. Bringing out emergency work teams, rehousing people and dealing with storm and flood damage involve exceptional costs. The hon. Lady will be aware that I announced yesterday that the Bellwin formula is to be boosted. The Government will now accept 100 per cent. of exceptional spending over the Bellwin threshold. Moreover, there will be the possibility of advance payments to help local authorities, and their claims will be dealt with as speedily as possible in future. That point was put to me by local authorities on my travels.
Information on road signs is a matter for local authorities. I note her point about the barrage holding back debris. The agency is keen to get that debris out of the water. I saw the Foss barrier when I visited York.
28WH
Three members of staff were working around the clock in the rain removing tonnes of debris, including dead cattle, sheep and trees. Debris must be removed from the water; it must not be allowed to go down the rivers to jam under bridges, turning them into dams. The agency is well aware of that and is working very hard. Keeping the drains clear is a matter for local authorities. Dredging is a matter for the Environment Agency and the drainage authorities, which give it careful consideration. However, dredging channels would make only a marginal difference given the scale of these floods.
The Government recognise that in the recent flooding farmers may have lost crops that they intend to include in a claim under the arable area payments scheme in 2001. If they intend to re-sow the crops and if there is exceptional rainfall throughout the winter and into the spring, we shall seek any necessary extension of the latest sowing date after 31 May. If farmers want to put the flooded land into set-aside and need flexibility on the requirement to have green cover, which is one of the rules of set-aside as the hon. Lady will know, they should contact their local regional service centre. Exceptionally, because of the situation, we are prepared to allow flooded land to be set aside up to 100 per cent. of the area claimed. Any farmers in that position should contact their regional service centre. We are using our national discretion to deal with the situation. I think that farmers will find that helpful. The National Farmers Union has asked us to implement those measures, and I shall issue a press release so that farmers are aware of the changes that we will make.
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to local agencies and local authorities, which have informed people about what has been happening. Local radio stations have also played a great role. On sandbagging, if the Environment Agency has spare capacity and time, it is only too happy to help out, but given the extent of these floods, the priority had to be to shore up defences that were under threat of collapsing. It is not the Environment Agency's responsibility to give sandbags to local houses; it is the responsibility of the local authority. I am quite sure that the hon. Lady will take that matter up with her local authority.
I have realised from my travels that the facility to get sandbags is important to local people. It is something tangible that gives them some security. Local authorities need to make sandbags available. However, to be fair, filling them is time consuming, and when flooding occurs local authority staff are obviously doing other things. In some parts of the country the Environment Agency has machines to fill sandbags and is only too pleased to co-operate with local authorities. The same applies to the provision of social services and facilities such as help with rehousing. The environmental health authorities, insurance companies and sewerage companies will help with cleaning up sewage pollution. If floorboards need to be replaced, that is a matter for insurance companies.
The conditions that have come about are exceptional and the response, by and large, has been good. We shall think about what lessons we can learn, what we have done well and what could be improved.

Art Cinemas (Reading)
12 noon
Jane Griffiths: I am delighted that I have been fortunate enough to be able to raise this important issue for my constituents.
Charlie Chaplin said:
The story of the cinema is not simply entertainment for the ordinary men and women in Britain's towns and villages, it is as much the history of the 20th century.
In Reading, history shows that the cinema now known as the ABC was built in 1927. It was built for silent movies, perhaps rather late in the silent movie era, and the equipment for talkies was fitted later. The building contained, and still contains, a ballroom with a sprung floor and a cafe at the end. In the 1950s the building was one of nine cinemas in Reading, comprising 13,000 seats and showing more than 30 films every week. At that time the ABC was the home of the MGM musicals, which have had an enduring appeal, and of films such as "Casablanca", originally devised as a propaganda film for the second world war but now rightly regarded as a classic. The ABC cinema later became the Reading home of Rank films.
I am indebted to Mr. Roy Smith, known in Reading as "Mr. Cinema", for the information that I have used. Mr. Smith worked as a projectionist in most of Reading's cinemas and elsewhere. I pay tribute to his tireless efforts to preserve some of Reading's cinematic heritage. Mr. Smith attributes the decline in cinema in Reading that was going on until a few years ago to the entertainment tax introduced in the late 1950s. That added between 17 and 24 per cent. to the price of a cinema ticket at a time when competition from television was starting to be felt.
Leaving the history of the 20th century and moving to the 21st century, cinema patronage has increased in Reading, as elsewhere in the country. It was thought in the 1980s that the rise in video rentals and home video ownership would kill off cinema, but the opposite is true. Video has cross-fertilised with mainstream cinema and more and more good British and international films are being made.
Reading now has one multiplex cinema, in the centre of the city—I use the word "city" advisedly—with 10 screens and 2,000 seats. The ABC closed as a cinema in early 1998 when it became clear that the multiplex was coming. The ABC site has received planning permission to become a private health club, and stories that I believe to be well founded are circulating in Reading that it is also being eyed for development into flats. That fate befell the other town centre cinema in Reading, the Odeon, which also closed recently.
I began with a quotation from Charlie Chaplin, a key figure in cinema, about history, and have tried to give a brief history of cinema, particularly that of the ABC in Reading. However, the point of the debate is not history but the future. I do not want to be seen as promoting a luddite wish to turn back the clock. I am not someone who refuses to see the advantage of change. The multiplex is a fine place to see films. I do not think that I have ever sat in a more comfortable cinema seat. I remember the cinemas of my youth, which were far from comfortable or clean. Going to the cinema these days is quite different, and so much better.
30WH
However, even though there are 10-screen multiplex cinemas, many films do not get the showing that they deserve. Although they probably would not attract several hundred people several nights a week, they have a great influence on subsequent and more popular film making. The audience for art films is smaller than that for mainstream films, and people have to travel a long way to see them.
A recent example of such a film, although it would not necessarily be called an art film, was "Love's Labours Lost", made by Kenneth Branagh, who grew up in Reading. The film was shown at Reading university's film theatre but not at the multiplex and it did not have a general release, which is a great pity. It is a pity, too, that the film could not have a premiere in Reading, which is what Kenneth Branagh wanted, as he said when he came to Reading and spoke about it at an event that was held at Reading university's film theatre. Kenneth Branagh expressed his firm support for people who wanted to save the ABC as an arts or community cinema.
Similarly, there are other audiences that are are not catered for by the multiplex and mainstream cinemas. Reading has a sizeable Asian population, which has almost no opportunity to see "Bollywood" films at the cinema, as there is no longer a screen that shows them. Although there is a flourishing video market in such films for home viewing, Asian families enjoy going out together to the cinema to see the films that they enjoy, which they cannot do at present. The sizeable Asian population in other nearby towns would also appreciate a cinema showing the films that they want.
Both Reading university and the Reading college and school of arts and design have media and film studies courses, where students learn about making films. I declare an interest, as my son directs and acts in some of those films. However, those aspirant film makers have no venue where their work can be shown and where they can get feedback from the public. That is important for young film makers and artists who feel passionately that they have a message to get across to the public. It is a pity that they can show their films only to each other or to half a dozen friends, and then only when they can get hold of what is often primitive projection equipment.
We do not know what Steven Spielbergs, Francis Ford Coppolas and Francois Truffauts of the next generation might be lost to cinema by being disheartened at the lack of opportunity for showing their work. What new Kenneth Branagh or Kate Winslet, who also grew up in Reading, will be lost because they did not have the chance to practise their craft along with student film makers?
Film and cinema are not only about artists; as I said, it is a matter of record and of history. Reading is also home to the community film makers Real Time, who record their community, and involve people from all walks of life in making films. This weekend, I shall join them to be interviewed by Reading's gay and lesbian youth group, Reachout, for a film funded by Reading borough council about what it is like to be young in Reading. Reading, East is one of the youngest constituencies in the country; films like those that I have mentioned deserve to be seen, but at present there is nowhere for them to be shown.

31WH
The ABC is more than a cinema; as I said, it also has a ballroom with a sprung floor, which was well used in the 1930s. Many of my constituents have fond memories of dancing there in their young days, and of meeting their future husbands and wives on the dance floor. The ballroom could now house all kinds of dance, from tea dances to salsa, the current dance craze. It could provide hanging space for local artists and it already has a cafe. Reading has many public houses, but people tell me that we should have more cafes—more places where we can spend the evening drinking coffee. The dance floor could also provide rehearsal space for dance artistes, young and old. Reading has a thriving amateur and youth theatre scene, but those people have nowhere to put on their plays. The ABC could offer that. Again, I declare an interest, as my son is active in Reading Youth Theatre.
I know that I have expanded a little beyond the title of the debate, which is on arts cinemas in Reading. I have shown that the ABC cinema could provide a venue for art cinema there, but I have also shown that it could provide so much more; as well as providing a venue for community cinema and an outlet for student and community films, it could be a general arts centre.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister knows of the ABC building, because it was assessed by English Heritage in April 1999. We hoped that the building would be listed, as people in Reading felt strongly that it had merit. English Heritage made several favourable comments about the building, describing the front elevation as "stylish"—although it was somewhat altered in the 1970s to create the three-screen cinemas that were popular at the time. It described the cafe stairs as a good 1920s piece of design—a style pleasing to the eye that we do not see often enough nowadays. However, although it was acknowledged that the ABC cinema has merit, it seems that it will not be listed and, therefore, may not be preserved.
I hope that other innovative ways may be found not only to preserve the building for arts and community use but to allow various groups to work together to let the building continue to contribute to Reading's cultural life, as it has done throughout most of the 20th century. Some of those who are interested in saving the cinema have formed a committee, which has already approached various bodies in search of support and funding. I hope that, as a result of any publicity generated by this debate, more people will come forward. Since it was reported in Reading's Evening Post that I had secured the debate, I have been contacted by many constituents who support the move, and I have forwarded their details to the committee.
The first part of the debate's title on the Order Paper is the dreaded phrase—it will certainly be dreaded by the Treasury—"Government support". I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to say now whether funding or other support will be made available to rescue the ABC building for use as a centre for arts excellence. Instead, I hope that she will be able to say who else could be approached for funding. I hope, too, that she will give us the Government's view on community and art film making and on how young student film makers could be supported.
32WH
I have written to my hon. Friend requesting a briefing on the matter, and I hope that some preliminary information will be made available—soon, if not today—that will allow the campaigners to make a start on raising the necessary funding. However, not only money is needed. Other advice will be needed to put together a business plan. For instance, a surveyor will need to inspect the cinema to determine the building's condition, and legal and financial advice will be required, so any information on where such assistance could be found would help.
I mentioned earlier that Reading, East has many young constituents. One reason is that Reading university is located mostly within the constituency's boundaries, and almost all the 12,000 students live in the area. That is why the club scene, the music scene and the arts scene flourish in Reading. However, it is not the only reason. I said also that two stars of film, Kenneth Branagh and Kate Winslet, both grew up in Reading. There is considerable talent—and not only young talent—in Reading. People involved in creative work are always looking for venues. A prosperous place such as Reading brings in people all the time—to work, to study and to enjoy their leisure. That puts pressure on various spaces—housing, and particularly cultural space. The demand for housing leads developers to view a cinema as a potential space for building flats that could be sold at a higher price.
I hope that I may continue to work with my friends in the constituency, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can provide some helpful advice today.
12.15 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) for initiating this debate. She has highlighted the importance to local communities of venues such as the ABC in Friar street. I want to reassure her that the Government support such venues and want to ensure that that specific venue continues to be available to her constituents for a wide variety of activities.
My hon. Friend wrote to me in October, following a meeting with Margaret Schreiber who was leading a group to examine the future prospects of the ABC in Friar street. My hon. Friend also paid tribute to Roy Smith's efforts to preserve the cinematic heritage of Reading. It was interesting to hear that Kate Winslet and Kenneth Branagh grew up in Reading, which obviously has a long history of achievement in the film world. It was also interesting to hear that the ABC in Friar street has a ballroom with a sprung floor. I have one in my constituency for tea dances, and it is very popular. I wish my hon. Friend good luck.
It may help if I briefly set out the Government's position. The Government are keen to promote arthouse cinema, both as a means of encouraging new ideas and innovative approaches in the film industry, and as an opportunity for dedicated cinemagoers to enjoy a wider choice of film. Before today, I acquired details of some of the films that have been shown since the beginning of October, which clearly demonstrates the wide range of films shown and made available to people in my hon. Friend's constituency.
My hon. Friend referred to "Love's Labours Lost", which was shown at the ABC. I share her concern about such films' not being on general release. She also

33WH
mentioned the need of her Asian constituents to view films from what is now described as "Bollywood"—a huge sector of film making. The Bollywood awards took place earlier this year at the dome in Greenwich.
Because of our concern about such matters, my Department produced a strategy for film. Let me assure my hon. Friend that that strategy incorporates a strong regional commitment because we want to ensure increasing public access to cinema throughout the UK. One aspect of our strategy is to establish the Film Council under the chairmanship of the highly able British film director, Alan Parker. I can think of no one better for that role. One of the Film Council's tasks, under Alan's chairmanship, is to take account of the cultural as well as the commercial film industry. The ABC in Friar street is achieving precisely that.
One aspect of the Film Council's regional strategy is to provide a more effective network between the film bodies in each of the English regions. The council has been allotted £6 million a year, for three years starting from April 2001, for a new regional investment fund. It will facilitate new film structures in each region with the capacity to determine their own industrial and cultural priorities for cinema exhibitions and film education.
The council will expect regional agencies to produce business plans so that there is a firm structure for the future development of film in the English regions. Funds currently distributed to the regions by the British Film Institute for investment in archives, education and cinema exhibition will in future come under the Film Council, which will prioritise the areas of need. It aims to provide a broader audience with access to a wider range of films, which the organisation that runs ABC certainly seems to be doing.
In addition to regional funding, the new cinema fund with a budget of £5 million was launched in October by the Film Council to support and nurture new talent and to encourage cutting-edge and experimental film making. I hope that my hon. Friend can get some assistance from it and I shall write to her with details of how that may be done. I sympathise with her, because I also have a son who is an aspirant film maker. The more opportunities our young people have, the better. The new cinema fund, which will help young people, will operate highly collaboratively, with partners drawn from right across the private and public sectors. That seems to be the sort of partnership that is developing in my hon. Friend's constituency.
I turn to the all-important subject of funding. My hon. Friend has written to me about the possibility of converting the ABC cinema in Friar street into a combined arthouse cinema and arts centre, as she outlined in her speech. The Film Council is keen to support arthouse cinema as an art form, but does not currently provide funding for capital projects. Therefore, when my hon. Friend secured this debate, I took it on myself to investigate areas or bodies from which we might be able to find the funding that she and her constituents seek.
The Arts Council's regional arts lottery programme provides support for organisations requiring funding of
34WH
less than £100,000 for capital projects, including building work. I shall write to my hon. Friend with details of that programme. In any case, it might be helpful for my hon. Friend and the group in her constituency to discuss the proposal with the Southern Arts Board, because it is working with other media agencies in the south-east to develop a single business plan for film media in the region and to make recommendations for the delivery of a single regional film strategy, including the all-important area of exhibition.
For capital projects in excess of £100,000, the Arts Council of England's capital programme has £176 million to spend on arts buildings, equipment purchase and public art commissions up to a maximum of £5 million per individual award. The current application round closes on 22 January 2001.
The Film Council is working with the Arts Council to ensure that those funds are used effectively for film and that, in making awards from the arts capital programme for cinema exhibition—essentially bricks and mortar—the Arts Council works hand in hand with the Film Council.
My hon. Friend referred to the need for practical advice on developing business plans and so on. I shall write to her with details of how such assistance may be provided. She mentioned the request to list the old ABC building in Friar street. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts first received such a request in December 1998 from Reading borough council. In April 1999 the cinema was assessed by English Heritage, which is the Department's statutory adviser on the historical environment. However, English Heritage concluded that the cinema had been altered too much, particularly with the loss of the proscenium, and did not therefore possess sufficient architectural or historic interest to merit listing.
On 5 October, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts announced his decision to list a number of cinemas around the country. However, after careful consideration, he decided that the ABC in Friar street did not meet the criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East is disappointed and I am sorry that it was not possible to help in that way. Nevertheless, there are many other ways in which we can help to develop that facility in her constituency. The decision not to list the building does not in any way ignore or overlook the considerable strength of feeling among my hon. Friend's constituents, who feel that the building has a future and should respond to their needs in Reading, East.
The magic of the cinema touches all those who go to the movies. My hon. Friend referred to the advent of television, and then the video, which it was thought would destroy the cinema. The reverse has been the case, and cinema audience figures are on the increase throughout the country.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to my attention. I wish her and her constituents luck with the venture, and I shall write to her with the further details that she needs.
Mrs. Ray Michie (in the Chair): Order. We can now move on to the next debate, because both hon. Members are present.

Adult Carer Placement Service
12.25 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, and to the Minister of State for being here to respond not only to my concerns but to those of many who are involved with the adult placement scheme throughout the country.
There may be people who are unaware of what the adult placement scheme does. In Oxfordshire, and in counties and local authorities across the country, there are a number of adults who need to be looked after but for whom traditional social services are not the answer. It has been found that the best way to provide them with the care that they require is to offer them the chance to live or stay in someone's home. That scheme is called adult placement.
The scheme gives those people many of the important things that only a real home can offer, such as help with day-to-day living, their own personal space, emotional as well as physical support, and a sense of belonging to and being part of the community. Those who need such care have a variety of needs. Some are physically handicapped, some have learning disabilities, some have suffered mental health problems and some are frail and elderly.
The adult placement scheme relies for its success on people who are happy to open their home to those who need help and care, either on a long-term or a short-term basis. Carers in Oxfordshire come from all kinds of background, but they have in common the lasting contribution that they make, not only to the life of an individual adult, but to the whole community. The people being helped by the adult placement schemes have a range of challenges, from handicaps and learning disabilities to mental health problems and problems relating to the frail and elderly. Those tend to be conditions that benefit from emotional as much as physical support, and many of the people concerned want company, apart from anything else, and understandably prefer a more personal environment.
Adult placement carers are committed to ensuring that the care that they provide is given in the most professional way. One of those carers has written to me, and says simply:
We are Adult Placement Carers recruited by the Oxfordshire Adult Placement Scheme…to support and care for people who have disabilities or are vulnerable. The scheme in Oxfordshire is well monitored by the Scheme managers through Social Services. There is a close working relationship with the local Registration Inspection Office which advises both carers and managers when necessary. The approval procedure for recruiting carers devised by the Oxfordshire scheme is extensive and together with references and police checks enforces the high expectations of good care standards. We believe we offer a very professional and valuable service. However we are encouraged not to be complacent and strive to extend our skills through training and continually looking for ways to improve what we do.
The sort of people whom such carers help have a wide variety of backgrounds and needs. For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall give four examples of constituents of mine who are being helped through the adult placement scheme. For obvious reasons, which I am sure that hon. Members will understand, I shall refer to people by letters rather than by name.
36WH
Mr. X is a comparatively young man with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. He is a wheelchair user, has challenging behaviour and is occasionally violent. He was brought up by foster carers who are now elderly and can no longer care for him. Mr. X was placed in residential care in a staffed group home, which did not work due to his high level of support needs and disruptive behaviour. He was then placed in an emergency bed of a larger residential home while a more permanent placement was found. The care package was extremely expensive; extra staff had to be brought in to deal with the challenges that he presented to the service.
A couple of years ago, Mr. X was referred for adult placement, and a family with suitable ground-floor accommodation and the necessary skills to support him was identified. A carefully planned introduction programme to the family took place, with overnight stays increasing until Oxfordshire county council felt that the time had come when the placement could succeed.
Earlier this year, Mr. X moved into his new adult placement home. Since then, his behaviour has improved considerably. He has learned more socially useful behaviour from the family, which has, in turn, improved the responses that he gets from the general public when he is out in the community. That makes him feel happy and builds up his self-esteem and confidence, giving him the clear message that what he is doing is right. He says that he is very happy with the adult placement scheme—among other things, he likes the cooking.
Another constituent of mine, Mrs. Y, is a lady in her mid 60s with paranoid psychosis and serious alcohol problems who has taken overdoses of medication and has had recurrent suicidal tendencies. She was sectioned under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and placed in a hospital for older people with mental health problems. Earlier this year, Mrs. Y was introduced to an adult placement carer, who visited her in hospital and gradually gained her trust. Mrs. Y had a trial period staying with the carer, who has a nursing qualification, and a couple of months later moved in full time.
During the first few weeks, Mrs. Y tested the adult placement carer's patience and commitment to the limit, but everyone persevered and Mrs. Y's mental health has improved greatly since moving in. Her drinking has reduced dramatically and she takes pride in her appearance, mixes socially with the adult placement carer and the family and has started to access local community facilities such as day centres and clubs for older people. She now has someone to talk to who genuinely cares for her and sees her through the bad spells, and there has been no further talk of suicide since she moved in.
Mr. Zis a middle-aged gentleman who had an accident in 1993 that caused severe head injuries. After major surgery on his brain and a long stay in hospital, he returned home to his wife and young daughter. He had been left with poor memory, poor concentration, little insight and extremely high levels of fear and anxiety. He forgets things that have been said to him a few minutes earlier.
About five years ago, Mr. Z was referred to adult placement because his young daughter was having great difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that her father

37WH
was behaving like a small child and could not be left alone. She was having behavioural problems herself, both at school and at home. Mr. Z's wife was trying to cope with her own grief at the loss of the husband she knew, as well as with his care needs, and the family was in crisis.
Mr. Zwas given an introduction, over a long period, to an adult placement family. He had a great fear of leaving his wife and home to go into respite care, and forgot who the adult placement carers were after each visit. The whole process was traumatising for him, his wife and his daughter. Mr. Z has been going into respite care every month since 1995, which has enabled Mrs. Z to have time with her daughter and to support her through this difficult time. The daughter's behaviour improved as time went on, and she is now coping again at school. Mrs. Z's knowledge that she has access to respite care enables her to carry on caring for her husband at home.
This is a matter not only of full-time placements, but of respite care, and even, in the case of my fourth and last example, of occasional nightly care. Miss B has learning disabilities. She attended a large day centre five days a week, which gave her carers a break. She started to become depressed, her behaviour deteriorated and she refused to go to her day centre. That put her carers under great strain, and they talked of no longer being able to care for her at home. Miss B was therefore introduced to two different adult placement carers—one to provide regular respite care and one to provide care for two days a week. The smaller, quieter environment of the adult placement carers' homes, and the one-to-one attention, has proved to be what Miss B needed. She has attended those placements for more than five years and is still at home with her carers. The adult placement carers are paid £33 a night for respite care and £23 for day care. Hon. Members will agree that that cost is small, compared with that of the residential care that would have been required if her carers had not been given that support.
Adult placement carers are also available at times of particular need, and have great flexibility. For example, last Christmas the care management team of Banbury's Redlands centre, which looks after adults with learning difficulties, wrote to the leader of the adult placement team to express gratitude for its work and flexibility in the Christmas-new year period, and for finding suitable placements at very short notice and in difficult circumstances. Care managers said that the work was done well and helped to create a supportive environment at a difficult time.
I think that everyone would agree that the service is extremely impressive. It provides personal care for some very vulnerable people in a flexible, dedicated, committed and targeted way, and at no particular financial cost to the community. Certainly, it represents good value, so why are there concerns? According to Oxfordshire's social services department, the adult placement service
has grown up over the years in an ad hoc manner and at different times has been sucked into other developments such as the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act which has produced an uneasy fit between Adult Placement and the present small homes regulatory framework.
Oxfordshire county council's carers are registered with the local authority, and the council works with the county's inspection unit to ensure high standards.
38WH
Potential difficulties arise for adult placement schemes because of the regulation proposed by the National Care Standards Commission, brought into being by the Care Standards Act 2000. If adult placement carers continue to be regulated in the same way as small care homes, the future of an adult placement scheme such as the successful schemes in Oxfordshire will be under threat. That is the crunch issue.
If carers who take people into their private homes are treated and regulated as though they were small, residential care homes, the future of this scheme will look pretty bleak. First, the standards and requirements set for small care homes will be inappropriate for normal family homes. Oxfordshire county council is worried that it will lose, and be unable to recruit, carers who cannot adapt their normal domestic accommodation to meet the levels set for small care homes. Even where accommodation can be adapted, the social services are concerned that the domesticity and normality that is so important in adult placements will be lost.
Secondly—and, I suspect, even more importantly—charges for registration of small care homes will not be on a scale that normal families or individuals can afford. Nor will it be easy for social services to meet those charges. I understand that the new National Care Standards Commission will be self-funding. According to a recent paper that was published by the university of Kent's personal social services research institute, the cost of registration for small homes could rise from £252 to £1,960 a year, while annual inspection costs could rise from £42 to £1,100 a year. As Oxfordshire county council currently has around 100 carers, the annual cost of inspection alone could exceed £1 million. The figures are ludicrous and would threaten the viability of the scheme not only in Oxfordshire, but throughout the country. Oxfordshire and other local authorities would be unlikely to recruit carers if they were expected to meet those costs, which, if we cannot find an alternative, would undermine a useful scheme.
Oxfordshire county council favours effective regulation and protection for service users, but believes that that could be achieved more appropriately by regulation of the adult placement schemes. I hope that the Minister and his Department will consider that option. The Department would have to be satisfied that Oxfordshire county council was implementing the adult placement scheme in a fit and proper way, inspecting individual homes and taking care to ensure that carers were delivering a high standard of care. There has not been a scintilla of a suggestion that the council is doing anything other than that at present, or that adult carers are not delivering the most gentle and worthwhile personal care for anyone in need in their homes. If the Department were minded to regulate the adult placement schemes instead of individual carers, we might have an effective and proportionate system of regulation.
I wrote to the Minister of State enclosing a copy of a letter from Oxfordshire social services, and I expected to receive a reply stating that my fears were misplaced, that the Department understood the concerns about adult placement care schemes and that proportionate regulation would be introduced. However, the Minister did not state that. Instead, he stated:

39WH
The development of national minimum standards is part of the reforms that this Government is putting in place to modernise the current regulatory system for social services and nursing homes.
My argument is that the homes are not nursing homes but private homes offering care. The Minister continued:
The Care Standards Act…will bring about these reforms, including the establishment of a National Care Standards Commission to regulate social services and private healthcare. National standards, which will apply to all providers across the country, will mean that providers will be clear about the standards they will have to meet to gain and maintain registration. Users and their carers will know what they can expect as a minimum. Homes, which provide good quality care, should have nothing to fear from the introduction of national standards.
I suggest that the word "homes" is confusing in that context. The homes covered by the Care Standards Act 2000 are residential care homes, which usually have a number of residents and are usually run for profit. The homes that I am discussing in the adult placement scheme are not homes in the institutional sense, but those in which individual carers provide individual care in their own home and often to a single person.
The Minister's reply continued:
National standards are currently being developed for a range of services to be regulated by the Commission including…care homes for adults with disabilities.
Again, those care homes are not institutional homes, but may be individual homes in which adults with disabilities are looked after. The Minister continued:
Regarding the latter, a reference group has been set up which inputs to the development process and the National Association of Adult Placement Services (NAAPS) is represented on that group. I trust that you will be reassured to know that consideration is currently being given to having a separate sub-set of standards for adult placement carers.
I think that I understand that. However, I would welcome it if the Minister said that it did not mean that the bureaucracy and associated cost of registration would continue; that the Department recognised that adult placement schemes were different from residential care homes and that it was dealing with a group of people whose care could perfectly well be monitored, inspected and regulated by social service authorities such as that in Oxfordshire; and that the Government would introduce a scheme that was not over-bureaucratic or over-costly. Those schemes should be encouraged to develop and grow, and should not be threatened.
The Minister of State continued:
As a separate exercise, the Department of Health also plans to issue guidance to local authorities and the independent sector on the running of adult placement schemes.
I understand that Oxfordshire county council already has fairly rigorous guidance; over the years, it has developed its own practice standards, which are good.
The issue turns on a narrow but important point. We have some excellent adult placement carer schemes in Oxfordshire, and others are in place throughout the country. They involve hundreds of committed carers giving invaluable care to some of the most vulnerable members of the community. Perhaps unwittingly, that care and those schemes may now be threatened by over-regulation under the Care Standards Act 2000. I hope
40WH
that the Minister can say today, clearly and without reservation, that the Government recognise that that is a potential problem and that they will be able to respond in such a way that adult placement carer schemes are not put in jeopardy.
12.47 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I thank the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the future of adult placement schemes. We agree that they are important. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the careful and sensitive way in which he set out his arguments, and I shall try to give some of the reassurances that he and the Oxfordshire service seek.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Oxfordshire social services has operated a successful adult placement scheme for many years. It provides flexible, practical and emotional support for vulnerable adults. Carers offer long-term, respite and short-term care, and emergency or day care, either in the adult placement carer's home or the home of the service users.
I understand that service users are charged according to the type of service that they receive. Those who are placed in homes classified as small are charged according the national regulations set out in "Charging for Residential Care". Those who are supported in the community are charged under Oxfordshire's charging policy for people with a disability and, therefore, according to their own financial needs.
Recently, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the scheme was the subject of a social services committee report which resulted in members' wisely agreeing to increase the number of people employed in order to match service users to carers—the adult placement scheme workers themselves—and the formation of an approved panel of carers. Those were sensible and prudent decisions. The Oxfordshire adult placement scheme is one important part of the range of social services that are provided by many authorities.
We estimate that about 10,000 people may now be using adult placement services in about 6,000 homes. However, not all those homes require registration, but only those that provide personal care. About 85 per cent. of the schemes are run by local authorities, 60 per cent. of service users have learning disabilities and about 15 per cent. are elderly, and the services are used also by people with a wide range of needs. The services enable people to enjoy a better quality of life than would otherwise be possible, and the Government fully recognise their valuable contribution. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we certainly will not be taking action that might jeopardise their viability.
The Government are committed to promoting people's independence, improving protection and raising standards. In recent years, social services have become more responsive to individual needs, but there are failings in the present system that must be tackled. That is why the Government introduced the Bill that became the Care Standards Act 2000, which received Royal Assent in July, to put in place key building blocks of our programme for modernising health and social care, and especially for improving the quality of protection in those services. There are many well-run,

41WH
good-quality services but some have fallen short of acceptable standards, as several inquiries into abuse of vulnerable service users have testified. Providers of services therefore need to know what standard they should meet and service users also need clarity about the standards that they may expect.
The new National Care Standards Commission, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which will be set up under the Act, will be an independent body with the welfare and safety of vulnerable people at its heart. It will regulate children's homes and care homes for elderly and disabled people; it will also regulate other care services for the first time, including care to people in their own homes and fostering agencies, and in time it will also regulate day centres. It will advise the Government and inform the public about care services generally and about monitoring trends and national quality.
The deficiencies of the present regulatory system have been well documented and exposed by scandals such as those at Longcare in Buckinghamshire. Such abuse cannot be tolerated and we are determined to improve the protection of people who use these services. The homes where standards are shoddy and the quality of life poor do not hit the headlines, but we are equally determined to improve those services. However, in doing so we will not impose unreasonable burdens on those who provide that type of family-based service. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the Government's intention to make life unnecessarily difficulty for local authorities or for adult placement carers. It would be counter-productive to strangle these valuable schemes with red tape and we will not do so. We shall ensure that the new regulatory regime is flexible and proportionate to the type of services being regulated.
The hon. Gentleman quoted several figures for the cost of registration and inspection to small homes, which have been circulating for some time. I reassure him and the interests that he articulated that no decisions have been taken about the final level of fees. Although it is our policy intention that ultimately the system of regulation and inspection should be self-financing—the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, was also committed to that policy—let me reassure him that recognition will be given to the particular nature of adult placement carers when we set the appropriate fee structure. I hope that he is also reassured that we will consult fully on the issue before final decisions on fees are taken.
All adult placement carers are required to be registered if they are providing accommodation, board and personal care; that has been the position since the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, introduced by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), which had wide cross-party support. You were a Member of the House at that time, Mrs. Michie, but I was not. I reassure the hon. Member for Banbury that the Care Standards Act 2000 has carried forward the position outlined in that measure, and that we have not changed the basic requirement of registration in that regard. However, we anticipate that adult placement carers and their homes, which need to be registered, will be treated as a separate category under the new regulations. We shall be able to tailor the regulatory demands to ensure that those placed on adult
42WH
placement carers are kept to a minimum. The standards to be applied to adult placement schemes will therefore be different in nature from those applied to registered care homes—that point was raised, sensibly, by the hon. Member for Banbury—and will in future recognise the special characteristics of the schemes. The hon. Gentleman described many of them as being the small, private homes of individuals and we shall take that into account.
National standards are being developed for a range of services to be regulated by the National Care Standards Commission, including care homes for adults with disabilities. We have been anxious to ensure that the standards take account of the needs of the various client groups who use the services and of the nature of the services that are being provided. We have an advisory group helping us on the development of the standards for care homes and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the National Association of Adult Placement Services is represented on that group. As part of that work, a separate set of standards specifically for adult placement carers is being drafted. We intend that a consultation document on the national standards for residential services for adults should be published later this year, together with those for adult placement carers. We are trying to fix the appropriate level of regulation in this area in a fully open and consultative manner. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can lend his support to that approach.
Given the breadth of the Oxfordshire scheme, which includes services provided in people's homes, it is worth mentioning that under the Care Standards Act 2000, Ministers have a new power to issue statutory guidance on charges for non-residential care provided by local authorities. That measure was necessary because of the unacceptable degree of variation in the way in which local authorities operate their charging regimes at present. We have been consulting a wide range of groups, including representatives of service users, and we intend to consult formally on new statutory draft guidance this autumn and issue final guidance by April 2001.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that adult placement schemes are a valuable resource. When they work well they can provide good-quality individual care. However, we must recognise that when they are not properly regulated or supported they carry similar risks for service users as do large care homes. Indeed, the potential for service users to be isolated and unable to voice complaints may be even greater in some cases. That is why regulation continues to be necessary, but it will be proportionate. Those who already provide good-quality services should not find it burdensome.
We are also taking a number of steps to raise the quality of services for individual client groups. Thus we have already introduced a national service framework for people with mental health needs and are currently developing a national service framework for older people, too. We are also developing a national strategy for people with learning disabilities—a client group that is frequently the major user of local adult placement schemes. Such placements are one way of enabling them to be included in the local community by receiving the support that they need.

43WH
It is worth pointing out that it is nearly 30 years since we took a comprehensive look at learning disability services, their rationale, relevance and effectiveness. Services have changed a great deal in that time, but the quality and quantity still vary considerably from area to area. That is unacceptable. The time is therefore right to modernise and improve our whole approach to supporting people with learning disabilities, both to reflect user concerns and to tackle some fundamental issues that we still clearly need to address. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can also lend his support to that process. We intend to publish the new learning disability strategy as a White Paper early next year.
People with learning disabilities are clearly among some of the most socially excluded and vulnerable groups in our society. We want to ensure that help and support are in place to foster independence, provide new opportunities and deliver high-quality services. I hope that the new strategy will seek to eliminate the current inconsistencies in the quality and quantity of services. As a Government, we are determined to ensure that services continue to improve and that those who use them may do so confidently and safely.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify our intentions. I believe that the measures that we are taking will help to drive up standards. We need greater consistency in regulation, and the 2000 Act has given us new powers to root out abuse and unacceptable care standards. We need to use
44WH
those powers appropriately and sensitively. I can assure hon. Members that the regulatory regime that we are in the process of setting up will be sensitive to the different needs of individual client groups as well as to the different type of provision that is being regulated. We shall therefore continue to involve a wide range of interested parties, including service users. We are particularly grateful to have had the expertise of NAAPS to assist us in that work, and we shall continue to involve it in future.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has marshalled his arguments and put his case this afternoon. I hope that he has been reassured, at least in part, by what I have said. We do not intend to go about the business of ensuring that regulation is appropriate with a heavy hand or an iron boot. We intend to develop policy in this area carefully and sensitively. If the hon. Gentleman would find it helpful to see the draft minimum standards that we intend to consult on later in the year, I will arrange for him to have a copy so that he may give us his opinion of how we are going about that process. I hope that he will work with us to ensure that the new regulatory arrangements are sensitively introduced and do not have the unintended consequences to which he alluded, which would certainly not be in the interests of vulnerable people and would not address the wider concerns that we need to tackle if we are to improve quality standards in the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  CPS Documents
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will list the conditions to be met for material found in the archives of foreign intelligence agencies to be regarded by the Crown Prosecution Service as of evidential value in legal proceedings. [136231]

  The Solicitor-General
  Any statement in a document found in the archives of a foreign intelligence agency will be hearsay and inadmissible if the reason for tendering the evidence is to prove the truth of the content of the document, unless the document can be brought within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The most important of these, as regards statements in documents, are found in a number of statutes, for instance the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

  Cyclists
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the Crown Prosecution Service's policy is on prosecution of cyclists for(a) riding on pavements, (b) failing to display lights at night, (c) riding without warning bells or horns and (d) ignoring red signals at traffic junctions. [136257]

  The Solicitor-General
  Pedestrians and road users should be able to travel safely. Cyclists must take responsibility to ensure the safety of others and where the facilities are available make use of designated cycle lanes and at other times use the roadways. When cyclists have failed to act in a safe way thereby causing or potentially causing danger to others, offences arising out of this behaviour (such as riding on a pavement, failing to display lights, and ignoring signals) will be considered for prosecution.

  Where cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service pass the evidential and public interest tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecuters, a prosecution will be brought. There is no law stating that pedal cycles must be ridden with warning bells or horns and the Crown Prosecution Service cannot prosecute such cases.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Steele Report
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to publish the report of the review of the proposal for a new police fund to assist the widows and families of RUC officers murdered as a result of terrorist action; and if he will make a statement. [137114]
  116W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 23 October 2000,Official Report, columns 20–21W, what the recommendations are of John Steele's report on implementation of recommendation 87 of the Patten report; how he plans to respond to each of the recommendations proposed; and what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing each recommendation. [135792]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I received the report from John Steele on 27 October. It is being published today, and copies are being placed in the Library of both Houses. Copies are also being sent to all those parties with whom Mr. Steele had meetings.

  The Government are grateful to Mr. Steele for taking on this sensitive review of the recommendation (recommendation 87) by the Independent Commission on Policing and for concluding his review so promptly. We welcome his comprehensive and thorough report. The Government are undertaking a detailed assessment of each of the specific proposals and these will form the basis on which the Government take forward implementation of this very important Patten recommendation.

  In particular, the Government agree that a new fund should be established covering in scope deaths and injuries caused directly by terrorist violence against members of the police in Northern Ireland. The fund would help seriously injured police officers, and retired officers and their families, as well as police widows. The Government will establish a Trust to administer the fund, on the basis proposed, as soon as possible.

  The Government also accept the key recommendation that widows of police officers who were killed as a result of terrorist activity prior to 25 November 1982 should receive lump sum payments. We will look to see how these payments, along the lines proposed in Mr. Steele's report, can be made without undue delay.

  The Government have already implemented the related recommendation, recommendation 88, that the Widows' Association should be given premises and a regular source of finance to run their organisation. The Widows' Association moved into new premises, and funding began, in September.

DEFENCE

  Joint Exercise (Oman)
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the armed forces to undertake a joint exercise in Oman in Autumn 2001. [137361]

  Mr. Hoon
  Exercise Saif Sareea 2 will take place in Oman in September and October 2001. This will be a major Joint and Combined exercise with the Sultan's Armed Forces. The exercise will demonstrate the Joint Rapid Reaction Force concept, which was a central pillar of our Strategic Defence Review by deploying, sustaining and recovering a Joint Task Force at medium scale to conduct an Out of Area Operation. It sends a very clear signal about our commitment to the Gulf region arid will show Britain's ability to deploy rapidly a considerable force, with real punch, over large distances. The UK contribution will include a Naval Carrier Task Group, Armoured and
  117W
  Commando Brigades and around 50 combat aircraft. The exact number of personnel taking part has yet to be finalised, but our contribution will be in excess of 20,000.

  Sponsored Reserves
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of Sponsored Reserves. [137548]

  Mr. Spellar
  The first agreement for the use of what are familiarly known as "Sponsored Reserves" was signed on 27 October 2000 on behalf of the Meteorological Office and the RAF's HQ Strike Command. Introduced by the Reserve Forces Act 1996, this new form of reserve service extends the ability of the private sector and Government agencies to provide specialist support on operations as well as in peacetime. More properly known as special members of a reserve force, sponsored reservists are employed as civilians in peacetime and as volunteer members of a reserve force when deployed to support operations.

  The Mobile Meteorological Unit (MMU) provides meteorological support to the RAF in peacetime and to UK and Allied Forces when these forces are operating away from their fixed bases. Some 60 staff of the MMU form a unit of the RAF Reserve. Members will be routinely called out on a rotational basis under the terms and conditions of employment developed from the abroad consultation process with Industry that followed the Reserve Forces Act's coming into force in April 1997. This agreement represents the first use of the SR concept by my Department and builds on the established working pattern of the MMU which has supported operations since 1962 with great distinction.

  Departmental Building Costs
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 160W, regarding his Department's headquarters in Whitehall, which companies or consortia other than Modus Services plc were (a) invited to apply for the public-private partnership contract and (b) applied for the public private-partnership contract; what independent assessment was made of his Department's office requirements prior to the contract being signed; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the contract between his Department and Modus Services plc. [136673]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: As a result of advertisements requesting Expressions of Interest in December 1996, over 30 companies were issued a Preliminary Information Memorandum (PIM) in February 1997. Eight consortia responded to the PIM and six consortia were invited in mid 1997 to submit outline proposals for the public-private partnership project for the redevelopment of the Ministry of Defence Main Building in Whitehall. These were:

  Amey/Kvaerner consortium led by Kvaerner Corporate Development (this consortium became Modus Services plc);

  British Land, Pell Frischmann and Royal Bank of Scotland led consortium;

  Horseguards Group led by Ove Amp and Partners, Dresdner Kleinwort Benson Ltd. and Innisfree Management Ltd.;

  118W

  MoDeM consortium led by the Bucknall Group;

  Mapeley Defence led by Nationsbank;

  Paladin Property Partnership led by Trevor Osbourne Property Group Ltd.

  In late 1997, invitations to negotiate were issued to three consortia as follows:

  Amey/Kvaerner (Modus);

  MoDeM;

  Mapeley Defence.

  The project represents a long-overdue modernisation and rationalisation of the MOD's Headquarters in Whitehall. The building dates from the 1950s, its infrastructure is inefficient, the offices fall well short of modern standards and are close to becoming a health hazard. The requirement was subject to the usual extensive scrutiny within Government and a number of alternatives were considered. I am withholding a copy of the contract under Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  ALSL
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish the bids received for construction of the four vessels under the ALSL performance; indicating how successful and unsuccessful bidders(a) met and (b) failed to meet his Department's selection criteria; [136744]

  (2) what reasons underlay the increase in the budget for ALSL vessels from two to four ships; [136818]

  (3) what the final bid prices were for tenders for the ALSL design and build contracts received from (a) Appledore/BMT, (b) Swan Hunter and (c) BAe Systems, Govan. [136819]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Four new Alternative Landing Ships Logistics (ALSL), replacing four LSLs, therefore represents a significant increase in capability. The current Landing Ships Logistic (LSLs) are mostly over 30 years old and of decreasing utility. The new ships will each have double the capacity of the old versions, and be able to offload troops into a potentially hostile environment twice as quickly, at a safer distance, in significantly worse sea conditions. We have always known that the LSLs would need replacing at some point; buying four ALSLs in this manner represents better value for money that running a fleet of two ALSLs and three LSLs and then buying more ALSLs closer to the LSLs' Out of Service Dates.

  The bids received, the assessment markings and the prices are commercially sensitive and I am therefore withholding these details under Exemption 7 (effective management and operations of the public service) and Exemption 13 (third party's commercial confidences) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Navy Training Budget
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the budget for training all ranks of Royal Navy personnel in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [136939]
  119W
  Mr. Spellar
  The figures provided are the training budget in cash terms for the delivery of training at all the shore establishments of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency. This encompasses initial training (i.e. new recruits) and aspects of career training and Pre-Joining Training, i.e. courses immediately prior to a particular draft/appointment. These figures do not include costs of projections for Royal Marines or Naval Reserves but does include the NRTA HQ costs as these are considered to be a training overhead cost or projection.

  The following are the actual expenditure figures for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, the cash allocation figure for 2000–01 and the Short Term Plan (STP 01) projected Cash Control Total (CCT) for 2001–02:

  Naval recruiting and training agency (NRTA)

  £ million

  Year

  Actual expenditure

  Cash allocation

  Project CCT

  1997–98

  179.902

  —

  —

  1998–99

  192.263

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  192.990

  —

  —

  2000–01

  —

  200.342

  —

  2001–02

  —

  —

  196.133

  AWE Stewardship Programme
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the stewardship programme at AWE Aldermaston and indicate its annual budget. [135406]

  Mr. Spellar
  The stewardship programme at AWE comprises work, including research, necessary to ensure the continued safety and operational effectiveness of the Trident warhead. The current annual cost is broadly £120 million at 2000–01 prices.

  Ordnance Safety
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the ability of bombs and missiles currently in service to withstand repeated take-offs by the aircraft carrying them. [136235]

  Mr. Spellar
  An initial assessment of the life of a weapon, taking into account all operational factors including take-offs and landings, is made by the Design Authority when the weapon enters service. Further testing and evaluation is carried out while the weapon is in-service to identify any requirement to extend air carriage life.

  Overarching Personnel Strategy
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy. [137068]

  Mr. Spellar
  Copies of the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy were placed in the Library of the House on 14 April.

  Rights of the Child
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he will take to ensure compliance with the United Nations Optional Protocol on the Rights of the Child. [136954]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are currently considering detailed administrative guidelines within the armed forces to implement the Optional Protocol. These guidelines will reflect the practical position set out in the UK's declaration on signing the Protocol.

TREASURY

  Tax Statistics
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people paid more than £1 million in tax in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [134724]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are around 500 and 550 people who had income tax liabilities greater than £1 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99 respectively. These estimates are based on the Self Assessment computer system. I regret that information for 1999–2000 liabilities is not yet available.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much contraband rolled tobacco was seized by HM Customs in each of the past 10 years for which figures are available. [134411]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Prior to this year, separate figures for seized rolled tobacco have not been kept centrally. The figures for revenue on all types of tobacco detections for 1993–94 to 1996–97 were given in my answer to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on 16 February 1998,Official Report, column 478W; similar figures for 1997–98 are contained in HMCE Cross Channel Excise Smuggling 1998, a copy of which is in the Library.

  For 1998–99 and 1999–2000, the amounts seized were £60.6 million and £297.8 million respectively.

  Tax (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax was raised in Wales broken down by(a) income tax, (b) VAT, (c) corporation tax and (d) other tax in the last year for which figures are available. [135237]

  Dawn Primarolo
  For 1998–99:(a) the figure for income tax liability from people living in Wales will be included in the next edition of "Inland Revenue Statistics 2000", a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House;

  (b) VAT is a centrally collected tax and the figure for receipts is available only for the UK as a whole (HM Customs and Excise Annual Report, Table A1). However it is possible to estimate tax shares using figures for household expenditure (published by ONS in "Family Expenditure"), apportioned by the number of households (published by ONS in "Regional Trends", or available from the DETR);

  (c) corporation tax figures are not available; and
  121W
  (d) all other Customs and Excise taxes are collected centrally, and figures for receipts are available only for the UK as a whole (HM Customs and Excise Annual Report, Table A1). It is possible to estimate tax shares using household expenditure figures and household numbers (see (b)), or per capita of the adult population.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much(a) value-added tax, and (b) income tax was collected in each tax office in Wales in each year since 1995. [135238]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Meaningful figures are not available.

  Tax year 1999–2000

  Date

  Issued1

  Received1

  Sent back1

  Processed1

  Waiting to be processed1

  April 2000

  8,763,125

  202,063

  3,170

  0

  202,063

  May 2000

  111,723

  450,747

  7,156

  33

  652,777

  June 2000

  80,792

  668,360

  21,613

  536,927

  784,210

  July 2000

  48,707

  689,542

  17,589

  575,802

  897,950

  August 2000

  50,490

  875,041

  18,526

  739,180

  1,033,811

  September 2000

  41,072

  1,314,559

  27,309

  740,604

  1,607,766

  1 Monthly SA returns

  Tax System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publicise the proportion of the purchase price of(a) a pint of beer, (b) a bottle of wine, (c) a bottle of whiskey, (d) a packet of 20 cigarettes and (e) a litre of unleaded petrol that is represented by tax and excise duty. [136391]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is available in Customs and Excise factsheets on(a) beer, (b) wine, (c) spirits, (d) tobacco and (e) hydrocarbon oil, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish an estimate of the impact of direct and indirect taxes on households in all main income deciles since May 1997. [136419]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The latest available figures are contained in the article "The effects of tax and benefits on household income, 1998–99" in the April 2000 edition of Economic Trends. It should be noted that the detailed results in this article are freestanding, since the underlying statistics do not support direct comparison with articles from earlier years.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the loss to the Inland Revenue in 1999–2000 resulting from(a) tax avoidance and (b) tax evasion. [136390]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not identify these elements separately in their statistics. Figures are published in the Board of Inland Revenue's Annual Report, copies of which are in the Library of the House, and updates will be published in the next edition.

  Excise Duties
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of increased excise duties on the Retail Prices Index since May 1997. [136192]

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1022W, concerning tax returns, if he will publish the monthly number of self assessment forms (a) issued, (b) received, (c) sent back, (d) waiting to be processed and (e) processed for each month since the introduction of self assessment. [135872]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 31 October 2000,Official Report, columns 412–13W. The figures for 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Dawn Primarolo
  The impact of changes in excise duties on the Retail Prices Index are published by the Office for National Statistics each year on the Internet. The latest of these can be found at http://www.statistics.gov.uk.

  Fuel Taxation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason aviation fuel utilities on(a) UK domestic flights and (b) EU internal flights is exempt from fuel taxation. [136544]

  Mr. Timms
  The relevant EC Directive provides a compulsory exemption for commercial aviation fuels reflecting long-standing international agreement.

  Illegal Fuel Imports
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much road fuel has been seized by Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland because it was being illegally imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [137088]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on 5 July 2000,Official Report, column 201W.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional resources Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland have received to deal with increases in the illegal importation of road fuel from the Republic of Ireland. [137089]

  Mr. Timms
  From within their existing resources Customs and Excise have increased by a factor of four the resource devoted to tackling oils fraud in Northern Ireland, complemented by additional mainland resource for specific exercises.

  Petrol Duty
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the current level of petrol duty on the Retail Prices Index. [137105]

  Mr. Timms
  An assessment of the impact from petrol duty on retail prices is made when producing the twice-yearly economic forecast. An updated inflation forecast will be published in the pre-Budget Report, on 8 November.

  Floods (Lewes)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure the deadlines normally applicable for VAT and other tax returns by businesses are relaxed for businesses seriously affected by the recent flooding in Lewes. [136566]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Both Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue will deal sympathetically with any business in serious difficulty as a result of an unforeseeable event such as severe flooding. Deadlines applicable to the submission of VAT and other tax returns are prescribed in law but there is no liability to a penalty where the business has a reasonable excuse for failing to meet its obligations.

  Tax (Married Couples)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines are issued by the Inland Revenue regarding the tax treatment of married couples where a business partnership exists between husband and wife; if, in these circumstances, an investigation into the tax affairs of either husband or wife automatically triggers an investigation into the financial circumstances of the spouse; and if he will make a statement. [135158]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The tax treatment of a business partnership between husband and wife is the same as the tax treatment of any other business partnership.

  The Inland Revenue may open an inquiry into the partnership return and any or all of the partners' personal returns. The official guidance is that before they issue a notice of an inquiry into the partnership return, staff should review the returns of all relevant partners. Where staff decide that they need to check whether the partnership return is fundamentally incorrect, they will normally need to inquire into all of the individual partners' returns as well. This is to ensure that all risks of error or evasion in the partnership are looked at properly.

  Where a partner's personal return is selected for inquiry on its merits, without an inquiry into the partnership return, then an inquiry into the spouse's return is not triggered automatically.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual cost to the Exchequer would be of disregarding the working mother's allowance in respect of the working families' tax credit. [136831]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I am not aware of a working mother's allowance.

  Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the introduction of ultra low sulphur diesel. [137609]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are today publishing "Using the Tax System to Encourage Cleaner Fuels: The Experience of Ultra-Low Sulphur Diesel". Copies are available in the Library of the House and in the Vote Office.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made to the English comparator that forms the basis of the Barnett formula in each year since 1997; what consequential changes in allocations to(a) Northern Ireland, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales were made as a result; and what the cumulative effect of all such changes was in the current financial year. [137027]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  With regard to changes which have been made to the English comparator since 1997, the departmental comparability factors in the Barnett formula which were used in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review were set out in Annexe C of the Statement of Funding Policy published in March 1999. The factors which were used in the 2000 Spending Review were set out in Annexe C of the updated Statement of Funding Policy in July 2000.

  The changes in allocations to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales depend on changes in UK Government Departments' departmental expenditure limits, the relevant departmental comparability factor and the appropriate population share. Increases in the Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales budgets were announced in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review and 2000 Spending Review.

  Spending in the current financial year determined in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review was based on comparability factors used in that review.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Federation of Small Businesses and (b) the Forum of Private Business about Government policy towards the euro. [134379]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have regular meetings with both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business to discuss a range of issues regarding the single currency.

  US Business Regulation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the operation of sunset regulation in the United States; and if he will make a statement. [136409]

  Ms Hewitt
  This Department is well aware of the use of sunset regulations in the United States and elsewhere. It is one of the many techniques available to improve
  125W
  regulatory processes and we are already committed to using it in appropriate circumstances. For example, Part I of the Electronic Communications Act 2000—which received Royal Assent on 25 May this year—is subject to a 'sunset clause'.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the impact of the United States Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996. [136408]

  Ms Hewitt
  David Irwin, the Small Business Service Chief Executive, and I visited the US in March this year.

  In addition, a delegation of the Small Business Council visited the US in October and is currently assessing the impact of that legislation. It will make recommendations on the merits of this type of approach to David Irwin in due course.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act in the United States. [136399]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  As part of the review of maternity pay and parental leave, I visited the US in July to learn about existing and proposed provision in the US and best practice in US companies. This included discussions with the Department of Labor on the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Department of Labor is currently undertaking an assessment on the Act's impact in the US, but data are not yet available.

  Employment-related Litigation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the cost to business of employment-related litigation in the last year for which figures are available. [136455]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This information is not available.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of(a) the setting up costs and (b) the annual running costs of the Universal Bank. [136708]

  Mr. Byers
  The Post Office and the High Street banks are working together to develop Universal Banking services. An announcement on costs will be made in due course.

  Overhead Power Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research he has recently commissioned on the possible link between overhead power lines and cancer. [137199]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department of Health is currently funding both epidemiological and laboratory studies on power lines and cancer. The Department of Health also contributes to the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Fields Project and has supported the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study. The electricity industry is supporting high-quality, independent research.
  126W
  The Department of Trade and Industry has not recently commissioned any research into the possible link between overhead power lines and cancer as it is believed that there is sufficient on-going research sponsored by Government and by other agencies.

  The Government also rely on the independent advice from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) for guidance on all forms of hazard to health from radiation, including electromagnetic fields. That advice to date is that, while the possibility of an association cannot be dismissed, there is insufficient evidence of any adverse health effect from the fields from power supplies to which the general public may be exposed.

  Postal Services Act
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to bring the Postal Services Act 2000 into force; and if he will make a statement. [137485]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have made the first Commencement Order under section 130 of the Act to set the dates for the coming into force of many of the principal provisions of the Act. In accordance with the Order, these provisions will be brought into force in three phases.

  As announced in the pursuant answer given on 6 November 2000, Official Report, column 18W, the Postal Services Commission became a statutory body on that date, with many of its new powers, including the power to prepare for the licensing regime. I can confirm that Mr. Graham Corbett CBE has been appointed as Chairman. Mr. Robin Aaronson, Mr. Tony Cooper, Ms Julia Kaufmann OBE, Ms Janet Lewis-Jones, and Mr. Ken Olisa have been appointed as members. The Commissioners have with the approval of the Secretary of State appointed Mr. Martin Stanley as their Chief Executive and he will under the provisions of the Act be a member of the Commission.

  Also on 6 November the powers which will pave the way for the establishment of the Post Office company and the transfer of the Post Office's business to this company were commenced (though the transfer will not take place until next Spring).

  On 1 January 2001, the provisions relating to the new Consumer Council for Postal Services will be commenced.

  On 26 March 2001, the requirements for the full licensing regime will be commenced; and (as this is the day on which it is planned to vest the business of the Post Office in the new Post Office company) the repeal of much of the existing Post Office legislation will take effect.

  A further Commencement Order will be made in due course covering the provisions not contained in the first Order. It is expected that most of the remaining provisions will be commenced on 26 March 2001.

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Post Office regarding the proposals contained in the Performance and
  127W
  Innovation Unit report on the Post Office Network sub-post offices for a new role for Government general practitioners. [137256]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  There have been extensive discussions between my Department and the Post Office on the development of proposals and of a business case for a Government General Practitioner role for the Post Office Network, including sub-post offices.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures his Department is taking to protect suburban post offices from closure in the Sutton and Cheam parliamentary constituency. [136442]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to implementing all 24 of the recommendations in the Performance and Innovation Unit report on modernising the post office network. Many of the measures being undertaken, such as development of Universal Banking services, of a Government General Practitioner role as one stop shop for electronic access to public services and of e-commerce opportunities, will be relevant to all parts of the post office network, whether urban, suburban or rural.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how funds announced in this year's Spending Review for the maintenance of the post office network will be divided between areas defined as rural and areas defined as urban; and to publish the criteria used to define an area as rural or urban. [136716]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: As some of the measures for the modernisation and maintenance of the post office network for which funding was allocated in the Spending Review relate to the network as a whole, it is not possible to give a precise division between rural and urban areas. The Government definition of a rural post office is one located in a community of less than 10,000 inhabitants.

  Internet Chat Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the self-regulatory approach in dealing with undesirable and illegal Internet content in the specific case of Internet chat rooms and their use by paedophiles to contact children. [136216]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Illegal content in chat rooms is covered by existing law, and is dealt with by the police in the same way as illegal content in the off-line world.

  The Internet Crime Forum sub-group on chat recently published its interim findings (http://www. internetcrimeforum.org.uk/chatwise.html). This group looked at potential means of addressing the problems with chat rooms. Their recommendations were that the best way forward was to educate users and increase awareness of the risks. They suggested further measures on reporting mechanisms and advice to users that service providers should take.

  The self-regulatory approach employed by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has proved successful at regulating relatively static Internet content such as web pages and newsgroups. The IWF is generally regarded as a model internationally. However, Internet chat is ephemeral, and the IWF's remit does not specifically
  128W
  cover it. The IWF passes reports that it receives about chat rooms directly to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS).

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department was represented on the inter-departmental Internet Crime Forum sub-group on Internet chat services; when he will receive the report; and if he will make a statement. [136219]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Both the DTI and the Home Office are represented on the main Internet Crime Forum panel. The Home Office is represented in the sub-group on Internet chat services, although the DTI is not.

  The preliminary findings of the sub-group have been published on the Internet Crime Forum website, at: http://www.internetcrimeforum.org.uk/chatwise.html. I understand the full report will be published shortly.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met(a) Internet service providers and (b) web hosting services to discuss guidelines for the provision of Internet chat services with special reference to the protection of children. [136217]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: DTI Ministers discuss matters of concern with ISPs and others involved with web hosting on a regular basis. As Minister responsible for e-commerce, I last met a group representing the ISP industry on 25 May.

  I also met representatives of children's charities earlier this year to discuss issues related to the safety of children on the Internet. As a result of this meeting, Government and outside bodies including the charities and the Internet Watch Foundation have developed a set of safety messages for children and their parents on the use of the Internet. These can be found on the Government's UK Online portal at: http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/sub—safety.htm#children.

  In addition, representatives of the ISPs attend the Internet Crime Forum, a body that includes representatives from Government, industry and the police. This body, which covers Internet safety issues for children, last met on 26 September.

  Robert Maxwell
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 156W, on Robert Maxwell, what arrangements are in place to ensure that the inspectors appointed on 8 June 1992 under the Companies Acts to investigate the affairs and membership of Mirror Group Newspapers plc are providing value for money. [136713]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The inspectors act independently of Government and are
  "masters of their own procedure".

  However in all Companies Act inspections (including this case) the inspectors maintain regular contact with departmental officials regarding the progress of the inspection and provide detailed analyses in support of claims for costs and expenses.

  Off-shore Wind Farms
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future prospects for offshore wind farm development. [136310]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The development of wind energy, both onshore and offshore, will make a significant contribution towards meeting our targets for renewable energy. Energy generated from both onshore and offshore wind installations will benefit from the proposed Renewables Obligation to be placed on electricity suppliers.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last month a total of £89 million from the Government and the New Opportunities Fund for capital grants for electricity generation from offshore wind and energy crops.

  My Department, in consultation with other Departments and potential developers, is working to introduce a streamlined consents procedure for proposed offshore wind energy projects.

  Construction of the UK's first offshore wind project at Blyth is now complete, and the turbines are expected to start generating electricity soon.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Birds (Shooting and Trapping)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussion he has had with other EU countries regarding the shooting and trapping of birds during the migration season. [134520]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 18 September 2000, officials from my Department met with their counterparts from the European Commission and other member states as part of a regular forum to discuss issues concerning the EC Birds Directive, including the hunting of migratory birds.

  The Government fully support the Commission in its aim to ensure that member states fulfil their obligations under with the provisions of the Wild Birds Directive and that hunting is carried out only on a sustainable basis.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there will be a Single Regeneration Budget round seven in 2001–02. [134566]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Following the announcement on 21 July by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that the Regional Development Agencies' funding will be brought together in a single budget from April 2002, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is considering what arrangements should apply during the transitional year 2001–02. A detailed announcement will be made in due course.
  130W
  During 2001–02, RDAs will continue to deliver regeneration activity, particularly in the most deprived communities, through the programmes they manage including existing commitments under SRB, the land and property budget, the rural development programme and the skills development fund.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his proposals to finance half-fare travel for senior citizens; and how much he expects each local authority to contribute. [135213]

  Mr. Hill
  We have said that local government will be reimbursed for the overall additional cost of the statutory minimum concessionary fare scheme, for which provision is made in the Transport Bill at present before Parliament. The Local Government Finance settlement will include an appropriate sum within the Environmental Protection and Cultural Services block, which will be distributed according to the relevant Standard Spending Assessment formula. The implications for individual authorities will depend on whether any concessionary fare scheme which they already provide meets the new statutory requirements, or if it does not what expenditure will be involved in bringing it up to the necessary standard.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision he has made to ensure that funding arrangements for the new concessionary fares(a) are affordable and (b) are sufficiently flexible to operate in rural areas. [137259]

  Mr. Hill
  Our estimate of the overall annual extra cost in England of the statutory minimum scheme provided for in the Transport Bill is in the order of £47 million. That amount is therefore being added to the lower tier of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) Standard Spending Assessment (SSA), which is taken into account in the calculation of revenue support grant allocations. An authority's SSA will increase by a share of the £47 million that is broadly in proportion to its current share of the EPCS lower tier. The financial implications of the minimum standard will clearly vary from one local authority to another, according to whether an existing scheme is operated and if so what it provides.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate different models of operation of concessionary fares in order to ensure that the available network is created between urban and rural areas. [137260]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Bill provides for a statutory minimum local authority concessionary fares scheme which will ensure travel for pensioners and disabled people on local buses at half fare or better, with a free bus pass. It is open to local authorities to act jointly to provide a concessionary fare scheme which applies across their combined area, and to provide concessionary travel on modes of transport other than bus.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will launch national and local campaigns to ensure that there is maximum take-up of new concessionary fares. [137262]
  131W
  Mr. Hill
  I certainly hope that there will be a high take-up of the new statutory minimum concessionary fare scheme. The effect will vary from place to place, according to what scheme each local authority does (or does not) provide already; I am sure that local authorities will draw the attention of their residents to local improvements.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the timetable for the full implementation of new concessionary fares. [137263]

  Mr. Hill
  We do not expect the new statutory minimum local authority concessionary fares scheme to come into operation before 1 April 2001.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Local Government Association regarding the introduction of new concessionary fares arrangements, with particular reference to rural areas. [137258]

  Mr. Hill
  My officials have had several discussions with representatives of the Local Government Association (LGA) regarding the introduction of the statutory minimum local authority concessionary fares scheme.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of taxis under the new arrangements for concessionary fares. [137261]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Bill provides for a statutory minimum local authority concessionary fares scheme for travel on local bus services. However, it is open to local authorities to offer schemes which provide for travel by taxi as an addition or an alternative to the statutory minimum scheme. In particular, schemes based on tokens, which can be used on taxis, can continue to be offered by local authorities, as an alternative to the statutory minimum. The necessary provision is contained in clause 145(6) of the Transport Bill, at present before Parliament.

  Labour Party Conference
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of his Department's(a) paid employees and (b) press officers attended the Labour party conference in Brighton. [135155]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]Consistent with the terms of their contracts, all Special Advisers attended the Labour party conference. No other officials attended in an official capacity.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department since 1999 in reducing sickness absence; what targets he has agreed with the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [135764]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: Following publication of the Cabinet Office report "Working Well Together—Managing Attendance in the Public Sector" the Department has been implementing a programme of action with the aim of reducing the level of sickness absence in the Department. Initiatives include
  132W
  new guidance for line managers and staff and improved sick absence monitoring so that a more accurate picture of trends can be identified and clearer understanding of the factors involved appreciated. Health promotion activities have complemented this approach with lifestyle screening, displays, in-house magazine articles and proactive events.

  Details of the Department' s targets for reduced sickness absence for the years 2001 and 2003 against a baseline year of 1998 will be included in its Service Delivery Agreement. This is to be published shortly.

  Recycling (Organic Waste)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what support he plans to give to encourage the development of techniques for the recycling of organic materials in household waste. [136286]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste Strategy 2000 set tough statutory targets for the recycling and composting of household waste, to be achieved by 2003–04 with higher targets in later years.

  Waste Strategy 2000 also announced the establishment of the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), to tackle the barriers to increased re-use and recycling and to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products.

  WRAP will co-ordinate and commission research into new or improved processing techniques for recycled materials, including organic household waste, and provide advice, guidance and technical support to people involved in recycling and composting.

  Urban Deprivation
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure small pockets of deprivation outside cities receive Government support for regeneration. [136526]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to tackling deprivation and main spending programmes, which are seen as the key for achieving the greatest impact, have been set new targets through the Spending Review 2000, so that the outcomes they achieve in deprived areas improve. They have also received substantial increases from the Spending Review for the next three years. The Action Plan for implementing the Neighbourhood Renewal strategy, which will be published shortly, will set out further proposals for tackling deprivation wherever it occurs, in line with our objective of narrowing the gap between deprived areas and the rest of the country. The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit will take this forward cross-departmentally.

  Air Service Agreements
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which non-UK and non-US carriers have received further fifth freedom rights from the UK in the last year; and which applications are still outstanding. [136703]
  133W
  Mr. Mullin
  Fifth freedom rights are often the subject of discussion during air service negotiations. In the last year the UK has granted, as part of a balanced exchange of rights, new or additional fifth freedom traffic rights to the designated airline or airlines of the following countries:

  Argentina

  Azerbaijan

  Chile

  Colombia

  Greece

  Grenada

  India

  Luxembourg

  Namibia

  Pakistan

  Turkey

  Turkmenistan

  Uganda.

  No applications are currently awaiting a decision.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the proposed Thameslink 2000, indicating how many passengers the link is expected to carry. [136535]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack's Thameslink 2000 proposals are currently being considered at a public inquiry under the Transport and Works Act. Following the inquiry, the Inspector will make a report to the Secretary of State. It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage on the merits or otherwise of the proposals as this would prejudice the inquiry proceedings and the Secretary of State's eventual decision on whether or not to approve the proposals.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Regional Development Agencies. [136268]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A report on the performance of the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) is currently being finalised for consideration by Ministers. My Department has also commissioned research into the RDAs' Regional Strategies, partnership working, and their monitoring and evaluation frameworks. The results will be disseminated in due course.

  Scottish Airports and Air Services Review
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that Scottish airports' consultative committees are involved in the Scottish airports and air services review. [136422]

  Mr. Mullin
  Scottish airports consultative committees will be formally consulted on the Scottish Regional Air Services Consultation Document when it is published and 134W
  invited to attend public events during the consultation period which offer the opportunity for further discussion of the document.

  Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre. [136423]

  Mr. Mullin
  The New Scottish Centre project is proceeding smoothly. Award of the detail building design contract was made to Gibb Developments on 2 November. The main construction contract will be awarded early next year. Planning applications for site preparation works will be submitted to the local authority soon and initial site preparations are expected to begin early next year. In addition, local surveys on transport, land drainage, topography and soil characteristics have been completed. NATS have already signed an agreement with Lockheed Martin for provision of much of the centre software. NATS have now informed us that the revised forecast date on which the centre will come into operation may now be in the winter of 2007–08 rather than 2006–07. This is because NATS is considering the incorporation of additional software into the centre's systems. It is only because NATS are confident that the existing centre will be able to cope until this later date that they have the option of putting back the forecast operational date to allow the incorporation of these new functions.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of red route roads there are in England; what steps are taken to enforce the regulations which apply to them; and if he will make a statement. [136671]

  Mr. Hill
  There are a total of 320 miles of red routes, all of which are in London. The enforcement of the regulations is a matter for the Metropolitan police.

  Driving Tests
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have(a) passed their driving test and (b) progressed to Pass Plus since the introduction of Pass Plus in 1995. [136670]

  Mr. Hill
  Pass Plus was introduced in February 1995, since when 3,138,795 people have passed the practical car driving test and 108,549 people have successfully completed the Pass Plus course.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 173W, on rail investment, if he will set out the advantages and disadvantages of taking an equity stake in Railtrack. [136283]

  Mr. Hill
  Were the Government to bring forward proposals to increase their current 0.2 per cent. equity stake in Railtrack, we would set out the advantages and disadvantages at that time.

  Road Noise
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what sift criteria will be used to determine which trunk roads are priorities for resurfacing to reduce noise levels. [136285]

  Mr. Hill
  The criteria for prioritising the trunk roads for resurfacing with quieter materials are being developed by the Highways Agency. The Agency will be seeking the views of local authorities on these criteria early in the new year with a view to finalising them in the spring.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to regulate the cost of air travel from regional airports. [136280]

  Mr. Mullin
  On routes within the European Economic Area (EEA), air fares are governed by EC Regulation 2409/92, under which there is a presumption that airlines are free to charge the fares they wish. However, the Secretary of State may require the lowest fully flexible fare to be withdrawn if it is excessively high to the disadvantage of users, taking into account airline costs, the whole fare structure for the route, and the competitive market situation.

  In addition, EC Regulation 2408/92 allows a member state to impose a public service obligation (PSO) to protect services, which would otherwise not be provided on a purely commercial basis, on routes serving airports in peripheral regions and thin routes to any regional airport which is vital to the economic development of the region. The Regulation allows for PSO routes to be restricted to a single carrier, subject to an open competitive tender, and for the remuneration of operating losses incurred by carriers selected to operate these routes. PSOs may include a tariff obligation limiting fare levels or requiring concessionary fares for certain categories of passenger.

  On routes outside the EEA, it is the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which has the power to regulate air fares. The CAA's intervention is limited primarily to circumstances where passengers are being substantially overcharged as a result of an airline abusing a position of market power, normally because bilateral government imposed restrictions are preventing free market entry. The CAA's aim is to ensure that flexible on-demand travel is available at a price reasonably related to the cost of its provision, including a return on capital.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the guidance given to planning inquiry inspectors on the degree of attention which should be given to local community opinion on planning applications. [136292]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Under the provisions of the relevant inquiries procedure rules (the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (S.I.2000 No. 1624) and the Town and Country Planning (Determination by Inspectors)(Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 (S.I.2000 No. 1625)) local views 136W
  and any other written or oral representations received on a proposed development must always be taken into account by Planning Inspectors in handling a planning appeal or case called-in by the Secretary of State. Like any other material consideration, the precise weight an Inspector gives to such views is a matter for his or her judgment. An Inspector will make a decision (or recommendation in those cases called-in or appeals recovered by the Secretary of State for his determination) on the basis of all the facts presented to him or her, taking into account all the relevant policy guidance.

  Quarry Excavations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what environmental protection measures are in place to mitigate the effects on groundwater of water run-off from quarry excavations. [136291]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency has powers under the Water Resources Act 1991, the Groundwater Regulations 1998 and the Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999 to take action where pollution is threatened or occurring. Under the Groundwater Regulations, for instance, it can prohibit, or place conditions upon, an activity such as quarrying where groundwater could be threatened. The exact measures which it might take would depend upon the circumstances of the individual case. Local authorities have a statutory duty to consult the Environment Agency when considering planning consents for quarries and are able to impose conditions to protect groundwater. Minerals Planning Guidance 2 "Applications, permissions and conditions" (1998) contains advice on this.

  Advertising Controls
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the regulations relating to areas of special control of advertisements; and if he will make a statement. [135333]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: At the end of June, following consultation on a range of measures to improve the control of outdoor advertisements, I published a proposal to limit the geographical scope of Areas of Special Control of Advertisements (ASCAs) to land within National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Broads, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and conservation areas. We are carefully considering the representations received about ASCAs since the June announcement before coming to a final decision.

  Operation Stack
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to be able to announce alternative arrangements to Operation Stack. [136439]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: A feasibility study was commissioned by the Channel Road Transport Group in August 1999 to consider the economic and operational requirements for alternatives to Operation Stack. The Group is chaired by Kent County Council and includes, among others, the Highways Agency and

  137W
  Government Office for the South East. The Group is currently considering its report and will make recommendations to Ministers for consideration in due course.

  Waste Incinerator, Shrewsbury
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the proposed waste incinerator in North Shrewsbury. [136833]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This is a matter for Shropshire County Council as the waste planning authority. I understand that the County Council is currently investigating a number of sites for possible waste transfer stations and civic amenity (recycling) facilities, none of which are in Shrewsbury and Atcham district. Land at Battlefield in North Shrewsbury was provisionally earmarked by the County Council earlier this year for a range of waste facilities, but this location is no longer considered viable. I understand that the County Council has no plans at present for a waste incinerator.

  Playing Fields
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Sports Council is a statutory consultee on planning proposals affecting playing fields. [136754]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The English Sports Council, now Sport England, was made a statutory consultee on 5 August 1996 for planning applications involving the development of playing fields. Details of the consultation requirements, including the definition of "playing field", are set out in The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure)(Amendment) Order 1996 (Statutory Instrument No. 1817).

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications have been referred to his Department by Sport England since the Town and Country Planning and Playing Fields England Directive 1998. [136756]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Since The Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields)(England) Direction 1998 came into effect on 23 December 1998, 37 planning applications have been referred to the Secretary of State.

  Earnings
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2000,Official Report, columns 405–06W, on New Earnings Survey data, if he will publish data for hourly wages for the smallest area covering South Gloucestershire Local Authority which does not breach his confidentiality agreement. [136305]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Part A of the ONS publication 'New Earnings Survey 1999' lists the average hourly wage (excluding overtime) in South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority as £9.95. This incorporates employees in all occupation groups.
  138W
  The Area Cost Adjustment (ACA) methodology only uses occupation groups that are considered relevant to local authority employment. Applying the ACA methodology to the 1999 New Earnings Survey data produces an average hourly wage (excluding overtime) in South Gloucestershire Unitary Authority of £9.72. As indicated in my reply of 31 October, this value for South Gloucestershire contributes to the 'Rest of England' average hourly wage (excluding overtime) figure of £9.91.

  Local Authority Wage Information
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2000,Official Report, columns 405–06W, on local authority level wage information, for what reason the provision of data for the City of London Authority does not breach confidentiality rules. [136501]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The figure provided for the City of London in my answer of 31 October does not breach the ONS confidentiality agreement, as it is the average figure for the City of London. It therefore does not reveal the disaggregate data which is covered by the confidentiality agreement.

  Rural Areas
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide the latest Government or Government recognised figures for the percentage of parishes in England that have(a) no shops, (b) no post office or sub post office, (c) no GP surgery, (d) no primary school, (e) no secondary school, (f) no village hall or similar community centre, (g) no dispensing chemist, (h) no police station, (i) no pub, (j) no working church, (k) no daily bus service and (l) no bank; and if he will give comparable figures for 1997. [136729]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The most recent comprehensive survey of rural services was undertaken by the Rural Development Commission in 1997. It showed:

  Percentage of parishes without:

  Percentage

  Permanent shop (of any kind)

  42

  Post Office

  43

  GP (based in the parish)

  83

  School (for 15 year olds)

  93

  School (for 6 year olds)

  50

  Village Hall/Community Centre

  28

  Chemist (of any kind)

  79

  Police Station

  92

  Public House

  29

  Church/chapel

  161

  Daily Bus Service

  75

  Bank/Building Society

  91

  1 Percentage of parishes which either have no church/chapel or are without a resident minister.

  The Countryside Agency is undertaking a further survey of the level of service provision in rural areas this year. I understand that this will be published in the spring of 2001.
  139W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the latest available figures for the level of use of public bus services in rural areas; and what the comparable figures were in each year since 1995. [136677]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The data collected by my Department on the number of bus passenger journeys does not specifically identify journeys in rural areas.

  However, information provided separately to my Department by local authorities on the Rural Bus Subsidy Grant introduced in 1998 shows that journeys on the 1,800 services funded by the grant have risen from 10 million in 1998–99 to 16 million in 1999–2000.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the formulae used to allocate central Government funds to local authorities have been changed since May 1997. [136725]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Yes. I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), on 13 July 2000, Official Report, columns 626–27W.

  Area-based Initiatives
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action is being taken to ensure that area based initiatives target money to areas with the greatest need. [136700]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Action Plan for implementing the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, which will be published shortly, will set out how the Government's main spending programmes and its area-based initiatives can best contribute to the target of narrowing the gap between areas with the greatest need and the rest of the country. The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit will take this forward cross-departmentally. The £800 million over the next three years for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund will provide extra resources for the 88 most deprived authorities and Local Strategic Partnerships will ensure local people play a part.

  Waste Disposal Authorities
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if individual waste disposal authorities are permitted to export some or all of their waste to the areas of other waste disposal authorities within the same region. [137245]

  Mr. Mullin
  The proximity principle is one of the criteria required to underpin all decisions of waste disposal authorities. However, the precise location for waste disposal is a matter for those authorities and their contractors.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the guidance given by his Department to waste disposal authorities on the regional content for their activities. [137244]
  140W
  Mr. Mullin
  Guidance on the planning for waste at the regional level and its implications for waste local plans and waste disposal authorities is contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 10 "Planning and Waste Management" and in PPG 11 "Regional Planning". They require regional and local plans to be developed in line with the national waste strategy set out in Waste Strategy 2000: England and Wales (Cm 4693) published in May.

  Local Authority Reorganisation
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he will make available to local authorities that were reorganised on 1 April 1998 in respect of reorganisation costs incurred by them in 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [137358]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 14 July I invited authorities that reorganised on 1 April 1998 to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 2000–01. On the basis of the information provided by authorities, I have decided the revised maximum amounts that it would be appropriate to allocate towards such costs in 2000–01.

  The amounts are as follows:

  £000

  Authority

  Amount 12000–01

  1998 Reorganisations

  West Berkshire Council

  3,740

  Reading Borough Council

  3,628

  Slough Borough Council

  1,894

  Wokingham District Council

  2,237

  County of Hertfordshire District Council

  1,711

  Worcestershire County Council

  4,471

  Plymouth City Council

  3,515

  Torbay Borough Council

  2,910

  Thurrock Borough Council

  3,213

  Nottingham City Council

  1,095

  Halton Borough Council

  3,759

  Telford and Wrekin District Council

  670

  Medway Borough Council

  2,085

  Peterborough City Council

  472

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  765

  Blackpool Borough Council

  980

  Total

  37,145

  1 Maximum amounts: £000s rounded

  Windsor and Maidenhead, Bracknell Forest, Malvern Hills, Southend on Sea and Warrington did not submit bids for SCA.

  Needs Indices (Housing Capital)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the results of the consultation exercise on the needs indices to be used in the allocation of 2001–02 housing capital resources to local authorities and registered social landlords. [137364]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am pleased to be able to announce that the needs indices for the 2001–02 allocations have now been finalised after careful consideration of the responses to the Consultation Paper we issued in summer and a number of other representations we have received.
  141W
  We have, with one exception, made the proposed changes to the local authority stock condition indicator in the Generalised Needs Index (GNI)—the index used in allocation of resources to local authorities. These were supported in nearly all responses. The exception is on the relative weights given to the renovation and improvement elements where we have decided to base these on the relative costs of the work as suggested in a number of responses.

  Several of the responses raised concerns over authorities' ability to fund either private sector renewal activity or provision of new affordable housing following the transfer of resources into the new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA), which is ring-fenced for use on council housing. In the light of these responses, I have decided to increase the shares of the private sector stock and new provision indicators in the GNI to 45 per cent.—up from 35 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively in the Consultation Paper. These increases involve reducing the share of the local authority stock indicator to 10 per cent. but we intend to increase this in the next two years to reflect the extra resources in these years which are expected to be spent largely on improving council housing. The other significant issued raised in the responses concerned the overall reduction in the targeting of resources to deprived areas resulting from the introduction of the MRA. Specific targeting of resources to deprived areas is not appropriate in the MRA but I have decided to increase the level of targeting within the GNI from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent.

  The introduction of the MRA and the related GNI changes lead to shifts in the distribution of resources. We will ensure that all authorities with housing stock receive a 2001–02 allocation (housing capital plus estimated MRA) which is at least 10 per cent. above their 2000–01 allocation unless there has been a significant fall in their relative performance or the number of council houses they own has fallen substantially through partial stock transfers or demolitions.

  No changes were proposed or are being made to the Housing Needs Index used in allocation of resources to registered social landlords, beyond the usual annual data updating.

  A list of the respondents to the Consultation Paper is available in the House Library and Members can view individual responses in the Department's Library. I am arranging for details of the 2001–02 indices for each authority to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the last meeting of green ministers took place; what was discussed; and which Departments were represented by(a) Ministers and (b) officials. [137484]

  Mr. Meacher
  Green Ministers held their final meeting of this year on 2 November. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Green Minister for that Department, spoke about directing development and promoting agricultural practices to protect and enhance the countryside and wildlife. The meeting also received a presentation on the Work-Life Balance campaign by the 142W
  Green Minister for the Department for Education and Employment, and discussed how this initiative had implications for many departments.

  The Committee also reviewed the handling of sustainable development considerations in the Spending Review 2000 and environmental aspects of Government procurement. The purchase of renewable energy was discussed, with considerable progress noted.

  The next meeting will be held in the new year.

  The Departments represented by Ministers were: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Department for Culture, Media and Sport; Department of Health; Department for International Development; Law Officers' Departments; Department of Social Security; Home Office; Ministry of Defence; Chancellor's Departments; Cabinet Office; Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Department for Education and Employment; the Welsh Office; and Northern Ireland Office.

  Those represented by officials were: Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Flooding (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the performance of local partnerships in coping with emergency planning during the floods in Shrewsbury. [136950]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  Partnerships between the Environment Agency, local authorities and the emergency services worked very well in the recent bout of flooding. It is encouraging that the exercising of emergency plans in many areas played an important part in achieving a good response.

SCOTLAND

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister on the level of regulations on small businesses. [136479]

  Dr. Reid
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a range of issues affecting business in Scotland.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the National Lottery funding was to(a) the English Sports Council, (b) UK Sport, (c) the Arts Council of England and (d) the Heritage Lottery Fund in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000; and what the forecast level is for the current year in each case. [134592]
  143W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]The amount of Lottery funding (including interest') to(a) the English Sports Council, (b) UK Sports Council, (c) the Arts Council of England and (d) the Heritage Lottery Fund in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 and the forecast level for 2000–01 based on our most recent Lottery income forecast is set out in the table. For the

  £ million

  (1)

  (2) 1997–98

  (3) 1998–99

  (4) 1999–2000

  (5) 2000–01 (forecast)

  (6) Share of annual projected lottery proceeds as anticipated at the start of the current licence 2

  English Sports Council

  307

  256

  211

  202–244

  3194

  UK Sports Council

  —

  —

  319

  22–25

  n/a

  Arts Council of England

  298

  235

  201

  182–203

  183

  Heritage Lottery Fund4

  371

  315

  288

  290–319

  4257

  1 Interest has been included in the data in columns (2) and (5), but not in the anticipated income figures in column (6). Also, the amount of interest earned by the distributing bodies varies according to the level of their balances in the NLDF. This explains why some distributors' income has diverged from projections more than others.

  2 This is based on the originally projected Lottery proceeds of £9 billion evenly spread over the seven years of the licence. The figures for individual bodies reflect their notional annual share of total projected Lottery proceeds based on the original allocation of 20 per cent. to the original five good causes adjusted to take into account the establishment of the Film Council and UKSC as Lottery distributing bodies.

  3 UK Sport became a Lottery distributor with effect from 1 July 1999, taking 1.53 per cent. of Lottery income. As a consequence, the share allocated to the English Sports Council was reduced from 13.88 per cent. to 12.6 per cent.

  4 The Film Council became a Lottery distributor with effect from 1 October 1999, taking 2.03 per cent. of Lottery income. As a consequence, the share allocated to ACE was reduced from 13.88 per cent. to 11.85 per cent.

  Sydney Olympics
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the dates of attendance of(a) ministers and (b) officials of his Department at the Sydney Olympic Games and the total cost of attendance in each case. [134846]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: As Minister for Sport, I visited the British Olympic Team Holding Camp on the Gold Coast and attended the Sydney Olympic Games between 9–29 September 2000. I was accompanied by a Private Secretary. The total cost of this visit is not currently available as some invoices have yet to be received, but the flight costs for both of us totalled £8,021.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended the Games in Sydney on 15–17 September 2000 as part of a wider trip which also included official Government visits in Auckland, Wellington and Canberra. He was accompanied by his Principle Private Secretary. Again, the total cost of these visits is not currently available as some invoices have yet to be received, but the flight costs for the entire visit totalled £11,022.20

  The Permanent Secretary of the Department was in Australia on Departmental business from 13–17 September 2000. He attended the Olympic Games with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from 15–17 September 2000 and accompanied him on official engagements in Sydney and Canberra. His flight costs were £5,946.

  In addition, I also attended the Paralympic Games between 14–22 October 2000 accompanied by my Assistant Private Secretary. The flight costs for this visit were £10,670.
  144W
  purposes of comparison, the table includes a column (6) which shows the annual share of Lottery proceeds which it was originally thought that each distributing body would receive over the lifetime of the licence. These figures have been adjusted to reflect changes in functions when the UK Sports Council and Film Council were established.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the design companies which have secured contracts from the New Millennium Experience Company together with the number of contracts in each case. [135411]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 March 2000, Official Report, column 622W.

  Sports Lottery Fund
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure that funding from the Sports Lottery fund is targeted on the communities that need it most. [135219]

  Kate Hoey
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has issued directions to Sport England under the National Lottery Acts requiring it to take into account a range of issues in formulating its criteria for Lottery funding and in assessing applications for such funding. In particular, the directions require Sport England to take into account the scope for reducing social and economic deprivation, and the promotion of sport for people from all sections of society. All of the requirements of these directions were taken into account by Sport England in the development of its Lottery Strategy published last year. The Strategy commits Sport England to allocating at least 50 per cent. of its Community Capital Projects Fund to areas of greatest need. Projects in these areas may also be eligible to receive higher proportions of Lottery funding. All projects submitted for Lottery funding must be of benefit to the local community and must show a demonstrable need for the facility.

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which regions of the United Kingdom have received Government funding for the tourism industry in each of the last two years. [136537]

  Janet Anderson
  All the regions of England have received Government funding for the tourism industry in each of the last two years. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides funding, through the English Tourism Council, for the Regional Tourist Boards. Other sources of funding for tourism-related projects received by the regions include the National Lottery, the Single Regeneration Budget and the Assisted Areas Programme.

  Responsibility for regional funding of tourism in the other countries of the United Kingdom rests with the devolved administrations.

  Swimming (Tourism)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much Government funding Merseyside metropolitan borough councils received for tourism projects in connection with swimming recreation for(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) the current year to date. [136538]

  Janet Anderson
  We have contacted a number of organisations to request the information required, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Wembley Stadium
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the reasons for permitting the demolition of the twin towers at Wembley Stadium. [136241]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Approval for the demolition of the twin towers was given by the London Borough of Brent following an application for planning and listed building consent made by Wembley National Stadium Ltd. As the stadium has Grade II listed status, the application for listed building consent was accompanied by a full Heritage Study which considered the question of whether the stadium was capable of adaptation and the feasibility of retaining the twin towers. The new stadium will extend to the north of the existing stadium, and will be considerably higher than the towers if they were reconstructed and incorporated in the new design. In view of these considerations, and having taken into account the merits of the proposed replacement stadium, and wider community benefits, English Heritage, who are a statutory consultee for such applications, did not raise any objections to the application for listed building consent.

  National Art Collections
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the number of works of art and other items from national collections that have been hired out to(a) public and (b) private sector organisations in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [136612]
  146W
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  DCMS holds precise figures for the number of loan venues, both home and overseas, to which its sponsored national museums and galleries loaned items in 1999–2000. However, the actual number of loan items involved is not held centrally. We have therefore contacted those institutions to request the information for a reply to my hon. Friend. I will write to him as soon as this is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Museum Appointments
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to alter the arrangements for appointing(a) the chairman and (b) the trustees of national museums; and if he will make a statement. [136851]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]I have issued a consultation paper proposing a number of alternative options for changes to the arrangements for appointing the trustees and chairman of national museums and galleries and I am considering the various responses. I have made clear in the consultation paper that I wish to maintain a flexible, consultative approach but one which provides an effective basis for deciding which changes are appropriate.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with chairmen, trustees and directors of national museums regarding an extension of Prime Ministerial patronage in the field of senior museum appointments; and if he will make a statement. [136852]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]I have been consulting the chairmen, trustees and directors of national museums on a number of alternative proposals to improve the process of public appointments to national museums and galleries. I am carefully considering the responses I have received.

  Small Businesses (Tourism)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what Government funding is available for advertising by small tourism businesses. [136536]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government do not provide funding for advertising by tourism businesses of any size. This is a commercial matter for the businesses themselves. However, all tourism businesses benefit from the activities of the British Tourist Authority, whose funding in 2000–01 to promote Britain overseas has been increased to £37 million. They may also benefit from the over £5 million made available via the English Tourism Council to support tourism in the regions. Small tourism businesses, like all businesses, also have access to the full range of business support services available through the Small Business Service.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the potential cost to operators of(a) small hotels, (b) guesthouses and (c) bed and breakfast businesses of the cost of complying with Phase III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [136853]
  147W
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will provide disabled people with better service and facilities and it will also boost one of tourism's under-developed markets. It is not possible to estimate the cost of complying with the requirements of the DDA by type of property because each case will be different. I recognise the concern among small hoteliers about the potential costs of complying with the Act, but they are only required to make "reasonable" changes to their properties, which means the costs will be reasonable. There is a need for sector specific guidance on the sort of adjustments which are likely to be necessary and my Department is discussing with the English Tourism Council and other bodies how to meet this need.

  Paralympiad
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the compliance with public service broadcasting requirements of coverage on television of the 11th Paralympiad. [136434]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: None. Responsibility for ensuring compliance with public service broadcasting requirements rests with the independent regulators.

  Hotel Stars
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the operation of the star system for hotel accommodation; and what plans he has to make proposals for its improvement. [136947]

  Janet Anderson
  The new quality assurance system for hotels and guest accommodation was introduced in September 1999 by the English Tourism Council (ETC), the AA and RAC. Hotels that meet the quality standard are awarded from one to five stars, based upon a mixture of quality and facilities. (Guest accommodation is rated on quality alone and is awarded diamonds).

  Take up of the scheme has been steadily increasing since its introduction and we want as many providers as possible to join. We believe that this will help drive up quality standards in accordance with the aims of "Tomorrow's Tourism" and make selection of accommodation easier and more reliable for visitors. The ETC are responsible for encouraging and measuring take up of the scheme and advising Ministers upon its effectiveness. There are no current plans to change the scheme, but we will continue to monitor its progress with care.

  Looted Exhibits
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the research recently published by the National Museum Directors' Conference on works in British galleries and museums which may have been looted by the Nazis; and if he will make a statement. [136941]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I welcome the publication by The National Museum Director's Conference on 26 October of the results of the continuing research into the provenance, between 1933 and 1945, of works in their collections. In addition, the plans for similar research into four of the important non-national collections in England were announced. This research demonstrates the sector's148W
  commitment to play its part in addressing the issue of spoliated art. An unknown provenance between the dates mentioned does not, in itself, indicate that the item was misappropriated and, to date, only one claim has been made.

  Regional Tourist Councils
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the arrangements for distributing funds to the regional tourist councils in the UK. [136770]

  Janet Anderson
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for funding the English Tourism Council (ETC). In the current financial year the ETC is making over £5 million of its £10 million grant-in-aid available to support tourism in the English regions. Most of this is being passed to the 10 Regional Tourist Boards under individual funding agreements with the ETC, following a competitive bidding process. The remainder of this regional money is used by the ETC, for instance, for delivering regional services such as inspections under the national accommodation scheme (which have been contracted out to a single provider). Future levels of funding for tourism in the English regions will be decided during negotiation of the next three-year funding agreement between the Department and the ETC and in the light of any further bidding competition run by the ETC.

  Responsibility for funding the national tourism bodies in the other countries of the United Kingdom rests with the devolved Administrations, who also make decisions about their own regional structures and funding.

  Millenium Dome
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for the future of(a) the building, (b) the site and (c) the contents of the Millennium Dome. [134824]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government are currently in discussion with Legacy plc, in relation to Legacy's proposal for a high technology business campus at the Greenwich site. The Legacy proposal is currently being analysed by the Competition team in advance of any decision on preferred bidder status. An announcement will be made in due course. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is preparing plans for decommissioning the Millennium Experience from January 2001. That includes returning various assets in the exhibitions that are on loan or hired to their owners, removing any other items of value for sale, and preparing the Dome for its subsequent use. Legacy plc is in discussion with NMEC regarding the scope of decommissioning it would require if negotiations are successful.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Post Office Network
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the funds announced in this year's Spending Review for the maintenance of the Post Office network require approval by the European Union. [136799]
  149W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission has been notified of the broad outline of the measures to modernise and maintain the Post Office network proposed in the Performance and Innovation Unit report. In developing individual measures in detail, including any funding arrangements, we are consulting with the Commission to ensure compliance with state aid provisions.

  Flood Defence (Shrewsbury)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Environment Agency has taken to improve flood defence systems around Shrewsbury since October 1998; and if he will make a statement. [136795]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Agency has repaired and maintained upstream floodbanks that provide flood protection to the town. Proposals for a scheme in the town were rejected in 1994 by the borough council. The Agency has since been working with the borough council and the residents to investigate more innovative solutions and identify a scheme that would be both practical to develop and acceptable to the town's people if it meets the Ministry's criteria within which the Agency has to operate.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the budget of the Environment Agency was each year since 1996 for flood defence systems around Shrewsbury; and if he will make a statement. [136794]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: No capital funds have been allocated for a scheme in Shrewsbury following the rejection of the earlier proposed scheme by the local planning authority in 1994. However, considerable revenue expenditure has been made—more than £1 million since 1996—to repair and maintain upstream floodbanks that provide flood protection to the town.

  Agri-Compensation
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Government last made a claim for agrimonetary compensation from the European Commission; and what was the outcome. [136962]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on 2 November 2000, Official Report, column 620W.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is regarding the arable agri-compensation that will be available by 31 October. [135674]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) on 2 November 2000, Official Report, column 620W.

  Dairy Cattle
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to address the dairy cattle health and welfare problems associated with further intensification of the dairy industry and a rise in the number of dairy cattle housed indoors throughout the year, in the Government's response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of dairy cattle. [136035]

  Mr. Morley
  The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 1870), which came into force on 14 August this year, regulate the conditions in which all cattle and calves should be kept, covering such things as accommodation, ventilation, lighting, feed and water, and inspections. Similar regulations will shortly enter into force in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Revision of our Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Cattle is nearly complete and will reflect FAWC's advice on best practice on all-year housing; we shall shortly consult with all stakeholders on our draft. We have also commissioned a research project involving behavioural studies relating to the welfare of intensively managed dairy cows. And, through the agricultural consultancy ADAS, we run an extensive programme of guidance for dairy farmers.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the(a) gross incomes and (b) net incomes of farmers were in each year from 1990 to 1995; and what average total subsidy was paid in each of those years. [136571]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information is given in the table.

  Average farm output, net farm income and subsidies for full time farm business in England (real-terms, 1999 prices, average year end February)

  £000/farm

  Total farm output1

  Net farm income

  Subsidies and grants

  1990–91

  161.6

  21.3

  3.5

  1991–92

  155.6

  21.4

  4.1

  1992–93

  155.9

  26.5

  7.3

  1993–94

  158.5

  28.0

  17.1

  1994–95

  168.4

  33.2

  19.2

  1995–96

  184.8

  42.4

  23.9

  1 This is broadly equivalent to the concept of gross farm income

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  GM Trials
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the Government since 31 July in reaching a final agreement with the European Commission on the two metre rules for field margins; when he expects this issue to be resolved; and if he will make a statement. [136220]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on 30 October 2000, Official Report, column 233W, referred to a recognition by Commissioner Fischler of the importance of traditional

  151W
  landscape features, such as hedges, in implementing aid schemes. This recognition stems from the frequent and intensive contacts that MAFF Ministers and officials have had with the Commission over recent months and, as part of the initiative to simplify the administration of the Common Agricultural Policy, a change to the rules of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) has now been proposed which would give it practical effect. The proposed rule change would allow United Kingdom farmers to continue, on a permanent basis, to treat field margins in the same way as they have done in the past so far as their inclusion in IACS claims is concerned and would remove the risk of environmental damage that might have resulted from strict application of "two metre rule". This change would also avoid imposing extra burdens of "red tape" on farmers or any adverse impact on their returns under the IACS schemes. The Government welcome this proposal and will press for its rapid adoption.

  Arable Farmland
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes there were in the average value of arable farmland in England from 1990 to 2000. [136591]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: MAFF's agricultural land prices series are derived from returns made to the Valuation Office Agency of the Inland Revenue. Arising from changes in the manner in which

  £ million

  FEOGA years1

  Measure

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  2005

  2006

  Total

  Investment in Agricultural Holdings

  Total

  0.0

  1.0

  1.5

  2.3

  3.3

  3.7

  4.8

  16.6

  Of which:

  EU Contribution

  0.0

  0.5

  0.8

  1.1

  1.6

  1.8

  2.4

  8.3

  Exchequer Contribution

  0.0

  0.5

  0.8

  1.1

  1.6

  1.8

  2.4

  8.3

  Training

  Total

  0.0

  2.1

  2.5

  3.6

  4.0

  4.0

  5.7

  22.0

  Of which:

  EU Contribution

  0.0

  1.1

  1.3

  1.8

  2.0

  2.0

  2.9

  11.0

  Exchequer Contribution

  0.0

  1.1

  1.3

  1.8

  2.0

  2.0

  2.9

  11.0

  Less Favoured Areas

  Total

  42.4

  43.8

  40.9

  37.4

  34.8

  27.2

  27.2

  253.8

  Of which:

  EU Contribution

  11.4

  7.1

  7.1

  7.1

  7.1

  7.1

  7.1

  54.0

  Exchequer Contribution

  31.0

  36.7

  33.9

  30.3

  27.8

  20.1

  20.1

  199.8

  Agri-environment

  Total

  83.6

  111.3

  122.1

  137.6

  153.5

  169.2

  183.8

  961.1

  Of which:

  EU Contribution

  34.8

  34.5

  29.1

  23.7

  18.3

  16.2

  13.7

  170.3

  Exchequer Contribution

  48.8

  64.6

  71.5

  80.6

  90.0

  99.8

  108.8

  564.1

  Modulation Receipts

  0.0

  12.2

  21.5

  33.3

  45.2

  53.2

  61.3

  226.7

  Improving Processing and Marketing of Agricultural Products

  Total

  0.0

  2.2

  6.3

  8.0

  8.0

  8.0

  11.4

  44.0

  Of which:

  EU Contribution

  0.0

  1.1

  3.2

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  5.7

  22.0

  Exchequer Contribution

  0.0

  1.1

  3.2

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  5.7

  22.0

  Afforestation of Agricultural Land

  Total

  15.5

  20.3

  23.9

  26.1

  27.1

  29.1

  30.1

  172.0

  Of which:

  EU Contribution

  5.3

  5.7

  6.6

  6.9

  7.3

  8.0

  6.6

  46.4

  Exchequer Contribution

  10.2

  13.0

  15.4

  17.2

  17.8

  19.1

  19.7

  112.3

  Modulation Receipts

  0.0

  1.6

  1.9

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  3.8

  13.3

  152W
  the data were transmitted and compiled last year, there were some changes in definitions occasioning a break in the series. This break occurs in 1993; hence it is not possible to have a comparable series before and after that year. The latest available data refer to the year 1999 (and figures for this and the two preceding years are still provisional). The MAFF series are not defined directly for arable farmland but there is a categorisation by predominant grade of land. It is probably the case that Grades 1 and 2 land would be closest to arable land for most situations and this general assumption is made for the purpose of these valuations. The average price of Grades 1 and 2 farmland in England rose from £3,617 per hectare in 1993 to £7,172 in 1999, representing an increase in current (nominal) price terms of 98.3 per cent. The increase was not continuous and peaked in 1997 when the price was £7,339 per hectare; it declined to £6,941 in 1998, before rising somewhat again last year. In real (constant 1995 price) terms the overall increase for the period 1993 to 1999 amounted to 68.8 per cent.

  ERDP
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total funding for the ERDP in each of its seven years broken down by(a) source of funding and (b) component scheme. [136724]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The table shows the planned expenditure and sources of funding for each measure under the ERDP over the period 16 October 1999 to 15 October 2006.
  153W

  £million

  FEOGA years1

  Measure

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  2005

  2006

  Total

  Other Forestry Measures

  Total

  7.8

  8.5

  9.7

  9.7

  9.7

  9.7

  9.7

  64.9

  Of which:

  EU Contribution

  0.2

  0.8

  1.4

  1.9

  1.9

  2.0

  2.0

  10.2

  Exchequer Contribution

  7.6

  7.7

  8.3

  7.8

  7.8

  7.7

  7.7

  54.7

  Adaption and Development of Rural Areas

  Total

  0.0

  4.3

  9.5

  17.5

  28.6

  33.2

  47.2

  140.3

  Of which:

  EU Contribution

  0.0

  2.2

  4.8

  8.7

  14.3

  16.6

  18.7

  65.3

  Exchequer

  0.0

  2.2

  4.8

  8.7

  14.3

  16.6

  28.5

  75.0

  Total expenditure

  149.3

  193.5

  216.6

  242.1

  269.1

  284.0

  320.0

  1,674.7

  Of which:

  EU Contribution

  51.7

  52.9

  54.1

  55.3

  56.5

  57.7

  59.1

  387.4

  Exchequer Contribution

  97.7

  126.8

  139.0

  151.6

  165.3

  171.1

  195.8

  1,047.2

  Modulation Receipts

  0.0

  13.8

  23.4

  35.3

  47.2

  55.2

  65.1

  240.0

  1 FEOGA years run from 16 October to 15 October

  BSE
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence his Department has obtained that links new variant CJD in humans with BSE in cattle. [135915]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  We are advised on all matters relating to Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC). At its meeting in March 1999, SEAC advised that
  BSE and vCJD were caused by a closely similar prion strain, and concluded that variant CJD was an acquired prion disease caused by exposure to BSE or a BSE like agent.

CABINET OFFICE

  Drugs
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she will report progress on the Government's 10-year anti-drugs strategy; and if she will make a statement. [137184]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator's second Annual Report is published today and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The report sets out progress during 1999–2000 in delivering our targets across the four aims of the Government's 10-Year Strategy which reflect the balance of our policies across all aspects of the drug misuse problem. Those aims are: helping young people to resist drug misuse; protecting our communities from drug related anti-social and criminal behaviour; increasing the numbers of drug misusers in treatment; and reducing the availability of drugs on our streets.

  We have met most of our annual targets and are on track for our targets for 2002. Key achievements include: the establishment of the Drugs Prevention Advisory Service (DPAS), with nine regional teams to support the work of Drug Action Teams (DATs); establishment of a
  154W
  framework for a holistic approach to drug education in schools through Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) which is now in the national curriculum for the first time—Ofsted reports indicated that 93 per cent. of secondary and 75 per cent. of primary schools now have a drug education policy; targeted prevention work for young people at risk through Health Action Zones; arrest referral schemes covering all custody suites in all police forces in England and Wales expected well ahead of our 2002 target; steady increase in drug misusers attending treatment services—around 7 per cent. over six months from March 1999 to September 1999; CARATs—the Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare programme for drug misusers is now available in every prison in England and Wales; and co-ordinated law enforcement activity leading to some £1.2 billion of Class A drugs being prevented from reaching our streets—an increase of 33.5 per cent on the previous year; and an increase of 9.2 per cent. in the number of Class A trafficking groups disrupted-nearly double the target.

  Good progress has been made, but there is still a lot to do. New money made available to the Anti-Drugs Strategy under the Spending Review for 2001 to 2004 will help us to do more to drive forward the Strategy's key targets for 2005 and 2008 and increase our proactive efforts to prevent and tackle drug misuse.

  Focus 5000
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what the cost was in the last 12 months for which figures are available of servicing the Focus 5000 group; [136928]

  (2) how many people have left the Focus 5000 group since its inception; and how joiners are recruited; [136924]

  (3) how she ensures that the Focus 5000 group is representative of the UK population; [136929]

  (4) if she will list the policy initiatives and options that have been tested on the Focus 5000 group. [136926]
  155W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  The cost of servicing the Panel over the last 12 months is £146,750, made up of:

  Two top-up recruitment exercises of 500 Panel members: £49,250 each exercise.

  Recruitment of a booster of 830 Panel members from ethnic minority communities: £61,500.

  In addition, the contractor is paid a £9,000 quarterly management fee.

  Since the Panel was set up in 1998, 450 members have asked to leave. The original members were recruited by MORI (contracted to run the Panel) using a pre-selected random sample in 714 sampling points at addresses across the United Kingdom. In order to ensure the correct number of young people joined the Panel, a booster survey was conducted among 16–24 year olds.

  Since 1998, there have been two top-up recruitment exercises, both from a pre-selected ramdom sample of addressees, but stratified towards more deprived areas and those with a greater proportion of young people.

  Although the proportion of original Panel members coming from ethnic minorities is representative of the UK population as a whole, it is too small to analyse their views in detail. We have, therefore, recruited 830 new members with ethnic minority backgrounds.

  The Panel has a profile that is representative of the UK population in terms of age, gender, region and a wide range of other demographic indicators. Research results are benchmarked against other surveys that MORI carry out for other central Government Departments and local authorities and we have also commissioned a small study looking at representativeness of research carried out using the Panel; by comparing individual responses among those who took part in the most recent wave of research and in 1998 on service satisfaction questions.

  A full evaluation of the effectiveness of the Panel in helping shape Government policy and how representative it now is will be carried out early in 2001. The results will be published.

  Five major waves of quantitative research and several qualitative research projects have been carried out using the People's Panel. These have supported a number of policy initiatives. Summaries of the research results have been placed in the House Library and published on the internet. I shall send copies to the hon. Member.

  Honours Unit
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many people are employed in the Honours Unit. [136702]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Ceremonial Branch of my Department, which has policy responsibility for honours matters and oversees the preparation of recommendations for the Prime Minister's Honours Lists and the public honours nominations service, comprises 18 people.

  Public Services Productivity
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what seminars have been organised for Government Ministers and senior civil servants on public services productivity; and if she will make a statement. [135896]
  156W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Centre for Management and Policy Studies (CMPS) in the Cabinet Office has organised jointly with the Public Services Productivity Panel a seminar for senior officials. More broadly, CMPS's programme of seminars for Ministers and senior civil servants addresses a range of themes with the overarching aim of improving the quality and efficiency of public services.

PRIME MINISTER

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will make an announcement on a special gratuity for(a) former Far East prisoners of war and (b) their widows. [137108]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Statement given in the House today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  GMO Research
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects funded by her Department since 1 May 1997 that partially or wholly involve research into genetically modified organisms indicating their aggregate cost. [136621]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is as follows. The aggregate cost of some £5.4 million is being spent over average project lives of three to four years.

  Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy

  Projects Involving the Potential Release of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)1

  Plant Sciences

  Crop Resistance to the Nematodes Globodera and Naccobus in Bolivian Hillside Potato Production
  University of Leeds; PROINPA, Bolivia; 1 October 1997–30 September 2000; £88,518 [R6830]2

  Development and Application of Transformation Systems in Rice
  John Innes Institute; IRRI; University of Dhaka; University of Delhi; IIAR, India; 1 September 1997–31 August 2000; £288,649 [R6948]2

  Modelling Gene Flow in Pigeonpea
  University of Birmingham; ICRISAT; NBPGR, India; 1 April 1999–31 March 2002; £199,276 [R7261C]3

  Durable Crop Resistance in Rice and Potato Plants to Nematodes
  University of Leeds; IRRI; WARDA; PROINPA, Bolivia; 1 January 1999–31 December 2001; £289,205 [R7294]3

  Transgenic Rice with Resistance to Rice Yellow Mosaic Virus
  John Innes Institute; WARDA; 1 July 1999–30 June 2002; £335,683 [R7415]3

  Transformation and Mapping of Natural Resistance to Rice Yellow Mottle Virus and Nematodes
  John Innes Institute; WARDA; 1 January 2000–31 December 2002; £97,728 [R7548]3
  157W
  Crop Protection

  Review of Genetically Modified Pest Management Technologies for Use in Developing Countries
  NRI; CICR, India; WARDA; ODI; PROINPA, Bolivia; University of Leeds; 21 February 2000–30 September 2000; £54,943 [R7585]2

  Fish Genetics

  Development and Exploitation of Transgenic Til
  University of Wales—Swansea; University of Southampton; 1 April 1998–31 March 2000; £219,468 [R7113]2

  Production of Improved Reversibly Sterile Strains of Tilapia, Field Testing
  University of Southampton; 1 April 2000–31 March 2004; £304,000 [R7591]3

  Animal Health

  Development of a Genetically Marked Rinderpest Vaccine
  Institute of Animal Health—Pirbright Laboratory; 1 October 1997–31 March 2000; £119,698 [R7048]2

  Pen-side Diagnostics for the Detection of Antibodies Against a Marked Rinderpest Virus (RPV) Vaccine
  Institute for Animal Health (Pirbright); IVRI, India; SVDL, Ethiopia; PARC, Kenya; 1 May 1999–30 April 2002; £223,549 [R7362]3

  Evaluation of Candidate Genes for Dominant Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes Target Antigens for Use as Vaccine Components
  Institute for Animal Health (Compton); ILRI; 1 October 1999–30 September 2002; £206,877 [R7365]3

  Review Studies

  Predicting Costs and Benefits to Livelihoods of the Poor in Developing Countries from "Terminator" Gene Technologies—GS Consulting; 1 July 1999–29 February 2000; £35,000 [R7573]2

  Projects Involving the Use of GMOs for Diagnostic and Research Purposes4

  Crop Post-Harvest

  Development of Low Cost and Simple Technologies for Aflatoxin Estimation in Foods and Feeds
  SCRI; ICRISAT; 1 April 1998–31 March 2001; £164,754 [R7083F]3

  Investigation of Role of Pectate Lyase in Banana Fruit Ripening Using Gene Transformation Techniques
  NRI; HRI; 1 April 1998–31 March 2001; £45,000 [R7160]3

  Crop Protection

  Identification of Varieties with Durable Resistance to Rice Yellow Mottle Virus
  WARDA; IER, Mali; INAR, Niger; 1 October 1997–30 September 2001; £208,265 [R6723H]3

  Analysis of Host Specificity Gene in Vascular Bacterial Pathogens of Banana and Plantain
  NRI; 14 October 1998–28 February 1999; £18,454 [R7248]2

  Study on Diversity within Maize Bushy Stunt Phytoplasma in Central America
  NRI; CENTA, El Salvador; CIMMYT; 1 January 1999–30 June 1999; £19,714 [R7318]2

  Optimisation and Dissemination of a Molecular Identification Module for Phytophthora Species
  SCRI; CABI Bioscience—Egham; 15 February 1999–15 May 1999; £15,347 [R7337]2

  Management and Molecular Characterisation of Bemisia tabaci and Tomato Leaf Curl Virus Disease on Tomato in India
  NRI; 1 September 1999–31 August 2002; £295,672 [R7460]3
  158W
  Study on Variation and Management Strategies for Banana Streak Virus in Uganda
  John Innes Institute; 1 November 1999–31 December 2000; £64,559 [R7478]3

  Strategies for the Sustainable Deployment of Cassava Mosaic Disease-Resistant Cassava in Eastern Africa
  NRI; NAARI, NARO, Uganda; 1 November 1999–31 October 2002; £492,502 [R7505]3

  Characterisation of West African Rice Blast Lineages and Resistance Sources
  HRI; WARDA; SARI, Ghana; CRI, Ghana; 1 December 1999–30 November 2002; £364,334 [R7552]3

  Integrated Management of Banana Diseases in Uganda
  CABI Bioscience—Egham; University of Reading; Uganda National Banana Research Programme; KARI, Uganda; IITA; 1 January 2000–31 December 2002; £329,361 [R7567]3

  Characterisation and Epidemiology of Root Rot Diseases Caused by Fusarium and Pythium spp. in Beans in Uganda
  NRI; HRI; CIAT; KARI, Uganda; NAARI, Uganda; PPRI, South Africa; 1 February 2000–31 March 2003; £445,236 [R7568]3

  Investigation of Epidemiology and Management of Virus Diseases of Vegetable Crops
  HRI; NRI; KARI, Kenya; CABI Bioscience-Kenya; Wye College; 1 March 2000–31 March 2003; £441,294 [R7571]3

  Animal Health

  A Laboratory Animal Model for Screening of Theilerial Vaccine Candidates
  Roslin Institute; ILRI; 1 April 1998–31 March 1999; £20,067 [R7163]2

  Further Information
  DFID Natural Resources Project Database on the internet <www.narsis.org>

  Acronyms

  CENTA—Centro Nacional de Technologia Agropecuaria y Forestal, El Salvador

  CIAT—Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Colombia CICR-Central Institute for Cotton Research, India

  CIMMYT—Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo, Mexico

  CR1—Crops Research Institute, Ghana HRI-Horticulture Research International

  ICRISAT—International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India

  IER—Institut Economie Rurale, Mali

  IIAR—Indian Institute for Agricultural Research, India

  IITA—International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria

  ILRI—International Livestock Research Institute, Kenya

  INRA—Institute National de la Recherche Agronomique, Niger

  IVRI—Indian Veterinary Research Institute

  IRRA—International Rice Research Institute, Philippines

  KARI—Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

  KARI—Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, Uganda

  NAARI—Namulonge Agricultural and Animal Research Institute, Uganda

  NARO—National Agricultural Research Organisation, Uganda

  NBPGR-National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, India

  NRI-Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich

  159W

  ODI—Overseas Development Institute

  PARC—Pan-African Rinderpest Campaign, Kenya

  PPRI—Plant Protection Research Institute, South Africa

  PROINPA—Programma de Investigacion de la Papa, Bolivia

  SARI—Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, Tamale, Ghana

  SCRI—Scottish Crops Research Institute

  SVDL—Sabeta Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, Ethiopia

  WARDA—West African Rice Development Association, Cote d' Ivoire

  1 Projects commissioned after 1 May 1997; total commitment £2,462,594

  2 Completed projects

  3 Ongoing projects

  4 Projects commissioned after 1 May 1997; total commitment £2,924,559.

  Misuse of Aid
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what measures are in place to prevent British aid being used to fund or encourage illegal activity in developing countries; [136635]

  (2) what steps are taken to ensure that British aid is not misused; and if she will make a statement. [136630]

  Clare Short
  The Department's Office Instructions manual, a copy of which is available in the Library, contains an explicit requirement for all development assistance to comply with the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. If there was any question regarding the legality of an activity in the country concerned, this would be addressed as part of the appraisal procedure. All expenditure is subject to subsequent monitoring, accounting and audit processes to verify that funds are used for the purposes intended. External scrutiny of the Department's expenditure is carried out by the National Audit Office on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the scope for corruption in sector-wide approaches to aid. [136637]

  Clare Short
  Sector-wide approaches are considered after careful appraisal of a wide range of factors which include, in particular, the robustness and integrity of financial management systems. Where such systems have inadequate controls, separate procurement, disbursement and/or audit channels are used. Technical assistance associated with a sector-wide approach can include strengthening of the expenditure management, procurement, reporting, accounting and audit capacity of the sector concerned. Thus sector-wide approaches help deliver country wide improvements in health and educational provision and improved financial management.

  Publications
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her document "Fair-Trade, Overview, impact and challenges" cost to produce. [136632]

  Clare Short
  It cost £57,542.

  Imfundo Project
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department has spent on the Imfundo project. [136633]

  Clare Short
  The total spend (excluding staff costs) on the Imfundo project to date is £52,957.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Carers
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers in receipt of their retirement pension do not qualify for the full amount of Invalid Care Allowance. [136446] [136595]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that up to 110,000 carers in Great Britain in receipt of retirement pension have made a claim to Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) at some point but do not currently qualify for the full amount of the allowance due to the overlapping benefit rules.

  Note:

  Those who have never claimed ICA due to receipt of an overlapping benefit will not be included.

  Source:

  ICA unit administrative data and projections of underlying entitlement cases aged over State pension age. Rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many married couples who were carers, over the age of 60 years and both in receipt of the state pension, were not entitled to Invalid Care Allowance in the last year for which figures are available. [136447] [136596]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many carers over the age of 65 years he expects to claim Invalid Care Allowance under the package for carers announced in October. [136444] [136598]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that 40,000 individuals aged 65 or over who are also carers will benefit by being eligible to claim Invalid Care Allowance under the extension of new claims entitlement to that age group.

  Note:

  Due to the difficulty of modelling entitlement to ICA from survey data and the small sample sizes used, this estimate must be treated with caution.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1997–98, 1998–99. ICA caseload forecasts. Estimates rounded to the nearest five thousand.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much additional funding he has allocated for the package of measures for carers announced in October. [136445] [136597]

  Mr. Bayley
  The allocation amounts to £191 million over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04.

  Pensions and Working Age Agencies
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in establishing(a) a pensions agency and (b) a working age agency. [135524]
  161W
  Angela Eagle
  Project teams are in place to take work forward on the design and development of the pensions organisation and working age agency. The projects are working closely together to ensure a smooth migration to the new organisations without disrupting the existing service to benefit clients. The project teams report regularly to Ministers on progress.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of abolishing the overlapping benefits rule for those over pension age in the case of Invalid Care Allowance in order to ensure that full-time carers over pension age could receive ICA in addition to any state pension. [135081]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that the cost of abolishing the overlapping benefits rules in the case of Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) for those over state pension age in 2002–03 would be about £400 million.

  Notes:

  1. Cash prices, rounded to nearest £50 million.

  2. Given the limitations of modelling entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance from survey data the estimate should be treated with caution.

  3. It is assumed that take-up among the entitled group will be 100 per cent.

  4. An adjustment has been made for Income Related Benefits (IRB) effects.

  Sources:

  Family Resources Survey 1998–99, ICA quarterly extract September 1999 and ICA caseload forecasts.

  In-patients Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies his Department has conducted into the everyday (out of hospital) financial costs borne by pensioners who go into hospital for six weeks or more. [136546]

  Mr. Rooker
  None.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people, who have previously been awarded a life award of disability living allowance at high rate, have had their disability living allowance downgraded following a review in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [135860]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Disability Living Allowance (DLA) life awards1 at higher rate downgraded following review2 for the period 1 December 1993 to 31 May 2000

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  All downgradings3,4,5

  55,500

  7,200

  Downgraded to lower rate3

  11,800

  1,800

  Downgraded to fixed term4

  44,600

  5,500

  1 The term "life award" was removed from legislation in January 2000. Therefore figures may include a small number of indefinite awards.

  2 From October 1999 reviews were replaced by two new processes, reconsideration and supercession, which are included in these figures

  162W
  3 Figures consist of cases where the higher rate of either the care or the mobility component has been reduced.

  4 Figures consist of cases previously awarded for life which are then awarded for a fixed period of time.

  5 Includes a small number of cases which were both downgraded to a lower rate and downgraded to a fixed term so figures will not sum.

  Note:

  DLA was created in 1992.

  Source:

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

  It is important to note that "life awards" of DLA was never intended to guarantee benefit entitlement up to death. They were always subject to change where, for example, a person no longer continued to satisfy the rules of entitlement, or where an error had been made. The criteria for changing a DLA award were, and remain, the same as those that apply to changes of almost all Social Security benefits. The Government recognised that the "life award" terminology in DLA was in this respect unsatisfactory because it created uncertainty. In the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 the terminology was changed to bring it in to line with other benefits. Awards previously termed "for life" are now termed "indefinite". The Department routinely examines cases to make sure that people are still entitled.

  Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will publish the criteria by which sufferers from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome are determined to be in eligible occupations for the purpose of receiving benefit; [137242]

  (2) if an individual diagnosed as suffering from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome is eligible for industrial injuries disablement benefit. [137241]

  Mr. Bayley
  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit may be payable to people who are diagnosed as suffering from Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. To be entitled, they must have worked as an employed earner in an occupation involving the use of hand-held powered tools whose internal parts vibrate so as to transmit that vibration to the hand, but excluding those that are solely powered by hand. They must also have a disablement assessed at 14 per cent. or more.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for Attendance Allowance have been received in each quarter of the last three years; and of those how many were(a) successful, (b) unsuccessful, (c) subject to appeal and (d) successful at appeal. [136806]

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

  Attendance Allowance claims

  Decided1

  Quarter ending

  Received

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  June 1997

  115,334

  76,484

  32,119

  September 1997

  101,077

  75,948

  31,640

  December 1997

  98,112

  69,741

  27,448

  March 1998

  97,727

  73,995

  25,600

  163W

  Attendance Allowance claims

  Decided 1

  Quarter ending

  Received

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  June 1998

  102,246

  71,762

  26,471

  September 1998

  104,411

  74,384

  25,440

  December 1998

  98,680

  71,212

  25,490

  March 1999

  108,677

  75,196

  26,858

  June 1999

  101,702

  73,844

  27,099

  September 1999

  98,377

  73,132

  26,725

  December 1999

  90,158

  58,795

  19,729

  March 2000

  104,929

  75,676

  23,262

  1 Figures include claims received before the quarter

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data

  Attendance Allowance review and appeal decisions1

  Review decisions2

  Appeal decisions

  Quarter ending

  Total

  Successful3

  Total

  Successful4

  June 1997

  26,541

  15,593

  1,207

  725

  September 1997

  31,497

  17,561

  1,399

  804

  December 1997

  29,922

  16,939

  1,360

  770

  March 1998

  29,267

  16,892

  1,696

  894

  June 1998

  24,415

  13,811

  1,651

  873

  September 1998

  24,716

  13,725

  1,697

  833

  December 1998

  24,122

  13,571

  1,494

  782

  March 1999

  26,052

  14,431

  1,546

  772

  June 1999

  23,310

  12,676

  1,697

  796

  September 1999

  26,284

  14,004

  1,566

  729

  December 1999

  17,895

  8,722

  1,257

  602

  March 2000

  22,143

  12,779

  1,261

  557

  1 Figures include claims received before the quarter.

  2 Figures include supersessions and reconsiderations from October 1999.

  3 Figures relate to previously unsuccessful claims where benefit is awarded, and to awards which are increased in value.

  4 Figures relate to previously unsuccessful review decisions where benefit is awarded or where the value of the award is increased.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data.

HEALTH

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the measures that have been taken to reduce out-patient and in-patient NHS waiting lists in the last year for hospitals serving(a) the Greater London Area and (b) the residents of the Borough of Kingston upon Thames. [135778]

  Mr. Denham
  Within the Greater London area, specific measures to reduce in-patient waiting lists have included the provision of additional theatre lists, weekend working, the recruitment of extra staff and collaborative arrangements with the private sector.

  Measures to reduce out-patient waiting lists in London include the provision of more clinics, the implementation of good practice recommendations from the National Patients Access team such as establishing booking system for out-patients, close working with primary care to develop agreed referral guidelines to ensure that the right patients are referred to the right clinics. Other measures include expanding the range of professionals who can see and manage patients health needs through learning from the beacons initiative. We have also established a work programme with National Health Service trusts in London
  164W
  to ensure best practice out-patient systems are put in place to reduce waiting times. All trusts have in place plans to improve waiting times for outpatients and a director responsible for implementing the plan.

  These developments have resulted in a fall in the total number of London residents waiting for treatment by 29,000 from 167,000 to 138,000 (August 2000) since the General Election.

  All these measures will have benefited residents of the Borough of Kingston upon Thames. In addition, local initiatives for in-patients have included Kingston Hospital running additional operating sessions including day case sessions at the weekend, the local health authority funding additional equipment and the appointment of a discharge co-ordinator. Finally Kingston and District NHS Trust has received capital funding to assist with the reduction in waiting lists. This has enabled the trust to buy additional equipment for use in out-patient clinics.

  Antidepressants
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to combat the increase in the prescribing of SSRI antidepressants; and if he will make statement. [136002]

  Mr. Hutton
  We recognise that there has been an increase in the prescribing of Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitor antidepressants. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group have indicated that depression still remains undiagnosed in too many cases and that treatment is often inadequate. A range of effective treatments should be available including appropriate drug therapy as well as psychological approaches. Treatment plans for particular individuals need to be developed in consultation with them and regularly reviewed.

  A number of clinical guidelines and protocols for the management of depression have been developed. These include the consensus statement by the Royal Colleges of Psychiatrists and General Practitioners published in 1992.

  Dentists
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists offered NHS treatment in each of the years between 1990 and 1999(a) in England and Wales and (b) in Essex. [136079]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of dentists in the General Dental Service at 30 September in each of the years 1990 to 1999 is shown in the table for(a) England and Wales and (b) Essex.

  General Dental Service: Number of dentists

  Year2

  England and Wales

  3Essex

  1990

  16,317

  418

  1991

  16,287

  441

  1992

  16,242

  438

  1993

  16,616

  460

  1994

  16,734

  465

  1995

  16,827

  472

  1996

  17,236

  476

  165W

  General Dental Service: Number of dentists

  Year2

  England and Wales

  3Essex

  1997

  17,657

  497

  1998

  18,200

  526

  1999

  18,719

  535

  1 Dentists cover principal dentists on a health authority or Family Health Services Authority (FHSA) list, their assistants and vocational dental practitioners.

  2 Number of dentists at 30 September each year.

  3 Before April 1996 the area was covered by Essex FHSA. From April 1996 the area was covered by North Essex and South Essex Health Authorities.

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the demand for liver transplantation arising from people who have contracted hepatitis C; and how this demand will be met. [136162]

  Mr. Denham
  Figures supplied by United Kingdom Transplant show that, for 1998 and 1999, 82 and 99 transplants respectively were performed on patients who had contracted liver failure as a result of hepatitis C infection. As of 3 November, 23 such patients are on the waiting list for liver transplant.

  Liver transplantation is limited by the supply of organs. However, new and innovative techniques such as liver splitting are helping to increase the supply. Publicity campaigns are also an important factor in increasing the supply of organs for transplantation. The current campaign encourages people to join the National Health Service Organ Donor Register, to carry the donor card and most importantly to discuss their wish to be an organ donor after death with their family and friends.

  In addition, there is growing experience and success with live related liver transplantation especially in children.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received about the continuation of mixed sex wards in the last 12 months. [136465]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of representations about the continuation of mixed sex accommodation received by the Department in the last 12 months is 52.

  Drug Addicts (GP Treatment)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients with drug problems had treatment withdrawn by GPs in(a) 1999 to 2000 and (b) 2000–01 at the latest date for which figures are available; [136652]

  (2) how many general practitioners ceased to offer treatment for drug related problems to patients addicted to drugs in (a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 at the latest available date. [136525]

  Ms Stuart
  This information is not held centrally. However, the number of episodes of treatment for drug misuses reported by National Health Service funded general practitioners to the regional drug misuses 166W
  databases in England rose from 1,341 to 1,790 between the six month periods ending 31 March 1999 and 30 September 1999. An episode starts when a drug misuser presents to a particular agency for treatment for the first time or after an interval of six months or more.

  Carers
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if independent fostering agencies will be able to approve and register carers under the draft regulations recently published under the Care Standards Act 2000. [136529]

  Mr. Hutton
  Draft regulations to bring into effect the provisions of the Care Standards Act 2000 in relation to the regulation of independent fostering agencies are currently being prepared. They will be published as part of the consultation procedure early next year. The current intention is, however, that registered independent fostering agencies will able to approve and hold their own lists of carers.

  Ambulance Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) alcohol and (b) drug related assaults on ambulance staff have taken place in each of the last three years for each relevant NHS trust. [136443]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not held centrally. The National Health Service Executive conducted a survey of violence in National Health Service trusts in England in 1998–99. The survey found that, on average, seven violent incidents were recorded each month per 1,000 staff. This is equivalent to approximately 65,000 violent incidents each year. The number of violent incidents varied by trust type. The average number of incidents in ambulance trusts was over twice the average for acute trusts: seven incidents every month per thousand staff working for ambulance services compared with three for the acute sector.

  The survey did not reveal the causes of violent incidents. This information would be reflected in local prevention and reduction strategies, and held locally by individual National Health Service employers through local reporting procedures and identified through appropriate risk assessment measures. Details of the survey can be found in Health Service Circular 1999/229: 'Managing Violence, Accidents and Sickness Absence in the NHS', copies of which are available in the Library.

  As part of the continuing NHS zero tolerance zone campaign, the NHS Executive developed further resource sheets to support staff working in those settings we know to be most at risk—namely in Mental Health, Community and Ambulance settings, and also in primary care. A "Resource Pack Update" was issued on the 3 October 2000 to assist managers and staff working in high risk settings and included guidance on:

  Managing Violence in Mental Health;

  Managing Violence in the Community;

  Managing Violence in Ambulance Trusts;

  Primary Care—Preventing Violence and Abuse to GPs and their staff; and

  Case Studies and Examples of Good Practice—Part II.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much capital has been allocated to the North East and Yorkshire region as part of the national bidding processes in(a) the current financial year and (b) 1999–2000; and how much each NHS trust obtained for each national priority. [137024]

  2000–01 capital allocations by trust (up to October 2000)

  £000

  Mod. Fund

  Trust code

  Trust name

  Waiting list and times

  Renal

  Cataract

  Pathology

  Ambulance response times

  Dental access centres

  RCF

  Airedale

  481

  —

  120

  —

  —

  —

  RCE

  Bradford Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RAE

  Bradford Hospitals

  525

  —

  352

  83

  —

  —

  RGA

  Calderdale Hospitals

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RLG

  Carlisle Hospitals

  391

  —

  30

  —

  —

  —

  RLN

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  580

  481

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RTC

  County Durham and Darlington Priority Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RE6

  Cumbria Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  RMW

  Dewsbury Health Care

  600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RR7

  Gateshead Health

  510

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RCD

  Harrogate Health Care

  188

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RGB

  Huddersfield Health Care Services

  472

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RV9

  Hull and East Riding Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,448

  RWA

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  333

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RGD

  Leeds Comm. and Mental Health Services Teaching

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RR8

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  1,600

  550

  386

  158

  —

  —

  RNM

  Newcastle City Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RTD

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals

  1,100

  170

  258

  —

  —

  —

  RR9

  North Durham Health Care

  494

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RVK

  North East Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  137

  —

  RLF

  North Lakeland Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RVW

  North Tees and Hartlepool

  495

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RCA

  Northallerton Health Services

  180

  —

  115

  —

  —

  —

  RM6

  Northgate and Prudhoe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RE8

  Northumberland Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RTF

  Northumbria Health Care

  400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RR4

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals

  399

  —

  194

  —

  —

  —

  RLH

  Priority Healthcare Wearside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RCC

  Scarborough and NE Yorkshire Healthcare

  430

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RTA

  South Durham Health Care

  462

  —

  —

  127

  —

  —

  RCJ

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  455

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RE9

  South Tyneside Healthcare

  392

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RVX

  Tees and North East Yorkshire

  118

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RV1

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Serv.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  109

  —

  RGF

  Wakefield and Pontefract Community Health

  425

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RE7

  West Cumbria Healthcare

  210

  —

  —

  —

  —

  230

  RGH

  West Yorkshire Met. Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  109

  —

  RCB

  York Health Services

  477

  30

  —

  199

  —

  —

  Total

  11,717

  1,301

  1,582

  440

  369

  1,678

  CHD

  Trust code

  Trust name

  Revascularisation

  Rapid access chest clinics

  Cardiac equipment

  Personal dental services pilots

  NHS Direct

  Critical care

  Total allocation

  RCF

  Airedale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  250

  851

  RCE

  Bradford Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RAE

  Bradford Hospitals

  —

  291

  25

  —

  —

  385

  1,661

  RGA

  Calderdale Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  45

  45

  RLG

  Carlisle Hospitals

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  113

  534

  RLN

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  —

  20

  —

  —

  —

  1,041

  2,122

  RTC

  County Durham and Darlington Priority Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RE6

  Cumbria Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  50

  —

  —

  —

  64

  RMW

  Dewsbury Health Care

  —

  70

  —

  —

  —

  195

  865

  RR7

  Gateshead Health

  —

  300

  —

  —

  —

  209

  1,019

  RCD

  Harrogate Health Care

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  188

  RGB

  Huddersfield Health Care Services

  —

  —

  45

  —

  —

  224

  741

  RV9

  Hull and East Riding Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,448

  RWA

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  282

  23

  100

  —

  —

  3,831

  4,639

  RGD

  Leeds Comm. and Mental Health Services Teaching

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  168W
  Mr. Hutton
  The following tables detail the capital funds that the Northern and Yorkshire Regional Office has been allocated in(a) the current financial year and (b) 1999–2000 as part of the national bidding process, in totality and also detail how much each NHS trust obtained for each national priority.
  169W

  CHD

  Trust code

  Trust name

  Revascularisation

  Rapid access chest clinics

  Cardiac equipment

  Personal dental services pilots

  NHS Direct

  Critical care

  Total allocation

  RR8

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  835

  152

  120

  —

  —

  950

  4,751

  RNM

  Newcastle City Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RTD

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals

  300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  540

  2,368

  RR9

  North Durham Health Care

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  57

  551

  RVK

  North East Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  137

  RLF

  North Lakeland Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RVW

  North Tees and Hartlepool

  —

  43

  —

  —

  —

  130

  668

  RCA

  Northallerton Health Services

  —

  —

  —

  155

  —

  448

  892

  RM6

  Northgate and Prudhoe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RE8

  Northumberland Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RTF

  Northumbria Health Care

  —

  199

  74

  —

  —

  421

  1,094

  RR4

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals

  —

  91

  —

  —

  —

  112

  796

  RLH

  Priority Healthcare Wearside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RCC

  Scarborough and NE Yorkshire Healthcare

  —

  90

  —

  —

  —

  163

  683

  RTA

  South Durham Health Care

  —

  33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  622

  RCJ

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  —

  —

  153

  —

  —

  525

  1,133

  RE9

  Southe Tyneside Healthcare

  —

  —

  25

  —

  —

  —

  417

  RVX

  Tees and North East Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  118

  RV1

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Serv.

  —

  —

  36

  —

  536

  —

  681

  RGF

  Wakefield and Pontefract Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  425

  RE7

  West Cumbria Healthcare

  —

  24

  —

  —

  —

  125

  589

  RGH

  West Yorkshire Met. Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  269

  —

  —

  —

  378

  RCB

  York Health Services

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  332

  1,078

  Total

  1,417

  1,336

  937

  155

  536

  10,096

  31,564

  Northern and Yorkshire regional office capital allocations received under national bidding process

  £000

  1999–2000

  Accident and Emergency Modernisation Fund

  13,448

  Waiting List Modernisation Fund

  2,745

  Pathology Modernisation Fund

  417

  Cancer Outpatients Modernisation Fund

  228

  NHS Direct

  241

  Primary Care Walk in Centres

  285

  Total

  17,364

  2000–01 (to October 2000)

  Waiting List and Times Modernisation Fund

  11,717

  Renal Modernisation Fund

  1,301

  Cateract Modernisation Fund

  1,582

  1999–2000 capital allocations by trust

  £000

  Mod. Fund

  Trust code

  Trust name

  Accident and emergency

  Waiting list

  Pathology

  Cancer outpatients

  NHS Direct

  Primary care walk in centres

  Total allocation

  RCF

  Airedale

  600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  RCE

  Bradford Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RAE

  Bradford Hospitals

  300

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  400

  RGA

  Calderdale Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RLG

  Carlisle Hospitals

  410

  140

  —

  46

  —

  —

  596

  RLN

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  600

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  655

  RTC

  County Durham and Darlington Priority Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RE6

  Cumbria Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RMW

  Dewsbury Health Care

  600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  RMU

  East Yorkshire Community Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RF3

  East Yorkshire Hospitals

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RR7

  Gateshead Health

  750

  373

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,123

  RCD

  Harrogate Health Care

  30

  —

  —

  7

  —

  —

  37

  RGB

  Huddersfield Health Care Services

  40

  160

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200

  RV9

  Hull and East Riding Community

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RWA

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  1,064

  —

  —

  12

  —

  —

  1,076

  RMV

  Hull and Holderness Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RGD

  Leeds Comm. and Mental Health Services Teaching

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RR8

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  770

  250

  417

  32

  —

  —

  1,469

  170W

  Northern and Yorkshire regional office capital allocations received under national bidding process

  £000

  Pathology Modernisation Fund

  440

  Ambulance Response Times Modernisation Fund

  369

  Dental Access Centres

  1,678

  Coronary Heart Disease:

  Revascularisation

  1,417

  Rapid Access Chest Clinics

  1,336

  Cardiac Equipment

  937

  Personal Dental Services Pilots

  155

  NHS Direct

  536

  Critical Care

  10,096

  Total

  31,564

  171W

  1999–2000 capital allocations by trust

  £000

  Mod. Fund

  Trust code

  Trust name

  Accident and emergency

  Waiting list

  Pathology

  Cancer outpatients

  NHS Direct

  Primary care walk in centres

  Total allocation

  RNM

  Newcastle City Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RTD

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals

  —

  177

  —

  —

  —

  285

  462

  RR9

  North Durham Health Care

  70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  RVK

  North East Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  175

  175

  RLF

  North Lakeland Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RVW

  North Tees and Hartlepool

  755

  660

  —

  54

  —

  —

  1,469

  RCA

  Northallerton Health Services

  600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  RM6

  Northgate and Prudhoe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RE8

  Northumberland Mental Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RTF

  Northumbria Health Care

  1,800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,800

  RR4

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals

  815

  250

  —

  35

  —

  —

  1,100

  RLH

  Priority Healthcare Wearside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RF2

  Royal Hull Hospitals

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RCC

  Scarborough and NE Yorkshire Healthcare

  910

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  970

  RTA

  South Durham Health Care

  600

  410

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,010

  RCJ

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  312

  110

  —

  20

  —

  —

  442

  RE9

  South Tyneside Healthcare

  617

  —

  —

  22

  —

  —

  639

  RVX

  Tees and NE Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RV1

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Amb. Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200

  —

  200

  RGF

  Wakefield and Pontefract Community Health

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  RE7

  West Cumbria Healthcare

  600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  RGH

  West Yorks. Met. Ambulance Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -134

  —

  -134

  RCB

  York Health Services

  1,205

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,205

  Total

  13,448

  2,745

  417

  228

  241

  285

  17,364

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the conventionally financed precursor scheme for the Newcastle Hospitals Trust PFI has been approved. [137026]

  Mr. Hutton
  Although the scheme has not yet been approved, it is expected that it will be approved in the near future. Public capital funds have been reserved to meet the full capital costs of this scheme, which will be released to the trust as soon as the remaining outstanding issues have been resolved.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the block allocation is for discretionary capital for each NHS trust in the North East and Yorkshire region in(a) the current financial year and (b) 1999–2000. [137023]

  Mr. Hutton
  Block capital allocations to NHS trusts in the Northern and Yorkshire Region for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are shown in the table.

  Hull and East Riding Community Health NHS Trust and Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust both became operational on 1 October 1999. For comparison purposes, the block capital allocations of their predecessor constituent trusts have been aggregated and presented under the new trusts' names.

  Block capital allocations to NHS trusts in the Northern and Yorkshire region

  £000

  NHS trust

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Airedale

  1,644

  1,678

  Bradford Community Health

  800

  817

  Bradford Hospitals

  3,047

  3,110

  Calderdale Healthcare

  1,564

  1,597

  Carlisle Hospitals

  1,200

  1,225

  City Hospitals Sunderland

  3.526

  3,599

  County Durham and Darlington Priority Services

  615

  628

  Cumbria Ambulance Service

  517

  528

  172W

  Block capital allocations to NHS trusts in the Northern and Yorkshire region

  £000

  NHS trust

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Dewsbury Health Care

  1,490

  1,521

  Gateshead Health

  2,077

  2,120

  Harrogate Health Care

  1,563

  1,596

  Huddersfield Healthcare

  1,697

  1,732

  Hull and East Riding Community Health

  1,329

  1,081

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals

  4,500

  4,600

  Leeds Community and Mental Health

  1,274

  1,300

  Leeds Teaching Hospitals

  11,833

  12,385

  Newcastle City Health

  2,246

  2,299

  Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals

  7,323

  7,782

  North Durham Health Care

  1,901

  1,941

  North East Ambulance Service

  1,995

  2,036

  North Lakeland Healthcare

  557

  569

  North Tees and Hartlepool

  2,678

  2,769

  Northallerton Health Services

  897

  916

  Northgate and Prudhoe

  543

  554

  Northumberland Mental Health

  271

  277

  Northumbria Health Care

  3,891

  4,045

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals

  3,440

  3,512

  Priority Healthcare Wearside

  514

  525

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare

  1,819

  2,132

  South Durham Health Care

  2,327

  2,398

  South Tees Acute Hospital

  4,050

  4,140

  South Tyneside Health Care

  1,568

  1,601

  Tees, East and North Yorks Ambulance

  2,196

  1,984

  Tees and North East Yorkshire

  1,112

  1,362

  Wakefield and Pontefract Community Health

  813

  1,037

  West Cumbria Health Care

  1,103

  1,126

  West Yorks Metropolitan Ambulance Service

  1,758

  1,795

  York Health Services

  2,933

  2.994

  Total

  84,611

  87,311

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the level of capital expenditure needed at each hospital site of the Newcastle City Health Trust to ensure they comply with Heath and Safety Executive standards. [137025]
  173W
  Mr. Hutton
  The current estimated level of capital expenditure needed at each hospital site of the Newcastle City Health NHS Trust in relation to Health and Safety Executive standards is shown in the table.

  £

  Hospital

  Statutory and safety

  Fire safety

  Total

  Newcastle General

  546,000

  3,259,821

  3,805,821

  Hunters Moor

  132,000

  458,550

  590,550

  St. Nicholas

  687,000

  2,061,630

  2,748,630

  Sanderson

  150,000

  1,001,390

  1,151,390

  Totals

  1,515,000

  6,781,391

  8,296,391

  CJD Clusters
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) undertaken at (i) a local and (ii) a national level into potential clusters at vCJD cases in (A) Queniborough, Leicestershire and (B) Armthorpe, South Yorkshire; [137115]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of establishing (a) a standardised protocol and (b) a dedicated core team for the investigations of potential clusters of vCJD. [137116]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National CJD Surveillance Unit investigate all cases of vCJD to identify common factors. All possible groupings of cases are being considered. Local health authorities are involved where localised investigations of groups of cases are appropriate. The Department is actively working with scientists from the CJD Surveillance Unit, health care specialists and others to draw up a protocol to investigate all suspected "clusters". One investigation has already been set up into the grouping of cases at Queniborough.

  NHS (Routine Screening)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to extend routine screening in the NHS. [135847]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]: The National Health Service Plan made a clear commitment to extending routine screening.

  Women aged 65–70 will be offered routine breast screening; cervical screening technologies will be improved; and colorectal cancer screening will be introduced should the current pilot studies demonstrate its effectiveness. The United Kingdom National Screening Committee will continue its review of prostate cancer screening.

  By 2004, there will also be new screening programmes for women and children, including equitable, high quality antenatal screening, screening for haemoglobinopathies and neonatal deafness.

  Children's Food
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of the regulations applying to(a) children's food and (b) baby food; and if he will make a statement. [136565]
  174W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Foods for children and babies are subject to the same legislation as applies to foodstuffs generally. In addition there are specific regulations controlling the composition, labelling and (in the case of infant formula only) advertising of infant formula and baby foods. These regulations are amended from time to time to take account of advances in the scientific understanding of the needs of babies.

  Breast Cancer Screening
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on breast cancer screening for the over 65s in(a) Coventry, South and (b) nationally. [136693]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) invites women aged 50–64 to be screened by mammography every three years, and women over 65 are eligible for screening every three years on request. A total of 88,119 women over 65 were screened in England in 1998–99, of which 954 were screened in Coventry. The Coventry screening programme covers Coventry, Warwickshire and Solihull.

  The NHS Cancer Plan announced that the NHSBSP will extend routine invitations for screening to women aged 65–70 by 2004. Women aged over 70 will be offered free three yearly screening on request, as women over 65 are now. It is anticipated that the first breast screening programmes in England will start inviting women over 65 in 2001–02, with all programmes starting by 2004, benefiting 400,000 women each year.

  Healthy Living Centres
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of healthy living centres in the Government's public health strategy. [136585]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The New Opportunities Fund is responsible for funding the healthy living centre initiative. Healthy living centre applicants need to demonstrate that their projects will support national and local health strategies. Healthy living centres will have a key role to play in reducing inequalities and supporting the work of other statutory and voluntary agencies locally.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to narrow the health gap between rich and poor areas. [136696]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The National Health Service Plan announced a stronger role in prevention for the NHS working in partnership with others. By 2003 reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources. For the first time ever we will create national health inequalities targets to narrow the health gap in childhood and throughout life between socio-economic groups and between the most deprived areas and the rest of the country. Specific targets will be developed in consultation with external

  175W
  stakeholders and expert advice, as the new national statistics classification becomes available early in 2001. A copy of the NHS Plan has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to reduce health inequalities(a) nationally and (b) in Coventry, South. [136695]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Prevention was identified as one of the five challenges in the National Health Service Plan that needed to be addressed. In addition, it announced a stronger role in prevention for the NHS working in partnership with others. By 2003, reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources. For the first time ever we will create national health inequalities targets to narrow the health gap in childhood and throughout life between socio-economic groups and between the most deprived areas and the rest of the country.

  Coventry Health Authority's Health Improvement Programme for 2000–03 identified tackling health inequalities as a key priority and has designated six areas of the city as health action areas. These areas, including three in Coventry, South, have the greatest level of deprivation and health need. Health professionals are working with local people and partner organisations to develop health action and service plans.

  The National Health Service will respond to different needs of different populations. Efforts will continually be made to reduce unjustified variations and raise standards to achieve a truly National Health Service.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to end local variations in accessing treatment for heart disease in Coventry. [136580]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Coventry Health Authority and the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust approach to access to cardiac treatment and preventative services is in line with the National Service Framework (NSF) for Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). The local health community has identified key priority areas which will further promote fair and equitable access to treatment for heart disease. Actions are under way to implement the NSF for CHD at a local level in line with the key milestones set nationally.

  Walsgrave Hospital is opening a rapid chest pain clinic early next year to promote access to a specialist for all patients with new onset chest pain which their general practitioner thinks might be due to angina.

  General practices in Coventry are developing CHD registers and will ensure that an increasingly equitable approach to primary care for CHD patients is adopted.

  Coventry has been proactive in developing hospital based smoking cessation services in addition to those set up in the community. Referral to the hospital smoking cessation team will become an extension of the treatment package offered to patients with CHD in Coventry.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce the number of unplanned teenage pregnancies(a) nationally and (b) in the West Midlands. [136697]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) on 14 June 1999, Official Report, columns 17–18.

  The Social Exclusion Unit's report on teenage pregnancy, published on 14 June 1999, sets out a 30 point action plan working across Government. It sets out a £60 million package to tackle the issue, and highlights two main goals: reducing the number of teenage conceptions, with the specific aim of halving the rate of conceptions among under 18s by 2010; and getting more teenage parents into education, training or employment to reduce their risk of long term social exclusion.

  Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  Following the launch of the report, every area in England now has a local teenage pregnancy co-ordinator in place, making a total of 141. Their role is to develop strategies to tackle teenage pregnancy in their area, in consultation with local communities. They will report annually on progress to the Department of Health. £7.5 million has been made available for innovative local projects in the current financial year.

  The NHS Plan has set an interim target of achieving a 15 per cent. reduction in under-18 conception rates by 2004.

  New guidance on sex and relationship education was issued to schools in July. A national media campaign began at the end of October, when the first adverts appeared in teenage magazines. The campaign was developed drawing on comprehensive research on what works best with young people. It is aimed as much at boys as at girls.

  During 2000–01, we provided funding of over £1 million to the West Midlands to develop local services to prevent teenage pregnancy and support teenage parents. Specific initiatives include a Sexual Health and Drugs Outreach Work (SHADOW) project in Coventry that addresses sexual health, pregnancy and healthy lifestyles for young people. This will link to a one-stop shop, due to open shortly in Coventry city centre, to deliver a number of services such as Connexions, youth information and a general advice and counselling service for young people. A mobile sexual health and advice clinic has been set up in North Staffordshire, enabling young people to access services in youth and leisure facilities.

  Childbirth
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the rate was of(a) spontaneous, (b) Caesarean and (c) instrumental births as a percentage of all births in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1999–2000. [136798]
  177W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The table shows the method of delivery in National Health Service hospitals in England for the years 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98, and 1998–99. Figures for 1999–2000 are not available.

  Estimated percentages

  Year

  Spontaneous

  Instrumental

  Caesarean

  Other

  1995–96

  73

  10

  16

  0

  1996–97

  72

  10

  17

  1

  1997–98

  71

  11

  17

  1

  1998–99

  70

  11

  19

  1

  Note:

  Figures are provisional

  Influenza Vaccination
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the shortfall in the national availability of influenza vaccination; what steps his Department has taken to ensure that all medical, nursing and ancillary staff working in NHS hospitals have been offered free influenza vaccination; and if he will make a statement. [136771]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: This year, we have extended the recommended groups for influenza immunisation to include everyone aged 65 and over, irrespective of their underlying health, as well as younger people in established high risk groups. This increase has led to record numbers of vaccine being made available, nearly 11 million this year compared to 7.8 million last year, an increase of 40 per cent.

  Unfortunately one of the manufacturers, Solvay, has encountered problems in growing a strain of the vaccine which has led to delays in some deliveries. Solvay have been in touch with the affected general practitioners to tell them details of any delays, but have confirmed that all ordered vaccine will be delivered by the end of November, in time to protect people this winter.

  As part of the winter planning process, National Health Service employers are required to offer immunisation to all staff involved in the delivery of care and/or support to patients. Offers of immunisation by NHS employers are being closely monitored by the Department to ensure that all staff have been given the opportunity to be immunised.

  Responsibility for occupational influenza immunisation rests with the employer and it should be provided through an occupational health service. It is up to individual NHS trusts to determine their own programme and fund the immunisation of their staff.

  Osteopaths
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many osteopaths practising before 1993 were refused registration under the Osteopaths Act 1993. [136441]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The General Osteopathic Council's records show that, at 2 November 2000, 73 practitioners who claimed to be practising as osteopaths before 1993 have been refused statutory registration under the Osteopaths Act of that year.

  Naz Project
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the Naz Project; and what funding his Department has provided for the project from 1997 to 2000. [136763]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Naz Project plays a valuable role in providing the South Asian, Latin American, Irani, Turkish and Arab Communities with education and advice on HIV/AIDS issues, and care, support and prevention services. The Department provided core grant funding of £27,000 per year from 1997 to 2000, and £25,000 in 2000–01.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cayman Islands
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Cayman Islands authorities on the White Paper on Overseas Territories. [135172]

  Mr. Battle
  There is a continual dialogue between the Governor and the Cayman Islands Government on White Paper issues. We have hosted two Consultative Council meetings in October 1999 and October 2000 when Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and appropriate Whitehall Departments met elected representatives from all the Overseas Territories including the Cayman Islands. Baroness Scotland of Asthal also discussed White Paper issues with the Cayman Islands Government during her visit to the Territory in July of this year.

  EU Council (Biarritz)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the EU Council at Biarritz; and if he will make a statement. [135174]

  Mr. Vaz
  This informal European Council took stock of progress of the Inter-Governmental Conference on treaty change. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our support for the extension of majority voting in areas where this will benefit Britain, while making clear that these areas did not include tax or social security. The European Council agreed that there was a role for enhanced co-operation in an enlarged European Union. It also agreed that the Charter of Rights should he adopted at the Nice European Council as a purely political declaration. Heads of State and Government also discussed the situation in the Middle East, and held a meeting with President Kostunica of Serbia.

  BBC
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his funding for BBC activities. [135175]

  Mr. Hain
  We have provided a record £64 million increase for the World Service over the next three years.

  Sub-Saharan Africa (Solar Energy)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what solar energy projects in African sub-Saharan countries he is funding. [135176]

  Mr. Hain
  We are currently funding two solar energy projects in Ethiopia and one in Uganda, with one in South Africa that aims to facilitate financing for renewable energy, including solar energy, together with two other African projects funded by the Climate Change Challenge Fund.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's relationship with Zimbabwe. [135177]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The economic crisis in Zimbabwe continues to deepen. The economy is contracting by up to one tenth this year and receipts from tourism are down by three-quarters. Inflation is predicted to reach 80 per cent. and foreign exchange is effectively exhausted.

  Britain is ready to engage with the Government of Zimbabwe, as its partner for development. But there is no realistic prospect of economic progress unless President Mugabe first restores the rule of law.

  I met yesterday with Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Zimbabwe Opposition. I shared with him our strong friendship for the people of Zimbabwe and Britain's willingness to work with any of their representatives who share our commitment to the rule of law, democracy and the welfare of its people.

  Recruitment
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress he has made in widening recruitment to the Foreign Office. [135179]

  Mr. Battle
  We are widening the FCO's recruitment base, launching marketing and outreach initiatives to encourage people from different backgrounds to join the FCO. We want to ensure that we draw on the very best of Britain's diverse society in promoting UK interests overseas.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the past year towards the restoration of full British citizenship for the people of the island of St. Helena. [135181]

  Mr. Battle
  We have consulted the Overseas Territories, have resolved the matters which need to be covered by new legislation and have produced drafting instructions for a Bill.

  North Korea
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the EU, the USA, Japan 180W
  and China with regard to his decision to normalise diplomatic relations with North Korea; and if he will make a statement. [135182]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed his decision to respond positively to a North Korean proposal on establishing diplomatic relations with South Korean, US and Japanese counterparts and a number of EU colleagues. Ministers in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Spain have since made similar announcements. The decision acknowledges progress in the dialogue between North and South Korea and between the US and North Korea and reaffirms British support for the engagement policy of South Korean President, Kim Dae-Jung, but it does not imply approval of the North Korean regime. We remain deeply concerned about human rights in North Korea, as well as Pyongyang's policies on weapons of mass destruction, missile proliferation and nuclear issues; and will use formal relations to continue pressing these issues.

  Guatemala
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK relations with Guatemala. [135183]

  Mr. Battle
  Guatemala has the United Kingdom's full support in the consolidation and strengthening of its democracy, adherence to the rule of law and observance of human rights.

  The Government have as their objective a further deepening of the UK-Guatemala relationship. The visit to Guatemala in September of an IPU delegation, led by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), made a helpful contribution to that objective.

  Middle East
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [135184]

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the political situation in the middle east. [135189]

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east. [135193]

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the middle east. [135195]

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east crisis. [135199]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given earlier in the House today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton).

  Iran (Jewish Community)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation of Jews in Iran. [135185]
  181W
  Mr. Hain
  The Jewish community in Iran is represented, as are other minorities, by a member in the Majles, and Judaism is among the religions recognised by the Iranian Constitution. Jewish Iranians are free to run businesses and enjoy their own culture, although the right to hold public office is circumscribed.

  However, we remain concerned at the sentencing of ten Jews and two Muslims on espionage charges. We and our EU partners have taken every appropriate opportunity to raise our concerns throughout the trial and the subsequent appeal about the nature of the proceedings. We hope that the Iranian Judiciary will show clemency.

  James Mawdesley
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government took to help secure the release of James Mawdesley from imprisonment in Burma. [135186]

  Mr. Battle
  From the moment of his arrest, we gave James every consular assistance: we visited him 14 times and sent 64 diplomatic notes. We began calling for his release after he was beaten by prison guards in October.

  Immediately following the UN Working Group's decision on 10 October that James was being held arbitrarily, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary demanded James' release. Baroness Scotland repeated this demand when she summoned the Burmese Ambassador the next day. Our Ambassador in Rangoon also made representations. The Burmese Ambassador came to inform me on 16 October that James was being released.

  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the French Government to discuss the EU' s common foreign and security policies; and if he will make a statement. [135187]

  Mr. Vaz
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has frequent contact with the French Government over CFSP—in formal discussions, telephonically and at multilateral meetings (e.g. GAC). Since the St. Malo summit, we co-operate particularly closely on European defence, Africa, Balkans and other areas. He will address the French National Assembly on 8 November.

  Latvia
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the bilateral relations between the UK and Latvia; and what plans he has to visit Latvia. [135188]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our bilateral relationship with Latvia is good. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told President Vike-Freiberga of Latvia on 26 October, during her recent visit to London, that the Baltic States were a priority for the United Kingdom and that he hoped to visit Latvia next year. I will make a visit to Latvia tomorrow.

  Czech Republic
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with the Czech Republic. [135190]
  182W
  Mr. Vaz
  We enjoy excellent relations with the Czech Republic. We are close NATO allies, and fully support the Czech application for EU membership. Trade and investment links are strong. The Czech Prime Minister called on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last month. I will be visiting Prague later this month with several ministerial colleagues.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication he has had with the Iraqi Government as a result of the involvement of British citizens in the recent aeroplane hijack and hostage situation in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [135191]

  Mr. Battle
  We had no direct contact with the Iraqi Government before or during the hijacking of Saudi Air SV115.

  Belize/Guatemala Border Dispute
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position regarding the territorial dispute between Guatemala and Belize. [135192]

  Mr. Battle
  The United Kingdom continues to support Belize's Sovereignty and Territorial integrity and will continue to provide legal assistance in Belize's efforts to demarcate its land and maritime boundaries. We are pleased that constructive discussions between the two sides have taken place in the presence of the Secretary General of the Organisation of American States and that further talks are planned. We believe it essential that these discussions continue, and that there is early progress on confidence building measures. We continue to make our views clear to both sides.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving to(a) Belize and (b) Guatemala to resolve problems relating to their common border. [137061]

  Mr. Battle
  In helping Belize to resolve its border dispute with Guatemala the UK:has provided financial support for talks between Belize and Guatemala being held under the auspices of the Organisation of American States; and
  is helping Belize in its efforts to demarcate its land and maritime boundaries by providing them with legal and hydrographic assistance.

  The UK strongly encourages both parties to resolve the dispute through bilateral negotiation. We are pleased that the OAS-facilitated talks between Belize and Guatemala have made encouraging progress. We hope this will be taken forward in talks in Washington this week.

  EU Voting Structures (Treaty of Nice)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on preparations for the revision of voting structures within the EU in the forthcoming treaty of Nice. [135194]
  183W
  Mr. Vaz
  Negotiations on the re-weighting of votes in the Council continue in the Intergovernmental Conference.

  The Government's approach remains as set out in the White Paper laid before the House on 15 February.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on preparations for the EU Council at Nice as regards changes to the relationships among the EU institutions. [135196]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Intergovernmental Conference is about making the institutional reforms necessary to allow enlargement to proceed. The issues remain those set out at the beginning of the Conference; that is chiefly the size and composition of the Commission, the re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers, the extension of Qualified Majority Voting and closer co-operation between individual member states.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about conflict in Sri Lanka. [135197]

  Mr. Hain
  We remain extremely concerned about the conflict in Sri Lanka and the effect it is having on the civilian population. We call upon the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE to cease hostilities and begin negotiations immediately.

  We fully support Norway's efforts to facilitate peace talks.

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Yugoslavia. [135198]

  Mr. Vaz
  We applaud the peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy which President Kostunica is leading in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Programmes of EU and UK assistance will contribute to the international community's efforts to help the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to overcome its immediate economic difficulties and to rejoin the family of nations.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his(a) European and (b) United States counterparts regarding developments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [135428]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I refer to my reply to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on 25 October 2000, Official Report, columns 148–49W.

  Trade (EU Market Access)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment of the impact on ACP producers of rice, sugar, rum and bananas of the European Commission's Everything but Arms initiative which seeks to extend duty and quota free access to the EU market to 48 least developed countries. [136824]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.
  184W
  The Government support the European Commission's initiative and recognise the need to consider carefully the potential impact of the proposal on non-Least Developed Countries Africa, Caribbean and Pacific producers. Much depends on the ability of LDCs to respond to the new incentives but the build up of exports is likely to take time. Initial reform of the EU internal sugar and rice regimes is likely to take place over the next few years under pressure from international trade liberalisation agreements.

  Memorandum on EEC Negotiations 1970–72
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place the text of Sir Con O'Neill's Memorandum on the EEC negotiations of 1970–72 in the Library. [134177]

  Mr. Vaz
  Sir Con O'Neill's report on the negotiations of 1970–72 for the UK's entry to the EEC was published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 7 September and copies have already been placed in the Libraries of the House. The original file copy of the report is now available at the Public Record Office under reference FCO 75/1.

  Burma
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage the development of democracy in Burma. [134921]

  Mr. Battle
  Our policy is to press the Burmese regime at every opportunity to enter into substantive dialogue with democratic parties, including ethnic minorities, and to improve their appalling human rights record. In April this year we successfully persuaded EU partners to strengthen the EU Common Position on Burma by publishing the list of regime members subject to an EU travel ban, imposing a freeze on their funds held in the EU, and banning the supply of equipment that might be used for internal repression or terrorism. We believe continued pressure forces the regime to take note of the international community's concerns, as witnessed by their recent release of the British prisoner, James Mawdsley. We will continue with this policy: forthcoming opportunities include the UN General Assembly resolution, the ILO Governing Body, and the EU-ASEAN Ministerial meeting. We also support the work of Razali Ismail in his good offices roles as the UN Special Envoy for Burma.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EU and UN counterparts concerning multilateral investment sanctions against Burma. [136764]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: We regularly discuss measures against Burma with our EU Partners but there is no consensus for multilateral investment sanctions. Nor is there consensus for such measures within the UN. We do not encourage trade or investment in Burma. We have suspended financial support for trade missions and trade promotions. In March I told Premier Oil, the largest UK investor in Burma, that we would welcome its moving out. We discourage

  185W
  tourism as well. We are currently working with partners on a resolution on Burma to be adopted at the UN General Assembly.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards discussions of EU enlargement at the IGC in Nice. [135091]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK is committed to a swift and successful enlargement of the European Union. In the current intergovernmental conference we are discussing the institutional issues which need to be resolved in order for enlargement to proceed. Discussions at the informal Biarritz summit indicated that we are on course for agreement at Nice on these issues. We welcome this.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects of Article 21 of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights on his Department's employment of women in jobs requiring considerable manual strength. [135571]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 555W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the legal status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. [136395]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on 1 February 2000,Official Report, column 541W.

  China
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recommendations the UK Government have made to other EU member states on the future of the EU/China human rights dialogue. [135767]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government take an active role in the EU in determining the direction and strategy for addressing the human rights situation in China. EU partners approved a UK proposal in February 2000 to consider ways of strengthening the EU/China human rights dialogue process to make it a more effective mechanism for addressing common concerns with the Chinese authorities. EU Foreign Ministers are expected to discuss the outcome of this review at the General Affairs Council on 4 December.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what developments there have been in the UK Government's inquiries as to the(a) whereabouts and (b) welfare of the 11th Panchen Lama. [135513]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government raised the case of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Dalai Lama's choice as the 11th Panchen Lama, during the fifth round of the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue in London between 16–18 October. We pressed the Chinese to allow access
  186W
  to the boy by an independent figure acceptable to the Chinese Government and Tibetans to verify his health and living conditions.

  The Chinese stated that the boy was well and attending school. They said that his parents did not want international figures and the media intruding into his life. Two photographs claimed to be of Ghedun Choekyi Nyima were shown to us but not handed over.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions are planned within the Council of Ministers concerning the future of the EU/China human rights dialogue. [135514]

  Mr. Battle
  EU Foreign Ministers are expected to review the EU/China human rights dialogue process at the General Affairs Council on 4 December. The Council is also expected to discuss the human rights situation in China in March 2001 following the next round of the EU/China Human Rights dialogue expected to take place in Stockholm in February 2001.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made on issues concerning Tibet during the last round of UK/China human rights dialogue, held recently in London. [135515]

  Mr. Battle
  The situation in Tibet was a particular focus of the fifth round of the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue held in London between 16–18 October. We pressed the Chinese authorities to resume a dialogue with the Dalai Lama on a long-term political solution to the question of Tibet. We received a briefing from the Chinese on recent contacts with representatives of the Dalai Lama and urged the Chinese to take these forward as a matter of importance.

  We also made clear our specific concerns about the situation in Tibet, including freedom of religion, the treatment of Buddhist monks and nuns, Han Chinese migration to Tibet, the investigation into the 1998 riots at Drapchi Prison, and the closure of the Gyatso Orphanage in Lhasa.

  We also asked about a number of individual cases of concern including Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the Dalai Lama's choice as Panchen Lama. The Chinese side displayed two photographs claimed to be of Ghedum Choekyi Nyima to substantiate their assertion that he was in good health and receiving education.

  We also sought and received a commitment from the Chinese authorities to allow the proposed visit to Tibet by the All-Party Group on Tibet to be carried forward into 2001.

  Whistleblowers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures exist in his Department for a civil servant to report actions which(a) are illegal, improper, or unethical, (b) are in breach of constitutional convention or a professional code, (c) may involve possible maladministration and (d) are otherwise inconsistent with the Civil Service Code. [135467]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: In accordance with the Department's Code of Ethics, staff may raise with their line manager or with a senior member

  187W
  of the Administration concerns they may have about actions they consider to be illegal, unconstitutional, improper, unethical or otherwise in breach of the Code. They may also raise such concerns with the Civil Service Commissioners or with the Diplomatic Service Appeal Board as appropriate. The Code of Ethnics is annexed to the general principals of conduct contained in Departmental regulations which are issue to all staff on their appointment.

  Independent Monitor for Visa Applications
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs where the post of Independent Monitor for Visa Applications was advertised; and how many people submitted applications. [135826]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is not usual practice to advertise a post of this nature. A short-list of candidates was compiled, including suggestions from the Cabinet Office Public Appointment Unit's database.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of civilian Serbs(a) resident in Kosovo at the beginning of 1999, (b) who left after the NATO action and the withdrawal of the Serb forces and (c) who have subsequently returned. [136290]

  Mr. Vaz
  The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that before the conflict there were around 200,000 Kosovo Serbs in the province. Estimates for the number of Kosovo Serbs remaining are in the range of 100,000. Those who return frequently do so independently and usually without assistance from UNMIK; thus estimated number of Serb returns are not available.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of civilian(a) Roma, (b) Muslim and (c) Slav people resident in Kosovo at the beginning of 1999; how many left after the NATO action and the withdrawal of the Serb forces; and how many have subsequently returned. [136200]

  Mr. Vaz
  Pre-conflict population figures for Kosovo were far from exact. The 1991 census recorded some 45,000 Roma living in Kosovo, but their numbers may well have been considerably higher. The number of Gypsies (including Askali and Egyptians as well as Roma) is now estimated to be 30,000, although more may be present but unreported. The Pre-conflict Muslim population (Kosovo Albanians and Turks) was roughly estimated at 1.8 million. With the vast majority of the 860,000 refugees having returned to the province, their estimated numbers remain close to this figure. It is estimated that some 200,000 Kosovo Serbs were present pre-March 1999. In addition, Kosovo's Muslim Slave populations (Bosniacs and Gorani) stood at around 57,000 and 12,000 before the conflict and today number about 35,000 and 12,000.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of compatibility of the provisions of applicable law for Kosovo with human rights standards. [135426]
  188W
  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has recently published a report on the workings of Kosovo's criminal justice system, making a number of criticisms. The report has been submitted to the United Nations Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) who will respond in due course.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is regarding the Kosovo currency. [135420]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: We supported the decision of the Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) to issue an UNMIK regulation on the use of foreign currencies in Kosovo in September 1999. The regulation does not preclude the use of the Yugoslav dinar and as such does not pose a threat to FRY sovereignty.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in setting up interim self-government institutions in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [135422]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Special Representative of the Secretary General (SRSG) Dr. Bernard Kouchner issued a regulation on 11 August 2000 concerning self-government of municipalities in Kosovo, outlining the responsibilities, rights and duties of the municipalities and those individuals elected to serve within them.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions his Department has taken following the OSCE report 'Kosovo: A Review of the Criminal Justice System'. [135424]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: This report has been submitted to the United Nations Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) who will respond in due course.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the consistency of approaches to the applicable law of Kosovo's courts and authorities. [135427]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has recently published a report on the workings of Kosovo's criminal justice system, making a number of criticisms. The report has been submitted to the United Nations Interim Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) who will respond in due course.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the future of Serb military and police deployment in Kosovo. [135421]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: UN Security Council resolution 1244 confirms that an agreed number of Yugoslav and Serb military and police personnel will be permitted to return to Kosovo to

  189W
  perform certain functions as defined in annex 2 to the resolution. The return of these personnel will be subject to a separate agreement. No such agreement has yet been reached.

  "Everything but Arms" Initiative
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on his Everything but Arms initiative from Caribbean Governments. [136825]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Secretary of State has not received any representations on this issue from Caribbean Governments. However we are aware of the concern of the Caribbean states with certain aspects of this proposal and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received a letter from the President of Guyana on this subject.

  Serbia
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance he has given to his Department on a request by Serbian judges for urgent international assistance with the reform of the judicial system in Serbia. [135425]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Her Majesty's Government have been active in promoting the reform of the judicial system in Serbia. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has funded a number of recent initiatives including a seminar on 23–25 August on the role of the judiciary in Serbia, run by the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe's New Serbia Forum, and two seminars run by the AIRE Centre with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The UK will continue to play an active role in this field.

  Ministerial Visits (Balkans)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit(a) Serbia, (b) Montenegro and (c) Kosovo. [135423]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Her Majesty's Government look forward to the imminent restoration of diplomatic relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to visit Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo in the near future.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 238W, if he will list those areas in which the extension of qualified majority voting proposed for the Nice Treaty is in the national interest in respect of each of the Written Questions tabled for answer on 30 October by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. [136802]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Government's policy towards the IGC in general and the extension of qualified majority voting in particular is laid out in the White Paper published in February, to which I refer the right hon. Gentleman.

  Iraq (Exports)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goods subject to strategic export controls have recently been approved for export to Iraq. [137357]

  Mr. Hain
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a licence to export four diaphragm vacuum pumps, controlled under the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations, to the World Health Organisation in Iraq under the United Nations Oil for Food Programme. The export of these goods to Iraq has been approved by the UN Sanctions Committee.

  Mordechai Vanunu
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the representations he has made recently to the Israeli Government on behalf of Mordechai Vanunu. [137243]

  Mr. Hain
  We have raised our serious concerns about Mordechai Vanunu's detention regularly with the Israeli authorities, and will continue to do so.

  Foreign Affairs
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a report to the House on significant events in foreign affairs between 1 August and 23 October. [135178]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  We welcome the major steps towards democracy taken by the Serb people first on 24 September by voting in massive numbers for change, and then on 5 October as their determination brought on the collapse of the Milosevic regime. We and our EU partners promised in September that we would respond rapidly with a rapid revision of our policy, if they took such a step. Now we are keeping our promise: lifting sanctions, supporting the re-integration of the FRY into international organisations, and providing European and bilateral assistance.

  We have all been shocked by the recent upsurge of violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories. The most important task now is to end the violence and bring the parties back to the negotiating table. We have been working closely with all sides to get the Peace Process back on track and our engagement has been warmly welcomed. In the last month the Prime Minister has been in regular contact with regional leaders, and I have had a very constructive visit to Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

  On 6 October in Warsaw the Prime Minister affirmed our strong commitment to a swift and successful enlargement of the EU. Enlargement will help make our continent more stable by integrating more countries into a Union that promotes the principles of democracy, good governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The Government are determined that there should be a breakthrough on enlargement under the Swedish Presidency. We are working with EU member states to commit themselves to a specific framework leading to an early end of the negotiations and accession.
  191W
  On 19 October I announced in Seoul that the UK intended to respond positively to a proposal in a letter from the North Korean Foreign Minister that North Korea and the UK establish diplomatic relations. The decision was taken in the light of a number of positive developments since the Inter-Korean Summit in June, including further progress in North/South contacts, Marshal Cho's visit to Washington, the US/DPRK joint communique and Mrs. Albright's visit to Pyongyang to prepare for a possible visit by President Clinton.

  Between 6 and 8 September, at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in New York, the Prime Minister underlined the significance the UK puts on the UN and its changing role in the 21St century. We hope the Summit will constitute a turning point in strengthening the UN system and in directing its overall efforts towards specific goals on development, security and the environment. The UK was instrumental in helping guarantee the Declaration included a paragraph on keeping track of the progress of those commitments.

  The UK warmly welcomed the Brahimi Panel report on UN Peace Operations as a key part of an overall agenda for UN reform. It identified key areas for action, most particularly the need for a more co-ordinated capacity for a rapid response to crises and a more integrated ability to plan and support UN missions. We look forward to working with the Secretary General and other member states on swift implementation of Brahimi recommendations.

  We have provided substantial practical support for the efforts of the Government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations to secure lasting peace and stability. Our objective remains to ensure that the people of Sierra Leone are offered a realistic prospect of stability and peace; and a future free from the violence of a brutal rebel minority.

  We remain very concerned about the situation in Fiji and we will continue, with our partners in the Commonwealth and the EU, to keep up the pressure on Fiji's Interim Administration for a speedy restoration of constitutional democracy.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pupil-teacher Ratio
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the teacher-to-pupil ratio was in East Sussex(a) for children aged between five and seven years, (b) for children aged eight to 11 years, (c) for all primary schools in the county and (d) for all secondary schools in the county in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000. [135736]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: The information is not available in the form requested. The available information requested on pupil-teacher ratios and class sizes for the East Sussex region is shown in the following tables.

  The latest infant class size data for September 2000 were published in a Statistical First Release "Infant Class sizes in England 2000" on 1 November, copies of which
  192W
  are available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed from the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics. Figures from this release showed that since September 1998 6,065 five, six and seven-year-olds in East Sussex have benefited from the Government's infant class size initiative. As few as 2.3 per cent. of the relevant age group remained in infant classes of 31 or over. Some £620 million is available to support the pledge, and allocations so far to East Sussex LEA amount to over £4 million. This has helped to reduce the size of the average infant class in East Sussex LEA to 25.6 in September 2000 from 27.1 in September 1998.

  The Government are delivering their pledge to limit infant classes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or below early. When the Government came to power, there were nearly half a million children in large infant classes. By September 2000, this has been reduced to some 30,000 children.

  January 2000 saw a fall in the size of the average junior class in England; and a continuing fall in the size of the average primary class, after rising for a decade. The size of the average secondary class in England, at 22, is still five below the average primary class. Secondary headteachers are receiving an average of £50,000 this year (£60,000 from April 2001) in direct grant to spend as they choose. If this were spent on recruiting teachers, the average secondary class size could be reduced by up to 0.8.

  Pupil-teacher ratios (PTRs) in maintained primary and secondary schools in the local education authority area of East Sussex, 1997–2000

  Position as at January

  Primary

  Secondary

  2000

  22.4

  17.1

  1999

  23.8

  16.9

  1998

  23.2

  16.6

  1997

  22.8

  16.2

  Average size of Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 classes taught by one teacher in the local education authority of East Sussex, 1997–2000

  Position as at January

  KS 1

  KS 2

  2000

  26.1

  30.2

  1999

  27.5

  29.9

  1998

  27.3

  29.4

  1997

  27.9

  28.9

  Average size of infant classes (5, 6 and 7-year-olds) taught by one teacher in the local education authority area of East Sussex, 1998–2000

  Position as at September

  Average class size

  Number of pupils in classes of over 30 children

  Percentage of pupils in classes of over 30 children

  Total number of pupils

  2000

  25.6

  316

  2.3

  13,506

  1999

  25.9

  1,813

  13.3

  13,662

  1998

  27.1

  6,381

  43

  14,947

  New Deal (Sutton)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have had their benefits stopped for failing properly to take up a New Deal option at each benefit office within the Sutton and Cheam constituency and at the Sutton office; and if he will make a statement. [134893]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Sutton Jobcentre is the only office in the Sutton and Cheam constituency. At this office no benefit sanctions have been imposed in this financial year, up to the end of September. That is the only period for which figures are immediately available.

  The great majority of young people taking part in the New Deal do so to improve their employability and find a job without the necessity to impose any benefit sanctions.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Fearns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is available from his Department for overseas students studying in the United Kingdom. [136042]

  Mr. Wicks
  We offer scholarships through the Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme (ORSAS) for full-time overseas postgraduate students registered as research students at British universities. For this financial year, we are providing £12.5 million. We also fund the Montserrat Emergency Award Scheme, which in the current financial year, is providing £1.6 million towards 195 Montserrat students' higher education tuition fees and living expenses.

  There are also other Government schemes to support overseas students: the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, funded jointly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development which will receive £12 million this financial year; the Shared Scholarship Scheme, funded by DFID which will receive £2 million this financial year; and the British Chevening Scholarship Scheme, where FCO is providing £30 million this financial year.

  Global Business Dimensions Ltd.
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the investigation by the Special Investigative Unit into Global Business Dimensions Ltd. will be completed; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [136069]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The investigation by the Department's Special Investigation Unit (SIU) has now been completed and a final report will be produced in due course. SIU's reports are confidential to the Department and hence it would not be appropriate in this instance to place a copy in the Library.

  Schools (Internet)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools which are connected to the internet allow access to unmoderated internet chat rooms. [136210]
  194W
  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: We are determined to ensure that all pupils' use of the internet is both safe and appropriate. Although we do not collect these figures, we understand that open chat lines are rarely used in schools, to avoid any possible compromise to pupil safety. Where chat rooms are used, these tend to be educational, such as the 'chat' sessions which the Science Museum, for instance, holds with subject experts.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reports have been received by his Department of indecent approaches towards children at school through(a) Internet chat rooms and (b) e-mail. [136211]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: My Department has not received any reports of indecent approaches towards children through Internet chat rooms or e-mails. Schools deal with the improper use of e-mail through their normal disciplinary procedures, involving the police where appropriate. The DfEE ensures that information and advice are provided to parents and teachers who have to deal with any problem directly.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to promote the safety of children who use the Internet at school. [136212]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: DIEE's and others' projects have shown that schools already implement a wide range of Internet safety measures, which we have supplemented by creating the Superhighway Safety pack. It is a comprehensive guide to the whole range of safety measures which schools and parents can adopt. It covers acceptable use policies, home-school contracts, filtering systems, walled gardens, firewalls, monitoring, advice on setting up websites and information about pupils' physical well-being when using computers. As well as advice and guidance, the pack provides contact details for a wide range of appropriate sources of further information or resources.

  The pack was created with valuable help from partners including Becta, NCH Action for Children, the Parents Information Network, the British Educational Suppliers Association and Disney. It was originally produced in 1999 and revised in September 2000, to include extra information such as the advice sheet "Parents making the Internet Safer". We also launched a new Safety website in September 2000 ("http://safety.ngfl.gov.uk") which carries all the information from the pack in an easy to use format.

  Polytechnic Reclassification
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the effect of the reclassification of the former polytechnics as universities on(a) academic standards and (b) vocational training. [136260]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department has made no assessment relating to the reclassification of the former polytechnics.
  195W
  The Department is not aware of any adverse effect on the academic standards or vocational courses and training available.

  The Secretary of State called for diversity across the whole spectrum of higher education at his landmark speech at Greenwich earlier this year. The introduction of foundation degrees is an indication of the importance of vocational qualifications.

  The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) carries out reviews of the effectiveness of institutional arrangements for the management of the quality and standards of academic provision in all higher education institutions that receive public funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Individual reports are published by the QAA for the assessments it carries out.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average cost is of an adjustment made by an employer to support a disabled employee under the terms of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and what the average cost is of an employee's adjustment within the Access to Work Scheme. [136300]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: It is not possible to give an absolute cost of adjustments. We published research in March 1998 called "Integrating Disabled Employees", which reported that, where adjustments are needed, the majority cost less than £50, with only very few estimated to have cost more than £5,000. The findings were based on a small sample and are therefore not necessarily representative of all UK employers. Other research published in May 1999 entitled "Employment of Disabled People: Assessing the Extent of Participation", reported that only 11 per cent. of disabled people who are able to work (including those not currently in work) require some form of special equipment, aids or adaptations in order to work.

  Access to Work pay grants towards additional costs for employing disabled people. Employers are expected to make a contribution when the person is already in work. During 1999–2000 Access to Work provided help to 20,729 disabled people in work at a cost of £24.39 million. The average cost of Access to Work help during 1999–2000 was £1,177.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce(a) an element of compulsion and (b) the potential for withdrawal of current benefits for non-participants, in the New Deal for Disabled People. [136302]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Participation in the New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) is voluntary. We have no plans to compel people to join the NDDP or to withdraw benefits from those who do not.

  Local Authority Funding Allocations
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assumptions are made, in respect of central Government funding allocations to local 196W
  authorities, for annual funding required for (a) each child in primary school, (b) each child in secondary school, (c) each child in care, (d) each elderly person requiring home help and (e) each elderly person requiring residential care, indicating in each case the figure for an English shire council and the figures for each other type of council. [136496]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The table gives for 2000–01, the Education Standard Spending Assessment per pupil for (a) primary and (b) secondary schools for (i) Shire Counties, (ii) London Authorities, (iii) Metropolitan Authorities and (iv) Unitary Authorities.

  2000–01

  Average primary SSA per pupil

  Average secondary SSA per pupil

  Shire Counties

  2,350

  3,020

  London

  2,980

  3,800

  Metropolitan

  2,460

  3,170

  Unitary

  2,430

  3,130

  Since 1997, overall funding per pupil has increased by over £300 per pupil (to some £3,100 per pupil this year). Funding per pupil fell by £60 in real terms between 1994–95 and 1997–98. There will be further increases in funding following the year 2000 spending review: a further £370 per pupil over the three year period, taking the total increase to nearly £700 between 1997–98 and 2003–04. Funding for children in care and for elderly people is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Excellence in Cities
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he used to determine the dates on which the summer school pilots set up under the Excellence in Cities programme are to take place; and if he will make a statement. [136527]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend did not set dates for the summer schools for gifted and talented 10–14 year-olds, or the higher education summer schools for those completing Year 11 and Year 12. In each case, the dates were set by the providers.

  There are advantages and disadvantages to holding all summer schools within a set period. The Department is looking at this and other ways to maximise recruitment and attendance.

  Entrepreneurship (Schools)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what initiatives are in place to teach socially excluded and disadvantaged young people how to operate their own businesses. [136539]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department for Education and Employment currently funds two major initiatives that support socially excluded and disadvantaged young people to set up their own business: the self employment route of the New Deal for Young People and the Youth Enterprise Initiative.
  197W
  The self-employment route of New Deal for Young People is delivered in three stages—a one day awareness raising session; a four day course and/or counselling leading to the production of a business plan; and a 26 week period of test trading, where a participant runs their own business while receiving a training allowance.

  The Youth Enterprise Initiative operates in England and is managed by The Prince's Trust, supported by DfEE and private donations. It offers loans and grants to disadvantaged young people between the ages of 18–30 wanting to set up their own businesses—but who are unable to access start-up capital from commercial sources. Assistance is given in putting together a business plan and the help of a business mentor is provided for up to three years.

  Digital Divide
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures the Government are taking to address the digital divide in education. [136542]

  Mr. Wills
  The Prime Minister has given a commitment that, by 2005, all those who want it will have the opportunity to access the Internet. We are currently investing more than £1.7 billion in initiatives to ensure everyone is able to reap the rewards of the digital revolution.

  In schools, good progress is being made in improving computer/pupil ratios, and 88 per cent. of all schools are now connected to the Internet. In future, all school leavers should be able to use and benefit from new technologies.

  We are also tackling the difficulties that a significant minority of adults currently face in accessing ICT. On 11 September the Prime Minister set out the Government's agenda to get the UK on line. We have pledged that by the end of 2002 there will be around 6,000 UK online centres with access points in many public libraries and around 1,000 learning centres specifically focused on the most deprived urban and rural wards. 50,000 free computer-training courses are being made available for jobless people across the country under our UK online Computer Training scheme. We are also piloting an initiative to wire up homes and schools in some of the most disadvantaged areas. And we are introducing the 'Computers Within Reach' pilot scheme to enable around 100,000 low-income learners and families to acquire reconditioned computers.

  National Training Organisations
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to amalgamate national training organisations. [136822]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: There are currently no specific plans to amalgamate National Training Organisations. We made clear at the recent NTO National Council conference our belief that a smaller and stronger network of NTOs is needed to make a greater impact on skills development. We will shortly be
  198W
  consulting widely on the future development of the NTO network to better represent employer skills needs. The consultation will be completed by next spring.

  Job Action Teams (Dorset)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in Dorset have benefited from Action Teams for Jobs; and if he will make a statement. [136958]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: There is not an Action Team for Jobs in Dorset. We set up Action Teams in 40 local authority districts with the greatest problems associated with high unemployment and low employment.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have been helped into work as a result of the Action Team for Jobs. [136959]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The 40 Action Teams have been operating since 16 October except for the three pathfinders launched in the summer. Early performance figures are not yet available.

  New Deal (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) which areas of West Sussex are included in the West Sussex Coastal Plain unit for delivery of the New Deal; [137063]

  (2) how much has been spent on the New Deal for young people in West Sussex since its inception. [137062]

  Ms Jowell
  The West Sussex Coastal Plain unit of delivery covers the South Downs from Chichester and Midhurst to Worthing and Bognor Regis. Since the inception of New Deal this unit of delivery has spent £623,656.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the winding up of the National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets and the transfer of its activities to the Learning and Skills Council. [137035]

  Mr. Wicks
  The National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets (NACETT) will be wound up on 1 April 2001. As from 1 April 2001, responsibility for advice on National Learning Targets relating to 19-year-olds and older age groups will pass to the Learning and Skills Council. The Government are very grateful for the good work undertaken by NACETT on the Targets and in helping to promote a culture of lifelong learning.

  Blind/visually Impaired Pupils
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has held with(a) the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, (b) awarding bodies, (c) representatives of disability organisations and (d) others in connection with

  199W
  the early availability and special preparation of papers and tests for pupils who are blind or who have a visual impairment. [137036]

  Jacqui Smith
  Officials of the DfEE regularly consult with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), which develops the National Curriculum Key Stage assessments on behalf of the Secretary of State, over the preparation and design of the tests. As part of this test development process, the QCA ensures that advice on the appropriateness of test materials for pupils with special assessment requirements is sought from:a range of organisations dealing with Special Educational Needs, including the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB);
  teachers working with pupils with a range of special assessment needs, including visual impairment;
  advisory groups in Special Educational Needs appointed by the QCA;
  an agency with specific expertise in developing test materials for visually impaired pupils.

  In addition, for those pupils for whom access to the standard tests is difficult, the QCA produces braille, modified large print and enlarged versions of the tests. Further modifications can be approved by the QCA such as copying onto coloured paper.

  Schools ordering the statutory National Curriculum Key Stage tests in braille, modified large print and enlarged versions are able to tailor their orders to meet their pupil's exact requirements.

  The awarding bodies which develop the GCE, VCE, GCSE, and GNVQ examinations regularly consult with organisations, such as the RNIB, on arrangements for blind and visually impaired candidates. The awarding bodies' special arrangements already allow for the provision of Braille papers and manual Braillers for candidates who are blind or who have a visual impairment. Additional time is also granted to such candidates to allow them to access questions and present responses.

  Private Finance Initiative (Schools)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of his Department's officials(a) have worked and (b) are working with Islington LEA on the submission of a PFI bid for schools; and at what cost to his Department. [137207]

  Jacqui Smith
  The preparation of bids for schools PFI projects is the responsibility of local education authorities. My officials are currently reviewing bids for projects to sign contracts in 2002–03; Islington is one of a large number of authorities to have applied for support. Many authorities, including Islington, have taken the opportunity to discuss their bids with officials in my Department. Such discussions are part of the normal work of officials and no separate calculation is made of the costs involved.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the usual process for preparation of a school's PFI bid including details of the involvement of officials from his Department. [137228]
  200W
  Jacqui Smith
  Public Private Partnerships form a central part of the Department's schools capital investment strategy to secure a modern educational infrastructure fit for the 21st century and able to deliver on our aims of raising standards, securing wider access and encouraging lifelong learning. Since May 1997, we have made available over £2.5 billion for schools PFI projects to address the backlog of repair and maintenance work and develop modern school buildings which will provide better conditions for teachers to teach and pupils to learn.

  The preparation of bids for schools PFI projects is the responsibility of local education authorities. In July, we invited authorities to bid for support, against the Department's published criteria, for PFI projects expected to reach contract signature in 2002–03. Several authorities took the opportunity to discuss their proposals with my officials before the deadline for receipt of bids at the end of September.

  My officials are currently making an initial assessment of the schools PFI proposals we have received. We have commissioned customised computer software to help authorities estimate the level of funding required, and we will be making this software available to those authorities whose projects score most highly in the initial assessment.

  Authorities will be advised towards the end of November whether their projects are still under consideration in the current capital round. A priority list of projects which we are able to support will be drawn up in early 2001. Authorities will then be able to discuss with DfEE officials the preparation of outline business cases for consideration by the Office of Government Commerce chaired Project Review Group (PRG).

  Islington LEA
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of his Department's officials have been seconded to work on the outsourcing of certain education services from Islington LEA; and at what cost to his Department. [137226]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No officials have been seconded from the Department to work on the outsourcing process in Islington.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires equal working conditions for nationals of third countries working in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [136462]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Charter will be a political declaration of rights, freedoms and principles and is not legally binding. Article 15 recognises that third country nationals who are authorised to work in a particular member state should enjoy working conditions such as protection against unfair dismissal and health and safety, equivalent to citizens of the EU. This is consistent with existing UK law.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Notices of Possession
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average length of time between serving of a notice of seeking possession on a tenant of a local authority and the granting of possession where the application was successful(a) in England and Wales, (b) in the West Midlands counties and (c) in Birmingham in each of the last two years; and if he will make a statement on his proposals to speed up the process. [136288]

  Mr. Lock
  Information about the length of time between serving a notice of possession on a tenant of a local authority and the granting of possession is not collected.

  The Lord Chancellor's Consultation paper entitled: "Access to Justice: Housing and Land proposed new procedures", was issued on 19 July 2000 and included proposals to streamline possession proceedings and tackle unnecessary delay. The proposals were welcomed by the majority of those who responded to the consultation. Draft rules, taking into account the comments received, are currently being considered by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.

  The Lord Chancellor's review of civil enforcement has concluded that service standards should be introduced to the courts, setting a target for evictions to be carried out no later than four weeks after the bailiff first receives the warrant.

  Court Service
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what reports, research or projects have been undertaken for the Court Service in the last three years by Mtic Ltd. [136532]

  Mr. Lock
  We do not have any information or information to indicate that the Court Service has employed this company in the last three years.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will list the work undertaken for the Public Trust Office in the last three years by(a) FTI, (b) IRC Europe, (c) Mtic Ltd, (d) PriceWaterhouse and (e) Zeldon Health Ltd. [136199]

  Jane Kennedy
  In the last three years none of these organisations has undertaken work for the Public Trust Office.

  Civil Procedure Rules
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment she has made of the implementation of the civil procedure rules; what audit has been carried out of the financial consequences of implementation for the Department and 202W
  the litigating public; and what change there has been in the number of cases conducted by litigants in person following implementation. [136293]

  Jane Kennedy
  Overall, the civil justice reforms are proving to be a success. A number of bodies have already provided their own independent opinion of the success of the reforms. The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) and the Federation of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL) have provided helpful presentations to the Civil Justice Council. The Centre for Dispute Resolution (CEDR) commissioned MORI to conduct a poll of lawyers and some judges. In addition, Wragge & Co. (Solicitors) have provided research of FTSE 1,000 companies.

  From this research it is apparent that attitudes to civil justice have improved with parties coming together earlier to discuss the case. Anecdotal evidence suggests that parties are more willing to co-operate to reach settlement and, where disputes are taken into court, the litigation is conducted in a less adversarial manner.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department has just commenced its own evaluation programme, having allowed 18 months for 'bedding in' factors such as stabilisation of work load and the disposal of the majority of pre-reform cases in the system. The programme comprises academic research projects to assess the qualitative aspects of the reforms, attitudinal research through survey to obtain the views of those who use the system, and evaluation of the quantitative aspects through empirical data analysis. The programme is expected to take two years. The long-term financial consequences for the Department and for the litigating public will form part of the overall evaluation programme. Initial indications are that the number of claims commenced by litigants in person has increased since the implementation of the civil justice reforms, but it will not be possible to confirm this or come to conclusions until the overall evaluation programme is completed.

  Access to Justice
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on access to justice in Buckinghamshire. [136476]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's aim is to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice.

  There are six magistrates courts, two county courts, and one Crown court in Buckinghamshire. Courts in Buckinghamshire are being modernised in order to be fit for the 21st Century. For example, one of the aims of the Crown court programme is to improve efficiency and enhance the facilities at all Crown court centres, irrespective of size, location or current accommodation limitations.

  The Community Legal Service (CLS) will improve access to good quality legal advice, through local networks of legal services based on legal needs. There are now 67 firms of solicitors and advice agencies in Buckinghamshire in the latest edition of the CLS Directory, which means they either have the CLS Quality Mark already or are likely to apply for the Quality Mark in the near future. They will provide the local CLS

  203W
  network in Buckinghamshire. The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is also looking to set up CLS Partnerships covering Buckinghamshire, which will co-ordinate the funding and provision of local services. There is a CLS Partnership in Chiltern, and the LSC are looking to form partnerships with the other districts in Buckinghamshire.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. [137359]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are committed to improving the performance of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in England and Wales and have set out clear aims, objectives and targets for the CJS as a whole. A Strategic Plan for the CJS was published in March 1999 covering 1999–2002 and a Business Plan for the CJS in 2000–01 in May 2000. Copies have been placed in the Library. An updated CJS Business Plan for 2001–02 will be published early in 2001.

  The strategy for the CJS is overseen by the Ministerial Group on the Criminal Justice System, chaired by me and including my noble and learned Friend, the Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned Friend, the Attorney-General, my right hon. Friend, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury together with Ministers and senior officials from the main CJS Departments. As part of the 2000 Spending Review, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced in July 2000 a new reserve of £525 million over the three years 2001–02 to 2003–04 to be used to help deliver the objectives and targets set out in the latest CJS Public Service Agreement. Initial decisions on use of the reserve will be made in the next few months.

  Alongside these new resources the Government are working with the police, Crown Prosecution Service, courts, probation and prison services on an on-going programme of modernisation and reform and are engaged in a number of important reviews of the criminal justice process. These include Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts and a review of the present sentencing framework led by John Halliday, formerly Director of Criminal Justice Policy at the Home Office.

  The Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Law Officers' Department and Her Majesty's Treasury are now pursuing work to draw together the experience of the last three and a half years, and, taking account of the current reviews, to identify the way forward for the longer term. Any firm conclusions which emerge from this work will be reported to the House.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sex offenders subject to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 have been placed on the home detention curfew scheme since 28 January 1999. [137407]
  204W
  Mr. Boateng
  Further to my reply to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) of 26 June 2000,Official Report, column 377W, in which I stated that as of 31 May 2000 only two prisoners subject to the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 had been granted Home Detention Curfew, I have since been informed that a third sex offender subject to the 1997 Act has been placed on the scheme.

  The offender was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. He was considered as a candidate for Home Detention Curfew in view of the exceptional circumstances that he was a registered blind person and it was his first offence. He had a suitable address and was judged at an enhanced risk assessment board to pose a low risk of re-offending. He was placed on the scheme on 11 July 2000 until his conditional release date of 8 September 2000. He successfully completed the curfew and is not known to have been arrested, charged or convicted of any further offence since.

  Under existing arrangements, sex offenders subject to the 1997 Act may be released only in exceptional circumstances and then only with the personal authorisation of the Director General of the Prison Service. In this case, as in the other cases previously notified, I regret that this requirement was not followed by the establishment. Although I am satisfied in this particular case that the risk to the public was remote, I have asked the Director General for a report into the circumstances of the release.

  Under the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill which the Government brought forward on 12 June 2000, sex offenders subject to the notification requirements of part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will be excluded from the Home Detention Curfew scheme altogether. This amendment will prevent the re-occurrence of any further errors of this kind as they will automatically be excluded on the local inmate database system (as in the case for other statutory exclusions, for example deportees).

  Charities
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many investigations have been carried out under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993: and what was the average length of time taken to complete an investigation. [134441]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: Section 8 of the Charities Act 1993 came into force on 1 August 1993. In the calendar years from 1994 to 1999, inclusive, 2,595 investigations under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993 have been completed. The Commission has changed its reporting from calendar to financial years. Where appropriate both are shown in this breakdown:

  Number

  1994

  523

  1995

  926

  1996

  347

  1997

  345

  1998

  199

  1999

  255

  2000 (to 30 September)

  234

  205W

  Number

  1998–99

  260

  1999–2000

  255

  2000 (April-September)

  130

  Statistical information on the average length of time taken to complete an investigation is currently not routinely collected, but plans are under way to collect this information for future years.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many investigations under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993 have taken more than 12 months to complete; and what percentage of section 8 investigations this represents. [134440]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: The figures for the length of time taken to conclude investigations in the years 1993–98 are not held centrally. The figures for the most recent years are:

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  20001

  Number of investigations completed

  260

  255

  130

  Number of investigations taking more than 12 months to complete

  68

  82

  26

  Percentage of investigations taking more than 12 months to complete

  26

  32

  20

  1 April to September

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many charities were removed from the Charities' Register following an investigation under section 8 of the Charities Act 1993 in each year since the Act came into force. [134439]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 31 October 2000]: Removal from the Register is not one of the remedial or protective powers available to the Charity Commission under section 18 of the Act (which applies to section 8 investigations). The Commission's remedial powers include the suspension, removal and appointment of charity trustees, and the freezing of bank accounts. These measures are designed to protect the assets of a charity under investigation and ensure they are applied properly in the future.

  In exceptional circumstances, where it is clear these statutory measures are insufficient to secure the charity's future the Commission can propose the transfer of assets to another charity and the winding up of the original charity. Historical statistics are not held centrally but in the six months April-September 2000, nine charities were removed in these circumstances and proposals to remove a further nine remain under consideration.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been (1) prosecuted for drinking and driving in each of the last five years; what proportion of those prosecutions were in the months of November, December and January; and if he will make a statement; [136508]

  (2) convicted for drinking and driving offences in each of the last five years while in charge of (a) a car and (b) a motorbike. [136507]
  206W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The available information is contained in the table.

  Number of prosecutions and convictions for 'Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs', England and Wales, 1995–99

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1995

  105,407

  92,505

  1996

  107,931

  95,705

  1997

  112,125

  100,202

  1998

  104,045

  93,116

  19991

  99,500

  89,364

  1 Provisional

  No distinction between those in charge of cars or motorcycles is available in the statistics collected centrally.

  Based on the two years 1998 and 1999, the proportion of prosecutions completed in the months of November, December, and January was 9 per cent., 7 per cent., and 9 per cent. respectively, or 25 per cent. for the three months combined.

  Crime Figures
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what, based on information contained in British Crime Surveys and police recorded crime figures was the percentage of crimes committed against individuals and their property which(a) were reported, (b) were recorded by the police, (c) were cleared up, (d) resulted in a caution or conviction, (e) resulted in a conviction and (f) resulted in a custodial sentence in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999; and if he will make a statement. [134675]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: Information on attrition within the Criminal Justice System in 1997 is detailed on page 29 of "Digest 4—Information on the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales" published by the Home Office in October 1999. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  The information requested for 1998 is not available, as no British Crime Survey was conducted in 1999.

  The 2000 British Crime Survey measures crimes against people living in private households. It also provides estimates of the proportion reported to the police and recorded by them. This is detailed on page 6 of the "2000 British Crime Survey—Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/00" published by the Home Office in October 2000. The survey does not include data on the other requests.

  Figures for 1997 and 1999 are not directly comparable due to changes in the Home Office rules on counting and classification of recorded crime on 1 April 1998. Further details of the changes, and the way in which they have affected the notifiable offences series, are shown in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/99.

  Police Sick Leave
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were on long-term sick leave in(a) each English police force and (b) each Metropolitan police divisional force for the last year for which such statistics are available; what

  207W
  proportion of total establishment officer strength this represents in each case; and if he will make a statement. [134988]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information is given in the tables. It is based on the number of officers who have been on sick leave for more than 28 days on the particular date mentioned.

  Forces

  Police officers on long-term sick leave on 31 March 2000

  Percentage strength on long-term sick leave

  Avon and Somerset

  53

  1.8

  Bedfordshire

  24

  2.3

  Cambridgeshire

  41

  3.3

  Cheshire

  83

  4.1

  City of London

  16

  2.2

  Cumbria

  36

  3.3

  Derbyshire

  63

  3.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  99

  3.5

  Dorset

  23

  1.8

  Durham

  23

  1.5

  Essex

  61

  2.2

  Gloucestershire

  16

  1.4

  Greater Manchester

  220

  3.2

  Hertfordshire

  27

  1.5

  Humberside

  35

  1.8

  Kent

  53

  1.7

  Lancashire

  81

  2.5

  Leicestershire

  42

  2.1

  Lincolnshire

  19

  1.7

  Merseyside

  124

  3.0

  Metropolitan Police

  397

  1.6

  Norfolk

  23

  1.7

  Northamptonshire

  16

  1.4

  Northumbria

  57

  1.5

  North Yorkshire

  46

  3.6

  Nottinghamshire

  54

  2.4

  South Yorkshire

  86

  2.7

  Staffordshire

  60

  2.8

  Suffolk

  21

  1.8

  Surrey

  28

  1.6

  Sussex

  72

  2.6

  Thames Valley

  102

  2.7

  Warwickshire

  28

  3.1

  West Mercia

  32

  1.7

  West Midlands

  176

  2.4

  West Yorkshire

  104

  2.2

  Wiltshire

  11

  1.0

  Note:

  Figures for Cleveland and Hampshire are not available

  London borough

  Number of officers on long-term sick leave at 31 July 2000

  Percentage of total strength

  Barking and Dagenham

  8

  3.0

  Barnet

  11

  2.2

  Bexley

  3

  1.1

  Brent

  17

  3.0

  Bromley

  8

  1.9

  Camden

  5

  0.8

  City of Westminster

  34

  2.2

  Croydon

  9

  1.6

  Ealing

  12

  2.1

  Enfield

  8

  1.7

  Greenwich

  17

  2.8

  Hackney

  12

  1.9

  Hammersmith

  7

  1.4

  Haringey

  11

  2.2

  Harrow

  3

  1.1

  208W

  London borough

  Number of officers on long-term sick leave at 31 July 2000

  Percentage of total strength

  Havering

  9

  2.9

  Heathrow Airport

  7

  2.3

  Hillingdon

  11

  3.1

  Hounslow

  6

  1.5

  Islington

  11

  2.1

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7

  1.3

  Kingston upon Thames

  6

  2.4

  Lambeth

  13

  1.5

  Lewisham

  7

  1.2

  Merton

  3

  1.1

  Newham

  5

  0.9

  Redbridge

  16

  3.9

  Richmond upon Thames

  5

  1.8

  Southwark

  13

  1.7

  Sutton

  7

  2.3

  Tower Hamlets

  6

  1.1

  Waltham Forest

  13

  3.0

  Wandsworth

  8

  1.4

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department since 1997 in reducing sickness absence; and if he will make a statement. [134506]

  Mr. Straw
  Information on sickness absence data for the Civil Service between 1995 and 1998 was published in a British Medical Institute (BMI) Health Services Report 'Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service', produced on behalf of the Cabinet Office. Information for 1999 will be included in the next BMI report to be published shortly.

  The Home Office and its Agencies have introduced new guidelines, policies and procedures with a view to reducing sickness absence. The Department's Service Delivery Targets for April 2001 to March 2004, which include a target for sickness absence, were published on Friday, 3 November, and are available on the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk/pfd/sda2000.htm).

  To reduce sickness absence, and sustain this improvement thereafter in the:
  Home Office and its agencies (excluding the Prison and Probation Services) to an average of 6.9 days per member of staff by end of March 2003;
  Prison and Probation Service to an average of 9.0 days per member of staff by 2004;
  Fire Service, by 2005, to a level consistent with or better than those presently achieved by the best quartile of employers, eg an average of 6.5 shifts for firefighters and 5.4 shifts for control room staff; and in
  all police forces which now have targets as part of their efficiency plans.

  Internet (Child Abuse)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought involving(a) child abuse and (b) stalking of children within internet chat rooms; and how many such prosecutions have been successful. [136215]
  209W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Any sexual or violent offence committed against a child might amount to abuse. It is not possible to identify child victims of abuse from the overall statistics.

  Among the range of offences an adult might be charged with, in respect of a child, however, is the offence of indecent conduct towards a young child under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960. For 1999 the statistics for prosecutions and convictions were: 330 prosecutions and 217 convictions.

  Similarly, there is no specific offence of stalking of children within internet chat rooms. It is not possible to say how many of the offences of "stalking" under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 involve children using the internet.

  However, information is given as follows, for offences under Section 2 and Section 4 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in 1999.

  Under s. 2—summary offence of harassment—there were: 5,427 prosecutions and 2,709 convictions.

  Under s. 4 of the 1997 Act—putting people in fear of violence—there were: 1,632 prosecutions and 488 convictions.

  Firearms
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of(a) the most common ways illegally held firearms are obtained and (b) what their origin is; and if he will make a statement. [135809]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The Government believe that there is no single main source of illegal firearms in the United Kingdom. In particular, there is no evidence of organised and large-scale smuggling of firearms into this country. Interviews with criminals indicate that many firearms are obtained through informal contacts where their origins are not established.

  The use of firearms in crime in this country is small in relation both to overall national crime figures and to other comparable countries. It may therefore be misleading to talk of any source of illegal firearms to be 'common' or to draw wider conclusions from particular incidents. Sources of illegally held firearms in recent years have included, for example: theft from legitimate sources; smuggling from abroad; conversion of deactivated or replica firearms to fire live ammunition; and 'trophies of war' brought back by returning service personnel. Individual firearms may remain in circulation for many years and their origins may be difficult to establish.

  The Government have accepted the recommendations by the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC) and the
  210W
  Home Affairs Committee (HAC) that further research should be carried out into this area. We are considering how best this should be carried forward.

  Crime (Sutton and Cheam)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes(a) were reported and (b) led to convictions in the Sutton and Cheam constituency in each year since 1979. [134888] [134986]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November, 2000]: Details of reported crime are not available. Information on the numbers of crimes recorded by the police in the London Borough of Sutton has been provided by the Metropolitan police. The figures cover from the 1995–96 financial year onwards. I understand that comparative data for earlier years are not available.

  Recorded offences in the London Borough of Sutton

  Number

  1995–96

  10,756

  1996–97

  13,677

  1997–98

  13,059

  1998–991

  12,752

  1999–20001

  14,493

  1 New counting rules

  Available information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, showing the number of offenders convicted of indictable offences at Sutton Petty Sessional Division (PSD), are as follows:

  Offenders convicted for indictable offences at Sutton PSD1,2

  Number

  1979

  624

  1984

  704

  1989

  636

  1993

  655

  1994

  818

  1995

  787

  1996

  692

  1997

  740

  1998

  752

  1999

  681

  1 Includes those found guilty at the Crown Court where the committing PSD was Sutton.

  2 For earlier years also includes Wallington PSD which amalgamated with the then Sutton PSD in 1986–87 to form the current Sutton PSD.

  Note:

  Due to disproportionate costs, selected years only are given.

  It is important to note that as recorded crime data relate to offences, and convictions data relate to offenders, the two sets of figures are not directly comparable.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were convicted in respect of(a) murder, (b) indictable offences and (c) non-indictable offences in each year since 1979 in the Sutton and Cheam constituency. [134889] [134985]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Available information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Databases are given in the table. Due to disproportionate cost selected years only are given.
  211W

  Number of offenders convicted at Sutton Petty Sessional Division (PSD1) or at the Crown court (where the committing magistrates court was Sutton PSD1) for certain offences, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1993 to 1999

  Offence

  Murder

  Indictable offences

  Summary non-motoring offences

  1979

  —

  624

  742

  1984

  —

  704

  876

  1989

  —

  636

  789

  1993

  —

  655

  885

  1994

  1

  818

  281

  1995

  —

  787

  373

  1996

  —

  692

  1,132

  1997

  —

  740

  904

  1998

  1

  752

  1,066

  1999

  —

  681

  780

  1 For earlier years also includes Wallington PSD which amalgamated with the then Sutton PSD in 1986–87 to form the current Sutton PSD

  Number of persistent young offenders convicted of one or more recordable offences in 1999 by division/sub -division and number of recordable offences

  Number of recordable offences

  Metropolitan division or sub-division

  Four

  5 to 9

  10 to 19

  20 to 49

  50 and over

  Total

  Acton

  —

  6

  4

  —

  —

  10

  Barkingside

  —

  4

  7

  —

  —

  11

  Barnet and Hertsmere

  —

  4

  5

  3

  —

  12

  Battersea

  1

  9

  2

  5

  —

  17

  Belgravia

  —

  4

  5

  1

  —

  10

  Bexleyheath

  4

  14

  15

  —

  —

  33

  Boreham Wood

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Brixton

  1

  10

  4

  1

  —

  16

  Bromley and Orpington

  6

  17

  11

  6

  —

  40

  Brompton

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  7

  Catford

  2

  13

  9

  3

  —

  27

  Charing Cross

  2

  6

  4

  —

  —

  12

  Chingford

  —

  5

  10

  5

  —

  20

  Colindale

  —

  3

  1

  1

  —

  5

  Croydon

  2

  7

  11

  3

  —

  23

  Dagenham

  —

  10

  7

  7

  1

  25

  Ealing

  2

  5

  4

  1

  —

  12

  Edmonton

  —

  5

  5

  2

  —

  12

  Enfield

  1

  9

  7

  4

  —

  21

  Epsom and Sutton

  2

  10

  8

  3

  —

  23

  Forest Gate

  2

  6

  7

  1

  —

  16

  Fulham

  2

  10

  9

  1

  —

  22

  Greenwich

  2

  10

  13

  6

  —

  31

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Hammersmith

  1

  5

  6

  —

  —

  12

  Hampstead

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  6

  Harrow

  —

  8

  6

  2

  —

  16

  Harrow Road

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Heathrow Airport

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hillingdom

  —

  1

  5

  2

  —

  8

  Holborn

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  5

  Holloway

  —

  3

  5

  4

  —

  12

  Hornsey

  —

  4

  9

  1

  —

  14

  Hounslow

  2

  29

  17

  2

  —

  50

  Ilford

  2

  9

  10

  1

  —

  22

  Islington

  2

  7

  3

  —

  —

  12

  Kentish Town

  2

  8

  9

  2

  —

  21

  Kilburn

  —

  14

  5

  —

  —

  19

  Kingston

  3

  17

  13

  2

  —

  35

  Lewisham

  —

  9

  9

  6

  1

  25

  Leyton

  —

  4

  6

  2

  —

  12

  Limehouse

  2

  7

  3

  —

  —

  12

  Marylebone

  3

  10

  13

  4

  —

  30

  Notting Hill

  1

  3

  4

  1

  —

  9

  Paddington Green

  —

  5

  2

  —

  1

  8

  Peckham

  1

  8

  4

  2

  —

  15

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of young offenders within each Metropolitan police divisional force who have committed(a) five offences or more, (b) 10 offences or more, (c) 20 offences or more and (d) 50 offences or more; and if he will make a statement. [134982]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The exact information requested is not held centrally.

  However, information on the total number of convictions for recordable offences relating to persistent young offenders convicted of one or more recordable offences in 1999 is available. The information, disaggregated by the Metropolitan police division (and in some cases sub-division) associated with the last recordable offence, is shown in the table.
  213W

  Number of persistent young offenders convicted of one or more recordable offences in 1999 by division/sub -division and number of recordable offences

  Number of recordable offences

  Metropolitan division or sub-division

  Four

  5 to 9

  10 to 19

  20 fo 49

  50 and over

  Total

  Plaistow

  1

  6

  7

  2

  —

  16

  Plumsted

  1

  17

  5

  6

  1

  30

  Redbridge

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  3

  Richmond

  —

  4

  4

  2

  —

  10

  Romford

  2

  10

  12

  6

  1

  31

  Shorditch and Hackney

  —

  4

  3

  1

  —

  8

  South Norwood

  4

  19

  19

  7

  —

  49

  Southall

  3

  9

  6

  2

  —

  20

  Southwark

  —

  5

  8

  2

  —

  15

  Spelthorne

  —

  6

  6

  3

  —

  15

  Stoke Newington

  1

  4

  4

  —

  —

  9

  Streatham

  —

  9

  9

  3

  —

  21

  Sutton

  —

  3

  5

  3

  —

  11

  Teddington

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Tooting

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  4

  Tottenham

  1

  6

  2

  1

  —

  10

  Twickenham

  1

  8

  10

  1

  —

  20

  Uxbridge

  1

  14

  6

  7

  —

  28

  Vauxhall

  1

  5

  7

  1

  1

  15

  Wallington

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Walworth

  —

  11

  8

  —

  —

  19

  Wandsworth

  1

  4

  6

  —

  —

  11

  Wembley

  2

  4

  4

  —

  —

  10

  West End Central

  1

  6

  2

  —

  —

  9

  West Hendon

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Whetstone

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Whitechapel

  1

  10

  5

  1

  —

  17

  Wimbledon

  —

  22

  11

  4

  —

  37

  Winchmore Hill

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  71

  517

  440

  144

  6

  1,178

  Internet Chat Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department was represented on the inter-departmental Internet Crime Forum sub-group on internet chat services; when he will receive the report; and if he will make a statement. [136218]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]The Home Office is represented on the inter-departmental Internet Crime Forum sub-group on internet chat services. The sub-group made its interim findings available on the Internet Crime Forum website—http://www.internetcrimeforum.org.uk/chatwise.html—on 31 October; I understand the full report will be published in due course.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have involved(a) heroin, (b) crack/cocaine, (c) ecstasy and (d) cannabis in each year from 1990 to 1999; and what his projection is for the numbers in each category for the year 2000. [136570]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information requested, although not published in the annual Home Office statistical bulletin, is available for England and Wales for the years 1993 to 1999 inclusive and is given in the table. Information for the period 1990 to 1992 was collected on a different basis and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Equivalent data for 2000 are not yet available; nor are forecasts usually prepared.
  214W

  Prosecutions in England and Wales for drug offences 1993–99

  Heroin

  Cocaine/crack

  Ecstasy-type

  Cannabis

  1993

  3,570

  2,666

  2,319

  31,275

  1994

  4,831

  2,815

  2,826

  41,239

  1995

  6,753

  3,205

  4,548

  44,994

  1996

  9,549

  3,596

  5,389

  45,121

  1997

  13,355

  4,644

  5,265

  52,743

  1998

  16,098

  5,852

  3,432

  60,114

  1999

  17,673

  6,691

  5,066

  57,512

  Source:

  Drugs Research Unit, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate

  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the DNA tests on evidence found in connection with the murder of Miss Hilda Murrell. [136560]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November, 2000] I understand from West Mercia Constabulary that no significant DNA results have yet been identified from examination of items which could bear DNA traces. But the police and Forensic Science Service have not yet reached the end of the forensic examination of the items which were prioritised as likely to give results.

  Corpus Juris
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the Government's policy towards corpus juris. [134993]
  215W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), on 15 May 2000,Official Report, column 51W, and to the reply given to the Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on 25 October 2000, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA45–46.

  Police Stations (Counter Closures)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police station front-counters have closed in the Metropolitan police force area since 1 January; if he will break down the closed counters by police borough; and if he will make a statement. [136575]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November, 2000]: It is for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to determine the hours of business of police station front-counters. I understand from the Commissioner that a total of seven police station front-counters have closed in the Metropolitan Police force area since 1 January 2000: two in Bexley, one in
  216W
  Bromley, three in Harrow and one in Hounslow. In all cases where front counter services have been withdrawn, a free 24-hour telephone service has been provided at the relevant police building with a direct link to the local police control room. This ensures that members of the public are still able to speak to a police officer or member of the civil staff at all times.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in(a) England and (b) Wales in each of the last 10 years in areas defined as (i) rural and (ii) urban; and if he will publish the criteria used to define an area as rural or urban. [136746]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November, 2000]: All police forces in England and Wales have rural and urban areas. Information is not centrally collected about the number of police officers deployed to either rural or urban areas. Available resources are deployed by Chief Officers of Police according to operational need.

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

Stalking
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to reduce the harassment of 900,000 men and women each year by stalkers, as detailed in the Home Office report The Nature and Extent of Stalking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the law provides protection from stalking in the form of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Recent Home Office research indicates that the Act is being used effectively to combat incidents of stalking. Criminal prosecution is not, however, the only response; for example, the police may give a warning to nip such behaviour in the bud. The research pointed out ways in which the use of the Protection from Harassment Act could be improved. We are currently working on the recommendations contained in the report.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. First, does he agree that the figure of 900,000 instances of stalking may be an underestimate due to under-reporting? In the light of that, will he consider giving legal status to the offence of stalking? Secondly, will he ensure that victims of stalking are referred to a victim support scheme?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we think that the figure of 900,000 possible victims is likely to be an accurate estimate. It is based on the British Crime Survey, which is updated approximately every two years and provides us with robust data. It recently revealed that, under Labour, crime is coming down.
As to the noble Lord's final points, the definition that relates to stalking enables us to capture all forms of harassment offences. For that reason, the Act is very effective. It is a good idea to pursue the noble Lord's suggestion of ensuring that victims of stalking, harassment and other anti-social behaviour are referred to victim support schemes.

St Helena: Access
2.38 p.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to facilitate the building of an airport on St Helena.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, a comparative study of the options for air and sea access to St Helena is currently being undertaken. The team undertaking the study visited St Helena in mid-October and we expect its draft report to he produced by the end of this year. The final report will then need to be considered and discussed with the St Helena Government.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply; also, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his reply to me at the end of October. Does the noble Baroness agree that, with an airport, St Helena might have a real chance of economic development and of freeing itself from dependency on overseas aid? Does she further agree that the proposals for development put forward by the St Helena Leisure Corporation (SHELCO) for not only an airport on the island but also a five-star hotel and the formation of an airline to serve the island deserve our support? Will the report to which the noble Baroness has referred deal not only with public sector development: plans, but also with plans such as those proposed by SHELCO?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Department for International Development has agreed that, subject to the outcome of the comparative study, it will provide funding equal to the least capital cost option: that is, either the cost of replacing RMS "St Helena" or the estimated capital cost of an airport and related infrastructure. We have to await the outcome of the study. We are aware that the St Helena Government have a preference for air access. If, however that happens not to be the least capital cost option, clearly they will need to ensure that there is private sector investment to meet any difference in cost.
We are aware of SHELCO's proposals for an hotel, a golf course and an airport. Officials from the FCO and DfID met representatives from SHELCO earlier this year. When the report is published—indeed, whether it is published—is up to the St Helena Government. Clearly, the report will contain a n umber of options that will have to be considered.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there has not been a ministerial visit to St Helena since 1699—which perhaps demonstrates how far away and difficult to get to the island is? In welcoming my noble friend's remarks about the publication of the report, will she give an assurance that the islanders of St Helena will be consulted widely? I understand that there is more than one point of view on whether they prefer air or sea access.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, indeed, there has not been a ministerial visit since 1699. Given the length of time it takes to get to St Helena, and to get back again, I am not sure that the Chief Whip would approve of anyone from these Benches going there on a ministerial visit. With regard to consultation, I assure my noble friend that the government of St Helena, councillors, civil society organisations and other stakeholders, including SHELCO, have been widely

1359
consulted as part of the comparative study process. I am sure that, once the draft report is published, further consultations will take place.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is not the need for an airport emphasised by medical emergencies? I believe that, last year, a young girl had to be taken by ship to South Africa, and that the only way in which a ship could be contacted was by sending out a Mayday call. Is that acceptable?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the comparative study will consider health issues, including emergency medical evacuation from the island. That will feed into the process of deciding which is the best option.
Baroness Young: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of how very long this question of an airport has been under consideration? It is a very serious situation for the people of St Helena, who are almost entirely dependent on overseas aid to survive in any way at all. Indeed, the journey by boat is so long that it makes it difficult for anyone to visit the island. Will the noble Baroness ensure that great pressure is put on those concerned to reach a decision on this issue which is of such importance to the people of St Helena?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, consideration was given in the 1980s to the possibility of airport access. It was agreed then that it would be far too difficult and complicated. However, this Government have made the decision to go ahead with the comparative cost study on the basis of developments in air technology. As I said in my Answer, the draft report will be available in, I hope, December of this year. We shall then have consultation on the document; the St Helena Government will decide whether or not they want the report to be published; and decisions can then be taken. This Government have not sat down and done nothing.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give the House the complete picture? Can she tell us, for example, how often ships visit St Helena, whether from this country, South Africa, or wherever? What is the frequency of sea travel to the island? Clearly, neither people nor goods can reach that destination in any other way.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe that RMS "St Helena" sails to the island twice a year. However, I shall check that fact and write to the noble Baroness to ensure that she receives the relevant information. I shall also place a copy of that letter in the Library.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, as with the airport, for years we have heard much talk about citizenship, with little action. In December 1999 in your Lordships' House the noble Baroness assured us that British citizenship was promised, as soon as practicable, to the people of the overseas territories like St Helena. Further, in answering a supplementary question of
1360
mine last month, the noble Baroness said that parliamentary time had been sought for such a Bill. Can the noble Baroness say what progress has been made in that respect?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that we remain committed to our promise to grant UK citizenship to all our overseas territories. Preparations for an overseas territory Bill granting British citizenship have reached an advanced stage. Her Majesty's Government will make available a slot in the timetable for the business as soon as it is feasible.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the most important aspects of the SHELCO report is its imaginative plan for building the airport at a very much lower cost than that originally forecast by DfID? Further, is not what she said about the time that it would take for a Minister to visit the island a conclusive argument for an airport, rather than having more ships visiting the island?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope that I have made clear to the House the exact position of the UK Government. We have made a commitment to the St Helena Government that we shall meet the costs of the least capital cost option, be that sea access or air access. We cannot prejudge the outcome of the comparative study, which is due to be published at the end of the year.

Abnormal Loads: Police Escorts
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they are going to reach conclusions on whether it is necessary to involve highly trained police officers and their equipment when transporting abnormal loads.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the day-to-day task of escorting abnormal loads is an operational matter for chief officers of police, but both we and they wish to reduce the police service's involvement in this area— provided, of course, that it can be done in a way which does not endanger or compromise road safety. The Association of Chief Police Officers has recently revised its guidance to police forces on the criteria for escorts of abnormal loads. The alteration reduces the occasions on which a police escort is considered to be necessary. I am glad to say that it has been estimated that it could reduce police involvement in this work by as much as 35 per cent. The Government will, of course, continue to work closely with ACPO to seek further reductions by the introduction of private escorts.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that I asked a similar Question on the 28th March of this year? On that occasion, he said that the report had been completed, that it was out for discussion and that

1361
an announcement would shortly be made. We both also agreed that this matter had been outstanding since before 1994. Can my noble friend tell us what we are waiting for in relation to the announcement?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is to be congratulated on his persistence. I think that the noble Lord's persistence has actually been rewarded this afternoon. I am sure that when he reads Hansard he will realise that it is a very significant fact that guidance has been changed—the criteria have been changed—so that the police will be much less involved in this by some 35 per cent, which is a big leap forward. Of course, discussions continue, subject to safety considerations, to see what further progress can be made to introduce private escorts to reduce further the burden on already over-worked and over-burdened police forces.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to 35 per cent, but can he tell us to what that figure applies?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, 1.5 million escort exercises annually.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is not good enough? First, those of us who travel regularly on the motorways wish to see the transport of abnormal loads switched from daytime to night-time. Secondly, we would hope that the transporters would pay the cost and not the police. Incidentally, how much is it costing the police each year?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is obviously very difficult to provide precise figures, but I shall endeavour to do my best. We think that it costs somewhere in the region of £7 million a year to police abnormal loads travelling on the motorway and dual carriageway network. I entirely take the point that my noble friend has made. He has had long experience of this. Of course we shall be seeking further moves to reduce the burden on police forces and to encourage the use of private escorts which would, of course, transfer in part some of the costs to those road hauliers involved in abnormal load movements.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association. The Minister talked of safety. Is it correct that there is no direct radio link between a police car and an abnormal load?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I would be extremely surprised if that were the case.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I too declare an interest, as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I press my noble friend further on this matter of seeking to keep abnormal loads off our busy roads in daytime. Only a month ago a load blocked two lanes of the northbound
1362
carriageway of the M1 at three o'clock in the afternoon. That is enormously frustrating for all other traffic.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is a more complex matter than one might at first think. Moving loads during the evening and at night would have the benefit of the roads being less busy, but that is, of course, the time when, traditionally, motorway maintenance has been carried out. Very often it is the case that a whole lane or perhaps even two lanes of a motorway will be taken out. That is precisely the sort of width that abnormal loads, particularly the larger ones, might require. So the police have a very difficult operational choice to make about when such loads should be moved. They also have to negotiate these with the points of reception and departure for those abnormal loads.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I used to have a government driver who at Christmas gave me a very nice silver flask neatly inscribed with the words, "To my abnormal load"?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is just no answer to that.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, it is difficult to follow that. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Metropolitan Police who this morning arrested many criminals for trying to remove an abnormal load from the Dome?
Viscount Simon: My Lords, in response to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—which is somewhat bypassing the system—when I escorted an abnormal load earlier this year there was no communication between the police vehicle and the driver of the abnormal load. Not only that, although the police vehicle had on its blue lights, people were trying to pass it, which would be a problem if the load was being followed or escorted by non-police vehicles. Will my noble friend consider the fact that there are problems regarding non-police escorts? For example, how does one overcome the fact that they currently have no powers to contravene traffic regulations or to direct vehicles to avoid abnormal loads?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I had made it plainly clear earlier that the question of safety is very important in the movement of abnormal loads: safety for the driver, safety for other drivers, and public safety generally. All of those matters bear very careful consideration. No doubt where private escorts are provided there will be very careful negotiations with the local police forces involved and, of course, with those who ultimately are responsible for the abnormal load. We take very great care in addressing this issue and I suspect that it is for that reason that there has been some slow progress towards the

1363
objective, which I know many of your Lordships equally share, of reducing the burden on the police in moving abnormal loads.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister said that discussions which have been going on a long time, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, pointed out, continue. How much longer will they continue?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have no doubt that those discussions will continue for a very long time because there will always be a need to keep this very sensitive matter under review.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that there is an important point to this Question inasmuch as the police must be allowed to concentrate on their most important job, preventing crime? Does not he agree that the police should be encouraged—as we heard last night at the DIVERT trust's annual general meeting—to work with communities and spend their time on that important aspect of their work?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, those officers that are involved in moving abnormal loads are, of course, traffic officers whose primary responsibility is to keep the arteries of the nation, as it were, free, accessible and moving. Of course it remains an objective of the police at all times to reduce crime and whatever this Government can do, they will do to ensure that the police can concentrate on their primary core task of reducing crime across the country. We have been very successful in that undertaking over the past two to three years.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether it is the philosophy of the Government to privatise or outsource more police duties?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously how police forces run and maintain their business is very much a matter for each chief constable. There may well be operations that the police undertake that can be privatised, to use the noble Lord's expression, and I have no doubt that some back-office work has been externalised in that way, perhaps enhancing police efficiency, and enabling extra resources to be put into front-line policing—something which I know the noble Lord shares as an objective with Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, when the Minister told the House just now that discussions on this matter would go on ad infinitum, did he mean to refer to the precise Question that was asked, which is when we shall have a decision about whether private sector bodies can accompany these loads instead of the police? That is the key question.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think in principle there is little disagreement that the use of
1364
private escorts is appropriate. No doubt those discussions to resolve issues relating to safety will have to continue. The point I was making generally is that discussions will always continue on this subject because there are always new problems; and no doubt the form and management of such services changes over time.

Balibo, East Timor: Deaths of Journalists
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to bring to justice the killers of two British journalists, Malcolm Rennie and Brian Peters, as well as two Australian journalists and a New Zealand journalist, at Balibo in East Timor in 1975.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, we have regularly raised with the Indonesian Government the matter of the deaths of the British journalists at Balibo in East Timor in 1975. We welcome the decision by the UN administration in East Timor to reopen the investigation into this case.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Naturally I welcome the recent United Nations initiatives and wish them well. However, will the Minister accept that it has simply not been good enough for successive British governments to have left the investigation of the murder of two British citizens to the Australian Government for the past 25 years—a government which many recent revelations from many sources show was implicated in this atrocity through the negligence of some of its officials? Is the Minister therefore able to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will take a more proactive role and leave no stone unturned until the murderers of the two British journalists and many others in East Timor are brought to justice?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straight away that of course I acknowledge the concern that the noble Baroness expresses in relation to this matter and join with her in that. However, successive British governments have been involved in this issue although they have not taken the primary role. There were no plans for a British inquiry because the five journalists killed were all based in Australia and worked for the Australian TV station. For that reason it was the Australian Government which led on this issue. It commissioned the comprehensive investigation by a former solicitor general, Tom Sherman, in 1995 and this remains the bench-mark. I should reassure the House that there was no reason to suppose that that investigation was not carried out vigorously and fully. We were kept informed about it; and it is a matter which we were content to accept.

1365
It is obviously important that the matter is being considered now. More information may have come to light. We are very keen indeed that the investigations should be full, frank and searching.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, it is clear that documents were available to the Australian foreign ministry which were not disclosed to the Sherman inquiry. How do we know that similar documents are not in the possession of the Foreign Office? Will the Minister give an undertaking that whatever documents the Foreign Office may have will not be withheld because of the 30-year rule but made available to any inquiry undertaken by the authorities in East Timor?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that all documents which can properly be disclosed will be disclosed in accordance with the normal rules. But no noble Lord should be left in any doubt that Her Majesty's Government are very keen indeed for the perpetrators of these heinous offences to be found and that we have every hope and aspiration that all of those involved in this process have a similar good intent.
Lord Rea: My Lords, since we have a little Question Time available, perhaps I may ask the Minister a slightly peripheral question. Can my noble friend report on the current situation of the forced refugees of East Timorese who are now in West Timor, in particular after the United Nations group which was looking after them was withdrawn when some of its members were killed? Is there any chance of that team returning to West Timor?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, this issue is not only peripheral, it is very wide of the Question.
However, it is right to say that we were appalled by the brutal murder of the UNHCR staff on 6th September. We have consistently pressed the Indonesian Government to comply with the terms of UN Security Resolution 1319, to disarm and disband the militia in West Timor and to arrest those responsible for the murders. We are encouraging the UN Security Council mission. It will visit East Timor, West Timor and Indonesia from 9th to 18th November. It will look at the progress in compliance with Resolution 1319 and at encouraging the Indonesians to bring those responsible for the murders to account. Six suspects are currently in detention.
Although I have answered that question, I hope that it will not be an incitement to any other noble Lord to ask questions which are far wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister used the word "properly". Can the noble Baroness say who will decide on the propriety of disclosure of documents?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Foreign Office decides on the propriety.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Burlison will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on Far East prisoners of war compensation.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
3.3 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 15,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 16 to 31,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 32 to 47,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 48 to 61,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 62 to 69,

Schedule 7,

Clause 70,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 71 to 77,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 78 to 92,

Schedule 10,

Clause 93,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 94 to 107,

Schedule 12,

Clause 108,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 109 to 115,

Schedule 14,

Clause 116,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 117 to 127,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 128 to 134,

Schedule 17,

Clause 135,

Schedule 18,

Clause 136,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 137 to 147,

Schedule 20,

Clauses 148 to 155,

Schedules 21 and 22,

Clauses 156 to 159,

Schedule 23.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
3.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 11 [Regulations relating to maps]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 71:
Clause 11, page 6, line 44, after ("authorities") insert (", local access forums").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 87, 94, 135, 189, 253, and 255.
These amendments and new clauses together deliver our commitment expressed in Committee to bring forward new provisions to give a statutory status to local access forums. In response to amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I indicated that we would bring forward such amendments. I believe that these amendments meet the objectives sought at that stage.
The amendments will place a duty on access authorities—that is, local highway authorities and national park authorities—to establish local access forums in their area. Forums will need to include a balanced representation of both users of the right of access under Part I and rights of way in general, and of landowners, managers and occupiers of land.
The intention is that in the implementation and management of the right of access and improvement of rights of way the advice of local access forums will be sought and due weight given to that advice. The amendments will require relevant decision-making authorities to have proper regard to forums' views in reaching decisions, for example in relation to draft maps, the imposition of by-laws, proposals for long-term closures of access land as well as on wider access issues contained in new rights of way improvement plans. In providing their views, local access forums will need to take into account relevant guidance issued by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly. The amendments demonstrate the central role which we intend that forums will play in advising on the operation and implementation of the new right of access.
Subsequent amendments deal with how that right will be dealt with. Amendments Nos. 253 and 255 are new clauses to be inserted in Part V of the Bill. They contain substantive provisions about local access forums. They press a duty on highways authorities and national park authorities to establish them. Amendment No. 253 provides for the new clauses on local access forums to come into force two months after Royal Assent. Amendment No. 255 introduces a general definition of local access forum into Part V for the purposes of interpretation.
Amendments 254 and 256 are tabled as amendments to Amendments Nos. 253 and 255. I shall listen to what is said on those amendments to my amendment. It might help the House if I were to indicate that in general terms I am not inclined to accept Amendment No. 254 but I am favourably disposed to Amendment No. 256. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we are pleased that the Government have placed provisions for local access forums on the face of the Bill. We believed strongly that they were key to making Parts I and II effective. Many other interest groups—landowners, farmers, walkers and those with wildlife interests—are equally pleased that these provisions are now on the face of the Bill and that the Government have made a commitment to fund those forums.
Amendment No. 254 is a probing amendment to test in what circumstances the Government intend to use subsection (8). It would be unfortunate if some areas of the country were not covered by these forums. We wish to examine the criteria used by the Secretary of State when no forum is in place; and the criteria used whereby part of an area which is covered by an access authority has no forum in place. That might apply, for instance, to a large section of MoD land. However, even then it would seem reasonable to have a local access forum which might comment only occasionally as regards that area of land.
The amendment deleting subsection (9) is consequential on deletion of subsection (8). I am glad the Minister sees the sense of Amendment No. 256 which inserts,
"other interests especially relevant to that area".
There could be many such interests, which would vary from area to area. There might be particular wildlife interest groups in many areas, or the British Horse Society might want a representative if horse riders had had de facto access for a number of years. We are pleased that the Government are minded to accept Amendment No. 256.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in accepting the idea that local access forums should be statutory, the Government must have calculated the extra cost to the taxpayer. At what cost has the amendment been accepted?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I spoke in favour of local access forums in Committee. I thank the Government for coming forward with their proposals.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I endorse Amendment No. 256, which would include,
"other interests especially relevant to that area".
I had some concerns about how the regulations for the appointment of people to local access forums were couched, referring to users and owners and occupiers. It will be very helpful to constructive debate if a wider range of interest groups are involved in local access forums, rather than just two groups that might be forced into polarised positions. I endorse the view that

1369
conservation interests would help to leaven the debate and would represent the important interests of conservation in the discussions of local access forums.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for coming back with a full and fairly long clause and for his other amendments, which we welcome. The Liberal Democrats led in this case, but we were happy to support.
Following upon what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has just said, it is important that our approach is across the board rather than narrow. At earlier stages of the Bill we voiced our concerns that the owners or managers of land might not be included on the access forum, so I am delighted to see that they will be. In Amendment No. 253, the Government have recognised the needs of land managers, which will vary from area to area, and,
"the desirability of conserving the natural beauty",
of the countryside.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, also referred to areas where there will not be local access forums. In Committee we argued that some areas might not want to adopt that approach to start with but would grow towards it. In the meantime, if there are no local access forums in some areas, how do the Government envisage the relationship continuing? I do not think that I have missed the answer to that point in the amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for coming forward with the amendments, but I should like answers to those important questions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am glad that the Government have tabled the amendments, as far as they go. Amendment No. 253 seems to be the operative one. Subsection (6) specifies the points that a local access forum shall have regard to in carrying out its functions. The first is,
"the needs of land management".
That is splendid. The second is,
"the desirability of conserving the natural beauty of the area … including the flora, fauna and geological and physiographical features of the area".
The last one is,
"guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State … or the National Assembly for Wales".
Those are words of limitation. If local access forums find that giving access by night is causing a problem, will they have a way of overcoming it?
3.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the support around the House for the amendments, which address the concerns expressed at earlier stages. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I gave some indication of the overall costs of the management of access and rights of way that would probably be incurred with or without forums, but the
1370
specific funding allocation for local access forums will be broadly £1 million a year.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does that include the extra cost of making the forums statutory, or is there no extra cost? I may be asking an invalid question.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in a sense the answer is yes. Given that there is to be a requirement to have access forums rather than their being one way of dealing with the management and representation of all interests, I guess that the £1 million represents the additional cost. There will be other costs associated with the process, which I have already referred to.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked about Amendment No. 253. Local access forums—I think that we all agree that that is the appropriate plural—will not have executive power, but they will be able to raise any problems that arise with the access authority and the Countryside Agency. That could include specific problems relating to access by night. However, they would not be the decision-making body on that issue.
On Amendment No. 256, we have left the detailed requirements of membership to regulations, but I accept that we need to ensure that the forums are representative of a cross-section of interests and do not end up being polarised between users and landowners. For them to operate properly, other interests will have to be represented. I appreciate that local interests will be particularly relevant in certain areas and circumstances. To put the matter beyond doubt, we shall not leave it to regulations and will accept the amendment as it stands.
On Amendment No. 254, however, we consider that there will be circumstances in which particular authorities will not need to be under a duty to establish a local access forum. Subsection (8) of Amendment No. 253 allows the Secretary of State to exclude them by direction. A specific decision to exclude such areas will be required, not the other way round. There will not be a presumption that there will be no local access forum until one is set up. We have included that provision because there may be some metropolitan boroughs with no open country and very few recreational rights of way. In those areas, it would be an inappropriate use of resources to require the establishment of a local access forum. It will be for ourselves and the Countryside Agency to listen to the views of those authorities. But there will clearly be some urban authorities where rights of way are minimal and access non-existent. If two or more authorities set up a joint forum, it might be appropriate to exclude the operation of the duty from some highly built-up parts of the area. That is unlikely to apply in many areas, but we would need to exclude them on the basis of a direction.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue Amendment No. 254. I shall accept Amendment No. 256 when we reach it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Occupiers' liability]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 8, line 13, after ("owes") insert ("(subject to subsection (6C) below)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 72, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 73 and 77, also standing in my name. We start from the principle that walkers principally are responsible for looking after their own safety and that landowners and occupiers should not find themselves bearing liability for the foolish actions of people who exercise the new right of access. On that, I believe there is universal agreement around the House.
That is precisely why we reduced occupiers' liability to the very low level owed to trespassers. And, further than that, that is why we removed liability in respect of all natural hazards. That represented a fairly fundamental shift in the level of occupiers' liability and was intended to reflect precisely the effect of the new rights. Therefore, we have balanced the new rights with a reduction of liability across the board. In some cases, where there are particular dangers or features which may be beyond the landowner's control, we have excluded liability altogether.
Indeed, on that latter front we intend to go further with these amendments by removing liability. Amendment No. 73 has the effect or removing liability in relation to personal injuries suffered by people who climb over or pass through a wall, fence or gate except by the proper use of a gate or stile. That responds to the concern expressed by landowners that problems were bound to arise with people hurting themselves when climbing over man-made features, such as dry stone walls. We do not believe that the courts would be likely to hold landowners liable in such cases. However, we accept that in this litigious age some people may try to bring cases. Therefore, we wish to extend the exclusion from liability to such occurrences.
Amendment No. 73 deals with liability in respect of rivers, streams, ditches or ponds, whether or not they are natural features. That again addresses conservation interests and concerns expressed by landowners that occupiers should not bear responsibility in relation to such features, even when they have been made or changed by man. In particular, we accept that it would be very difficult to tell whether a pond was man-made or natural.
New subsection (6C) retains a minimal liability where an occupier does something which creates a danger on his land with the intention of creating that risk or is reckless as to whether or not such a risk is created. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that this safeguard is sensible and reasonable, especially now that we have widened the list of items excluded from trespassers' liability to include some man-made ones. In this context, I think of cases where a landowner has deliberately done something to put users of the new right at risk.
Government Amendment No. 77 gives further comfort to landowners in that it provides special guidance to the courts in assessing what, if any, duty remains to be owed by occupiers to those who exercise the right of access. The provision requires the court to have regard to the particular importance of not placing an undue burden, whether financial or otherwise, on the occupier. It also requires the courts to take into account the need to maintain the character of the countryside, including features of historic, traditional or archaeological interest.
We want to make clear that we do not wish the countryside to be littered with forests of signs and miles of fences. Therefore, the landowners' responsibility in that respect must have regard to these wider issues and to any code or guidance. The court must also have regard to any code or guidance issued by the countryside bodies; for example, it must take into account that walkers had been warned by the code to inform themselves about hazards.
I believe that the Government have moved substantially to recognise where the issue of liability could become a serious problem. We have reduced the overall liability; we have excluded liability from areas where unintentional danger could be at its height; and we have given that guidance to the courts. Therefore, I believe that we have gone a long way towards recognising the genuine concerns of landowners in this area.
I shall come to the other amendments in the group shortly. However, I do not believe that we should go further, and I certainly do not believe that we should accept, for example, Amendment No. 74, which effectively would exclude all liability on access land. We have constructed a balance by reducing general liability and have gone further in the landowners' direction. I do not intend to go further than we have done with these amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, if the government amendments are accepted—and, at least in a modest way, we are grateful to the Government for bringing them forward—a two-pronged situation would arise. First, in certain respects, the Bill will wholly exclude a duty in respect of certain natural features on the land and in respect of certain waters and gates, etc, when they are being used properly.
Secondly, by reason of Amendment No. 77, in other cases where the duty is not wholly excluded, the court will have to perform a balancing act to decide whether or not there should be a duty. In performing that balancing act, the court would take into account the factors set out in Amendment No. 77; namely, whether the existence of a duty would place an undue burden on the occupier, and the importance of maintaining historic features as set out in the code.
I fully acknowledge that these amendments improve the Bill. As I said, we are grateful for that. However, they still leave considerable problems. It must be remembered that it is more important to an occupier that the prospect of claims is eliminated rather than an offence is created, in pursuit of which he will probably

1373
succeed at the end of an expensive trial. Where the duty is wholly excluded, there can be no claim. But where, as in the second part of Amendment No. 77, the question of whether or not there is a duty depends on the view which an individual judge takes of the balancing between those factors and, presumably, the interest of the plaintiff in receiving compensation, then the occupier is faced with a trial.
No one can know what view the judge will take until all the circumstances have been investigated. Therefore, the occupier will be faced with the prospect of a trial, probably at the suit of a plaintiff who is not good for the costs even if the defence succeeds. Inevitably the occupier will be under strong pressure to pay something in order to get rid of the claim rather than to incur costs which he will probably not get back. In addition, of course, he will face the risk of losing. For that reason, the aim of the Bill should be to exclude a duty. If a discretionary duty remains, that still imposes a substantial burden on the occupier.
I venture to suggest that there are two unsatisfactory features in Amendment No. 73. First, the amendment only exempts liability for a gate except by proper use of a gate. Let us look at the scenario where a gate is on access land but is never used by the occupier. It is of no use to him because it is not situated on a route that he now needs to take. Therefore, the occupier does not need to repair it. A man exercising his access right opens the unrepaired gate which then falls over and injures him. In one sense, the man is using the gate properly, but the occupier has no need to use it. I ask the noble Lord to explain why the occupier should have to repair that gate—a gate which he does not use and which he will put into repair only for the benefit of people who exercise access rights.
The second defective part of Amendment No. 73 relates to features other than gates and waters. The amendment exempts liability only for natural features, which are closely and narrowly defined, and are such items as trees and shrubs. I suggest that the proper exclusion should apply to anything which is on the land, at least if it is there in the ordinary course of the use of the land—a shed that the farmer has put up for his use. I am prepared to concede that there should be no exclusion where there is something very odd on the land such as a rocket site or something like that. But liability should be excluded in relation to the ordinary features that one would expect to see on land of this kind, whether or not they are within the definition of "natural" contained in the Bill.
My Amendment No. 75A seeks to enlarge the list of matters so as to achieve that result. It exempts liability for all houses, buildings, erections and so on which were constructed o r retained on the land for the purposes of any natural use of the land—farming or whatever it may be.
The main difference—and this is something which only transpired in conversation with the Minister, for which I am grateful—is that I have included there, as one sees, houses and buildings and so on. The Minister said in Committee that there is no need to exclude buildings because they are already excluded. On
1374
investigation, that refers to the fact that by virtue of Schedule 1(2), land with buildings on it is excluded from being access land, but that is a wholly different point.
Let us take the case where, in the middle of some access land, there is an old and attractive barn or byre which is not much used and which is, therefore, out of repair but which it would be a sad pity to see pulled down. Some young people exercising their access rights may go into the barn and get hurt. They sue, admitting they were trespassers but claiming that there is a duty, as there is, under Section 1 of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984.
If buildings are included in Section 13 exclusions, then the simple answer is that there is no duty. But if they are not so excluded, then there is an arguable case which has, as I say, to go to trial and, in fact, would probably be settled.
The Minister suggested that that is no different from the situation as it is at present. If somebody gets into that barn now, he has the rights conferred on a trespasser. But with respect to the Minister, his point is not right. First, there is the practical point that, without the access rights, it is very much less likely that anybody would be there. But, secondly, there is the legal point that under Section 1(3)(b) of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, in deciding whether or not there is a duty, the court must have regard, among other things, to the likelihood of somebody being there.
Before access was conferred, there was very little likelihood of anybody being in this barn in the middle of this moorland. But now access rights are given, that likelihood has greatly increased. Therefore, the liability of the occupier has, both in practice and in law, been increased.
In my respectful submission, it is vital that that liability is excluded. It is extremely important that we stick to the wording of the Bill which exempts the owner of access land from all relevant claims by someone exercising the access rights, whether or not the incident occurs on access land or in a building immediately adjoining it. I stress that the real worry is that of a claim being brought, and not the ultimate outcome of a claim.
I venture to suggest to the Minister that if he does not accept that point, he is pressurising the occupiers to pull down elderly buildings for which they have no great use and certainly cannot afford to repair, which would surely be a sorry pity. Therefore, I hope that in spite of the somewhat intransigent remarks of the Minister that he was not prepared to go any further, he will, on hearing my explanation, see the force of the point and be minded to include buildings and other ordinary features of the landscape which have been put there in the course of the normal development and use of that land and which it would be a pity to see removed.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for having at least come some way towards dealing with this very thorny question. In that regard, I declare an

1375
interest in that the land that I own will be subject to access and, therefore, liability will have a direct effect on me personally.
I was a little disappointed that the Minister has already rejected my amendment before even listening to the arguments that I am going to advance. But having said that, I hope that he will listen carefully now because, like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I have something to say on this subject.
I was extremely interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said and particularly his legal interpretation of Amendment No. 77.
In speaking to Amendments Nos. 74 and 76, perhaps I may make the following comments. Clause 13 currently exempts occupier from liability for the safety of walkers on access land in relation to "natural features of the landscape". Government Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 extend that exemption to include certain man-made features such as stiles and gates. But as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, there is the caveat that that applies only in circumstances where those are not being used properly, whatever that means. The difficulty is that there will be quite a number of gates and stiles which the owner will have put up, perhaps for his own use, which are not suitable for use by people exercising their rights of access. Is it really, therefore, right and proper that they should be, under the law, made to put those into a proper state to allow people to use them while exercising their access rights? That really is carrying the question of liability far too far.
Furthermore, as yet, government amendments fail to exclude liability in relation to other hazards likely to occur on access land.
As a starting point in examining how those provisions need to be improved, it must be said that the law of occupiers' liability is complicated. The provisions in the Bill, unlike those in the Occupiers' Liability Acts, do not result from careful consideration of the issues by the Law Commission, but from the very real need to resolve the liability problems inherent in the Government's original proposals, as highlighted by the Country Landowners' Association, of which many of your Lordships will be aware.
In trying to sort out the problems associated with the liability regime for access land, the Government have created an entirely new category of occupiers' liability—that for non-natural features, a point mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. That brings in its train all sorts of problems, as I shall try to explain.
The precedent before this Bill, both in statute and in case law, has been that liability is not imposed on the occupier for the state of the land where access is of right. As an example, users of highways are specifically excluded from protection under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. Such an approach does not remove the occupier from liability for hazards recklessly created, or for negligent activities. What has been recognised, however, is that it is inequitable to place liability upon an occupier when that occupier cannot control access. That is a very important point.
1376
Indeed, an occupier can owe a duty to a trespasser under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. However, the occupier can exclude the trespasser, fence his land or ask the trespasser to leave. In those ways, the owner can require the trespasser to take himself away from a hazard on the land, so reducing the risk of an accident. None of those things can happen where access is as of right, as under the provisions in this Bill. In other words, the owner cannot require someone to leave the land in the interests of his own safety.
Looking at Clause 13, as drafted, there appears to be no logical justification for the division between natural and non-natural features. Many non-natural features are immovable, fixed features, that are longstanding and form part of the landscape. Indeed, features such as dry stone walls often give the landscape the very character which is so valued by the public.
As an illustration of that point, mines—other than mines for coal, ironstone, shale or clay—dating from before 1872 are exempt from the requirements of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 to have an efficient enclosure, barrier, plug or other device to prevent any person accidentally falling into the mine or entering its outlet. That means that the obligations under the Act do not apply to the several thousand lead and tin mines which were abandoned in moorland areas before that date. Such old mines—some may be medieval or even Roman—form part of the landscape and have not been used in generations for any form of profit-making activity. However, under the Bill, liability could attach to the occupier for an accident in such a mine on access land.
In case there should be any doubt about the extent of these mine workings in upland areas, perhaps I may cite the example of one recent estate audit in the Pennines by the surveying firm Wardell Armstrong. That identified 136 lead mine entrances. During the survey, several previously unrecorded entrances were also discovered. If, as I suspect, those lead mines were abandoned before 1872, the owner is under no duty at the moment to fence them. I believe that the experience of this one estate could be widely replicated, particularly in the North East and South West of England and in Wales.
Presumably, the justification for imposing upon occupiers the new liability for non-natural features is that it is a prudent way to ensure public safety. However, the argument fails on two grounds. First, why should occupiers, who have not invited parties on to their land, and who have no control over the entrants, bear liability for their safety, particularly where no compensation is payable under the Bill? Secondly, as we know, open country comprises about 4 million acres of land. Such land will be occupied by a wide variety of owners, each with differing opinions on the steps necessary to fulfil any obligation on their particular piece of land, and differing resources available to meet any such obligations. Some occupiers may fence the hazards; some will only insure; many will simply not have the resources to take either step. How can that approach be seen as a suitable way to ensure public safety? I believe that, overall, the

1377
better approach is to follow legal precedent and remove liability from occupiers for all features of the landscape as my amendments propose.
As a final point, there is another problem with the present clause, which I am bound to say is not covered by my amendments but which I believe should be highlighted. Under the provisions of the Mines and Quarries Act, a quarry, whether working or otherwise, can be defined as a statutory nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 if, first, it does not have a properly maintained barrier to prevent persons falling into it, and, secondly, by reason of its accessibility from a highway or place of public resort, it constitutes a danger to the public. There are many thousands of quarries on land which will become subject to the new right of access. Many of those will not have been fenced to date because they are far away from the nearest highway. However, as soon as the right of access comes into force, they will automatically become potential statutory nuisances because the public will have a statutory right to walk around them.
My amendments would exempt occupiers from liability in relation to these quarries under the Occupiers' Liability Act. However, they would not prevent a local authority taking the view that the quarry amounted to a statutory nuisance. The owner could be faced with enforcement action; for example, he could be required to fence the quarry. I urge the Government to consider this potential problem and to table their own amendment at Third Reading to exclude that possibility.
Overall, the occupiers' liability regime set out in the Bill is deficient. New liabilities will fall on owners unless the Bill is amended. Owners will be put to considerable cost to minimise the risk of accidents and of claims from walkers. That costly action could include undertaking audits of hazards; undertaking risk assessments in relation to those found; fencing hazards; erecting warning signs and taking out additional insurance. In addition, an owner is not entitled to fence common land without the express permission of the Secretary of State. As regards quarries, as I have mentioned, enforcement action by local authorities is a real risk. It is surely wrong for the Bill to expose owners to those risks and expense; for example, in relation to thousands of mines and quarries spread across millions of acres of access land.
I believe that this section of the Bill must be amended in order to allow for a fair and equitable arrangement to be reached which would not impose considerable costs on owners who are being subjected to new access provisions which they did not initiate. The Government brought in this legislation. I believe that it is only right and proper that the Government should remove liability on occupiers for any expense on liability which is caused by the access provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 72 moved by the Minister and the other amendments in the grouping. I shall speak also to Amendments No. 73A and 73D, which are amendments to the main amendment. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer will speak to Amendments Nos. 73B and 73C.
I welcome the fact that, to a degree, the Government have moved on the question of occupiers' liability in relation to Part I of the Bill. That is welcome. However, along with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I do not think that the Government have moved sufficiently far. I shall speak briefly to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl and the noble Viscount. If I start to speak gibberish, it is because I have spent seven and a half hours trying to drive down the M1. I then had to fight my way into the building through a demonstration and am feeling somewhat shell-shocked.
I substantially agreed with the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on his amendment. However, I have difficulty in understanding the wording, and at this stage could not support it. I do not understand what it means, but perhaps that can be discussed. In Committee, I stated that in general terms I supported the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel. Since then, nothing has been said by the Government to change my view. Other things being equal, I am still disposed to support that amendment. Indeed, I agree with everything said by the noble Earl. I shall not repeat that, but merely state the position. It seems to me that there is probably majority support in this House for the Government to move further on this matter. I hope that they will reflect on that and come back to it at Third Reading.
Amendment No. 73D refers specifically to activities which in general terms I shall refer to as "climbing". In Committee and since, those of us who are interested in climbing welcomed the fact that climbing and ancillary activities are included within the scope of Clause 2. Nevertheless, there has been increasing concern that the Government have not yet understood the relationship between people engaging in climbing, abseiling and so on, and the owners of the land on which they climb.
I had considerable discussions in relation to these amendments last weekend with senior people in the British Mountaineering Council—the national representative body for climbers in this country—and my amendments were tabled with its full support. They also meet with the support of the Country Landowners' Association. At an earlier stage a joint letter was sent by the BMC and the CLA effectively asking for an amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 73A.
Rock climbing is an inherently dangerous activity that people undertake voluntarily and deliberately in order to pit their skills and abilities of various kinds—athletic, technical and psychological—against the natural environment in which they find themselves.

1379
That applies whether we are talking about rock climbing on a short gritstone outcrop in Derbyshire or mountaineering in high mountains.
There is a general principle among the climbing fraternity that the risk of climbing belongs to the climbers themselves; that it should not be the responsibility of owners and occupiers unless they behave in a reckless way, and the government amendment now covers that. Clearly, if someone pulls down ropes while someone else is climbing, they are committing a criminal offence because people's lives are being put at risk. But in general the principle is that the risk in climbing should in no circumstances be the responsibility of the occupiers of the land. Indeed, if it was thought to be their responsibility, climbers would not have access to a lot of crags and cliffs which they presently have access to by voluntary agreement. It is the view of the climbing community that that principle should be embodied in the Bill.
There are growing problems of what I call "irresponsible" litigation, encouraged by lawyers offering to take up cases on the basis that they are paid only if they win. It is a tendency spreading from the United States of America and one which climbers generally want stamped upon. It would therefore be helpful if climbing as an activity, or the crags upon which climbers climb, were exempted from any liability under the Bill.
Another danger is that if landowners and occupiers believe that they have a liability, they may remove some of the features put in place to enable climbing to take place; for instance, posts at the top of crags for people to tie themselves to for abseiling and so forth. Owners may believe that, if they have given express consent to the placing of apparatus or even tacit consent because they are aware that the gear is there, if there is an accident resulting from the failure of that material they may be held responsible.
So these amendments contain three approaches. All three together would be extremely beneficial, but any one on its own would be valuable. First, Amendment No. 73A seeks to apply to rock features the principles set out in the government amendment in relation to water features. Amendment No. 72 says,
"any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature".
Amendment No. 73A asks for the same principle to be applied to rock features. Indeed, many crags in this country can be walked upon. Some have obviously been quarried in the past but some are absolutely natural. And it is difficult to tell the difference between the two. At the extremes one can say "Yes, that has definitely been quarried" or "That looks as though it never has been". I would love to take noble Lords along Stanage Edge in Derbyshire, which is the biggest of the gritstone edges and is used by over 1,000 rock climbers. Some of it has been quarried for millstone, some for local building materials and some is completely natural. Not including manmade rock features in the Bill will produce a can of worms. It is
1380
a simple amendment and the one which the climbing community would most like the Government to accept.
Amendment No. 73D applies to climbing as an activity. It simply says that if people are on the land climbing, any accidents that occur as a result are not the occupier's responsibility. That is the position that climbers want and it would be a simple matter to write it into this Bill in relation to access land. The second part of Amendment No. 73D relates to climbing posts and other climbing apparatus. Noble Lords will be astonished at some of the devices climbers use basically to make the crags safer and climbing possible. But many of those devices over a period of time become unsafe. There is a general acceptance within the climbing world that if one uses bolts which have been drilled into a crag in the past—that happens in limestone areas—or an old piton (what climbers call pegs) that has been banged into a crack in the past, or a post at the top of the crag which was put there for people to belay on, to tie themselves to or abseil from, one does it at one's own risk. It is our responsibility to check every time we use it that it is in a satisfactory condition for use.
The danger is that if occupiers of land give consent to the placing of apparatus, or even tacit consent by not removing it, and it turns out to be defective and somebody is hurt or even killed because they used that defective apparatus, unless the liability is specifically taken away from the occupier and placed squarely upon the climber, occupiers will remove such apparatus from the climbs. That will make climbing impossible and thereby undermine the aims of this Act.
Amendment No. 77 contains wording which is causing concern. It says,
"where the danger concerned is due to anything done by the occupier … with the intention of creating that risk".
The worry is that that wording could be used against an occupier if he did things in, on or around a piece of rock which in itself made climbing possible. If it is not possible to climb, there is no risk. But, for example, if a path is dug at the top of a crag and access for climbers is made possible, there is a danger that the wording of the amendment could imply that, not only is the occupier liable if there is an accident, but that he actually created the conditions for the accident in digging the path. I am not sure that that is the most serious point being put forward but it is the worry.
I ask the Government to look seriously at these amendments. They relate to a specific activity which is undertaken by perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in this country. It would be a shame if the rights applying to climbers given under Clause 2 of this Bill were not able to he applied properly because of the fears of landowners over liability. It would be an even greater shame if, because of that, there was a spate of litigation or two or three cases which set litigation in train. That in turn may create a climate of hostility and prejudice between occupiers and climbers. At the moment the climate in many areas is one of co-operation and friendship.
4 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's amendments and recognise how far the Government have moved on this topic. However, notwithstanding the robust way in which he introduced his amendment, will the Minister reflect on whether the balance is right? It seems that in Amendment No. 73 the Government have accepted that occupiers' liability should be removed from some non-natural features. Those set out appear to be either boundary or perimeter features.
We would all accept that a landowner should be liable where he creates the problem, but the noble Earl, Lord Peel, pointed to a real difficulty. Indeed, some real problems would remain if the Government's amendment were accepted. Mention has been made of some non-natural features which are likely to cause problems, in particular the disused quarries, the mineshafts, of which there are a great many, and, as regards the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, buildings such as old barns. All those features are likely to prove a magnet for children and the Government should have that uppermost in mind.
At present, there is no duty on landowners to fence mine entrances if they were abandoned before 1872, as many were. The Bill, if it becomes an Act in this form, is likely to impose a duty on those landowners to fence, or otherwise fill in, what would seem to be an enormous number of possible hazards. Under the Bill as it stands, the costs would be borne by the landowners. It cannot be right to leave such features, which were not created by landowners and which are not being used by them for the purposes of managing their land, to become a serious problem and expense for them. Even if the Government believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, goes too far, surely, there are ways in which such clear hazards could be exempted from occupiers' liability. I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to what is said in the debate.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, briefly and clearly made several important and cogent points. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made a long and detailed speech, although I should have thought that paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 73D, proposed by the noble Lord, was unnecessary because rock, snow and ice are natural features. I would not have thought that climbing over them was different from climbing over a wall or a gate. I may be wrong and the Minister will probably comment on it.
Amendment No. 73 makes no mention of hedges. Are thorn hedges, many of which have been planted and through which people may push and be injured, natural features if they have been planted comparatively recently? The Minister may also wish to comment on that.
1382
Furthermore, what about boggy areas which have been created by occupiers in response to government grants for the creation of wetlands? A great deal of such work has been done recently. Those points need to be taken into account.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, perhaps I may add one or two points for the Minister's consideration. What is the landowner's position when he has an interest in a construction which does not belong to him? I am thinking in particular of electricity supply lines and water leaks, which occur in considerable numbers in access areas, particularly mountains. Although it is not immediately obvious that they pose a hazard, accidents can occur. Storms can bring down electricity supply lines and people can come into contact with them and suffer as a result. The same applies to leaks which during the day are obvious and can be avoided, but problems may occur as a result of night access. I am concerned about the occupiers' liability when they may not own the construction but when a rental may be payable to them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for edging towards a more equitable situation than that which we discussed in Committee. The Minister spoke reassuringly about constructing a balance. Having listened to today's debate from all around the House—contributions coming from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friend Lord Peel—it appears that an unsatisfactory balance has been achieved.
However, it would be wrong for us to believe that the Minister was right in saying that we should be achieving a balance. People are being given the right to roam often against the wishes of owners and occupiers. Correctly apportioning liability in that respect is not a question of balance but of fairness. That is totally different. It is not a question of what is right for the person gaining access but of whether that is fairly balanced as against the landowner.
The landowner will undoubtedly be prejudiced by the Bill. As it stands, he will be faced with the dilemma of incurring additional costs in order to fence off old mine shafts, pull down buildings and reorganise his land in order to minimise the liability to which he might be exposed. The Minister ought to take the proposal away again because I do not believe that the owners or occupiers should be faced with additional liabilities as a result of the provisions of the Bill.
I want to ask the Minister a particular question. What advice has he received from the Countryside Agency on this issue?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Government's Amendment No. 73 and believe that it has helped the situation. However, what will be the effect if, as we discussed on the first day of the Report stage, the 20-metre curtilage around a house is reintroduced? Is the proposal contained in the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, necessary? If we were also to create a curtilage around buildings, would liability

1383
issues arise because no one should be around the building? Unlike some other noble Lords, I believe that we are nearly there.
I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 73B and 73C. While they may appear to raise small points, at the moment Amendment No. 73 makes provision only for people who pass over or through the items listed. However, they may pass by a fence, perhaps carelessly, and have a nasty accident. Further, small people may pass under items. Although this may appear to be a matter of semantics, if one argues liability in court the fact that some of these words are excluded is important. We believe that it is much simpler to refer to any injury from these items.
As to Amendment No. 73C, the list of items from which people may suffer injury when crossing a boundary excludes, for example, bridges or stepping stones over water. In the areas with which the Bill is concerned water will form a good number of boundaries. Cattle grids are also common items on which it is easy to slip and break an ankle. We believe that there is good reason to include our wording in these amendments.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she clarify her party's view on whether quarries and mine shafts should be fenced?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I agree with the observations of my noble friend Lord Greaves about rock features, to which I need not refer again. As to mine shafts, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, raised some interesting points. I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply and give the matter further thought.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. I thank the Government for having listened to the arguments in Committee. I am sure that the Minister is reeling from the suggestion that the Government should consider lifting all liability with regard to natural features. My noble friend quite rightly highlighted the important question of mines, which was well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Landowners will be put to great extra cost if they must deal with the many mines around the country.
My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to one important issue which runs throughout the Bill: whereas the Bill gives people a right of access—which is welcome enough—it also places an extra burden, in this case a liability, on those whose land is open to access. We have encouraged the Government to move so far, but we hope that the debates around the House will encourage them to consider the valid points which have been made by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate, virtually none of which has convinced me that
1384
I should change my initial opinion. I deal first with one or two specific items before turning to more general matters. Slightly aside from the remainder of the amendments, those spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, deal with rock climbing and mountaineering on quarry faces or other man-made rock faces. I understand the problem that he attempts to address. Clearly, mountaineers do not want any increase in liability to give rise to hostility from landowners or to encourage them to fence off places which would otherwise be available for use. I also understand the purpose of Amendment No. 73D which seeks to exclude all occupier's liability, apart from reckless and intentional acts, in relation to injuries suffered in undertaking rock climbing, snow and ice climbing and so on. It would also remove liability for injuries arising from posts, anchors or other equipment fixed near to rock faces.
However, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary in view of the provisions of the Bill and the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984. That Act already provides that no duty of any kind is owed to any person in respect of risks willingly accepted. Clearly, that would apply to rock climbers, abseilers and snow and ice climbers in the kind of situation to which the noble Lord referred. They are already excluded in relation to natural features, but they would also be excluded from rock faces in this regard. Therefore, I believe that their anxieties in this respect are misplaced. Likewise, landowners' anxieties are misplaced in relation to those who undertake such activities.
In any case, I am not prepared to sanction the blanket removal of liability in respect of all disused quarries or other rock faces created by man. For example, if there was a particularly dangerous disused quarry close to where people lived, it might be reasonable to expect at least a warning notice and, in some cases, fencing. We are not dealing here solely with rock climbers who knowingly and intentionally put themselves at risk; we may also be dealing with children or other walkers to whom there is some liability in respect of quarries. I shall return to other aspects of mines and quarries in a moment.
Although I understand the anxieties of the rock climbing community in this respect, I believe that they are already covered. To do what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, suggests and remove the liability will put others at risk when there is no particular reason to remove what is, after all, a pretty minimal liability.
Perhaps I may address the central issue in this group of amendments. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that this is not a matter of balance but fairness. I believe that we have been very fair to landowners. The general message is that we have reduced the liability towards people who are legally on their land to a level which is lower than that owed by other property owners to people who are illegally on their land; and, in respect of particularly hazardous or difficult areas, we have totally removed the liability. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, is wrong to say that that breaks all precedent. The noble Earl's proposal goes in the opposite direction. The precedent is the liability to

1385
trespassers which applies to all other property owners throughout the land. We are making some exclusions from that precedent for the benefit of landowners of access land. Anything less than that is a matter of serious unfairness not only to potential users of access land but to every other property owner who has greater liability than the owners of access land in this respect.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, this Bill gives new rights of access. At the moment, people do not have the right to walk on other people's land. Therefore, surely the liability cannot be viewed in the same way—unless I am mistaken.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the liability of access land owners to someone who is legally on their land as a result of this Bill is less than that which other property owners have to people who are illegally on their land. That is the disparity to which I refer. We have already balanced the increase in the right by reducing the liability across the board. Further, in particularly difficult cases we have agreed—in some respects slightly against my better judgment, although we must try to reach a degree of understanding of landowners' concerns in this regard—to exclude that liability altogether. Therefore, we have made at least two moves away from the general liability which applies, in the case of every other property owner, not to individuals who are legally on other people's property but to those who are illegally on other people's property.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Have the Government checked that argument against the Human Rights Act?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the issue in relation to the Human Rights Act is again a question of balance. The Human Rights Act will have to take into account any modifications to the law which have been made by restricting the right of ownership in this respect. We have done so by reducing the liability in that regard and making other provisions which protect the interests of landowners in the way in which the right of access will operate. The Human Rights Act is itself concerned with balance.
The other precedent to which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred, which is basically the question of highways, is a very misplaced one. I know a thing or two about highways. In general, highways are maintained by the highways authorities who are aware of defects and can address them. The liability of the occupier of a highway to highway users is not uniformly low, as the noble Earl suggests. The occupier is liable not only for the effects or non-effects of his own activities in relation to the state of the highway, but also for the state of overhanging trees, vegetation, the condition of gates, stiles and adjacent fences when we are dealing with pathways and bridleways and so on. Therefore, there is a substantial liability on he occupiers of highways. In the Bill we have virtually excluded all that. We have excluded
1386
liability for natural features, which includes all these overhanging features and for people climbing over gates and fences. So the liability of occupiers of access lands will frequently be substantially less than the liability that occupiers of highways owe to the users of highways.
In general, I feel that the Government have moved substantially to balance out the increased rights which users will have against the rights of landowners to make better use of their property with these restrictions in liability. With the additional amendments in the group we have moved the matter further.
I am not persuaded by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that we should move yet further and take into account not only the possibility of a claim, but the likelihood of any claim and the removal of any residual liability. We believe that occupiers should retain a minimal liability, particularly for reckless and intentional acts and that that liability should be owed to trespassers.
The noble Viscount's other point related to buildings, a subject on which, as he says, he and I have spoken. I still cannot accept his basic argument that liability should be excluded in respect of buildings which are not even on access land because the increase of access means that it is more of a temptation to children. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in part made the same point in relation to other features. We are talking about buildings which are not on access land. The status of those buildings has not changed. If we were to accept the amendment of the noble Viscount, we would be removing liability even in relation to inherently dangerous structures close to areas where children live, on commons or in urban areas. That cannot be right. We are not talking here about full liability, we are talking about the minimal duty owed to trespassers.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, asked whether the landlord would be responsible for something which affected his land which he did not own or operate. I think the answer to the noble Lord is that if he does not own or operate the feature then he would not be liable, but the person who did own or operate it could be liable if it were on access land or indeed any other land. I do not think that an access land landowner would be responsible in those circumstances.
A number of noble Lords referred to mines and quarries. There is an existing duty to fence most disused mines. There is some increased duty in relation to tin mines. We would expect the countryside bodies to provide information about the existence of mines and quarries. We would expect the access authorities, rather than the landowners, to be able to erect notices warning of such dangers. If necessary, access to the areas covered by mines and quarries could be subject to restrictions on grounds of safety or completely excluded by application to the countryside bodies. We also envisage that funding would be provided in appropriate circumstances for the access authorities to help with the provision of signing and fencing. Having said all that, both in terms of existing Acts and of the

1387
provisions in the Bill, it would be wrong to remove liability from the landowner altogether in relation to mines and quarries.
Several points were raised in relation to gates, walls and fences. Amendment No. 73B, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, would widen the exclusion from liability in relation to walls and fences. We need to be careful about such a proposal. In many circumstances it might operate reasonably, but potentially it could mean that an occupier would bear no responsibility for a wall which collapsed on people, even if they were not touching it but merely standing by it, although the owner knew it was dangerous. I am sure that that is not the intention of the amendment, but it could well be its effect.
Amendment No. 73C would exclude liability in relation to stiles and other access points in addition to gates. However, again there is a problem with that in that it would mean the occupier would effectively bear no responsibility for, say, a dangerous stile or a dangerous footbridge, even where it constituted the most popular means of access to the access land. I do not think we should go down that road. A minimal liability is still owed in that respect.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about advice from the Countryside Agency. We have discussed liability issues with the Countryside Agency on a number of occasions. Its view is that some restriction of liability should operate. But we are talking about the wider balance in this respect. Our concern is that that balance is best achieved by what we have in the Bill at present as further extended in favour of the landowners by the amendments to which the Government have referred.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked whether a number of features are actually natural. Hedges are a natural feature. As a result of another amendment hedges are designated as a natural feature. The noble Baroness also asked about bogs and wetlands. If they are natural features then they again have no liability. It is likely that all such features would be seen as natural, even though there may have been a few minor changes made to them as a result of man's activities.
I have tried to deal with most of the specific points that were raised. I think I am correct in saying that no one spoke to Amendment No. 78, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Therefore, I propose not to refer to it. The consequences of that amendment would move in the opposite direction from that which most noble Lords are urging. I, too, am maintaining a degree of balance in the debate. Had the amendment been spoken to, I should have demonstrated that at this point. Nevertheless, I think I have made clear my overall position. I believe that the balance we have struck in the Bill is the right balance. A number of the features which we have reflected in our amendments in the group would tighten up the balance. In this context, they all move in favour of the landowner and make it a clearer and more coherent approach. I have pointed out that, whatever the motivation behind some of the amendments, their
1388
effect would be difficult to implement and could be damaging to the overall position. I hope that none of the other amendments will be pursued. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 73, I have to point out that if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 74 owing to pre-emption.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 73:
Clause 13, page 8, line 14, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 15 and insert—

("(a) a risk resulting from the existence of any natural feature of the landscape, or any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature, or

(b) a risk of that person suffering injury when passing over or through any wall, fence or gate, except by proper use of the gate or of a stile.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
[Amendments Nos. 73A to 73D, as amendments to Amendment No. 73, not moved.]
4.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 73) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 159; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Addington, L.

Dixon, L.

Ahmed, L.

Donoughue, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Dubs, L.

Amos, B.

Elder, L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ezra, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Avebury, L.

Falkland, V.

Bach, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Barker, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Barnett, L.

Fitt, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gale, B.

Berkeley, L.

Geraint, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Blease, L.

Gilbert, L.

Borrie, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brookman, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Goudie, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Burlison, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Greaves, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Grenfell, L.

Christopher, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harrison, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hayman, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Crawley, B.

Hooson, L.

David, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hoyle, L.

Desai, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

1389

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L (Lord Chancellor)

Richard, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Islwyn, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Russell, E.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Serota, B.

Judd, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Lipsey, L.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Longford, E.

Smith of Leigh, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Thornton, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Tomlinson, L.

McNally, L.

Tordoff, L.

Maddock, B.

Turnberg, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mar, C.

Wakefield, Bp.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Methuen, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Walmsley, B.

Mishcon, L.

Walpole, L.

Mitchell, L.

Warner, L.

Molloy, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Newby, L.

Whitaker, B.

Nicol, B.

Whitty, L.

Northover, B.

Wilkins, B.

Parekh, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Winston, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Rea, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS>

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Attlee, E.

Denham, L.

Bagri, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Blatch, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Boardman, L.

Elles, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Elton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Ferrers, E.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Fookes, B.

Buscombe, B.

Freeman, L.

Byford, B.

Geddes, L.

Caithness, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glentoran, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Goschen, V.

Carnarvon, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hanham, B.

Carr of 'Hadley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Chadlington, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Clark of Kempston, L.

Higgins, L.

Coe, L

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hogg, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Howe, E.

Courtown, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Cox, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Cranborne, V.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Jopling, L.

1390

Kimball, L.

Parkinson, L.

Kingsland, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Peel, E.

Laird, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Luke, L.

Prior, L.

Lyell, L.

Rawlings, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Reay, L.

Mancroft, L.

Renton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Marsh, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Seccombe, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Selborne, E.

Monro of Langholm, L.

sharples, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Moynihan, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Naseby, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Noakes, B.

Strange, B.

Northbourne, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Northbrook, L.

Swinfen, L.

Northesk, E.

Vinson, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Vivian, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Waddington, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Palmer, L.

Wilcox, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.42 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, under the rules of pre-emption, I should tell the House that Amendment No. 74 cannot be called.
[Amendment No. 75 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 75A:
Clause 13, page 8, line 17, after ("origin,") insert ("or any house, building, erection, wall, fence, hedge, gate or stile constructed or retained on the land for the purpose of any natural use of the land,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have to say that I found the Minister's response to our debate profoundly unsatisfactory. It is unfortunate that, for technical reasons, the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, cannot be called and I accept that the amendment tabled in my name is no longer entirely apt, given that Amendment No. 73 has been put on to the face of the Bill. I shall therefore not move my amendment, but I shall certainly return to the topic on Third Reading.
In the meantime, I would ask the Minister to study carefully what I have said because he did not answer any of my points and I felt that his response was not acceptable. As I have said, we shall have to deal with this again on Third Reading, using a new amendment which has been adapted to the Bill as it now stands.
[Amendment No. 75A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 77:
Clause 13, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
("(6C) Subsection (6A) does not prevent an occupier from owing a duty by virtue of this section in respect of any risk where the danger concerned is due to anything done by the occupier—

(a) with the intention of creating that risk, or

(b) being reckless as to whether that risk is created."

(3) After section 1 of that Act there is inserted—

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

  Special considerations relating to access land.
  1 A. In determining whether any and if so what duty is owed by virtue of section 1 by an occupier of land at any time when the right conferred by section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 is exercisable in relation to the land, regard is to be had, in particular, to—

  (a) the fact that the existence of that right ought not to lace an undue burden (whether financial or otherwise) on the occupier,

  (b) the importance of maintaining the character of the countryside, including features of historic, traditional or archaeological interest, and

  (c) any relevant guidance given under section (Codes of conduct and other information) of that Act.").

  [Amendment No. 78, as an amendment to Amendment No. 77, not moved.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

Far East Prisoners: Ex Gratia Payment
4.44 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"In April this year, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister held a meeting with representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the British groups who had been held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War. He subsequently initiated a reconsideration of the long-standing policy of Her Majesty's Government towards these Far East prisoners. Owing to the complexity of the issues involved, that review took time to carry out but it has now been completed.
"I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that as a result of the review the Government have decided to make a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity. Where a person who would have been entitled to this payment has died, their surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead.
"As honourable Members will recall, on a number of occasions in recent months this House has debated the situation of those who were held prisoner in the Far East during the Second World War. The reason we have done so is that what happened to those prisoners was often so appalling that for many it has remained with them for the rest
1392
of their lives. Many Members will be aware of the stories told by now frail constituents about that terrible time; members of the public will be familiar with the books and films about it. However, if we look back at the histories, we come across a simple, stark fact that makes clear to everybody the enormity of what happened. Of the 50,016 British service personnel who were reported captured by the Japanese, 12,433 died or were killed in captivity. In other words, conditions were so bad that one in four did not survive.
"We are all very thankful that such a situation did not occur anywhere else during the Second World War and has not recurred since. The unique nature of the Japanese captivity in the Far East was recognised in the 1950s, when those who had been held became eligible for modest payments from assets, made under the provisions of the 1951 San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan. As noble Lords are aware, the maximum payment available at that time was £76.10s.
"In the intervening years, the former Far East prisoners pursued the issue of additional compensation with Japan. More recently, they have also campaigned for the British Government to make a payment. However, as Members of both sides of the House will be well aware, it has been the policy of successive governments over many years not to make payments in such circumstances.
"We are now making an exception for the British groups that were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War in recognition of the unique circumstances of their collective captivity. Those who will be entitled to receive the payment are former members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who were made prisoners of war, former members of the Merchant Navy who were captured and imprisoned and British civilians who were interned. Certain other former military personnel in the colonial forces, Indian army and Burmese armed forces who received compensation in the 1950s under United Kingdom auspices will also be eligible. As I said earlier, where a person who would have been entitled to this payment has died, their surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead.
"We estimate that up to 16,700 people may be eligible for these ex gratia payments, which will accordingly cost up to £167 million to make. I shall not now go into detail about the new payment scheme, except to say that this single ex gratia payment will not be taxable, nor will it be taken into account for benefits purposes. We intend to make these payments as quickly as possible, although it will take a little time for the appropriate regulations to be made. However, we expect everything to be in place by February.
"Further details of the scheme are being published today in a leaflet by the War Pensions Agency, which will be administering it. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The leaflet and a claim form will also be available on the agency's website.

1393
"The Government recognise that many UK citizens, both those serving in the Armed Forces and civilians, have had to endure great hardship at different times and in different circumstances. But the experience of those who went into captivity in the Far East during the Second World War was unique. We have said before that we believe the country owes a debt of honour to them. I hope that I am speaking for everyone here when I say that today something concrete has been done to recognise that debt."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I hope that he will not take it the wrong way when I say that we hope for the speedy return of his noble friend the Minister of State.
We welcome unconditionally the generous and good offer that the Government are making to former Far East prisoners of war and their dependants. Many congratulations should be offered to the Royal British Legion, the Far East prisoner of war associations and the other bodies which have fought so hard and so long for the settlement that has been announced today.
It is understandable that it has taken so long to make this settlement because up until 1998 we had been hoping that the Japanese Government would pay compensation to the former prisoners of war. It is only since that time, after the final decision in their high court that they would not make such a payment, that it became clear that other governments would have to do so. The pattern has been set by the Canadians and Her Majesty's Government have rightly followed.
I particularly welcome three aspects of the payment: that it will be paid to all who were imprisoned or interned in the Far East, including civilians, men and women, members of the Merchant Navy and others; that it will he paid to widows, for they, too, suffered from the difficulties, dangers and horrors that their men endured in prison; and that the payment will not be taxable or set against benefits.
These have been the forgotten warriors. It is appropriate that in this week the forgotten army should be remembered.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. While nothing can ever compensate the men and women who suffered at Japanese hands during the Second World War, it is excellent that the Government have recognised their plight and have made a generous offer, which, as I understand it, extends to both widows and civilian internees. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the same conditions will apply to them as to members of the Armed Forces.
1394
I should like to point out the substantial difference between the way in which the German Government have treated those who were enslaved as workers during the war and those who worked as slaves in the Far East and who, to this day, have still not been compensated by the Japanese Government.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, what is the position of those who are now citizens of Hong Kong who were previously subjects of the United Kingdom, who suffered equally from internment and who, in some cases, were members of the Armed Forces? For reasons quite outside their control, some of them are now Hong Kong citizens— and therefore citizens of the Republic of China— rather than British citizens, but their position, their plight and the suffering that they underwent was not very different from that of the citizens to whom the Minister has referred.
Finally, can the Minister say a little more about the section in the Statement that deals with those who served with us from Commonwealth countries, particularly those from India, Burma and the colonial forces? Perhaps he can say how far the settlement will extend to them. He mentioned them, but be did not say in precise terms who would qualify and who would not.
May I again say how grateful we are that the Government have recognised the desperate position of those who served and then suffered so much at the hands of the Japanese during the Second World War?
4.54 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, for his kind remarks about my noble friend Lady Symons. I shall certainly pass them on to her. We hope that she will return very quickly.
The remarks of the noble Lord were well meant and genuinely appreciative of the move that has now been made. I am sure that he will wish to join with the Government in celebrating the fact that we have now been able to do what needed to be done—perhaps many years ago—for these people.
The noble Baroness added her welcome to the Government's decision. She asked about civilian internees. As I understand it, that group involves a number of people. They will, of course, be recognised. Should any of those she mentioned fall outside the scheme, I shall write to the noble Baroness with details. Similarly, I expect those colonials—from wherever they came—who were part of this group, and who were prisoners of war during that period on our behalf, to be recognised.
So far as concerns those who were imprisoned or interned for other reasons—for instance, as the noble Baroness mentioned, those from states such as Hong Kong— details are not yet fully available on this issue. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness is informed of the position of such people.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, in reply to the noble Baroness he referred to

1395
other persons who would receive the compensation. Does not the Statement describe who they are when it refers to:
"Certain other former military personnel in the colonial forces, Indian army, and Burmese armed forces who received compensation in the 1950s under UK auspices"?
It would seem to be quite clear from that.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I tried to indicate that the people mentioned were indeed covered. I was a little concerned that the noble Baroness may have touched on a group outside those. It was for that reason that I was cautious in my answer. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness is given the correct reply.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the excellent news for those who will benefit from this sum of money. It is very late in coming for 80 year-olds, but it is, nevertheless, very welcome.
In relation to spouses, is there any restriction on the period of marriage? If the spouse has remarried, will that affect the payment of this sum of money?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, while I did not comprehensively cover the issue of spouses in my delivery of the Statement, I should like to assure the noble Lord that, to my knowledge, nothing will debar spouses from receiving the payment. The Government have tried as hard as they possibly can to ensure that a surviving spouse will receive her husband's entitlement. One or two complications may arise in this area, but the Government intend to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, a surviving spouse will receive her husband's entitlement.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, as the only diocesan bishop whose father was killed in action during the Second World War—although against the Germans—I warmly welcome the Government's Statement. One of my former clergy was in action against the Japanese; he was captured and suffered grievously at their hands. Throughout the remaining years of his ministry after he returned to this country, the effect on that and his family life was terrible to see. I believe that what hurt him most was his feeling that all that he and so many others had gone through was not really appreciated by those of us back home. I welcome what the Government have said and I understand why the payment has been so long in coming. This afternoon I feel for the dead priest and the fact that this has come, sadly, too late for him and for many others.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments and for his compliments to the Government on their action. I sympathise with his friend and with the many other prisoners of war who suffered during that period. I point out to noble Lords that as regards prisoners of war in the Far East, the
1396
reason we have taken this decision is because of the unique circumstances in which they found themselves during their captivity.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I rise with some emotion to declare an interest. My brother-in-law was captured at Singapore. He had a very unpleasant time in Changi gaol. He then worked on the Burma railway. Happily, he is still with us at the age of 83. I know that during the 55 years since his release he has been very much looking forward to the day when the plight of the prisoners would be recognised. I know that while he bore in stoic silence his astonishment at the treatment meted out after their release—a payment of £76.10s—he was very active in seeking redress for colleagues worse afflicted than he was.
I am sure that he will be enormously relieved to know that the surviving spouses of his PoW colleagues who died in the intervening years will be the beneficiaries. Would it not be appropriate that with their payment they receive a letter from the Government thanking them for their great patience in waiting for this compensation?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments, particularly in relation to countries such as Singapore where many people suffered during that period in a similar fashion. I take note of my noble friend's comment as regards a letter. I shall raise the issue outside the Chamber.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a high proportion of the Armed Forces who became prisoners of war were members of the East Anglian Division? Many were constituents of mine when I was elected in 1945. They suffered terribly. Many wondered whether they would survive their time in captivity and, thank goodness, a few of them did return including, as noble Lords may remember, Lord de Ramseay who became Lord Lieutenant of Cambridgeshire.
As the patron of the Huntingdonshire Royal British Legion I add my thanks for the Government's decision.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I am sure that many Members and ex-Members of Parliament must have had similar circumstances brought to their attention. I certainly appreciate how the noble Lord feels at this time.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I give heartfelt thanks to the Government for this very welcome news today about prisoners of war in the Far East, however late. I congratulate the Minister on his Statement. Can he tell us whether widows of Japanese prisoners of war who died in Japanese camps will also benefit as well as the widows of those who have since died?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I hope I shall not mislead here. If there are living widows of prisoners of war who

1397
died in the camps, my assessment is that they will come within these particular circumstances. I shall clear that matter and ensure that the Baroness is written to.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, a former partner of mine, Colonel Cecil Wells, of the Suffolk Regiment, was in Japanese prisoner of war camps throughout the war. He died just 15 days ago. Do I understand from the Minister's Statement that his estate will not receive anything or is the proposed date for the award prior to today? If, as I suspect, the answer is that the Statement shows that the award is from today and his wife died some while ago, is there no intention on the Government's part for any part of the sum to inure for the benefit of his children?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I believe that it is clear from the scheme that the ex-gratia payment starts from today. Under these circumstances it is always very difficult to create the date when such a payment is applied. If his widow had survived him she would have been entitled to the payment. In the circumstances it is my view that there is no entitlement to the payment. If anyone were to die from this point on, the estate would receive the £10,000.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am sure that we shall all wish to recognise the hard work of the Burma Star Association and particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, in this area. As an RAF pilot I flew a number of our prisoners of war back from Singapore to Ceylon at the cessation of hostilities. I can confirm their dreadful physical condition. Subsequently, as a constituency MP, a number of ex-prisoners of war and their wives came to see me and put forward their case very strongly indeed. The Government have done extremely well over the settlement. Many people will feel that at long last they have been appreciated.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, when I hear people like the noble Lord, Lord Monro, speak of their activities I feel quite humble. I really appreciate the comments that he made as regards the Government's effort.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, as one who fought in the Burma campaigns with Indian troops, I pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government for this generous settlement. Perhaps I may say how sorry I am that the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who is president of the Burma Star Association, is unable to be with us today. The Burma Star Association, the British Legion and the Far East Prisoners of War Association have been fighting for a long time for this recognition.
The Minister said that Indian troops who were prisoners of war will be included in this settlement. How will the Government go about discovering exactly who they are and how many exist in the subcontinent today? This is a very generous settlement for them; such a sum of money will be of colossal advantage. How will the Government go about discovering exactly who they are?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments in relation to the ex gratia payment, and
1398
for his mention of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. On the question of benefit for Indian troops and colonials who became prisoners of war, I understand that there is a record of most of those who were involved. I believe that the organisations concerned also have a record. There will be an effort on behalf of the Government to ensure that all groups are contacted so that those who are entitled to payments receive them. That includes the group that the noble Lord mentioned. I believe that there are presently about 100 people on the record.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, in August 1945, as my family prepared to light bonfires for the VJ celebrations, my grandfather received a telegram saying that his son, my uncle, would not be returning from his Far Eastern captivity. My uncle's wife died quite a long time ago. So that is one family who will not receive any financial benefit. But there will be thousands of families in that position who will very much welcome the recognition and appreciation demonstrated today.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that point.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, many Members of this House who served as Members in another place will have memories of trying over the years to deal with the plight of constituents who were in need of assistance. Those of us who regularly attend memorial services in November will be able to hold our heads up a little higher in future. I am sure that I speak on behalf of many. I ask the Minister to take back to his colleagues our gratitude for taking action now, and so generously.
A voice that we should have heard, had he been present, would have been that of my noble friend Lord Molloy, who was deeply involved in the work of the British Legion. He had a distinguished war record, but never lost an opportunity to stand up and defend the interests not only of prisoners but of ex-servicemen. Perhaps the Minister will allow me to place on record the gratitude of my noble friend in his absence.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I am delighted to take them back to my colleagues. I should also like to associate myself with his mention of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and the efforts of the British Legion.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Williams raised a question about civilians in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya. There were two categories. My predecessor, a chief of the Hong Kong Bank, was tortured to death. But there were also people who were called up and who fought for King and country in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya. Is there a differential between those who died or were taken prisoner fighting, and those who were taken prisoner merely because they were British and living in what were then colonies?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am looking desperately across at the Box in relation to this issue. I do not believe that there is a difference; however, I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House two assurances? First, will Her Majesty's Government do everything in their power to make sure that this extremely welcome decision receives as much publicity as possible inside Japan? Secondly, will my noble friend assure us that it is no part of the settlement that those attempting to bring pressure to bear on the government of Japan to recognise their responsibilities in these matters should desist their activities?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. I know of no pressure that is likely to be put on the groups he has mentioned. I hope that that will not be the case.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Statement. However, I should like to discharge a debt. Noble Lords have referred to the privations that prisoners of war underwent. When I was a 14 year-old schoolboy, in 1956, I was taught by a man of extreme gifts—one of those teachers who have a profound influence on one's life. One afternoon, as a result of an episode in a classroom, he burst into tears. He had spent three years on the Burma railway and the episode had brought back to him some of the extraordinary privations he had undergone. He died a bachelor some years ago. I feel that I owe it to him to say that we have all allowed far too much time to elapse—it is 58 years since my schoolmaster was captured in Singapore—before righting this grievous wrong.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comment. The Government have now taken steps to make this ex gratia payment. Indeed, many of us feel, as he does, that the action has possibly come a little too late. Nevertheless, it has been taken now, and I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome it in the same fashion as other noble Lords have done.

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
5.18 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 13.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Lord Brittan of Spennithorne Lord Brittan of Spennithorne moved Amendment No. 80:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

  INDEMNITY FOR COSTS OF ACCESS
  (" .—(1) Any person having an interest in access land shall be entitled to be indemnified for any additional costs and expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the right conferred by section 2(1) or for any liability or loss resulting from the exercise, or purported exercise, of that right, which he cannot practicably recover from any other person.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall make regulations as to the conditions for entitlement to such indemnity and as to the form and procedure by which such amounts may be recovered.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
  It is reasonable, as a matter of common justice, to provide that someone whose land becomes less valuable as a result of the granting of the right of access to that land should receive compensation. Also, apart from whether it is reasonable, it is highly likely to be a breach of Article 1 of the human rights convention if the Bill is passed without the possibility of redress in those circumstances. I shall not repeat my remarks in Committee on this issue, and I apologise for being absent for so much of the subsequent debate—although I shall return to the matter later in our proceedings.
  The amendment does not relate directly to the issue of compensation. However, if passed, it would help to reduce the chances of the legislation falling foul of human rights legislation. It is a modest and limited proposal. It is based on the premise that, in the first instance, the person who has suffered loss and incurred costs has a duty to recover them from the person who has caused those costs or expenses to be incurred—for example, in a situation where it is necessary to repair damage to a wall caused by someone purporting to exercise the right of access. It is only if it is not practical to recover the costs and expenses incurred as a result of someone exercising or purporting to exercise the right of access that the provision bites. So it is very narrowly defined, as well as being a most reasonable provision.
  However, the question arises as to whether it is likely or feasible that costs or expenses will be incurred as a result of the access provisions. There is little doubt that that is the case. It may be necessary to post notices advising of closures—closures that are permitted under the legislation as it has now reached this House. It may also be necessary to make risk assessments in relation to gates or stiles, which will involve expense. Indeed, it may be necessary to fence off mines. Above all, as a result of the provisions of the legislation, expense may be incurred as regards the necessity to increase insurance premiums. If I may say so, the attitude of the Government to the previous set of amendments makes it all the more likely that costs and expenses will be incurred, whether because of suits as a result of liability or the increased insurance necessary to avoid such suits.
  Therefore, it is necessary to take account of the Bill as it stands when considering such matters. Although it has been improved as a result of government amendments, it is, none the less, perfectly plain that substantial costs will be incurred by many people and that such costs will not always be recoverable in practice, as opposed to in law, from anyone who is guilty in that respect. Indeed, in some cases there will not be anyone in particular who is responsible.
  When considering this issue and my later amendment proposing a new compensation clause, it is necessary to take account of the fact that it is the

  1401
  Government's intention and desire—indeed, the whole purpose of the legislation—that there should be a substantial increase in the number of people who go on to the type of countryside covered by the Bill; otherwise, there would be no point in it. Therefore, something that does not involve cost, or which involves modest cost at present, will inevitably lead to substantially greater cost, or costs that previously did not exist, if what we are talking about turns out to be a flood right across the land rather than a trickle on a right of way.
  We do not know how many people will exercise the right, but I am sure that the Government would not go through the trouble of introducing this legislation unless they assumed that the numbers would be quite substantial. There is a difference, which may be a difference in kind, not just a difference in quantity, when one is talking about large numbers of people following unfamiliar paths and going anywhere over land. The prospect of costs and expenses being incurred that are irrecoverable from any particular person is a real one. It would be unjust, unfair and probably contrary to the provisions of the convention on human rights for there to be no means of redress in such circumstances.
  I see that, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, on whose behalf I have been proposing the amendment, is now back in his place. I am sure that a more full and cogent exposition of the merits of this proposed new clause will come from his lips in due course. I beg to move.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I shall begin my apologising for not being in my place when the amendment was called. My only mitigation, which may not excuse me, is the fact that the annunciator indicated that the House was still dealing with the Statement. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, for moving the amendment. As for the part of his speech that I heard, he certainly did so very much better than I could have clone. I am sure that he did equally as well in the part of his speech that I did not hear.
  The amendment is based on the simple and, I venture to say, undeniable principle that a man must not be out of pocket because the Government have decided to give other people the right to walk across his land. I stress the words "out of pocket". This is not a clause about compensation; it is a clause solely about reimbursement of actual expenditure or loss. At present, if someone working with the Duke of Edinburgh's scheme, or whatever, seeks permission to take people across an occupier's land, the latter can say, "Yes, all right; but you must pay for any damage caused"— for example, a wall may be knocked down, sheep killed or something like that may happen. Even if that is not expressly stipulated, such an organisation would almost inevitably pay voluntarily for any damage caused because those concerned will want to return, and because they are decent people.
  However, why should an occupier be worse off when the Government are giving permission on his behalf for people to enter the land and that results in damage by someone who cannot be identified, or who cannot
  1402
  pay? Why should the occupier have to expend money? Just before we adjourned to deal with the Statement, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, expressly said, in answer to the previous debate, that in those circumstances a landowner may well have to repair a stile, a gate or something like that—indeed, a stile or a gate that he does not need to use, but one that he has to repair because people will now be coming on to his land. Why should the landowner be put to such expense?
  In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that,
  "only a very few landowners are likely to be significantly affected".—[Official Report, 3/10/00; col. 1498.]
  I have two points to make in response. First, if that is right, it will not involve much money; and, therefore, I do not know what he is worrying about. Secondly, it is very little consolation to one landowner, who is "significantly affected" and seriously out of pocket, to know that there are many other occupiers who are not in the same boat. Indeed, one might go as far as to say that it will really add insult to injury to know that he is one of the few people who is suffering serious loss. The whole point of the concept of reimbursement of actual loss is to protect those people, who the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, may say will be relatively few, who are adversely affected.
  I should also stress the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, about the convention on human rights. In the light of that point, I am absolutely confident that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches who are so enthusiastic about that legislation will no doubt feel very keen to support this amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, given that cue, I think that I should speak next. We are keen to support the Human Rights Act. I am sure that we shall return to that legislation when we deal with the other amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. However, I am not sure that this amendment is very attractive to us, except in a superficial way. Perhaps I may explain to noble Lords the problems that we have with it.
  The amendment would encourage landowners to seek individual solutions every time that there seemed to be a problem or a cost involved. When we discuss the issue of wardens later, I believe that we shall begin to realise why an individual solution to every situation may well be less desirable than having a warden appointed to deal with the problems that will arise as a result of open access to land. It may perhaps be clearer if I give noble Lords an example.
  An individual may well have already suffered as a result of granting open access on his land prior to this legislation coming into force. That may well be in the form of path erosion, especially if the land in question is popular. Where you have an access authority that is both active and responsible, the solution may be to form a partnership. Here I must declare an interest as I am vice-president of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers (BTCV). That partnership could be formed between, say, the voluntary sector, the private sector—for example, the hotels in the

  1403
  area—and the public sector. I think of the example of a national park authority. I should declare another interest as I am married to the chairman of Exmoor National Park Authority. I suggest that a successful partnership can be established to deal with the problem of path erosion.
  Many other solutions would be more effective than simply paying an individual to solve a problem. That would be expensive for the public purse and may not prove to be the best solution. I certainly believe in looking after the interests of the public and the landowner in terms of ensuring that the public do not behave in an irresponsible manner. I believe that a warden scheme is likely to be the most effective solution to the problem we are discussing rather than a landowner employing someone to deal with it. I fear that Amendment No. 80 might lead us too far down the individual solution path. Therefore, we do not support it.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she agree that, in the absence of the solution that she proposes and in the absence of any kind of guarantee of proper wardening, individuals will incur costs and expenses and it is right that those should be met? Only if she were completely confident that all of those costs and expenses could be met some other way would there be any justification for rejecting the amendment.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, if our amendments on local access forums had not been accepted and therefore landowners in the areas concerned did not have a strong voice, I might agree with the noble Lord. However, those amendments have been accepted and landowners will be strongly represented on local access forums. Given that landlords will have a strong voice and will have an input as to how public money will be spent in their interest as well as in that of the user groups, that solution should be the right one.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I think that she has misunderstood the purpose of the amendment. It seeks to compensate for expenses, costs and loss reasonably incurred as a result of the right we are discussing. It does not mention preventing damage through wardening. I fully accept what the noble Baroness said in that regard but I am talking about the situation where harm has occurred—for example, where one's sheep have been killed and one cannot find the man responsible; or where one has had to repair a stile; or where one's wall has been knocked down. None of that can be stopped by a warden. I fully accept that, where the access authority can deal with a situation, the damage will not be considered to be reasonably incurred. The amendment does not concern wardening or prevention but compensation or indemnification
  1404
  against out of pocket expenses. The noble Baroness mentioned human rights but is she confident that the amendment on compensation will be accepted?
  Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, the provisions appear to be tightly drawn and do not relate to the kind of circumstances which the noble Baroness mentioned, for example, where there is already some erosion on paths and where schemes are already in place. The amendment deals specifically with instances where additional costs and expenses fall to the occupier as a direct result of the right given by this legislation, or the circumstances that the noble Viscount has just mentioned where some loss or liability results directly from the exercise of the right which is given under the Bill.
  The purpose of the Bill, after all, is to give the public rights of access which they did not previously have. The burden of those rights of access must necessarily fall on landowners. Legislation which is intended to benefit us all should surely be paid for by us all. Few costs may result from the provisions. Other agencies or in some cases individuals may be responsible for the costs. But where a private landowner necessarily incurs out of pocket expenses in order to provide rights which all the rest of us can enjoy, there must surely, as a matter of fairness quite apart from any legal justification, be some provision in the legislation for those expenses to be met; otherwise, fairness goes out of the window.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I too support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. Again I declare an interest here. It might be worth remembering that when the Peak park authority drew up its access provisions—I believe that that occurred some time in the 1980s—it sought the services of the senior district valuer from Scotland whose job it was to assess what costs landowners were likely to incur (by "costs" I mean management costs as well as direct costs) as a direct result of the management agreements that were drawn up between that national park authority and owners and occupiers. Interestingly enough, they arrived at a figure of £4 an acre, notwithstanding any special costs that might have been incurred—to which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, referred—or indeed the additional costs that landowners would have to incur on fencing mine shafts and so on which we discussed on a previous amendment.
  Therefore a precedent has already been set. I am surprised therefore that the Government are taking what I might regard as a rather cavalier attitude towards this whole question of compensation. Incidentally, in addition to the £4 an acre which was paid to the owner and occupier as a direct result of the intervention of the district valuer from Scotland, it was assessed that the local access authority was likely to incur a further cost of £6 an acre. That would, of course, include the costs of wardening.
  On the question of access forums and wardens dealing with these matters, I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong. They will have a role and play a

  1405
  part but they cannot be involved in any agreements that are likely to be drawn up between owners and occupiers and the access authority. Those agreements take time to draw up and they are expensive, as many of us already know to our cost. Certainly any direct costs that are incurred have nothing to do with access forums and wardens. As I say, a precedent has been set. I should have thought therefore that my noble friend's amendment is all the more relevant.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, will the Minister explain what happens when access leads to the need for a change in a farming system? I have a particular example in mind. On many hill farms it is still the practice to lamb on the hill. It is believed that lambs grow up hardy as a result of that exposure. On the hill there is much rough country, and lambs and ewes can get behind tussocks of grass for protection. For a variety of reasons many farmers lamb on the hill. The hill may be situated two, three or four miles away from a farm. If people come on the hill with dogs during lambing, or during the period when ewes are heavy in lamb—one must recognise that the shepherds will already be walking the hill in question three times a day—there is a real possibility that on some farms lambing on the hill will cease to be possible. Let us assume for the sake of argument that that is the case. If farming is to be sustained on those farms, it will then be necessary to put up a lambing shed. Who will pay for that lambing shed?
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, on a somewhat smaller but important point, I do not think that my noble friend Lord Brittan mentioned insurance—although I missed the first half-minute of his speech and apologise to him.
  Landowners and occupiers have an insurance policy against people being injured on their land in the general way. In England and Wales there is at present the law of trespass. That is, presumably, mainly an insurance policy against people being damaged by, let us say, a fallen tree on a footpath. My experience is that that is a quite low premium. However, that premium is bound to increase when people can roam across the land in many directions. That will be a cost. Surely that must be recouped in some way because it is a cost expressly imposed by Parliament on people who are running their business. That seems to me an additional reason why the amendment is important.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I mention two matters in support of 1 he amendment which limit its effect and which the Government should bear in mind with some comfort to themselves. First, subsection (1) refers to,
  "costs and expenses reasonably incurred as a result of the right conferred by section 2(1)".
  I shall not go into the full details of Clause 2(1) because it refers to considerable parts of the Bill. It means that there are limitations.
  The Government can take even more comfort from this second point. Subsection (2) of the amendment provides that the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations as to the conditions for entitlement
  1406
  to the indemnity. That gives the Government very great power for limiting the application. With those two thoughts in mind, I should have thought that the Government would welcome the amendment.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, if the Bill is to be a success, the key word is harmony. I refer to harmony between the countryside and those who wish to have access under the new legislation. In order to help those farmers and landowners who put their fences, gates and stiles in good shape, it seems a small concession for the Government to be somewhat more generous than at present.
  We have had some concessions from the Government, but nothing like enough. It would be a big step forward for those who will have to face expensive costs—the landowners or tenants of the land—if the Government were prepared to meet those costs. If the Government agree to meet them, let us try to cut out some of the bureaucracy which attaches at present to almost any application for any grant for any quango in this country. All noble Lords who speak from practical experience of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the NCC, English Nature or SNH and so on, know that it is a major task to obtain what the farmer or landowner may consider a legitimate grant.
  If the Government are keen to make the Bill a success—from the efforts they have put into it one presumes that they are—it is right that they should support the amendment put forward so well by my noble friend Lord Brittan and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and demonstrate some support for the agricultural and land-owning industry which will undoubtedly be put to immense costs by the Bill. The Minister may say that the provision will affect relatively few landowners and farms. That is all the more reason that he should be more conciliatory.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Thornton: We have spent many days debating how to minimise the impact of the Bill on landowners and land managers, including the cost to them. I am still unclear why Members opposite feel the need for extra compensation. Many of our debates have centred on how to minimise the effects of the Bill and how to provide support through warden schemes and extra financial help. I am not convinced of the need for the amendment.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I wish to raise three points. First, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has just said, the Liberal Party spokesman has not addressed the amendment. Before we vote on the issue, I hope that someone from the Liberal Benches will address the amendment; otherwise it would be rather unreasonable to leave Members of the Liberal Party without guidance. I give way.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may clarify what I said. The amendment refers to "any"—I emphasise

  1407
  that word— "additional costs and expenses". It does not refer to exceptional costs and expenses. That is why I gave a broad reply. It is a broad amendment.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has made that point. It brings me to my second point.
  The amendment relates to specific costs, which have to be demonstrable and, therefore, a matter of fact. I am not a lawyer; we are surrounded by brilliant lawyers. But I understand that matters of fact in these cases are for the courts to determine, as the Inland Revenue is always telling us.
  Thirdly, if the Government resist the amendment, do they not put themselves in a different position from other third parties which impose costs on others? I hope that they will deal with that specific point. If they are doing so, perhaps I may suggest to them that under the provisions of the European convention again it will not be for the Government but for the courts to determine whether liability exists.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the amendment. I was somewhat surprised by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—she is normally very clued up—who implied that, as we have spent a great deal of time on the issue, the amendment is unnecessary. I am sure that I misunderstand her. She is a realist. In reality there is a problem. We have approved government Amendment No. 77 which states that there will be some burdens. The noble Baroness cannot argue that there will be no expenses when the Government clearly expect some. I do not follow her reasoning.
  I shall not repeat the many points raised. However, if the issue will not affect many people, I do not understand why the Government shy away from it. Perhaps there are more hidden issues on the agenda than we have touched on. I do not anticipate that the Government will say no to the amendment. We have not given the Minister a chance to say that he willingly accepts the amendment. I shall encourage him to say that, having heard the many arguments, the Government are willing to consider the amendment.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I deeply regret that I cannot respond positively in the way requested by the noble Baroness. We have discussed previously general provisions on compensation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, it is a somewhat open-ended call for compensation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, and others, I acknowledge that the amendment is more precisely drafted than any that we have dealt with before on the subject. It reflects the concern that any right of access will give rise to substantial costs.
  Everything that we have done in the Bill and in every amendment that we have conceded in favour of the landlords minimises the cost on landowners. Substantial costs will not arise in this case. The aim of the Bill is to enable people to walk over countryside that has limited—possibly important, but still limited—use without interfering with the ability of
  1408
  owners or occupiers to use or develop the land as they did before. There is no requirement on landowners to become involved in expenditure to facilitate access to the land.
  The impact of walkers on owners and occupiers will be minimal. The amendments to which we have already agreed will reduce that minimal impact still further. For example, the new restrictions on dogs and feeding livestock that we agreed the other day will limit the impact to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, am I right in believing that the amendments limit the impact of dogs only in fields and enclosures and not on the open hill? I was referring to lambing on the open hill, which is quite common.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, it depends on the definition of "enclosure". In many cases, hill farming will include an enclosure. The noble Lord may be right in part in relation to dogs, but the main right is for people to walk.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I was referring to Amendment No. 118.
  Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, we are referring to the amendments that were debated the other day on dogs in the lambing season. There is only a limited likelihood of any additional cost being imposed on hill farmers as a result of a relatively small number of people walking on the land. Other circumstances, such as severe weather, are much more likely to have an adverse impact on open fell lambing. We do not see any reason to fund the building of lambing sheds or any other change in operations that the farmer might have to undertake.
  If problems arose in a particular area and there was a serious impact on the landowner, the relevant authorities could make a direction to exclude or restrict access during the relevant period. I know that many noble Lords do not trust the access authorities or the countryside authorities to undertake activities in the landowners' interests, but that is a seriously misplaced and wrong judgment. Any impact that seriously affects the ability to carry out land management in the usual way will be taken seriously by the authorities in agreeing to a restriction.
  The liability of owners and occupiers is minimal. It is a liability in relation to trespassers. That minimal liability has been further qualified by the many amendments that we have made during the passage of the Bill, which have been consistently in favour of landowners. The right of access will be tightly prescribed. We will finance the access authorities to fund measures to facilitate access. That cross will not fall on the landowners. The access authorities may well co-operate with landowners in establishing stiles or other means of access, but the cost for access purposes will fall on the access authorities. We also propose to

  1409
  enable the Countryside Agency to operate a grant scheme for works to help landowners manage access in the best possible way.
  We are providing a number of ways to avoid any costs falling on landowners. The demand that compensation should be paid in such a relatively open-ended way because of substantial costs to landowners does not stand up.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, will the Minister address my specific point about the assessment made by the district valuer from Scotland of the costs incurred by landowners because of the access agreements in the Peak park at £4 an acre?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, on existing access land there are arrangements between the access authority—usually the national park—and landowners, under which payments are made to landowners in respect of access. However, in those places landowners have no right to apply for restrictions, there is no reduction in their liability and there is no provision for reimbursement by the access authorities for expenditure to facilitate access in the way that I have described. All those aspects are reflected in statutory rights or limitations and statutory reimbursement in the Bill. That does not apply to voluntary access in the Peak park.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, with respect, I have a copy of the Peak District National Park Authority agreement on access. There is a general indemnity against anybody incurring liabilities under the agreement.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is not a statutory indemnity. We are talking about the statutory balance between restricting liability, providing for reimbursement and restricting the impact of access to minimise the costs to occupiers and land managers. All of that operates in favour of the landowner. The amendment would provide for financial compensation that is already met by the other provisions of the Bill.
  In some circumstances the landowner will voluntarily undertake certain costs. There may be benefits to him from co-operating with the access authority to provide a facility that benefits him at least as much as it benefits the users of the access right. The costs of making provision solely for access rights would fall on the access authority where it judged the work necessary, not on the landowner.
  The impact may be more significant for a minority of landowners, such as those who own honeypot sites. Our approach is to deal with such situations by agreement and by management. That is why the attack on the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, was misplaced. She said clearly that arrangements ought to be established by consensus and agreement, not by an adversarial process of compensation. The local access forum will have a major role to play, as will the agreements between the access authority and landowners.
  1410
  In some honeypot situations, the landowner will have opportunities to recoup some costs by diversifying and providing commercial facilities. The costs can be met in all sorts of ways. Compensation creates a psychology of confrontation and an inappropriately adversarial arrangement. Only a few hours ago we made provision for local access forums and for arrangements under which the access authority would cover the cost of facilitating access.
  The argument that the Government should provide for compensation if they think that the costs are minimal should be addressed in that context. Providing for a general right of compensation, even in the relatively precise terms of the amendment, means presuming that the issues will be dealt with through a system of compensation and claims, whereas we want the facilitating, managing and operating of access to be addressed in local access forums by agreements and by co-operation between the access authorities and landowners and users.
  It is in that context that we address the problems where costs are incurred. By and large, such costs would be met in other ways. If we start to pro vide for a system of compensation, not only will the access authorities be tempted to say, "OK, that is what we want. If you don't like it then go for compensation", it will also provide for unscrupulous landowners to go through the courts and claim compensation before they agree to any form of access. We want the presumption to be that there will be agreement. This amendment is based on the presumption that there will not be agreement.
  Finally, perhaps I may address—
  6 p.m.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will assist me on one point. Much concern has been expressed in many areas about the future of agreements such as those operative in the Peak District, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Peel. Will the passage of this Bill into law mean the end of those agreements?
  Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. As with other voluntary access, the voluntary agreements are not affected directly by this Bill. Should those agreements fall at some point, the statutory back-up may well come into play; currently it does not. However, there is no presumption that such voluntary arrangements would fall with the passage of this Bill and I would not expect them to do so.
  Finally, I address briefly the point raised in relation to human rights. We went over this matter at an earlier stage and I rather suspect that it will be addressed more fully when we come to the later amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brittan. I was asked to check our legal advice on this matter. I have now done so. The legal advice remains that this issue does not create a problem in relation to the Human Rights Act and that

  1411
  the proposals are fully consistent with that Act. As I said, we may well wish to return to the issue and I shall save further details until then.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that he has dealt with only half of the amendment? He has spoken at great length about why the landowner will not need to incur costs and expenses. However, he has not dealt at all with loss caused to a landowner by someone who exercises the right. Someone may let his dog off the lead and it may then kill some sheep. We may not know who that person is or he may not have any money. The noble Lord has not dealt with such a scenario. No amount of saying that the access authority will carry out many good deeds will prevent such a situation happening or give the owner consolation for his dead sheep. The noble Lord has not dealt at all with that aspect.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the matter of someone letting loose a dog will not be covered by this Act any more than it is at present by any other legislation. If we expect the statutes of the land to provide for compensation from the public purse for all unidentified vandals and all people who breach the restrictions of the law, that should apply to all property owners and all commercial operations right across the land.
  Once again, the landowners in this debate are seeking special treatment for landowners in this particular situation. That is something that I have attempted to resist throughout our debates. I accept that a degree of balance must be established. However, I do not believe that the type of special treatment sought under this amendment is appropriate in these circumstances.
  Baroness Warnock: My Lords, it must be wrong to say that if this amendment were passed it would mean that unidentified vandalism of any property would have to be compensated by the Government. After all, this Bill proposes a new risk to landowners which is not the same type of risk to which all householders are exposed. Because access will be granted, damage may indeed be incurred to the landowner's property and also to his preferred way of farming, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has already pointed out. Compensation is being proposed only within the context of this Bill. So far as I understand the amendment, it has no further general application whatever.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is precisely the point that I am making. Effectively, subsection (2) of the amendment suggests that the state will compensate such landowners for unidentified criminal damage— to livestock in the example given by the noble Viscount—whereas in no other situation does the state provide such an indemnity. I do not consider that to be appropriate in these circumstances. Given all the other safeguards that we have built into the Bill in the course
  1412
  of the deliberations in this House, I believe that it would open a door and create a precedent which is not to be found in any other area of property law.
  The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord say in what other circumstances members of the general public can go on private land as a matter of right? What compensation is available for the landowners in such cases? I think particularly of someone who is careless with a cigarette, throws it away and burns a man's grazing. How will the owner of the grazing feed his stock if the area where people are allowed to walk is burnt?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is a criminal offence to light a fire. If one cannot catch the criminal, one cannot prosecute him. That applies just as much to all owners of property as it does to owners of access land. From time to time, all owners of property are subject to graffiti, damage and other activity by vandals and criminals. However, we do not turn to the state to compensate them.
  Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, in listening to the Minister's response to this debate, I could not help feeling that his sense of justice was overwhelmed by his admiration for his own generosity. I do not believe that that is a justified response to a debate or an answer to a serious point. In fact, the last points made by the Minister were the least persuasive of all.
  It simply will not do to present this amendment as if it were seeking to give landlords a privileged position or a special benefit. It is wholly different from a situation in which in the ordinary course of events someone suffers loss or incurs expense and cannot recoup it because he cannot find the person responsible or the person cannot find money. The fundamental difference is that in this case the loss and expense have been incurred because of the action of the Government and Parliament in passing this legislation. That is a fundamental difference. It is no use the Minister shaking his head. In a reasonably extended response he has not given a single reason why it is not a wholly different situation.
  The questions that the House must consider are whether costs and expenses are incurred; whether it is reasonable that those should be met; and whether this position is a reasonable way to meet them or whether there is an alternative. I want to address particularly the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in the hope that, even at this late hour, I can persuade her to join us in the Division Lobbies where I believe we should go in support of this amendment.
  First, the relevance of what my noble friend Lord Peel said about the situation in the Peak District was simply that there it was recognised that special rights of entry were likely to cause injury or damage and therefore an indemnity existed for that. The point is that the district valuer calculated what the costs were likely to be. That shows that, in circumstances where extended rights of access are given, it is likely that costs will be incurred. From all quarters of the House

  1413
  countless examples have been given of costs, expenses and losses that would be incurred, and the Minister has not been able to deny them for a single moment.
  I turn to the matter of insurance. The Minister made a point about the wonderful provisions in the Bill and the extreme generosity of the Government in mitigating the costs. No one denies the costs, whether they be incurred through insurance or the possibility of loss referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in his recent intervention. Money will be expended and costs will be incurred. The question which arises is that, if costs and expenses are incurred as a result of legislation, should there not be a provision for those costs to be met? What is the answer to that? The answer is, first, it will not be as bad as all that because of the all the wonderful things we have done.
  In that regard, I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and say that even if you accept that the provisions with regard to access forums make it possible to reduce substantially the risk of damage and losses being incurred, and even if you add to that the further provisions with regard to wardening and all the steps which the Government have genuinely taken which are good to try to reduce the likelihood that there will be costs or the extent of those costs, nobody could possibly say that that is a total solution to the problem. Even if the forums worked wonderfully, the wardens were put into existence and the authorities acted in good faith with generosity, nobody could possibly say that that would prevent costs or expenses being incurred by the individual landowner. At most, it will reduce the amount which will be incurred.
  To the extent that it reduces it, it will reduce the amount of compensation which will be payable under this provision. Therefore, it is not right to say, as the Minister said, that that will stir up litigation and make it confrontational, whereas what the Minister prefers is the more conciliatory approach which has the agreement of everybody concerned.
  Frankly, it is disingenuous to pretend that that is an answer to the debate, because if those provisions with regard to access forums reduce the amount of costs and expenses incurred, nobody could possibly suggest that they will eliminate them. The lower they are, the lower will be the bill that the Government have to meet if this amendment is passed. Therefore, the Minister should welcome it.
  It is quite unfair and meretricious to pretend that this is stirring up litigation or confrontation when everything could be settled peacefully and comfortably around the forum table. That is absolute nonsense and the Minister in his heart of hearts knows it. The truth of the matter is that he is saying that he has gone far enough and he does not have the stomach or the patience to go further. That is not a way to legislate or to do justice.
  If the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, looks at the new clause, she will see that it is couched in extremely moderate terms. The point that she makes about exceptional expenditure is covered by the fact that costs and losses can be recovered only where the expenses have been reasonably incurred. That means
  1414
  that if the actions of the forum enable the problem to be solved in some way and the other wonderful measures enable the problem to be solved, then there is no claim. It is only after all that has failed and losses and expenses have been incurred that this provision bites.
  It is extremely difficult to see that a concern for the human rights convention would enable one to come to the conclusion that if all other measures fail and losses are still incurred, there should not be this modest, carefully and narrowly-drawn provision for meeting those costs and expenses. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will join us in the Division Lobbies in support of adding an element of justice to what is already provided. I hope that the Minister will not feel that because he has met some concerns, he should resist others, provided that those concerns are legitimate and moderately couched.
  6.13 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 80) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 123; Not-Contents, 159.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Attlee, E.

  Geddes, L.

  Baker of Dorking, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Goschen, V.

  Bledisloe, V.[Teller]

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Brightman, L.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Brittan of Spennithorne, L. [Teller]

  Hayhoe, L.

  Henley, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Higgins, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Buxton of Alsa, L.

  Howe, E.

  Byford, B.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Kingsland, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Chadlington, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Luke, L.

  Coe, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Mar, C.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Darcy de Knayth, B.

  Monson, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Denham, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Dixon-Smith. L.

  Naseby, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Noakes, B.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Elton, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Flather, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Fookes, B.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  1415

  O'Cathain, B.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Stewartby, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Strange, B.

  Parkinson, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Peel, E.

  Tebbit, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Reay, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Renton, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Walker of Worcester, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Ryder of Wensum, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Weatherill, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Wilcox, B.

  Selsdon, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Sharpies, B.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Addington, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Amos, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Bach, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Barker, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Greaves, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Blease, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Brennan, L

  Harrison, L.

  Brett, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Brookman, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Carter, L.[Teller]

  Hoyle, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  David, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Desai, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Dubs, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Elder, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Ezra, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  McNally, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Fitt, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Gale, B.

  Methuen, L.

  1416

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Simon, V.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Newby, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Northover, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Orme, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Patel, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Tope, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Turnberg, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Rea, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Walmsley, B.

  Rennard, L.

  Warner, L.

  Richard, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Roper, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Russell, E.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Winston, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.24 p.m.
  Clause 14 [Offence of displaying on access land notices deterring public use]:
  [Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
  Clause 16 [Dedication of land as access land]:
  [Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
  Baroness Fookes Baroness Fookes moved Amendment No. 83:
  After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—

  POWER TO CARRY OUT REMEDIAL WORKS
  (" . —(1) Where any land which is open country is overgrown to the extent that its condition is likely to deter the use of that land by any person for the purposes of open air recreation, a competent authority may carry out such remedial work on that land as it considers necessary or expedient to restore that land to a condition suitable for such use.
  (2) In the exercise of the power conferred by subsection (1), a duly authorised officer of a competent authority may enter on the land and may take with him such vehicles, machinery and other equipment as may be requisite.
  (3) Before entering on any land, a competent authority shall give the owner of the land not less than twenty-four hours notice of their intention to do so or, where it is not practicable to ascertain the name and address of the owner, shall affix a notice at a conspicuous position at the boundary of that land.
  (4) A notice under subsection (3) shall specify—

  (a) the land to which it relates;

  (b) the work to be carried out; and

  (c) the date and time when the power to enter on the land will be exercised.

  (5) A competent authority may recover from the owner of any land the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred by the authority in carrying out works on that land to the extent that the owner has received or is entitled to receive any grant or other money from public funds for such works.
  (6) The power under subsection (1) shall not be exercised in respect of the same land by any competent authority more than once in any period of five years.
  (7) In this section "competent authority" means a local authority or—

  (a) in respect of land in England, the Countryside Agency; and

  (b) in respect of land in Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales.").

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 83 is tabled in my name. The new clause seeks to deal with a problem that I hope would not be a common one, but nevertheless is difficult and not easily resolved. I refer to the position where access land becomes overgrown to the point where those who have the right of access cannot, in practice, use it. In other words, the land would have to be in a very bad state indeed.
  If that point was reached, as far as I can see in the Bill as it stands, no redress is possible. If that is not the case, I should be glad to be advised. I am not imputing to any landowner any malicious or evil intent in that regard. There may well be perfectly understandable reasons why the land goes to pot. However, if that does arise, there is the practical difficulty of resolving it.
  The suggestion is that, having given proper notice, competent authorities—that is, local authorities, the Countryside Agency or the equivalent body in Wales—would be allowed to move in and deal with the land in the appropriate fashion, whatever that might be. It has been suggested to me that this is a draconian type of power. However, I suggest that it would not need to be used often. In any case, there are certain brakes on the procedure: first, through the competent authorities which are not likely to move in an unreasonable way; secondly, notice has to be given; and, thirdly, one cannot go onto the same land over and over again. There is a five-year limit on the time when one might enter the land for the purpose of clearing it.
  After listening to the debates on the local access fora—or, as I believe we now must call them, forums—it occurred to me that if people are still concerned, that might be an additional filter. It might be useful to place before them for consideration the problem of neglected land before the procedure which I outline kicks in. Obviously, that cannot be done now. However, if the Government were minded to accept the purpose of the clause in principle, I have no doubt that that could be amended at a later stage.
  The amendment attempts to deal with the problem of neglected land where it prevents those who have the right of access from so doing. In that spirit, I beg to move.
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I see the point of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. However, I have one concern. The land to which she refers as "neglected land" could, in the mean time, have developed considerable conservation value. There is nothing in the amendment which would protect that value. If the land has developed its value to such an extent that it becomes a site of special scientific
  1418
  interest, there is not a problem because the rest of the Bill looks after it. However, if it has simply become valuable in terms of its local biodiversity and therefore needs to be at least considered before it is destroyed, I would be worried that her amendment would prevent that happening. Apart from that, I can see what the noble Baroness is aiming at. In essence, I approve of what she is trying to do.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what she means by "overgrown"? Does she mean, for example, bracken? Very often that is combined with the sort of circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, referred. Is she thinking of bracken or scrub of some kind? I would have thought that those are the kind of conditions which ramblers would enjoy. That is part of the fun of rambling. I cannot understand the concern of those who suggest that the amendment is important.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I add my concerns to those of my noble friend Lady Nicol. I can understand the purpose behind the amendment but feel that it is rather too wholesale in its application.
  The sorts of powers described to clear overgrown land are fairly unfettered. Scrubbing up of land is not always a bad thing. Scrub is a natural part of the landscape and may well be enjoyed by walkers. Areas of scrub, tall herbs and young trees are developed when grazing is reduced and it is often very good for birds. It provides shelter and food sources for butterflies and other invertebrates. I would be concerned that the wholesale powers to clean up scrub could well go beyond what is the intent of the amendment, which is simply to clear paths for access. That could be interpreted to mean the wholesale tidying up of access land, which could be had for the diversity of the landscape and the wildlife it contains. It is a tenet that is true, and often misunderstood, that tidiness in the countryside is almost always a vice and not a virtue.
  Lord Bridges: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain what is meant by the phrase, "a competent authority"? It seems to be somewhat imprecise. I can imagine circumstances in which there might be more than one authority which thought itself competent to deal with such a matter.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have limited sympathy with this amendment, to the extent that, as a child, I used to get scratched and have my clothes torn by going through scrub. My children have done it too and I confess that there have been times when I have done it as a grown-up. But that is part of being in the countryside. I would not like our countryside to be cleaned up too much. What is the fun of picking brambles unless one gets scratched at times; indeed, would there be any brambles if the scrub of which they are part was destroyed?
  Although the amendment is clearly well meant and has been carefully thought out, it produces too many difficulties. We have been at pains to reassure

  1419
  landowners and farmers that the right of access will not interfere with their freedom to manage the land, subject to existing constraints. But this amendment would interfere with that freedom. It would not place any burden on landowners. But it would give local authorities the power to say, "We believe your land management is interfering with public access and intend to do something about it". There is a hint of the municipal park in that which does not make me happy.
  Of course, lack of active land management is a bad thing. But that does not mean that land management has to be universal all over the landowner's land. My noble friends Lady Nicol and Lady Young made the point about conservation of wildlife. I agree with that point and do not need to repeat it. I just do not believe it is right for local authorities to interfere with matters like this and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on reflection, will think so as well.
  Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I am sorry that this amendment met such a lukewarm, if not hostile, response. But I shall take it as friendly criticism. I have no intention of creating municipal parks. I enjoy the countryside sufficiently to know that brambles and bracken are desirable rather than otherwise.
  As I indicated at the beginning, I am concerned with the small minority of cases where the countryside is overgrown to such an extent that it is impossible to walk. It was only in those circumstances that I wanted this clause to bite.
  I was asked who the competent authority would be. It is set out in the amendment that it would be a local authority, the Countryside Agency, or the Countryside Council for Wales. I would hope that at least the Countryside Agency could be absolved from any desire to sanitise or make municipal parks out of the natural countryside. However, I suggested that if people were unhappy about the nature of the powers in the amendment, it might be possible to use the local access forum before any decision is made. That is not in the amendment as it stands because I was not thinking about those forums at the time. But that might provide the kind of break which noble Lords would consider salutary.
  I hoped to receive a more enthusiastic response. I must read the debate and see whether or not I can obtain further support. I doubt it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 84:
  After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—

  POWER TO CARRY OUT REMEDIAL WORKS

    Visitor Management facilities
    VISITOR MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.
    . —(1) Where access to access land gives rise to a need for the provision of new or improved visitor management facilities there shall be a duty on the access authority to provide funding for the provision and maintenance of the facility.
    (2) Where agreement on the need for such facilities or the cost of providing them cannot be achieved, the parties shall have resort to a dispute resolution process prescribed by the Secretary of State.").
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, we come back to touch in a more limited way on extra costs that might be imposed upon owners and occupiers. The Government reassured us from time to time and, when discussing Amendment No. 80, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, "Substantial costs will not arise" and "landlords will not be required to spend money as a result of the provisions of this Bill".
    In the debate on Amendment No. 72 I commented on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Peel and the extra costs of fencing in and signing the mines that were at the moment open—those pre-1872. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said at that time that there would be help with finances. But that does not appear on the face of the Bill.
    My particular concern relates to what are termed "visitor management facilities". If the situation arises where it is clear that something is required in order to facilitate access to an area in a sensible and measured way but the access authority does not spend the money there will be a mess. For instance, there might be a mass of cars at the side of the road instead of being properly co-ordinated and parked; there may be a lack of signage in order to help people to find the areas where they can be provided with information such as the best route from where they parked their car.
    So the purpose of Amendment No. 84 is to say that there "shall" be a duty on the access authority to provide funding in the event of a need for a visitor management facility. I included a second clause which provides that, if there is a dispute—this might arise between the landlord and the access authority—then it should be resolved by the Secretary of State. The amendment therefore is designed to help in a potentially difficult situation and should benefit those who wish to have access to the countryside as well as the owners and occupiers. I beg to move.
    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we agree with the aim of Amendment No. 84 in seeking to provide adequate visitor facilities. But we do not agree that the duty should always lie on the access authorities. First, as I mentioned in Committee, it is frequently the local pub which provides many of the facilities such as toilet blocks and car parks and relies on the trade from them. Secondly, the provision may be subject to other sorts of partnership.
    Therefore, while I cannot support the amendment, I agree that access authorities need to take seriously their obligations in ensuring that there are visitor management facilities, perhaps by helping people to bid for funding to enhance their facilities or in drawing together public/private partnerships. So the aim is worthy, but we cannot support the amendment.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are in full agreement with those who wish to see facilities provided where they are needed to help manage the right of access for the benefit of walkers and land managers alike. We also agree that landowners should not generally be obliged to pay for such facilities. As was explained in Committee, the Bill already allows for facilities to be provided at

    1421
    taxpayers' expense; for example, as information points under Clause 19 or means of access land under Chapter II.
    It is fair to say that the Bill allows for the possibility that an access authority may seek a contribution from a landowner in respect of an agreement to create or improve a means of access. The means is simple: there may be occasions when the landowner or farmer may benefit just as much as walkers from the provision of facilities. Or perhaps the access authority has offered to install a stile but the farmer would prefer a more expensive new gate. It could be agreed that the authority contributes, for example, the equivalent of the cost of the stile and the landowner contributes the additional amount in order to ensure that he acquires the suitable facility.
    However, the key point is that there is no requirement for a landowner to pay towards the cost of facilities. If it is not possible to conclude an agreement between the landowner and the authority, the authority will have the power to carry out specified works at its own expense. Here, the landowner will not be required to pay a penny.
    We would be fearful of opening the way for costly and bureaucratic disputes by imposing a duty on access authorities to provide new visitor management facilities "where they are needed". We believe that access authorities will have the necessary knowledge and expertise to decide where facilities are needed and the Bill already allows them to do that. The best way forward is open, constructive negotiation with those having an interest in the land and on the basis of discussion with others concerned, including the local access forum. Landowners will, in any case, be free to make representations to their local authority—or, indeed, to the local access forum—about where they believe facilities are needed and the form they should take.
    Perhaps I may add a note of caution about the number and type of facilities that are appropriate to open countryside. We would caution against a sea of car parks and visitor centres. Major new facilities of that nature are unlikely to be needed often but there may be places, particularly near towns, where the landowner wants to be involved in the provision of a car park which could be a commercial venture allied to other facilities.
    The facilities which are likely to be commonly needed—for example, stiles, gates and notices—are catered for under Clause 19 and Chapter III of the Bill. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the new clause is not necessary and I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
    Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question before she sits down. She said that there was no requirement on landowners to bear the cost. Can she direct me to that provision in the Bill? It may be that I am not looking in the right place.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, at no point does the Bill impose a duty on the landowner to
    1422
    provide facilities. It is not possible to point to a place in the Bill because there is no such requirement on the landowner.
    The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. There is common ground between us. I tabled my amendment in order to ascertain what happens when a facility is clearly required but the access authority does not have the money. The access authority could well agree with the landowner, saying, "We could not agree more. Something needs to be done but we have no money because we decided to spend it on social security care and so on. It is too bad for those who want access to that piece of land. They will have to put up with the situation and so will you".
    The Minister slightly misunderstood my point. The purpose behind my amendment is to force the access authority to do something. I take issue with her on a point, also made in Committee, that car parks can become commercial ventures. That is so only in very limited circumstances. By and large, car parks providing access are not paying ventures. They generally cost money to run either because someone must be paid to collect the money or because meters have to be provided. Alternatively, they must be free of charge.
    I hope that the Government will ensure that the access authorities provide such facilities because they will be needed. I agree that there will not be a plethora of them—no one wants that in the countryside—but only when they are badly needed will the access authority act and spend the money. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    6.45 p.m.
    Clause 17 [Byelaws]:
    The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 85:
    Clause 17, page 10, line 10, at beginning insert—
    ("( ) The appropriate countryside body shall issue draft model byelaws which access authorities may adapt to take account of differing local circumstances.").
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, we return to model by-laws. It is another amendment which the Left wing of the Labour Party—I am sorry, the Liberal Democrats—will meet half way but never the whole way. They will sit on the fence and say, "We quite like what you are saying but we are not going to do anything about it".
    There should be draft model by-laws and I have taken on board what was said in Committee. I believe that the countryside body should issue national by-laws which give certainty to owners and occupiers and to those who want access to the country. I beg to move.
    Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the amendment and wish to speak to my Amendments Nos. 86 and 90. Amendment No. 86 ensures that under by-laws walkers do not interfere with the rights of owners and occupiers in managing and enjoying their own land. We believe that that is most important.

    1423
    By omitting that requirement it might be argued that owners and occupiers are not specifically covered, except in so far as they are "other persons" referred to in the Bill. That is manifestly not the case because owners and occupiers have rights of ownership or tenancy over the land, entitling them to do things which walkers are not able to do.
    Secondly, the point should be made that owners and occupiers have no fewer rights over the land than walkers. After a suitable interval, most people have a long holiday period. Many have five weeks plus statutory days, making 36 days in all. Under the Bill, the Government propose to allow owners and occupiers only 28 days in total, with no statutory days. An amendment recently moved would allow for Saturdays. We believe that we should allow owners and occupiers at least the right to a by-law to protect enjoyment of their own land in their own way.
    I turn to Amendment No. 90, which I hope the Minister will accept because the Government have previously made suggestions about parishes. Much of the land over which open access will be granted is remote from large towns which tend to house the seat of local government. Parish councils can be miles away from the district offices. Unless parish councils can enforce by-laws the procedure for following up infringements will be long-winded and costly, and there is a danger that many will go by the board. That will lead to a growing awareness that the law is weak, and certain persons and interests may be tempted to take advantage of the situation.
    By and large, people who live in urban areas do not suffer to the same extent as those who live in more rural areas. I refer to the practice of fly-tipping lorry loads of rubbish across gateways and minor roads and the disposal of litter, to which we shall return in later amendments. If those who live in urban areas find an intruder in their home the nearest policeman is likely to be only a couple of miles or just a few minutes away. For that precise reason, in the countryside an intruder is much more likely to finish his self-appointed task than to run for it immediately, knowing full well that the police will not be quickly at hand.
    A parish council is much more immediate than a district authority. If circumstances require urgent attention the council can be convened in days, and for that reason we have tabled Amendment No. 90 which seeks to include a parish council.
    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, believes that we have been sitting on the fence. We have voted vigorously on all amendments.
    The Earl of Caithness: Always with the Labour Party!
    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we have always voted according to our beliefs.
    1424
    I turn to Amendment No. 85 which was debated at length in Committee. We agreed then that model by-laws were important. Clause 17(3) makes plain that the access authority must consult the appropriate countryside body. We are pleased that, with the addition of Amendment No. 87 which has already been spoken to by the Government, the local access forum must also be consulted. We believe that that is particularly important when model by-laws are adapted to take account of differing circumstances.
    I have no particular qualms about supporting the noble Earl's amendment, but I do not want him to believe that he has forced me into it. I am not sure that the amendment adds a great deal to what is already on the face of the Bill, but for what it is worth it appears to be a worthy amendment.
    I understand the purpose of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Perhaps the remoter parishes should have power to enforce by-laws. From my experience, the difficulty is that some parishes do not want that responsibility. However, the amendment says "may enforce" and the responsibility can be left to the county or district council. Therefore, I believe that that is a perfectly reasonable request.
    Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I refer briefly to Amendment No. 88 in my name. I have tabled this amendment in order to make a suggestion to the Government. Earlier in our debate today my noble friend Lady Mallalieu said, quite properly, that the public would be given rights which they had not previously held. The problem is that sometimes the public may not accurately perceive what those rights are. There is at least the possibility that the public will assume that the present regulations which govern public rights of way are to be relaxed under by-laws. However, public rights of way—certainly footpaths—may be seriously damaged if a relaxed attitude is taken to them. A public footpath is for people to walk and the Bill is designed to extend access to people on foot.
    Unfortunately, in many parts of the country people use wheeled vehicles on footpaths. I am strongly in favour of the provision of an adequate network of bridlepaths, but in areas where they are not in abundance some people take their horses on footpaths. In that event, particularly following weather of the kind that we are now experiencing, footpaths may be virtually impassable except by a young athlete. If we are to promote exercise, good health and so on, it is necessary to remind people that when the Bill becomes law the regulations which govern public rights of way should continue to specify that public footpaths are for people on foot and that bridlepaths are for people on horses; and I am not sure that wheeled vehicles should be used on either of them.
    I hope the Government ensure that there is no public misunderstanding. For that reason, my amendment seeks to insert the words,
    "by those acting in accordance with the nature of the right".

    1425
    I shall not press the amendment. However, the Government would be wise to take careful note of the need, which I hope I have addressed in my brief remarks, to provide clear and positive advice to the public when the Bill is enacted.
    Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I should like to touch briefly on Amendment No. 85. These days my heart sinks when I hear the word "by-law". The making of by-laws under the Local Government Act procedures is tortuous in the extreme. It involves consultation with anyone with any interest whatever in the site, which can range from individuals, parish and district councils, statutory undertakers and Uncle Torn Cobbley and all. With a favourable wind, it takes a minimum of about six months, and often longer. Amendment No. 85, which is concerned with model by-laws, has merit in that anything that helps to take the pain out of the process should he supported. I am not sure, however, that it needs to be on the face of the Bill; it should perhaps merely be an admonition to the Countryside Agency.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, first I refer to government Amendments Nos. 89 and 262 which are in this group. We gave a commitment during Committee to table an amendment which would enable access authorities to make by-laws in advance of the right coming into force. These amendments fulfil that commitment. Amendment No. 89 means that by-laws can be made when land is likely to become access land, but the Secretary of State may not confirm them until the land is access land. Amendment No. 262 provides that Clause 17 comes into force two months after Royal Assent.
    As to by-laws, I have some sympathy for the observations of my noble friend Lady Young. We do not believe that access authorities should adopt a blanket approach to by-laws. By-laws should be made in response to particular problems which need to be addressed with a criminal penalty. Authorities are unlikely to know in advance whether any activities will cause problems, but we accept that there may be some cases, such as on land where there is already significant de facto access, where the authority sees a need for by-laws. Our amendments will enable by-laws to be made in those circumstances.
    I turn to Amendment No. 85. My noble friend Lord Whitty explained in Committee that the countryside bodies were already under a duty, as a result of a government amendment at Report stage in another place, to provide guidance to access authorities about the exercise of their by-law making powers. Those recommendations are likely to include advice about where by-laws may be appropriate or useful, and, once confirmed, how they may best be publicised. We recognise that model by-laws can be a useful way to provide those guidelines. If experience shows that by-laws are needed in a significant number of areas—in other words, where the model is sufficiently widespread—the Secretary of State will consider whether it is helpful to issue model by-laws.
    1426
    We accept that model by-laws can be helpful to local authorities. As my noble friend Lady Young says, they may cut short the consultation and planning stage. We shall be very ready to provide them if it becomes apparent that they are necessary and once we know what they are likely to cover. Therefore, one says without any sense of antagonism to Amendment No. 85 that one should let the countryside bodies issue the guidance and see whether it is sufficiently generalised to justify model by-laws. If so, not only would there be no objection to the Secretary of State making model by-laws—with the legal resources available to him, it would be a matter for him rather than the countryside bodies—but we believe that it would be a positively good idea. We just do not want to do it in blanket form.
    Amendment No. 86, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would add that by-laws may be made to secure that those exercising the right of access do not interfere with the enjoyment of the land by the "owner or occupier". I can give the noble Baroness a categoric assurance that Clause 17(1)(c), which refers to the,
    "enjoyment of the land by other persons",
    already provides for that. In other words, owners and occupiers are among those other persons. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
    I turn to Amendment No. 90. I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Association for Neighbourhood Councils, which unsuccessfully sought to persuade governments of all parties to extend parish councils to the urban areas of England. There are no parish councils in urban areas. Parish councils, both in urban areas and in rural areas, should have this power. We are happy to accept Amendment No. 90.
    Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 88. The assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, seeks is that there should be no relaxation of the restrictions on rights of way, which he so graphically described. It is not necessary to clarify the phrase by adding that it applies only to those who are exercising the right of way in accordance with the nature of that right. The exercise of right of way means the lawful exercise of right of way. For example, it would not protect anyone unlawfully driving a vehicle on a footpath or bridleway. I believe that that is the noble Lord's concern. I hope that on that basis he will not press his amendment.
    7 p.m.
    The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was going to accept my amendment. I really thought that I had persuaded him because we were so very close. Rather than leaving the decision to the Secretary of State—in the fullness of time, when he has been able to consider it—whether by-laws should be issued, it is important that on the face of the Bill it is stated that it is the duty of the Countryside Agency to provide the model

    1427
    by-laws. It is for the various authorities to adapt and adopt them to take account of differing local circumstances.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are very close on this matter. I do not believe that there is a difference in substance. Perhaps we may talk about the matter between now and the next stage of the Bill.
    The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, this is too good. I have had an offer from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, to come and vote with me. Now the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has offered to think about the issue. It is really too good an opportunity. I should be very happy to take up the noble Lord's offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 87:
    Clause 17, page 10, line 20, at end insert (", and
    (b) any local access forum established for an area to which the byelaws relate").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    [Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 89:
    Clause 17, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
    ("(6A) Byelaws under this section relating to any land—

    (a) may not be made unless the land is access land or the access authority are satisfied that it is likely to become access land, and

    (b) may not be confirmed unless the land is access land.").

    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 90:
    Clause 17, page 10, line 39, after ("district") insert ("or parish").
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the Government for accepting my amendments. We were very pleased that the Government tabled Amendment No. 89. Perhaps I may say to the Minister that I understand parish councils are being established in urban areas. I, too, am delighted about that. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 18 [Wardens:]
    The Deputy Speaker (Lord Methuen): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 91, I should say that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 92 and 93.
    Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 91:
    Clause 18, page 10, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 11 and insert—
    ("(1) Every access authority and district council shall take such steps (whether by the appointment of wardens or otherwise) as appear to it to be necessary or expedient to achieve the purpose set out in subsection (2) as respects access land in their area.
    (2) The purposes referred to in subsection (1) are—").
    The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee we had considerable debate about the need to ensure that there is proper wardening or supervision of some kind to ensure the right results. Clause 18(2) of the Bill provides various purposes for which wardens are to be appointed. The first is to secure compliance with by-laws and restrictions. As Clause 18(1) stands at the moment, an access authority has power—I emphasise power—to appoint wardens if necessary or expedient to achieve those objectives, but it does not have to so do. Therefore, one can have a situation where there are by-laws or restrictions which are not being complied with. The access authority may accept that some action, such as, let us say, the appointment of wardens is the only way to achieve compliance. But it can still decide not to take that action. It is wholly unacceptable that one could have a position where the rules were being disregarded and there was no obligation on the authority to do anything about it.
    The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, expressed good intentions. I have no doubt that in the initial stages after the Bill is enacted the Government will implement those intentions and seek to provide suitable wardening. But we do not know what will happen later when the first enthusiasm for the Act has gone, perhaps different persons are holding these offices and someone is searching for an economy. Those good intentions may lapse.
    If the Government are giving people the right to walk across private land, there has to be an obligation—not merely a power—to provide ways of securing compliance with the restrictions under which they go there.
    In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, enunciated in forceful language that principle. But she pointed out that there might be ways of achieving the desired result without actually appointing wardens. My amendment is designed with great care to solve that problem by saying that the,
    "access authority …[or the] district council shall take such steps (whether by the appointment of wardens or otherwise) as appear to it to be necessary or expedient to achieve the purpose set out in subsection (2)".
    Thus, the authority has complete discretion to decide what steps, if any—I emphasise if any—are needed to ensure compliance. Only if the authority decides that something needs to be done and then decides what it should do for the best is it obliged to do it. It cannot duck the responsibility. I believe that the amendment covers all the points raised in Committee. Therefore, it should be acceptable to everyone. It achieves the aim that one cannot have a situation where there is no compliance, where everyone agrees that it is necessary to do something about the position but does nothing.
    Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 are on much the same lines. Amendment No. 91 seeks to give the access authority the widest possible discretion as to how to achieve the purpose. Therefore, it should appeal particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. I beg to move.
    Baroness Byford: My Lords, it is important that the amendment is accepted by the Government. Over the past 40 years attempts have been made to broaden access to the countryside. Those attempts have been fairly successful, despite the fact that many of the jobs given to local authorities, both under the 1949 and the 1981 Acts, have not been completed, not through any lack of desire but mainly for lack of adequate funding.
    I have serious concerns about the funding for the Bill, especially as I feel that a well trained and qualified warden force will be essential to ensure that its provisions are observed by walkers and others. Even now the Government could reduce the workload significantly by removing some of the demands which will inevitably result following the decision to allow dogs to roam freely on access land. As the noble Viscount mentioned, the amendment puts a duty on the authority to appoint wardens where it considers it is "necessary" or "expedient". I hope that the Government will have regard to those two words.
    The Local Government Association, which I am sure has written to many noble Lords, is particularly concerned about the funding of many aspects of the Bill. One such aspect is the provision of wardens. Perhaps I may quote from the Local Government Association's briefing:
    "There are significant costs associated with these provisions. Many of the key local authority costs will be discretionary (wardening, access infrastructure, information provision). But in our view it is this type of investment which will be key to the success of the Bill's objectives".
    I could not put it better.
    A number of individuals and well-known organisations have been in contact with Members of this House, particularly with regard to dogs. The wardening responsibilities in the Bill will reflect on dogs. During debates on earlier amendments we discussed the whole question of controlling dogs, particularly in areas such asthe Peak District National Park. We heard that dogs are kept on leads but are let off as soon as someone is around the corner. Difficulties then occur. As our debates have proceeded we have done our best to try to show the Government what needs to be done to ensure that the Bill works correctly. I do not know about other noble Lords but up to this point I certainly have had no communications asking me to support access for dogs. Indeed, there was no such proposal in the manifesto.
    Wardening is crucial to the success of the Bill. Last week the House decided that night-time access will not be banned. As a result people will be wandering around in the dark and may get into difficulties. We also have the spectre of dogs not being sufficiently restricted and the consequent damage to livestock, wild fowl and wildlife. It is important that we have
    1430
    adequate wardening services. It should not be a matter of discretion. We believe that wardens should be appointed where it is necessary or expedient.
    The Bill provides no criminal sanction for trespass and few restrictions on dogs. There is no real statutory requirement for the appointment of wardens. We want people to enjoy the countryside but, sadly, as we have said in the debates on the Bill, there are those who will not have respect for the restrictions set out in the Bill. If we do not put on the face of the Bill a statutory responsibility for the provision of wardening services, the Bill's provisions will be unenforceable. In those circumstances, people who would like to enjoy the countryside will have some of their enjoyment spoilt. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will support the amendments, which are crucial if the Bill is to work. I support the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
    Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am in favour of the appointment of wardens. I can think of a number of reasons for their appointment, one of which follows on from the comments of the noble Baroness. Lady Byford. I have already mentioned my honorary membership of the Kennel Club, although I should point out that I am expressing my own opinion and not, as far as I know, that of the club. I take the view that the proportion of responsible dog owners is much higher today than used to be the case. Last week I spelt out the reasons for that. Wardens could be useful in identifying, discouraging and deterring the minority of people who do not control their dogs properly. That would be a very good thing. It might persuade the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench that dogs are not necessarily vile and evil and that they are very good, not least in promoting human health. I would be a good deal less fit if I did not walk my dogs.
    I have one question for my noble friend the Minister. I trust that it will not be one he does not like. Last week I suggested that the owner or occupier should be able to give permission to a responsible dog owner to let his dog off the lead for the purposes of training. My noble friend said that there was no need for the amendment because the agreement of the owner or occupier could be given tacitly or otherwise. In a situation where the owner had been given tacit approval by the owner or occupier, the warden would have to be sure of the position before he became enraged by the owner letting loose his dog. Can my noble friend tell me how the warden should be informed that the dog owner has the tacit permission of the owner or occupier to train his dog to come when he lets if off the lead and to stay when it is so ordered?
    The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 92, which stands in my name. There is nothing I need add after what has been said today and what was said in Committee. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, I have rephrased the amendment to take account of comments made by noble Lords. I do not think that there is much between the noble Viscount's Amendment No. 91 and my

    1431
    Amendment No. 92. I think that it is very courteous of us to give the Government a choice of which one to accept.
    Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may offer the Minister another choice in speaking to Amendment No. 93, which stands in my name. When in Committee we discussed the issue of wardens, the Government seemed to be somewhat uncertain as to how they would resolve the matter. It was my impression that the Government were basically sympathetic to the principle of having wardens wherever it was desirable to have wardens but felt constrained by the likely financial implications. The argument was successfully made from all sides of the Chamber that if the authority considered it necessary or expedient to appoint wardens, it should be required to do so. It would be a dereliction of duty on behalf of the access authority to decide that wardens were needed and then not to appoint them.
    It is worth pointing out that wardens do not need to be employed full-time by the authority. They could be part-time or they could be volunteers. That could go some way towards reducing the resource implications. However, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, if the Bill is to work and we are to reduce conflict, wardens will have an extremely important role as the interface between those who wish to come on to the land and enjoy access and the owners and occupiers who are responsible for the management of that land. My amendment simply requires that an access authority must appoint wardens once it has determined how many are needed. It is somewhat unsatisfactory to give the access authority the duty to determine the number of wardens but then no duty to appoint them.
    Having said that, there is not a great deal between my amendment and the amendments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and my noble friend Lord Caithness. I would be happy with any of the amendments. I sincerely hope that the Government will look sympathetically on them.
    Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I wish to make only a brief intervention. The warden system will be crucial to the impact of the Bill. We have heard about their training and so on. A warden's salary and the cost of any transport he will require will come to about £20,000 a year. But will access authorities be able to offer that kind of money? An access authority may need several wardens. If the power to appoint wardens is only discretionary, one can well see that a number of wardens will disappear like snow off a dike when the authority starts looking at the salary and transport implications of financing wardens, who will be crucial to the working of the Bill's provisions.
    Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, as a landowner and manager, I know full well that when one goes to employ someone on the land one tends to get a good person if that person comes to the job knowing that it is a long-term job. The personcoming to the job will probably end up thoroughly skilled and well trained.
    1432
    If the positions of wardens, whether they are part-time or full-time, are to be subject to annual budgetary reviews and thus become subject to other priorities within those budgets, then I foresee that those wardens on whom we would all wish to rely; namely, highly skilled and highly trained wardens, will probably not be forthcoming. They will apply only if they can be sure that their jobs will be long-term positions. I hope that the Minister will be able to move some way to deal with the concerns expressed by all noble Lords.
    Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, was correct to say that he has drafted his amendment very carefully. I can confirm that I find it more appealing than the other amendments which have been tabled in this grouping. The noble Viscount has taken care to leave in place sufficient flexibility to enable the access authority to choose ways other than the direct appointment of wardens to solve the problems that may arise.
    On these Benches, we believe that all the difficult issues on which we have held detailed discussions in Committee—night access, dogs and the enforcement of closures and restrictions—need to be managed. For that reason, I am pleased that the noble Viscount has been able to draft an amendment which provides enough flexibility for local authorities to choose how to put in place these necessary management tasks.
    The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that the amendment, to which she has added her name, imposed a duty on local authorities to appoint wardens. However, I do not believe that the amendment does that. It imposes a duty on the authorities to take the necessary steps to manage the land, and that is why I find it more attractive than the other amendments tabled on this issue.
    Access authorities operate under strict budgetary constraints and the ruling groups have to make difficult decisions at budget time. The fact that proper countryside management has already been practised by access authorities has, on occasion, been called into question by Members from all the Benches in this House. However, by putting it on to the face of the Bill, countryside management will become a valid reason for spending money. That duty will be extra to the duty of, for example, maintaining countryside roads. In the past, difficulties have arisen where countryside management has been perceived by the opposition party as an add-on—that may well have been the case as regards the county of which I am a member; namely, Somerset. Sometimes it is important to make it absolutely clear how essential is countryside management.
    I have only one extremely small caveat. Indeed, when the noble Viscount introduced his amendment he said,
    "Every access authority [or] district council",
    although his amendment refers to, "and district council". I query that only because I do not think that the county and national park and the district authority must take these steps. Much as we all agree on how necessary it will be to have wardens, that would

    1433
    represent something of an overkill. In these days of joint working and best value, I am sure that the access authority and district could agree between them the steps to be taken. I hope that the noble Viscount will accept that, when he spoke, he referred to "or". I feel that that would provide the better solution here. The matter should be settled by agreement between the different authorities.
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a case somewhat similar to that of model by-laws. We all agree on the fundamentals of what we want, but there may be disagreements about how to achieve them. Let us see if we can explore those differences.
    Amendment No. 91 would require authorities, where they think it necessary or expedient, to appoint wardens or take other appropriate measures to achieve the purposes set out in subsection (2) of Clause 18. I should remind noble Lords that Clause 18(2) is subject to our Amendment No. 96 which has yet to be moved. The amendment will extend the scope of those purposes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, pointed out, it would be a mistake to impose the duty on both access authorities and district councils. However, I do not think it would be sufficient only to refer to "or district councils". We shall need to go into the detail as regards agreements reached between the different authorities, which might be complicated. Nevertheless, as drafted, that is the scope of Amendment No. 91.
    Amendment No. 92 would require authorities to ensure that access land is wardened where necessary or expedient. Amendment No. 93 would place a duty on authorities to appoint such numbers of wardens as appear to be necessary or expedient. Our starting point has always been that we want to see authorities being able to use discretion when appointing wardens. Given the interventions that have been made around the House, it is clear that, while noble Lords recognise the value of discretion, they do not think that that discretion goes far enough. Amendment No. 91 would retain some discretion, but I have already explained the difficulties with it.
    Amendment No. 92 would retain a considerable amount of discretion. However, I fear that Amendment No. 93 would be considered by a court to require the appointment of at least some wardens. I do not think that that is what is wanted here. Clearly, certain district councils will have very little or even virtually no access land in their areas. Because of that, we could get into some difficulties with the wording of Amendment No. 93.
    Between now and Third Reading I should like to talk about this with all noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. At the risk of embarrassing the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I have to say that, if we are to achieve something along these lines, I tend more towards Amendment No. 92 than to the other two amendments. However, I hope that, when we discuss model by-laws, we shall have a chance to talk about this matter at the same time. I do not think that any fundamental disagreement exists between us here. We all see the value of wardens. Indeed, the Government
    1434
    would not have tabled their amendments to Clause 18 if the value of wardens was not clear. However, as matters stand, and given that the amendments are alternative rather than cumulative, I am not able to accept the wording in any of the amendments presently before the House.
    Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I was interested to hear about the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath; namely, that most dog owners are responsible. However, in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I must remind him that there are spaniels who do run in.
    The point behind our amendment is that wardens do not need to be full-time employees. Scope is offered for authorities to arrange matters as they like. The amendment does not seek to take away discretion from the authorities. They would have total discretion to do whatever they think is necessary or expedient. If they are considering only a small piece of land, they would be free to say that no warden was needed. Alternatively, they may decide that a part-time warden is required, and that the local farmer could be approached.
    The only point we wish to change is that, when authorities have decided what it is necessary to do, they cannot then say, "We know that this is necessary, but we're not going to do it".
    Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that point and I do not disagree with it. However, perhaps I may make a further point which is relevant to what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, is saying here about part-time or voluntary wardens. This refers back to a point I neglected to make in response to the noble Lord, Lord Monro. A power to fund wardens, as is being proposed by the Government, may be more effective than a duty. That is because a "duty" suggests that funds for wardening should be included as a part of the normal revenue support grant. We want to be flexible about this. We would not wish to rule out the option of setting up a specific grant regime to cater for wardening and other items associated with management. Indeed, it may he that a specific grant regime would result in more wardens. That, again, is a matter that I should like to consider in any discussions that we may hold with all noble Lords who have proposed and spoken to these amendments.
    Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I shall of course be delighted to take up the generous offer made by the noble Lord. I have no pride of authorship. If the noble Lord prefers the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, then the only difference between us is that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, prefers the wording of my amendment. But I am sure that we can come to some compromise. Provided that the Minister is, as I understand he is, saying, "Yes, we will do this, but we have to find a nice, tidy way of doing it", on that basis I will be delighted to withdraw my amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]
    Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 94:
    Clause 18, page 10, line 44, at end insert—
    ("(1A) As respects access land in an area for which there is a local access forum, an access authority shall, before they first exercise the power under subsection (1) and thereafter from time to time, consult the local access forum about the exercise of that power.").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
    Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000
7.30 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 12th September be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 7th September protestors blockaded Stanlow refinery in Cheshire. The oil companies advised my department that action at other refineries could quickly lead to serious disruption of fuel supplies. As a consequence, the Government sought an Order in Council under Section 3 of the Energy Act 1976.
The Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000 was made by Her Majesty on Monday, 11th September and was laid on 12th September. The order came into force on 11th September, it being considered that the exceptional urgency of the situation justified the order coming into force before it had been laid. Were the House and another place to have approved the order, it would expire on 10th September 2001; that is, 12 months after it was made. Failing such approval, the order would expire at midnight on Sunday, 19th November.
Article 2 of the order declares that, because there is imminent in the United Kingdom a threatened emergency affecting fuel supplies which makes it necessary in Her Majesty's opinion that the Government should temporarily have at their disposal exceptional powers for controlling the sources and availability of energy, the powers of Sections 1 and 2 of the Energy Act 1976 are to be exercisable to their fullest extent. Those sections enable the Secretary of State to make orders and to give directions to regulate the production, supply and use of certain fuels, including petrol and diesel.
It was considered in September that it was necessary for the Government to have those powers at their disposal, given the serious threat to fuel supplies and hence to emergency and other essential services, to the
1436
health service and to food distribution. Using these powers, the Secretary of State subsequently made orders designating priority retail fuel sites and priority purposes to facilitate the orderly return to normal when protests ended. These arrangements would have ensured continuity of essential services for a longer period had the blockades continued.
While the order is in force the Secretary of State can, under Sections 1 and 2, regulate the production and supply of fuel and direct companies and others as to the use of petroleum products or the price at which they are sold. Examples of the orders and directions which the Government might want to issue would be directing petrol suppliers to supply only to specified locations and for priority purposes; or restricting private, commercial or public transport activity for the purpose of conserving supplies.
It may be helpful if I remind your Lordships about the Government's actions in response to the recent disruption. We made clear from the beginning that we were determined to ensure that supplies were returned to normal. As soon as it became apparent that supplies were being affected, we acted to ensure that procedures were put in place to allow for supplies to be brought back to normal as soon as possible.
Using the powers available under the Order in Council, the Secretary of State made further orders designating petrol stations and depots around the country as priority suppliers, requesting oil companies to ensure that available supplies were, in the first instance, used to keep these stations open. Subsequent orders added further petrol stations and depots to the list following representations from priority users, business and the public. From that list of petrol stations we additionally specified about 300 outlets which should service primarily essential users and we issued a list of essential users.
Although the powers under the Order in Council enabled us to issue legally-binding directions to this effect, we took the view that the arrangements should be non-statutory and handled on the ground by local authorities and the police, who were best placed to respond effectively to local circumstances. Guidance was placed on government websites and distributed through police stations, local authorities and health authorities. We also set up two hotlines so that essential users and members of the public could telephone for information.
The situation returned to normal, but to ensure that disruption on this scale was not repeated, the Prime Minister set up a task force which agreed the broad principles of a memorandum of understanding between government, oil companies and the police on the handling of any future emergency.
I mentioned the task force and the memorandum on 5th October in replying to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. In another place last week my right honourable friend the Home Secretary confirmed that the task force was putting in place measures aimed at ensuring, in the event of future disruption, the delivery of fuel to petrol stations, with priority for essential users; better preparation for

1437
disruption by local authorities and other essential users the availability of Ministry of Defence drivers to drive tankers as a last resort; the protection of food depots and other potential targets; and the keeping open of major roads.
I regret that we appear to be faced with threats of further disruption. We have no alternative but to seek extension of the exceptional powers so that we can take responsible action to safeguard essential services. The Government are in no doubt that it is necessary to have these powers available for some time to come in order to take the action necessary to preserve essential supplies and services. The Government are firmly of the view that a situation continues to exist in which there is a real threat of disruption to fuel supplies and that it is our responsibility to be prepared to act quickly to maintain essential services, particularly at this season of the year.
The Section of the Energy Act 1976 in question, Section 3, had not previously been activated. This was not something which we therefore did lightly. Careful thought was given before an order was sought in early September, and very careful thought has been given again to this issue. But it is our considered view that it is right and necessary to extend these powers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 12th September be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the order seeks powers under Sections 1 and 2 of the Energy Act 1976 in the aftermath of the September fuel blockades. I read about them—M the West Australian News. I therefore have no war stories to tell. However, I had to listen to Australians whingeing about their petrol going up to 38p. per litre. I concluded that Australians were lax on fuel use and on their commitment to reducing greenhouse gases.
On the face of it, Sections 1 and 2 seem to be largely written for the purposes of energy conservation and price control. However, reading Section 3, especially Section 3(1)(b), I see that it is more in line with the current situation of threatened disruption to fuel supplies. I understand that an Order in Council under Section 3 is in place and can last for 12 months.
All this has come about because of the blockades and the summer-long fuel price protest. So I have to ask why peaceful and legitimate protest and lobbying spilled over into unconstitutional blockades. I have to hope that the Government have taken all the necessary precautions to deal with the next blockade, if it occurs. That is quite an "if'.
I should like to think that the Government have by now listened to the protest and lobbying and that tomorrow the Chancellor will bring forward measures which will take the heat out of the issue. Should that not be the case, it will be necessary for the right balance to be struck between the right of peaceful protest and lobbying and the need for fuel to be delivered. The world's fourth largest economy needs to be kept on track. It falls to the Government to deal with the issues effectively and not to trigger off another blockade.
1438
We have heard about the training of military drivers and of company directors being reminded of their duty to deliver. Tanker drivers have also to consider the case for safety vis-é-vis blockades, provided that it is not a cover up for collusion.
The Minister is in an unfortunate position being unable, I presume, to give us a foretaste of the Chancellor's Statement tomorrow. I hope that action will be taken to reduce vehicle excise duty, which would be administratively easy to do. That would benefit rural areas where public transport is weak and, to an even greater extent, the remote areas and island groups, particularly in north-west Scotland. In these latter areas, the disproportionately high price of fuel has long demanded a reduction in vehicle excise duty in compensation just to bring motoring costs down to city and urban area levels. I also hope to hear about a measure to equalise the cost of cheaper fuel enjoyed by lorries operating in the United Kingdom and based in Europe.
This order will only be effective if the Government have met some of the demands of the protesters and have made real plans to overcome any blockade action which may still ensue.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lord, I am slightly surprised that the Minister was able to read his speech with an absolutely straight face, given what everybody knows is going to happen tomorrow. I would like to re-christen this order as the "Helen Liddell to Deeside in the Summer" order. It must have been very pleasant for the Minister to sortie to Deeside to see Her Majesty in the glory of a September day.
That is what we have here and it is being continued. Of course the Opposition agrees absolutely with the Government that when there is a serious threat to order in our country they should take these powers. However, the fact that we are discussing them the day before the Chancellor is due to dish out goodies as though there will be no day after tomorrow amuses me very slightly. The Minister said that there were threats to our fuel supplies. Most of the threats at the moment seem to be concerned with water and not petrol or diesel. That appears to be a far greater threat than to fuel supplies.
Even if we have a problem the Government will simply issue a list of petrol stations to which people in the emergency services can go. The problem of getting the petrol to those stations does not appear to have been tackled by the Government, unless they have come to some agreement with the fuel companies and the drivers. I thought I saw television pictures of the Minister's noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston sharing a press conference with the leader of the protesters saying that there was not going to be any great trouble. I do not believe that there will be.

1439
I suspect that tomorrow the Minister will buy off the summer protestors. It reminds me of Robert Burns' poem about a mouse in which he says,
"O what a panic's in thy breastie!".
The Chancellor will know that well. There seems to be an amazing panic. I do not believe that we will reduce the price of petrol, but prices will be reduced for some things for the farmers and a bit will be done for the road hauliers and so forth. Yet at the same time that amazing proponent of the English language, the Deputy Prime Minister, tells us that the floods are entirely due to global warming, the burning of fossil fuels and the motorist—and the haulier, I presume, burning petrol and diesel and pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If ever I saw a Government trying to have it both ways by their performance, I have seen that in the past week. I do not believe that global warming has much to do with it. The rain that normally falls in Scotland has fallen in England—and we have a far better drainage system in the north of Scotland than clearly there is in England. Equally, I remember five years ago there were droughts in England which were attributable to global warming. So it appears that drought and now floods are due to global warming. I am a little sceptical about that.
What I find really amazing is that in the same week that the Government are complaining about the use of motor cars and lorries and global warming, they are also prepared tomorrow to make it actually less expensive for people to motor and use their lorries. The Government have to make up their mind where they stand on this.
I am not going to go on about this. I have said my piece and I do not believe that these emergency powers will be used, as they were not implemented on the last occasion. But if the Government ever really needed to use them properly they would have our absolute support because we cannot allow the country to grind to a halt. The Government will have to be careful that they do not play this strange game too often. I remind them of the little boy who cried wolf far too often. The Government are in severe danger of doing that.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have listened with great care to the protesters since they began their cause. My noble friend the Minister of Transport, Lord Macdonald, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have met the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association and the People's Fuel Lobby, among others.
Government is about making decisions and if we agreed with the views of all lobbyists then the Government would probably be bankrupt within a short space of time.
I want also to make it clear that the reserve powers to which this Order in Council provides access enables us to make special arrangements to safeguard supplies of fuel to essential services. We very much hope that it will not be necessary to use the powers again in the foreseeable future. But we are quite certain that we
1440
have a duty to take appropriate precautionary measures. Although the noble Lord may see this order as being unnecessary, I believe he will agree that it is a sensible precaution to take in the circumstances.
He anticipates what the Chancellor will say tomorrow. That is unwise until we hear what it is. We can then debate what is the exact balance between lowering taxes on fuel to help people and the issue of global warming which is intimately related to it. I observe that the noble Lord raised that issue, but he did not say where his party stood on it or where he thought the balance should be struck. I respect him for that because it leaves the noble Lord total flexibility tomorrow to approach the subject from whichever direction he chooses.
He rightly pointed out that these particular powers do not tackle the problem of getting oil to the petrol stations. We have a memorandum of understanding with the oil companies, the police and the other participants on that.
As regards global warming, it is perfectly possible—indeed, the experts believe that it is very likely—that in the end there will be more rain in Scotland and a drier South. I am sure that he will be looking forward to that.
Finally, the Chancellor will deliver his Statement tomorrow explaining what we believe is right for the whole country and not what is right for those who shout the loudest. As a responsible Government we have a duty to ensure that essential supplies of fuel are kept moving. These reserve powers are a means to achieve that goal. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. [The sitting was suspended from 7.50 to 8.30 p.m.]

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 18.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 95:
Clause 18, page 11. line 3, leave out ("and with the general restrictions in Schedule 2") and insert ("with Schedule 2, with any restriction imposed under Chapter II, and with the law").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Government undertook to consider an amendment to extend the power of wardens to enforce restrictions under Chapter II. However, Clause 18(2)(a) as drafted does not appear to enable wardens to enforce restrictions on dogs under Schedule 2. The clause refers only to the general restrictions in the schedule. The restrictions on dogs are set out in a quite separate paragraph in the schedule.
The Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales are in favour of wardens being able to secure compliance with the law generally; for example, if someone commits a criminal offence on access land. It would seem odd for a warden to be able to enforce the rules in terms of civil abuse of a right of access, but not in terms of criminal abuse on access land. The amendment would rectify those deficiencies. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to Amendment No. 96 in discussing the issue of wardens before we adjourned for dinner. I hope that the House will accept that the amendment fulfils our commitment specifically to provide in Clause 18 that wardens may be appointed to enforce any restriction or exclusion imposed under Chapter II. It is sensible that access authorities should be able to appoint wardens for these purposes, and the amendment makes it possible. Let me make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that this includes enforcing restrictions on dogs.
We do not believe that wardens' powers should be extended, as proposed in Amendment No. 95, to enable them to enforce the law generally. Access authorities may appoint anyone as a warden. Such people could be part-time or they could be volunteers. There could he a dedicated number of paid wardens: they could be gamekeepers or members of a local conservation body. It would not be appropriate to set them up in effect as a new general police force, which would be the effect of the amendment. They will be able to deal with those who trespass on the land, for instance, because trespassers will be in breach of a restriction. They will be able to enforce by-laws, but they should not be expected to carry out law enforcement more generally. That should be the job of a police officer.
To be precise on the issue of dogs, the headings in Schedule 2 will be altered when the Bill is next printed. All the restrictions are general restrictions that can be enforced.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I should have spoken to Amendment No. 96 in moving the amendment. I thank him for coming forward with Amendment No. 96, which clarifies the position we discussed in Committee.
I understand why the Minister is not too happy about the thrust of my Amendment No. 95, particularly with reference to volunteer or part-time wardens. I should like a chance to reflect on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh Lord McIntosh moved Amendment No. 96:
Clause 18, page 11. line 4, at end insert—
("and any other restrictions imposed under Chapter II, (aa) to enforce any exclusion imposed under Chapter II,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 96A:
Alter Clause 18, insert the following new clause —

Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

  FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SCHEDULE 2, CHAPTER 2 OR BYELAWS ON ACCESS LAND
  (" .—(1) Where it appears to an access authority that a person has repeatedly or persistently failed to comply with Schedule 2 or with any restriction imposed under Chapter II, or committed an offence or offences and acted in contravention of byelaws on any access land, the access authority shall take such steps as appear to it to be appropriate to prevent or reduce future such failures, offences or breaches.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an access authority shall be entitled to all such remedies and reliefs as would have been available to the owner of, or any person interested in, that land.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, on the first day of the Report stage, we had a series of debates as to what was to be done about people who persistently disregarded the rules controlling the right of access. Everyone in this House recognises that most of those exercising the right of access will want to obey the rules, that any transgression will be inadvertent and that when it is pointed out to them they will apologise and obey.
  Equally, everyone—certainly the noble Lord. Lord McIntosh—accepts that there will inevitably be a few people who will transgress, who will not mend their ways when the rules are pointed out to them and who will be deliberately and persistently unco-operative. They will undoubtedly be relatively few, but they are the ones who will cause the aggravation and resentment. We have debated at some length the question of what is to be done about such persons.
  The fact that most people obey the law does not mean that we do not take steps to stop those who do not. The vast majority of people do not commit murder; but that does not mean that we need not do anything about the few who do. I do not suggest that this is comparative. What I am saying is that one needs some form of mechanism to deal with people who persistently flout the rules.
  The Government in their wisdom have determinedly refused to accept that flouting the rules could constitute either a criminal offence or provide grounds for an exclusion order. They say that this is a matter for the civil law of trespass and that the proper remedy in relation to someone who persistently flouts the law is an injunction. I am not wholly convinced by that argument. However, in this amendment I bow wholly to it, accept it and advance a method of dealing with the situation. It is in a genuine spirit of compromise that my amendment accepts the government position but says that, where there is a persistent offender, it is for the access authority to take the steps which it thinks appropriate. That is important to stop further breaches and to deal with the persistent offender who shows no signs of giving up his conduct.
  No doubt, if the amendment were enacted, the first step of the authority would be either a letter to the offender or a visit by, let us say, a warden, or both. As the visit or the letter would come from a public authority, no doubt in many cases it would be sufficient to deter the offender and cause him to mend his ways. But in circumstances where it did not, the

  1443
  amendment is backed by the final resort: the access authority being able to seek an injunction against a persistent offender and being entitled to such relief wherever the occupier of the land would himself have been entitled. In my respectful submission, my amendment is better and fairer in all respects in enabling and requiring the authority to do this. First, obviously, the authority will have a lot more clout than an individual owner. Secondly, the authority will know how to deal with the matter. It will have legal advisers and so on, who will be able to point it in the right direction to obtain an injunction if it needs to do so, and to write suitable letters.
  It is a daunting prospect for some tenant farmer whose sheep are being regularly chased or whose land is regularly being used for rave-ups, or whatever it may be, to see a solicitor and to be told that he must take injunction proceedings but that they will cost a great deal and the court may not give him the costs, that he will have to swear affidavits and so on. A tenant farmer, especially in the present climate of farming, has got better things to do with his time; and, indeed, probably does not have the money to do what will be required.
  Surely it would be much fairer if the costs of dealing with a persistent offender were borne by the authority rather than by the individual. He did not want people on his land in the first place: it is the Government who have decided to let them go there. But if those people decide to misbehave, surely the public authority should take steps to deal with the situation.
  I have wholly accepted the Government's position that this matter must be dealt with under civil law. I am simply saying that it should be for the access authority to take the steps that it believes to be "appropriate" to deal with the situation. If the offence is merely minor or technical, the authority can say to the owner, "Look, we know that that is strictly a breach, but it has not done any harm so let's forget it". If the matter is deemed to be more serious, the authority can approach the person concerned and try to persuade him to stop. However, if nothing will stop conduct that is seriously harmful, then, as a last resort, the access authority could apply to the courts for an injunction to which the occupier would have been entitled.
  I sincerely hope that the Government will accept that this as a serious, mid-way solution to trying to deal with this highly intransigent problem. As we have repeatedly said, unless the problem is solved in some way it will haunt this Bill for all time. If nothing can be done about a persistent offender, that will be a running sore that will wreck the co-operation that would undoubtedly, in everyone's mind, be the best way forward for this Bill. I beg to move.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the noble Viscount's amendment. As he said, we have failed to persuade the Government that there should be some resort to criminal sanctions against those who persistently disregard the arrangements under Schedule 2 and Chapter II. As the noble Viscount said, it seems to be an extremely modest
  1444
  amendment. If the access authorities were given the powers afforded to owners, I believe that people would perhaps take them more seriously. Indeed, we might go some way towards overcoming this deep-rooted problem within the Bill. Unless we can resolve it in some way, shape or form, the opportunities for conflict and bad feeling—something that we must try to avoid—will not be covered.
  The noble Viscount also referred to the question of costs being borne by the authorities. That, too, is a most important consideration. There are undoubtedly quite a number of owners and occupiers who may be affected by those who persistently ignore the restrictions under Schedule 2 and Chapter II, but who simply do not have the resources to pursue a civil action. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. It is a modest compromise but one which I believe would go quite a long way towards solving a problem that, quite frankly, needs to be solved if the Bill is to be effective.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I support the remarks made by the two previous speakers. There should be some point of last resort—some sort of provision—to deal with the situation, or one or two people could bring this legislation into disrepute by continually disobeying the rules because there is no sanction to stop them doing so. Bad publicity in press reports featuring those people would do the legislation an immense amount of harm. River wardens have much stronger powers than those that we are offering to wardens in this Bill, but they have the same sort of objective: they are stopping poaching, whereas our wardens will be stopping people from misbehaving on access land.
  As my noble friend Lord Peel said, this is a modest sanction. However, it is a provision that can only do good. I cannot see any reason that it could be accused of causing harm. I know that the Minister will talk about criminalisation, and so on, but this amendment would not do that. All we are asking is that the access authority should use its authority to deal with the transgressor. We do not suggest that that should be done by way of taking the offender to court to face a fine or worse. The fact that an authority would be able, with the full backing of its powers, to write a formal letter, or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, to send a warden to see the offender, would surely have more effect on an individual than just saying, "Look here, you mustn't do that again for 72 hours".
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. I do so mainly because I believe that the small farmer will feel desperate if nothing can be done in these circumstances. The news that he is desperate will get around among other farmers, which will badly damage the scheme. I can see from the noble Lord's face that he is very cross with me

  1445
  for intervening. However, he needs to realise that people will feel pretty desperate about this, and that is not a very nice feeling.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, support the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I talk to many different farmers, and those who live in rural areas, on my travels around the countryside. The one matter that is permanently raised is the whole question not just of crime but of an uneasiness in the countryside. I can only beg the Government to consider this sympathetically. I do not like to prejudge what the noble Lord will say; indeed, perhaps he will say that it is a great amendment and accept it. However, if he is unable to do so, perhaps he could tell us how the Government envisage coping with the problem.
  I believe that all quarters of the House have accepted that it is only a small minority of people who could ruin this Bill and spoil enjoyment of the countryside for the vast majority. If such amendments as the one now before The House—which, it is to be hoped, will deal with persistent offenders—are not accepted, how will the Government make it possible for the vast majority to enjoy the countryside when just a few may well disrupt that enjoyment? I hope that the Minister will he able to accept the amendment.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I must voice some concern about this amendment. Although I share the view that there needs to be some provision for what I would define as "wilful and persistent offences", especially against restrictions or exclusions imposed under Chapter II of the Bill, I do not believe that this amendment would achieve that aim. It starts off well by defining all the activities that people might do persistently and wilfully, but then it seems to peter out at the end with a kind of wishy-washy back end. The issue of persistent and wilful failure to comply with restrictions or exclusions imposed under Chapter II is sufficiently serious to need something more robust than the provisions suggested in this amendment. Although I cannot support the amendment, I believe that the concerns that have been expressed about persistent and wilful infringement are very valid.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Baroness concludes, can she tell me what she would do about my "wishy-washy back end"? I am delighted to be told that my back end is wishy-washy, but it would be a great help if the noble Baroness could say what should be done about persistent offenders. I agree that my amendment may be rather wishy-washy, but I cannot persuade her Front Bench to accept anything more forceful. I should like some guidance from the noble Baroness as to what she thinks should be done about wilful and persistent offenders.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I understand why my noble friends on this Front Bench would be unable to accept some of the broader provisions in the first part of the amendment. It seems to me that we should not criminalise some of the failures to comply with the restrictions in Schedule 2.
  1446
  It is more important to narrow down the offences to the wilful and flagrant breaking of restrictions or exclusions that have been imposed after a very thorough process of consultation. I believe that one could narrow this down and take out the words,
  "committed an offence … and acted in contravention of byelaws",
  for which there are already clear penalties provided in law. I do not think that we need to introduce anything further to back up by-laws or situations where an offence has clearly been committed. However, as regards restrictions or exclusions under Chapter II which are aimed at preventing things from happening rather than closing the door after the horse has bolted, and where damage has already occurred, there ought to be some rather stronger sanction which does not criminalise many of the provisions of the Bill but simply focuses on specific conditions and defines in some way "wilful and persistent" and produces a criminal offence.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I demand witness protection against the noble Baroness. Lady Carnegy. I did not think that I moved a muscle in my face. It is clear that I am a bad poker player. However, I do not think that I can be expected to sit on the Front Bench hour after hour with the face of a sphinx.
  Surely we have already shown in response to what the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said at earlier stages of the Bill—I pay tribute to his persistence in pursuit of persistent offenders—that we have positive proposals to deal with this problem. We have shown that in our response to the amendments on wardens and in Amendment No. 96—which has just been accepted—which widens the purposes for which wardens are to be employed. We have done all of those things. We have said that we expect authorities to make by-laws when they consider that that would help.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, asked me how the Government would cope with these problems. The Government will cope with them in a number of ways. The authorities could use these powers even where the problems caused resulted from the actions of only one person, for example, someone who visits the land most days and always leaves the gate open. I take that to be one version of being a persistent offender. The access authority could ask a warden to patrol the area in question. The warden will be able to inform the user of their rights and their responsibilities under the new right and may, if authorised by the owner, require the person to leave the land. Any such person will lose his right of access for the next 72 hours—that is another change that we have made during the passage of the Bill—so should he return the next day he will immediately be a trespasser and the warden would be able to respond.
  Local authorities have existing powers to seek injunctions under Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 where it is,
  "expedient for the promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their area".
  I acknowledge that this does not give them the same powers as the owner of the access land would hake, but it does give them powers to seek injunctions to restrain

  1447
  further conduct that would otherwise be unlawful or criminal and which is contrary to the interests of the wider community. This could include circumstances where someone persistently infringes Schedule 2 restrictions or restrictions imposed under Chapter II. We believe that the test in the 1972 Act is correct. It would not be right for local authorities to seek to enforce in the courts all cases of trespass arising under Part I. I have warned on many occasions during the course of this Bill against trying to meddle with the law of trespass which has survived many centuries of those who would wish to make it a more criminal procedure.
  However, this amendment would require action to be taken—
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain what the noble Lord is saying. As I understand the position, the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, simply gives the access authority powers that at the moment are vested in the owner. That in no way would allow the access authority to try to criminalise trespass, other than the fact that the perpetrator of a crime might commit a criminal offence. Trespass is still trespass and there is no criminal offence against it; it is just a question of transference of power.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall come on to the exegesis of the amendment in a moment but it comprises a requirement. It states,
  "shall take such steps as appear to it to be appropriate".
  The amendment requires action to be taken regardless of the seriousness of the breach, although it leaves unspecified what the action should be. County councils and national park authorities would be required to take action to stop any breaches of restrictions and the commission of any criminal offences. This would not be practical or desirable. It is in general for the prosecuting authorities, and in particular the police force, to enforce the criminal law and prosecute where it is right to do so.
  Apart from the access authorities, the countryside bodies and others have an important role to play in dealing with persistent breaches. For example, where there is a widespread and serious problem of damage being done in an area, it may be appropriate for the relevant authorities—not the access authorities—to make a direction excluding all access under the right for at least a period. We shall debate shortly the information duty which is to be placed on the countryside bodies. Information and education will be key to ensuring that public access does not cause problems.
  I appreciate that noble Lords who support the amendment have recognised that we are talking here about a small minority of the people who will enjoy, and benefit from, the right of access. That is a valuable recognition and one which brings us closer. However, I caution the House against proposing further powers against persistent offenders along the lines proposed by the amendment. All the way through the Bill we
  1448
  have adopted a light touch, both for users of the right of access and landowners. If we were to accept the amendment, surely in balance we would require access authorities to take action against landowners who wilfully and persistently obstruct or frustrate access. There are some who would like to do that, but I suggest that to criminalise what can normally and almost always be dealt with in a less severe manner would be a grave mistake.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, states clearly that the access authority,
  "shall take such steps as appear to it to be appropriate".
  I should have thought that that was relevant. The amendment does not state that it should always take steps or what steps should be taken. However, where the access authority considers it appropriate to take steps it should have the power to take them. Will the Minister clarify the position?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, part of my concern is that the amendment would require the access authority to take steps but does not make clear what those steps should comprise. As King Lear said:
  "We shall do such things, what they shall be I know not, hut they shall be the terror of the earth".
  9 p.m.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, it is an extraordinary position where in consecutive sentences from the Labour Benches, on the one hand, one is accused of being too wet and, on the other hand, one is accused of being too stringent. One might take that as a rather good demonstration that one had the position about right.
  I say with respect that the Minister's answer is one of the most unsatisfactory I have heard in some years. But before I discuss that I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that we are only trying here to deal with wilful and persistent offenders. We include by-laws because it is a well-known fact that occasionally a by-law carries such a small penalty that an offender continues to offend because he considers that to be taken to court and made to pay a £5 fine does not matter. There are well-known cases of that. I refer to the case of a flower seller in Birmingham where recourse has had to be taken to a civil injunction because the penalty for breach of the relevant by-law was so small that the offender deliberately continued with the offence. He preferred to pay the fine rather than obey the law. That is why I included by-laws in the amendment.
  However, if a prosecution under a by-law will suffice, that is the step that the access authority can regard as appropriate. It need only have recourse to an injunction if it decides at its discretion that the other steps that can be taken are not appropriate to achieve compliance.
  I turn to the reply of the Minister. He said, first, that we shall have wardens and they can inform people of their obligations. However, in Committee he told us

  1449
  that when he speaks to people on Hampstead Heath about their obligations in relation to their dogs their answers are mainly expletives. He and I politely deleted the expletives from our speeches. A warden may say to a man, "You realise that you should have your dog on a lead", and the reply is, "Well, (expletive deleted) that! I shall take him off the lead". If the warden cannot say, "I shall take some steps about that", he is powerless.
  The amendment does not provide enforcement against all trespassers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, it requires the local authority only to do what it thinks appropriate. If the local authority thinks that the breach is technical and harms no one, it can say, "Forget it". It may think that compliance can be secured by lesser means—writing a letter, visiting the man, or saying to him, "If you continue to do this, the result will be that you must stay off the land for 72 hours". However, the man may say, "You tell me I cannot come back within 72 hours, but I shall do so". Alternatively, the individual may come back and do the same thing after 73 hours. That provides little consolation to the owner.
  In an extraordinary way the Minister then dragged in the criminal law and said that one seeks to "criminalise" the situation. The whole point is that the amendment goes down the route that the Minister has recommended throughout: of keeping to the civil law. The amendment simply provides that where the civil law is appropriate it shall be for the access authority to invoke the civil law if the occupier cannot or will not do so.
  The noble Lord talked about the light touch. The light touch is all very well but it is not much good for dealing with the chap who gives two fingers to it. When the individual will not react to the light touch there has to be some scope for a slightly heavier touch. But the amendment does not seek to criminalise anything. It resorts to the civil law.
  I have heard the Minister's answer. In normal circumstances I would divide the House. However, I accept that this is the first time the proposition has been mooted. I suggest that the Government consider the issue again. If they do not do so, I give clear warning that I shall return to the matter at Third Reading. 1. beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 19 [Notices indicating boundaries, etc.]:
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 97:
  Clause 19, page 11, line 21, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, where reasonably practicable").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 and 99. I shall not detain the House. Amendments Nos. 97 and 102 speak for themselves. They replace "may" with "shall" making the provision more definite.
  Amendment No. 99 would insert,
  "in particular where a definitive map in conclusive form is not in existence".
  1450
  Clause 92 lays down the timetable that the Government envisage for the implementation of the Bill because different parts of the Bill will come into force at different times. We spoke about that at some length in Committee. For instance, the general provisions on access, the definition of excepted land and the provisions for controlling the mapping process come into force two months to the day from Royal Assent. The right to enter on to access land and the restrictions to be observed by people doing so will not come into force until the Secretary of State says so.
  We have heard many estimates of the length of the gap between those two enforcements. I have listened hard but I am not aware that the Government have been definitive, nor that they have taken serious exception to any of the intervals suggested, or even stated whether they intend to authorise Clause 2 over the whole country at once or area by area. Indeed, their thinking may have moved on since we discussed the matter in Committee.
  On the other hand, many people outside this I-louse believe already that the Government have granted open access to everywhere—lowland, upland fell land or cultivated fields. I have mentioned previously the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It mentions this phenomenon in its document on the implications of enhanced access to the open countryside. It states:
  "Chartered surveyors across the country report members of the public claiming they now have 'freedom to roam' because 'it says so in the paper"'.
  Indeed, at the weekend the issue was raised again with me in Norfolk and Suffolk.
  This situation is with us; it has not gone away. I suspect that it will not go away. Later amendments deal directly with the matter which needs to be tackled. There are issues of safety. Access land may require work to make it safe. There are issues of land management. The occupiers have not yet put into place the alterations necessary to accommodate the public, and have not moved to an alternative location things they wish to retain for themselves.
  The only people who can make any impression on the problem are the access authorities. The Bill should make it abundantly clear that they have a duty to do so and quickly. We believe that our amendment is a neat method of ensuring that they do. I support Amendment No. 103 which my noble friend Lord Peel will move shortly. I beg to move.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 98, 100 and 103. I welcome Amendment No. 101 which the Minister will move. It is a help and provides for owners to be consulted before notices are erected on their land. But I wonder why the words "reasonably practicable" appear. I suggest that the precedent for such consultation is already well established in Section 27(1) of the Countryside Act 1968 which relates to signs showing where footpaths leave metal roads. That Act contains a simple reference to consultation with the owner or occupier and no mention of the words "if reasonably practicable". Why do the Government

  1451
  want to introduce those words into the Bill? They are unnecessary and create an additional problem for the access authority.
  I have no intention of going back over the arguments about the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act 1872 or the Quarries and Mines Act 1954. We had a good debate in Committee about liability and the additional costs that owners were likely to incur because of the access provisions. Amendment No. 100 is straightforward. It says:
  "An access authority shall take such steps and carry out such work (including the erection and maintenance of fences, signs or notices) as appear to it requisite for protecting the public from any source of danger".
  Once again, we come back to the thorny question of who will be responsible for protecting the public from such dangers on access land. It is not reasonable that the owner should be responsible. As I explained when we discussed liability, in some cases the landowner could incur considerable expense. The amendment would go some way towards dealing with that, but it would not negate the liability issue. An access authority may decide not to fence the land if that does not appear "requisite", as the amendment says. However, at least the amendment would go some way and would ensure that the authority was responsible for dealing with the problem of dangers on access land.
  Amendment No. 103 relates to signs and notices. In Committee my noble friend Lord Jopling demolished a similar amendment, rightly pointing out that it was defective, as it referred to any sign, regardless of its provenance. I hope that the new version will be more acceptable. It may not be necessary, but the point is so important that it needs some airing.
  The notices and signs erected under Clause 19 will be essential in getting across information to the public. I hope that they will provide a comprehensive account of any general restrictions under Schedule 2 or Clause 2 and information on any by-laws and access land boundaries. I very much hope that the access authorities will also use them to provide general information about the land and why it is managed in the way that it is. That educational element could help to erode any conflict that might arise.
  Unfortunately, signs and notices are too often defaced or removed. I speak from experience on that. Given their vital role for the successful implementation of the Bill, a criminal sanction is required to protect them, if one does not already exist. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's response.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am very often on my noble friend's side. I am sympathetic with his wish that the cost of signs should not be borne by the person who owns or occupies the land. However, I am worried about the possible results of the wording of the amendment, particularly the words "shall", "requisite" and "any source of danger".
  The countryside should be as unspoilt and as beautiful as possible. I would generally rely on a landowner to respect that view, but I am worried that
  1452
  a local authority with a statutory obligation expressed in the words of the amendment would go over the top. We could end up with an awful plethora of signs, repetitions of signs and goodness knows what. Frankly, I believe that the landscape is much too precious to take that risk. Therefore, I would not be happy with Amendment No. 100, put forward by my noble friend.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I start by reminding the House that, although grave matters have been discussed in this short debate, Clause 19 concerns notices. It is not a fundamental part of the Bill, although I do not deny that notices can be most valuable as well as, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, potentially dangerous.
  I speak first to government Amendment No. 101 which provides that, before an access authority erects a notice on access land under Clause 19, it should, where reasonably practicable, consult the owner or occupier of the land. This amendment meets the commitment that we made in Committee to introduce a duty on access authorities to consult, similar to their duty under Section 27(1) of the Countryside Act 1968 to consult before erecting signposts on rights of way.
  I was asked why that duty is qualified by "if reasonably practicable". It can often be difficult to assert the identity of the owner or occupier of land, particularly where the land is unregistered and where there is no obvious person in occupation. That does occur in areas of open country. If the requirement were not qualified in that way, the access authority might be required to erect a notice simply to inform "anyone whom it may concern" that it intended to erect another notice using its powers under Clause 19. I believe that the House will agree that that would not make very good sense. Therefore, the qualified requirement meets all reasonable demands for consultation.
  I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 97 would place a duty on authorities to erect notices indicating the boundaries of access and excepted land and giving information as to the effect of restrictions or other information about access land wherever it is reasonably practicable to do so. What is "reasonably practicable" in this case? I know what the phrase means when it refers to identifying owners. However, in this instance "reasonably practicable" could mean that they should not bump into each other but should be placed apart at a distance, say, of 3 feet. I do not know what is intended.
  Our intention is that the authority should be able to erect signs where they are most needed, perhaps at frequently used means of access or locations where the boundary of access land may not be clear. However, here "reasonably practicable" seems to run the risk—again, identified by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—of flooding our uplands with unnecessary signs. I do not believe that anyone wants to see that.
  We believe that it is right for local authorities to use their discretion in assessing where and when notices are required. As I said, government Amendment

  1453
  No. 101 places those authorities under a duty to consult, if reasonably practicable, the owners or occupiers of land before erecting notices. Therefore, I believe that we could expect people on the ground, so to speak, to reach sensible agreements without adding this amendment to the Bill.
  Amendment No. 98 would require that access authorities should consult,
  "persons interested in the land".
  Again, I have lent my support to consultation. However, who are persons interested in the land? As I said in Committee, "interest" is defined in Clause 41 as including any estate in land and any right over land, including by virtue of a licence or agreement. That would mean common or sporting rights over the land. It would not be practicable to require consultation with all those interests, of which there could be hundreds in a particular area. The notices would not have any impact on most of the people who would be required to be consulted.
  Amendment No. 99 would require access authorities to erect notices,
  "in particular where a definitive map in conclusive form is not in existence".
  However, the right of access will not come into force until definitive maps are in existence. It would not be appropriate to erect notices before the right comes into force purely to inform the public that they do not have a right of access. That is the only sense that I can make of this amendment.
  Amendment No. 100 concerns the safety of those who exercise the new right of access and how it should be protected. We have made clear that those who exercise the new right should take responsibility for their own safety. I believe that that is the fundamental principle to which we must adhere. It is not for government or anyone else to take the necessary steps to ensure that no one is injured, lost or damaged in any way in our countryside. That would be the nanny state carried to absurd extremes. People expect to take risks; they do so now and they will continue to do so. Some people glory in it. I cannot think why, but they do. That is why we have substantially removed occupiers' liability in relation to the natural features of the landscape.
  Government Amendment No. 73, to which we have already agreed, removes occupiers' liability in respect of any river, stream ditch or pond, whether or not it is a natural future, and also removes liability in respect of someone suffering injury when climbing or walking through a wall, fence or gate. Government Amendment No. 77 provides for the courts to have regard to, in considering questions of liability, the need to ensure that the new right of access does not place an undue burden on the owner or occupier of land.
  I understand concerns that landowners should not be subject to additional costs. But local authorities will have, in some circumstances, powers to remove dangers on land and to make payments to others who carry out works to prevent or remove danger. In addition, land which poses a danger to the public by
  1454
  virtue of anything done or proposed to be done to the land—such as, for example, quarrying—may be closed to access under Clause 23 of the Bill.
  There may be some cases where the landowner is obliged to fence dangers such as quarries. If the noble Earl, Lord Peel, wants to talk about that between now and a later stage, I am happy to do that. But in many cases they already have those duties under existing legislation. There are duties under environmental protection legislation and under health and safety legislation which require landowners or employers to remove dangers.
  And of course, access authorities will have the power under Clause 19 to erect notices informing the public of any hazards on the land where the access authority feels that warning is needed. So it is not necessary to give those access authorities a duty to fence off that land.
  Finally, Amendment No. 103 would make the removal or defacement of a notice erected under Clause 19 a criminal offence. I agree that notices should be protected from vandalism and I am happy to inform the noble Earl, Lord Peel, that they are already protected under existing criminal law. Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 provides that a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending I o destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. Will he give me an assurance that that criminal activity of removing or defacing a notice will appear in the code of practice? I say that because it is such an integral part of implementing the access agreements that I believe it should be made absolutely clear to everybody that removing or defacing a sign is a criminal offence.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with that and I shall draw the noble Earl's remarks to the attention of those who are drawing up the codes of practice.
  Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 102. We have provided that access authorities may contribute to the cost of a landowner erecting a suitable notice or may refund the cost in full. We have not made that a requirement because authorities must be able to use their discretion in judging whether a contribution should be made.
  It may well be reasonable for authorities to reimburse landowners who have put up useful and informative signs. But I do not see a need for a plethora—again, I use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford—of signs on open country, and I do not want to promote such an outcome by providing that signs will always be funded at public expense.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full reply to the amendments. I smiled slightly when he asked where we got "reasonably practical"

  1455
  from. Indeed, had I known that in response to my amendment he was going to use the words "most needed", perhaps I should have considered those words to be more appropriate than "reasonably practical". But that is another matter.
  I thank the Minister for his response. I am well aware that noble Lords on all sides of the House do not wish to see the countryside swamped with notices. That is something that we certainly do not want to see. But we feel that there should be sufficient notices at the right time and in the right place. That is why we chose the words "reasonably practical".
  I turn to Amendment No. 101. I thank the Government for coming back with that amendment. We spoke about it in Committee and the Minister promised to return with an amendment, which we are now very pleased to have. The words "reasonably practical" do not cause concern to those of us on the Front Bench. The direction is that the owners should be consulted wherever it is reasonably practical to do so and we are grateful for that. Therefore, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
  Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 100:
  Clause 19, page 11, line 30, at end insert—
  ("( ) An access authority shall take such steps and carry out such work (including the erection and maintenance of fences, signs or notices) as appear to it requisite for protecting the public from any source of danger on access land or on adjoining land.").
  The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may respond to the comments made by my noble friend. I entirely subscribe to his view. The last thing in the world we want to see is unnecessary signs and fencing cluttering up the countryside. I do not know whether the noble Lord was present when we had the discussions on liability, but it became abundantly clear that landowners will be far more responsible for dealing with mineshafts and quarries under the liability provisions—
  Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. Perhaps I may intervene on a point of order. Not only does he need the leave of the House to speak twice to his amendment; he needs to move it if he wants to make a speech.
  A noble Baroness: It is a new amendment.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I believe that I am correct in what I am doing. The point I should like to make is that my amendment would not necessarily result in what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the wording, which states:
  "as appear to it requisite",
  which refers to the authority. It is very precise. If the authority decided that it was inappropriate to do so, they would not do so. However, if there was a danger to the public, which they thought it necessary to
  1456
  protect, this provision would give them the power to do so. It would place a duty on them to do so. I beg to move.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, if local authorities are put under that sort of obligation, a person in a junior position would probably say, "It is more than my job's worth not to put up a sign by that rabbit hole". (I do not speak literally.) That is human nature. We want to avoid that position. We must keep the countryside as unspoilt as possible. I agree with the Minister when he says that there are risks; these are the risks of everyday life and country life, and let us all accept them.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, that is absolutely fine. If we state that people should take responsibility for their own safety, as the Minister has said, they will simply sue the landowner because he has not followed the necessary safety requirements in order to prevent an accident from happening. I have heard the comments of the noble Lord. I am not happy about it. We shall come back to this issue at Third Reading. However, in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 101:
  Clause 19, page 11, line 33, at end insert—
  ("(2A) Before erecting a notice on any land under subsection (1) the access authority shall, if reasonably practicable, consult the owner or occupier of the land.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 104:
  After Clause 19, insert the following new clause—

  CODES OF CONDUCT AND OTHER INFORMATION
  (" .—(1) In relation to England, it shall be the duty of the Countryside Agency to issue, and from time to time revise, a code of conduct for the guidance of persons exercising the right conferred by section 2(1) and of persons interested in access land, and to take such other steps as appear to them expedient for securing—

  (a) that the public are informed of the situation and extent of, and means of access to, access land, and

  (b) that the public and persons interested in access land are informed of their respective rights and obligations under this Part.

  (2) In relation to Wales, it shall be the duty of the Countryside Council for Wales to issue, and from time to time revise, a code of conduct for the guidance of persons exercising the right conferred by section 2(1) and of persons interested in access land, and to take such other steps as appear to them expedient for securing the results mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).
  (3) A code of conduct issued by the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales may include provisions in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2) and in pursuance of section 86(1) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
  (4) The powers conferred by subsections (1) and (2) include power to contribute towards expenses incurred by other persons.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 104 introduces a new clause into the Bill which is intended to ensure that the public and landowners

  1457
  have adequate information about their rights and responsibilities under the new right of access. It fulfils the commitment we made in Committee following concerns expressed in all quarters of the House.
  The new clause places a new duty on the countryside bodies to issue a code of conduct for the guidance of those exercising the new right, and to take the steps which they believe are necessary to ensure that the public are informed of the situation, extent of and means of access to access land. It also places a duty on them to take the necessary steps to ensure that the public and landowners are informed of their rights and obligations generally.
  The code of conduct issued under this clause may also contain information which goes beyond the new right of access—information relating to national parks, AONBs and long distance routes. The Countryside Agency already has a duty to provide information about access opportunities in these areas under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. It seems sensible that the agency should have the option of fulfilling that duty and the new similar duty in relation to access land.
  Under this new clause, the countryside bodies will also have the option of contributing towards expenses incurred by third parties in providing information about the new right of access. That provides an extra flexibility in terms of trying to ensure that the information gets across. I beg to move.
  9.30 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 105:
  Line 10, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Parts I to III of this Act").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we welcome the Government's Amendment No. 104 which, as the Minister said, was widely called for on all sides of the Chamber in Committee. At that time we moved Amendment No. 103 which sought to put a statutory requirement for a country code on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 105 seeks to widen that requirement from just Part I of the Bill into Parts II and III.
  Noble Lords will agree that, if there is to be a country code, it should cover open access land, farmland through which rights of way run and SSSIs, whether or not they are in open access land or other parts of the countryside. We are therefore keen that the country code should spread through all parts of the Bill.
  In moving this amendment, I wish to make a couple of points. First, there is no mention in Amendment No. 104 of the specific need about which I spoke in Committee; that is, that the Department for Education should take this matter seriously and include it in the national curriculum. Although the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales will no doubt do a good job of informing the public about their rights and responsibilities, it is easier if children are taught those things at an early age. If it were introduced through the national curriculum as
  1458
  generations went through school, then people would understand it as an innate part of their education rather than having to learn it later in life.
  Secondly, this is one of the most important parts of our amendments this evening. People should know what their responsibilities are. It affects the issue of informing people that one is walking at night, not only because it is sensible to do so, but also because it causes much less difficulty. People should know when and where to keep their dogs on lead. This clause is probably the most important in ensuring that areas of conflict do not happen. We warmly welcome Amendment No. 104, but also hope that the Government will accept our Amendment No. 105. I beg to move.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I welcome the Government's Amendment No. 104 and also that of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Amendment No. 105. I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 138 and, as on many previous occasions, declare an interest as a land manager and a land owner outside an access area but with footpaths running through the land.
  I want to encourage the Government more fully to address the area of guidance and information. I believe there is concern that it is a weak area of the Bill How is the Bill to work well if up-to-date information on guidance and information is not easily disseminated.
  The aim of Amendment No. 138 is to ensure, through legislation, that a variety of guidance, information and its mechanisms are made as widely available and accessible to the public as it is to those who live and work in the countryside.
  It is important for those accessing the country to have the necessary and most up-to-date information so as not only to enjoy it to the full but also while there to conduct themselves properly according to the guidelines and regulations. That should help ensure that conflict between everyone is kept to a minimum. After all, at the end of the day one of the criteria on which the Bill will be judged will be the amount of conflict it has created in the countryside. The amendment covers some of the types of guidance which should be made available as well as the publishing of information on the mechanisms which disseminate the information. One might expect that a website or similar technological instrument would be such a mechanism.
  Surely, it is correct that up-to-date and necessary information is easily available to all those requiring it. Imagine the annoyance and frustration of those seeking access if such up-to-date information and guidance were not easily available. Let us take, for example, a person who journeys a long way with the aim of going on to access land only to find that his planned route has been spoilt by a diversion or, worse still, a correctly implemented 28 day type closure, as in Clause 21. Perhaps a closure may be due to a hazard such as fowl pest, foot and mouth disease or swine fever, as occurred recently—or, worse still, a Chernobyl-type disaster.

  1459
  Certainly the wardens, land managers or landowners may well be put into a difficult position where conflict may occur. The names of access authorities should also be readily available. It is good practice to inform an authority if one's planned journey involves risks such as rock climbing, as we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. Names of access authorities should also be readily available in the event of accidents. The up-to-date telephone numbers should be easy to find. Any person looking for such information should have no difficulty finding the codes of practice for the countryside, helping to minimise the conflict which might arise through ignorance.
  Other such examples, as are required for the Countryside Agency to disseminate information efficiently, can be found in Clause 23, which requires relevant authorities to restrict access if they are satisfied that due to exceptional weather conditions the area becomes a fire risk; in Clause 28, which allows for indefinite exclusion of access for the purpose of conserving flora and fauna; or in Clause 26, which allows the Secretary of State to exclude or restrict access for the purpose of national security or defence.
  In order easily to find such guidance and information, it would seem logical that information on the mechanisms should be published. I draw on my experience as an aviator to show how the CAA has disseminated information. It has used a host of methods such as "Dial-up fax forecasts for pilots" (better known as fax polling); "Met call-up direct" ("met" referring to the weather forecast); met on websites; and many other methods as well as the standard information found at airfields. The CAA publicises that information in a booklet entitled GET MET aviation weather services 2000 and it carries sponsors names. One would expect that numerous firms would sponsor similar exercises for the countryside.
  Finally, our local police, the Thames Valley Police use a Ringmaster Message service. That mechanism informs local land managers and owners and other interested parties of thefts and other such things, using e-mail and fax systems. That helps to ensure that the countryside works better not only for those who live and work in it but also for those who visit it. Will the Countryside Agency also use such devices?
  Lord Greaves: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, in relation to Amendment No. 138. The second part of his amendment contains a great deal of good sense. I emphasise the need for comprehensive information once areas of access come on stream, particularly in relation to restrictions and the closure of land at certain times. It is vital that such information is easily available to anyone who wants it. As part of the amendment suggests, the obvious way to do that nowadays is via the Internet. As to that, there is a great deal of experience. I do not apologise for again drawing on the experience of the British Mountaineering Council. If one wants to climb on any
  1460
  open crag in the British Isles one can discover what restrictions are in force, whether they relate to birds or access, or obtain information about how to reach it, where to park and so on, on the appropriate website. Not only do an increasing number of people have access to the Internet, but it is a very good way to provide details at local information points which many people will visit. It is crucial that that information is available nationally and is comprehensive and up to date. Having said that, I do not believe that that needs to be on the face of the Bill. It will be helpful if the Minister indicates whether he is thinking along those lines.
  Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 104. I was one of those who in the earlier stages of the Bill pressed the case for the availability of information as an essential element to ensure that when enacted the legislation could be implemented in good spirit and without contention. I am pleased that we have a new clause which builds codes of conduct into the Bill. I am also pleased with the wording of the clause which refers, in particular, to the public being,
  "informed of the situation and extent of, and means of access to, access land".
  That will give rise to a better situation, and I thank the Government for it.
  The question of timing is raised by another important amendment in the group. I describe it as the final fling of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in that Amendment No. 264B is the penultimate amendment at this stage of the Bill. To assist the implementation of this Bill, it is essential that the codes of conduct, which are well provided for in Amendment No. 104, are available as soon as possible. The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness makes a direct link between codes of conduct and the implementation of Clause 2 of the Bill, which in many ways is desirable. I do not insist on building that into the Bill, but it is important that codes of conduct are quickly available because that is what the public and all those concerned with the right to roam need.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I too welcome Amendment No. 104, which deals with the question of informing the public about the permanent situation; namely, what is access land, where it is and how to get to it. However, how do the Government intend to inform the public about more transient matters, such as exclusion periods and so on? Clearly, they cannot be included in a code of conduct which no doubt will be a permanent document like The Highway Code that is printed and in circulation. However, the public need to be informed in some way of exclusions and so on. Amendment No. 138, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, does not begin to deal with that since Clause 31, which he seeks to amend, relates only to areas within the governance of the National Parks Authority or the Forestry Commission. These organisations are probably the best placed to deal with the situation. I should like the

  1461
  Minister to say how he sees information being promulgated with regard to temporary situations such as exclusion orders and so on.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Walpole: My Lords, I do not want to repeat what my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has just said. That would be a waste of time. I believe that Amendment No. 105, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is absolutely essential. I hope that the Government accept it. The amendment makes behaviour in the countryside relevant not only to access land—in which I have no personal interest whatever—but highly relevant to lowland walks and much of the footpath network, in which I have an interest. It also helps to protect wildlife. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on it.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I welcome government Amendment No. 104 which requires the Countryside Agency or the CCW to draw up a code of conduct. Perhaps I may also draw attention to another element of that amendment which refers to "other steps". I believe that it is important that the contents of that code are widely promulgated. A major exercise should start soon in order to get the public clued up about the requirements of this very different set of access provisions which will come into force when the Bill becomes law.
  Amendment No. 105 standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, has one slight inconsistency. I understand the wish to have a code of conduct that covers all the elements of access to the countryside. But it would be rather rash to ask the Countryside Agency to have responsibility for a code under Part III, which deals primarily with nature conservation. The Countryside Agency is a wonderful organisation, but, alas, not entirely au fait with all the provisions under nature conservation. I should declare an interest and say that if such a code were to exist, English Nature would have the responsibility for drawing up Part III.
  The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I, too, support Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, perhaps with the reservations given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I should like also to endorse what the noble Baroness said about the need to disperse this information as widely as possible.
  Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he would consider the possibility of leafleting households throughout the country. It is a quite simple procedure these days. We get leaflets about all kinds of matters. The leaflets could have a brief résumé of the code and tell people where the code will be available. Perhaps the Minister could consider also whether the Government propose that the code should be available in bookshops and various countryside stores; for example, farm shops could have copies of the code.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this has been the happiest afternoon of the proceedings on the Bill. I am beginning to believe that at the end of the proceedings
  1462
  we may have an Act which is enforceable and workable. I strongly support—with one reservation to which I shall come in a minute—Amendments Nos. 104 and 105. I should like to speak also to Amendments No. 264A, 264AA and 264B, although they do not all stand in my name.
  Perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 138, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. The amendment in its present form it is not ideal. It has been good to hear the debate again around the House. It is a debate that we had quite early in Committee. Noble Lords were told that the amendment is an absolutely necessary basis for the functioning of the Bill—the spread of information, the method of getting the message across and of informing the general public of restrictions of rights and of all the matters that go within the Bill.
  On the first day in Committee I made the point to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that the Government needed to promote at an early stage a serious education programme. If my memory serves me right, which it very rarely does nowadays, she said that the DfEE would be working with the DETR and that we would see another example Of joined-up government. I find it encouraging that that has come through.
  Amendments Nos. 264A, 264AA and 264B are critical to the management of the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Williamson pointed out, they are essentially about timing. While we support Amendments Nos. 104 and 105, it is important that the structures, the codes of practice, the information systems and so on should be in place before the Bill becomes law and access is available on a nation-wide basis.
  In summary, we support Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 with the proviso that codes of practice, management structures and structures for the dissemination of information are in place before the Bill becomes law.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, first, I wish to address the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. Amendment No. 105 would extend the terms of Amendment No. 104 to Parts II and III of the Bill. At first sight, it seems a very sensible amendment and certainly the spirit of it and the intention to require the Countryside Agency to provide a comprehensive guide to all of these matters seem highly desirable. However, there are some difficulties.
  Whereas Part I of the Bill is in effect the totality of law on access, Part II is only part of the law in relation to rights of way and, as my noble friend Lady Young implied, Part III is only part of the law in relation to conservation, biodiversity and AONBs. There is also the question of which is the authoritative agency in this respect. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that I shall have another look at the matter to see whether there is a better way of achieving what she wishes in this context—that is, trying to combine existing duties on the Countryside Agency to provide such guidance,

  1463
  including the Country Code, and a clear statement that it must provide this code of conduct in relation to Part I and put it within a broader context of advice on the countryside. Perhaps I may speak to the noble Baroness between now and Third Reading about how best we could do that.
  The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked about the Country Code and the national curriculum. We have already started on that in a sense. The Countryside Agency via the national forum has produced an access information plan which will produce a range of leaflets and information for use in schools. Further than that, stipulating what is in the national curriculum is probably beyond the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, it is our clear intention to deliver that.
  Perhaps I may turn now to Amendment No. 138, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick. I accept the spirit of what he intends to achieve. Certainly, the Government are committed to the need to ensure that, as far as possible, adequate information, including some of the particular information to which the noble Lord referred, is provided to the public and to other bodies. Furthermore, it is right that the guidelines for local authorities should be as transparent as possible.
  However, Amendment 138 is based on something of a misinterpretation of the scope of Clause 31. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, pointed out, Clause 31 relates only to the role of national park authorities and the Forestry Commission as relevant authorities. The other issues to which the noble Lord's amendment refer do not relate to Clause 31. Guidance under this clause is likely to address such matters as the criteria for assessing applications for directions under Clauses 22 and 23 and the desirability of making such directions under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2.
  The broad aim of the amendment is correct, but I do not think that it is appropriate at this point in the Bill. The greater scope of Amendment No. 104, which will require the countryside bodies to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the public are fully informed of matters relating to the new rights, is a better of way of proceeding. That is because, in a sense, it will cover not only the standing rights but also what have been described by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, as transient rights. There is an obligation to try to maximise the information in various ways. That includes all means from websites to leaflets and notices in car parks. The obligation will be all-embracing.
  Again, I appreciate the intention behind the amendment to Amendment No. 104 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller; namely, a requirement on the countryside body to provide information on the totality of the Bill and on other aspects of countryside law.
  For the reasons I have given, and while I sympathise with the intentions that lie behind the amendment, I believe that these areas are covered largely by Amendment No. 104 or by existing legislation. I hope
  1464
  that noble Lords will accept the reassurances that I have given as regards information and that the amendment will not be pressed.
  The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—amendments referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, as "Baroness Byford's last fling", although I am sure that that was uncharitable and that the noble Baroness still has plenty of "flings" to go—relate to the question of timing and again to the requirement to produce information. They would require that the new right of access could not be brought into force until the agencies had fulfilled their duty under the "code of conduct" amendment. The requirement under Amendments Nos. 264A and 264B to produce a Countryside Code already exists under Section 86 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and will be augmented by the adoption of Amendment No. 104.
  The code of conduct will also provide information for those interested in the land about the use of discretionary closures under Clause 21 as well as restrictions and exclusions generally covered by Chapter II. The countryside bodies will need to have such systems in place before the right comes into effect. We do not anticipate any possibility of the right of access coming into effect before both the relevant regulations are in place and the code of conduct has been produced. I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary to put those restrictions on to the face of the Bill. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness or the noble Lord will not pursue the amendments.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand that the Government wish to move in the direction of opening out the Countryside Code so that it will no longer matter which agency is responsible for it. What is important is that the public will be clear about what they can do, and where. If, between now and Third Reading, we can work towards that, I shall be very pleased. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment No. 105, as an amendment to Amendment No. 104, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment No. 104 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Interpretation of Chapter II]:
  10 p.m.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106:
  Clause 20, page 12, line 9, after ("Chapter") insert (", except section (Dogs on certain land)(1),").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 107 had been renumbered as Amendment No. 117A]
  Clause 21 [Exclusion or restriction at discretion of owner and others]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 108:
  Clause 21, page 12, line 40, at end insert—
  ("( ) Subject to subsections (2) and (6), an entitled person may, by giving notice to the relevant authority in accordance with regulations under section 30(1)(a), exclude or restrict access by virtue or section 2(1) to any land on a Saturday between August 11th and February 2nd where that land is used commercially for shooting.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to the different and perhaps slightly more thorny subject of restriction days. I shall refer to the total amount of time available for restrictions and also refer to Saturdays and Sundays.
  Before I speak to Amendment No. 108, I should like to thank the Minister for introducing Amendment No. 117 and for having moved so far with us. Perhaps I should not do so, but, regrettably, I am going to ask for more.
  Amendment No. 108 seeks to allow landowners to close land on Saturdays during the game shooting season, although it is flexible enough to allow closure for other legitimate reasons during this period. The amendment is necessary because the Bill, as drafted, does not allow closure of land on a Saturday during the main part of the shooting season without the owner going through the bureaucratic hurdle of applying to the Countryside Agency. The majority of game shooting takes place on a Saturday, mainly because this is when most people can take the opportunity to shoot, and also because, by law, game cannot be shot on Sundays.
  The importance of shooting to the economy and conservation of rural areas is crucial. More than £653 million is spent on shooting per year and much of the countryside is conserved by shooting interests. It is important to note that much shooting takes place during the harsh winter months. The public are much more likely to want to enjoy access to land during the spring and summer months. Furthermore, the amendment would not deter the public from enjoying access on a Sunday during the period 12th August to 1st February, something which is denied, by law, to shooters. The rural economy often depends on sporting activities such as shooting during the winter months, particularly as it is the very time when other tourists are less likely to visit remote areas.
  The amendment strikes an appropriate balance: it would allow those members of the public who wish to enjoy their right of access during the winter months to do so on Sundays; and it would not preclude land managers from shooting on the most popular day of the week during the statutory game season—that is, on Saturdays.
  During the Committee stage the Minister did not accept a similar amendment for three principal reasons. First, the Minister argued that the amendment was a way of extending the 28-day maximum period for the discretionary closure of land. This amendment does not allow that. Currently the Bill does not allow closure on Saturdays at all without
  1466
  prior permission from the countryside authorities. The amendment would allow Saturday closures at the landowner's discretion, but without exceeding the permitted 28 days. Indeed, there are only 25 Saturdays between 11th August and 2nd February. I bear in mind that the Government have already given us four Saturdays.
  Secondly, the Minister was concerned that land could be closed for the whole of August, when most people take their holidays, or for seven weekends across the summer, restricting access for people whose only time for walking is at weekends. The amendment does not do that. Closure could only take place on a Saturday which, by law, is the only day of the weekend when shooting can take place. Walkers can enjoy their recreation on either day. It seems unfair that the Minister should argue against Saturday closures because he recognises that this is the time when most people enjoy walking at weekends. In doing so, he denies the same opportunity to those who enjoy shooting on the day when most people take part in the sport.
  It is also important to note that closure in the vast majority of cases will relate to small parcels of land. It simply would not be in the interests of landowners to close more land than is necessary as that would use up the quota on other parts of the land. Therefore, walkers on the whole will encounter only minor closures on a Saturday. That is our submission as regards Amendment No. 108.
  Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments Nos. 109 to 117. Amendment No. 109 concerns 28 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Bank Holidays in which, without having to cope with walkers, to carry out such operations as may be necessary to maintain the terrain, the livestock and wildlife. We suggest that that is not very much. To that there may have to be added matters such as lambing. I have listened carefully to the arguments on this from the government spokesman. I am still not clear whether the Government intend that the 28 days in the Bill should satisfy all normal land management needs, with extensions allowed only in exceptional cases. The fact that at this stage, and after all that has been said, Clauses 22(3)(c) and 24(4) are still in the Bill inclines me to believe that the Government intend the 28 days to be the normal closure entitlement for the year.
  In addition, I also understand that the area closed for any period of 28 days may vary. I see the noble Lord nodding. As an owner or manager one may have a series of 28 days referring to different acreage and parts of the estate.
  As regards Amendment No. 110, the wording as it stands seems to imply that there may be an intentional loophole whereby in certain unspecified circumstances another person having an interest in the land would deliberately not be counted or conceivably might be allowed their own 28-day portion. Either way, we believe that the law should not contain a doubt and the removal of the conditional conjunction is necessary.
  Finally, I refer to Amendment No. 116. Once again I wish to acknowledge what the Government have given in their own Amendment No. 117. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly to the amendments standing in my name so that the Government's position is clear. Amendment No. 117, with the consequential Amendment No. 113, provides that, as part of the discretionary allowance of 28 days, a person entitled to that allowance should be able to restrict access or close their land without seeking further approval for up to four days at the weekend, although not on Saturdays between 1st June and 11th August and not on Sundays between 1st June and 30th September. That replaces the situation where none of the 28 days could have been used at weekends. It is a response to the anxieties expressed by a number of noble Lords both on the part of those who use the land for shooting and, more particularly, those who were concerned with the lambing season and who need to have a continuous period for land management purposes without the weekends being taken out and without the necessity of going through the process of making an application to the Countryside Agency.
  We believe that that is a sensible compromise between the needs of land managers and the interests of those wishing to benefit from the new right of access, for whom obviously weekends and the summer are particularly important. For example, as regards grouse shooting it will allow closure for up to four Saturdays from 12th August, which will give considerable flexibility and should help address concerns in the shooting community. For example, there are concerns about giving saboteurs advance notice of when shooting is to take place. Similarly, by including four weekend days within the total, it will allow closures for farmers and land managers for a continuous period of up to 19 days without having to go through the application. That is 19 days outside the summer holiday period. In effect, that should cover most lambing periods. All these are extendable by application to the Countryside Agency. So, for example, shooting and grouse moors could have more than four days, but those over and above four in that period would be related to a particular application.
  The Government's amendment represents a balance and reflects our determination to safeguard both the interests of walkers and the interests of those who manage the land. As well as entitling landowners to exclude or restrict access for up to four days at the weekend, the amendment also removes the regulation-making power set out in subsection (7). I should explain that. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation expressed the concern that that power could be used to allow weekend closure at one extreme or to restrict closure on any Friday, Saturday or Sunday at the other, or indeed Monday.
  What we had in mind in that provision was the ability to be flexible in the light of experience. However, we have considered the advice of the Select
  1468
  Committee and we therefore propose to remove that power, which will leave greater certainty on how it might be used in future.
  I also underline in this context the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that these provisions could relate to appropriate parcels of land and that, therefore, there is considerable flexibility built into them. I commend them to the House.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, my Amendments Nos. 112 and 115 are in this group, so perhaps I may speak to them as well as to the amendment spoken to by the Minister.
  As the Bill stands, without the government amendment Clause 21 gives an owner the right to serve an exclusion notice closing the land for 28 days. But at present none of those days can be a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday.
  A number of noble Lords pointed out in Committee that the world of nature and agriculture does not recognise weekends—that birds do not stop nesting and hatching and sheep do not stop lambing merely because it is Saturday or Sunday. No doubt joined up government will teach birds and sheep to recognise the calendar soon, but for the moment it has not achieved that. Therefore, the concept of a closure that suddenly stops at weekends is curious.
  In Committee the Minister opposed any attempt to extend the 28-day period, and in my amendments I totally accept that restriction. However, he recognised that within the 28 days some days could be at weekends. He was, however, worried that if one merely removed the provision relating to Saturdays and Sundays there was a danger that a landowner might use all of his 28 days over, let us say, 14 successive weekends or for the entirety of August, which he rightly pointed out is the main holiday month.
  I have therefore sought to spread the 28 days equally over weekends and Bank Holidays and nonesuch days. Eight Saturdays or Sundays in 28 days are a new proportion, and a Bank Holiday makes nine. I confess that nine seemed to me a remarkably silly figure and therefore my amendment suggests that 10 days can be a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday. But if the noble Lord would give me nine, or even eight, I would settle for that. It is just that nine seemed an odd figure. Also, by means of a separate amendment, Amendment No. 107, I have sought to deal with the problem of holidays by saying that no more than 14 of the 28 days can be in August.
  My amendment is in no way specifically connected to shooting. The closure could be for any reason. It could be to protect breeding, to allow operations on the land, or whatever one wants.
  Amendment No. 117 to which the noble Lord has just spoken, on the other hand, gives only four days out of the 28 which can be either a Saturday or a Sunday. I do not understand how he can say that that is a proper balance unless he has a very curious approach to mathematics. If you have 28 days, and you allow Saturdays and Sundays, that must allow eight days, not four. It leads to the very curious

  1469
  position that the Minister accepted that there would be only 19 continuous days. The noble Lord is half recognising that birds and sheep do not know about weekends, but he is not recognising that fact totally. I do not have any of this land, but if an owner wants 28 continuous days, why on earth should he not have that time? Why must he have a shorter period at weekends than at other times?
  Birds do not hatch; they sit for more than 19 days. Similarly, an entire flock of sheep does not lamb within 19 days. If the Minister is serious in his desire for proportion, he must allow eight or nine days out of the 28 to be weekends, or bank holidays. I fail to see any form ofjustification for his four days. Moreover, if one is using this time for shooting, or for a similar activity, I do not see why the days cannot all be Saturdays, with none of them being Sundays. As noble Lords have pointed out, one cannot shoot on a Sunday but a walker can just as well walk on a Sunday as he can on a Saturday. Therefore, I do not see why the landowner cannot have a discretion as to which of the days he uses as Saturdays or Sundays.
  My fundamental point is that the Minister has only gone half way and that he has stopped at a wholly illogical mathematical point. If he is to accept what he said he would accept in Committee—namely, that the 28 days should be spread fairly, but not disproportionately—he must allow at least eight or probably nine of the 28 days to be Saturdays, Sundays or weekends. He must not chop it off at a wholly illogical half-point.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, perhaps I may comment briefly on the noble Viscount's points. Many people wish to spend their holidays in this country rather than take a package holiday to, say, the Costa Brava. Unfortunately, August is the month in England—the Scots are a little wiser—when children are not at school and families have to take their holidays. It would not be at all reasonable for half of August to be devoted to shooting, thus interfering with the family holidays of those who, wisely, prefer to take their vacations in this country. It is a beautiful country and the areas that those families may wish to walk through are similarly beautiful. I would not like to see a proportion of August devoted to that purpose. Indeed, it might encourage people to go abroad. I believe that they would be much healthier and happier in the United Kingdom.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, although the noble Earl has not yet spoken to it, perhaps I may express my support for his Amendment No. 114, which seems to me to be an extremely reasonable compromise. I should also like to express regret that the Government have got their Amendment No. 117 wrong, at least as regards Subsection (7)(a). I have no quarrel with the other two subsections.
  I can only suppose that the Government and their advisers have been watching too many Merchant Ivory costume dramas set in the closing years of the 19th century or the first decade of the 20th century, in
  1470
  which the extremely rich individuals of no fixed occupation spend all their daylight hours every day of the week, except Sundays, hunting and shooting. They spend the hours of darkness in somewhat different indoor pursuits, but that need not concern us.
  Admittedly, I have no interest in the sort of land to which Part I of this Bill applies, but I do not suppose that the social patterns there are very different from those in the part of the world in which I live, where virtually all those who shoot are hard-working men, and, increasingly, women, who are fully occupied for at least five days a week and who, therefore, can shoot only on Saturdays. But even if that were not the case, beaters can be secured only on Saturdays because, in general, most of them have jobs from Monday to Friday inclusive. If Amendment No. 114, or something like it, is not accepted, it will be extremely unfair and unreasonable. Indeed, it may present enormous difficulties for many shooters.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like quickly to follow the noble Lord's contribution. My experience relates to Scotland, not England and Wales. I have in mind the farm where I live. I am not the farmer—I have not been for many years—but an increasingly important part of the farm's income is derived from the small syndicate which comes on Saturdays—eight Saturdays this year—to do rough shooting. It has nothing to do with grouse. It takes place from October to the end of January. To ask that farm to undertake shooting only on four Saturdays it has to take place on a Saturday for the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has given—would be wrong. The farm I mentioned is not affected by the provisions of the Bill, although it may be affected by other legislation which may be modelled on it. I do not think that it is fair to restrict shooting to only four Saturdays a year. I believe that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel would allow shooting on eight Saturdays.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, having heard what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have said, I now feel obliged to speak to my Amendment No. 114, about which I have some doubts. I have doubts about my Amendment No. 114 and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and that of my noble friend Lady Byford. Here I have some sympathy with the Government in that if these amendments were accepted one could have in effect eight, 10 or virtually any Saturdays consecutively closed during the various seasons that are mentioned in the various amendments. I can understand that that would be unacceptable to the Government.
  Having said that, the points that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, made are valid. I believe that many shoots operate only on Saturday because the people who organise them cannot take any other day of the week off. As the noble Lord said, it may be difficult to get beaters on a week day. From a commercial point of view—my noble friend's amendment specifically refers to this—many people who are prepared to pay for a one-off day's shooting can also do so only on a

  1471
  Saturday. There is a problem here. I acknowledge that the amendments would create difficulties in terms of the access proposals.
  I wonder whether we could not reach a compromise whereby we could close the land in question on eight Saturdays—as my amendment suggests—during the season if we were to restrict that to, say, two Saturdays a month. I hope that I may have the noble Lord's attention for a moment. I do not know whether the noble Lord would regard as an acceptable compromise the suggestion to restrict the Saturday closure to two Saturdays a month with a closure of eight in total. As I say, we have a problem here. As noble Lords have said, there is no question about that. I am in two minds about the matter. I sympathise with the Government about not having closure on eight, 10 or 15 consecutive Saturdays. I think that that would be unreasonable. However, we must bear in mind that many people participate in shooting on Saturdays. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, plenty of other activities also take place on Saturdays and Sundays. Will the Minister consider the compromise I have suggested?
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we welcome the Government's move to allow 19 straight days for closure. That will certainly help smaller farmers. Many still have small farms and, as we know, life is tough for them. Those farmers do not have the option of closing different parcels of land.
  Noble Lords have rightly said that shooting is an important part of the rural economy. Some have asked for more closure days to allow shooting to take place. However, if one has a large landholding and one is running a shoot one can close off different parcels of land for each of the 28 discretionary days thereby gaining greater flexibility. I am concerned about the effect of the measure on farmers with smaller landholdings. I have tried to cover that point in my Amendments Nos. 126 and 128. The other point of principle—
  Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Baroness rightly acknowledges the point about small farms. Presumably, she also acknowledges that there are some small shoots which do not have the flexibility of the larger shoots.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, small shoots would face the problem. We await the Minister's response to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, about small shoots. We welcome the government amendment.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that no one spoke in strong support of the two amendments which extend the number of days from 28 to 38. I welcome that. We are talking of a period of 28 days without requiring the Countryside Agency to be involved. That 28-day period is now accepted as the appropriate totality. We are discussing here weekends within that period and the flexibility within that totality to parcel up
  1472
  identifiable and appropriate pieces of land separately should that be sensible. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, recognises that that provides large shoots with the flexibility to have a shoot somewhere on a large piece of land during the shooting season. Likewise for most farming purposes, one could, if necessary, divide the land and have different packages of 19 days. So there is substantial flexibility even within that 28 days; and there is further substantial flexibility with the role of the Countryside Agency to which the noble Baroness referred.
  The issue is whether the restrictions relating to weekends and the summer period are appropriate. We believe that they are central. For the reasons about which the noble Earl, Lord Peel, spoke eloquently, the weekends during the summer are the periods when most people will want to take advantage of access. My noble friend Lord Hardy also made that point. If we were to accept Amendment No. 112, potentially a whole estate could be closed throughout July. The noble Viscount says that I disproportionately penalise Saturdays and Sundays. Yes, I suppose that I do, for the very reason that Saturdays and Sundays are the days on which the vast majority of the population will be able to take advantage of these new rights of access. It is, therefore, not sensible to have 10 Saturdays or Sundays out of the 28- day period. It is not even sensible to have what might be regarded as, roughly speaking, a proportionate number which would be six or seven. It is important that we restrict the numbers of Saturdays and Sundays which are provided under the discretionary right. I am not attracted, therefore, to any of the amendments which seek to increase those four days beyond what is provided for in my amendment.
  There is substantial flexibility. The noble Earl asks whether we can go further in relation to Saturdays, in particular with regard to small shoots. The Countryside Agency would make appropriate arrangements in such situations. If no flexibility was available to the owner of land used for shooting, I am sure that the Countryside Agency would take that into account in agreeing additional Saturdays that could be used during the shooting seasons. However, it would rightly take a more rigorous approach with those who had more flexibility. I recognise that consideration, but the Countryside Agency would be bound to address it.
  Our amendments deal with the most difficult aspects. We shall deal with the parcelling of the land further. The ability to apply to the Countryside Agency will provide sufficient further flexibility. The Government have made considerable concessions in response to the concerns expressed at earlier stages. I hope that noble Lords will accept my amendments and not press those that would go further.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister has not addressed the problems of small shoots. I accept that walkers and ramblers want weekend access, but would they not much rather have access on Sundays, when there is very little else going on, than on Saturdays,

  1473
  when families often go shopping together? Could a compromise be reached under which no Sundays were allowed, but six or, better still, eight Saturdays were allowed? Will he think about that before Third Reacting?
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, in these days of seven-day shopping, families may go shopping on Saturdays or Sundays. The point is that, even now, it is only at weekends that the majority of families can use the new rights. Small shoots will be able to use four Saturdays during the main part of the shooting season. If there is no further flexibility and there is a need or an economic requirement for further shooting days, the Countryside Agency is likely to consider an application favourably. I suspect that most small shoots will not have more than four Saturdays between 12th August and the end of September. However, if they do, they have that facility.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we have had another interesting and wide-ranging debate. I thank the Minister for his responses and for tabling Amendment No. 117.
  We do not quite have the right answer yet. The 28 days provision seems to be accepted across the House, although maybe grudgingly by some. However, there are one or two problems. I do not think that August is a problem. Most of the grouse moors in the North East and the North West are run commercially. It is a seven-day-a-week job at that time of year. Those who pay to shoot there are well able to go during the week.
  However, at other times of the year, wildfowling, pheasant shooting and general rough shooting on open land are enjoyed by groups of farmers and local people who all work from Monday to Friday. Only on Saturdays can they pursue their sport. Open season for rough shooting runs from the beginning of November until the beginning of February. The period may be a little longer or shorter for certain species. There are a lot of Saturdays in that period. Many of the shoots in my area—although it does not come within the auspices of the Bill—are used on most Saturdays, or at least every other Saturday. The people affected will be those least able to go through the bureaucratic process. They are the people who, without some form of direction and assistance from the Countryside Agency or whichever authority, are likely to be deprived. They are the people who, I suspect, all noble Lords would least like to consider were being deprived.
  I am sorry that I have spoken for rather a long time at the end of this debate. In summary, I believe that, with a little more thought before Third Reading, we can still reach a better compromise within the 28 days. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 109 to 112 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 113:
  Page 13, leave out line 14.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 114 to 116 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 117:
  Page 13, line 18, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
  ("(7) An entitled person may not under this section exclude or restrict access by virtue of section 2(1) to any land—

  (a) on more than four days in any calendar year which are either Saturday or Sunday,

  (b) on any Saturday in the period beginning with 1st June and ending with 11th August in any year,

  (c) on any Sunday in the period beginning with 1st June and ending with 30th September in any year.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Greaves Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 117A:
  Page 13, line 20, at end insert—
  ("( ) An entitled person may not under this section exclude or restrict access in such a manner as to prevent reasonable access by the public to other access land whether or not in the same ownership.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 117A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 129 and 133 which are in the same group.
  These amendments refer to various types of closures, restrictions and exclusions. Clause 21 deals with discretionary closures which your Lordships discussed recently. Clause 22 refers to directions for restrictions and exclusions for the purpose of land management. Clause 24 deals with directions for the purposes of nature conservation and historic features.
  The problem which the amendments seek to address is the same in each case and is one which came to light as a result of consideration of discussions during and after the Committee stage. Closures of land for perfectly legitimate purposes could lead to the blocking of access to other access land which is not the subject of restrictions or exclusions. In other words, people who turn up at the usual access point to access land in order to go on to a large area of hill or moorland may find that their access is blocked because of a temporary exclusion on the land in between. These amendments seek to provide that, wherever possible, reasonable access is provided to access land beyond that which is the subject of a closure or direction.
  Amendments Nos. 129 and 133, which relate to Clauses 22 and 24, seek to place a duty on the relevant agency to consider, in making a decision, the matter of reasonable access through the land in respect of which a direction has been applied for. That is not to say that the agency will say, "No, you cannot have a direction on land"; it is to say that the agency must consider how the problem of access through, by or past that land can be tackled in order to avoid the closure of much larger areas of land other than that for which closure has been either requested or is required.
  I turn to Amendment No. 117A which refers to the discretionary closures under Clause 21. Because such closure decisions are made by landowners and not by the relevant agency, the amendment seeks to place a duty on the landowners to ensure that reasonable access can be made available, again either across their

  1475
  land or in some other way, to the access land which otherwise would be blocked. It has been suggested in some quarters that landowners who are hostile to the Bill may try to use this provision to block access to much larger areas of land than are reasonably covered under the 28-day restrictions.
  I am not one of those people who believes that most landowners will be hostile to the Bill once it is passed. I believe that the vast majority of landowners, like the vast majority of walkers and climbers who go onto the land, will behave in a thoroughly reasonable way, because that is how people usually behave when faced with a situation.
  Nevertheless, just as I accept that there will be a small minority of people going onto land who may misbehave, as has been discussed by your Lordships at some length today, it is also quite possible that there will be a small minority of landowners who will seek to use that provision, perhaps by closing different and smaller pieces of land successively to block access to a much larger area of access land for quite a long period of time.
  Most areas of access land, of course, will have several points of access and several routes onto it. And so that may be a problem which will not occur in most places. It has been suggested by some cynical people that, if somebody had a hill which was all access land, then the owners could successively close concentric circles round that hill and prevent anybody ever getting to the summit. Far be it from me to suggest that anybody would ever behave like that.
  But there is a problem. It is not really a problem of principle; it is a problem of the practical working of the Bill. Whatever happens, whatever form this Bill ends up in, we all agree in this House that it must work in practice. It would be sensible to make arrangements and to write into the Bill the provision that this particular potential problem must be looked at, either by the Environment Agency or the appropriate Welsh body in the case of directions or by landowners themselves in the case of Section 21 closures. I beg to move.
  Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 117B standing in my name, which has broadly similar aims to the three amendments just moved by the noble Lord.
  Amendment No. 117B will enable the Secretary of State to require the exercise of discretion under Clause 21 to relate to land the boundaries of which are determined by regulations. That would have two benefits. First, it would help both walkers and those managing the land to know the area over which closures or restrictions applied. It could, for example, require those entitled to discretionary closures, in notifying the Countryside Agency of their intention to close land under Clause 21, to show the area of land closed by following physical features shown on a map of the area affected.
  Secondly, if the regulation-making power is needed, it would help prevent possible abuse. Although I am sure, as was the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the
  1476
  vast majority of landowners will be responsible and reasonable, there may be a few who simply wish to exclude public access over the largest possible area for the longest possible time.
  As it stands, I believe that Clause 21 could be used to make arbitrary closures of strips of land, which serve no purpose other than to exclude access to much larger areas of adjacent land. Regulations made under my amendment could, for example, ensure that only parcels of land which are demarcated by physical features, such as walls, streams or fences, could be notified as closed under Clause 21.
  My amendment would not require the Secretary of State to make regulations, but he could do so if it were helpful to ensure that land subject to closures was properly identified, or if there were indications that the discretionary right to restrict access was being abused in the way which I have already described.
  I hope that the Minister, will agree that this modest amendment would be a useful and desirable addition to the Bill.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I am confused. It may be the advanced hour or it may be that there is a degree of inconsistency between Amendment No. 133 and Amendment No. 129, which the noble Lord seemed to present in a way which implied that they are both designed to meet similar ends, in spite of the fact that they refer to different reasons for exclusions and restrictions.
  I must confess that the interpretation which he gave to his amendment was not that which I read into it when I read it initially. I believe that Amendment No. 133 is capable of quite considerable misinterpretation and, therefore, is rather dangerous. I was extremely alarmed by Amendment No. 133 which seemed to provide that relevant authorities could refuse to grant exclusions or restrictions even where they were necessary for the protection of flora and fauna, if that meant that there was no equivalent access land available elsewhere.
  That seems to be totally against the principles we have heard enunciated in the Bill; that is, that nature conservation interests must not be damaged for the purposes of providing reasonable access. I hope that we can have an assurance, first, that this was not the intention of the amendment and, secondly, as it is capable of being interpreted in a different way, perhaps it is not the right amendment to adopt. I would not want to see anything on the face of the Bill that permitted any horse trading between the relative merits of access and wildlife or anything that implied it was acceptable for wildlife conservation interests to be sacrificed for other benefits.
  10.45 p.m.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, from these Benches, perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness that that was not the intention in tabling Amendment No. 133. The amendment states:
  "shall have regard to the extent to which it is possible to provide reasonable access".

  1477
  Clearly, if the closure was because the land was sensitive in wildlife terms, the conclusion would have to be that it would not be possible. I can perhaps accept that our wording is not perfect, but we were not seeking to achieve anything damaging, such as the noble Baroness suggests. However, we are willing to look again at the wording of the amendment.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise to speak both ways, for a change. I fully understand the desires of the noble Lord and have much sympathy with them, particularly coming from where he does and from where I might have come from. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, there are dangers in having the amendments on the face of the Bill, particularly Amendment No. 133.
  I assume that part of the process of applying for a restriction order will be by way of explanation, discussion and negotiation with the access authority. When an application has been received and is being discussed, it will become apparent to a local authority that the effect of closing a particular piece of land will be to debar people using it. I would have faith in the access authority being wise to that and attempting to negotiate an alternative route.
  I am probably making the Minister's speech. If I am, forgive me. I feel that there is no need for the amendments on the face of the Bill because these matters are adequately covered.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller stated that Amendment No. 133 requires the relevant body only to have regard. However, Amendment No. 117A states absolutely that you cannot exclude or restrict if the result is that it prevents access to somebody else's land. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, shakes his head. The amendment states:
  "may not under this section exclude or restrict access in such a manner as to prevent reasonable access by the public to other access land".
  So, if it does prevent access to other access land in somebody else's ownership, it cannot be done.
  Under this clause, the owner has an absolute right to give notice and to state, "These are my 28 days". I do not understand how the clause comes into effect. Although it is perfectly reasonable for the owner to do that in relation to his land, it might stop people getting on to some other land. He has given his notice and that is enough. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, appears to contemplate that after an owner has given his notice, somebody will return and say to him, "Don't you realise that if you give this notice, people will not be able to get on to Mr Blogg's land next door; therefore your notice is invalid?"
  I do not understand how that works. Nor do I see why an owner who wishes to exercise his 28 days for his own purposes should suddenly be prevented from so doing because it prevents people getting on to somebody else's land. With respect to the noble Lord,
  1478
  Lord Greaves, I suggest that Amendment No. 117A is wholly unworkable. Even if it was workable, it would be wholly unfair.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Indeed, he gave part of the ministerial speech in relation to Amendments Nos. 129 and 133. While I did not see quite such a sinister implication in Amendment No. 133 as did my noble friend Lady Young, I can see that it could arise. That would be an overriding consideration whereas I believe the noble Lord wanted it to be only one of the considerations to be taken into account.
  The considerations under Amendment No. 129 in regard to reasonable access to other access land, are already a relevant consideration. Likewise, in relation to Amendment No. 133; that too can be taken into account. So on both counts those amendments are not necessary; those consideration can be taken into account.
  However, the basic point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is important. There is a problem in that if we accept, as we do, that different parcels of land in one ownership can make applications for restriction or discretionary restriction at different times, then it is important, first, that that is not abused in a way that might restrict access to access land in general; and, secondly, that it is evident to those who wish to use the land as well as to the owners which land is involved. It is therefore important to find a way of describing the land and of ensuring that it is not used in the way the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, seeks to address.
  The amendment uses the term, "reasonable access". That could create fertile ground for dispute. It is also somewhat absolute in that it would override other considerations, though the noble Lord shook his head when that was asserted by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. However, it could be read that way. Nevertheless, we have to find a way of dealing with the problem the amendment addresses.
  I would prefer going down the road of my noble friend Lord Dubs. His amendment recognises the need to provide some degree of flexibility and his Amendment No. 117B would allow regulations to be made to ensure that the discretion was applied in relation to properly identified units. That would give a clarity and a certainty to the exercise of discretion under Clause 21. That does not necessarily mean we expect specific regulations; clearly, as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, provides, a number of negotiations could take place and there is a possibility of direction in those areas. But were difficulties to arise in either the abuse of the power or in the identification of the land concerned, it is important to have the reserve power to require the exercise of discretion in order to identify the units of land to which the power applies. That would help any landowner who might seek to abuse the flexibility while at the same time provide the basis for certainty as to what the landowner could do and to which pieces of land the restrictions apply at any given time.

  1479
  Therefore I favour the approach of my noble friend Lord Dubs and am prepared to accept his amendment.
  Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. In relation to Amendments Nos. 129 and 133, if the relevant agency—essentially the Environment Agency and not the access authorities—behaves in a sensible way, takes account of these problems and understands that access may be required through or past land which is subject to a direction, then I accept that amendments on the face of the Bill are not required. However, I felt it was important to raise the matter.
  As regards the discretionary closures, I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I shall read that in Hansard carefully and in the meantime I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and support that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 117B:
  Clause 21, page 13, line 20, at end insert—
  ("(8) Regulations may provide that any exclusion or restriction under subsection (1) of access by virtue of section 2(1) to any land must relate to an area of land the boundaries of which are determined in accordance with the regulations.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 118:
  After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—

  DOGS ON CERTAIN LAND
  (" .—(1) The owner of any land consisting of moor managed for the breeding and shooting of grouse may, so far as appears to him to be necessary in connection with the management of the land for that purpose, by taking such steps as may be prescribed, provide that, during a specified period, the right conferred by section 2(1) is exercisable only by persons who do not take dogs on the land.
  (2) The owner of any land may, so far as appears to him to be necessary in connection with lambing, by taking such steps as may be prescribed, provide that during a specified period the right conferred by section 2(1) is exercisable only by persons who do not take dogs into any field or enclosure on the land in which there are sheep.
  (3) In subsection (2) "field or enclosure" means a field or enclosure of not more than 15 hectares.
  (4) As respects any land—

  (a) any period specified under subsection (1)) may not be more than five years,

  (b) not more than one period may be specified under subsection (2) in any calendar year, and that period may not be more than six weeks.

  (5) A restriction imposed under subsection (1) or (2) does not prevent a blind person from taking with him a trained guide dog, or a deaf person from taking with him a trained hearing dog.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 119 and 120 not moved.]
  Clause 22 [Land management]:
  Earl Peel Earl Peel to move Amendment No. 121:
  Clause 22, page 13, line 21, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to speak to our Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. It may be for the convenience of the House if I say that I shall not move Amendment No. 127. Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 speak for themselves. Amendment No. 123 suggests that utilisation is necessary for the future commercialisation of the land management practices. During the weeks in which we have been debating the Bill, we have been looking at the way in which land is currently managed and at future land management practices. Amendment No. 123 is aimed at that.
  Amendment No. 124 is intended to cover the many countryside schemes which are already in place but which might not fall within the ambit of the Bill. It also recognises that future land management may differ from existing practices. We need to be able to have due regard to the preservation of flora and fauna, or geological and physiological features.
  I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 and I shall not move Amendment No. 127. I apologise, I am speaking to Amendment No. 121, which turns "may" into "shall". That makes the provision more positive and I apologise to noble Lords for not making that clear. In fact, I am not speaking to that amendment because it stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel.
  I need to start again. Amendment No. 121 is my noble friend's amendment but when it was called I rose to speak to the others. With the acceptance of the House, I shall sit down and let my noble friend Lord Peel move his amendment.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I think I am in order. Amendment No. 121 is the first in the group, so with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 125.
  With regard to Amendment No. 121, Clause 22 currently provides that the authority, the Countryside Agency, the CCW and the national park authorities may grant a direction when they are satisfied that it is necessary for land management purposes. But, surely, if the authority is satisfied that a direction is necessary it must make the direction. Otherwise, it would be failing to respond properly to the requirements of the owner to manage the land.
  In Committee, (in the debate on Amendment No. 243 on 5th October, at col. 1774 of the Official Report) the Minister said that consent for directions would not unreasonably be withheld. I suggest that the logical response is to provide that the authority "shall" make a direction where it is satisfied that the exclusion or restriction is necessary. As we have heard many times during debates on the Bill in your Lordships' House, the closure periods for land management purposes are an essential safeguard under the Bill and the system cannot be compromised. Surely, if the access authority decides that such a request for closure is appropriate,

  1481
  why should there then be an element of discretion? That seems to me to be illogical and Amendment No. 121 seeks to remove that contradiction.
  I turn next to Amendments Nos. 122 and 125. Despite assurances from Ministers that access authorities may take an enlightened approach to requests for closures under Clause 22, some comments that I have heard indicate that on occasions that ideal may be questioned. It is also possible that the various access authorities will take a rather different approach among themselves. The purpose of Amendment No. 122 is to remove "necessary" and insert "expedient".
  However, there is another reason why I believe this may be necessary. I have been alerted by the agreement drawn up, between English Nature and the Countryside Agency entitled Nature Conservation of Access Land. I believe that my amendment has a bearing on the agreement for the following reasons. In the agreement both organisations explain their statutory roles and how they will affect the workings of the Bill. The agreement states that English Nature is the statutory advisory body on nature conservation. In the context of the agreement much is written about closures for the purposes of nature conservation. I very much welcome that. I raised this matter several times in Committee and sought an assurance that the Sandford principle would prevail. This agreement clarifies the position.
  The agreement also states that the Countryside Agency is responsible for taking action for the economic and social well-being of the English countryside However, there is nothing in the agreement to say that closure restrictions will be imposed specifically for those purposes; it refers only to nature conservation purposes. I realise that the agreement is related specifically to nature conservation access land and not necessarily to other matters such as the economic and social well-being of the English countryside. None the less, I remain concerned about the absence of similar guidance from the Countryside Agency to ensure that access land is not permitted to compromise land management and local economic well-being. It may be that something to that effect has been issued by the Countryside Agency but I am not aware of it.
  This raises a suspicion in my mind as to how the access authorities will view requests for closure orders when dealing with economic matters. I believe that if "expedient" replaces "necessary" it is more likely that the access authorities will take a realistic and practical approach to this very important part of the Bill. I beg to move.
  11 p.m.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am slightly concerned about some of these amendments. I refer first to Amendment No. 124. It could be argued that to conserve very large areas one would not allow people access at all because they might injure wildlife. It has some similarity to the amendment which I moved last week. (I lose track of the time because of late sittings.) I suggested that it should be possible to prevent access
  1482
  in nature reserves for the purpose of protecting endangered species. The Government did not accept the amendment and said that adequate capacity existed through an approach to English Nature. It may be desirable for those responsible to have a little more capacity to act immediately, without having to proceed through another agency, at least in emergencies. However, it would be interesting to hear the Government's response to the amendment.
  I turn to Amendment No. 124A. The point in that amendment which I found rather striking is that it would refuse access to prevent harm to an animal. We have been talking about preventing access in order that these animals can be shot. We cannot have one and not the other.
  The Government have made substantial concessions. I have sympathy with those who seek to defend the rural interest; those who say, "Save country sports". But if those who are practising country sports then make life difficult for the urban majority—for example, by saying to responsible people who want to keep their dogs on a lead that they cannot even go on the land—they will stimulate a hostility that may not have existed. Those involved in country sports, as they look at the Bill and seek to persuade the Government to make further concessions, may be acting in a way that is disadvantageous to their interests and irritating to those in urban communities who respect their role and recognise its importance but also want to enjoy the countryside.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I hope I am coming in at the right moment. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Peel. I do not think I have ever been as good-looking as my noble friend and I am sorry that I rose to speak before him.
  Perhaps I may turn to the amendments standing in my name, Amendments No 123, 124 and 127. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 127. Amendments Nos. 123 and 124 refer to the position of owners or occupiers who may decide to diversify, either commercially or by signing up to one of the Government's stewardship schemes. We discussed the matter earlier. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that my amendments were not intended to make land inaccessible to people. I apologise if they had that interpretation. That was not the purpose behind them.
  I turn to Amendment No. 124. There is no formal right of application in the Bill for owners or occupiers to seek closures or restrictions on conservation grounds. Some conservation bodies may own access land; for example, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust and the National Trust. Other private owners may wish also to secure closures or restrictions for the purposes of protecting wildlife. That does not refer to the wildlife that the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, has just referred to which are protected to get shot; it refers to the wildlife that are protected to be protected. While such owners may be able to request closures, the lack of a formal right to apply means that there is no corresponding appeal against a refusal to grant such an application.

  1483
  The effect of the provisions is that the case for closures on conservation grounds could be given less overall weight than the case for closure for land management purposes. That lack of balance should be redressed. The amendment would widen the definition of land management under Clause 22 to include closures to conserve important features of the land. The right for an application for occupiers to close on nature conservation grounds would then be accompanied by a right of appeal under provisions related to the land management closures.
  If there was a separate right to apply for conservation closures outside Clause 22, it would need a separate right of appeal. Sweeping it under the existing appeals provision by widening the scope of the existing right of application under Clause 22 represents the best way forward, and hence our amendment.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 124A, 124B and 125A. Perhaps I may make a general inquiry of the Minister about Clause 22. Noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have frequently relied on the existence of Clause 22 as a reason for arguing against other amendments which have been put forward. My fear—which may be a mere lawyer's fear—in relation to Clause 22 is that it will be interpreted as applying only to very specialised situations; for example, where an occupier would come within Clause 22 only if his case was very different from that of other landowners.
  From what noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have said, that is not their intention. They regard Clause 22 as being very wide in giving the agency the power to make these closures in any circumstances where it considers it appropriate. I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that there is no such restriction as I fear and that every application can be approached without a presumption either way and certainly without a presumption that an occupier would come within Clause 22 only if his case was very special.
  Amendments Nos. 124A and 125A enlarge the number of reasons for which the orders may be made to include the prevention and diminution—I apologise for the fact that the Public Bill Office has misspelt "diminution": it is not my fault—of harm to the land, to people or to animals in order to allow cases to be dealt with where some kinds of access are likely to disturb or frighten people, to disturb or frighten and thereby injure animals or to cause damage. If those matters were included as grounds for closing the land if the access authority thought it appropriate, that would very much reduce the worries that have given rise to earlier amendments.
  Amendment No. 124B deals with a separate point. It seeks to make it plain that closure under Clause 22 can relate to specific hours of the day rather than to specific periods of the year; for example, it could be used to control night access. If the Minister can give me a categoric assurance that that power already
  1484
  exists, I shall be happy not to press the amendment. It is important that that should be clear on the face of the Bill. It has been inherent in what Ministers have said in the past that the clause should be enlarged to make it plain that a closure order could relate to a certain part of the day or to specified days.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 126 and 128 which stand in my name. The purpose of the amendments is to explore whether the considerations to which the relevant authority should have regard when it is considering whether to grant exclusions or restrictions are adequate. The amendments are tabled to help in particular the small farmer who may need to apply for extra restrictions at weekends. It is possible that a small farmer's partner and children will be fully occupied during the week in other forms of employment or as students. For some purposes of land management it may be reasonable for that person to apply to close at weekends.
  As I read Clause 22(3), the factors to which the relevant authority should have regard do not include the opportunities available to the applicant in question to undertake the land management required. Although paragraph (b) refers to,
  "the extent to which the applicant has exercised or proposes to exercise that right",
  that does not take into account the issues I have raised. Paragraph (c) refers to,
  "the purposes for which he has exercised or proposes to exercise it".
  However, people would be able to say, "Well, that is a good purpose, but you can do it at some other point in the week".
  On 30th October, the Government wrote to my noble friend Lady Hamwee in response to these concerns. They stated that, in their view, nothing in Clause 22(3) would interfere with the discretion already in the gift of the relevant authority. The letter went on to say that the Government did not believe that these amendments were necessary. However, I should like to establish on the record whether the relevant authority can have sufficient regard to an individual case, in particular in relation to the small-scale applicant.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know quite how many issues are before the House at the moment, given the number of amendments tabled here. However, perhaps I may start by assuring the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about Clause 22 in general. It is our intention—and the Bill provides—that applications made under Clause 22 will be considered on their merits. Nothing in Clause 22 provides that such applications would have to be wholly exceptional or different from other applications. Having said that, which I believe would apply to all the amendments tabled to Clause 22, I shall go on to deal with them individually.

  1485
  Amendment No. 121, taken together with Amendments Nos. 122 and 125, would require the relevant authorities to make a direction for a land management closure upon application by someone with an interest in the land, whenever it was expedient for the management of the land. We do not expect that landowners will often need to apply for additional closures on land management grounds. The 28 discretionary days—which can be applied to any parcel of land—will usually be enough. Applications may need to be made if the closure or restriction is required on certain weekend days or bank holidays, or if the 28 days have been used on a particular parcel of land.
  It is important that the relevant authorities should have a clear discretion in making such directions so that they can take into account all the facts of the case. Again, this forms a part of my response to the general question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. If a landowner has used up all of his 28 days simply because he does not want walkers on his land, then it is reasonable that the authority should take that into account in deciding whether to give a direction under Clause 22. However, if he has made good use of his discretionary closures, we expect the relevant authority to look favourably on the application and to be likely to make the requested direction.
  This means that we are certainly prepared to be flexible and we would expect an authority to judge cases on their merits. What we do not want is to introduce amendments to the Bill which would, by stealth and without good reason, increase the 28 days to 38 days or any other period. Of course, if the authority does not make a direction in accordance with the application, the applicant will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State or to the National Assembly.
  We have also made it clear that the relevant authority should restrict access only as far as is necessary for the purposes outlined in the application. If restricting access to paths would be sufficient to enable the landowner to carry on activities outlined in his application, then that is what should be directed—not a total exclusion. The term "expedient" implies that the direction could be for more than is strictly necessary for the purposes of the application. At least, that is what I think it means; either it means nothing or it means something wider than "necessary". We do not accept that access should be excluded or restricted unless it is necessary for the purposes set out in Chapter II.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues with his response, would he be kind enough to pass comment on the question I raised about the agreement between English Nature and the Countryside Agency where they made it perfectly clear that the Sandford principle would apply for nature conservation purposes? However, to the best of my knowledge, I do riot think that the Countryside Agency has released any form of statement declaring, in effect, that closures for land management for the
  1486
  economic well-being of a local area would be seriously considered. That seems to me a little one-sided. Can the noble Lord comment on that?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall move on to the points raised on nature conservation when dealing with another amendment. Perhaps I can respond to the question put by the noble Earl at that time.
  Amendments Nos. 123, 124, 124A and 125A would expand on the use of the expression "land management". Clause 22 is vital to the interests of those involved in managing land—that is what it is there for. We have made clear our intention that it should be treated flexibly. It should take into account less common or new forms of land management activity. We want Clause 22 to be flexible, responding to the legitimate needs of land managers. We believe that it should be interpreted generically, including both the active management of the land and also its use for events and activities not traditionally associated with the use of land for agriculture or country sports. Such activities include car rallies and pop festivals, as well as ploughing matches and sheep trials.
  That is not to say that we think that directions would always be needed, but we agree that such purposes would be eligible for directions under Clause 22. We do not see any need for Amendment No. 123, since its aims have already been achieved.
  It will be for the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales to draw up criteria to indicate the kinds of activity which would be included under the term "land management". Both bodies will be able to issue guidance to other relevant authorities, and they will wish to consult on the criteria. I should add that the relevant authorities will not be able to make a direction under Clause 22 if it would be possible to make a direction for the same purpose under Clauses 23 or 24—that is, for the purposes of avoidance of fire risk, safety, nature conservation or heritage preservation.
  That brings me to Amendment No. 124, which would allow for directions under Clause 22 to be made also in the interests of conservation of wildlife. Clause 24 already allows that. There is no formal right to apply for a restriction or closure on nature conservation or heritage grounds, but anyone can ask the relevant authority to consider doing so. The conservation bodies will advise the relevant authority on the merits of a direction under Clause 24, and the relevant authority must have regard to advice given to it by the conservation body.
  As to the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I shall have to write to him about it rather than respond straightaway, unless rescue comes within the next few minutes.
  Amendment No. 124A goes wider than both Amendments Nos. 123 and 124. It would provide that directions could be made under Clause 22 additionally for the purposes of,
  "the prevention and diminution of harm to the land".

  1487
  To a great extent, this is already covered by Clause 22. But it would also seem intended to allow for directions to be made for the purposes of nature conservation and generally for the purposes of security and perhaps privacy. The word "diminution" in this context would mean that any application could be successful if it were able to show the likelihood of some diminution in "harm", however slight.
  Having made our concession about excepting land within 20 metres of a dwelling, we believe that directions under Clause 22 should be justified for the purposes of land management, and that this is wide enough to cover all reasonable requirements.
  Returning to the guidance issued by the Countryside Agency, the agency will be consulting the National Countryside Access Forum over criteria and guidance for land management closures. I hope that that answers the question of the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
  Amendments Nos. 126 and 128 concern the problems of small or part-time farmers who can undertake land management activity only at weekends because they work during the week. Clause 22(3) of the Bill already ensures that the relevant authority has a sufficient discretion to take these matters into account. Where the farmer has exhausted or otherwise made provision for the use of the discretion to close at weekends, and has good reasons for undertaking the work at weekends—for example, because he has another job during the week—it would be entirely proper for the relevant authority to make a direction excluding or restricting access. As to the letter that my noble friend Lord Whitty sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on 30th October, yes it is true that under paragraph (c), which refers to purposes, this is a legitimate purpose and could well be the basis of an application. There may be other cases also where the limited opportunity to restrict access at weekends under Clause 21 means that it is necessary for the authority to make directions under Clauses 22, 23 or 24, restricting access at the weekends. Nothing in Clause 22(3) or any other provision of Chapter II prevents the exercise in this way of the relevant authority's discretion. We do not believe that Amendments Nos. 126 and 128 are necessary or desirable.
  Amendment No. 124B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, would amend Clause 22, making it explicit that the closure might apply to a specified part of the day or of certain specified days. I can assure the noble Viscount that the specification that land may be closed for a specified period does not mean a specified period of a year. There is nothing in the clause to prescribe that a specified period must, as a minimum, constitute a complete day. So the amendment is not necessary. If access at night presents problems for land management or nature conservation, then restrictions on closures may be approved under Clause 22 or Clause 24.
  Finally, I shall deal with Amendment No.127. The answer is the same as to an earlier amendment. If a landowner has used up all of his 28 days simply
  1488
  because he does not want walkers on the land, then it is reasonable that the authority should be able to take that into account in deciding whether to give a direction under Clause 22.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I did not speak to Amendment No. 127. I withdrew it.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, excellent! Here endeth the first lesson.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I apologise to him if I am wrong. I am not sure that he responded to my Amendment No. 121.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I responded to Amendment No. 121 together with Amendment Nos. 122 and 125 right at the very beginning. That is when I first made the point about not increasing the 28 days by stealth. In other words, it is proper for the authority to consider whether the application is being made because the first 28 days were used simply on the basis that the landowner did not want walkers on his land.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, my amendment substitutes the word "may" for "shall". The relevant part is,
  "if the authority are satisfied that the exclusion or restriction under this section of access by virtue of section 2(1)…is necessary".
  It seems to me rather peculiar that it is only "may". Having made the decision or having decided that it was appropriate, I would have thought that it would only be appropriate for it to carry it out and the word "shall" would be appropriate.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, perhaps I may add to that. The noble Earl's point is already governed by subsection (3). In deciding whether it is necessary, one looks to see for what purposes he has used the existing 28 days. Having decided that he has used them properly and needs more, surely the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is right to say that it should be "shall". I believe that the Minister's point deals with that.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one has to read Amendment No. 121 with Amendment No. 122 in particular as well as Amendment No. 125 unless the noble Earl really means to move Amendment No. 121 without moving Amendment No. 122. I appreciate that they are separate amendments, but the effect of what the noble Earl wants is to change Clause 22(1) to say,
  "the relevant authority shall by direction".
  The end of the same sentence is that it is "necessary" or "expedient". The noble Earl spoke to the amendments together and I responded to them together.
  Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that they are separate amendments and that it is perfectly open to the Government to say that they do not accept the point about substituting "expedient" for "necessary" for the reasons given by the Minister, but that they do accept

  1489
  Amendment No.121 because once the relevant body has found that what is asked for is necessary, it jolly well should do it. It would be perfectly open to the Government to say that they accept Amendment No. 121, but not the other. That is what I invite them to do if they are not persuaded on the expediency point.
  11.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I responded to the way in which the amendments were spoken to—as a coherent whole. I accept that the noble Lord is right and that I could separate them out. If the noble Earl, Lord Peel, wishes to do so, then let me say that I do not accept Amendment No. 121 or Amendment No. 122—because this retains the discretion for the authorities.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, the point is that they have the discretion. Once they have made the decision that a request for closure is appropriate, surely they should then carry it out, and "shall" should be substituted for "may". It could not be simpler.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have been in this House for nearly 18 years and I do not think there has been a month when there has not been a "may"/"shall" debate. Relevant authorities must have a clear discretion to take into account all of the circumstances in each case. "May" makes that clear.
  Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, the noble Lord is perhaps bemused by the length of his experience. The wording laid down by the Government,
  "if the authority are satisfied",
  that the exclusion is necessary, gives the authority the full power of discretion. If the authority is not so satisfied, nothing further happens; but if is so satisfied and exercises its discretion in that favour, surely it is right that it should be required to make the direction.
  I hope that, even at this hour, the Minister will separate the two amendments, and indicate why this proposal is objectionable. I do not think that any point of policy turns on it. It is a question of clarifying the position rather than anything else. I hope that the Minister will accept that if we were trying to introduce some change of policy or balance, we should say so; but that is not the case.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I already risk abusing the conventions of the House at Report stage. I do not accept that. I believe that discretion is paramount. The effect of the amendments, individually and collectively would be, by stealth, to extend the 28-day period.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I do not like being accused of trying to extend the closures by stealth. The amendment is perfectly clear. There is a contradiction in terms. In view of the Minister's wholly unsatisfactory answer, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
  11.32 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 121) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 77.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

  Attlee, E.

  Monson, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Montrose, D.

  Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Northbourne, L.

  Byford, B.

  Northbrook, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Colwyn, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Peel, E. [Teller]

  Crathorne, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Dundee, E.

  Selsdon, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Skidelsky, L.

  Luke, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Amos, B.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Bach, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L (Lord Chancellor)

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Borrie, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Brett, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Carter, L.[Teller]

  Mitchell, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Nicol, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Patel, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Rea, L.

  Elder, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Gale, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Turnberg, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Warner, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Hayman, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  11.42 p.m.
  [Amendments Nos. 122 to 129 not moved.]
  Clause 23 [Avoidance of risk of fire or of danger to the public]:
  Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 130:
  Page 14, line 4, leave out ("exceptional conditions of weather") and insert ("combination of the conditions of the weather, the ground or the vegetation on the land").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment includes more specific reference to conditions of the ground and vegetation as well as to the weather. I believe that the Government must allow for closure where the weather is fairly normal but where the fire risk is high. Many of the areas involved will comprise SSSIs, SPAs and SACs and moorland of international importance. Are the Government saying that precautionary closures on these areas should not occur where a combination of factors means that the fire risk is high?
  Fire effects can be catastrophic, as many of us have seen over the years. I recall the fire on Rosedale Moor in 1976. That moor has still not recovered. Fire is a debilitating factor and has considerable impacts on nature conservation. Exceptional weather conditions suggest prolonged drought. "Exceptional conditions of weather" is the phrase used in the Bill as at present drafted. That is simply not enough. We have to take into account these other factors. I hope that the Government will look carefully at the issue. I do not look for extensions on closure orders. I simply seek to address the important issue of fire which I do not believe is properly addressed in the wording of the Bill as drafted. I beg to move.
  11.45 p.m.
  Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, the noble Earl has a point. Where weather conditions may not be right for closure through fire risk other issues might come into play. Heathland can be at risk because the older and woodier heather is exceptionally combustible; or peat may have dried out over a long period of time. There are circumstances where a broader index is taken into account. The Meteorological Office Rainfall and Evaporation Calculation System (MOREX)—it gives objective and quantitative risk status taking into account a number of issues—is used at present with regard to closures for fire risks in the Peak and North York Moors National Parks.
  Before Third Reading, the Minister might consider the need for some expansion of the explanation relating to closures for fire risk.
  Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall not repeat what I said in Committee. However, I do not understand why the Government are not prepared to look at some alternative wording. My preference would be to refer in general terms to conditions giving rise to a fire risk, ignoring reference to weather and so on. I ask the
  1492
  Government to consider the issue again. It is common sense. There is no deep ideological divide. The provision in the Bill is not right at present.
  The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place earlier to move my amendment. My organisation was such that the two people whom I asked to move it in my absence were both unable to do so.
  I support my noble friend's amendment. We have a moor which suffers from lack of proper maintenance. In some ways it reflects what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. The moor has become heavily infected with heather beetle. Instead of large woody heather, there is an enormous amount of dry tinder-like heather with no life in it. If huge areas like that developed, it would be a greater fire risk at times when there was no danger from extreme weather.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that we have any disagreement about the need to avoid fires and to deal with fire risk, just as we have no disagreement about the need to deal with exceptional weather conditions. The amendment would allow any combination of conditions of the weather, the condition of the ground or the vegetation on the land to be taken into account. We are in danger of descending into theology here if we seek to cover every possible eventuality.
  We believe that the provision in Clause 23 will cover all those cases where there is a legitimate need for restrictions or exclusion of access. It will be necessary to look at the weather in conjunction with the condition of the land and the vegetation: the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is right. But the weather conditions are the key to the exercise of the power. There will be situations where the risk of fire becomes most serious some considerable time after the exceptional weather, such as a prolonged drought, but the risk will still be due to that earlier exceptional weather and will still fall within Clause 23.
  As we said in Committee, there may be other circumstances in which there is a possible fire risk that has not arisen because of the exceptional weather conditions. For example, some types of vegetative cover may be flammable even in an ordinary summer. Those conditions are not exceptional and, by definition, they are not caused by usual weather conditions. They are part of the normal fabric of the open countryside and I am not satisfied that they give enough reason to restrict access to the land.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the Peak District National Park and North Yorkshire. The Peak District park has powers to exclude access at times of high fire risk under the same circumstances as provided for in Clause 23(1)(a). We are not aware of any representations that the powers have been inadequate. The Countryside Agency is working with the Meteorological Office to develop an early warning system. That may be what my noble friend referred to, although I did not catch the acronym. It will take account of weather and ground conditions and enable the relevant authority to assess whether a direction for

  1493
  a closure should he made. The system would be similar to that which currently operates successfully in the Peak District.
  As we explained in Committee, if we allowed restrictions of public access in the generalised circumstances described in the amendment, many parts of the countryside could be closed to the public during most of the summer months when most people are likely to visit it. I am prepared to consider whether there is any mileage in pursuing the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, of making a particular reference to fire risk as a subordinate consideration, but putting the three on an equal footing, as the amendment would, is not justified.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I am somewhat confused because I think that the Minister gave an assurance that ground conditions and the vegetation on the land would be taken into consideration by the local authority when assessing whether it was appropriate to close an area because of fire risk. If he can assure us that authorities will take that into account, I do not understand why he does not accept the amendment. However, that is as may be.
  I have no intention of dividing the House on the issue. I am encouraged by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and by the fact that the Minister has said that he is prepared to look at the issue again in the light of what the noble Lord has said. Given those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 24 [Nature conservation and heritage preservation]:
  [Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 132:
  Clause 24, page 15, line 6, at end insert—
  ("( ) the purpose of preventing erosion of any track across the land which is used by persons exercising the right granted under section 2(1), or for repairing any damage caused by erosion to any such track;").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who is no longer in his place, raised his concerns that unlimited access may cause damage to sensitive areas. The Minister said that such damage would come under Clause 22, which is the land management clause. However, on reflection I am still uneasy as to whether that clause is adequately worded to cope with such circumstances.
  Erosion needs to be tackled swiftly if major and costly repairs are to be avoided. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, government Amendment No. 134 is consequential on the formal change of name of English Nature in Clause 68. As we said in Committee, we have tabled an amendment to change the reference to the "Nature Conservancy Council for England" in Clause 24(6)(a)(i) to "English Nature", which is the name by
  1494
  which that body is generally known. That is consistent with the changes that have already been made to other parts of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 132 would introduce a new criterion for the making of directions under Clause 24 for the purposes of preventing erosion of any track or for repairing damage caused by erosion to any such track. Perhaps I may offer some reassurance. Stopping or preventing further erosion may well be the purpose of a direction under Clause 24. In addition, if problems of erosion arise in particular areas, it, will be open to those affected to seek restrictions on the right of access by means of directions under Clause 22 in order to secure the effective management of the land.
  Those affected may also wish to seek agreement with access authorities under Chapter III of the Bill for the construction of a new means of access which, in conjunction with strategically placed notices or information points, could be used to guide walkers away from sites which a landowner believes are susceptible to erosion. Therefore, in practice Amendment No. 132 is unnecessary and I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendment.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am reassured by her words and, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 134:
  Page 15, line 23, leave out ("the Nature Conservancy Council for England") and insert ("English Nature").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Directions by relevant authority: general]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 135:
  Page 15, line 35, at beginning insert—
  ("( ) Before giving a direction under section 22, 23 or 24 in relation to land in an area for which there is a local access forum so as to exclude or restrict access to the land—

  (a) indefinitely, or

  (b) during a period which exceeds, or may exceed, six months,

  the relevant authority shall consult the local access forum.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 30 [Regulations relating to exclusion or restriction of access]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 136:
  Page 18, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(aa) as to the steps to be taken under section (Dogs on certain land)(1) and (2),").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 137 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Clause 31 [Guidance by countryside bodies to National Park authorities]:
  [Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
  Clause 32 [Interpretation of Chapter III]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 138A:
  Page 20, line 5, after ("land)") insert ("or on the land").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 138A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 138B. These amendments relate to Chapter III and deal with means of access. They seek assurances that the definition of "means of access", in particular in relation to fences or hedges which bound land and items on the land, covers not only fences and hedges around the edge of a parcel of land but includes, for example, walls and fences which cross a particular parcel of land. The amendment simply seeks that assurance. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Baroness that assurance. Clause 32 as it stands covers means of access in relation to appropriate places within access land. Means of access includes an opening, gate or stile bounding the land or part of the land. The reference to "part of the land" means access from one part of access land to another and, therefore, in the noble Baroness's terms, within the access land. Therefore, that is already covered.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 138B not moved.]
  Clause 35 [Provision of access by access authority in absence of agreement]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 139:
  Page 21, line 26, after ("land") insert (", or to other access land,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 139, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 140. These are minor amendments. Amendment No. 139 makes it clear that access authorities must serve a notice of intention to carry out works relating to a means of access in respect of any access land where the means of access is required to facilitate access to other access land. The Bill currently provides only that such a notice may be served to secure means of access to the access land in question.
  Of course, such a notice may be issued only provided that the access authorities have sought, and have been unable to reach, an agreement with the owner or occupier regarding the means of access.
  Amendment No. 140 fulfils a commitment made in Committee to provide that owners or occupiers may appeal against such notices on grounds that a different means of access should be provided. That proposal received support in Committee and, therefore, I hope that the amendments will be welcomed. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, our Amendment No. 139A is in the same group. This clause deals with the provision of access by the access authority where there is no agreement. We were concerned to ensure that the position between the introduction of the Bill and its coming into force is covered. In other words,
  1496
  one could look on this as a sort of anti-avoidance provision. I believe that the Bill was introduced into another place on 3rd March of this year, which is why that date is used in the amendment.
  We are concerned, for example, that a landowner who in the past has had some simple means of access such as a makeshift bridge made up of a couple of planks, because of concern about danger to the public, rather than providing a more substantial bridge would simply remove it. While we welcome the clause and the amendments, we wish to cover the actions which may be taken by a worried, not necessarily malevolent, landowner in the position from now until this Bill is enforced.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, this amendment is unnecessary. Access authorities may take action where it appears to them that a means of access needs opening up. That would include a situation where a previous means of access has been removed, destroyed or has become dangerous. Therefore, that is covered by a combination of the Bill as it stands and the amendments which we have just moved.
  In addition, as my amendments indicate, there must be an attempt to reach agreement with the landowners, and that is not fully reflected in the amendment. In any event, it is unnecessary.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 139A not moved.]
  Clause 36 [Appeals relating to notices]:
  Midnight
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 140:
  Clause 36, page 22, line 19, after ("elsewhere") insert (", or that a different means of access should be provided").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 38 [Powers of entry for purposes of Part I]:
  Lord Glentoran Lord Glentoran moved Amendment No. 141:
  Clause 38, page 23, line 36, at end insert—
  ("( ) for the purposes of removing litter, or
  ( ) for the purposes of removing waste dumped therein").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the removal of litter. One of the problems with the Bill, particularly in Part I, is that it is very difficult to insert anywhere clauses which actually lay duties on anyone other than the owner or occupier. Another is perhaps that the Bill still does not totally recognise a number of the well-known problems inherent in running the countryside.
  We have had debates during the passage of the Bill about litter and the dumping of waste. The problem is well understood and accepted on all sides of the House. But we do not seem to have a satisfactory means of managing it. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors said in its policy on the implications of enhanced access:
  "There have been litter problems in areas where people walk, such as the long distance routes and paths. Even in remote areas such as the Lyke-wake Walk, litter is dropped along the route. It is often impossible to catch the perpetrator, so the provision in the

  1497
  Bill to give them trespasser status for a day will not be a practical solution. The new arrangements must contain provisions for the collection of litter".
  That is the intention behind the amendment. I hope that the Government will see a way of accepting this and helping to solve that inevitable problem. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to respond to Amendment No. 141 and to speak also to government Amendments Nos. 142 and 143. I shall deal with Amendment No. 141 first, as we all share the concern about litter. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made clear in Committee that we take the matter seriously. We are looking at measures both to help prevent it occurring in the first place, which is clearly the ideal, or, failing that, to deal effectively with it where it does occur.
  Leaving litter on access land will be a criminal offence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 liable to a fine of up to £2,500 in the magistrates' court.
  We envisage that mainly it will require only a light touch. Open land is not a country park. There are large tracts of moor and other open country where only the more adventurous will go. But there will be some areas which have been off limits in the past which will become popular. It is particularly in those areas that litter could become a problem. The Countryside Agency is discussing with us how the right of access can best be implemented and managed. We are considering the need for a specific grant regime to help fund effective management of access on the ground or example through signs, information and other facilities. That kind of grant may also be the appropriate mechanism for funding action to prevent or clear litter which has resulted directly from the new right of access. The grant fund would be in addition to the resources which local authorities will have to meet their responsibilities under the Bill; for example, the provision of wardens or new and improved means of access.
  That is how we plan to tackle litter problems which may arise, but we are still open to other suggestions and were interested to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
  I turn to Amendment No. 141. If there is a problem with litter and the local highway authority wishes to take action, it can enter the land concerned with the agreement of the occupier. I do not see why an occupier should object to someone else clearing litter or rubbish on his land. Alternatively, a warden can be appointed and one of the duties could be the removal of litter. Wardens will have the power of entry under the Bill. Therefore, I do not think that the amendment is necessary and I hope that it will not be pressed.
  I turn to government Amendments Nos. 142 and 143, which make consistent what public bodies may do under Part I and Part III of the Bill in carrying out their legal responsibilities and what provision should be made for compensation if they cause damage.
  Amendment No. 143 reflects our agreement to consider a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, in Committee. We accept the
  1498
  principle that if damage is caused by a public body in carrying out its legal responsibilities, a person suffering such damage should be entitled to compensation. That is why we accepted a similar amendment tabled in another place in relation to Part III of the Bill.
  It is possible that a person authorised by a public body might cause damage, for example, in constructing or repairing a means of access or in erecting a notice. Amendment No. 142 clarifies what authorised persons may do in exercising their powers under this part of the Bill. The provision is similar to Clause 74(6). I commend the amendments to the House.
  Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 143, Amendment No. 144:
  Line 14, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
  ("by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Caithness to move Amendment No. 144 as an amendment to Amendment No. 143. Amendment No. 144 states that any dispute as to a person's entitlement to compensation under this clause or as to its amount should be referred to an arbiter to be appointed in default by the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
  The intention of the amendment is to create an independent arbiter outside the orbit of government. Originally it was thought that a tribunal might be the best process, but the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has been thought to be appropriate.
  As a result, a conflict of interest where a Minister or assembly is arbitrating on the validity of an individual clause in a Government Act is avoided. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are debating Amendment No. 141. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, spoke to Amendment No. 144 but I need the leave of the House to respond to that amendment, which I now seek.
  Of course the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is representative of the surveying profession and has a wealth of experience in dealing with claims in relation to property generally. We do not expect many, if any, of the claims for compensation to arise as a result of the use of the powers of entry under Part I. But we accept that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales may decide that chartered surveyors are the most appropriate people to act as arbitrators. We would not wish to fetter their discretion to decide on whom to appoint.
  Having heard and paid serious attention to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, about the potential for conflict of interest, which we accept, nevertheless we believe that the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales should retain responsibility for appointing arbitrators.
  Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I speak once again to Amendment No. 141. The difficulty with littermongers is that one can never catch them.

  1499
  Having said that, I welcome the Minister's positive and helpful comments. It is good to know that the Government understand and accept the problem and indeed that they are not only thinking about it, but are clearly thinking of putting some money where it is necessary and I am grateful for that.
  I omitted to thank the Minister when I moved Amendment No. 141 for his Amendment No. 143 in response to my original Amendment No. 299. I am extremely grateful and delighted that the Government made that concession and welcome both Amendments Nos. 142 and 143. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 142:
  Clause 38, page 24, line 12, at end insert—
  ("(4A) A person acting in the exercise of a power conferred by this section may—

  (a) use a vehicle to enter the land;

  (b) take a constable with him if he reasonably believes he is likely to be obstructed:

  (c) take with him equipment and materials needed for the purpose for which he is exercising the power of entry;

  (d) take samples of the land and of anything on it.

  (4B) If in the exercise of a power conferred by this section a person enters land which is unoccupied or from which the occupier is temporarily absent, he must on his departure leave it as effectively secured against unauthorised entry as he found it.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 143:
  After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  COMPENSATION RELATING TO POWERS UNDER S. 38
  (" .—(1) It is the duty of a body by which an authorisation may be given under section 38 to compensate any person who has sustained damage as a result of—

  (a) the exercise of a power conferred by that section by a person authorised by that body to do so, or

  (b) the failure of a person so authorised to perform the duty imposed on him by subsection (4B) of that section,

  except where the damage is attributable to the fault of the person who sustained it.
  (2) Any dispute as to a person's entitlement to compensation under this section or as to its amount shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement—

  (a) as respects entry on land in England, by the Secretary of State, and

  (b) as respects entry on land in Wales, by the National Assembly for Wales.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his earlier reply. I should like to read carefully what he said. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 144.
  Amendment No. 144, as an amendment to Amendment No. 143, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment No.143 agreed to.
  12.15 a.m.
  Lord Brittan of Spennithorne Lord Brittan of Spennithorne moved Amendment No. 145:
  After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  COMPENSATION FOR DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF LAND
  (" .—(1) Where an owner or a person with an interest in land proves that he has suffered a diminution in the value of his land or interest therein due to the right conferred by section 2(1), he shall be entitled to claim compensation in the same manner and on the same basis as provided under sections 70 to 72 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 ("the 1949 Act") in relation to land over which an access order has been made under Part V of that Act.
  (2) Regulations may be made as under section 70 of the 1949 Act.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 145. My noble friend Lord Renton asked me to say that he would have liked to be here to speak in support of this amendment but is indisposed because of a heavy cold. I understand the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, to be similarly indisposed.
  Amendment No. 145 provides compensation if there has been a diminution in the value of the land as a result of the right of access provisions of this legislation. I start on the basis that it is reasonable, as a matter of common justice, to provide that somebody whose land becomes less valuable exclusively as the result of rights conferred specifically by an Act of Parliament, should receive compensation. It is not an act of nature; it is an act of government and the owner of the land is, ex hypothesi, the loser.
  Quite apart from it being reasonable as a matter of common justice that somebody whose land suffers a loss of value as a result of the deliberate decisions of Parliament should receive compensation, it is also something which, if not provided for, is likely to amount to a breach of Article 1 of the human rights convention which is now part of the law of this country. The House will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to repeat everything I said in Committee in relation to the application of the human rights convention to this Bill.
  However, I will say that although I have not been able to be present during all your Lordships' debates on the Bill, I am not aware of any substantial answer being given to the points I made in the debate relating to the application of the article in the Convention on Human Rights. Perhaps I may remind the House that I was not simply making it up as I went along, but citing relevant British court decisions as well as Strasbourg ones. So I remain dissatisfied with the state of the Bill, and the amendment is designed, at least in part, to remedy the problems caused by the lack of compensation on the face of the Bill and its incompatibility with the provisions of the Convention on Human Rights.
  When one is talking about the right of access, one is really talking about a generalised right of way. The only difference is that the right of way is not on a linear path but over a wide area of land. The purposes for which it is granted are not to pass and repass, which is

  1501
  practically the purpose of a right of way, but for recreational purposes. But in all other respects it is a generalised right of way and I do not believe that it would ever be doubted that if one grants a right of way on someone's land one is thereby diminishing the value of the property. The only question is to what extent, if it is measurable, is there such a diminution. The same would apply if there had been a right of access, but a greater loss would be suffered because the right of access to the land is greater than a mere right of way.
  The question for the House is: has there been an infringement of property rights and, if so, should compensation be granted for that? The House will recall that on 18th April this year, Mr Meacher in another place conceded that the Bill infringes property rights. I do not believe that that can be seriously disputed. But of course it is the case that as regards the convention the right is not absolute. It has been interpreted as requiring a fair balance to be drawn between the demands of the general community and the requirements of the individual's fundamental rights, including the right to enjoy his property without any diminution of its value.
  Therefore, if that fair balance has to be drawn in order to establish whether there has been a breach of the convention, the question of whether compensation is provided is supremely relevant. Let me once again quote the recent case of Lithgow in which the judge stated that compensation terms were material to the assessment of whether a fair balance had been struck between the various interests at stake and, notably, whether a disproportionate burden had been imposed on the person deprived of his possessions.
  Therefore, compensation terms are not merely relevant, they are material, and there are no such provisions here. Therefore, it seems to me clear that apart from questions of justice in the abstract sense and fairness in the normal sense, the Minister must be highly at risk with regard to the provisions of the Convention on Human Rights if he proceeds without allowing for compensation where there has been a loss of value of the land.
  That argument is all the stronger for the fact that there is ample precedent for providing for compensation where there has been a loss of property rights as a result of statutory enactment. Indeed, the wording of my proposed new clause derives wholly from that precedent; namely, that of the National Parks Act. To that might be added the Highways Act 1980, which deals in similar fashion with the effect of the creation of rights of way.
  What we are proposing in the new clause is to follow precisely the procedure of the National Parks Act with regard to compensation. As to that, the Minister will recall that ample protection is given against frivolous claims in the sense that people assert that their land has lost value when there is no evidence of it. One of the ways in which that is guarded against is that a claim can be made only after five years when there will or will not be evidence of a loss of value.
  In scanning the various observations that have been made during the passage of this legislation I have sought an answer to the question of whether, in
  1502
  fairness, compensation should be granted and how the situation is to be handled in terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. At times it is said that in effect there cannot be any possible loss of value. The question that is frequently asked is: if that is so, what do the Government have to fear from a provision which states that if after five years it can be shown, contrary to their belief, that there has been a loss of value compensation is payable?
  It is not credible to believe that if there is a substantial increase in access, under no circumstances will there be any loss of value. Noble Lords will recall that in earlier debates I said that the whole purpose of the Bill was not to bring about an incremental addition to the number of people having access to the land but that, for the benefit of the public, there should be substantial extra access to the land. There would be no point in introducing legislation of this complexity if it was not meant to change the situation on the ground and give large numbers of people the right to enter upon other people's property which they do not have now. In those circumstances, the evidence already cited of an average cost of £4 per acre in the Peak District is relevant as an indication of probable loss in value. That loss must be proved and cannot simply be asserted. There is no basis for saying it is inconceivable that there will be any loss at all.
  Another argument that I discover in scanning the pages of the reports is that compensation may be given. It is clear from the cases, in particular the one I cited when noble Lords last debated this matter, that it is no answer to an entitlement to compensation on grounds of justice to say that some body may in its discretion give compensation if it wants to do so. That is fundamentally contrary to all principles of law. If one is entitled to compensation, it is a matter of right and is not dependent on the discretion of some body. If it is clearly established that there has been a diminution in the value of land, it is inconceivable that anybody who considers the issue will say that it does not matter because some body may or may not at its discretion grant compensation.
  A further argument which appears to be deployed in answer to the call for compensation is that the grant of the right of access affects everybody and, therefore, there is no entitlement to compensation for a breach of the convention. There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of that argument. It is certainly the case that if different groups of people in the same circumstances are treated differently that is discrimination which may be the foundation for a claim that there has been a breach of the convention. But it is a great mistake to say that it is only if there is discrimination in favour of or against one particular class of people among those affected that a breach occurs. There does not need to be discrimination for a breach to arise. It is clear that if there is unfair deprivation of the value of one's land, that is objectionable, whether it applies to everybody or to only a class of people.
  The final argument concerns who should pay compensation because of the loss of the value of the land. Again, as in the case of the national parks provisions, I have followed the analogy there and said

  1503
  that the exact modalities whereby this right is translated into a reality should be left to regulations. That would be a reasonable approach.
  Perhaps I may say to the Minister that this is not meant to be a subversive amendment. It is not meant to be something that makes it impossible to grant the right of access which the Government feel they have a mandate to grant to people who have been waiting for it for a long time. Rather I would say that those who feel they have waited so long to get this right of access will not thank the Government if that right is held up for a long period in litigation in this country and elsewhere because the present provisions are found to be in breach of the human rights provisions—provisions that the Government have, to their credit I happen to believe, enacted. I would say to the Minister that to the extent that he thinks that compensation is something which is irrelevant because it will never arise, the noble Lord would be wise to listen to the arguments that have been put forward in many quarters that a provision of this kind would not subvert the intentions of the Government but would render them immune from challenge in an embarrassing and unnecessary way.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, has drawn attention to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, have added their names to the amendment. In view of the hour and the fact that neither of those noble Lords is still quite in the first flush of youth, their absence is perhaps not surprising, quite apart from any ill-health. But the House and, with respect, the Government cannot ignore the fact that two noble Lords of that experience, of that knowledge of the law, and so forth, have thought it appropriate to add their names to the amendment whereas they have not taken part generally in the Bill. Surely, that must give the Government serious cause for thought that the amendment is necessary as a matter to satisfy the requirements of the law.
  Perhaps I may add two other points. First, surely the need for compensation is extenuated by the fact that the Government decline to give any form of indemnification to persons who incur loss and expense. They recognise that people will incur loss and expense. But if they do not get that money back, that must mean that there is a diminution in the value of the land.
  As to discrimination, it is not an answer to say that this affects all landowners equally and, therefore, there is no need for compensation. If the Government said that "everyone who owns a house shall give it up to squatters", I cannot believe that they could say also, "and we do not have to compensate you because that applies to all house owners". But of course this is discriminatory even as between landowners. It applies only to those landowners who happen to own land of this kind. Other landowners who do not own land of this kind do not suffer the same diminution in the value of the land. Surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, said, the Government do not want this elaborate
  1504
  legislation to run into the sands, in the light of the argument advanced by the noble Lord, of a very worrying human rights challenge. It would be better to accept that where after five years it is apparent that someone has genuinely suffered diminution in the value of the land he should be compensated for it. Of course, as the noble Lord says, some people may not suffer. They may benefit because they can open attractions.
  12.30 a.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I accept that the precondition set out in the amendment is the proof of loss of value. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, described that as being measurable; he said, "if it is measurable".
  I am not sure whether the noble Lord is using the 1949 Act as a model or as a precedent. I do not entirely go along with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, with regard to whether or not that was discriminatory and this legislation is not. I believe that there is a difference. However, as I understand the position, the convention and now our own legislation are not violated if the state imposes control which is in the public interest or enforces law in the public interest as the state judges that to be. It is required that a fair balance is applied. The state is the appropriate authority to determine the compensation, if any compensation, as long as it has regard to that balance. The House has been assured by the Minister that it has had regard to that balance; no doubt, that is on the basis of advice from the Law Officers.
  I hesitate to tangle with the eminent lawyers who have spoken to and put their names to the amendment, but it seems to us that it is for the state to take a view as to the process to be applied and then it is for the courts to assess whether the convention and the Human Rights Act have been complied with. I am a little concerned that we in this House may be confusing the roles of the legislature and the courts in attempting to assess the outcome of this process.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend's very well put case for Amendment No. 145. We touched on human rights during earlier proceedings on the Bill and the Government said confidently that human rights provisions will not apply in the way that my noble friend thinks they will. With that in mind, I should like to ask some questions of the Minister. First, have the Government sought up-to-date legal advice on the whole position of human rights, bearing in mind the way in which my noble friend has explained the position? If so, has that altered the view that they held before such advice was sought?
  Secondly, my noble friend pointed out that compensation "may" be given. That is not good enough. Why should that be the case? The landowner or property owner could find himself in a position which he would not otherwise be in, where the land that he owns has diminished in value as a result of these access provisions in which he has had no say. It is the Government's wish that these access provisions should

  1505
  come into existence and we do not object to that. But surely it is right that where legislation affects the value of the land compensation should be given. We are talking here both about the right of access and people's rights as property holders and land managers.
  My noble friend expressed the hope that the legislation will result in more people wanting to make use of the countryside, although it has also been suggested that the same people will simply make more visits to more sites. I hope that the legislation will encourage people to enjoy the countryside. But with that will come additional difficulties and perhaps a loss of value of the land to the landowner.
  My noble friend expressed his case very eloquently. I shall not repeat the points that he made. But I ask the Minister to state what views the Government held on this matter at the time of Second Reading and whether their views have changed. If their views have not changed, I ask that between now and Third Reading they seek up-to-date advice on the whole question of human rights legislation and how it affects the Bill.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have been asked to give a straight answer to the question put to me by the noble Baroness. I have not changed my mind. I do not think that compensation is appropriate in this area. I am constantly amazed at the different areas in which some members of the legal profession seek to cite the Human Rights Act and thus the convention. I do not believe that it is relevant to the position here, but even if that was not the case, I shall demonstrate shortly that it would not be appropriate and that the advice—which we continue to keep under review—has not changed; namely, that the provisions of the Human Rights Act would not appropriately lead to compensation as sought by the noble Lord.
  However, before I turn to the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, I shall deal with the current provisions in English law which the noble Lord has cited as precedents. In particular, whether as a precedent or as a model, the noble Lord has referred to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. He dismissed my main point as regards that Act. However, the reason why—unusually—compensation was provided in the 1949 Act was that it related to land of a particular kind. Discrimination was made between one landowner and another as regards what would be included within a national park. That is not the case here. The right of access will apply to all mountain, moor, heath, down and common land. No discrimination will be made and therefore no prima facie right to compensation will exist in relation to the value of such land.
  The more general position in English law has been that no compensation has been paid. The Law of Property Act 1925, which gave the right of access on foot and on horseback to large areas of common land, did not make any general provision for compensation. If that is too ancient a precedent for noble Lords, then I shall cite the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, an Act
  1506
  passed when the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, was a leading member of the government. That Act also did not provide for compensation.
  I do not believe that the comparison with rights of way is valid. Noble Lords have suggested that, because compensation is payable on rights of way, it should be payable on rights of access. I believe that the noble Lord said that this is only a "generalised right of way". However, the balance here is quite different. Landowners with rights of way are subject to a large number of obligations. For instance, if they are ploughing up a field, they must restore a right of way and keep it clear of crops. As regards access land, there is no such obligation. At any time, owners can change the nature of the land by ploughing it up, planting it or undertaking any other operation on it. In many such cases, that of itself would mean that the right of access would cease. It would no longer be access land because it would not be open country.
  Another difference is that, for open countryside, we have allowed for a generous closure regime; even after the amendments that we are proposing to Part If of the Bill, the possibilities for landowners and managers to close rights of way will be extremely limited. No analogy exists in relation to rights of way.
  In relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, now enshrined in English law, I think that it is important for me to put on the record certain points I made at earlier stages. The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, indicated that the right of property is not absolute in the convention. Indeed, I would argue that it is not even necessarily paramount. However, Article 1 of the First Protocol refers to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and goes on to say that no one should be deprived of their possessions except in the public interest and subject to conditions provided for by law. It also states that:
  "The preceding provisions shall not … in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest".
  It is self-evident that we do not consider that the right of access is the taking of property. It does not, therefore, fall under the earlier provision. If we were nationalising or taking over land for some other purpose, then the matter would be brought under the first provision. Indeed, the noble Lord cited the Lithgow case, which I remember well as I was the author of the original Labour Party policy which called for the nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry. That case dealt with the deprivation of ownership by means of nationalisation. It therefore fell under the provision relating to the taking of land. This provision relates to the control of the use of property, not to the taking of the use of property.
  As the noble Lord is no doubt aware, it is fairly well established that where the taking of property is concerned—except in very exceptional circumstances—compensation is provided. But compensation is not necessarily required to achieve the balance between the public interest and the protection of private property that is required in the Bill in respect of control over the use of property. In this context we

  1507
  are talking about control over the use of property—namely, the requirement to provide access—and, provided that there is a fair balance in other respects, there is no requirement for compensation in that area.
  We have had regard to a number of leading cases, including, for example, Baner v. Sweden, in which it was established that, where there is a control of property, there is no presumption of compensation. There are a number of other such cases which refine and clarify the law in that respect. The noble Baroness would not expect me—even less would the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, expect me—to breach the normal convention that we do not disclose the advice from Law Officers. Nevertheless, even from general legal reading, it is clear that my position can be sustained in relation to control of property. We are on fairly substantial legal ground in saying that, where a fair balance is established by other means, compensation is not appropriate.
  Much of the debate has been about the nature of that balance. Some noble Lords consider that the balance is not fair. But perhaps even they would concede that it is somewhat fairer than when the Bill first came to the House because, by and large, we have made amendments which move in the direction of the landowner. Nevertheless, they still query whether we have reached a fair balance.
  In all of this we have been talking about balance. We believe that we have reached a fair balance as a result of a number of amendments, proposed originally by noble Lords and introduced, by and large, by the Government. Except in exceptional circumstances, that balance does not require an additional right of compensation.
  Because of the concerns expressed about the effects on landowners, we have accepted a significant number of changes and we have pledged that there will be adequate funding to manage access properly. We understand that there remain anxieties, but as many landowners will benefit as will be detrimentally affected, as they would see it, by the provisions of the Bill. It is not sensible that we should provide a general compensation clause in the way suggested by the noble Lord's amendment.
  It is important that there is an appropriate balance between the public interest of walkers and the population at large, and the interests of landowners. We believe that we have reached that balance—or are in the process of reaching it—and that the issue of compensation is not therefore relevant. English law precedent suggests that it is not the normal situation in any case, and I believe that I have shown that, under the European Convention on Human Rights, the balance of cases are on my side rather than on the side of the noble Lord. I hope that he will not pursue his amendment.
  Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: My Lords, I find the Minister's response deeply disappointing but, frankly, not surprising.
  1508
  Perhaps I may deal first with the question of the general balance. In any society that values the right of the individual, it is no answer to say that there is a broad balance between this group of citizens and another group of citizens where a particular individual is able to show loss. In this country we have always had the view that a person should be regarded as an individual, not only as a part of a group. If, as an individual—even if he is of that beleaguered class, the landowner—he has suffered loss, as a matter of justice, quite apart from all the provisions of English law and human rights law, we would believe, think, assert and say that that individual should be entitled to compensation, even if the group of people of which he is a member has been treated fairly or has been given concessions. The question only arises if an individual has suffered loss and can prove it. It is not right that in a civilised country that loss should be sustained and no provision made for compensation for that loss.
  As regards the law and the Convention on Human Rights, I am wholly unpersuaded by what the noble Lord said. He did not address at all the Chassagnou case on which I laid particular stress. The House might recall that I said that it was ironic because that was a case where hunters were allowed by statute to go on people's land against the owners' wishes. It was held that even though there was compensation a breach of the convention was made in giving the right to people to go on other people's land. There was no question of the taking of property, but merely allowing other people to go on other people's property. That was held to be sufficient to cause a breach of the convention. I am sure that the Minister has obtained advice in the usual way, but I doubt its validity in this particular case and regret that he has put us into the position where it may need to be put to the test.
  Finally, perhaps I may say a word about the position of the Liberal Democrats on this issue. Frankly, I was shocked to hear from that part of the House a speech in which it was said that it is for the state to decide what balance to make and for it to decide the process to be followed. Gladstone and John Stuart Mill would turn in their graves to hear that cavalier view expressed about the rights of the individual. It also shows a complete misconception of the way in which the convention works, and which I joined the Liberal Democrats in welcoming, contrary to the views of some members of my own party. Its whole purpose is to avoid a situation in which the court, uniquely as a result of that convention, has to decide whether the Government have got it right. It is not a question of saying that the Government do it and then the court looks at it. If the Government get the balance wrong, the consequence is that the whole legislation is regarded as being contrary to the convention. If they wish to be true to the convention which they have recently enacted, they have to put fresh legislation before the House. I find that approach disappointing and shocking from a party that regards itself at the forefront of the supporters of the incorporation of that convention into British law.

  1509
  The hour is late and we have not received satisfaction. I propose to withdraw the amendment at this stage in the hope that when we come to Third Reading wiser counsel may even then prevail and we can have another look at the whole question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  12.45 a.m.
  Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 146:
  After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—

  REVIEW OF EXERCISE OF POWERS AND DUTIES IN RELATION TO ACCESS LAND BY COUNTRYSIDE BODIES
  (" .——(1) Each countryside body shall, within five years after the commencement of this section, and subsequently at intervals of not more than ten years, prepare and publish a statement containing its assessment of—

  (a) the adequacy of its management, in exercising its duties and powers under Part I of this Act, of each of the matters specified in subsection (2), and

  (b) the action it proposes to take, if any, to improve its management of these matters.

  (2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are—

  (a) the maping of access land under Chapter I.

  (b) discretionary and permitted closures and restrictions under Chapter II,

  (c) the making of directions under Chapter II,

  (d) the provision of information to the public in relation to Part I, and

  (e) any other matters that may be specified in regulations.

  (3) Before preparing a statement under this section each countryside body shall consult such persons as may be prescribed in regulations.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 147. As I believe we are all aware from the various debates on the establishment of this Bill to give access to everybody, there will be teething problems. These two amendments require a review of the exercise of the powers and duties in relation to the access land by the countryside bodies. Amendment No. 147 proposes a review of the exercise of the powers and duties of the access authorities within five years in both instances.
  I hope that the Government will be able to support these amendments. I believe that they will consider them to be very wise and sensible.
  Turning to Amendment No. 147, at earlier stages there were objections to what was then Amendment No. 301 relating to access land management strategies on the grounds that local authorities already had enough plans to prepare and that some of the matters to be covered in the plans lay outwith the remit of the access authorities (Official Report, 9/10/00; cols 11–18).
  The amendment responds to those criticisms by requiring the authorities to prepare statements, not just plans as such, setting out how they have exercised the special functions and how they plan to improve the provisions in relation to these functions. My parallel amendment requires the same from the countryside bodies. Indeed, these are enormously important amendments.
  In Committee, the discussions around the proposal were well supported by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, who is unfortunately no longer in his place; and the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, indicated that we should return to the matter on Report, as indeed we have. My noble friend Lord Peel will also speak to these amendments.
  The Government may realise that they have failed to estimate the impact that the right of access may have on land management practices. There is nothing outrageous in these amendments. If the Government do not like the wording, I hope that at least they may feel able to support the thrust of the amendments, which require the countryside bodies to review the exercise and functioning of the provision they have made and to come back with statements on where they stand and where they see matters going in the future. I beg to move.
  Earl Peel: My Lords, I strongly support these two amendments. This legislation takes us into uncharted waters. There is no question that it will have a considerable implication for the way in which access land is managed.
  There are new opportunities for walkers, and with those come new responsibilities. We shall have to watch closely to see how those responsibilities are regarded by those with the new rights and how the access authority manages the balance—the word "balance" has recurred so often in discussions during the course of the Bill—between the two interests. That will be a crucial test as to how effective the legislation will be in practice.
  The ability of the access authorities to get the right messages to the public is essential. Let us not forget—and it is a major fault in the Bill—that there are no statutory requirements for people to go on to access land via access points. It is essential that the messages get through on restrictions, on by-laws and on the ability to implement the provisions in Schedule 2 and Chapter II. It will need to be asked whether all the various constraints, the messages and the whole raft of information that is essential in making the Bill effective is getting through and whether the public are responding effectively.
  We have discussed many times the question of dogs and the question of night-time access. All these issues bring new challenges to the countryside. It is essential that we keep close tabs on how the legislation is working in practice.
  There is another essential part to my noble friend's amendment; namely, the whole question of the financial provisions. Will they be sufficient to allow the access authorities to carry out their responsibilities? We shall have to wait and see. But without this amendment I do not believe that the structure is in place for us to look carefully and with due consideration—from everyone's point of view, not just that of the landowner but also of the walker—to see whether the Bill is working effectively.
  The Government maintain that local authorities already have enough plans to prepare and that, therefore, they do not want to burden them with any

  1511
  more. But, quite frankly, that is a pretty weak excuse. If there is a good reason for further plans—or, indeed, for a "statement", as specified in the amendment—then so be it. It is only right and proper that such considerations should be taken into account. I strongly support these amendments. They relate to an essential part of seeing how effective this Bill will be. As I have already said, its implications will be very significant.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we explained in Committee that we do not believe that it is desirable to place an additional duty on access authorities to publish an assessment of how they have used their powers under Part I. Amendment No. 146 would require the countryside bodies to publish a similar document outlining how they have carried out their various duties and powers under the Bill.
  The Countryside Agency is already required to produce an annual report explaining how it has fulfilled its statutory duties. The agency must do so every year rather than every 10 years, as this amendment would require. The publication of the annual report is a requirement under Schedule 13 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Schedule 13 currently refers only to the Countryside Agency's functions under the 1949 Act, the Countryside Act 1968 and the 1981 Act. We therefore propose to bring forward an amendment to ensure that the agency's functions under this Bill are also covered. The Countryside Council for Wales must produce an annual report under Schedule 6 to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This report relates to all the functions of the council and will include its functions under this Bill.
  Amendment No. 147 is similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. It would require access authorities to publish an assessment of the use that they have made of their powers under Part I of the Bill. We explained in Committee that it is neither necessary nor desirable to require authorities to produce yet another statutory assessment of their powers. Local authorities have a range of powers covering the whole spectrum of their responsibilities which they may use to assist them in fulfilling their functions. We expect them to assess and make good use of their new powers under Part I of this Bill, just as they do in relation to other powers. As with the majority of their powers, there is no need for a special statutory duty to be imposed to require such an assessment.
  The proposed duty in this amendment is not dissimilar to the duty in Part II to prepare and publish rights of way improvement plans. However, as my noble friend Lord McIntosh explained in Committee, local highway authorities have specific duties to carry out in relation to rights of way which are far more self-contained than powers relating to access land. The functions of access authorities in relation to access must be seen as part of a broader picture in conjunction with the functions of the countryside bodies and, in particular, with those of the relevant authorities. For example, the relevant authorities have
  1512
  an important role to play in access through exclusions and restrictions that will provide much of the basis for the exercise of the functions of access authorities to make by-laws and appoint wardens. We stress that access authorities should make careful use of their new powers under the Bill. They need to be able to be responsive to situations as they arise and not be bound by a statutory plan.
  The noble Earl, Lord Peel, said that it is important for us to look carefully at such issues. We believe that scrutiny is extremely important and that local access forums will be able to play a key role in reviewing the use that the authority is making of its powers. We also believe that that is the best approach to ensuring that all local authorities properly exercise their powers. I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wish to clarify a point. I thought I heard her say that the Government would consider the amendment further and might bring back a measure at a later stage. Did I mishear the noble Baroness?
  1 a.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I said that the annual report which is required under Schedule 13 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 specifies those functions which must be referred to in the report. I undertook to bring forward an amendment to add the provisions of this legislation to that specification.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification and for saying that the Government will consider whether some measures need to be added to those that are required to be mentioned in the annual report. However, I am slightly surprised that the Government do not think it a good idea every so often—in addition to the annual report—to review the framework on which the Bill is based.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we do not believe that it is right to lay down in legislation the rationale for strategic planning in that context. We believe that there will be full and essential monitoring through the annual report. However, in saying that, we do not preclude the body we are discussing from making a judgment in this context. However, we and the public will be kept fully informed through the annual report.
  Baroness Byford: My Lords, I shall read what the noble Baroness has said. I have no argument with what she has said. All I sought to indicate was that one usually reviews the operation of whatever business or organisation one is involved in. As I say, I shall read Hansard carefully tomorrow morning. Again I thank the noble Baroness for indicating that the Government may seek to add further provisions in this area. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
  Clause 41 [Orders and regulations under Part I]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 148 and 149:
  Page 25, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("has") in line 12 and insert—
  ("(3) No order under section 3 or regulations under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 shall be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft").
  Page 25, line 15, after ("any") insert ("other").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 42 [Interpretation of Part I]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 150:
  Page 26, line 1, leave out (" 1(2)") and insert (" 1(3)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments relating to Part I]:
  [Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
  Clause 45 [Restricted byway rights]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 152:
  Page 27, line 34, at end insert—
  ("(8A) The powers conferred by section 92(5) must be so exercised as to secure that nothing in section 44 or this section affects the operation of section 53 or 54 of, or Schedule 14 or 15 to, the 1981 Act in relation to—

  (a) a relevant order made before the commencement of section 44, or

  (b) an application made before that commencement for a relevant order.

  (8B) In subsection (8A) "relevant order" means an order which relates to a way shown in a definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path and which—

  (a) is made under section 53 of the 1981 Act and contains modifications relating to that way by virtue of subsection (3)(c)(ii) of that section, or

  (b) is made under section 54 of the 1981 Act.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 152 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 153. This is a significant point in that we now finally move to Part II.
  Amendment No. 152 relates to the transitional period between enactment of the Bill and the commencement of Clause 44 by orders made by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales under Clause 92. On commencement of Clause 44, restricted byway rights will be created over each way shown on a definitive map as a road used as a public path (RUPP).
  The rights attached to RUPPs are uncertain and local highway authorities are presently required to research each one and to reclassify it as a footpath, bridleway or byway open to all traffic. That obligation will cease when Clause 44 takes effect. Until then, authorities must continue to research their RUPPs and anyone with new evidence of the status of such ways will continue to be able to apply to their local authority for an order modifying the definitive map accordingly.
  Amendment No. 152 would require that such orders, and applications for them, which are made before commencement of Clause 44 but which have not taken effect should be processed to a final determination.
  Amendment No. 153 relates to the provision in Clause 46 whereby each road used as a public path over which restricted byway rights are created is to become maintainable at the public expense. It is our intention that private liabilities, for example liabilities of the private landowner, to maintain a RUPP, which is in fact a footpath or bridleway, should be extinguished. We believe it necessary to clarify that because the creation of a public liability to maintain a highway does not necessarily extinguish a private liability. Concurrent public and private maintenance liabilities are not uncommon.
  The express provision in Amendment No. 153 would apply only to those RUPPs which are footpaths or bridleways because new rights will be created over them by the Bill. The amendment would not apply to RUPPs which carry full vehicular rights because no additional rights will be created over them and there is no reason why these should be treated any differently from RUPPs which have been reclassified as byways open to all traffic after a case by case investigation under current legislation. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, both amendments seem to be helpful and streamline the process. We welcome them.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 46 [Provisions supplementary to ss. 44 and 45]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 153:
  Clause 46, page 28, line 5, at end insert—
  ("(1A) As from the commencement of that section, any liability, under a special enactment (within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980) or by reason of tenure, enclosure or prescription, to maintain, otherwise than as a highway maintainable at the public expense, a restricted byway to which subsection (1) applies is extinguished.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Definitive maps and statements and restricted byways]:
  Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 154:
  Schedule 5, page 68, line 33, at end insert—
  ("( ) In subsection (2)(a) for "as appear to them to be" there is substituted "as are".
  ( ) In subsection (2)(b) for "as appear to them to be" there is substituted "as are".")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak to Amendments Nos. 156 to 158, 160, 161, 169, 170 and 171. I have already declared an interest as a landowner and manager.
  The proposed change of wording would have the effect of reinforcing the fact that the highways authority's function is to record that a public right of way exists, not to carry out a judicial function and attempt to create a public right of way which does not exist, without compensation to the owner.
  Amendment No. 156 introduces the new Section 53(3)(b). A declaration by a court or other independent tribunal established by law for the purpose would mean that the decision as to whether there is a public right of way in existence would have to be made by a properly constituted, competent and independent tribunal, thereby taking county councillors and the Secretary of State out of the equation. The House of Lords debate on 9th October focused on the possibility of creating a completely independent environmental court that would comply with the Convention on Human Rights in order to adjudicate rights of way disputes. This concept was also advanced by the DETR's report into the working of the planning inspectorate. The determination of rights of way disputes differs considerably from other environmental matters, as it concerns the civil rights and the public rights of citizens, not regulations of planning control.
  The proposed new Section 53(3)(b) would ensure that just decisions are reached on the evidence available—not by continuing to show as rights of ways those which are private but which because of the lack of notification of claims under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act to the landowner were included on the definitive map and statement without his knowledge. Until relatively recently it was impossible to remove a right of way from the map. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act the burden of proof that the landowner must satisfy in order to have a right of way expunged from the map is unrealistic and unfair.
  The proposed new Section 53(3)(c) is unobjectionable, as it would make it expressly clear that the use by the public of an erroneously recorded right of way does not count or give rise to a presumption of dedication to operate. Clearly, during that period the landowner would be prevented by the operation of the law from blocking the right of way. It would therefore be unjust to allow the period to count towards any presumption.
  Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 are needed for consistency. They are substantially the same as Amendment No. 154 and would remove the discretion given to county councils on whether to record a public right of way on a definitive map and statement. Words such as "in the opinion of the authority" or "as appears to them" often appear in statute. Given the certainty of Amendment No. 156, there is no need to give the county council discretion on whether to record them. It must record if an event specified in Amendment No. 156 has occurred. Replacing the words,
  "as appear to them to be",
  with "as are" in Section 53(2)(a) and (b) would replace a subjective test with an objective one.
  Amendment No. 160 to paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 14 would provide much-needed consultation with the owner of the land before an application was processed by the public authority. There is no current
  1516
  provision for the owner of the land to be consulted before a modification order is made. That is a serious lapse in basic human rights.
  The amendments to Schedule 15 to the 1981 Act made by Amendment No. 161 reflect the fact that the function of the Secretary of State is confined to resolving appeals on the accuracy of the recording by the public authority, not ruling on the correctness of a decision on whether a right of way exists. That function will pertain to an independent tribunal.
  New Section 11(1)(c) reflects the need for reasons to be given for executive decisions to verify their correctness. Again, there is no current requirement for the Secretary of State to give reasons for his decisions. That is particularly important when there is a statutory appeal to the High Court solely on points of law that can be manifest only if a fully reasoned decision is given.
  Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 to Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 would remedy the unfair treatment meted out to the landowner by the interpretations of that section. Too many spurious claims have been passed as good because the public authority, the Secretary of State and finally the courts rely on antiquated legislation that had its roots in common law but that has so deviated from it that it has become no more than a pretence to open up private ways.
  The landowner generally has no defence against such claims which more often than not are brought about many years after a supposed dedicator is dead and buried. While the word of the claimant is usually accepted at face value, the landowner once again has an enormous burden of proof to discharge. Even if he has never seen anybody and there has therefore been no need to erect notices, he is still presumed to have dedicated and his word is disbelieved. That gives rise to many abuses. Some sense should be restored to the provision, in line with the original common law from which it derives. Nowadays the intention of the owner counts for very little. Acts of kindness and generosity are by law taken as generating a legal obligation. The trespasser acquires rights, even he knew that he was committing a wrong in the first place.
  I turn to Amendment No. 171. New subsection (12) is aimed at putting a stop to claims which, in order to succeed, are delayed before being made. Having carried out all the necessary searches that do not reveal a right of way, a new owner might later be faced with a claim that he cannot defend as it relates to a period in which he was not responsible for the land. Limiting the period in which a claim may be brought will safeguard as far as possible a landowner insofar as the memories of the relevant persons are still relatively recent. I beg to move.
  1.15 a.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for explaining the amendments. I shall try to deal with them in turn as closely as I can, although they do not quite work out that way.

  1517
  They all relate to Section 53 of and Schedules 14 and 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Section 53 requires surveying authorities to keep their definitive maps and statements under continuous review and to make such modification orders as appear to them requisite on the occurrence of particular events, such as the creation of a footpath or bridleway through deemed dedication or the discovery of evidence which shows how a right of way that has already been recorded should be changed.
  Amendments Nos. 169, 170 and 171 to Schedule 6 to the Bill relate to Section 31 of the Highways Act. That section is concerned with the creation of highways through deemed dedication. We do not believe that this group of amendments is desirable.
  Amendment No. 154, which is linked to Amendment No. 156, would amend Section 53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to enforce the notion that a surveying authority is to make orders only as a consequence, or "as are" requisite in consequence, of legal events or declarations of a court or a tribunal. The discretion of what order can be made is narrowed and a surveying authority would be able to respond accordingly only to a declaration of a court.
  We do not believe that it would be at all desirable to remove the duties in question from the local authorities. They are part of local government's wider responsibilities for rights of way; for example, the creation, diversion, closure and maintenance of rights of way which, together with the new functions provided in the Bill, provide a comprehensive legislative basis for improving our rights of way.
  Moreover, the current legislation, broadly modelled on legislation introduced in 1949, provides the public with what is generally a relatively cheap and accessible way of modifying the definitive map. Amendment No. 156 would replace it with a procedure which would be more expensive, inaccessible and intimidating, and would undermine the objective of the legislation on definitive maps which is to compile as complete and accurate a record of public rights of way as possible. That aim is all the more important given the provisions in the Bill about the cut-off date and unrecorded rights of way.
  A consequence of the amendments is that the cut-off date provisions would need to be completely rethought as they are based on the fundamental assumption of surveying authorities being free to make appropriate modification orders and people being able to apply for such orders.
  Amendment No. 156 would remove from surveying authorities the duty and, indeed, the power to make modification orders because of the events in Sections 53(3)(b) and (c) of the 1981 Act. In particular, they would no longer be able to make modification orders on their own volition on the basis of a footpath or bridleway being created by deemed dedication or on the discovery of evidence which showed that the definitive map should be modified, for example, to show a new right of way, or that the status of a right of way already shown should be altered. Instead, modification orders other than legal event orders
  1518
  could be made only where a court or other independent tribunal established by law had made an appropriate declaration; for example, to the effect that a highway shown in a map and statement should be shown as a highway of another description.
  Amendment No. 156 also seeks to insert a new subsection (3A) into Section 53 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. It aims to prevent the possibility of use of a way wrongly recorded on a definitive map and statement as a public right of way, giving rise to a presumption of dedication or acceptance by the landowner of the way as a public right of way.
  We are not entirely clear about the need for this amendment. Dedication of a highway rests on the assumption, or the presumption, of acquiescence on the part of the landowner to the creation of a highway. This notion sits inconsistently with the conclusive effect of the definitive map contained in Section 56 of the 1981 Act because that prevents the landowner from acquiescing, from preventing, particular use of a way on his land. In other words, if a way has been wrongly recorded on a definitive map as a highway, we do not believe that use by the public during that period can create a presumption that the public have a right of way over it. I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, said that he views Amendments Nos. 157, 158 and 166 as consequential.
  Amendment No. 160 would amend Schedule 14 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It would have the effect of requiring local authorities to consult landowners on applications for definitive map modification orders before they determine them. We do not believe that additional burden on local authorities to be necessary to safeguard a landowner's interests. Applicants for definitive map orders are already required to give notice to every owner and occupier of any land to which the application relates. Surveying authorities are obliged to take into account any comments made in response to such a notice; otherwise the obligation to serve such notice would appear to serve no purpose. In addition, if a surveying authority makes an order, it too is required to give notice to such owners and occupiers and to advertise the fact that an order has been made before it can be confirmed
  At this stage landowners and any other interested party have at least 42 days to make their views known. If there are any objections the order goes to the Secretary of State to confirm, after a hearing or public inquiry where again a landowner has an opportunity to inform the decision which is made.
  Amendment No. 161 relates to Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which sets out the procedure for the confirmation of definitive map modification orders. It would remove the duty on the Secretary of State to hold inquiries (as opposed to hearings) into opposed orders. It would also expressly require him to set out, in writing, the reasoning behind final decisions on whether to confirm an order and make his reasons available to the public. In fact, he already does so. Decision letters are sent to those who have objected or given evidence on their own behalf and to anyone who asks for one.

  1519
  Amendment No. 170 would strike at the very heart of deemed dedication under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980. It would remove the practical possibility of Section 31 creating a highway through deemed dedication. Broadly speaking, deemed dedication operates because, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, you must infer an intention to dedicate a highway on 20 years long use—dedication has to be presumed. The amendment defines as sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption a statement by the landowner that during the relevant years he did not intend to dedicate a right of way to the public at large. Such a statement will be challengeable only on the basis of overt acts on the part of the landowner which are inconsistent with lack on intention to dedicate.
  It is the case that deemed dedication operates because the landowner is not entitled to argue that locked away in his or her mind was the thought that he did not intend to dedicate land as a highway. He must adduce some evidence of an overt act such as to show to the public that he had no intention to dedicate. That is a key element of the principle of deemed dedication first introduced in the Rights of Way Act 1932 and carried forward by Section 31 of the Highways Act.
  If the landowner is concerned about the issue of public use of a way on his land he has many methods available to him to stop time running, to stop the presumption arising. He can erect appropriate signs; deposit the appropriate documents. He can tell the public that they have no right to be on his land; he can close the path off for one day a year; or he can erect gates.
  We have made it clear during debates that the Government are not prepared to agree to anything which would undermine the basis of deemed dedication.
  Amendment No. 171 is broadly similar to a proposal in the Government's consultation paper on rights of way which suggested that applications to add a right of way to a definitive map on the basis of 20 years' use should be made within five years of the use being brought into question. The intention was to help streamline the process, but further research indicated that the vast majority of claims are already made within five years. On the other hand, it became clear that a statutory deadline for claims would generate greater dispute in cases where there had been a series of challenges and the landowner argued that a claim was out of time.
  At best, therefore, the proposal would produce few benefits; at worst it would make the current system more complicated. Any disputes over the date of the challenge would have to be resolved before the substance of the claim could be investigated and more decisions would be likely to be challenged in the courts. We believe those to be good reasons for not proceeding with the proposal and for the same reasons
  1520
  we are unwilling to accept Amendment No. 171. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, will not press the amendments.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply at this late hour. Obviously I am disappointed at his earlier replies that these provisions were not desirable. However, I am a little less disappointed with his last reply. I look forward to reading his detailed reply in Hansard. I am not sure whether it will be included tomorrow; it will probably be the day after. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 155:
  Page 68, line 38, at end insert—
  ("(4A) In subsection (4), after "public path" there is inserted", restricted byway".")
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 155 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 174, 180, 190 and 199. This group of amendments would correct a small number of minor errors in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 155 relates to Schedule 5 to the Bill. Among other things, Schedule 5 makes a number of consequential amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to take account of the creation of restricted byways as a new category of right of way. The amendment would add "restricted byway" to Section 53(4) of the 1981 Act which provides that an order modifying a definitive map may include the addition to the statement of particulars of the position and width of a right of way and any conditions or limitations affecting the public right of way over it. Section 53(4) does not currently cover restricted byways.
  Amendment No. 174 to Schedule 6 to the Bill relates to a new Section 119B of the Highways Act 1980 which enables a right of way to be diverted to prevent crime or to increase school security. New Section 119B(4) empowers a local highway authority to create such new right of way as is requisite for effecting the diversion and to extinguish as much of the existing highway as is requisite as mentioned in Section 119B(1) (the purposes for which diversions may be made). However, Section 119B(1) does not use the term "requisite". The amendment would therefore replace this term in Section 119B(4) with the words "for the purpose or'. That is consistent with the parallel provisions in new Section 119D(3)(b) relating to SSSI diversions.
  Amendment No. 180 to Schedule 6 relates to consequential amendments to Section 329 of the Highways Act 1980 which defines various terms used in that Act. The amendment would correct an error whereby the definition of school for the purposes of the Bill was inserted in the wrong alphabetical order in Section 329(1).
  Amendment No. 190 relates to Clause 60. This enables a member of the public to serve notice on a local highway if a right of way is obstructed. The

  1521
  amendment would clarify the intention that Clause 60 should not apply to obstructions which consist of disrepair of a highway such as vegetation growing out of the surface. Section 56 of the Highways Act 1980 already provides a means of enforcing the relevant duties. However, the exclusion in the Bill currently applies only to orders made by the magistrates' court under Section 56(4). Orders may also be made by the Crown Court under Section 56(2). Amendment No. 190 would ensure that the exclusion applies to those orders as well.
  Amendment No. 199 relates to Clause 67 which defines various terms for the purposes of Part II of the Bill. The amendment would qualify Clause 67 to ensure that the interpretation provision will not apply where a contrary intention appears. That is consistent with the approach taken in Clause 42 to the interpretation of terms used in Part I. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 156 to 158 not moved.]
  1.30 a.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 159:
  Schedule 5, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
  ("(1A) In subsection (1), the words "on such scale as may be so prescribed," are omitted.
  (1B) In subsection (2), for "section 55(3)" there is substituted "subsection (1) or any other provision of this Part".").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 159, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 162, 163 and 260.
  Amendment No. 159 is a technical amendment which would extend to all definitive maps made under Part III of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the current power for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to make regulations prescribing the scale on which maps prepared under Section 55(3) of the 1981 Act should be drawn. Section 55(3) relates only to maps prepared for areas for which no survey under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 was begun or where any such survey was abandoned. The objective of the amendment is to facilitate, in particular, implementation of new Section 57A which is inserted into the 1981 Act by Schedule 5 to the Bill. This enables local authorities to consolidate their definitive maps following, for example, local government boundary changes. Amendment No. 260 is consequential.
  Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 arise from an undertaking we gave in Committee to consider amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller, Lady Hamwee and Lady Scott, aimed at filtering out irrelevant objections to orders modifying definitive maps. We recognise problems in the current legislation which arise from the effect of the Lasham Parish case. There is no obligation on a person objecting to a definitive map order to specify the grounds of his objection, or for those grounds, if specified, to be legally relevant.
  The purpose of a definitive map is to provide an accurate record of public rights of way. Decisions on definitive map orders are a matter of fact and law and do not call for judgments to be made on whether, for example, the recording of a footpath or bridleway on a definitive map would cause environmental damage. However, Schedule 15 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to hold a public inquiry or hearing into any opposed definitive map order even if the only objections are ones which are not material to the decision on whether or not to confirm the order.
  The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, during Committee, would have required the grounds on which objections were made to be specified. It would also have enabled the local authority which made the order to disregard any objection which it considered incapable of affecting a decision on whether or not to confirm the order.
  The Government agree on the need for a change in the current law. However, as we explained during Committee, we do not believe that the decision on whether or not an objection is relevant should be taken by the authority which made the order. Amendment No. 163 would therefore leave the decision to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.
  The amendment would require that any objection or representation in respect of a definitive map modification order should include particulars of the grounds on which the objection or representation is made. It would also empower the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to decline to hold an inquiry or hearing into an opposed order if he (or it) considered that the only objections or representations which have been made and not withdrawn are not relevant to a decision on whether or not to confirm an order.
  Amendment No. 163 would apply not only to objections made to a local authority's order, but also to objections made to proposals by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to confirm an order with modifications of a kind which require the proposals to be advertised and a further inquiry held if they are opposed. Amendment No. 162 is consequential on Amendment No. 163. I beg to move.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Government for coming back with Amendment No. 163 in response to the concerns we voiced in Committee. Although it is different from the amendment we tabled on that occasion, we believe that it will cut out the objections and representations which serve merely to expend more public time and money. They were irrelevant but, under the old process, nevertheless had to be heard. We are pleased with the development.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 not moved.]
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 162 and 163:

  1523
  Schedule 5, page 74, line 31, leave out ("In").
  Schedule 5, page 74, line 31, at end insert ("is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 3, in sub-paragraph (1)(c) after "order" there is inserted ", which must include particulars of the grounds relied on,".
  (3) In sub-paragraph (9) of that paragraph—

  (a) after "sub-paragraph" there is inserted "(1)(c) or". and

  (b) after "limiting" there is inserted "the grounds which may be relied on or".

  (4) In paragraph 7, in sub-paragraph (2) after "shall" there is inserted ", subject to sub-paragraph (2A),".
  (5) After sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph there is inserted—
  "(2A) The Secretary of State may, but need not, act as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b) if, in his opinion, no representation or objection which has been duly made and not withdrawn relates to an issue which would be relevant in determining whether or not to confirm the order, either with or without modifications."
  (6) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph, for "the person appointed to hold the inquiry" there is substituted "any person appointed to hold an inquiry".
  (7) In paragraph 8—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a) after "the proposal" there is inserted ", which must include particulars of the grounds relied on,",

  1524

  (b) for sub-paragraph (2)(b) and (c) there is substituted—

  "(b) if any representation or objection duly made is not withdrawn (but subject to sub-paragraph (3)), hold a local inquiry or afford any person by whom any such representation or objection has been made an opportunity of being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose; and
  (c) consider the report of any person appointed to hold an inquiry or to hear representations or objections.
  (3) The Secretary of State may, but need not, act as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) if, in his opinion, no representation or objection which has been duly made and not withdrawn relates to an issue which would be relevant in determining whether or not to confirm the order in accordance with his proposal.
  (4) Sub-paragraph (2)(a) shall not be construed as limiting the grounds which may be relied on at any local inquiry or hearing held under this paragraph."
  (8)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before two o'clock.

  Criminal Justice System
  Criminal Justice System
  Tobacco Smuggling
  Tobacco Smuggling
  Nottingham: Police Firearms
  Nottingham: Police Firearms
  Telecommunications Masts
  Telecommunications Masts
  ABRO Workshop, Sennybridge
  ABRO Workshop, Sennybridge
  Oman: Exercise Saif Sareea 2
  Oman: Exercise Saif Sareea 2
  Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill
  Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill
  Bullying in Schools Related to Sexual Orientation
  Bullying in Schools Related to Sexual Orientation
  Buckingham Palace Road Roadworks
  Buckingham Palace Road Roadworks