Sitting of 9 November 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What his latest estimate is of the number of families benefiting from the working families tax credit.[135947]
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What his estimate is of the impact to date of the working families tax credit in reducing child poverty.[135961]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer(Mr. Gordon Brown): The working families tax credit was launched in October 1999. It is already benefiting more than 1.1 million low and middle-income working households with children—about 300,000 more than received family credit, which the working families tax credit replaced—and, on average, those families receive £30 a week more than they would with family credit. The working families tax credit is one of the measures that we have introduced to tackle child poverty. We estimate that, during this Parliament, our measures will raise more than 1 million children out of poverty.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend realise that thousands of families in Edinburgh and more than 1 million nationwide receive, on average, £76 a week from the allowance, and that they live in fear of the Tory proposals to scrap the allowance because the shadow Chancellor is more concerned about Tory hard-right policies than with hard-working families?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In his constituency, 1,044 families benefit from the working families tax credit and there has been a 49 per cent. fall in unemployment, in part as a result of the measures that we have taken to make work pay. In the shadow Chancellor's constituency, unemployment has also fallen by 49 per cent. and, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will want to congratulate the Government on that. As for the future of the working families tax credit, we are determined to expand the benefits to more people by getting more people back into work. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, not only would the Conservatives abolish the new deal, but they would abolish the working families tax credit. The shadow Chancellor said, on 20 September
    422
    1998, of the attitudes of his party to such matters, that Conservatives have become inextricably connected with uncaring social attitudes. That is exactly the position that the abolition of the working families tax credit would represent.
    Mr. Connarty: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be aware that in the Falkirk district, more than 2,000 people receive the same average sums through the working families tax credit. Will my right hon. Friend send a clear message to the people of the district that, at the election, they can choose a Labour Government who are committed to getting people back into work through the new deal and paying them a supplement through the working families tax credit, or they can choose the abolition of both schemes, which will put them back on the dole and back into poverty?
    Mr. Brown: The choice is between stability, steady growth and employment creation under the Labour Government, creating rising living standards, and a return to stop-go, boom-bust under the Conservatives, who would abolish the new deal and the working families tax credit. I believe that when people see that under the Labour Government, even in the constituencies of Conservative Members of Parliament, there has been a huge reduction in unemployment, they will not want either the new deal or the working families tax credit to be abolished. I realise that there are divisions within the Conservative party on such matters, but, no doubt, they are being resolved within the No Turning Back group, albeit without the presence of the shadow Chancellor, who has given up membership of one extreme right-wing faction in the hope of leading a rather larger extreme right-wing faction: the Conservative party.
    Mr. Michael Portillo: Will the Chancellor confirm that he quite wrongly counts the working families tax credit as though it were a reduction in tax, which it is not, and that he does that for one simple reason, which is to massage the tax burden figures? Will he also confirm that, even on his own figures, which were revealed yesterday, the tax burden has risen from 36.9 per cent. last year to 37.3 per cent. this year? On what basis, therefore, did the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons last week:
    the tax burden this year is falling.—[Official Report, 1 November 2000; Vol. 355, c. 703.]
    at a time when he must have known what the new figures were? Will the Chancellor now correct the Prime Minister and apologise to the House?
    Mr. Brown: The figures are published in the normal way in the pre-Budget report and the Budget. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor will answer for what happened under the Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] That is interesting: none of them want to defend the last Conservative Government, especially the shadow Chancellor, who introduced VAT on fuel and the fuel escalator. Tax and national insurance, as a share of gross domestic product—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am just about to give the information. The figure was 37.3 per cent. in 2000–01. That is the figure that we announced yesterday. Under the Conservative proposals

    423
    and projections published before the election, the tax take in 2001 was not 37.3 per cent. but 37.6 per cent, so if there had been a Conservative Government, there would have been a higher tax burden now.
    Mr. Portillo: It is notable that the Chancellor does not wish to defend what the Prime Minister said last week. I do not know whether that is because he knows that the Prime Minister got it wrong and there is no defence, or whether the right hon. Gentleman is at fault for not having told the Prime Minister that the tax burden is rising, leading him—inadvertently no doubt—to mislead the House.
    Will not working families be concerned about the total national burden of tax? Will the Chancellor confirm that that burden has risen by 2.6 percentage points since he came to office, which is about the equivalent of £25 billion, which is about the equivalent of 10p on the standard rate of income tax? Will he explain why the Prime Minister promised us before the election that he had no intention of raising taxes?
    Mr. Brown: We have cut the basic rate of income tax. The right hon. Gentleman should be congratulating us on cutting it. We have introduced a 10p starting rate of income tax. We have introduced the working families tax credit, which is a tax cut for ordinary families. In the Budget in March, we shall be raising the children's tax credit. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor will tell us whether he will continue with the children's tax credit or whether—like the new deal and the working families tax credit—he will abolish it. Sooner or later the Conservative party will have to do what it promised it would do, which is to publish the figures and tell us exactly which cuts, which changes, and which services are at risk.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the great success of the working families tax credit and on bringing 1 million children out of poverty? I know of his personal deep care and concern in that regard. May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on the sheer brilliance of his pre-Budget report, which has demonstrated yet again the remarkable success of his management of the economy—a success which has enabled him to make great steps forward in areas of social justice while continuing incentives for industrial enterprise?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is the balance between enterprise and fairness that is essential for the future of the United Kingdom. It is by matching enterprise to fairness that the Government have created 1.1 million jobs. We have seen youth unemployment fall by half. Long-term unemployment has fallen by more than half. We have more women in work than ever before, with 70 per cent. working. At the same time, unemployment is falling in every region. Unfortunately, if we were to return to a Conservative Government, they would abolish the new deal and return to the policies of stop-go and boom-bust. Unemployment would again rise, as happened under the Conservatives.

    Fuel Taxation
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What recent representations he has received from families on the level of taxation of petrol.[135949]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Government have received representations from many different organisations and groups as well as many letters from members of the public.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that in the past two and a half years the Chancellor has increased the tax on petrol by more than a third? Is not yesterday's announcement an admission that he has been unfairly and grossly taxing motorists? Why was it that until yesterday Ministers were saying that any reduction in fuel taxes would put in jeopardy public spending and the economy?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman would do well to recall that the biggest increase in fuel duty, both in absolute terms and in percentage terms, happened under the Conservatives. Whereas they imposed the fuel duty escalator, we have removed it. Moreover, the measures announced and being consulted on in yesterday's PBR bring great help to those who have been most under pressure through high oil prices. We should hear from the Conservative party whether it will start supporting what we have done.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: May I inform my right hon. Friend of representations that I received from families living near the Stanlow oil refinery, who were afraid as a result of the risk posed to them by the physical blockade? May I also inform him of representations that I received from constituents of mine who manufacture cars, who said how pleased they were by the Budget provisions that reduce the cost of car ownership while maintaining sound environmental principles? Keep it up!
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and his help during the difficult situation at Stanlow. He and his constituents are right—yesterday's measures are a balanced response to public opinion and to the situation that we faced. They prove that the Government listen, and that we listen to all the people of this country—to the ordinary families who were not protesting and to those who were blockading oil refineries and conducting their protest in other ways. By listening, we have been able to introduce an affordable package that is consistent with financial discipline and sound public finances. It will bring help to motorists, help to hauliers and help to farmers in ways which are consistent with our environmental principles and which keep the economy on course for stable and sustainable growth.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Given that rural garages in Wales are closing down at an alarming rate and that no low-sulphur petrol is available there, how will the low-sulphur package help rural Wales?
    Mr. Smith: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says on behalf of his constituents, but low-sulphur petrol is widely available throughout the country. I did check, and during the first two weeks of October, no less than 30 per cent. of petrol sold was low sulphur. The whole point of the duty differential that we are introducing is to give people an incentive to switch to that petrol, and for that effort to be accompanied by proper branding, marketing and

    425
    promotion by oil companies. On that basis, we are satisfied that such petrol will be available everywhere next year, including, of course, rural Wales.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Following on from that point, can we ensure that supplies will reach garages in rural areas throughout the rest of the country, which are of concern to all hon. Members, and that we shall all reap the benefit of yesterday's welcome news?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed, and we are working with the oil companies precisely to that end. That effort will be reinforced by the duty differential, on which we are consulting.

    Taxation
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What estimate he has made of the extra tax payable since May 1997 as a result of his Budget measures.[135952]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The figures are set out in successive Budget reports, which are, of course, available in the Library of the House.
    Mrs. Lait: I assume that the Chief Secretary is aware that yesterday's PBR indicated that the tax burden has increased even this year, since the figures were announced in the Budget. I assume that he is also aware that stealth taxes have been increased by the higher rate in the national insurance threshold that was announced yesterday. On which page of the Labour party's election manifesto can we find the promise to increase taxes by £26 billion a year?
    Mr. Smith: Our manifesto promise was about fair taxation and sound management of the economy. We promised that we would not put up the higher or basic rates of tax, and we did not do so—in fact, we cut the basic rate of tax. We said that when it was prudent to do so, we would introduce a 10p starting rate of tax, and we introduced that rate. We said that we wanted competitive and fair corporate taxation, and we have cut corporate taxes to the lowest level among our European competitors. When Conservative Members were in government, they imposed VAT on fuel as part of their 22 tax rises—their broken promises. We cut VAT on fuel to its lowest possible level. That shows how the Labour party keeps its promises and the Conservatives break theirs.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the only people paying less tax in 1997 than in 1979 were those earning more than £64,000 a year? Do not people want fair taxation? Is it not the case that the Labour party is delivering fair taxation and the Conservative party is opposing it?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was indeed the £64,000 question under the Conservative Government, with their record of broken promises and economic instability. We will take no lectures from the Tories on taxation or management of the economy, given that they not only broke all their promises, but led us into boom and bust. Now we hear from the shadow Chancellor that he has no rules for stability in the economy and no
    426
    inflation target. All he has are tax promises that he cannot fund and spending cuts that he cannot name. Those are the politics and economics that previously led us to boom and bust. Given the chance again, that is precisely what the Conservatives would do.
    Mr. Howard Flight: After yesterday's acrobatics, will the Minister focus on the simple fact that, hidden away in yesterday's upward revisions of the tax take, is the fact that living standards are falling? Tax receipts—[Interruption.] Well may hon. Members on the Government Benches laugh. Tax receipts are rising by 6.4 per cent. per annum, versus a 2 per cent. increase in earnings. In simple terms, that means that the tax paid by the average family is increasing faster than the rise in average earnings.
    Mr. Smith: In the shadow Chancellor's extraordinarily feeble response to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement yesterday, he said that real disposable incomes had not been growing. He is wrong. Each and every year the Government have been in office, real disposable incomes have been increasing. Moreover, people have the benefit of £1,000 on average, thanks to the lower mortgage interest payments that they are making, because we have kept interest rates down, whereas the Conservatives had them high.
    Mr. Roger Casale: Is it not the case that as well as working to reduce the share of tax in national income, we are bringing down the share of debt in national income? Is it not right that, as well as reminding the British people of the 22 tax rises under the Tories, we should remind them of the massive and uncontrollable levels of public debt? Were not those levels of public debt a massive monument to Tory mismanagement of our economy? Were it not for Labour, levels of debt would remain high.
    Mr. Smith: Indeed. Debt doubled under the Conservatives. They left a millstone of debt for the country and for the Government when we came in, with their unsustainable £28 billion-worth of borrowing. The level of debt was 44 per cent. of gross domestic product when we came in. We have reduced that to 33 per cent. and, as the pre-Budget report shows, we are on course to get it down to 30 per cent. and keep it there, consistent with firm and disciplined fiscal rules, which we are applying and which the shadow Chancellor does not have. Because we have reduced the debt, are responsible with the public finances and have strong and sound public finances, interest rates are lower, and individuals with mortgages, as well as businesses, see the consequent benefit.

    Single Currency
    Mr. Christopher Gill: What estimate he has made of when the UK will join the single currency.[135953]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The determining factor underpinning any Government decision to join the single currency is

    427
    whether the economic case for the UK joining is clear and unambiguous. The Treasury will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.
    Mr. Gill: Is the Chancellor prepared to allow a further depreciation of sterling against the United States dollar, to the point at which the supposed overvaluation of the pound against the euro is eliminated? In view of the brevity of the question, will he simply answer yes or no?
    Mr. Brown: I do not have an exchange rate target, which is what the hon. Gentleman's question implies. I thought that the Conservative party had learned the lessons of the 1980s, when they took us into the exchange rate mechanism at the wrong exchange rate and caused enormous problems. We will make a decision on the single currency based on five economic tests, but we will not return to the situation to which the Conservatives brought us by running a dual inflation and exchange rate target. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be sensible enough to realise that that is not the way forward.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: While the rate of sterling is high, in some industries, such as the steel industry, it is also true that exports are growing by 8 per cent., as my right hon. Friend said yesterday. He did not labour that figure. Why are Britain's exports increasing on that scale at a time of high sterling?
    Mr. Brown: Despite the difficulties with the exchange rate—I have always understood the resultant problems that many manufacturers face—manufacturing industry is responding and growing. It will grow next year. Exports have increased this year by 5 or 6 per cent., and they will grow by 6, 7 or 8 per cent. next year. Those are our projections based on the information that we hold. That is another example of how, despite the difficulties of the exchange rate, we are creating the stability in the economy that is necessary for investment and growth.
    The contrast with the previous Government is all too clear to businesses. Under the Conservatives, with interest rates at an average of 11 per cent., interest rate costs would have been nearly £2 billion higher for business at this stage. Under Labour, average interest rates are 6 per cent.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the Chancellor confirm that, in anticipation of Britain joining the single European currency, the Treasury and the Bank of England have since 1 January 1999 bought large amounts of euros? It has been estimated that the operation losses so far amount to approximately £2,000 million, or treble the loss on the dome. Is the Chancellor in a position to tell us the official Government estimate of the losses on those euro operations?
    Mr. Brown: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so out of date because we publish the figures for the interventions in the exchange rate market and he can consult them. His figure is wrong. He should compare our sensible approach to such matters with the huge losses that the Conservative Government incurred when we had to leave the exchange rate mechanism and the shadow Chancellor was in the Treasury.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. After questions. I call Mr. David Taylor.
    Mr. David Taylor: Despite the rampant and terminal europhobia that habitually grips the Conservative Benches, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the British economy diverges dramatically from the eurozone and that, without convergence, a common language, interstate transfers and mobility of labour, the prospect of joining the euro in the next decade is thankfully remote?
    Mr. Brown: We have set out five economic tests, which will be assessed early in the next Parliament. However, the difference between me and the Conservative party is that I see the benefits in principle of joining the single currency, whereas Conservative Members are divided about whether they are against it in principle or simply against it in principle for one Parliament.
    On 1 May 1999, the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said that a single currency would mean giving up the government of the UK. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] No British Government can give up the government of the United Kingdom. That is impossible. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is a Front-Bench spokesman, agrees with the shadow Chancellor. When the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea was asked the same question on "Breakfast with Frost" on 27 February, he said that he would not say that he was a never man. What sort of position does the Conservative Front Bench take?

    Fuel Taxation
    Mr. Tony Baldry: What was the yield to the Treasury of tax on petroleum in 1997–98; and what is the anticipated yield for this financial year.[135955]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): Fuel duty receipts are forecast in the pre-Budget report 2000 to be £23.2 billion this financial year. That compares with £19.5 billion in 1997–98.
    Mr. Baldry: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that, notwithstanding what was said yesterday, Britain will still have the highest fuel duties and the highest petrol prices in Europe? Given that we will have different rates of duty on diesel, low-sulphur diesel, leaded petrol, unleaded petrol and low-sulphur petrol, would it not be in the interests of consumer transparency to have the different rates of tax take per litre clearly displayed at the petrol pump so that everyone knew the exact amount of tax they were paying the Government for the fuel that they use?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government who were responsible for a bigger increase—in absolute and percentage terms—in fuel duties, to which I have already referred. The truth of the matter is that, through the introduction of the fuel duty escalator, the previous Government were responsible for propelling prices towards the very level about which the hon. Gentleman now complains. We took away the fuel duty escalator and, moreover, in the measures that we

    429
    announced yesterday to freeze duties from next year's Budget and to consult on the cut in duty on ultra-low sulphur petrol of 2p a litre—and a further cut of 3p on ultra-low sulphur diesel—we are bringing forward measures that address the hon. Gentleman's concerns.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware how expensive it is to motor on the continent? The Conservative lot are so anti-European that they should take their cars and pay the motorway tolls in France and Spain. If they are in business, they should pay the social security costs. The plain fact is that running a business and driving a car are cheaper in this country than in most European countries. Will my hon. Friend look at the idea of varying taxes as and when that is needed? We need to get away from the one size fits all fuel duty and road licence charges, which were continually going up under the Tories. The measures that were introduced yesterday are a start, but we must continue to be flexible on fuel duty and road licence charges to help rural motorists, family motorists and hauliers.
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is quite right. Moreover, the general level of taxation is considerably higher for our European neighbours than it is here. One must also assess and take account of the overall burden of taxation and its effect on families and businesses. My hon. Friend is right about the level of tolls that are paid by many of our European neighbours and about the benefits that will result from the year-by-year assessment that the Chancellor announced in place of the automatic fuel duty escalator for which the Conservatives were responsible.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Why have productivity rates collapsed in this country from about 2.5 per cent. at the beginning of the 1990s to 1.5 per cent. since the Government took over? Does that have something to do with rising taxes, especially fuel taxes?
    Mr. Smith: That question is perhaps a little remote from the question of fuel duty, but I shall answer it anyway. As the Chancellor pointed out in his statement yesterday, crucial to a platform for improving productivity are economic stability—which we are delivering—lower interest rates than those under the Conservatives, which we are also delivering, and a high level of investment in manufacturing and industry, which is equivalent to more than 14 per cent. of GDP business investment and which continues to grow. Coupled with the measures that we introduced on skills and on promoting regeneration in some of our most deprived areas, as well as further measures including the £1 billion package spelled out in the pre-Budget report yesterday, that will help us to build on the gains that we have already made and continue to promote competitiveness and generate productivity as we all want to do.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend look at fuel taxation not only in 1997, but right the way back to 1987? Is he aware that in the 13-year period since 1987, the increase in the cost of running a car in this country has been only 5.6 per cent., which is less than 0.5 per cent. a year in real terms? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in all the measures that he and his colleagues in the Treasury are introducing, they will do nothing to jeopardise the Government's environmental
    430
    commitments on running cars, even though the cost of running a car has been relatively cheap in that 13-year period?
    Mr. Smith: I thank my hon Friend. He is right, as the total cost of motoring has barely increased in the period that he described. The reason for that is technical advance in design and manufacture in the motor industry. The measures on which we are consulting in the pre-Budget report, notably in relation to ultra-low sulphur petrol, will help to stimulate further developments, given the benefits of that petrol's engine efficiency and the new generation of engines that will subsequently come on to the market. We have acted consistently, having regard to the needs of motorists and listening to public opinion. We have also acted consistently on our environmental principles, which are advanced by each of the measures that we announced yesterday.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: As the Chief Secretary was not keen to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), would he give the House a categorical answer to a simple question about petroleum revenue tax? When Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, met representatives of the oil industry, did they or any other Minister give any explicit or implicit assurance to the oil companies that PRT would not be raised?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor met the oil companies on Tuesday, and the matter was never discussed.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. John Hume: May I raise with the Chief Secretary a question that I asked yesterday on a matter of serious concern in my part of the world? The petrol industry in Northern Ireland has suffered most from the fuel crisis. A litre of petrol costs 85p on our side of the border, whereas it costs 60p a litre on the other side, so the petrol industry in Northern Ireland is being totally wiped out. Would the right hon. Gentleman seriously study the problem to see what he can do to help?
    Mr. Smith: As ever, I listened attentively to the hon. Gentleman. The Government perpetually keep the situation closely under review, specifically to address the abuses to which he refers and the links with paramilitary activity. Resources for tackling smuggling have been substantially increased, and we are confident that that will have an effect on the situation. We shall, of course, maintain close liaison through the Northern Ireland Office with the devolved Administration to ensure that further steps are taken whenever possible.

    Business Taxation
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What representations he has received from the business community on business taxation in advance of his pre-Budget report.[135956]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): We have received a number of representations on a variety of business tax topics, including representations from the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: The Chief Secretary has just told us that on Tuesday the Government gave no assurances to the oil industry on petroleum revenue tax. In the past three to four months, has the Financial Secretary or any other member of the Treasury team given any assurances to the oil industry about the level of petroleum revenue tax? If so, could he share with the House what those assurances were?
    Mr. Timms: No such assurances were given.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Would my hon. Friend give particular consideration to businesses in rural areas such as Scarborough and Whitby, which have had many difficulties in recent years? Looking forward to the forthcoming rural White Paper, would he explain to the House what help may be available to areas that are in need of special assistance at this time?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend will be aware of the favourable business reaction to the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made yesterday about a more than £2 billion reduction in transport taxes and the package to make VAT easier to administer for small businesses. Both those measures will be welcome to businesses, particularly to small firms in my hon. Friend's constituency. He is right that the rural White Paper will also make important announcements. We are concerned to ensure that businesses in rural areas have the benefits of a competitive economy, building on the stability that we have achieved in the past three years.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Is the Minister concerned that yesterday's Treasury estimates show that business investment is slowing dramatically, from a 7.5 per cent. growth rate last year to 1.75 per cent. this year and 1.5 per cent. next year? How does the Minister explain this lamentable business investment performance? Is it to do with the increase in business taxation or the Government's failed exchange rate policy?
    Mr. Timms: We have a good record on investment in the economy. In the past, instability was a major cause of problems with investment, but the new stability that has been secured in the past three years is leading to a substantial improvement. Business investment reached record levels, at 14.5 per cent. of gross domestic product, last year. Investment as a proportion of GDP is now higher in the United Kingdom than in the United States. The UK receives 40 per cent. of all US and Japanese investment in the European Union. The picture on investment is actually very good.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: Does my hon. Friend agree that present planned investment in transport infrastructure can make a major contribution to increasing productivity in the economy? That was suggested this week by the Director-General of the CBI,
    432
    who dismissed the transport infrastructure spending plans of the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo).
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sustained public investment not only in transport but in education and science is vital if we are to build on the success achieved over the last three years. We now have a stable platform, but we need investment in infrastructure—and, as my hon. Friend says, our spending plans will deliver that.
    Mr. James Clappison: Should we not set what the Minister says, and what is in the pre-Budget report, against the fact that the Government have imposed an additional £10 billion worth of tax and regulation on business? Should we not also set what the Minister and the pre-Budget report say about tax changes against what the director general of the Institute of Directors—one of the bodies cited by the Minister—has said about what happened yesterday? He said:
    One day we may see a simplification of tax, but it wasn't today.
    Now that the Chancellor has been forced to eat humble pie as a result of his treatment of motorists and pensioners, is it not time the Government began to address some of the problems that they have created for business? Those problems are reflected in the fact that our growth rates are slipping behind, in productivity difficulties, and in the fall in our share of world exports.
    Mr. Timms: It is hard to know where to begin in responding to all those erroneous points. As far as I recall, the hon. Gentleman supported the 22 tax increases introduced by the previous Government. He asked about simplification of taxes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made an important announcement yesterday about easing the burden on small businesses with regard to the administration of VAT, which has been widely welcomed. The Federation of Small Businesses said yesterday that the measures would
    reduce tax headaches for millions of small enterprises and encourage them to grow.
    I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome that.
    We have cut the main rate of corporation tax from 33 per cent. to 30 per cent., and the corporation tax bill for small businesses benefiting from the lower rate has fallen by about 25 per cent. I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to welcome that as well.

    Illicitly Obtained Funds
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will review the regulations governing the access available to foreign Governments and overseas law enforcement agencies to information about, and retrieval of, funds illicitly obtained abroad which are deposited or invested in United Kingdom financial institutions and companies.[135958]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue.

    433
    Well established provisions are already in place to enable foreign Governments and law enforcement agencies to access information, and also to retrieve the proceeds of crime that enter the UK financial system. However, we continue to keep such matters under review. The Government are committed, when parliamentary time permits, to tabling legislation to implement many of the issues raised by the recent performance and innovation unit report "Recovering the Proceeds of Crime", published this June.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What the Minister says seems to ignore extensive press reports that show the frustration and irritation of the Nigerian Government, who are trying to trace and relocate moneys laundered and deposited in London by the former dictator Sani Abacha. Is it not clear that there is a problem in the application of the rules that do exist, and does not the specific case of Sani Abacha demonstrate that there is a deficiency in our rules and regulations?
    We go round the world dishing out views about transparency and the need to resist money laundering. Should we not put our own house in order?
    Miss Johnson: The financial action task force has commended the UK's system, stating that
    the United Kingdom anti-money laundering system is an impressive and comprehensive one, which has been subject to consistent review and improvement, which meets the FATF forty Recommendations and indeed in many areas goes beyond them…The active system of supervision, co-operation, education and training in the financial sector are complemented by strong and effective penal legislation.
    Notwithstanding that, I understand the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. It is difficult for me to comment on investigations when we have received requests for co-operation, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 makes more provision for us to deal with such issues. It makes financial crime objectives statutory, and gives the Financial Services Authority a greater enforcement role. It also gives the FSA specific rule-making powers with regard to money laundering.
    As I said, when parliamentary time permits, the Government wish to pursue the policy set out in the PIU report, which looks at further reform of the money laundering laws, improved arrangements for the seizure of suspect property, including cash, a new national confiscation agency, and enhanced international co-operation.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Given all the rules and regulations that the United Kingdom financial services industry has to keep to, can the Minister confirm that there is a level playing field for offshore so-called tax havens? People in those areas are concerned because they believe that money laundering often happens in New York or London, yet they get the blame for it, and people are trying to impose different rules on them, which do not apply to London.
    Miss Johnson: We have made it clear in all the international settings in which such matters are discussed that it is crucial that everybody be on the same level playing field, that we should adopt the rules we advocate, that transparency and the exchange of information are very important, and that we must apply to ourselves the
    434
    same rules that we wish others to apply to themselves. That is what we have argued in all the international arenas in which such topics crop up, and I believe that we have made good progress on all those points.

    Pre-Budget Report
    Dr. Nick Palmer: What representations he has so far received on his pre-Budget report.[135959]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer(Mr. Gordon Brown): The pre-Budget consultation will take place in every region of the country. Ministers will visit every region and listen to the representations that are made, including those that come early from my hon. Friend.
    Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to the Chancellor for that answer. As he is aware, I have conducted a survey among my constituents, and the great majority of the respondents called for a reduction in vehicle excise duty, and for assistance for disabled drivers. They will be very pleased with the response, but will my right hon. Friend review whether disabled drivers can be given additional assistance in next year's Budget, because vehicle excise duty is already zero rated for them?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because not everyone is rushing to respond, as he is. We will look at the measure that he suggests for disabled drivers as part of our pre-Budget consultation. I agree with the point that his constituents made to me through the survey that he sent me: the reduction in vehicle excise duty for cars was an advantage that people welcomed, and given that we have extended a £55 reduction to 8 million cars, I believe that he will receive even greater support from his constituents both now and at the next election.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Chancellor has received representations from the Liberal Democrats making clear our proposals to increase pensions substantially beyond the amount that he announced yesterday, and the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen have made their policy clear—they wish to abolish the Christmas bonus, the winter fuel allowance, and even the age addition and free television licences. Can the Chancellor confirm that, as of yesterday, the Government's policy is to have interim real-terms increases in the pension for the two years in which the general election may fall, but thereafter to return to the mean-minded policy of limiting any increase to the inflation rate, which delivered a 75p increase this year?
    Mr. Brown: At the general election, the Liberal Democrats stood on the following policy: first, pensions should be raised in line with inflation, not earnings; secondly, tax and benefits should be reformed to get more money to the people who needed it most. However, when it became convenient for their spokesman on Treasury matters to do so, he decided that he would reverse that policy and urge that pensions be raised for ever in line with earnings.
    Mr. Taylor: That is not our policy.
    Mr. Brown: Ah, the hon. Gentleman's policy is not to raise pensions in line with earnings. The Liberal

    435
    Democrats stood at the election on a policy to raise pensions in line with inflation. They stood yesterday on a policy to raise them in line with earnings. Tomorrow they will go back to raising them in line with inflation. I suggest that he goes back to the drawing board.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: I congratulate the Chancellor on his fuel duty package yesterday, which addresses the problems of hauliers, farmers and the general motorist, but does he accept that a rural dimension has still not been addressed? I understand that the Treasury considered reducing the duty to £45 for rural postcodes, but that that was dropped. There may be other options, such as using the community council precept, or using post offices to administer a rural transport rebate based on the electoral register, because of the lack of public transport in rural areas. Will the Chancellor stay in listening mode on the particular problems of rural areas?
    Mr. Brown: I know that my hon. Friend speaks up for his constituents, many of whom live in rural areas. Next week the Deputy Prime Minister will publish our rural White Paper, and my hon. Friend knows that the rural transport fund has been increased twice under the Government to help with transport in rural areas. He will also agree that the proposal to extend the licence fee concession to cars of 1,500 cc, providing a licence fee that is £55 lower, will give people in rural areas greater choice—they can take up that lower licence fee and therefore receive £55 back. The £55 reduction for cars between 1,200 cc and 1,500 cc starts today. It will be paid in July, but it will be retrospective.

    Industrial Competitiveness
    Mr. William Cash: If he will make a statement on the impact of his economic policy on the competitiveness of UK industry.[135960]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): Economic stability is a sound base for competitiveness. That is why the Government have cut public borrowing, ensured that inflation is low and stable, and achieved the lowest long-term interest rates for more than 30 years. We have introduced structural reforms to help to boost business productivity, and policies to encourage industry to invest for the long term in the skills and infrastructure that it requires to succeed.
    Mr. Cash: Does the Minister accept that one of the greatest disincentives to competitiveness is regulation and over-regulation? What are the Government doing to reduce the burden of regulations on British industry, on farming and the agricultural industries, and on many others? What would be the position if, in line with the economic policy of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister on going into economic and monetary union, we went into the exchange rate mechanism? What effect would that have on competitiveness in the UK?
    Mr. Timms: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not planning to enter the exchange rate mechanism, and that the United Kingdom has consistently scored highly in
    436
    various competitiveness surveys. In the World Economic Forum assessment of business perceptions of corporate tax systems, the UK's is ranked the best in the world.
    We are aware of concerns about regulation. We have introduced the better regulation task force and the Small Business Service. We are working to challenge excessive and complex regulations, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced yesterday an important package to reduce the burden of VAT administration and to improve cash flow for small firms—precisely the sort of firms that the hon. Gentleman asks about. Therefore, we are making the changes that are needed to help.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: In the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement yesterday he pointed out that the Exchequer had made Britain the best place in the world for multinationals to locate. When it comes to multinational companies investing in this country, will the Chancellor ensure that action is taken to see that that is not done in ways that destroy existing United Kingdom companies, especially those involved in the export trade? That is what has happened with St. Gobain investment and the takeover of Biwater in Clay Cross, where it is possible that 700 jobs might soon be lost and the export trade will be considerably damaged. It would be good if the Treasury would discuss that with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to ensure that some strong action is taken under existing regulations.
    Mr. Timms: I am not familiar with the case to which my hon. Friend refers. We welcome investment into the UK, and the high levels of inward investment that we have seen in recent years. We want the United Kingdom to be the best place in the world for multinationals to be based, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made some important announcements yesterday about corporate taxation in that respect, which have been warmly welcomed. If my hon. Friend wants to drop me a note about the case that he mentioned, I shall be happy to take it up with the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Yesterday, the Chancellor said:
    We are tackling the productivity gap.—[Official Report, 8 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 332.]
    As productivity performance since May 1997 has been so disappointing, could the Financial Secretary enlarge on those six words?
    Mr. Timms: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to an informative graph in the pre-Budget report published yesterday. It shows that there has been good progress on productivity in the past couple of years, particularly in manufacturing. However, we are still not matching the United States—there is still a 40 per cent. productivity gap. There is a great deal more to be done, and that is why the Chancellor's announcements yesterday were so important. Stability in the economy is vital, as is sustained public investment in transport and education. Those things would be drastically and savagely cut under the spending plans of the Conservative party.

    Private Finance Initiative Projects
    Dr. Lynne Jones: If he will make it his policy to ensure that the public sector comparator for PFI projects (a) contains a statement of the risks which have been quantified and included in it and (b) includes an independent element in its construction and in the evaluation process.[135962]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): The public sector comparator is intended to provide an objective benchmark to test value for money, and contains a quantified statement of risk. In our response to the Treasury Select Committee's fifth special report, we have undertaken to consider how to improve further the clarity of the treatment of risks and benefits in the construction of the public sector comparator and the assessment of value for money.
    Dr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I would have hoped for more detail by now. Does he agree that unless the construction of the public sector comparator is seen to be fair and transparent, doubts will remain about the value for money in private finance? Does he agree that with so much Government debt now being repaid, if public procurement is shown to be the better buy, there should be no barrier to a project, such as the new hospital in south Birmingham, going ahead as a result of Treasury-imposed constraints on the availability of public capital?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, and further details are available in the Treasury task force technical note No. 5 on how to construct the public sector comparator. I agree with my hon. Friend that transparency is important. I can reassure her that, as the Government have made consistently clear, we will approve PFI projects only if it is demonstrated in a full business case that the PFI option offers better value for money to the NHS and the taxpayer when compared with a publicly funded alternative. I think that that is the assurance my hon. Friend was seeking.

    Taxation (Self-Assessment)
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the arrangements for self-assessment of personal income tax for the 1999–2000 tax year.[135963]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hooray
    Dawn Primarolo: This is just to prove that I am here—the opportunity to answer is always the luck of the draw.
    I am confident that the arrangements for self-assessment for the tax year 1999–2000 are as robust and effective as they have been for the previous three years. A total of 4,400,000 tax returns had been received by 30 September this year, compared with 4,500,000 at the same point last year, showing that self-assessment is on course.
    Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the software known as "TaxSaver 2000 Lite Version 1" proved to be light in one particular respect—it did not work? How did that happen? How much did the software cost? What recompense is available to those who wasted their time and energy in trying to make it work? Moreover, if we want tax simplification, why have most of those who tried to fill in self-assessment forms this year found them more confusing and difficult to fill in than ever before?
    Dawn Primarolo: It is true that some difficulties were experienced with internet filing. However, the software is now working, and is increasingly being used by taxpayers. The whole self-assessment process is continually under review. There is now, for example, only one set of instructions, rather than four, on how to fill in self-assessment forms. A recently completed review by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Inland Revenue will soon be published, and I am sure that it will make fascinating reading for every hon. Member.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give the business for the forthcoming week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Opposition Day [20th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on London Underground public private partnership followed by a debate on the millennium dome. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000.
TUESDAY 14 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
WEDNESDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Supplemental motion—relating to the Transport Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Transport Bill
THURSDAY 16 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Insolvency Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 17 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on embryology on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Motions relating to Westminster Hall and Thursday sittings.
THURSDAY 23 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on European affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mrs. Browning: I thank the Leader of the House for her statement. She will be aware from the just-completed Treasury questions that many hon. Members are very anxious to have much more information on certain aspects of the pre-Budget statement made yesterday by the Chancellor, particularly in relation to ultra-low sulphur petrol. Will she ask, please, whether a Treasury Minister—preferably the Chancellor—could find time for a proper statement and debate on that specific aspect of the statement?
Last night, in television interviews with Treasury Ministers, it was very clear that the Government were ill-prepared to answer questions on the availability of ultra-low sulphur petrol, and on whether the new discounts will be treated in the same way as current ones—particularly the 1 p discount that is being retained by the oil companies. There has also been a discount on ultra-low sulphur diesel which has not been passed on to hauliers. The question being asked in Treasury questions today was: what precise arrangements are there to ensure that the discounts will benefit consumers and hauliers? Were those arrangements discussed in September at No. 10 Downing street when the Prime Minister met the oil companies? It is a very important matter that merits more of the House's time, so that Opposition Members can question Treasury Ministers on it.
440
On 26 October, I asked the right hon. Lady whether we could expect the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House on the conclusion of the Biarritz summit. She said that she expected that there would be a statement. However, the summit was held on 13 and 14 October, but a statement has not yet been timetabled. It is very important that the House should discuss the summit, not least because—as we have learned in the media—key discussions were held on the charter of fundamental rights, which will feature in the Nice treaty, among other things. We feel that it is incumbent on the Prime Minister not to break the habit of reporting to the House on summits. I hope that the right hon. Lady will convey urgently to the Prime Minister the fact that the House deserves a statement.
The right hon. Lady has just announced to the House that on Friday 17 November there will be a debate on embryology. I assume that it will include the Government's response to the Donaldson report. I hope that she will identify for us how the proposals in that report—if the Government accept them—will be put into legislation. I understand that there would need to be an amendment to the Embryology Act 1990, presumably in secondary legislation. The right hon. Lady will be aware of the strength of feeling on both sides of the debate, and right hon. and hon. Members—not just those who serve on the relevant Committee—will want to be assured that they will have the right to vote on the matter, particularly in respect of the findings of the Donaldson committee.
Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Lady asked for information about the availability of ultra-low sulphur fuel in the aftermath of the pre-Budget report. Off the cuff, I would have thought that it was a matter for Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions rather than for Treasury Ministers, as we are talking here about the availability of supplies rather than the price that is charged for them, but no doubt there will be a variety of forums in which the issues can be explored. The hon. Lady will not have forgotten that what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced yesterday are proposals for consultation. She asked about aspects of the proposals that no doubt will be explored in that consultation.
If I understood her correctly, the hon. Lady asked the Treasury to account for whether or not oil companies pass on any reductions in the price which might flow from the Chancellor's decisions. That is certainly a very interesting question. I am not entirely sure that anybody has ever said that the Government or the Treasury can take responsibility for that. We can all make our views known and heard, but the public should clearly be aware that if potential price cuts resulting from Government decisions are not passed on, they should direct their strictures to others than the Government.
The hon. Lady then, quite correctly, referred to our previous exchange on the Biarritz discussions. I am glad that she did so because she has reminded me that on this matter I definitely owe the House an apology. She asked me to confirm that the Prime Minister would maintain the previous pattern of statements on these matters, and of course he will, as he always has. The hon. Lady will know that the pattern is to make a statement after formal Councils. There has never been a pattern for the present Prime Minister or any other coming to the House to make a statement after an informal Council, such as the one at

441
Biarritz. I owe the hon. Lady and the House an apology, as when she asked about the Biarritz Council it had gone out of my mind that it was an informal discussion and the formal Council will take place at Nice. So the proper reporting conventions will indeed be observed, but they do not apply to the discussions at Biarritz.
The hon. Lady then asked about the Government's response to the Donaldson report. Again, I am grateful to her for giving me the opportunity to make the issue entirely clear, particularly because she asked me for an assurance that hon. Members would be able to discuss the important issue of embryology and have an opportunity to vote on any proposals that are made. Let me at once stress to the hon. Lady and to the House that we envisage that debate as a preliminary stage in those discussions. There is no suggestion that the Government will put forward their response during the debate on Friday 17 November. We regard these as profound and serious matters which should be thoroughly aired, not least in the House, without a commitment being made or framework being set. Of course, when orders might be made and the content of those orders is for discussion and can be looked at in the long term. The Government fully recognise that there is a need for a thorough, on-going debate and examination of these delicate issues, and we see the forthcoming debate as the opening discussion and nowhere near its closing stages.
Mrs. Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate to consider the hidden costs of road transport, such as the cost of treating children with asthma, the cost of improving flood defences and the cost to local authorities and the Government of helping flood victims, such as my constituents at Stockbridge last week and others throughout the country?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. She will know that a report was published recently by Transport 2000, I think, or some such body, drawing attention to the full costs of road use and the need to be as environmentally sound as we can. She will also have noted the various measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor yesterday, such as those to encourage the provision of new and more environmentally effective road haulage, which were all designed to lead to the same end. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on these matters in the near future, but I suspect that she may find an opportunity to raise them in the debates that will undoubtedly flow from the proposals advanced by my right hon. Friend yesterday.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House investigate urgently and report back to the House next week on the extent of the pre-briefing by the Chancellor's staff before his pre-Budget statement yesterday? It appears that certain journalists had details of what was to be announced 72 hours ahead of the statement, whereas the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokesmen saw the details only seven minutes before it was delivered. That is a reflection on the relative importance that the Government attach to the House and to the media.
Will the Leader of the House please listen carefully to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on the real confusion about the so-called "green fuels"? This has all the aspect of a
442
quick idea that has not been properly thought through. If it is to be an important part of Government policy, surely we should have some more details.
May I suggest a couple of candidates for the two empty spaces in our diary for the week after next, on Tuesday 21 and Wednesday 22 November? I wonder whether the Leader of the House has seen the article in The Times today by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), headed "How many more jobs must be lost while we stay out of the euro?", in which he says
Ten years ago Geoffrey Howe stood in the House of Commons and issued a stark warning that those who feared Europe and economic and monetary union would lead Britain into isolation and "scrambling to join the club later, after the rules have been set and after the power has been distributed by others to our disadvantage. That would be the worst possible outcome.
May I suggest a debate on five sectors of British industry that have been badly affected: manufacturing; export industries; the holiday industry—devastated this summer by the discrepancy between the value of the pound and the euro; the fishing industry; and farming, which has been the worst affected of all?
Finally, do the Government believe that the electoral system in the United States is preferable to our own?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked me to investigate and report back, but it is not entirely clear to me whether he has seen a specific report suggesting pre-briefing, or whether he is merely drawing on some of the material that appeared in the press. It is certainly within my memory, and I am sure within his, that for many years, under the previous Government, there was a series of what some would call leaks and what we regarded as trailers—balloons sent up to test the reaction and see whether the policies were popular or unpopular. That has been, I fear, a characteristic of these discussions.
The hon. Gentleman will also know that many journalists make all kinds of prognostications and, even when they turn out to be completely wrong, they are never willing to admit that any of it was guesswork. They always assure us that it was based on the soundest information. During my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement, I observed, and I saw many of my hon. Friends observing, how much of it was different from, and additional to, what had been pre-reported. That came through very clearly.
On green fuels, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), that these are proposals for consultation. This is the pre-Budget report, and when we come to the Budget itself, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will report back to the House the outcome of that consultation. I am sure that all the issues about the use of more environmentally friendly petrol will be explored in the consultation period.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's reference to our lack of detailed announcements for provisional business. He called them empty spaces, but he will know as well as I that, at this stage in the Session, such a description is pretty inaccurate. We confidently expect that any spaces will be filled with material returning from another place.
The Gentleman is right to identify the interest in the remarks by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), and in the case that he makes. I am not sure whether the article makes clear how little the decision about whether to advocate entry into the euro was

443
anticipated by the previous Government, but the hon. Gentleman may recall that they confidently asserted that the euro would not be launched—certainly not in January 1999. As a result, even the most basic preparations had not been made, which was certainly to Britain's disadvantage. However, the hon. Gentleman will have noted that there is to be a debate on European affairs on 23 November. I feel confident that he, or someone else, will manage to raise the matter then.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on the outcome of the American election, whatever it might be. I do not wish to intrude on private grief, but the situation was summed up admirably by the present President, who said that the people had spoken, but that it would take a while to determine what they had said.
Helen Jones: Could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the mis-selling of endowment mortgages by the financial services industry? I declare an interest in that I have one of those mortgages, but Members of Parliament are more fortunate than many of our constituents who cannot afford to increase payments. Those people are the victims of a real rip-off by an industry that was largely unregulated by the previous Government. Should we not have time to debate the matter?
Mrs. Beckett: I, and I am sure many other hon. Members, have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. I can assure her that she is not alone in having taken advice that she now wishes she had not taken.
Mr. John Bercow: Did you?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) is also right to say that Members of Parliament are perhaps placed more fortunately than many other people when it comes to dealing with the consequences of taking such advice. Although time is at such a premium during this part of the year that I fear I cannot undertake to find space for a debate on the matter in the near future, I recommend to my hon. Friend the vastly increased opportunities for such a debate that the Government have provided in Westminster Hall.
Sir George Young: In our debate on 13 July on strengthening Parliament, the Prime Minister promised a free vote on the report from the Select Committee on Liaison entitled "Shifting the Balance". That report is the welcome subject of today's debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, but can the right hon. Lady promise that there will be an opportunity to have substantive votes on specific resolutions?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have always said that any votes on House matters are always free votes. He will also know—because, as shadow Leader of the House, he raised the matter often at business questions—that the motion on which such a
444
report is debated is always left in the balance. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, but that is not how we will discuss the matter today.
Maria EagleWill my right hon. Friend find time for a debate as soon as possible on Mr. Justice Coleman's report published yesterday into the reopened inquiry into the sinking of the MV Derbyshire? The report exonerated those who died from any blame, but it also contained some worrying findings about safety standards at sea. In the 20 years since the Derbyshire went down, bulk carriers of a similar design have continued to sink at regular intervals. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend could facilitate an urgent debate on how safety standards can be raised and lives saved in the future.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter, on which she has long campaigned. All those who have campaigned will feel that the report offers some vindication and justification for their efforts. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a specific debate on the matter. My hon. Friend may find that opportunities may arise to discuss safety matters in general, although I appreciate that she may consider maritime safety to be a special subject in itself. May I therefore recommend Westminster Hall to her, too?
Mr. Christopher Chope: In the light of what the Leader of the House has said, can we have an early debate on the mis-selling of Government policy? She has told us today that the Chancellor's statement yesterday about low-sulphur fuel being available at every garage from the Budget next year is contingent upon the machinations of the Deputy Prime Minister, consultation and so on. Yet yesterday, the Chancellor said:
When the excise duty cut is introduced at Budget time, motorists using any petrol station in Britain should be able to benefit from the duty cut.—[Official Report, 8 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 322.]
Clearly, the Chancellor was misleading the House if—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No one was misleading the House. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.
Mr. Chope: I was going on to say that I am sure that the Chancellor was not misleading the House, which is why I should like the Leader of the House to explain the difference between what the Chancellor said yesterday and what she has told us today.
Mrs. Beckett: I did not say that the measure was contingent on the work of the Deputy Prime Minister. I said that the proposals will be subject to consultation and that the background to them is the express view of the oil companies as to what can be provided. The hon. Gentleman will know that the AA's policy director said yesterday that the key question was whether the oil industry would deliver on the timetable and to the price suggested by the Chancellor.
On whether we should debate the mis-selling of policies, that is always an attractive proposition. Given that the hon. Gentleman has just been reminded of the mis-selling of endowment policies under the previous Government and given the scandal of the mis-selling of personal pensions that hangs round their necks, I am surprised that he even suggested such a thing.
Mr. Richard BurdenCould we have an early debate on how far countries

445
that are signatories to the Hague convention on child abduction are implementing its provisions? I say that with reference to my constituent, Caroline Taylor, who has been separated from her son Stidi for more than a year now, despite verdicts of the Greek court. Although Greece is a signatory to the convention, it is not ensuring that the provisions of the convention are complied with. That has to end.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that everyone in the House understands and sympathises with my hon. Friend's concern about the case of Caroline Taylor, which he has pursued. I sometimes think that these are the worst cases that come before Members of Parliament, because we all understand the difficulty with regard to the child involved and how vulnerable children are to exploitation in these circumstances. I understand his concern that the Greek courts have taken some decisions on the matter, but that it remains unresolved. He will know that my noble Friend Baroness Scotland raised the subject with the Greek Minister of Justice when she met him over the summer. I know that the child abduction unit has been involved and has done what it can to help. I believe that there is a further hearing in the very near future. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a specific debate on the matter, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to look for opportunities to raise it in this House.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will recall that I have been pressing on different occasions for a meeting of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee in Northern Ireland, according to the Standing Orders of this House. This has been thwarted time and again by one party, which finds it difficult to attend even when the Committee is held here. Can the commitment that the Grand Committee would be held from time to time in Northern Ireland be now met, because four years have passed without it having been met?
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely understand the seriousness with which the hon. Gentleman raises the matter. I will draw his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who I know will give them serious consideration.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Can we have a debate on rape and the way in which the law is working—particularly in the light of the fact that a number of men have been released from prison because the women they were supposed to have raped have changed their evidence and gone back to the police to tell the truth? Has not a huge injustice been perpetrated against some men, and should not Parliament debate the matter?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has, quite correctly, identified a matter of great concern. There is continual debate to and fro about how best to handle those issues. We want to ensure that people are willing to come forward when they have a serious accusation and also that people who have been unjustly accused can be helped. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the very near future. However, it is Home Office questions on Monday, and my hon. Friend might have the opportunity to raise the matter then.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I remind the Leader of the House of my private
446
Member's Bill, which sought to extend fuel rebates for community bus services, and which the Government blocked? Since then, however, the Government have included the proposal in their 10-year plan. Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House and tell us exactly when he intends to implement this? A lot of people would welcome such a scheme, but are still waiting for the details to be announced.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot, I fear, provide a special slot for the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with that specific subject. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that we hope to have the urban and rural White Papers in the not-too-distant future, and he may well find an opportunity to raise the matter then.
Mr. Paul Flynn: As the Parliament of a country in which a young woman was recently dragged through the courts for using cannabis medicinally, a chief constable has said that he would not arrest a person for using cannabis recreationally and heroin deaths are the highest in Europe, should we not debate urgently the self-admiring report by the drugs tsar, which is filled with vacuous irrationality?
Mrs. Beckett: Policy on this area is raised and discussed continually. Indeed, one reason for providing the opportunity for extra scrutiny in Westminster Hall is to allow some of the issues about the work of individuals and non-departmental public bodies to be scrutinised. All I can do is draw my hon. Friend's attention to that opportunity, which I know he will make use of.
Mr. Roger Gale: At 10.45 this morning, the Vote Office received copies of the National Audit Office report into the operation and financial management of the millennium dome. Now that we have had the opportunity to study the report, it is clear that the information that the Prime Minister gave the House yesterday, suggesting that all decisions had been taken by the previous Administration, is wholly false, and that the key decisions on the content and management of the dome and on transport for the dome were all taken following a review of the dome by the Government in 1997—in May, once they had taken office. It is also abundantly plain from the report that the go-ahead for the dome was given by the Prime Minister himself.
As all that is so, and as, to date, no Minister has offered to come before the House to make a statement on the report, and as no Minister has yet been honourable enough to offer a resignation, could the Leader of the House say when we will be able to debate that report in full, and can it please be before the House is prorogued?
Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Gentleman may have had the opportunity to study the report, but I do not suppose that the rest of the House has. Secondly, I am afraid that what he said about the Prime Minister's statements yesterday is entirely wrong. The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have been listening to what the Prime Minister said—although, to be fair, there was a lot of noise, as there tends to be at Prime Minister's Question Time, so I shall be charitable and assume that he did not actually hear what the Prime Minister said.

447
The Prime Minister was specific and clear. On more than one occasion he said that he was at no point attempting to suggest that the full responsibility for all the events that led to the building of the dome rested with the Conservative party. He was very clear that he had expressed regret, that he had said on behalf of this Government that we recognise that errors were made and that we are perfectly willing to acknowledge that and say it to the public. However, we are not prepared to take all the blame for a project that began three or four years before the Conservative party left office.
Mr. Roger Casale: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the visit to Rome last weekend by many Members from both sides of the House to take part in the worldwide parliamentary assembly to mark the jubilee holy year? More than 1,500 parliamentarians in more than 90 delegations attended, and several important issues were discussed, including international initiatives to cancel the foreign debt of some of the world's poorest countries. It was widely recognised that Britain has played a leading role in those initiatives.
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for International Development to come to the House to receive congratulations on the work that has already been done and to report on further initiatives, particularly to bring more international pressure to bear on the International Monetary Fund and the World bank?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development has a good record of campaigning on that matter. There is an encouraging attitude to third-world debt and its importance and to the Government's attempts to have others join us in taking the steps that we believe are necessary to help to alleviate some of the worst poverty in the world. I cannot undertake to find time on the Floor of the House for a special debate on that, although I recommend Westminster Hall to my hon. Friend, but he will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be answering oral questions before the end of the month, and he may find an opportunity to raise the matter then.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the right hon. Lady's answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) concerning substantive motions on the Liaison Committee report, does she think it reasonable for the House to regard her report as a paraphrase of her earlier quotation from President Clinton: "The Leader has spoken. It will take some time before we can work out what she has said."?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall be extraordinarily surprised if it turns out that anybody in the House is in any doubt as to what I said.
Mr. David Chaytor: In view of the extremely important conference on climate change in The Hague, which will begin next week, will the Government publish their climate change strategy before entering into negotiations at The Hague on the precise mechanisms by which the Kyoto protocol will be implemented? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Deputy Prime
448
Minister will, on his return from The Hague, make a statement to the House about the decisions reached there, as well as a statement on the climate change strategy?
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly cannot tell my hon. Friend at the moment precisely what are our plans for publishing such information, but I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who I know will take them very seriously.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Leader of the House will recall that, on Tuesday 7 November, the Parliamentary Secretary said of the so-called "modernisation" proposals that they
should not be at the expense of proper examination of legislation.—[Official Report, 7 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 272.]
I very much welcome that.
Will the right hon. Lady therefore give an absolute undertaking that, in the next few days and weeks, when business from another place comes here with many—in some cases several hundred—amendments attached, the House will be given enough time to, in the Parliamentary Secretary's words, examine the legislation properly? Will she further assure the House that there will be no question whatever of the Government seeking artificially to truncate or limit proper debate and scrutiny of their many amendments to legislation coming from another place?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I do recall my hon. Friend's words, and the right hon. Gentleman will know that the whole tenor and tone of that debate related to the processes that we shall use in the new Session. He will know also that the Government consider the issues that return to the House and what time can be provided for them. However, he knows that no matter how much time the Government provide, we cannot ensure that the House uses it to best effect.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Next week, on 17 November, 150 jobs are due to be lost at Biwater at Clay Cross in my constituency. The plant will then be closed at the beginning of December, when another 550 jobs will be lost. Could we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about whether he will refer the matter to the Competition Commission under the powers that he has under the Fair Trading Act 1973? I assure the Leader of the House that my right hon. Friend is not short of information on which he can base that judgment.
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that my hon. Friend has raised the issue with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reply as soon as he can.
Mr. John Bercow: May we have an early debate on support for teachers who are under attack from their pupils? Given the worrying increase in the incidence of such attacks, does not the right hon. Lady agree that it is imperative that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment comes speedily to the House and introduces new guidelines on the legitimate use of physical restraint in such circumstances? Does she also agree that those guidelines should reflect the

449
common-sense instincts of the majority of the British people, not the politically correct fetishes of the liberal establishment?
Mrs. Beckett: It was my understanding that fresh guidelines had recently been issued. The hon. Gentleman will know that his concern for the safety of teachers is shared throughout the House, but I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Mr. David Taylor: Previously, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given an assurance that there will be a full debate on the Phillips report on the BSE tragedy. Can she tell the House when that debate is likely to take place? Will she look into the possibility of incorporating in that debate an assessment of the report, just out, of the Leicestershire team that investigated the Queniborough cluster? The team included the CJD surveillance unit at Edinburgh, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Dr. Philip Monk, the team leader.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that there would be a debate on the Phillips report, but that he wanted to give Members of Parliament and those outside enough time fully to absorb the recommendations of that very substantial report and give the matter careful thought before returning to the House. I know that my hon. Friend has on several occasions voiced the interests of his constituents, especially those at Queniborough, and I have no doubt that the results of the work there will form part of the background to the debate, but I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. John Wilkinson: With reference to Monday's debate on London Underground and the Government's proposed public-private partnership for it, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Deputy Prime Minister comes to answer that debate, so that he has the opportunity to justify the extraordinarily abusive personal remarks that he made about Mr. Kiley, the former boss of the New York metro who has come to advise the mayor on how the tube might be improved; and so that he can justify his disgraceful withholding from the Greater London Assembly of the necessary financial information on which it can evolve a strategy for the improvement of London's underground system?
Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right
450
hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. As for who is to handle the debate to which he refers, I do not have that information before me.
Mr. Lawrie Quinn: I am sure that many hon. Members share the concerns felt by fisheries communities in Whitby and Scarborough and along the North sea coast about the meeting with marine scientists that is taking place in Europe today. Will my right hon. Friend say whether there will be an early opportunity to consider not only the environmental impact of the failure of the cod fishery in the North sea, but the socio-economic impact on communities such as Whitby, which has been in decline since 1960, but is faced with an even steeper decline in its local economy if cuts are made?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend takes his responsibilities to his constituents extremely seriously and is strongly interested in their concerns. He will know the importance of balancing the environmental consequences and the economic impact of any action. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future. He, too, might want to look into the opportunities offered by Westminster Hall, but he will be aware that Agriculture questions take place next Tuesday.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Thank you, Madam—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will never be called by you again.
May we have an early debate on yesterday's pre-Budget statement, given that yesterday's package of fuel price reductions is larger than that which any political party has proposed? Any return to the disruption of food and fuel supplies would run the risk of provoking a significant public backlash. May we therefore have an early opportunity for all political parties—including, I hope, the Conservative party—to make clear their unequivocal opposition to any further disruption?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have already said that there will undoubtedly be many occasions, as further details emerge on the issues on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is consulting, during debates and question times when these matters can be explored. I understand my hon. Friend's suggestion. There is a great temptation to arrange a special debate so that Opposition Members can make it plain that they accept that my right hon. Friend has gone further than they intended and that they would be unlikely to be able to support any further action. However, I suspect, given past precedent, they will attempt to find a way of wriggling out of that.

Social Security
1.11 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement—first, on the annual uprating of benefits, and secondly, on pensions and the new pension credit.
First, on uprating, subject to the following exceptions, most national insurance benefits will rise by the retail prices index, which is 3.3 per cent., and most income-related benefits will rise by the Rossi index, which is 1.6 per cent., in the usual way. Details of the uprating will be placed in the Vote Office and will be published in the Official Report.
Secondly, the Government believe that it is right to do more to help people with disabilities and carers. We know that it is particularly hard for families on low incomes who are bringing up children with disabilities. I am therefore proposing to increase the disabled child premium by £7.40 a week, on top of the normal uprating. So as part of our drive to end child poverty, about 80,000 children will see a rise in the disabled child premium—from £22.25 a week to £30 a week, over and above their basic entitlement to benefit.
Just as we are committed to abolishing child poverty, we are determined also to provide greater security for those who are unable to work. That is why I announced in 1998 that we would introduce a disability income guarantee from April next year for people with severe disabilities. When it was first announced, we set the guarantee at £128 a week. However, today I can announce that when it is introduced in April, it will be not £128, but £142—that is £14 more a week. For couples, it will be £186.80.
Thirdly, we want to do more for carers. We all owe a debt of gratitude to people who give up so much to care for their relatives. That is why in September I announced that we would extend the invalid carer's allowance to people over 65, raise the earnings threshold and extend payments for eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for. I also announced at that time a £2 a week increase in the carer premium, which is the extra supplement for carers on income support.
Today I can go further. I have decided that the increase in the carer premium will be not £2 a week, but £10 a week on top of the normal uprating. That means that the premium will rise from £14.15 to £24.40, helping more than 200,000 carers on low incomes. In total, the Government will be spending nearly £200 million more next year on supporting carers and people with disabilities, and every year thereafter.
I now turn to pensions. I confirm that the basic state pension will rise by £5 for a single pensioner next year, and by £3 the year after. For married couples, the figures are £8 and then £4.80.
I can also tell the House that the widows and bereavement benefits, which will go to men and women equally for the first time next year, will also rise by £5 next year and £3 the year after.
For this winter, I can confirm that pensioners will start to receive their £200 winter fuel payment from Monday.
Today, I am also publishing a consultation paper on the new pension credit. Copies will be available from the Vote Office following my statement.
452
There is a fundamental fault in the system we inherited. Saving should be rewarded, not punished. So the pension credit will, for the first time, reward the thrift of millions of people who have worked hard to save for their retirement.
The credit builds on the long-term reforms the Government have already made. We are building, block by block, a coherent and sustainable strategy for pensions.
For tomorrow's pensioners, we are reforming the state second pension, giving greater security in retirement to 18 million people on low incomes. For moderate and higher earners, we are introducing the new stakeholder pensions from next April.
The pension credit will not only help millions of today's pensioners on modest incomes, it will also complement those long-term reforms by rewarding people for saving. The message is clear: whatever one can afford to put by, it will always pay to save.
Our aim is both to end pensioner poverty and to ensure that all pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the nation.
When we came to office, the inequality in pensioner incomes had grown dramatically under the previous Government. That means that the old approach—an across-the-board increase, whether linked to prices or earnings—is inadequate. It would not do nearly enough for the poorest pensioners, and it would not do enough to reward thrift. A new approach is required to deal with the reality of pensioner incomes today.
First, there are now many more pensioners retiring on very good pensions, thanks mainly to occupational pensions and, of course, the state earnings-related pension scheme. One in six pensioner couples are now retiring on £20,000 a year, and that proportion will grow steadily over time.
Those pensioners are sharing in the rising prosperity of the nation. For those who come within the scope of the tax system, we are determined to give them a fairer deal. We have already halved the rate of tax on savings income from April 1999 and increased pensioner tax allowances. Today, I can announce further proposals to raise those allowances.
At the moment, most pensioners have no income tax to pay, but for those who do, in 2003 the Government propose to raise the age-related allowances by £240 that year over and above indexation. On current forecasts, that will take the allowance to £6,560 a year for those aged 65 to 74, and to £6,850 for those aged 75 or more.
Throughout the remainder of this Parliament, we propose to carry on raising those allowances in line with earnings. As a result, more than 3 million pensioners will gain from that.
Secondly, we inherited a situation in Britain—the fourth largest economy in the world—in which there were too many pensioners living in poverty. Poverty has no place in a civilised society. That is why the Government were right to make ending pensioner poverty their first priority. It is also why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which is already helping nearly 2 million pensioners.
Now we want to go further to tackle pensioner poverty. As the Chancellor announced yesterday, we are increasing the minimum income guarantee over and above the planned earnings increase, so that from next April,

453
no single pensioner need live on less than £92.15 a week. For 285,000 of the poorest pensioners in this country, that is a rise of £14 a week between now and next April.
When we introduce the new system in 2003, the minimum income guarantee will be set not at £92 but at £100 a week—that is £22 a week more than today. For the first time, a single pensioner will be guaranteed at least £100 a week. For every subsequent year in the next Parliament, the guarantee will be raised in line with earnings.
The next stage of our reforms, however, is to help the millions of pensioners who worked hard all their lives, saved for their retirement and rightly believe that they are being punished, not rewarded, for their thrift.
All of us are familiar with pensioners who feel let down by a system that has not rewarded their thrift. A pensioner with £20 of occupational pension on top of her state pension can sometimes find herself just a pound or two better off than someone who had saved nothing. That is unfair and unjust, and it will stop. That is why we are introducing the pension credit—to help pensioners with savings or a modest income in retirement. For the first time in the history of the welfare state, saving will be rewarded, not punished.
I can confirm that when it is introduced in 2003, the credit will reward all those with weekly incomes up to £135 for single pensioners, or £200 for couples. Today I can tell the House that 5.5 million pensioners—that is, half the pensioner households in this country—will be better off as a result of the new credit.
Not only will the new system ensure that pensioners are better off when they retire, but crucially, it will ensure that the support that they get from the state will keep up with the rises in family incomes over their retirement, because not only will the minimum income guarantee rise in line with earnings, but so will the new pension credit.
Let me explain how the credit will work. First, we will guarantee a minimum income, which by 2003 will be at least £100, or £154 for couples. Secondly, on top of that, for every pound saved, pensioners will receive an additional cash credit. That will mean extra cash on top of the basic state pension: sums of between £1 and £23 a week. The amount of that reward will depend on the amount of savings and other income.
Take, for example, a pensioner in 2003 who is on the basic state pension, which we then expect to be £77, and who has income from savings or an occupational pension of, say, £20 a week—in other words, a total weekly income of £97. With the credit, her income will be raised to the minimum income guarantee of £100, but on top of that, she will receive a credit of £12 extra for her saving, so her income will be not £97, but £112. The pension credit will mean that she is £15 a week better off because of her saving.
The changes that we are making will be of particular advantage to women, because on average, women have smaller occupational pensions than men, and of course they are likely to live longer. They are therefore more at risk from the falling value of their pension income over their retirement. As a result, more than two thirds of those who will benefit from the credit are women.
The credit also allows us to make a number of other changes. First, we have always recognised the unfairness of people losing out simply because they have modest
454
savings in a bank or building society. We have already announced that from next year, as we prepare for the pension credit, we are raising the capital limits for the first time in 10 years. As a result, 500,000 pensioners will get an average of £5 a week more, and many will find themselves entitled to extra support for the first time.
From 2003, we are going further. As part of the credit, we are scrapping the capital limits completely. Instead, we will look at the income that pensioners receive from their savings. Not only are we abolishing the capital limits, but we are getting rid of the rules on tariff income for pensioners, so we will no longer assume that pensioners can get a ludicrous 20 per cent. return on their savings.
The second change is that we will make it easier for pensioners to get the money to which they are entitled, and get rid of the weekly means test. Now, there are some who weep crocodile tears at means testing for pensioners, but who did nothing about it for 18 years. We will.
At present, we ask all taxpaying pensioners to tell us about their income just once a year, if that. However, we ask poorer pensioners to tell the benefits system about changes every week. There is no good reason for that. The credit will be based on an income assessment that is more like the tax system.
When one retires, a calculation has to be made about one's basic state pension, based on the contributions that one has paid. In the future we will be able to work out at the same time how much a pensioner is entitled to under the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit. We know that most pensioners have stable incomes, so after the initial award at retirement, adjustments will need to be made only when circumstances change significantly.
We are making it easier for pensioners to claim their entitlements, by introducing a dedicated new service for pensioners. People will be able to claim by phone, which will give pensioners the better service that they want.
Although most pensioners have stable incomes, there are pinch points during the year when they need to meet the costs of lump-sum bills. That is why pensioners have welcomed the extra help that they receive from the winter fuel payment and the free TV licences for over-75s. They constitute more help when it is most needed.
We promised to make sure that all pensioners would share fairly in this country's rising prosperity, and the measures that we have announced fulfil that promise. As a result of our reforms, all pensioners will gain. We are spending £8.5 billion more on pensioners over this Parliament—that is £5 billion more than an earnings link would provide. We promised to do more for those who most need it most. That is why, next year, the poorest third of pensioners will get five times more than they would have received under an earnings link.
We promised to do more to reward saving. That is why, under the tax changes that I have announced today, 3 million pensioners will be better off. The new pension credit means that 5.5 million pensioners will be better off.
Next week, the £200 winter fuel payment will be provided. Next April, the £5 and £8 increases in the basic state pension will be introduced, and the minimum income guarantee will increase to £92.15. The following April, a further £3 and £4.80 will be added to the basic pension, and from 2003, we will provide the guaranteed income of at least £100, the new pension credit and higher tax allowances to reward saving.

455
There is therefore a clear choice for the future. We are increasing the winter fuel payment, not abolishing it. We are building on the basic state pension, not undermining or privatising it. We are tackling pensioner poverty, not ignoring it, and we are rewarding saving, not penalising it.
Mr. David Willetts: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the scale of the proposals that he and the Chancellor have set out for the tax and benefits system in 2003.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he will abolish the working families tax credit, which he launched only last year? Will he further confirm that he will abolish family premiums in income support, and that he will introduce a new integrated child credit, a new employment credit and, for good measure, a new pension credit? That is ambitious for a Government who recently lost 1 million tax files and cannot pay the correct pension to people who are retiring today because of the continuing problems with the national insurance computer system.
On Monday, the Minister of State, whose frankness on the subject is often refreshing, said that the benefit computers "are rubbish".
Hon. Members: They are yours.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please let the hon. Gentleman speak.
Mr. Willetts: We will accept our share of responsibility.[Interruption.] However, Labour Members should do something in return. They should reflect on the implications for the incredible set of changes that they propose to implement in the next two years. All the policies about which we have heard yesterday and today will put the tax and benefits system under yet more strain. It is no good devising fancy schemes if they are unworkable. The Minister of State's words show that they are unworkable. Even the Chancellor recognises that.
Last weekend, the Chancellor gave briefings to say that he was furious that his pension plans had been undermined by a series of administrative disasters at the DSS. Other Ministers are the poor bloody infantry, who will take the blame when things go wrong, as they surely will when the Chancellor tries to change the working families tax credit, the employment credit, the child credit, and the pension credit in one year.
When it is a matter of defending the measly 75p on the basic pension, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are safely ensconced in a chateau miles away from their lines, while the Secretary of State and his colleagues spend a year trying to defend the indefensible. But now that headquarters has decided on a retreat or, as it calls it, special transitional measures, the Secretary of State and his colleagues get to make the announcement. All the Secretary of State is left with is his complicated pension credit, which is overburdening a system that is already far too complicated. Complexity with a purpose is used to disguise the abandonment of the Government's failed policies. We want sensible measures that reward saving, and it is no good Ministers claiming that they are helping pensioners with their savings, when the money to finance
456
those measures and others comes from the £5 billion a year tax on pensioners' savings, which is the biggest stealth tax of the lot.
We have heard a lot about joined-up government from Ministers. Why does the Secretary of State not join up the different, inconsistent policies pursued in his own Department? May I ask him about the position of two single men aged 65 with a basic state pension? One has his pension topped up with an occupational pension of £30 a week. The other pensioner tops up his pension by doing part-time work that earns him £30 a week. He might even have been encouraged to carry on working, with all the urging from Ministers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, after today's proposals, for the first time the net income of the man with the occupational pension will be higher than the income of the pensioner with part-time work? That is not joined-up and is not even fair. How do the Secretary of State and Labour Members defend that direct consequence of the proposals that have just been announced?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the changes will mean a massive extension of means testing? The proportion of pensioners on means tests fell from 57 per cent. to 37 per cent. under the Conservative Government, but millions more families and pensioners now face a combined rate of tax and benefit withdrawal of 40 per cent. or even more. In tackling one grievance, the Secretary of State is creating another. We all know that pensioners do not want to have make complicated claims for means-tested benefits, even if they are given fancy new names such as the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit. Ministers are sending out 2.3 million letters to try to get more pensioners to claim the minimum income guarantee but, in spite of all their take-up campaigns, have had to admit that, so far, only 24,000 more pensioners have got the MIG. Ministers ought to learn the lessons of that failure rather than invent another complicated means-tested benefit.
How will the benefit work exactly? Will it be claimed through the tax return or through a benefit claim form? It is no good the Secretary of State saying that everything can be done on the telephone, because the experience of those making phone calls to try to claim the minimum income guarantee is that that leads to complicated paper-based transactions. We need to know how that benefit is to be claimed.
The Secretary of State talked about abolishing the capital limits and got a cheer from some of his colleagues. However, do they realise that every £1 of income from savings will now be taken into account as part of the minimum income guarantee? Does the Secretary of State agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), who only in June said in a written answer that the current arrangement
provides a straightforward method of calculating the weekly contribution which people with capital in excess of the lower limit—
which the Secretary of State is abolishing—
are expected to make from those resources to help meet their normal living expenses. Because no tariff applies to savings below the lower limit, the rule is most generous to people with relatively low savings.

457
The Secretary of State is getting rid of that arrangement, claiming that there is a supposed 20 per cent. notional rate of interest in the current rules. However, the Under-Secretary of State said:
The system is not based on any imputed rate of return—[Official Report, 14 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 653W.]
The Secretary of State is abolishing that and today is perpetuating the myth that the Government's problems somehow arise because they have put so much money towards helping the poorest pensioners.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that most of the money has gone not into the minimum income guarantee or the basic pension, but into complicated and indiscriminate special payments such as the winter fuel payment? Does he not realise that pensioners find these allowances patronising and intrusive? They would far rather have that money as part of their guaranteed weekly income, and that is what we offer them.
We would implement the Government's uprating and add our reforms on top.[Interruption.] Our uprating would give all pensioners under 75 an extra £9.50 a week if they are single and £13 a week if they are married. Older pensioners would receive £11.60 a week if they are single and £16.10 a week if they are married, with no extra tax and no loss of means-tested benefit. That would be financed by consolidating all the special payments and providing extra money on top, so that pensioners would be better off. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much shouting.
Mr. Willetts: I shall quote Baroness Castle, because she understood our package. She said that
the Conservative leader, William Hague, is no fool.
She is very shrewd.
He has put forward the idea of taking the fuel allowance and the TV licence allowance and turning them into a cash increase on the basic pension. In my opinion, that would be an absolute vote winner.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 2000; Vol. 614, c. 546.]
I agree with the Secretary of State on carers: we need to do more to help them. We welcome the measures for carers that he has announced today, just as we welcomed them when he made a virtually identical announcement on 3 October. We welcome them particularly because of their striking similarity to proposals that we put forward almost a year ago. We look forward to the Secretary of State implementing other constructive proposals that we make for reforming social security.
People look to the social security system to help them through the vagaries of life. They have a choice: they can either have the Government's approach of gimmickry, upheaval and confusion, or the Conservative alternative, which is simple, straightforward and comprehensible. Today's statement shows that the Government are creating a yet more complicated tax and benefit system that is like a passable imitation of Hampton Court maze, and millions of decent families and pensioners are trapped in it.
Mr. Darling: Let me start with the point that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) made about carers. It is good to hear that the Conservatives support us. However, he is wrong on one aspect. The Conservatives would never have been able to promise £200 million more
458
this year and every year afterwards, because they have never had the resources available to devote to disabled people or anyone else. It is only because we took tough decisions at the beginning of this Parliament that we now have money available to help disabled people and pensioners.
It is incredible that for the first five minutes of the hon. Gentleman's response he chose to talk not about the increase in pensions or the pension credit, but about our computer systems. He sounded as if he wanted to sell us a secondhand computer to work everything out. He has had some experience of this problem. He rightly complains about the national insurance recording system computer, but he has conveniently forgotten that the Conservative Government signed the contract for that rotten system. We are having to pick up the pieces, as we are having to do elsewhere.
There is another difference between us and the Conservative party. Again thanks to the decisions that we took at the beginning of this Parliament, we now have additional resources to replace the complete computer system for the Department of Social Security. It has been waiting for that for the past 15 or 20 years.
I shall now deal with the substance of the statement, which one would have thought the Conservatives were interested in, and that is the pension credit. It is reasonably clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that he is against the pension credit. So the Conservative party will go into the next election opposing a measure that will benefit 5.5 million pensioners. He has made it very clear that he is against the pension credit for the reasons he stated. The pension credit deals with a fundamental problem in the social security system that has existed for years. If people do what successive Governments have told them to do and save for their retirement, they are punished for doing so. The credit means that those who save for their retirement will be rewarded. That strikes me as a pretty straightforward and, dare I say it, commonsense proposition, and one that is long overdue.
The hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question about two pensioners, one with an occupational pension and one who goes out to work. Presumably he received the copy of the pension credit document that I sent him an hour or so ago, in which we make it pretty clear that we take all income in retirement into account when calculating credit. There is no discrimination in that regard.
As well as rewarding saving and thrift, the credit ensures that we can continue our drive towards eradicating pensioner poverty. The hon. Gentleman says that fewer pensioners were on means-tested benefits under the Tory Government. That is because the Tories did absolutely nothing to help the growing number of pensioners who were living in poverty. When we came to office there were millions of pensioners living in poverty, and the Tories did absolutely nothing about it. If they were returned to office, they would do nothing about it again.
The pension credit deals with two fundamental objectives: to take pensioners out of poverty both today and in the future, and to ensure that the millions of pensioners who have saved a little for their retirement—who have put a little in the bank or the building society, and have a small occupational pension—will be given additional help. We want them to be rewarded for their thrift, rather than being punished for it as they would be under the Conservative party.

459
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the minimum income guarantee and the Government's take-up campaign. He is right. We have written to 2.5 million people who we thought might be eligible for the guarantee. So far, we have received 600,000 responses to our comprehensive search. That suggests to me—I say this to Tory Members, and also to some of my hon. Friends—that the main problem is not reluctance to claim on the part of pensioners, many of whom are asking whether they are entitled to the guarantee. The reason why, according to our analysis of claims, only half the applicants have been successful so far is quite interesting—
Mr. Willetts: How many people are involved?
Mr. Darling: Sixty thousand people are now, on average, £20 a week better off than they would otherwise have been.
In fact, there are two principal reasons for the failure of some people to qualify. One is that they have too much income; the other is that they have too much in the bank. That is precisely the difficulty with which the pension credit is designed to deal. I believe that people should be encouraged to save for their retirement—that we should encourage thrift. The credit complements the changes we have made in both the state second pension and the funded sector of stakeholder pensions. People will now be rewarded rather than punished for their saving.
The hon. Gentleman criticised the winter fuel payment, saying that it was complicated. I do not think that there is anything complicated about a payment of £200 going into every pensioner household next week—and I am evidently not the only person to think that such one-off annual payments are a good idea. Some years ago, when he was in charge of the Christmas bonus, the shadow Chancellor—responding to similar criticism—said:
The bonus is something to which the majority of the elderly look forward very much. What other people call fringe benefits are a substantial help to the poorest…in our society.
That is what the shadow Chancellor believed in 1987, and presumably it is what he believes today—unless, of course, the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security shares Lady Thatcher's—correct—view that the shadow Chancellor is confused about these matters.
The hon. Gentleman attempted to tell people that pensioners would be better off under the Tories. It is, perhaps, a sign of his desperation that he should pray in aid Lady Castle: I do not think that she has reached the conclusion that she will ever vote Tory.
Let the hon. Gentleman reflect on this. He is proposing to take away from pensioners the winter fuel payment of £200, the free television licence—which is being sent out this week—and the Christmas bonus. All those amounts will be taken away from pensioners. The hon. Gentleman proposes that they should then be returned to pensioners, and expects pensioners to be grateful. Pensioners know to beware of Tories bearing gifts because all the evidence shows that the Tories will con them again, as they did for 18 years.
It is evident that unless the hon. Gentleman makes substantial additional public expenditure available, about 1.5 million people will lose out as result of ending these direct payments because they are tax free and benefit free
460
at the moment.[Interruption.] Let us remember that 1.5 million people do not receive either any state pension or the full state pension. If money were taken away from them and then given back, the hon. Gentleman would have to spend more money than he would have.
I am entitled to have such proposals costed, and official figures show that the hon. Gentleman would have to spend £5 billion to restore and remove the benefit and tax penalty that would otherwise exist to ensure that the poorest pensioners—those 1.5 million people—did not lose out. Of course, the shadow Chancellor has told us that there is no new money, so the hon. Gentleman could not deliver that proposal. That comes on top of the Tory proposal to begin the privatisation of the basic state pension by encouraging the under-30s to opt out; and their plans, which they keep leaking to the Daily Express and others, to cut £6 billion from housing benefit would cost those on housing benefit about £25 a week on average. People do not believe the Tories because of their previous 18 years in government, and, given today's performance, they are unlikely to believe them at the next election.
Mrs. Jackie Lawrence: To what extent does my right hon. Friend think the pension mis-selling scandal of the 1980s has contributed to pensioner poverty, and who does he think should apologise for that?
Mr. Darling: There is no doubt that the pension mis-selling that took place in the late 1980s—largely in response to the public advertising campaign that the Tory Government ran, which encouraged people to opt out—represented a huge knock to the pensions industry. When we were elected, we spent considerable time persuading pension companies to offer redress to people who had been wrongly sold pensions—but, of course, the difference between us and them is that we have a strategy. We have the state second pension—a reform that will benefit 18 million low earners—and we are introducing the stakeholder pension and taking other action because we want people to save. Of course, under the pension credit that I am announcing today, people will be better off as a result of their saving, no matter how much they save. That reform is long overdue.
Mr. Steve Webb: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy with regard to the statement. I welcome his announcement of additional support for carers and disabled people. Can he confirm that, even after his proposals, most carers receiving invalid care allowance who reach state pension age will still have that benefit taken from them because of the continuation of the overlapping benefits rule?
I also welcome the additional, above-inflation pension rises—timed to coincide with the election. Can the Secretary of State confirm that they represent rises in real terms of less than £3 next April and barely £1 the year after? On the pension increase, when will we receive the Government Actuary's report that we have been promised, which the Vote Office has just told me is not currently available?
On the pension credit, can the Secretary of State confirm that it represents a new scheme to solve a problem that is largely of his own making, given that the people with £20 of private pension savings to whom he

461
referred would have been well clear of income support when the Government took office? It is only his policies that have dragged those people into the means test.
Finally, on pension poverty, does the Secretary of State recall that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said:
one can draw only one conclusion: pensioner poverty is contributing to the toll of deaths in the winter.
We were not prepared to stand by and allow that problem to continue growing…—[Official Report, 17 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 714.]
Can he confirm that under his stewardship that problem has continued to grow? Can he confirm that last night the Government finally released figures, which they have held for six weeks, showing record pensioner debt for last winter, when the winter fuel scheme had already existed for three years? Does he share my view that 50,000 excess winter deaths among pensioners is a disgrace?
Mr. Darling: Of course it is. The rate of mortality among elderly people is far too high, which is why we introduced the winter fuel payment. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman had nothing to say about that. From next week, starting with the poorest pensioners, every pensioner household will receive £200 a year precisely to deal with that problem so that pensioners do not have to worry about turning up the heat.
The hon. Gentleman complains that more pensioners are getting the minimum income guarantee. That is what he said: under the Government, more people are getting the minimum income guarantee. I make no apology for the fact that 2 million pensioners are now getting the minimum income guarantee, some of them getting £20 a week more than they would under the policy that he advocates.
On the subject of the policies that the Liberal Democrats advocate, why was it, if the hon. Gentleman is taking the stance that he is today, that, at the last election, the Liberal Democrats promised that the basic state pension would remain indexed to prices? I assume that the Liberal Democrats' policy in the manifesto was the same in each of the seats that they fought and that there were not the usual regional variations. They said that, in addition to ensuring that the basic state pension remained indexed to prices, there would be an additional top-up pension for pensioners with incomes below income support level. That sounds remarkably like the minimum income guarantee. I note that, on 31 August, as the hon. Gentleman shifted his policy yet again, he said that he wanted to increase the basic state pension by at least £5 a week—that sounds very familiar—yet now he says that that is not enough.
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman has a word with his party leader, who was on the radio yesterday with Jimmy Young. I do not know which one of them conducted the chat show, but they were certainly having a conversation. Mr. Young asked about pensions:
Do you think the proposed increases…are fair enough?
The Liberal Democrat leader replied:
Well, undoubtedly it's always easy in opposition to say it could be more.
How right he was. He went on:
But I think that if Gordon Brown is coming out with the kind of across the board, flat rate increases that are being talked about, that of course will be welcome.
462
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman have a word with his party leader before he comes to the House again.
Mr. Frank Field: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Does he note that, of all the proposals that he has announced, the two that caused the greatest cheer on the Labour Benches and the deepest gloom on the Tory Benches are the increases to the national insurance pension and the increases to the winter fuel allowance? Does he accept that increases in those universal benefits will be the easiest for us to sell on the doorstep?
Mr. Darling: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The Conservative party has now got itself into a position whereby, when Conservative Members knock on a pensioner's door next April, they will say, "Good evening, madam. I'm going to take £200 off you." Call me old fashioned, but I do not think that that makes for good politics.
The other thing that causes the Conservative party gloom is that it could never have increased spending on pensions by the extent to which we have because, throughout most of the time that it was in government, there was a deep financial crisis and it had no money to do any of those things. Conservative Members criticised us in the first two years of the Parliament when we spent considerable time and effort sorting out the mess that they had left behind, clearing up the deficit and all the debts that they had run up. Because we have made those tough choices, we can now make money available for pensioners, disabled people and others, which they could never have done.
Although my right hon. Friend did not ask about it, the other day I heard him on the radio making the point about maintaining the value of people's savings in retirement. Because it is earnings related, the pension credit will help us to do that.
Sir Norman Fowler: Personally, I do not quarrel with the Secretary of State's proposals on pension credit. Having introduced family credit, I have long advocated an extension of that to pensioners with the aim of helping those who have saved, but who through no fault of their own have been unable to build an occupational pension.
What I do quarrel with is the Government's failure to do anything about the £5 billion a year pension tax. That is making it more difficult and more costly for people to build their own pensions and, unless we are careful, it will lead to those people requiring extra Government help in years to come.
It is right to help the pensioners of today—I make that clear—but surely we should be concerned about the price that the Government are paying. That price seems to be that we are harming the interests of pensioners tomorrow.
Mr. Darling: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the pension credit. He spent, I think, some six years in the job that I have. I have looked at the photographs along the hall outside my office; he seems to have been there longer than anyone else. I do not know what he did to deserve that, but he will know from his experience that one of the big problems in the social security system is that it seems to fly in the face of

463
all logic. We want people to save and to put money by, but the system that we inherited did not encourage that. The pension credit will, for the first time in the history of the modern welfare state, reward saving. It is one of the most fundamental reforms that the system has ever seen.
I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's second point. He will recall that we moved away from the advance corporation tax system because we wanted to ensure that decisions on investment were taken by managers rather than in a drive to increase dividends. It allowed us to reduce corporation tax to the lowest rate ever, which has increased company profitability, which is in turn being reflected in dividend levels; and of course, the biggest shareholders in companies are pension funds.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Now that my right hon. Friend has disposed of the Conservative party, will he dispose of the con party—the Liberal Democrats—90 per cent. of whom have not even bothered to turn up for this statement? Will he point out that their policy was a 75p increase this year with no winter fuel payment, no free television licences and wild promises of unsubstantiated increases, which they will make other taxpayers finance without even saying what the income tax increase would be?
Mr. Darling: The Liberal Democrats' pensions policy, as with all their other policies, is to say whatever they think the listener wants to hear. When we compare what they say on different policies in different parts of the country, it is not surprising that they have been Britain's third party for most of the last century and, I suspect, all of this.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I join the general welcome for the Secretary of State's announcement. I do not fully understand why people are concerned about the higher mortality rate among older people; that is the law of averages I suspect, as most of us are longing to get home by that stage.
On disability, I welcome the increase, but does the Secretary of State agree that the bureaucracy in the system sometimes hinders people's attempts to obtain benefits to which they are entitled? One of my constituents came to see me this week because he has been off work for six years following an injury. He has been taken off disability living allowance and been advised that he should have claimed incapacity benefit with income support. After claiming, he was told that he would have to wait 40 weeks before receiving any benefit. Surely there is something wrong with a system that holds people back when they should have been advised to claim much earlier.
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about his constituent, I will look into the matter because it does not sound right to me. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the mortality rate. It is self-evidently true that older people die eventually, but the mortality rate for older people in this country is far higher than one would expect when we compare ourselves with other countries. We know that fuel poverty is a real problem affecting about one third of pensioners in this country, and that is why we have introduced the winter fuel payment on top of everything else that we have done
464
to help pensioners. I suspect that some of the poorest pensioners were most at risk in the past and that is why we are increasing the amount of the minimum income guarantee to over £92 next April.
Miss Anne Begg: Over the past few months I have met many pensioners in Aberdeen, South. Although they understand the Government's need to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners and to narrow the gap between rich and poor, the group who felt most aggrieved—there was a real grievance—were those just over the basic state pension level with incomes of between £80 and £200 a week. They felt that the present system discriminated against them and that they were not being rewarded for their thrift and hard work. I am sure that they will be delighted with today's announcement about the introduction of pensioner credit and the lifting of the cap on saving, which was something about which they felt strongly. I do not want to be churlish on a day of good news for pensioners, but I am sure that they will ask why it will take to 2003 before the pensioner credit can be introduced. Why not do it sooner?
Mr. Darling: It will take that time because we need primary legislation and because we have to finish the consultation period so that we get the detail right. Also, we need to change the IT system so that we can deliver the credit—[Interruption]—and we have the money to do that.
I certainly remember standing with my hon. Friend on Union street, speaking to pensioners and making precisely the point that she has just made. If I remember rightly, there was a pensioner who had about £10,000 in the bank—which is not that much—and a modest occupational pension, but felt that he was getting absolutely nothing for making those arrangements. Although he did not mind people getting the minimum income guarantee, he said, "I have done what you and successive Governments have told me to do, but I feel that I am getting nothing for it." Now, for the first time ever in the history of the social security system, people will be rewarded, not punished for doing what they believe to be right.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government are robbing pensioners retiring this year of their married couple's allowance—at a time in their lives when they are more financially vulnerable—but making them wait three years, until he introduces the pension credit scheme, for the bit of recompense that they might receive for the cutting of that allowance?
Mr. Darling: The £5 increase in the basic state pension is being made next April, when, for the poorest pensioners, the minimum income guarantee increases to £92. It is therefore not true to say that pensioners have to wait until 2003, which is when the credit is being introduced. As the hon. Lady supports the Conservative party, I am not completely surprised that she has failed to recognise the benefit of the credit, which I think will benefit quite a few of her constituents. Nevertheless, I am a little surprised that she is against it and, at the next

465
general election, may be campaigning for its repeal. It is unfortunate that she does not recognise that, next year, we are giving more money to pensioners.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the breadth of his statement covering the disabled, pensioners and carers. It has a very broad sweep and is very welcome indeed. He will recall that the parlous state of pensioners started when the Conservative Government abolished the link between wages and pensions. He will also know that that specific matter still greatly concerns pensioners—all of whom recognise the important action that my right hon. Friend and the Government have taken in concentrating on the poorest pensioners and providing the winter fuel allowance. Nevertheless, pensioners still feel that they have paid their national insurance contributions, and, as a body, they cannot understand why they are not at least being promised that the link between wages and pensions will be restored.
Mr. Darling: The reason why we are not going to restore the earnings link is that, having regard to the current diversity of pensioner incomes—which is likely to continue in the future—it would be the wrong thing to do. As I said in my statement, our problem in the United Kingdom is that, although pensioner incomes as a whole have increased quite dramatically—the income of the top fifth of pensioners has increased by almost 50 per cent; and one in six couples is now retiring on £20,000 annually, with that proportion continuing to grow—some pensioners' incomes are very low indeed. Indeed, 1.5 million pensioners do not even receive the full pension, and some people receive no pension at all.
We have therefore decided that we must not only increase the basic state pension for everyone, but do more—far more—for the poorest pensioners. As a result of our proposals, 2 million of Britain's pensioners will have five times more than they would have had if we had only restored the earnings links. If we had implemented the earnings link rather than doing what we are doing, those poorest pensioners would be receiving about £2.35 less per week than they will receive because of our action.
Any pension policy has to take account of the situation that we have today and that we know we will have in the future. We are spending much more than it would have cost to implement the earnings link. It would have been the easiest thing in the world to restore the earnings link, but that would not have solved the problem.
An earnings link and across-the-board increases do not sort out pensioner poverty. Nor do they take account of the fact that in future, because of the success of occupational pensions and SERPs—which my hon. Friend will well remember, as it was introduced when he was an hon. Member—more people will retire on very high pensions.
Mr. Paul Tyler: The Secretary of State has said various times today that fair treatment of pensioners' savings is long overdue, and I am sure that we would all recognise that. Next week, my mother will be celebrating her 99th birthday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We come from good Cornish stock. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg),
466
that a much quicker way to assist those who have savings is to take more people out of the means test, rather than to put more people in? Why should my mother wait until she is 102 to benefit from his pension credit?
Mr. Darling: The problem with the solution that the hon. Gentleman proposes is that if the present system were perpetuated, we would continue to have the problem whereby a pensioner with a small occupational pension or a small sum of money in the bank will get no reward for that. There is a cliff edge in the benefit system at the moment. Those who have nothing get help, but those who do a little bit to help themselves get nothing whatsoever and those people are by no means financially well off. That is why the pension credit is so essential. I would like to introduce it before 2003, but we need primary legislation and that cannot happen overnight. We also need to change the IT system to deliver the new system, but deliver it we will. When we have made this change—one of the most fundamental, radical changes that the social security system has seen in pensions since it was set up in its present form—at long last the country will have a coherent pension system that encourages people to save. It has options for the low paid and options for middle and higher earners, so that when they save they are rewarded for it and not punished because of it.
Mr. Joe Benton: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which will bring joy to the many pensioners of Bootle and Merseyside. Will he clarify something for me in respect of the basic increases in pension that will take place next April? Will they be disregarded in the determination of benefits, such as housing benefit? That is not quite clear in my mind and I should appreciate some clarification.
Mr. Darling: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. He asked about housing benefit, which has been uprated along with benefits generally. As for the pension credit, we shall make sure that no one currently on housing benefit will lose out when the new credit comes in. If my hon. Friend looks at the uprating, he will see that we have dealt with the point he raises in relation to housing benefit next year.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Secretary of State accept that while his goal of supporting thrifty pensioners is an excellent one, this very complicated scheme is not the best way to achieve it? What proportion of the total cost of the scheme for pensioner credit in 2003 will be spent on administration? Does he not see an echo of the working families tax credit, which has been abolished in Canada after five years of operation—a point that the Government still have not taken on board—and which is already creating huge problems for our tax and benefit offices?
Mr. Darling: When the hon. Gentleman said that the pension credit was not the best way of rewarding saving, I was hoping that he was about to tell me what he thought was the best way of doing that. It appears that the Conservative party is committed to opposing the pension credit and therefore opposing the help that is going to 5.5 million pensioners. If the Conservatives want to go into the election doing that, it is fine by me.

467
Clearly, administration costs will depend on the exact shape and form of the system, but the present system also costs money to administer as it is expensive to review someone's entitlement week by week. The forms and the complexity of the present system are also expensive. The simplified system that we propose will be easier to run and, because of the changes that we are making in IT, it will not be so labour intensive or convoluted as it is at present.
To return to the fundamental point, which the hon. Gentleman and his party now have to face up to, we are proposing a measure that will help 5.5 million pensioners; it will reward their saving. If the Conservatives are against that and campaign against it in the next election, they will rue the day that the hon. Gentleman committed them to that course of action.
Ms Chris McCafferty: I, too, add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that, despite the churlish comments of Opposition Members, the pension credit will effectively remove the means test that so many pensioners find humiliating? Does he also agree that the measures will ensure that the Government's strategy of targeting the poorest pensioners remains, but for the first time pensioners with a few savings or an occupational pension will not be penalised by the system?
Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right—someone with modest savings or on a modest occupational pension will gain. Let me deal with the point about assessing people's means. That does not happen only in the social security system; we are all assessed on our means to determine how much tax we should pay. When people retire, a calculation has to be made from their contribution records of how much pension they are entitled to, and that is precisely the time to look at their income, too, as I have proposed. If they have saved—one has to disclose that to the Inland Revenue in any case, so there is nothing new in that—they will qualify for the credit. I find it odd that the Liberals are against rewarding saving—they were muttering away while my hon. Friend was speaking—but I do not find it odd in the Tories, because they have never been that bothered about poor people, let alone poor pensioners.
Mr. John Bercow: Does the Secretary of State agree that the greater the complexity of the benefits system, the greater the scope for administrative error? If so, will he kindly agree to investigate the harrowing circumstances of my poor constituent, who is suffering grievously, who is deeply unwell and on tranquillisers, whose husband is registered blind, but from whom an alleged overpayment, innocently received, is now being demanded back by the Benefits Agency? Does he accept that she is being driven to her wits' end by a combination of the crass incompetence and the sheer insensitivity of officials at the Benefits Agency?
Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about the case, I shall certainly investigate what has happened. On his general point, the complexity of the benefits system has been a problem, which is why we are simplifying it. The tax credit system that we are
468
introducing is a simplification, but he and his colleagues are against it. One of the problems that bedevils social security administration is the rotten state of our computer systems, which is a direct result of no one investing in them for the past 10 or 15 years. The most modern IT systems in the DSS when we came to power were 10 years old, and they were the ones that worked the least. Some of the systems were nearly 30 years old. As a result of prudent management of the economy, we now have the resources to replace the entire system, which will make the administration an awful lot better.
Mr. Tom Levitt: I unreservedly welcome the increases in the various disability benefits that my right hon. Friend announced. My calculations on the back of an envelope suggest that the disabled child premium will go up by 35 per cent. and the carers allowance by 75 per cent. He told us that the disability income guarantee will be £142 next year. It is not only a matter of cash. The initials of the disablement income guarantee, DIG, are the first three letters of dignity. This is about dignity, independence and self-esteem for disabled people.
Those who represent disabled people, such as the Royal National Institute for Deaf People—of which I am a trustee—and who, perhaps, have not had the best of relationships with my right hon. Friend over the past couple of years, will, I am sure, spend the afternoon penning their press releases welcoming the generous figures that have been announced today.
Mr. Darling: I wait and see. I am sure that anyone who, like my hon. Friend, wants to ensure that disabled people have a decent standard of living, with security and dignity, will welcome what we have done today. In addition to what he mentioned, for which I am grateful, we have, for example, increased the amount available for severely disabled children by about £27 a week. When I became Secretary of State and looked at the amount that was paid to severely disabled people, I considered it woefully inadequate. I am glad that, this year and next, and in the years thereafter, we can begin to improve many people's standard of living and accord them the decency to which they are entitled.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Secretary of State clarify his statement that the new system will have regard to the income that comes from capital, and not to the capital itself? Will that principle apply to all those in nursing and residential care who are currently forced to pay their fees out of capital, even to the extent of having to sell their homes?
Mr. Darling: I am not making any announcement today in respect of the regime governing the support of people living in residential homes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have made some changes. The proposals that I am announcing today are in relation to the pension credit alone.
Ms Claire Ward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals. I am sure that Watford pensioners will be very interested to hear that the Conservatives propose to remove the benefits that are due to be introduced. Does he agree that, although there are obvious benefits with a pension credit, many pensioners will need to understand how the process will work and how they will be able to

469
benefit from the changes over the next few years? What publicity and information does his Department plan to make available to pensioners to explain all the new benefits that are likely to be introduced?
Mr. Darling: We plan next year to increase public awareness of the various options and forms of help that are available. I commend to my hon. Friend the pension credit document, the annexe to which has a ready reckoner to show how much better off people will be, depending on their savings. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has the document. He has twigged what the Tories are committing themselves to, and they can now see how much their determination to oppose the pension credit will cost every household.
Ms Joan Ryan: I warmly welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced. Assuming that we can ignore the Opposition Front Bench—which seems a very reasonable assumption—he will have noticed that there were only six Opposition Back Benchers in the Chamber when he made his statement. That demonstrates the extent of their concern for pensioners and pensions. Can he confirm that, if we rolled up the £200 winter allowance into the basic state pension, as the Conservatives want to do—if they do not want to cancel it altogether—about 1 million pensioners would lose out? Many of those would be likely to be women pensioners, because carers and those with a broken work record, who will not qualify for a full state pension, would be the losers.
Mr. Darling: The problem that Conservative Front Benchers have overlooked is the fact that there are about 1.5 million people who either get no pension or do not get a full pension. Simply to pay them the winter fuel payment pro rata—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is muttering. A spending commitment is issuing from his lips even as we speak. To make good the removal of the winter fuel payment, the Christmas allowance and the free television licence would cost £5 billion—money that he does not have, because the shadow Chancellor has not let him have it.
On my hon. Friend's earlier comments, there may have been few Tory Back Benchers around, but the one who knew what he was talking about—the former Secretary of State for Social Security—welcomed our proposals, while the one who did not has committed the Tories to opposing them.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Everybody in Wales will be very ready to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals for pensioners and disabled people and their families. He has mentioned for a second time the £5 billion cost of rolling up all the annual payments into the weekly pension. It is highly unlikely that the Tory party would ever find that money. Has he calculated how many pensioners would lose out by that rolling up, because of the tax loss or the benefit loss that they would sustain?
Mr. Darling: About 1.5 million pensioners would lose out. The Conservatives should remember that it is not only a matter of making good the abolition of the winter fuel payment, the Christmas bonus and the free television licence: because of their proposal to encourage everyone
470
under the age of 30 to opt out of the national insurance system, within four or five years, if the policy worked—I assume that they want it to work—there would be another £4 billion hole in the national insurance fund, which would have to be filled either through taxing or through borrowing. This is all very reminiscent of the economic madness that drove this country into such a deep recession in the early 1990s.
Mr. Chris Pond: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I spoke to pensioners in my constituency about what they wanted to emerge from this statement, none said that he or she considered the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and other help to be gimmicks? Moreover, not one asked for any of them to be taken away. I can tell my right hon. Friend that they will also very much welcome the changes that he has announced to capital limits and tariff income, which for some elements of income assumed interest rates of well over 20 per cent.
Is my right hon. Friend able to consider going further, as the rules also apply to other groups of recipients? Is it possible that the changes that he has announced today could apply to other recipients, such as hard-working families?
Mr. Darling: On that last point, I have said on a number of occasions that, over time, the benefits paid to pensioners will be substantially different from the benefit regime for people of working age because benefits for pensioners are designed to enhance their security. We are making administrative changes in the Department to set up a separate pensioners organisation. I have always made it clear that pension benefits in the future will look different, and will be more generous and better than what obtained before.
My hon. Friend mentioned the winter fuel payment and the Christmas bonus. I, too, have yet to meet a pensioner who has said, "Please take away £200 from me." However, I dare say that the Tories' focus groups will have told them that there are many pensioners in the country who would want to be £200 poorer. For once, I find myself in agreement with the shadow Chancellor, who said that the benefits are a substantial help to the poorest groups in society. It appears that there is another split between members of the Tory Front Bench.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Is there any intention to abolish the capital rules in respect of disabled people? The Secretary of State wants to achieve consensus in the House on these matters, but will he say how much implementing the new tax credit will cost?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) asked me about the cost of implementation. I made the point that the present system is quite expensive and cumbersome because it contains so many rules, regulations and different rates. We want to simplify the system, and the final cost of the scheme will depend on its exact shape and form.
The hon. Gentleman asked about capital rules elsewhere. I said in reply to an earlier question from a Tory Member that today's proposal relates purely to pensions and pensioners. There is a difference between what the Government want to do in that regard and what we want to do in regard to the benefits system in general.

471
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about consensus. It is very difficult to build consensus over pensions. I have announced the pension credit, but the first thing that the hon. Member for Havant, the Opposition spokesman on these matters, said was that he was against it. The Government are going to benefit 5.5 million pensioners, but the hon. Gentleman opposes that. I do not know whether he is in favour of our proposals to benefit 3 million taxpaying pensioners. He did not say that he was. Are we to assume that he opposes that, too?
However, we know that voting Tory will cost pensioners 200 quid. The Tories will take the winter fuel payment away, then give it back in another form and expect pensioners to be grateful. When people look at the announcements made today and yesterday they will see that the Government's prudent management of the economy has enabled us to give more money to pensioners. They will see, too, that the Labour party is the only one that can be trusted to ensure that pensioners are given what they need, and to implement the most radical change in the pension system over the past 50 years. We want to reward saving, not punish it.

Points of Order
2.24 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As our new Speaker, you have made it clear that you propose to make your own decisions and that you will not necessarily be bound by the decisions of Madam Speaker Boothroyd, your predecessor. However, she felt especially strongly about the requirement that hon. Members, and especially Ministers, notify other hon. Members when they are about to visit their constituencies. I hope that you will be equally firm on the matter.
I raise this point of order on behalf of myself, and of my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). Yesterday, a junior civil servant working for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informed us by means of a mobile telephone call that the Minister proposed to visit our constituencies. That telephone call was made at a very late stage—only about half an hour before the visit was due to take place.
This morning, the excuse was given—again by telephone—that the Minister had planned only to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. However, he had changed his mind at the last minute and decided to visit instead an Environment Agency building that straddles the boundary between my constituency and my hon. Friend's.
That would have been all very well, but no one had bothered to notify even my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, whose constituency the Minister originally intended to visit—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should worry about himself, not the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). I am sure that she is capable of raising a point of order on the matter if she so wishes. I have got the hon. Gentleman's drift. When I was a Back Bencher and a Minister came to my constituency without telling me, I always gave that Minister a telling off. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does the same, and not ask the Speaker to do it for him.
Secondly, I made a ruling on this matter on 6 November, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to column 32 in Hansard for that date. However, if the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to tell a Minister off, he should do so and not let the Minister get away with discourtesy.

Select Committees and the Executive
[Relevant documents: The Government's response to the First Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, Cm 4737; and Second Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 1999–2000, Independence or Control? The Government's Reply to the Committee's First Report, HC 748.]
Motion made, and Question put, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
2.26 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Over the past 20 years, the role of Select Committees has grown in importance. Of course, we always had the Public Accounts Committee, which I joined in 1965, and other Select Committees. In those days, hon. Members were frequently pressed to serve, as Chairmen virtually ran their Committees. Things have changed, and I understand that recently there has been a scramble to take part in the valuable work that the Public Accounts Committee has always performed on behalf of Parliament.
However, the major change, introduced as a result of the work of John Mackintosh and David Marquand, was the introduction of departmentally related Committees. Those Committees were subsequently refined, and now we have Select Committees that independently scrutinise Government Departments.
That has been an undoubted success. Select Committee members become expert on the activities of the Department with which they are concerned. Questions about the Departments can be pursued and repeated until an answer is obtained—a method that is not readily available across the Floor of the House. I recall that the present Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), when he was a member of the Committee, pursuing a civil servant again and again until he got the yes-or-no answer that he wanted—in that case the answer was yes.
It is not easy to do that on the Floor of the House. It is therefore possible for Select Committees to supplement the work of the Chamber.
There is a great deal of expertise available to Select Committees. Lord Howe was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the then Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee was looking at monetarism. It had examined a particular matter with great care and it was interesting, when the Chancellor appeared before them, that the Committee's members knew more about that matter than he. With a certain amount of dedication, it is possible for Select Committee members to acquire that level of expertise—albeit in a restricted area—and get suitable answers. That is not always possible on the Floor of the House.
In each Select Committee, there has been a search for bipartisan agreement. Point scoring has a part to play on the Floor of the House, but it has no role in Select Committees. Members of Committees understand that and know full well that indulging in point scoring would be to the disadvantage of the Committee and of their investigations. As a result, Select Committee members form relationships based on trust and co-operation. They judge issues on the facts, rather than according to preconceived lines of argument.
474
Some people considered that such a state of affairs would be difficult to achieve because Parliament does not have the separation of powers evident in the United States Congress. We understand that the first priority of hon. Members is to support or oppose the Government, but it is possible, in a Select Committee, to move away from that confrontation and look at the facts of a matter. It is interesting that the trust and confidence that grows between Select Committee members means that it is more difficult for them to play the party game at the expense of the investigative role that is their proper task. Some saw the stronger party system as a barrier to achieving meaningful agreement.
In practice, such agreement generally has been achieved to the benefit of the inquiry process and the holding of Ministers to account. The Select Committee system has shown that determined Members can be surprisingly effective. Our Select Committees have to operate without the strength given by the separation of powers. Within the context of the Government and the Opposition, with their own agendas, it is possible to achieve informed and more objective conclusions.
That has shown itself in a number of valuable initiatives, notably the confirmation hearings by the Select Committee on the Treasury, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). While not dictating the appointments, the Committee offers the opportunity to test publicly—through the confirmation hearings—the suitability of candidates for public office. That has some effect upon people who are put into positions of responsibility without a general agreement that they have the requisite qualifications. There has been some systematic monitoring of recommendations, a practice which is to be more widely used in future. I will deal later with how we can monitor effectively the work of Select Committees and the consequences of their publications.
There have been some outstanding examples of changes to general public perception, as well as the perception of the Government and the Opposition, as a result of certain Select Committee reports. For example, the eighth report of the Public Accounts Committee in the early 1990s showed that the standards of probity and of dealing properly with public money had been abused. The eighth report initially was rubbished, but it came to be accepted by the then Prime Minister, who publicly praised the report.
The Committee examined the many things that went wrong in the Wessex regional health authority, the Welsh Development Agency and the West Midlands regional health authority. In a number of other matters, Select Committee reports have played a prominent part. The Select Committee on International Development has played an important role in alerting us to what could be going wrong on Montserrat. The Trade and Industry Committee reported on BMW, Rover and Longbridge; the Select Committee on Health on the tobacco industry; the Transport Sub-Committee—chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is always active in these matters—on air traffic control and aircraft safety. There are many other reports which have changed public perceptions and, via public perceptions, have changed Government actions.
The report "Shifting the Balance" is one of the most important reports from the Liaison Committee since it was set up 20 years ago. It arose from a number of anxieties

475
expressed by Chairmen in the spring of last year concerning certain Government responses. In following that up, other matters were raised and the Committee decided that it would seek to examine the working of Committees. The Committee also thought it advisable to open up the discussion to other interested bodies.
As a result, the Hansard Society became involved and the London school of economics kindly offered to host a one-day session. This took place on 19 November last year, and much of the report reflects that most important session. I would like to thank both the Hansard Society and the LSE for their help and contribution to the debate.
Among the matters dealt with in the report are the way in which the composition of each Committee should be arranged, the manner of presenting the work that Committees undertake to Parliament and staffing and secondments. I shall deal first with the composition of the Committees. Twenty years ago, the Committee of Selection acquired the responsibility of choosing members of each Committee. It copied the method of choosing members of Standing Committees; that is, mainly from a list supplied by the Whips.
Members have been kept off Select Committees—or even, in some cases, removed—because of their perceived lack of party loyalty. The case we must cite is that of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—now, fortunately, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure and a Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall. He was the Chairman of the Health Committee and a novel arrangement was suggested; that, having served for two Parliaments, he was no longer equipped to deal with a third. That was so blatant an affront, but the hon. Member for Macclesfield dealt with it well and regained his reputation as a result.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous remarks in referring to this incident in parliamentary development and history. Does he agree that the real nonsense of the proposal—dreamed up by the then Government Whips Office to prevent my reappointment to the Health Committee—hwas that it referred only to Conservative Members? The real problem was not only that it was a plot by the then Government Whips Office, but that the Opposition Whips Office connived.
Mr. Sheldon: The interesting thing was that I was about to embark on my fourth Parliament as Chairman of the PAC and there was no problem with that. I was criticising all sorts of people, as I have done unfailingly throughout my period in this House.
The introduction of a new system to deal with a problem such as that is clearly wrong and we must find better ways of handling such matters. In light of the current demands for modernisation—a matter discussed on Tuesday, when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House played a prominent role—it is wholly unacceptable for the Government, through their Whips, to choose the very Members who will be examining aspects of the Government. Nor should the charge be made—however unfairly—that the basis of membership of a Select Committee should be at the disposal of party, rather than the basis being the Member's knowledge, understanding and commitment.
476
The Liaison Committee proposed that the Committee should be renamed the Select Committee Panel and that it should copy the role of the Chairmen's Panel for Standing Committees. The proposal is that the Chairman would have two Deputy Chairmen. The current membership of the Liaison Committee is 33; it is too large for detailed decision-making. The Panel should have the power to appoint an executive of the Committee and the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen, after consideration with all concerned, would put forward names for the House to consider.
I emphasise that the important point is not the precise formulation by the Committee, but that there should be a firm acceptance that Members examining the Government should not be chosen by the Government; nor should they be chosen on the basis of convenience to the party managers.
The Whips have an important role to play in putting forward names for consideration. They have a detailed knowledge of the interests and concerns of Members, and that information needs to be relayed to the Panel who would put the names of Members to the House to accept, reject or amend. We wish to make the House much more involved in the manner and details of selection.
Paragraph 29 of the report mentions "An alternative career".
Ministerial office has a powerful attraction for many back-benchers on the government side of the House. But it is a matter of concern when able and effective select committee members—and sometimes even Chairmen—are so easily tempted by the lowliest of government and opposition appointments. We must be realistic about this; many Members understandably aspire to be Ministers, and of course former Ministers bring valuable knowledge and experience to their service on select committees.
It goes on to say:
What we would like to see is a better balance between the attractions of government office and of service on select committees. If all the recommendations in this report are implemented, we think there will be a significant shift in that balance. Members generally (and perhaps especially those relatively new to the House) should then see service on select committees as a career path which, in terms of status and influence, will be a proper reward for their hard work and commitment.
It is probable that a career path is more important now that the House of Commons has 659 Members who have an overwhelmingly full-time commitment to the parliamentary process. This has been an undoubted change over the past five or 10 years—certainly in the many years since I first came to the House. Not only can proper use be made of their time but a proper scrutiny of Government can be undertaken which many members of the Government respect, appreciate and frequently welcome. Civil servants frequently make that point to me.
One of the most useful suggestions to emerge from the valuable meeting that we had last autumn at the London school of economics was from the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). Paragraph 40 says:
What is needed is a new way of giving timely and effective exposure to reports. We propose that, once a week after Questions, there should be a period of half an hour devoted to a report—normally one published within the previous fortnight. The proceedings would begin with a Minister giving an initial response to the report for five minutes…
The recommendation is for an initial response, not a final response. After all, the press and everyone else give an initial response. Let the Government say which matters

477
need to be considered. They do that in emergency situations; why not in this case? Paragraph 40 goes on to say that the initial response would be
followed by the Chairman of the committee, or another Member speaking on its behalf, for five minutes. The remainder of the half-hour would give an opportunity for Opposition front-benchers to comment, together with any back-benchers who caught the eye of the Chair. A procedure of this sort is already used in some other Parliaments, for example in Australia and Canada.
There is nothing new about the suggestion. We are saying that there are 659 Members of Parliament, but where are they all? What are they doing? There is plenty of work here for them to do, and the sooner they devote themselves to it and develop an alternative career structure, the better. We may want to reduce the numbers of Members of Parliament at some stage in the future, but that is a very long way off. Meanwhile, there is work for them to do.
Paragraph 40 concludes that the introduction of such a procedure here
would help to keep the work of select committees at the forefront of Parliamentary and public attention.
Half an hour is not very long, and such a debate could be fitted in easily. If the House regards all the work we do and the reports we produce as important, they should he worth half an hour's debate a week.
I shall now deal with some of the other recommendations. Paragraph 52 says:
Some select committees have made a practice of following up their recommendations and criticisms at regular intervals; and the Agriculture and Defence Committees produce annual reports bringing matters up to date and detailing any progress made. This is an area where we believe that concerted action will have a disproportionate effect. Accordingly, we will expect all appropriate select committees, by the rise of the House for the Christmas 2000 recess, to assess progress on "live" recommendations and criticisms, and to report. This may be possible with written evidence only; or one or more oral evidence hearings may be necessary. But we are in no doubt of the value of the exercise.
This recommendation follows the monitoring by the National Audit Office—incidentally, I happen to be the chairman of the Public Accounts Commission. The NAO produces reports which are examined and commented on by the members of the Public Accounts Committee. Those comments are published in a report, and it does not end there. The NAO is asked to keep the matter under review, and it does. A year or so later, it tells the PAC that progress has been such-and-such and the matter is considered further. That is an automatic process, and we propose that it should also be applied to Select Committee reports. At present, so much of the work of the Select Committee is dealt with in the report and the matter does not proceed very much further. It needs to be monitored in the same way.
Paragraph 55 says:
Each committee should make its annual report before Christmas each year. In the following January, we (or our successor Panel)—
if it is introduced—
will consider all the reports, with two aims: first to draw conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the select committee system; and second to address any problems affecting committees, such as—for example—access to documents, attendance of witnesses, or quality of government replies.
One area where there is a need for monitoring is that of departmental expenditure plans. Not much time is spent on them at present—it is not very well organised.
478
Of course, the estimates are very difficult to read, other than by those who have a professional or particular interest. However, it is crucial. In Public Accounts Committee annual debates, I used to tease Select Committees whose members did not examine departmental proposals in the estimates. I used to say, "For heaven's sake, let us just say that we agree with everything that the Department is doing, and move on to the next business." That shows what a nonsense it is. However, it is now possible to do something about that because resource accounting will make it much easier for Committees to understand and focus on expenditure, and to make useful comments on it and the order of the priorities involved.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the view on estimates that he is expressing to the House on behalf of the Liaison Committee, which he chairs with distinction, is also fully reflected in the unanimous report to the House from the Procedure Committee?
Mr. Sheldon: Undoubtedly; I shall pay tribute any time on these matters to the hon. Gentleman.
It is essential that expenditure is considered and that useful comment is made on it. In that way, the Committee can see how Departments deal with problems that the Committee knows something about—for example, by accepting the estimates, putting them in limbo or amending them.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend knows that I am a relatively new Chairman of a Select Committee. His recommendations place great demands on Select Committees and their staff. I find it very difficult, with the slender resources that we have, to give our full attention, in sufficient detail, to the growing burden of work. My Committee would like to do more work, but the staff and resources that we have are simply inadequate to do the job and be accountable to the House for the efficient working of the Select Committee. I was amazed at the smallness of the resources provided for doing an expanding job.
Mr. Sheldon: There is no question about that. We have quite a bit to say on staffing. I shall be dealing with that later, although not in any particular detail, as there is so much, and showing the kind of approach that I believe to be necessary.
We have at present three days of the Session on expenditure linked to Select Committee reports. We consider that that should be increased to six days. For more than 30 years, those interested in the ordering and priorities of public expenditure—including many in the Government and the civil service—have wanted these priorities to be debated and decided in a rather better way than has been the case for so long. That was, in effect, the birth of departmentally related Select Committees.
The proposals would make it possible to look at priorities and make assessments. There is now a great momentum in the country and the House for more informed and better decision making—no question about it. Resource accounting is expected to lead finally to a proper assessment of how we decide on the Government's detailed expenditure plans.

479
On the issue of evidence, uncorrected replies by Ministers are available on the internet the following day. We managed to get that concession, but other uncorrected evidence, which is reported in the press and on the radio, is not available on the internet or, indeed, in any other form. I have been saying for some time that all uncorrected evidence should automatically be available on the internet so that the following morning we can look up what has been said, as I do with ministerial evidence. Large typeface makes it clear that the evidence is uncorrected. It can, of course, be corrected subsequently. All uncorrected evidence should be available to everyone. We see that important evidence in the press, but we cannot get access to it for ourselves. That is nonsense, and I have made my views on that clear.
Sir Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was going to refer to him as my right hon. Friend because we have served in the House for so long together. I hope that he would not take that amiss.
Given the criticisms that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined and those contained in the report, and the fact that the Government talk about wanting to listen to the House, does he agree that it is not fair that this subject is being discussed in an Adjournment debate? There should be a proper motion so that the House can vote and show its disregard for the replies that were given to his two excellent reports.
Mr. Sheldon: I shall come to that matter before I conclude. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—or perhaps I should say my right hon. Friend—for raising it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) mentioned staffing. The report deals with the format of our publications and the publicity that they receive. Those are important matters and I hope that they will receive full consideration. Staffing is also important. Responsibility for that lies partly within our own province, but we need the assistance of the Commission. Our demands are modest in comparison with demands generally. The whole expenditure of the Select Committee system is manageable if it is regarded as important. We have set out what staff would be needed to produce the information that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield wants. I will not go into detail, but it is in the report, and I hope that staffing will receive proper consideration.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) rightly makes much of the format of our publications, and it is awful that our reports are produced in such a way. Government reports have lots of colour and are fancy, but we are prohibited from publishing reports that look like that. It is an absurd situation and relegates us to the.also-rans in the publicity stakes.
Mr. John Bercow: I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman at this stage of his speech, but will he press the rewind button and return to the subject of the composition of Committees? In light of his earlier remarks, does he agree that it is curious—to put it most charitably—that the Modernisation Committee should not
480
only be chaired by a member of the Government, no matter how distinguished that individual might be, but that it should also include no fewer than three parliamentary private secretaries to Ministers? Is it not wrong that such a Committee of the House should have the fingerprints of the Government Whips Office all over it?
Mr. Sheldon: I should not like to comment on that. I have a great deal of admiration for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. She was born in my constituency, remember. She visits it from time to time and I welcome her with great pleasure.
Following our first report "Shifting the Balance", other commentators have published plans that largely follow our main recommendations. They go further than our report, but their involvement gives an idea of the pressure for change that has certainly been aroused. Three or four major non-Select Committee reports have commented on the future and how we should proceed.
Early-day motion 1135 was tabled yesterday. It is signed by the 30 Select Committee Chairmen. I do not usually sign early-day motions, but I was delighted to sign this one. The signatories include the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, both Chairmen of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. All 30 are dedicated Members of the House who seek to improve the administration and competence of the Government and the laws of our country.
The report was passed unanimously by the Select Committee Chairmen, all of whom are senior Members of the House. On Tuesday, substantive motions were introduced in the Chamber on the second report of the Modernisation Committee, but that Committee was divided on its report, not unanimous. Proposals to implement the majority report of the divided Committee were agreed to. I am not arguing against that, but explaining that our report was unanimous. We are entitled to ask for substantive motions on it to be put to the House.
2.57 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Perhaps the first and most important point to make is that the Government are not attacking the worth of the work done by Select Committees, nor do we seek in any way to weaken their responsibilities, independence or role in the House. It should not be necessary to say that, but I think it is necessary because of the way in which the Government's response to the very profound and far-reaching recommendations in the Liaison Committee's report have been reported and described.
The Liaison Committee itself describes its proposals as modest. It does itself less than justice. My own view is that the overall impact of its recommendations would be profound. They would impinge on the role of every individual Member in the House, not just on the way in which the House deals with the Executive. It is arguable that they would even impinge on our constitutional conventions because it seems to me that the Committee envisages a perceptible shift away from the long-established role of Select Committees—perhaps going back hundreds of years—to scrutinise decisions of Government. and towards Select Committees beginning,

481
unprecedentedly, to substitute their judgment for that of Government. [Interruption.] I am glad to hear that the Opposition agree that that is what is envisaged. It is, of course, worthy of discussion, but it is a profound and not a modest change.
Moreover, recommendations in the Liaison Committee's report, such as the call for decisions to be taken on substantive motions, may well lead to greater party pressure on Select Committees and their members than is the case at present or, indeed, has been the case for many years. I accept, of course, that the case of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was an exception, but we all know that, outrageous though that case may have been, it was probably unique and certainly did no good to those who brought it about.
Let me remind the House that the Government have already and without pressure made improvements for Select Committees. The European Scrutiny Committee has been given new scope and a new remit—the full role that it should have had. Select Committees have been given a role in examining treaties and draft legislation. Albeit with some opposition from the Opposition, the rules have already been eased—we are perfectly prepared to look at them afresh—to make it easier for Committees to work together. Guidance has been issued telling Departments to co-operate with Select Committee reviews of their previous work, as well as on-going reports and recommendations. Moreover, the Westminster Hall experiment has meant that the number of debates on Select Committee reports is now higher than even the most ambitious Committee ever requested, and the matter may be reconsidered. Far from resisting the extension of scrutiny, the current Government have shown remarkable willingness to envisage greater scrutiny, and that shift towards greater scrutiny has been larger in the three years of this Government than in many previous years.
However, as I have already said, one fundamental principle underpins the Government's approach to Select Committee work: it is that Select Committees exist, as they always have, to scrutinise the decisions made by Government, not to substitute their own judgment for that of the Executive. Those who draw simple comparisons between our work and that of other legislatures sometimes overlook the huge difference between a legislature in which the Executive is not represented, and one from which the Executive draws its authority and to which members of the Executive are, as Ministers, personally accountable. For example, accountability for ministerial appointments runs through the Minister directly to the Members of this House as the legislature, and the Minister is answerable for the decisions that he or she takes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to the Liaison Committee's proposals for which legislative authority is sought, but he knows, and I remind the House, that, as is pointed out in the Government's reply,
The Committee on Standards in Public Life considered this issue and recommended not Select Committee hearings, but a Commissioner for Public Appointments.
That is one of the areas in connection with which the Government have some concerns about the Liaison Committee's report.
The Government have been accused of rejecting "virtually every recommendation" in the Liaison Committee report. I reject that accusation. The Government wholeheartedly accept the need for joint working,
482
whether between Committees in this House or between Committees in this House and in the House of Lords. The Government also accept the Committee's strictures on the need for sound and timely responses to Select Committee reports. We do not dispute a number of recommendations made by the Liaison Committee about what is best practice and how that can be spread. Several other recommendations are for the Select Committees themselves, but the Government do not in any way disagree with them.
However, there is a genuine and key difficulty, which might have led to the remarks I mentioned earlier, in that a substantial number of the recommendations made by the Committee depend on one central and key recommendation relating to the role of the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and his or her colleagues on that Committee: the report proposes an enormous increase in their role and authority. The Government believe that that needs serious and thoughtful examination because it has genuinely profound implications for the working of the House as a whole.
Let me highlight one of the central propositions underlying the report—one that does not depend directly on the detailed proposals regarding the role of the Liaison Committee, but does underpin many of the recommendations. I refer to the thrust of the recommendations that would, in effect, establish a separate career structure for Members of the House who choose to make a Select Committee route the chief focus of their work as Members of Parliament.
I fully recognise, as do the Government, that it has long been argued that not only is the work of Select Committees valuable, but it should be even more highly regarded than it is today. That is a view I strongly share. However, in many ways, the route to that greater regard lies in the hands of individual members of Select Committees themselves. The report deplores the fact that some hon. Members are less than assiduous in their attendance at the Select Committee to which they are appointed, suggesting that some have been appointed who are less than anxious to serve on those Select Committees. All of those problems, which I realise are genuine, appear to lie at the door of the Whips of the relevant parties and the appointments mechanism itself.
I suggest to the House, in all seriousness, that we ought to stop and think for a moment about what we are saying about the interests and concerns of individual Members. The stated assumption is that there is a plethora of Members of Parliament burning to serve on the Select Committees in place of those who, for whatever reason, have found it difficult to find sufficient time to carry out their Select Committee responsibilities. Would that it were always so. All Members of Parliament carry more burdens and face more calls on their time and more responsibilities than any human being can sustain; they all have to make choices about their priorities, but only the individual Member can make his or her own choices. I accept that the Liaison Committee has tried, in all good faith, to find answers to the question of how we make Select Committees work more highly regarded, but I maintain that many of the answers to the problem that they pose lie in the hands of individual Members themselves, in the attitude they adopt to the work of the Select Committees, in the nature of their reports and in the studies that are carried out.
Mr. Sheerman: My right hon. Friend and I have been friends for a long time, but I have to tell her that I think

483
she is missing the issue underlying the Committee's report and the work that we put into it, which is the role and authority of Parliament, not of the Select Committee system. Those who have been Members of Parliament for some time know that this place is dying on its feet. If we do not find a proper role for Parliament, we shall become merely subservient to Ministers and the Executive. My right hon. Friend says that Parliament is a busy place in which people have lots to do, but, after many years as a Member, I have come to believe that, soon, parliamentary private secretaries will start to have parliamentary private secretaries. Everyone on the Front Benches on both sides seems to have a PPS, and we cannot run a Select Committee system when, every five minutes, someone is promoted to PPS or junior Minister.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that he and I are friends of long standing. That is why I am sorry to disagree with him. I am genuinely dismayed to hear him echo that easy and, in my view, empty criticism of the role of Parliament, expressed most frequently by Opposition Members and used in a partisan way—
Mr. Sheerman: indicated dissent.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend is not saying that—he believes that the problems go back many years and I accept that the issues have long been the subject of argument. They are, in a sense, old chestnuts—what happened to the giants of yesteryear, or why are today's politicians so trivial? The debate has been going on for centuries. Perhaps I am too old-fashioned for the taste of my hon. Friend and those who are participating in the debate, but I regard being elected to be a Member of Parliament as one of the greatest honours that the people of this country can confer on one of their fellow citizens and I reject with contempt the assertion recently made by a fellow Member of Parliament that being a Member of Parliament is not work for a grown up. There is plenty of work to be done—certainly, I have never had any difficulty finding work to do, even when I have not held office.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I shall give way in a minute—I thought I saw my hon. Friend inching forward.
First, let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that I do not accept that the House is as diminished, nor that it is as subservient, as it has become fashionable to allege. However, I accept that there is always room for improvement in the way in which we carry out our duties and I am always prepared to consider proposals on how we might do so.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend not know that one of the best tricks in politics is to set up one's own guys and then knock them down? She is being a trifle unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) when she answers a question that he did not put.
Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the fact that often—I can quote a specific case—Members of Parliament with lots of relevant experience are not picked
484
for service on a Select Committee, whereas someone who does not want the job is drafted in and becomes an extremely unwilling member of the Committee. In the week in which, for the first time, we have, by changing voting times, unhooked the relationship between a debate and the decision made in the light of that debate, should we not consider that the House of Commons stands in grave danger of losing the rationale on which it was created, and should we not start to think seriously about some other role?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware—the matter is referred to in one of the Committee's reports—that, from time to time, there have been suggestions that individuals have been placed on Select Committees when they did not wish to be on them and when others would have preferred to exercise such a role. I accept that that is highly undesirable. I am also aware—I say this with even greater regret—that it is difficult to find Members who are willing to serve on some Committees. The assumption that the thrust of the difficulties that arise is simply and only that Members are jostling to hold office in different Select Committees is perhaps over-simplification.
That brings me to the next issue that I wish to raise. It is something that Members as a whole should consider. I am not sure that many have done so. It is whether we need or want an alternative career structure. I fear that it might lead to at least two, if not three, kinds of Member.
Mr. David Davis: I apologise for intervening as the right hon. Lady moves to the next issue. I thought that she would take up the point that, in my mind, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) crystallised brilliantly, when he said that there is something wrong when those who are at the forefront of scrutinising government should be chosen by the Government of the day. What is her response to that simple question?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall return to the issue of how nominations are made. My right hon. Friend asked a brilliantly simple question, but the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I do not share my right hon. Friend's view and that of the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Government who choose members of Select Committees.
There is the group of Members who have been fortunate enough—some may say unfortunate enough—to be drawn into Government ranks. If I understand the underlying thrust of the proposals, there is to be a second group of Members for whom the Select Committee work will be the chief focus of their work and careers. Presumably, there will be a third group of Members who are neither in the Government nor on Select Committees, who simply make up the remnant of the House.
Mr. Bercow: What is wrong with that?
Mrs. Beckett: That is a matter that should be clearly aired and clearly put to the bulk of our colleagues, who will presumably be that remnant. It should be made clear to them that we may, in these proposals, be creating a particularly privileged role for Select Committee members.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I agree that it may be useful to have the debate on the

485
Adjournment. However, when my right hon. Friend says that these matters should be put to our colleagues, will she ensure that, at some stage, we have a chance to vote on the recommendations?
Mrs. Beckett: When I said that the matter should be put before our colleagues, I was referring initially to this debate. I keep being told of the views of the Members who have contributed to the discussion and put forward the report. They have had, as has my hon. Friend, their opportunity to contribute to all the discussions through which the report was thrashed out. He knows as well as I do that the bulk of Members are perhaps hardly aware of the report, and certainly not of its contents. The first step that should be taken, before we are advised to come to any decision, is to try to ensure that there is awareness of what is being proposed. That is the reference that I made.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: If I must. I am trying to make progress.
Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Lady must know that it is on the record that an early-day motion refers specifically to the Liaison Committee's report. It has been signed by more than 250 Members, most of them Labour Members. I therefore contest her assertion that many Members are not aware of the report. Not only are they aware of it, but they have supported it by putting their names to the early-day motion to which I refer.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about the role of early-day motions, on which I do not intend to dwell.
In the report, the Liaison Committee highlights as a problem the undervaluing of Select Committees work because some Members, if offered the opportunity, would choose the route to decision-making, even at a junior level in Government, over a senior though advisory role on a Select Committee. The Committee does not suggest that Members must choose, but it seems to postulate a potential choice of future members, not least by deploring the decision of some individual members to move from a Select Committee role to a role in government.
Of the 121 Members who have been appointed to ministerial office since the last general election, only nine have moved to do so from within a Select Committee. Equally, however, of the 33 members of the Liaison Committee, I think that I am right in saying—I do so partly from memory—no fewer than 20 have in the past enjoyed ministerial or shadow ministerial office on their respective Front Benches. The number may be higher. In some instances, they have held senior office at Cabinet or shadow Cabinet level.
The suggestion that it is perhaps a bad thing for Select Committee members to move into government is not a view that in any way I share. I believe that the potential for Members to move into and out of Government and Select Committees, between the one and the other, is one of the strengths of our system. Certainly, it is clear from the membership of the Liaison Committee that if the suggestion is that the route should be only one way or that it should not exist at all, we would see a very different group of Select Committees from the one that we see now.
486
That brings me to the Government's and my own principal concern about the largest group of recommendations made by the Liaison Committee. The most profound change proposed is the different role for the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and for his or her panel. I shall set out clearly what is proposed. It is the intention, as indicated in the report, that immediately after a general election, three Members, identified as Members of seniority and impartiality, should be appointed to handle Select Committee work. To those three Members would fall the role of nominating every member of every Select Committee now appointed by the Committee of Selection. It is not wholly clear to me whether it is intended also that they should appoint all the members of the Select Committees whose nominations now come directly from the party Whips.
Those three Members would have the additional role of deciding, and in effect implementing the decision, which Select Committees would be chaired by members of which party. Those are considerable powers. For example, the three Members could decide whether, to take an example at random, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs or the Select Committee on the Treasury should have a pro or anti-European bias.
As the Select Committees chosen by the three come to take up their role and as those Committees elect their Chairmen, those individuals would join the original group of three. From among the entire group of Chairmen of different Select Committees gradually returned, a Sub-Committee or an Executive Committee would be drawn. That would exercise in future the general responsibilities that follow the responsibilities initially exercised by the initial three. It is proposed that the Sub-Committee—in itself obviously very much influenced, if not directly chosen, by the original three Committee Chairmen—should handle any future nomination.
The report recommends that the Executive Committee should be charged with handling what I understand to be all the funding of Select Committees themselves; the Chairman of the Liaison Committee should have responsibility for deciding what reports are tagged to, or can be taken in conjunction with, debates, including debates instigated not only by the Government but by the Opposition and individual private Members. Thus it will be up to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, and to him or her alone—they can consult the Sub-Committee—to decide that the purpose of a particular debate, perhaps chosen by an individual Member or the Opposition, can encompass a particular Select Committee report.
I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) to the proposal—perhaps it is one that she has not been following—that the Liaison Committee Chairman should have a role in advising the Government on which legislation, following the Queen's Speech, should be put forward to the House in draft. Each of those is a substantial and considerable power individually. Collectively, they represent an enormous accumulation of power and influence in the hands of a Member, albeit one initially chosen by the House.
All hon. Members know that I bow to no one in my admiration for my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who presently holds that post, but I shall not disguise from the House the fact that one of my main concerns is that, if we set up a structure and positions of that nature, we shall be in danger of

487
replicating the seniority provisions that have led so many people to criticise the American legislature, for example, in that respect. Whatever disagreements hon. Members have with their Whips—all of us have them from time to time—there have been eight Chief Whips during the 17 years served by the previous two Chairmen of the Liaison Committee.
Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Lady correctly points out those aspects of the Liaison Committee report with which she disagrees, and she explained her reasons clearly. Does she not understand that, had she tabled orders on a substantive motion on the report, she could have identified her areas of concern and we, as Members of Parliament, could have voted on them or tabled amendments? The trouble is that we now face an all-or-nothing situation, not her carefully thought-through reasons for disagreeing with certain aspects of the report.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong. I shall presently discuss her point but, for the moment, I simply say that this is the first occasion on which the House has had an opportunity to discuss these matters. It is the first occasion on which hon. Members have had the chance to express their views and, in fact, the first occasion on which I have had an opportunity to express my views on the Floor of the House. That is all—no more, no less. Nothing about today's debate will confine the House's options in future.
Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I shall get on. I may give way on it later. [Interruption.] I have not finished making my case, and I want to complete this part of my speech.
Certainly, I take the view that were appointments to Select Committees in comparatively few hands—particularly at the outset in a new Parliament, but even later in a Parliament—we would not have dispensed with a system of patronage and information about the interests of Members or about who may or may not be a worthy person to contribute to a Select Committee's work. Instead, we would have replaced a system of patronage that all know and understand and relate to the system of patronage within the parliamentary parties with a free-standing system of patronage that would depend entirely on the judgment of individuals, on the information that was made available to those individuals and on the channel of knowledge and influence that they themselves, as individual Members of the House, would exercise.
I do not doubt—I say this in all sincerity—that there is a case to be made for such proposals. I simply say that they are indeed important proposals that should be seriously considered and not merely nodded through or accepted as if they were of no consequence whatever, because they are of considerable consequence to every Member of the House.
I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, "We should have an opportunity to put our views." If I recall correctly, the Leader of the Opposition committed the Conservative party, from the Opposition
488
Dispatch Box, to accepting many of the proposals. I very much doubt whether he had read all the report before he did so. My response to the hon. Lady is that hon. Members should re-read the report, think about it and come to a view about whether the proposed path is the one that the House should tread.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Is not the essence of the right hon. Lady's argument the fact that she objects to the transfer of power from the Government, the individuals who lead the Government Whips Office and the Leader of the House to those who are elected by Parliament?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. After all, however the names arise—I shall discuss that in a second—they will be put to the House on a motion with which the House could disagree. He will know that although it is rare for the House to disagree with a nomination, it has been known to do so. I cannot recall whether I shall discuss this matter further later in my speech; if I do, I apologise to the House for the repetition. Whatever the position of the Conservative party—in this context or in others, it has never been my practice to dwell on private grief—my party has a procedure, which is neither infallible nor perfect, for self-nomination to the membership of Select Committees. That procedure is open, and recommendations have to be put to my party for affirmation before they are put forward by the Whips to the Committee of Selection. There is no need for a wholly changed system to secure input of that kind.
Mr. Bercow: A few moments ago, the right hon. Lady observed that this is the House's first opportunity to debate the report, and she apparently sought thereby to justify the fact that we shall not have a chance to vote on it today. Does she agree, on reflection, that that is an entirely spurious argument, because the fact that every Second Reading debate is also the first opportunity to consider a Bill's merits or demerits is not used to justify holding a debate on an Adjournment motion?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me; although I shall come back to his argument, I shall not respond at this point.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend's point about the number of people who are involved in selection is, of course, one of substance; it is also a point of detail, and that detail can be changed if the principle is accepted. Does she understand that the principle in this context—the root principle in terms of patronage—is that such people will of course exercise patronage, but that they will do so on behalf of the House of Commons and that they will do so transparently? There is a difference between that and patronage being exercised by the Whips, transparently on behalf of the Government or party, which is a completely different matter.
Mrs. Beckett: I shall make two brief points to my hon. and learned Friend. To pick up the latter first, yes, he is quite right—the situation that he described is different from a role exercised in a party, whether the party of opposition or of government. There is scope for a debate about the way in which we, in the House and in

489
this country, discuss the role of the party—I might have much to say, perhaps when I retire from the Front Bench, on that. I think that we take too little account of the role of political parties. With the possible exception of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), whose circumstances are unique, not one hon. Member is in Parliament for any reason other than because we are representatives of our parties. However, the workings of the House continue to treat all hon. Members as if we were gentlemen and amateurs who were returned to the House several hundred years ago. That approach does not reflect the role and the existence of parties, although it should do so, and I take issue with my hon. and learned Friend in that respect. Only in this country is it considered somehow ignoble to be a party representative, and to be above parties is considered to be the highest accolade that a politician can receive. It is usually given when politicians are either superannuated or about to be kicked out of their party.
Mr. David Davis: Given what the right hon. Lady has just said, I hope that she will not take it amiss if I say that I look forward to her return to the Back Benches, if only so that she can reveal that information.
On the very important point that was made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), the difference that the right hon. Lady did not highlight—between members of the Liaison Committee choosing which parts of the Queen's Speech should be presented as draft legislation before going through the normal procedure, and the Government so choosing—is that members of the Liaison Committee have a single interest: enhancing scrutiny.
Since the genesis of that argument, a good example of the reverse situation has occurred in the Public Accounts Committee. A year or so ago, my Committee was promised a draft of what became the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. The arrangements were such that it was impossible for the Committee to examine the draft Bill, with the result, which is understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that it was badly flawed. That situation arose because the Government and the Scrutiny Committees have different interests with regard to Bills.
Mrs. Beckett: Without dwelling on what I know was a matter of contention and disagreement in the past, I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that I hope he is aware that the Government have already proposed further mechanisms whereby hon. Members across the House can give an opinion about the weight that they give to various proposals. It is true that, like our predecessors, we have at present only a limited range of proposals about what is looked at in draft, but I hope and anticipate that we will expand that aspect of dealing with legislation. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not dwell on that now.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made a slightly different point about structure. I say to him—with the deepest respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and for any others who may be proposed as part of the initial group that begins to make appointments—that much thought needs to be given, not least by hon. Members who have not been engaged in the discussions on the Liaison Committee and who may not have considered as fully as my right hon. Friend no doubt has, to the full implications of the recommendations.
490
if we were to take the route recommended in the report, we would have a separate group of hon. Members not coming through the route of party office—hon. Members who may be in that position and hold that responsibility for far longer than anyone does, given the transient nature of appointments in our party political structure.
Those hon. Members would, as individuals, exercise enormous influence. How would they make their judgments, as now we do, about which new hon. Members coming in were particularly interested? Yes, there could be self-nomination and so on, but we all know what will happen: they would draw on the experience, understanding and discussion of other hon. Members. That is what happens now, but it happens through the Whips Office and with party influence and changing personnel. These are interesting ideas, but they require considerable thought and weighing.
Mr. John Healey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on that point. Does she agree that the case is not made in the report and that it is not self-evident that a system whereby three individuals, no matter how senior, would decide on the nominations to all Select Committees would not necessarily produce a more transparent system, a system less open to the influence of patronage or party, or a system that would bring about a stronger Select Committee scrutiny process?
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's reservations. The situation is bad enough now, even within party and even within our party, where we have a structure for the proposals. There are occasions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) correctly identified, when such appointments become a matter of considerable contention. There is the real possibility that it could be a matter of even more contention where a group of individuals exercise the patronage and are explicitly intended to be outside the normal system and route of pressure.
I shall say no more about that now, as I must make progress. I am conscious of the time that I have taken, and I must deal with a couple of other issues.
The report suggests also that we ought to increase the business taken in the main Chamber. That, as hon. Members will recognise, goes against the flow not only of the handling of business in the House over many years, but of many reports that have come from outside this place from people—about whose work I am sometimes sceptical—who have asked how Parliament can be made of more interest. As far as I am aware, none of them has suggested that we should add to the work of the House; indeed, many have suggested that we should reduce the work of the Chamber.
The Liaison Committee proposes not only that we should move the ten-minute rule procedure from a Tuesday to a Monday, which I would be reluctant to do, as it is very much to the advantage of an individual private Member, but that we should add to the business in the main Chamber at prime time by providing an opportunity to debate briefly a Select Committee report shortly after it has been produced, with the Minister being required to give, in effect, an off-the-cuff response to what might and should be, if we are to take the Select Committees as seriously as we ought, a report of considerable weight and moment.

491
There are already—there always are—more claims on prime time in the main Chamber than any Government have been able to entertain. Of course, under the present Government, there is scope to expand the opportunities for Select Committee scrutiny in Westminster Hall—opportunities that are, perhaps, not as fully exploited at present as they might be.
There are other suggestions about how debates on Select Committee reports should be handled. It is proposed that those debates should be taken on substantive motions. I understand that, of course, but I simply say to the House that if Select Committee reports are to be taken on a substantive motion which gives an expression of opinion about the recommendations of that report, there is no way that will not become a matter of party political interest and party political decision and pressure.
Anyone who imagines that that party political interest and pressure will confine itself merely to the occasion when the report is debated is living in cloud cuckoo land. Any Government who did not take an interest in the likely recommendations of a Select Committee would be taking no heed of their interests and of the position in which they might find themselves in the House.
I had always understood that one of the most cherished traditions of our Select Committees was that they should be able to be independent in party political terms. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne rightly referred to that in his remarks.
If we are to see decisions of substance being put to the House on the recommendations of Select Committees, we are going in the opposite direction; so too are we on the mechanics. The proposal of the Committee is that such votes should not only be substantive, but that they should be taken not at a fixed time, as they are, say, on estimates day at present, but whenever the debate of substance on the report comes to an end.
We are talking about more debates and decisions in prime time; we are talking about their being taken on a basis where there will be a party political interest; and we are talking about their being taken at unpredictable times, not at a fixed time, as now arranged for the convenience of the House. All these proposals in their different ways run counter to the way in which the House has been moving for the past 10 years.
There is much in the Liaison Committee's report that is worthy of serious consideration. There is very little in it that is of so little weight and substance that it justifies the House simply accepting it and coming to a decision off the cuff and without mature consideration.
I make one final observation on that, in response to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and her hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Two days ago the Government brought before the House programming proposals which have been aired, discussed, re-discussed, recommended and considered for a minimum of 10, and probably more like 20, years.
In sharp contrast, we have been invited, not just by the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend, but by many engaged in the report, after its publication to move to a decision on it today, before even the formality of an initial debate in the House. The Government were not and are not prepared
492
to take that step. This is the initial debate. This is the first opportunity that anyone in the House has had to pronounce on the recommendations of the Liaison Committee, and sadly—I use that word advisedly; it is sad—we all know that not many hon. Members will have focused on the detailed implications of what the Liaison Committee proposes.
Mr. John Maples: The right hon. Lady says that the House is invited to come to substantive conclusions when it has not had the opportunity to discuss the issues. When that matter was put to her in several interventions on Tuesday, she denied that that was the case and said that it was perfectly all right, when the Government tabled proposals, for extensive debate and discussion not to take place. Today she is saying the contrary.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman seems not to have followed the point that I have just made—most uncharacteristically, I know. What I said today is precisely what I said on Tuesday. The issues that we decided on Tuesday—it was Tuesday, was it not? Sometimes the days run together—were issues that had been aired and discussed in various forms—[Interruption.] They were discussed in the Select Committee on Procedure and were part of the recommendations of the Jopling report 10 years ago.
One of those on the hon. Gentleman's Front Bench—speaking, I accept, as an individual, but as a member of the then Government—recommended the Jopling committee's proposals. I referred to that on Tuesday night. The vast bulk of that advice was that we should go to programming of all our discussions and all our legislation. To compare that with this report, which has come out only in this Session and which is being aired in the House for the first time, is not, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, a valid comparison.
Sir Peter Emery: The Leader of the House's comments on guillotining or programming are true: the procedure has been around for a long time. However, the concept of taking votes which would usually be taken after 10 pm on Wednesday at 3 pm is new. It has hardly been discussed in the Modernisation Committee. The idea that it was all right to present that proposal to the Committee, vote on it with next to no debate, and almost guillotine that debate, is unacceptable. We must get the facts right. The right hon. Lady is correct about programming, but wrong about voting.
Mrs. Beckett: I accept that there is a substantial difference between the two, but I stress two points. First, on Tuesday, I made the point—albeit one that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider valid—that on occasions, we separate the decision from the debate, especially in the case of Report and Committee stage. Earlier, I referred to another occasion when we do that: estimates days. It has been decided for the convenience of the House to take a vote at a specific point. The Liaison Committee suggests that we should reverse that.
Secondly, while I accept that the proposal for a specific day on specific issues was new to the House—although it had been discussed in the Modernisation Committee—the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) knows that the principle has been before us for a long time.
Tony Wright: I apologise for impeding my right hon. Friend's progress, but I should

493
like her to clarify a point. She said, quite properly, that it would be improper to have a vote after a first debate. For the avoidance of doubt and for the record, can I establish that there will be a second debate, when a vote will be held, and that, as the Prime Minister promised, it will be a free vote?
Mrs. Beckett: It depends what exactly my hon. Friend means. He is right to say that, when the Prime Minister was asked whether any vote on the matter would be a free vote, my right hon. Friend confirmed that, as always for Labour Members, votes on House matters are free votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) will note that I emphasise that point because many Conservative Members had grave reservations about the report, but they seem to have diminished or evaporated since Conservative Front Benchers expressed pronounced views in favour of it. The Prime Minister gave an assurance that free votes are held on House matters. He went so far and no further.[Interruption.] I must progress.
The Government welcome much in the Liaison Committee's report. Indeed, we would have liked the Committee to say much more about the implications for joint working between Departments and for cross-cutting the Select Committees than the report contains. I should have liked the Committee to say more, not only about the publication of draft legislation, but about the role that Select Committees can play in post-legislative scrutiny, and in ascertaining how legislation works in practice, as opposed to the way in which we imagine it will work when we put it on the statute book.
I am mindful that, whether recommendations are made for the scrutiny of the financial reports of Departments or for pre-legislative or post-legislative scrutiny, we stray increasingly into the realm of prescribing Select Committee's actions. That has hitherto been unwelcome to Select Committees. I was reminded of that again by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. That aspect of the report deserves further consideration.
I have said nothing about the available resources, whether for our method of paying for the Chairs of Select Committees, for extra research support for them or for such support for Select Committees. Those matters are all worthy of consideration. However, just as those issues are important, the full package that is currently proposed could completely reshape the work of a Member of Parliament, create two-tier or even three-tier membership structures in the House and bring Select Committees into government and party politics. That has hitherto been anathema to those who have so much admired our Select Committee structure.
The proposals in the report are worthy of examination. None should be decided off the cuff.
3.44 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I begin with one of the later points that the Leader of the House made. Hon. Members from all parties have asked her about the Government's intentions for the report. She has suggested that our discussion constitutes the first debate on it. We must conclude from her words that she has in mind a plan, which she believes to be sensible, for considering the proposals and ultimately making decisions about them. We must therefore also assume that she has a timetable in mind.
494
The Leader of the House values the opportunity for the House to consider matters in a timetabled manner, so I hope that before the end of the debate she will spell out the way in which she intends to proceed and the timetable that hon. Members—who obviously have a great interest in the report—can expect before we see, in terms, Government proposals that we can possibly amend and on which we can vote. I agree with her that although there is much support for the Liaison Committee report, we want to explore some aspects further through amendments and votes.
I must begin by taking her back to the commitment that the Prime Minister made to the House in the Opposition day debate on 13 July about Parliament and the Executive. The Prime Minister was asked specifically about the Liaison Committee report and the conduct of votes. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) raised the matter. I make no apology for putting on the record again the discussion between the Front Benches. The hon. Member for Pendle began:
The Liaison Committee report has huge support across the House…
He said that 211 Members—the vast majority were Labour Members—had supported the early-day motion. That number has subsequently increased. He continued:
If the Liaison Committee report is a parliamentary issue rather than a matter for the Government, may we have a free vote on it?
He was not asking about general matters, but about the Liaison Committee report.
The Prime Minister replied:
There we are. That is the legitimate voice of Back Benchers speaking…This is a matter for the House, and of course we shall have a position on it.
The Leader of the House has today spelled out the Labour Front Bench position. The official response to the Liaison Committee report further elaborates the Government's reaction to the Committee.
In the debate on 13 July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said:
I do not think that the Prime Minister has given a full answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). The hon. Gentleman asked whether, in view of what the Prime Minister has just said about the importance of free votes on House of Commons matters, members of his party could have a free vote on the Liaison Committee report.
My right hon. Friend was not asking about general matters that affect the House, but about the Liaison Committee report. My right hon. Friend continued:
Opposition Members will have a free vote. Will the Prime Minister do the same as me, and—as a party leader—undertake to vote in favour of Select Committees no longer being appointed by the Whips, as is suggested in the report?
Again, that question was specifically about the report. The Prime Minister replied:
Yes, there will be a free vote, as I have just indicated.—[Official Report, 13 July 2000: Vol. 353, c. 1099–1100.]
In the course of many debates in the House, we experience the way in which language can be manipulated, but in anybody's language, the Prime Minister made a commitment, in terms, about the way in which votes would be conducted on the Liaison Committee report. I readily accept that Labour Front-Bench Members will have views on the Liaison Committee report and will not wish to accept it lock, stock and barrel. [Interruption.] Of course they have views;

495
we all do. However, in the interest—and rights—of Back-Bench Members to be able to determine a parliamentary matter, the right hon. Lady must now introduce a timetable that will allow us to understand how each Member, especially Opposition Members, can make a contribution to the report, which should not just be discussed today in an Adjournment debate and then kicked into the long grass. That will allow us to see exactly how suggestions in the report can be taken forward. There is no doubt that many of those suggestions have mutual support across the Floor the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)indicated assent.
Mrs. Browning: The Parliamentary Secretary is nodding. We should move forward on issues on which we can find common ground and conclude our deliberations with activity that will both improve the way in which Select Committees work and acknowledge the importance of Select Committee procedure in the democratic scrutiny of legislation.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has just caught the Government leg before wicket and, as she did so, the right hon. Lady was chuntering in apparent disagreement. Would it be helpful if the right hon. Lady indicated that she stands by the words that the Prime Minister uttered on that occasion? If we have no such assurance, how can we believe anything that the Government say?
Mrs. Beckett: I resent the implication of dishonesty. As I have repeatedly said from the Dispatch box to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), I do not accept that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave anything other than a commitment to the fact that any decision taken about the House on this or any other issue is taken on a free vote. I do not accept that there is any implication for the timetable, as we have not even started the debate. I do not accept that there is any implication for when the debate may be carried forward, when it may be concluded and when or whether a vote may be taken. I accept none of those implications, and the position is precisely that which I set out, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton knows, which is why she and her hon. Friends keep asking me about it.
Mrs. Browning: I appreciate that the right hon. Lady is speaking in that way because she is under considerable pressure from her colleagues in the Cabinet. This is a parliamentary matter, and it is the will of Members on both sides of the House that it is dealt with as such. I am new to the job of shadow Leader of the House, but I believe that one of the primary tasks of the Leader of the House is to consider carefully the views and will of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady, in an uncustomary manner, is denying the will of the House and not accepting what is on the record. The Liaison Committee's report is referred to on more than one occasion in the exchange of dialogue on 13 July. There is no ambiguity
496
about that, and it is clear that the Prime Minister made a commitment. I shall not embarrass the Leader of the House by pressing her further, but I hope that she will look carefully at the wording of Hansard.
Mrs. Beckett: I was there.
Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Lady says she was there, but we were all somewhere at sometime, and we are discussing the record of the House and the word of the Prime Minister of this country. If she is to do justice to her position in the House, she must agree to go back and look at that wording. There can be no doubt about what was intended and meant in that exchange of dialogue.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not accept the case made by the hon. Lady. I was present on that occasion and heard what the Prime Minister said. I am perfectly well aware of the substance of the exchange and the attempt to pretend that, in some way, I am saying something different to the House from what I have repeatedly said, either on my own account or that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in the weeks and months since the Liaison Committee report was produced is simply not justified.
Mrs. Browning: I do not intend to press the right hon. Lady any further on the matter. As Leader of the House, she must stand by the words that she has spoken today, which will be on the record. When we have a record, such as that for 13 July, which is interpreted differently by the Leader of the House, then the determination of hon. Members will be that the House must sit in judgment of her. It is not for me to do so.
I hope that the Leader of the House will bear in mind the fact that there is overwhelming evidence on both sides of the House that the Liaison Committee's report is worthy of the House's attention. We should scrutinise the report today, and—I put it no more broadly than this—take forward those parts that will improve the House's democratic process and involve a shift of power from the business managers of the House to those people who represent their electorate through the Committee system of the House.
I must seriously ask the Leader of the House to reflect on her words today. Will she make recommendations on what the next steps will be and give the House some form of commitment so that hon. Members may be assured that they will be able to take the proposals forward within a reasonable time?
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Did my hon. Friend notice the inconsistency in the right hon. Lady's approach to events in the House on Tuesday, when a substantive vote was taken? Those events may well have the effect of increasing Back Benchers' power, whereas today's proposals, which may have the same effect, are not to be taken on a substantive vote.
Mrs. Browning: I hope that, before today's proceedings are concluded, the right hon. Lady will give us an indication of when that vote will be taken so that we can take the matter forward. I said that I would not pursue that issue any further and have made my position clear. The right hon. Lady has certainly made her position clear.

497
The membership of Select Committees was the subject of a large part of the right hon. Lady's contribution and is an important part of the Liaison Committee's report. The report states that the de facto practice of the Whips in all parties in choosing Select Committee members is not conducive to Committees being objective in their findings, as some members have been kept off or removed from Committees because of their views. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) spoke of his own experience in the last Parliament, which I recall very well. The report's proposals would bring about changes which, I believe, will be for the good. I therefore hope that the way in which the membership of Select Committees is determined, as outlined in the report, is a matter that could be moved forward quite quickly, regardless of those parts of the report about which there may be more controversy.
The Liaison Committee believes that it is wrong in principle that party managers should exercise effective control of Select Committee membership. Instead of the existing system, it proposes a system in which the selection of Committee members is more independent of party managers. That is not naive, as there is a willingness among Members on both sides of the House to try to correct the perception outside that we are incidental to the democratic process. The proposed change will be fundamental to altering that. It is proposed that the Liaison Committee should be reconstituted as a Select Committee panel with the task of proposing to the House the names of Members who should serve on Select Committees.
The right hon. Lady expressed reservations about that procedure, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to explore in more detail the way in which members of the panel are elected. The democratic process should be brought to bear on the way in which the panel is constituted, rather than it being the preserve of a form of nomination. I hope that members of that important and privileged panel would be subject to a form of scrutiny or qualification regarding their experience in the House and what they would bring to the panel. There would have to be a structure to determine how Members could qualify to sit on the panel.
I do not want to get into the detail of the report, but it would be useful for us to debate those aspects. The right hon. Lady seemed to think that these question could be dismissed because of the proposed transfer of power from the Whips—who certainly hold it at the moment—to the panel. There are ways to make the process far more democratic.
Mr. Clive Efford: The hon. Lady's party has a well-developed Back-Bench system—it is perhaps even more influential in her party structure than it is in our party. Does she agree that it is open to the political parties to establish their own Back-Bench system for selecting members of Select Committees and to remove that power from the Whips without the need to change the system in the House as proposed by the Liaison Committee, laudable though the proposals are? Would she consider establishing an independent selection system within her own party structure tomorrow?
Mrs. Browning: I understand why the hon. Gentleman puts that case, but we want the reform of House procedures to provide greater transparency, which I accept
498
is needed in my party as much as it is needed across the House. The debate that surely must follow the publication of this report should consider those structures, so that it is not merely an internal party matter, but there is transparency across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because the plot is now thickening. Is she aware that, quite apart from the Prime Minister's observations on 13 July in the debate on the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, the Leader of the House referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and said:
He asked whether there would be a free vote on the Liaison Committee report. Indeed, there will—[Official Report, 13 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 1170.]
Is that not game, set and match?
Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend never lets go when he knows that he has right on his side. I said that I would not pursue the right hon. Lady further on this matter. She will have heard my hon. Friend's words. I am sure that Hansard of 13 July will be her bedtime reading tonight, and that she will want to revisit the words that she and her right hon. Friend used in that debate. I wish her joy.
The membership of Select Committees is extremely important. The Liaison Committee report proposes that the Select Committee structure should become more relevant to Members of Parliament. I am disappointed that, in just eight short years in Parliament, I have noticed that the enthusiasm of Members to serve on Select Committees has waned. I do not understand that. When I was a Minister, I always waited—sometimes with trepidation—to hear what the Select Committee report had to say. I took those reports very seriously. Although we are now considering amending and reforming the Select Committee process, it commands the respect not only of Members of Parliament but of the outside world.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: If I may finish this point, I shall then give way to the hon. Lady.
The Liaison Committee report's proposal that the Select Committee structure could provide an alternative career path for Members of Parliament is welcome. For various reasons, not everyone in any generation of parliamentarians is made a Minister or takes part in government. Indeed, many of them are in opposition for the whole of their parliamentary life. It is unfair that they should be denied the chance to hold a position of influence in the parliamentary system. I support the proposal to recognise a career path, especially for Select Committee Chairmen. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who chair Select Committees. Those who have served on a Select Committee understand the responsibility that its Chairman has for the work that has to be done in the many hours when the Committee is not sitting. All hon. Members respect the work of those Chairmen, and it is appropriate that they should have a career path with attendance allowances and possible remuneration, as the Committee has recommended.

499
Someone asked me to give way—
Fiona Mactaggart rose—
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mrs. Browning: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Lady be careful when she refers to remuneration for Chairmen of Select Committees, because there is already a tendency for other members of the Committee to assume that they can rely on the Chair to do the work? It is important that we do not have two categories of people on a Select Committee: the Chair who does all the work and the other members who follow.
Mrs. Browning: That is absolutely right, and we should consider that problem in the context of these proposals. The proposal for it no longer to be the prerogative of the Whips to appoint people to Select Committees requires us to consider more carefully how individuals can nominate themselves for Select Committee service. One would hope that positions could be sought outside this place, so that people would have a CV showing their interest and experience in a certain area, and their continued attendance and contribution to a Select Committee could also be taken into consideration when deciding on their future position on the Committee.
Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Lady accept that those considerations are relevant to appointments to Select Committees now? Technically, nominations are made by the Whips, and the Selection Committee makes the appointments. Does she think that Whips on both sides of the House decide who should be appointed to Select Committees solely on the basis of who will do what they say? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] That is nonsense. If that were so, there would be no dissent in Select Committee reports. Does she really think that that is what happens now?
Mrs. Browning: Yes.
The report covers the composition of Select Committees, the way in which members are appointed, and the role of the Chairman. I do not intend to go through all aspects of the report, but the House will be aware that the Norton report, which considered ways of strengthening Parliament, also examined departmental Select Committees. Many of the Norton recommendations mirror some of the proposals in the Liaison Committee report. There is common ground on the appointment of Select Committee members being taken out of the hands of the Whips, so it is not just the view of the Liaison Committee.
Other work has been done that contributes to the debate and to the views of the Liaison Committee. The Norton Committee report supports the idea of an alternative career path to ministerial office through the Select Committee process.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not want to detain the hon. Lady, because I know that she wants to get on with her speech.
500
However, the Leader of the Opposition committed the Conservative party to supporting the Norton report. He was careful to say, and wisely so—more wisely than he sometimes is—that he wanted to consider the detail of the recommendations. She says that the Conservative party supports the proposal that the Whips should not have the sole say and that there should be a proper structure of nomination and self-nomination, as we have in our party. Is the Leader of the Opposition introducing such a system for the Conservative party? I understand that that is not the case at the present time.
Mrs. Browning: I am delighted that the right hon. Lady takes such an interest in our policy development. I assure her that, in my new position, I am carrying on the work of my predecessor. We are examining the Norton committee proposals in great detail.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has already accepted some of those proposals, and they are now part of the Conservative party's common-sense agenda. By the time we draw up our manifesto, we will have produced our commitments based on research and on the work that has been done. I assure the right hon. Lady that many of the Norton committee's recommendations will influence our policy in time for the next election.
Tony Wright: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning: I am responding to the right hon. Lady's intervention, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
If the right hon. Lady would like me to keep her informed of progress on our policy development, I would be happy to make her party to that information on a confidential basis. I am delighted that she shows such an interest.
Mrs. Beckett: I think it would have been simpler if the hon. Lady had said "No".
Mrs. Browning: The right hon. Lady is being far too uncharitable. As a new girl in this job, I am trying to learn what "other channels" actually means. I hope that the right hon. Lady will help me: I am sure that she would be a very good tutor, and I am trying to show willing.
Tony Wright: While the hon. Lady is endeavouring to learn, perhaps she will reflect on the experience of the last Parliament, when her party was in government and many of us were pressing issues such as this on that Administration. They refused even to allow the House to discuss a major Hansard Society report on parliamentary reform, over many years. Does not the approach to such issues depend very much on whether one is in government or in opposition?
Mrs. Browning: I shall study what the hon. Gentleman has said very carefully. When his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was at the Dispatch Box, she seemed to be trying to persuade us that these matters were all so new that we could not make decisions about them too soon, because the ideas involved had not been around very long. I will look at what the hon. Gentleman says was

501
being debated in the last Parliament, because that is the reason the right hon. Lady gave for our not making those decisions soon.
Mrs. Beckett: I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood me. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) correctly, he was making the same point as me. The issue was not debated in the last Parliament. My hon. Friend argues that it could have been, because reports have been produced, but the hon. Lady's party refused even to discuss it.
Mrs. Browning: When the right hon. Lady's party was in opposition it was against guillotines, but it has now changed Standing Orders so that our debates can be curtailed. I do not think it is appropriate for Labour Members to keep praying in aid what happened in the last Parliament; we must concede and move on, and that is what I intend to do.
We in the Conservative party, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, have commissioned our own report, which I think shows willingness and a genuine interest in the subject. We have done that in the last year, and it shows that we really are interested in making progress.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sorry to say that, whenever it is suggested that the House of Commons should take to itself powers that would not only improve its scrutiny but give it a real role and return the powers that it once had, all Governments—whatever their complexion—resist the suggestion to their dying day. I am very sad that my Government are following a well-worn path set by Governments of other colours.
Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady is a well-respected Select Committee Chairman, as I am only too well aware, and she is absolutely right: Governments resist things.
It is very easy for an Opposition to present proposals. I hope, however, that the Leader of the House accepts that I, as shadow Leader of the House, am pressing for proposals to be presented in a timely manner so that they can be implemented in the certain knowledge that we support them in opposition, and will be bound by them in government. There is a vast difference between our saying that and what the Liberal Democrats say: knowing that they will never come to office, they support just about anything that is going.
I say, in the sure expectation of a Conservative Government next year: give us a timetable. We will scrutinise and support these changes, and will do so knowing that we will be bound by them when we come to office.
Mr. Andrew Stunell rose—
Mrs. Browning: I will give way to a Liberal Democrat.
Mr. Stunell: The debate is altogether more lively than I had expected it to be, but may I remind the hon. Lady that my proposals at least add up?
Mrs. Browning: In that case, it is probably the only Liberal Democrat policy that ever has added up.
502
I think that I have detained the House for long enough. There is a genuine willingness on this side of the House—and, I think, on the other side—to make progress. We do not want to be cavalier about decision-making; decisions require proper scrutiny, and need to be thought through. However, I urge the Leader of the House to produce a practical timetable before the end of the debate, so that all Members understand how the report can be implemented.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal for more brevity, so that hon. Members seeking to catch my eye will not be disappointed.
4.15 pm
Mr. Clive Efford: Debates in the House remind me of London taxis: for a long time there is never one in which you want to take part, and then, all of a sudden, they all come along at once. A debate affecting my constituency will take place on Monday, and I hope to speak in that as well, so I will be brief on this occasion.
This is an extremely important debate. I am not disappointed that there will be no votes, because that provides us with an opportunity to give the issues a good airing today. Although I support the thrust of the report, and support almost all the report itself, it contains issues that need further consideration, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out.
In terms of increasing accountability and empowering Back Benchers, this debate strikes me as being more important than last Tuesday's debate. I do not think that that debate was primarily about increasing accountability; in fact, I thought that it was like moving deck chairs on the deck of an oil tanker and suggesting that that would somehow make it change course. Today's debate gets to the heart of bringing about a change of course in terms of accountability and scrutiny.
I see this as a natural progression in the debate about devolution. As a new Back Bencher, I quickly became aware that I had been far more influential as chairman of a major committee in my town hall than I was in the House of Commons. I see a great deal of devolution: quangos are being empowered, individuals are being empowered, and—quite rightly—we are creating regional development agencies and the like. However, we as Members of Parliament are being given no power to scrutinise all the issues that we are discussing today. We are not automatically being given a role in the development that is taking place in the constituencies that we represent.
I would go so far as to suggest that some Select Committees could be given a scrutiny role in regard to issues outside the House. I am thinking of, for instance, regional development agencies. We might want a regional basis for Select Committees, which would allow us to call in the mayor of London. As London Members, we could perhaps scrutinise the role and activities of the new Greater London Authority. That would give us some say and some influence in the way things develop in the communities we represent, and the way in which the new bodies that are being established affect those communities.
I believe that our Select Committees and their membership are influenced far too heavily by the Executive. I want to examine ways in which the two could

503
be separated, because I think that such separation would empower the House a great deal more, and would give Back Benchers a more influential role. The report suggests a panel of Chairmen; I would like to know more about how such a panel would be established and how it would be accountable to me, as a Back Bencher, rather than to the Executive. Like my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I would like that to be given more serious and thoughtful consideration.
Before I became an MP, one of the things that impressed me most about the House was the cross-party co-operation that existed in the Select Committee system, and how effective that co-operation could be. That, I think, portrays the House in a favourable light outside. The public often see the House at its best when it is dealing with Select Committee business. Having said that, let me add that it is unfortunate that today's debate has already featured a petty attempt at party political point-scoring, which has added nothing to its value. It draws attention to the fact that we Back Benchers should debate that issue among ourselves and, with respect, try to ignore the influence of Front-Bench Members because, frankly, our Front Benchers will want to resist devolving power to us on the Back Benches and Opposition Front Benchers will certainly not want to tie themselves to proposals that they would not want to agree with if—heaven forbid—they ever managed to sit on the Government Front Benches.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend find it surprising that the one Select Committee that actually legislates—the Deregulation Committee—given its powers under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1998, has a difficulty finding Members to serve on it? We must recognise that some Select Committees are extremely popular, but hon. Members must have their arms twisted to serve on others so that they have sufficient members to function.
Mr. Efford: I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps that reflects the fact that Back Benchers did not set up the Committee structure. If Select Committees were thought to be more relevant, more Back Benchers would want to become members of them. When I was first elected in 1997, I did not even know that the Select Committee on Procedure existed, but I found myself member of it. I have been a member of that Select Committee for three and a half years. I now find myself being dragged forward, blinking into the spotlight, to sort out the mess about the election of the Speaker. I am being forced to do that in double-quick time when we should also be considering other, wider issues, such as whether our Front-Bench Members should be involved in electing the Speaker or whether Back Benchers only should do so, as in other Parliaments. That matter needs more consideration and consultation than the suggested time scale that will allow, but I shall not go any further down that path.
I should like to stress one point in my short contribution to the debate: the Whips' influence on the membership of Select Committees. That is the one matter in which the report, if it achieves nothing else, should achieve some success. It is open to Members to achieve that success within our own party structures. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, within the formal structures of the House, we do not recognise the
504
party structures. We are here because our respective parties have bestowed that honour on us, but that is not reflected in the structure of the House.
Under the current system, involving the House of Commons Commission, we could nominate Back Benchers for Select Committees through a body that is independent of the Whips within our own party structures. That body could determine the membership of Select Committees without such matters having to go to the Whips. We could achieve that without making major changes to the structure of the House if we genuinely want to ensure the separation of legislative scrutiny from the Executive.
The Hansard Society recommends further powers for Select Committees. We could consider certain issues—for example, the requisitioning of items perhaps even from the House of Lords, which has a backlog of work. It might be to the benefit of the House if Select Committees could take on the scrutiny of measures, perhaps co-opting Members of the other place. We could make progress without the in-built and undemocratic Conservative majority that exists in the Lords dictating the progress of Bills, which are often held up there. We would have greater influence if we could determine the timetabling of such Bills. That would stop any party political influence being exerted on their progress. That influence has nothing to do with scrutiny and brings the House into disrepute.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Would it not be better if legislation were better thought out in this House before it went to the House of Lords so that the Government tabled fewer amendments in the House of Lords?
Mr. Efford: Yes, we can all make several points along those lines and some of us may agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it is undeniable that legislation is being held up because it contains measures that the Conservative party does not like. That is why there is a legislative backlog. We must find ways in which the House can become more effective so that we can deliver the policies that the people elected us to deliver without falling foul of the party political system that is so easily corrupted.
Mrs. Browning: I must put on record the fact that Lord Carter, the Labour party's Chief Whip in the other place, has said on record that the Conservative party was not unnecessarily delaying legislation.
Mr. Efford: I shall not debate that issue further—[Interruption]—because we all know the facts. We can all select various statements from different individuals to try to make our case, but the facts are before us.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he is making an interesting speech and I do not want to break his flow. I hope that he will give some weight to the reality that, nowadays, legislation—even Government legislation—can return to the Floor of the House as late as Third Reading with several hundred amendments. Frankly, that is an example not only of extremely bad drafting but of extremely bad management. That has a direct effect on progress of legislation.
Mr. Efford: I have already said that I accept the point that has been made along those lines by the hon. Member

505
for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I find it incredibly frustrating that the House, which is seen as the Government of this country, is so easily thwarted by the systems that exist. Members should have more influence and greater ability to intervene. I think especially of some of the Back-Bench proposals that have been thwarted. It should be possible to expedite matters more effectively without allowing certain tactics to frustrate the demonstrable will of the House and the people.
Before I finish, I should like to repeat that, if the report achieves nothing else, it should end the unwarranted influence of the Whips over the selection of members of Select Committees and Standing Committees. Even if the report does not result in a change in the way in which the House deals with such matters, our own party political structures should ensure that Back Benchers have greater influence in scrutinising the Executive.
4.29 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: It is very good news indeed for the House that time has been set aside to debate such issues today. The report of the Liaison Committee should be commended in principle and accepted to a large extent. I had thought that much of the report was non-controversial and very much formed common ground among Members of Parliament. Indeed, in some places I thought it lapsed into a self-congratulatory tone about how well the system had been developed over the years. Then I listened to the speech of the Leader of the House, who was kind enough to inform me that she would not be able to be present for my speech. She was very combative in what she said. She not only underlined but entrenched some of the mori negative parts of the Government's response to the report. I found that rather disturbing. I hope that we will look at that.
It was all too clear from what the Leader of the House said that she does not accept the report's fundamental premise that some change is necessary. The Government's response and her response today were all about how we are in the best of possible worlds—we should think ourselves lucky to have what we have and, if we make too much fuss, we might lose it; indeed, she explicitly said that in relation to Select Committee reports. Commenting on the suggestion that they might regularly intrude into the House's business, she said that we already have in the House more than the wildest wishes of Select Committee Chairmen and that we might have to look at that again. It seemed to be a case of, "Shut up at the back or you will lose your play time." The whole tone of her contribution failed to engage with the mood of the House and with the intentions of Members.
There is a mood for change and a need for change. The report outlines a list of those.
Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although there may be a mood for some changes, that does not mean that every Liaison Committee recommendation would be equally welcomed? Does he accept that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House welcomed large parts of the Liaison Committee report, but had strong words to say about other parts?
Mr. Stunell: I do not suppose that any Member, with the possible exception of the Chairman of that Committee, is absolutely signed up to the explicit implementation of
506
every recommendation in the precise form that it appears. We can all find things that we think should be changed or thought about some more. That is proper. For that matter, I am happy to put it on the record that it is for the benefit of the House that this is an open debate without recommendations at the end of it. I do not share the view that we should have had a set of proposals before us, but to say that is an entirely different thing from the approach of the Leader of the House. She made it clear that she was happy to agree with the page numbers, but not a lot else. The whole point of such a debate should be that there is some discussion, some negotiation and some progress on what needs to happen.
The report says that there are some issues about the membership of the Committees. Quite a lot of the discussion so far has focused on that. There are the big structural issues, but there are also some shorter, tactical issues about how long it takes to set up Committees at the beginning of a Parliament, and the delays that there can be in replacing members when vacancies occur. Clearly, all those matters can be addressed if the House's procedures are tightened and developed.
There may be something to be said for the criticism of the three wise men, or the three wise senior Chairs, as it may be. They may be legitimate points to make in developing proposals, but what I want to hear from the Government is an acceptance that something different is needed to ensure that we can establish Committees rapidly at the start of any new Parliament.
There are some longer-term issues about the power of the Whips and of the Government to dictate who serves on Committees. Perhaps that shows up in two ways, only one of which has been talked about. We have talked about the possibility—the reality even—of people being kept off Committees if they might embarrass the Government, create waves, or do various things. A particular illustration has been given—my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and his experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, but we all know that that is probably not the most pernicious part of it. The most pernicious part of it is that the Whips use the possibility of attaining Committee membership to subdue the behaviour of Members in wholly unrelated areas of their parliamentary activities. It is the fettering of the discretion of Members by the use of patronage that we should put our finger on.
The Select Committee has come up with a particular solution: to have a Committee of Chairmen; a Committee of the great and the good. To have three people who have senior experience in this place and who are Chairmen or Chairwomen taking the decisions in the open, with open nominations, is clearly an advance on a system that is completely opaque. Names emerge. They are never even seen by the rest of us when they go to the Committee of Selection, which incidentally is pretty well entirely bunged up with Whips of one sort and another. The nominations come to the House in a pro forma manner, which it is exceptional to challenge.
Therefore, that solution is an improvement. It is more transparent, but I would want to hear from the Committee, as it refines its proposals, exactly what criteria those people will use when they select the people whom they nominate to come before us and to serve on the Select Committees. How will they ensure that fairness and equity is achieved? How will they ensure that balance

507
is achieved? How will they ensure that the skills, preferences and time of Members are properly allocated to a particular Committee?
I say that not because I think that those people will deliberately get it wrong, but because that is complex and difficult to achieve. If the rules are not established properly when a new system is introduced, it might rapidly fall into disrepute and be perceived to be as bad as the thing that it replaced. A recipe is given to us by the Select Committee, but it is indicative and we do not know precisely what might follow.
That is a good reason for us to have this debate. It is a good reason to hear from the Government what they think sensible improvements might be of the existing system, or, if we moved to a new system, what they see as the essential elements of it. I will not use the time of the debate to set out my views on that. I am sure that, if we set about establishing a new, more objective procedure, we could all get round—I hesitate to say, the table; I suppose that we would have to sit in the Chamber and shout at each other. However, there must be opportunities for some working papers to define a system that could meet widespread consent. Perhaps we need the Select Committee to do it, as Select Committees often can.
The issue of the power of the Executive against the restraining hand of the House is one of perpetual balance and negotiation; it changes all the time. Had she been here, I would have said to the Leader of the House that part of the balance was adjusted on Tuesday. I was happy to support the changes that were introduced on Tuesday. I have argued on their behalf in the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons and elsewhere because I believe that their benefits outweigh their disadvantages.
The Government did not lose in the balance or negotiation as it was struck on Tuesday. I was hoping that, in today's debate, the Leader of the House might have been prepared to acknowledge that, even if only subconsciously, and say, "Yes, we got a lot of things that were important to us on Tuesday"—and that were important to the House, too—"and we now think that on Thursday we can go a little further and take another step forward in liberating Select Committees, so that they are more independent of the power of the Whips and of the Government." It would have been good to have some acceptance from her of the problems that are identified by the Select Committee, and some acknowledgment that the Government can play a part in solving the difficulties that have been identified, and in setting a timetable for action to put in place the changes that we need.
I shall take only a few minutes more. There are two or three points, which have been alluded to, that are important and where we need to have some clear moves forward. One is the support and resources that are available to Select Committees.
We have the least well equipped Select Committee system of any Parliament in western Europe, north America or the old Commonwealth. It does not matter with which group we are compared or whatever one's political complexion, the fact is that our Select Committees are less well serviced than any of those. Therefore, it is not a great surprise to find that our Select Committee system has the weakest impact on the
508
Executive of any of those Parliaments. Those things are connected, although not directly. I am not saying that if we doubled the resources, we would double the impact, but there is a link. We need to make our Select Committee system stronger, and to do that we need more support and greater resources.
I am not particularly committed to the model in the Select Committee's report, but I would have hoped—it would have been helpful—to have received some acknowledgement from the Government that they would at least not obstruct that being developed.
Another issue that has been mentioned is the career structure that might be developed as an alternative to getting into Downing street. Most people imagine that when we enter the House, we are provided with our knapsack and the key to No. 10, and that some of us might be lucky enough to use it.[Interruption.] In reality, there are about 655 hon. Members who will not achieve that, but we do not know who the remaining four might be. In all probability, they do not include the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) or me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. They are probably the occupants of the Chair.
Mr. Stunell: The serious point is that the career structure for Members of Parliament is a notional dream world, which is so subject to the laws of chance that it almost seems obscene to suggest that we should have a structure that is carefully designed via the Select Committee system.
There is a great difference between status and power. One may gain status by becoming a Select Committee Chairman, but whether one has power is another matter, and is perhaps part of today's debate. Select Committee Chairmen might be given a few extra thousand pounds, but that might not make them more powerful, more influential or more able to do the job. These are wide-ranging issues that are not easily resolved.
There is a good case for making sure that people of real quality are drawn into the Select Committee system and are prepared to devote a substantial chunk of their lives to that work. However, to suggest that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is not such a person, is offensive to him and demeans the House. The system does draw in high-quality people. However, if we are to have 33 Select Committees, a drawing through of Members and people finding that they are promoted or taken out of the system for one reason or another, we must ensure that there is sufficient incentive for people to come forward. Money may be part of that, but what is more important than being paid to do the job is whether hon. Members think that the work they do is effective, appreciated by the House and influential in the development of policy.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: If payment is to become an issue, surely that would require some reform of the selection procedures. If not, it merely becomes another means by which the patronage of the Treasury Bench is increased.
Mr. Stunell: For perhaps the first time in our parliamentary lives I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

509
I want to comment on what I understand to be an annual audit of outstanding Select Committee recommendations. That is an excellent idea. It should not just be an accumulation of recommendations that have not been implemented, but there should be proper scrutiny of those unresolved recommendations and a proper report to the House on what has been done. Following on from that, we could and should expect a full and proper response from any Government to the outstanding recommendations so that the House could judge the effectiveness of the system as it is described in the report and the effectiveness of the Government in dealing with such matters.
This is a revealing debate on a thoroughly useful Select Committee report. I hope that, after thinking about it more carefully, the Government will feel able to take a more positive attitude to what I believe could be one of the great steps forward for the House in this decade.
4.45 pm
Tony Wright: I want to take the House backward before taking it forward. On 17 November 1966, Richard Crossman confided in his diary. He said:
Cabinet. The Prime Minister had decided to take my procedure package of parliamentary reform. Actually it took nearly two hours and was a ghastly discussion. How ghastly you certainly wouldn't get an idea from the Cabinet minutes…The moment I'd finished George Brown said, "Well, it's asking a terrible lot of us, Prime Minister. We're busy men."…He was followed by Minister after Minister round the table simply saying how busy they were, how they were harassed by all these Cabinet Committees and how they simply couldn't be burdened with any more work by the House of Commons.
Richard Crossman went on to say:
Most of these Ministers were individually as well as collectively committed to parliamentary reform. Yet, after two years they've become Whitehall figures who've lost contact with Parliament. And of course what they're saying is pure nonsense. The Executive rides supreme in Britain and has minimum trouble from the legislature. Perhaps it's because Parliament is so entirely subordinate to the Executive that my colleagues were saying, "We can't allow this Parliamentary Party to bother us."
That was 34 years ago. It is a reminder that we have been round this circuit many times before and that we keep coming back to the fundamentals. However, we have made some progress.
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Dick Crossman, but he should also mention Norman St. John-Stevas, now Lord St. John of Fawsley.
Tony Wright: Indeed, they were the two formidable Leaders of the House, from different parties, who were decisive in driving forward the process of reform, particularly the strengthening of scrutiny, and that is what is important.
The month following the presentation of his proposals to Cabinet, Richard Crossman asked the House to put them into action. He said:
Procedurally, we still behave as though we were a sovereign body which really shared with the Government in the initiation of legislation, which exercised a real control not only of finance, but of the administration of the Departments…The House of Commons, too, has surrendered most of its effective powers to the Executive and has become in the main the passive forum in which the struggle is fought between the modern usurpers of parliamentary power, the great political machines.
510
As I have said, that was 34 years ago, but the analysis is adroit.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I agree with that absolutely, but before my hon. Friend becomes too starry-eyed about the great Crossman, I should point out that at the first Cabinet Committee I ever attended, Richard Crossman, then the Leader of the House, spent a long time saying that we should get rid of the Select Committee on Agriculture because it was causing enormous difficulty, going to Brussels and discovering things which were inconvenient.
Tony Wright: I am grateful for that—although I have only rarely been accused of being starry-eyed. Richard Crossman was a bully and a rather disagreeable man in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, I am grateful to be reminded that, unfortunately, there is no correlation between great reformers and great characters.
In the same speech, Richard Crossman went on to say
there is a difference between modernisation and Parliamentary reform.—[Official Report, 14 December 1966: Vol. 738, c. 479–0.]
I think that that is worth reflecting on.
We are engaging in some modernisation of the House, but the question is whether we are engaging in parliamentary reform. The point about the Crossman reforms all those years ago is that they were reforms in the round. The reforms came not only with a package of modernisation measures—he wanted morning sittings, more sensible hours and timetabling of legislation—but with the commitment to strengthen Parliament in relation to the Executive. It was a genuinely reforming package of measures.
In the current reforms, we are taking a rather different approach. I think that it is a source of great regret that, at the beginning of this Parliament, the Modernisation Committee did not take a view in the round on what parliamentary reform required. To do so, one would have to determine one's own view on the role of the House of Commons and on whether there is a case for shifting the balance—as the report says—between the House and the Executive. If one believes that there is such a case, one should say what proposals flow from that conclusion.
At the beginning of this Parliament, it would have been possible to integrate proposals on sittings, more sensible hours and timetabling with measures to strengthen scrutiny and the Commons's power in relation to the Executive. Unfortunately, that did not happen, and, consequently, we have no benchmarks. We do not know to what purpose and in what direction we are modernising, and we are suffering greatly as a result.
I have enormous regard for the Leader of the House, and we are well served by the fact that she clearly very much believes in the view that she is expressing—which is a challenging presentation of an alternative position. Although she did not do it today—unlike previously, in other settings, when faced with such proposals—she is wont to ask, "Why ask us to make the change? Why are they asking us to do it? They never asked anyone else to do it." Those are very fair questions. However, one of the axioms of parliamentary reform is that Oppositions are enthusiastic about reform and Governments are cool towards it. That is clearly the case now, and it has always been the case. They are, however, not questions that trump the argument.

511
We are being asked to make the change because it is right to make it. The balance needs to be shifted, and we now have the opportunity to do it. If we always ask where the balance of party advantages lies, we will never make progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said, and as Opposition Members have shown in this debate, the instincts of all hon. Members is to look for party advantage, to see whether easy political points can be scored even in an argument about the rights of Parliament as a whole. It is the default option into which we all relapse almost immediately.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the group of 30 Chairmen who have signed the early-day motion seeking change to shift the balance back to the House of Commons and away from the Executive is dominated by Government supporters who serve with distinction as Select Committee Chairmen? Change is supported also by various Opposition Members who certainly do not seek to score any party political advantage at all, but wish merely to enhance the role of Parliament.
Tony Wright: Of course I accept that. However, I have sat through enough of these debates to know precisely what happens, the character of the exchanges, and how hard it is to make genuinely House of Commons points, as opposed to those seeking purely to exploit current party political advantage. That is the difficulty that we have in making such proposals.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was right to point out, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) did, the central issue that the House will eventually have to confront. Through Richard Crossman and Norman St. John-Stevas, now Lord St. John of Fawsley, we invented a scrutiny system which is undoubtedly Parliament's greatest advance in scrutinising the Executive. Now, however, we have to move on to answering the next question—which is, who owns the scrutiny system that we have created? Is it to be owned by the Executive or by the House of Commons?
We can shuffle round that question, explore some of its difficulties and say, "This is not the right model; that one is better." All that is very proper. However, we cannot shuffle round the central question. At some point, every Member of Parliament will have to answer that question for himself or herself. The answer to the question defines not only what we are, but what the House is.
I do not underestimate for a second how difficult it is to give the answer that ownership should lie with the House of Commons, and realise that all the pressures are in the opposite direction. If we are honest with ourselves—this is a moment to be honest with ourselves—we would admit that this place runs itself as a permanent election campaign. Election campaigns do not happen only every four or five years; they happen every moment of every day in the House. The whole way in which the House is organised reflects the fact that, in the House, there is a permanent election campaign. That is exactly how the Front Benchers of both parties want to regard the role of Members of Parliament. Moreover, Members of Parliament have never been better equipped to perform the role of permanent election campaigners.
512
An interesting part of Richard Crossman's speech in the House 34 years ago was on the balance between what he referred to—perhaps rather archaically now—as full-time and part-time Members. He was exploring the difficulties of different sitting hours for part-time Members and for full-time Members. I think that we are now into different territory, as we are all more or less full-time and decently paid Members. I also think that that status brings with it obligations to be proper Members of Parliament.
I am not saying for a second that Members of Parliament are not busy people—they are immensely busy people who work extraordinarily hard—but, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that they are as busy as hamsters in a wheel, going round and round, often doing little of productive value. Although we might try to persuade ourselves that that is not true, I think that, in our hearts, we know it is.
There are many reasons why Members of Parliament feel unhappy with their lot. However—we have to pick our words with care in talking about these issues—large public sums are devoted to enabling Members of Parliament to be permanent election campaigners. That is the important change that has occurred. There are no brownie points, here or anywhere else, for being good scrutineers of government, particularly when that Government are of one's own party.
If we are serious about shifting the balance, we have to be serious about what we think Members of Parliament are all about. I do not for a second say that that will be easy, and I do not even believe that it is possible. Although I was accused a moment ago of being starry-eyed, in fact I am deeply gloomy about the issue. It was Enoch Powell who, many years ago, said—I may not have this quite right, but essentially—that Parliament does not exist. He said that all that exists is the Government and the Opposition, locked into permanent conflict. He said that if one sought to construct an independent, collective entity called Parliament, one would get nowhere. He may have been right about that. Indeed, although she used different words, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was seeking to persuade us of that view. Some of us have been saying that the next step has to be to try to build some independence into the scrutiny system, but that may be impossible, rather than undesirable. I hope not.
We have in this country a system of strong government, and that has many virtues. It provides a great capacity for action and that is not easily to be dismissed, but in my view strong government can be defended only if it is matched by strong accountability. The Government are taking many admirable measures to insert new checks and balances into our political system, but the area where they have not done that—and they have to do it—is Parliament itself.
I end by quoting Crossman again, from the same speech that I referred to earlier. He said:
This reform would be good for the prestige of Parliament, good for the morale of back benchers, and, I believe, very good for the Government as well, because a strong and healthy Executive is all the stronger and healthier if it is stimulated by responsible investigation and criticism.—[Official Report, 14 December 1966; Vol. 738, c. 483.]
That was true 34 years ago and it is true today. It will become more true if the House adopts the recommendations of the Liaison Committee.
5.1pm
Sir Peter Emery: I start by making the most important point that needs to be made in this debate. Although the Government claim—and claimed in their election addresses and their manifesto—to be massively in favour of modernising Parliament and to want to do everything to that end, the three documents that are the basis of the report that we are debating today prove one thing absolutely: that, to the Government, modernisation means lessening rather than enhancing the control of Parliament over the Executive. Their purpose in modernisation is to strengthen the Executive and override any major suggestion of allowing Parliament to have a greater impact on the Executive. The documents prove what the Government are setting out to achieve and, if that is their way of modernising Parliament, it is a pretty depressing factor.
I served on the Liaison Committee for 14 years from 1983 to 1997 with the present Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and I congratulate him on the service that he has given that Committee, for introducing today's debate and for his report.
As I said in an intervention on the right hon. Gentleman, this debate should have been on a motion on which the House could have divided. It really is not good enough that it should be palmed off on an Adjournment debate so that the Government can turn around and say, "We have had all that before the House." The House has not had the opportunity to ensure by a vote that the majority of the proposals in the Liaison Committee report are carried out. I believe that, if a motion were put before the House without the Whips on it, the Liaison Committee's proposals would get a considerable majority. Indeed, I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to the debate that he says to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, "If you table a number of motions and get them on the Order Paper, we will allow the House to debate them and to vote on them without a Whip." That would be the way to test whether the Government are really convinced of the desire to modernise this place.
The Leader of the House, who always speaks with considerable charm and raises temperatures by only a very small amount, made a charming and delightful speech, but it did not add up to a row of beans.
I have another minor criticism to make. Where are all the Blair babes today? I see only two or three ladies in the House.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am here.
Sir Peter Emery: I have known the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) since she was my constituency neighbour when she represented Exeter. At no time have I ever believed that she was in the hands of the leader of her party or any other party.
Maria Eagle: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that I am in the hands of the leader of my party? He does not know me well enough to know whether that is the case.
Sir Peter Emery: During Tuesday's debate, between 30 and 35 hon. Ladies were usually present. They were pushing forward the reforms, as they saw them, proposed
514
by the Modernisation Committee. Their amendments sought to reduce the working hours of the House. I believe that their support was not adding to the control of the House over the Government, but was in fact giving way to the Government and allowing them to proceed with their legislation more quickly than they can do at present.
Fiona Mactaggart: I feel tempted to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for a ruling on whether "Blair babe" is parliamentary language.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some 50 per cent. of Labour Back Benchers present in the Chamber are women? That is a larger representation of women than in the parliamentary Labour party. If only we were half the parliamentary Labour party. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will accept that women are as interested in issues of democracy in the House as they are in making the House work more efficiently, which is what we were discussing on Tuesday.
Sir Peter Emery: There are always a number of ladies who are interested in what is happening in the House. Indeed, two are waiting to speak in the debate. I hope that they will prove by what they say that they really are interested in achieving greater control by the House over the Executive, but that was not evident in Tuesday's debate.
The issue of selecting members of Select Committees has taken up a great deal of time. I believe that we have to find a way of doing it other than having them nominated by the Whips. I am not saying that the Liaison Committee's proposals are perfect, but at least they are a stab at trying to get it right. If the Government feel that the proposals are too involved, let them come up with a method of their own that does not involve the Whips. If they do that, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and the Committee will examine it thoroughly. They should not dismiss the idea of changing the system simply because they do not like the alternative that has been proposed.
If we want reform, we must get rid of the control of the Whips. We need to get away from the shadow of the black hand of the Whips, which has fallen in particular on my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). There is no doubt that, as Chairman of the Health Committee, he was responsible for some excellent reports that were highly critical of the Government and that an excuse was found in the following Parliament to get rid of him. We all know that that is wrong.
That is not the only instance. I will now reveal something that I have kept to myself. When the Trade and Industry Committee was created, the late Sir Donald Kaberry and I were candidates for the chairmanship. He won, and he was an excellent Chairman. At the end of the first Parliament, when he was retiring, the Committee decided that it would like me to be Chairman. I had spoken to the Chief Whip and, as far as I knew, it was all agreed.
Suddenly, a new member was put on the Committee. He was rather disillusioned about not having been made a Minister, and the Whips wanted to find something for him to do. Without any consultation with me, the Chief Whip talked to Labour Members to persuade them to vote against me. My opponent had two supporters on the

515
Conservative side, as did I, but to get him elected, the Labour votes needed to be twisted. One Member of Parliament came to me and said that the Chief Whip—now Lord Cocks—had spent 45 minutes twisting his arm to vote against me. The excuse was given that if the Conservative Chief Whip did not get his way, Mr. Cocks could not be certain of getting the Labour Chairmen that he wanted elected to various other Committees.
Those are the real facts of the behind-the-scenes operation of what I call the black hand. I have kept that fairly quiet, but it is about time that some people realised that when they say that the Whips do not really interfere, that is a lot of baloney.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) has left. He suggested that Parliament was all about Government and anti-Government, in a permanent election campaign. That is entirely wrong in one area: it is surprising how much co-operation there is among all the parties in the work of Select Committees. When they see the real facts, Select Committee members are willing to criticise Governments of their own party. In that way, Parliament has worked as people in the country would like it to work.
Ministers do not like appearing before Select Committees. They have to prepare themselves well and they know that they cannot wriggle. They are pressed time and again on the same subject, especially when they are seen to be wriggling. That is surely one of the ways in which the House can begin to have some influence on how the Executive is performing.
If that is the case, are we right to allow our Select Committees to do as little as they do at present? Some hon. Members will throw up their hands and say that they are terribly busy and cannot afford the time, but I believe that the Select Committees' influence over the Executive is much greater than that exerted by hon. Members, nine times out of 10, on the Floor of the House. Question Times do not really hold the Executive to account, and neither do most debates. What happens on the Floor of the House is regarded as the most important factor in the parliamentary process, but more often than not it is what happens in Select Committees that attracts headlines about the problems of Governments and their overriding and often overweening power.
I wonder whether we should not ask Select Committees to sit twice a week and take over more subjects. If they did so, they would have to be given the staff that they would need, and their members would have to be dedicated, as Members of Parliament, to looking after the control of the Executive. However, that control is much more likely to be exerted by Select Committees than by any other bodies involved in the work of the House.
If Select Committees were to take on more work, the recommendation of the Liaison Committee that the Chairmen of Select Committees should have a special allowance would be appropriate. Such an allowance may total, say, £10,000 a year, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will know, being Chairman of a Select Committee involves a vast amount of extra work.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Emery: Of course. I did not mean to leave the hon. Lady out of the list.
Mrs. Dunwoody: That is quite all right, I am used to being ignored. The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but I have reservations about paying Chairmen an allowance. We can justify having extra staff with no trouble at all, because those of us who do a lot of work in Select Committees put enormous pressure on staff. That would still be the case even if their numbers were increased. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a better alternative would be to ensure that we had more people to do the work necessary to assist Chairmen?
Sir Peter Emery: I do not disagree with the hon. Lady's thesis, but I do not preclude the possibility that Chairmen could receive some allowance recognising the extra work that they do for, and the dedication that they bring to, Select Committees.
However, we must be certain that such an allowance would not become an aspect of the Government payroll, and that hon. Members appointed as Select Committee Chairmen would not consider that role to be secondary. That is why I should prefer Chairmen to be appointed by the Select Committees and not by the Whips. In that way, we would ensure that appointment to the chairmanship of a Select Committee was not a placement by Government.
I have seen it happen several times that Ministers who are no longer in office turn up as Select Committee Chairmen. That is wrong, and it should not happen in the House of Commons.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To an extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but does my right hon. Friend agree that the recommendations in the paragraph in the report entitled "An Alternative Career" supply the answer to the problem? The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to them very positively. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Parliament must offer hon. Members an alternative to becoming Ministers—who, of course, do receive additional remuneration? Should we not encourage hon. Members who are prepared to sacrifice being political all the time, for the sake of democracy and the workings of Parliament? I believe that recognising the chairmanship of Select Committees as an alternative career is the best way to achieve that.
Sir Peter Emery: I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend suggests. The records show that that suggestion first appeared in a report from the Procedure Committee that was compiled when I was its Chairman. My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I agree entirely.
Members might say that they are too busy to spend two days a week on Select Committee reports. I am concerned, as I believe that a Member of Parliament's work is here in Westminster and not in the constituency. Why do Members have to get away early on a Thursday to have constituency Fridays or Saturdays? What are they? Are they councillors, county councillors or social service officers? We already have those; that is not the role of a Member of Parliament as I believe it to be.
Mr. Anthony Steen: The answer to my hon. Friend's question as to why more Members of Parliament

517
do not spend more time here is the Liberal Democrats. They have made it difficult for Members of Parliament not to spend more time on pavement politics. More and more hon. Members feel that they have to head off the Liberal Democrats' obsession with pavement politics; they cannot spend enough time here and they have to look after their constituencies.
Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend speaks a great deal of truth. Pavement politics started with Mr. Lubbock, who won a famous by-election in Orpington and preached that one won seats by spending all one's time knocking on people's doors. That is not what a Member of Parliament is for.
Mr. Stunell: I know that the Liberal Democrats have had to take the blame for many things in this country, but that is the first time that we have been accused of causing the downfall of parliamentary democracy. I am delighted that my colleague, Rachel Oliver, is doing such an excellent job in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Sir Peter Emery: I have never said that that was the sole reason for hon. Members not spending more time here. I am saying that Members of Parliament should be spending more time here, controlling the Executive, rather than attempting to be councillors. I will say no more about the lady who was mentioned. I did not even know that she was there; obviously, she must be doing a marvellous job.
I wish to refer to travel. When the Select Committees were considered, it was thought that all the work should be done in this country. It was then pointed out that the Defence Committee would have to travel to the many bases and troops around the world, and it was thought fair that the Committee be given the right to travel. Then, the Foreign Affairs Committee said that, as it had to look after the embassies, it ought to be given the right to travel. The Trade Committee then said that certain trade matters—disputes between this country and America or within Europe, for example—meant that it might be necessary, occasionally, for it to travel. However, that was all; just those two and a half Committees.
Now, the prestige factor means that every Select Committee has to travel. I do not believe that that is necessary. With telephone and television conferencing, the need for Select Committees to travel as much as they are doing should be looked at by the Liaison Committee, which controls this matter. One difficulty, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne will know, is that as the Liaison Committee is made up of all the Chairmen of the Select Committees, the Chairmen of a number of Select Committees get together and say to each other, "You support my bid to travel and I'll support yours." [HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."] Well, some truths need to come out.
Again, the Procedure Committee recommended having a sub-committee of the Liaison Committee made up of the Chairmen of Committees whose members do not travel, and that they should decide whether money should be allocated to Committees whose members want to travel. [Laughter.] From the laughter that I hear, that idea is not so foolish. Whether it would be accepted is another matter. However, it is the only way that I can see of dealing with the problem.
My final point—about the problem of dealing with secondary legislation—is equally important, and I am sorry that the subject was not really dealt with in the
518
Liaison Committee's report. The volume of secondary legislation that goes through the House every year is vast, and the amount of supervision or examination carried out by Members of Parliament is minimal. We must look at that. If there are difficulties in passing a Bill through the House of Commons, it is much easier for the Minister to leave the thing that will cause problems to be dealt with under secondary legislation after the Bill has been enacted. That is not a new way for Ministers to behave—they have been doing it for years. Therefore, we must look even more carefully at the secondary legislation coming before the House, and we are not doing so.
I apologise for having taken more time than I intended, but I have allowed one or two interventions. Again, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and say to him, "Keep up the good work." We must deal with the matter, and unless there is strong pressure from people like him, it will not happen.
5.27 pm
Maria Eagle: It is a pleasure to be able to speak in the debate. I am not sure that I was quite so pleased to be referred to by the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) as a Blair babe. I consider myself the Member of Parliament for Liverpool, Garston, and am perfectly happy to be referred to as such.
I think that I understood the point that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make, and it brought to mind something that occurred to me recently. The debate on the modernisation of the House has been represented outside, certainly in the press, as solely about the hours that we sit, family friendly policies and the convenience of Members of Parliament—about our terms and conditions. I think that Labour Members of Parliament who are women have been used a shield to deflect criticism. We are spoken of as the people who are pushing for modernisation. Of course, some of us have pushed for it, while others are more wary about some of the procedures. One cannot simply say that all those of one gender believe one thing while all those of the other do not.
In the debate on the election of the Speaker, it struck me that all the candidates had something to say about changing and modernising the way in which the House works, and not all of them were female. So perhaps Labour women Members of Parliament have been used as a shield to deflect criticism from outside. The discussions are often portrayed in terms of us simply wanting to make our lives easier, but in fact there is a real discussion going on in the House, which was reflected in the debate on electing the Speaker. All the candidates had something to say about modernisation; they said it in the Chamber and in other places as well in advance of the debate.
I welcome the opportunity to debate issues such as this, although I have some fear, coming from the Labour party, that one can get too obsessed with internal constitutions and little niggling bits of procedure. People outside the House do not necessarily think that that is what they sent us here to do. We must be careful not to navel-gaze too much, but we need such debates, and it is important that we are having one today.
I believe that it is too soon to have substantive motions on the Liaison Committee's report and I do not accept the criticism, advanced mainly by the Opposition, that they should have been tabled today. Although I agree with

519
much of the report, I would not have been moved to speak—but I would probably have listened to the debate—if I had not disagreed strongly with some elements of it. Had I been faced with substantive motions based on the report, I might have had to vote against parts of the report that I agreed with. Substantive motions at this stage would have been premature.
Let me say a little about what I agree with in the report. I agree that Select Committees are an important part of the House. In my short time here, I have served on the Public Accounts Committee, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). The right hon. Member for East Devon does not think that the right hon. Gentleman should be a Select Committee Chairman because he used to be a Minister. The PAC is well served because it has the National Audit Office at its disposal, so it receives more support than the departmental Select Committees. However, because it meets twice a week, it also requires its members to work harder and put in a great deal more effort.
When I served on that Committee, party politics did not enter into the consideration of National Audit Office reports on value for money, for example. There was no need for a vote, and I do not think that it was the practice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) to call for votes in that Committee. We undervalue our achievements as scrutineers of the Executive if we do not recognise the qualities and fine work of Select Committees, which is achieved even under trying circumstances and without all the resources that they wish they could have.
I also reject the idea that because Whips serve on the Committee of Selection, which sorts out the membership of Select Committees, people are put on them who have nothing to offer. That is an insult to Members of the House. Every hon. Member who manages to get elected to the House—it is not something that one stumbles into by accident—has considerable, although possibly varying, experience of life. We can bring that to bear on the role of Back Bencher—or Minister, if we get that opportunity. We can bring it to bear in scrutinising the Executive when serving on a Select Committee, or in scrutinising legislation if we serve on a Standing Committee. It is a bit insulting to suggest that members of Select Committees are not up to the job if Whips put their names forward. There is no single set of qualifications that fits one person for Select Committee membership better than any other. Everyone has something to offer in any one of those roles.
I shall be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak, and concentrate on elements of the report with which I disagree. There are two issues. The first, which is difficult to grasp, is the idea of an alternative career. It is mentioned in a heading in the report and is floated as an idea, but I must confess that I do not really understand what an alternative career through the Select Committee system would mean for someone who comes into the House. I suspect that the proposal would establish an alternative career structure that would enable people to serve on Select Committees on the understanding that they did not go into Government so that there would be another way of making a mark that currently does not exist. Currently, only the chairmanships, of which there are a mere 33, offer career
520
progression in that sense, so the alternative career structure is somewhat limited. Presumably, had they entered the House at a time when the recommendations had been implemented, some of the people who chose to pursue the proposed career path would have had little more chance of advancement than they have now.
Mr. Edward Davey: Does the hon. Lady not realise that the aim of the proposal is to ensure that there are senior Members who feel somewhat independent of their party and are therefore able to use the Committee to focus scrutiny and enable cross-party working?
Maria Eagle: How does one become a senior Member, independent of one's party?
Our experiences, whether as Back Benchers or Ministers or in some other arena, enable all Members to bring something to the scrutiny they carry out as a member of a Select Committee. To say that anyone wanting to become a Select Committee Chairman cannot ever go into Government would be a nonsense, because it would deprive the Committees of the valuable experience that Members bring with them. Who better to scrutinise the workings of the Executive than someone who has been through the Whitehall system, seen how government works and tried to make it work better?
It would be a mistake to separate the two roles, not least because it would lead to two classes of Member of Parliament. Apart from Front Benchers, we are all Back Benchers together, whether we sit on the Government or the Opposition Benches. We might serve on the Front Benches for a while, but we shall inevitably end up back on the Back Benches. What would be wrong with then becoming a member of a Select Committee and bringing our experience to bear? Many distinguished Select Committee Chairmen have done that and we should not prevent others from doing the same.
In addition, if the suggested career progression is insufficiently appealing, no one who has any hope of ministerial office will opt for it. That raises questions about whether we would be able to fill the membership of Select Committees.
My main objection to the report centres on the proposals for the Select Committee panel. I understand that they are designed to increase the power of Select Committees—and therefore strengthen parliamentary scrutiny—rather than that of the Executive. However, we have to remember that our constitution provides that the Government can govern only if they have a majority in the House of Commons: Ministers are Members of Parliament. It is therefore not fair to suggest that it is impossible to hold such people to account without entirely separating parliamentary scrutiny in the fashion proposed.
If we implemented all the recommendations, there would be three people—the Chairman and two Deputy Chairmen of the Select Committee panel—who held enormous power. They would almost be a self-perpetuating oligarchy, because they would choose the members of the Select Committees from which Select Committee Chairmen were drawn. They would be able to select those who could have the alternative career; thus members of the Select Committees would owe them a certain obligation.
The panel would be able to select subjects for debate on the Floor of the House and in Westminster Hall. Other hon. Members have mentioned recommendations that its

521
members should be paid or get an increase in their office costs allowance to reflect their work. The Norton report even set out salary scales and stated which Select Committee Chairmen should be paid the equivalent of a Cabinet Minister's salary.
The panel would have the power to report those who failed to attend Select Committee meetings, to decide the format and presentation of Select Committee reports, and to propose changes in the budgets of Government Departments through the referral of estimates to departmental Committees. That sounds as though elements of the Government are to be supplanted, rather than scrutinised. The panel would be able to control whether or not joint inquiries could be undertaken and it would provide communications support, which sounds as though a spin machine is to be established to enable Select Committees to publish reports that look nicer than such reports do now.
All that does not give the impression of scrutiny; it sounds as though an alternative source of power would be established in the House. We are all politicians in this place, and politics is about power. The members of the Liaison Committee are all senior Members. Many of them are Privy Councillors who have been in the House for many years. They are owed a great deal of respect, but perhaps they think that they should have a little more respect and power than at present. The report proposes that they should get that.
Having read the report, I am not surprised that the Government might think, "Hang on a minute, is this really about scrutiny of the Executive?" It is about establishing a separate power structure within the House that is not necessarily accountable to Back Benchers. I cannot see that the Select Committee panel would be accountable to Back Benchers, and that worries me. It is an alternative source of power that is outside of party.
We must be careful. It is fashionable to suggest that party influences are terrible and represent everything that is wrong with the legislature and its power to scrutinise the Executive. The House could not function without the proper functioning of the party systems. There is too much legislation, too much secondary legislation and too many pressures on individual Members time for us to be able to function without party. We weaken party in this place at our peril. We should consider carefully the implications of what we are doing.
It is for these reasons—
Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Maria Eagle: I am coming to the end of my remarks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way.
Mr. Davey: The hon. Lady said that she would give way.
Maria Eagle: I did, but I do not want to take up too much time. Other Members wish to speak.
It is easy for us all as Back Benchers to say, "It's terrible. The Executive has too much power and we need more carefully to scrutinise it." We need extremely carefully to examine the proposals for changing the balance and allowing Back Benchers to scrutinise more carefully before we implement them. They could change
522
many other things in the House, which would be to its detriment. That applies not only to the present Government but to any other Government who are elected in future.
5.42 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: It is a pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not congratulated you before on your appointment.
I never expected to hear such a Conservative speech made by a Labour Member as that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). The hon. Lady is right to say that the report is an attempt to create a power structure within Parliament and to grab back the power that the Executive has grabbed from Parliament. The speech of the Leader of the House would have pleased Charles I. It would certainly have pleased any President of the United States. Both the right hon. Lady and the hon. Lady are saying that they disagree with parliamentary supremacy, which the English civil war delivered to Parliament. They want to run an Executive system when they are in office. However, they do not want that when they are not in office. That is true of both the Conservative party and the Labour party. It is a considerable fault and a serious undermining of Parliament.
I would like to see substantive motions come forward from Select Committees to the House. The whole House could discuss them and the motions would change Government policy.
Mrs. Beckett: This is the second time, although not in this debate, that I have heard a Conservative Member talking about taking back power that the Executive has removed from the House. It is my understanding—it may be at fault—that hitherto Select Committees have not been encouraged to substitute their judgment for that of the Executive. I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman for making the case that they now should. It is a legitimate case, but I happen to disagree with it. To talk as if we are turning back the clock to a "golden" age is perhaps unfair.
Mr. Wells: There is no golden age within the memory of the House as currently constituted, but one, especially that after the English civil war and during the commonwealth led by Cromwell, is within the House's historical memory. Parliament had supremacy, but has consistently lost that over the years.
Why has Parliament lost its supremacy? The reason is that the civil service does not want Parliament to interfere with its suggestions. Although the Government succeeded a Conservative Government, they have proposed exactly the same propositions, which came from exactly the same civil servants. Civil servants could not persuade Conservative Ministers to introduce proposals, flawed as they were, so they sought to convince Labour Ministers to do so. The civil service does not want an alternative body to be established before which it would have to account for its actions and policies, with the inevitable consequences.
Membership should be taken away from the command of the Whips. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) explained the

523
way in which Whips work. I am well aware of that process because I have been a Whip. The Labour party excludes from the Committee that I have the honour to chair Members whom the Whips do not want on that Committee. I can make that assertion because Labour members of the Committee told me so. That is the only evidence that I have, but I believe that it is reliable.
We need a body—I agree that it may not be that proposed in the Liaison Committee report—that is independent of the Whips Office. That wish is unlikely to be fulfilled, because the Whips Office will make certain that its influence is felt, whichever body is established. The Whips Office is well practised in that, and needs no protection from the House in that respect.
As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said in an intervention, staffing is the great problem with our Committees. Committee staff are expert and extremely hard working, but only three or perhaps four people service the Committees. The International Development Committee could not do more work simply because its staff could not carry out the work that we could generate. Equally, Committee members cannot do much more than they presently do and the idea that Select Committees meet once a week is a joke, at least with regard to the International Development Committee. We meet on average twice a week, and often, when considering reports, much more frequently. We also have to carry out ancillary work, such as meeting those from outside the House—perhaps from international sources—who wish to influence the Committee. We do not conduct our affairs on only one or two days a week.
It is essential that Select Committees consider all Bills that come before the House before they reach Standing Committee. We need a system that carries out pre-legislative scrutiny along the lines on which Select Committees operate. That need not be done by the relevant departmental Select Committee—the heavy legislative loads that would fall on, for example, the Home Affairs Committee would make that impossible. However, a Select Committee process needs to operate before each Bill is considered clause by clause and line by line.
I did not support the right hon. Lady's programming proposals on Tuesday because, before we consider programming every Bill, we should establish a pre-legislative Select Committee process. Indeed, I would not agree to the proposals until we had such a process. There should also be a post-legislative process, which the right hon. Lady proposed, to establish how legislation has been implemented and whether it has produced the result that the House expected. That consideration is more important now that we have such a plethora of judicial review processes. In my view, those processes hold the Government up to scrutiny more effectively than Parliament manages to do, in view of the dominance of the House by the Executive, backed up by the civil service.
My next point concerns the powers of Select Committees, which I believe should be enhanced. Under the current rules, Ministers do not have to attend Select Committees, nor do Members of the House of Lords when called upon by a Committee to attend. Many Ministers—all the Ministers whom I remember—do not resist calls to go before Select Committees. That is established practice.
524
However, there is one Minister who has refused to attend any Select Committee hearings: the Prime Minister. When Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister she refused to attend a Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I was a member, when she was called upon to do so, and I believe that the present Prime Minister is following the same rules.
A Select Committee should have the power to call Ministers, as well as its present power to call others. Members of the House of Lords should come to our Committees; equally, Ministers in this House should be prepared to go before House of Lords Committees. The powers of Select Committees therefore need to be increased.
The hon. Member for Garston spoke about ex-Ministers. Former Ministers who serve on the International Development Committee have told me that, compared with their role as Ministers or on the Floor of the House, working on that Committee has been their most rewarding and most influential experience in the House or elsewhere. The most satisfying aspect has been the fact that they have been able to argue from strength, information and evidence to persuade Ministers to change policy.
That is the huge value of Select Committees. The International Development Committee has no difficulty in getting members.
Mr. Tipping: I am interested in the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. He is the Chairman of a Select Committee, and he has just pointed out to the Chamber the advantages of having ex-Ministers on his Committee. If that is the case, why has he signed up to the notion of an alternate career structure in the report? The two propositions do not hang together.
Mr. Wells: I do not agree. I was in the House when the departmental Select Committees were introduced and the noble Lord St. John of Fawsley, who was then Leader of the House, occupying the position of the right hon. Lady, said that they would provide a satisfying career and an alternative career to a ministerial one. I see no inconsistency in that. After a Minister has left office, he is available to pursue another career on a Select Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is in that position. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that former Ministers add a dimension that should not be denied to Select Committees. I see no contradiction in stating that that is an alternative career path, which can be influential in the House.
Mr. Tipping: If that is the case, an opportunity to serve on a Select Committee, adding value, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, should be good preparation for being a Minister. His argument suggests that he would have to deny that.
Mr. Wells: Select Committees offer opportunities pre-and post-ministerial office. I do not exclude either possibility, but I believe that serving on a Select Committee makes a satisfying alternative career to being a Minister. The hon. Gentleman, who has not been a junior departmental Minister, may think that Select Committee membership is a more influential position than a junior Minister often occupies.
Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is the last time I shall seek to intervene

525
in his speech. His comments imply that the notion of an alternative career does not exist. If one can be a member of a Select Committee before being a Minister and after being a Minister, what is the notion of an alternative career, referred to in the Liaison Committee report? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will spell it out to me.
Mr. Wells: It is entirely clear. A career could be mixed; an hon. Member could have a ministerial and a Select Committee career. The latter offers an alternative path for influencing matters that relate to a specific subject that an hon. Member wishes to pursue.
Mr. Evans: The Parliamentary Secretary has missed the point. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the report state:
and of course former Ministers bring valuable knowledge and experience to their service on select committees. What we would like to see is a better balance between the attractions of government office and of service on select committees.
Mr. Wells: That makes the point. However, I must conclude my remarks because many other hon. Members want to contribute.
The Liaison Committee report looks forward to the way in which an effective Parliament can be seen to be working by the public. That is important for the prestige and power of Parliament. Select Committees are much more suited than the House to the television camera because the viewer can see what happens, watch the exchanges and identify with the proceedings.
The Select Committee system should be expanded, enhanced and given extra powers. That is the future for seeing Parliament respected again in our country, and enabled to be more powerful than it is at present.
5.56 pm
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the Liaison Committee on producing a luminous report. It is terse, short, but in many ways perfectly formed. That also applies to the demolition of the Government's response in the Committee's reply.
The most important passage is short. Paragraph 12 states:
Members have undoubtedly been kept off committees, or removed from them, on account of their views.
That is a simple, spartan statement, which enjoys the support and imprimatur of 30 of the most distinguished and experienced Members of Parliament. That passage is of paramount importance.
When I learned, within days of arriving in this place, that Labour membership of Select Committees was vetted by the Government through the Whips, I thought that it beggared belief. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), that is not a pettifogging matter. If we explained the process to the British people, and said that those who scrutinise the Government are selected by the Government, they would be astounded.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the percentage of hon. Members on the Select Committees is also important?
526
Members are selected in proportion to the ratio of Metnbers in each party, and therefore more Members of the party of Government serve on the Committees. Should not the equal representation of parties be discussed?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I do not agree with that, and I do not want to follow a tributary of the argument; I prefer to stick to the bull point of the report. That point is much more important than the alternative career proposals. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation of Bills, etc. I should not want that to become an alternative career. It is not one of the Committees that is besieged by hon. Members wishing to join it.
There are two compelling reasons for the House to move as fast as possible and use all the agencies at its command to ensure the implementation of the proposals in the report. The first is the changing nature of the constitution of the House. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House came to this arena rather late in life, having had the good fortune to pursue and enjoy careers in other places. We do not seek preferment or office, and the vast majority of us are delighted to serve on the Back Benches and whatever Back Bench Committees we are invited to sit on. That is pretty fortunate in some cases. It is easy for those of us who are in that happy band of brothers to look at the gross, transparent abuse of power by the Whips Office and treat it with the contempt that it deserves.
The same cannot be said for many other hon. Members because, let us face it, we live in the age of the career politician. There are people who perceive politics not simply as a dedication and calling, but as a vocation and a job which, they hope, will last for life. There is nothing wrong with that, and I do not criticise that position. Politics is a noble calling and we even have our own patron saint—one thanks God nightly that that did not involve the elevation of Cardinal Wolsey. For people who come to this place as career politicians, the Whips wield a deadly, capricious power that affects both the reputation, however transient, that they seek but may never have, and their entire career and raison d' etre. Of course, many Members apply themselves honourably to ignoring that and getting on with the business. However, human nature is such that many will not do that, and there will be growing pressure for conformity, which is the handmaiden of a lack of principle.
By that means and as a result of the changing nature of the House, the Whips power will continue to grow. As it does, the corollary is that the power of the House to curb the Executive will be steadily eroded. I agree that this matter is an old chestnut that has been before Parliament many times, but it is timely because of the change in the nature of the House.
My second point is much simpler and shorter. Quite simply, the use of that power is an exercise in political corruption. This Administration has been free of the taint of economic and commercial corruption, of which we should be justifiably proud. However, that does not apply when we come to look at the question of political corruption. It does not matter whether one calls it nepotism, cronyism or the abuse of patronage, because they are all the same. Unless we root it out, we will not be heard with respect and, indeed, the House will forfeit the right to be heard at all.
I am pleased to have made a short contribution on those two matters. I share the pessimism of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), who made a wonderful speech, but I hope that the measure will, at the very least, be debated and voted on without fear.
6.4 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will be happy in your duties.
I am delighted to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). In his brief, articulate and succinct speech, he summed up the essence of and the principle that lies behind the Liaison Committee report "Shifting the Balance", which we are debating today.
It was mentioned earlier that I may have a vested interest in the debate because of my experiences in the House. I fervently believe in the House and in the role that it plays in holding the Government of the day to account and scrutinising legislation. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, the only effective way in which the House of Commons can properly hold the Government of the day and their Ministers to account is through the Select Committee system. It is quite wrong that the Government, however tenuously, should have any say in the appointment of hon. Members to Select Committees. Of course, the Government can have a say through the usual channels—the Whips Office—on which Committees are to be controlled by the Government party and which by the main Opposition party and other parties. Should the Government have any direct say in the appointments to the Select Committees? The answer is no.
In its report, the Liaison Committee has made propositions that should rightly be voted on in due course. The Government reacted quickly to include motions on the Order Paper to change Standing Orders in response to the Modernisation Committee's report, which was not unanimous. They have a duty and a responsibility to the House to table in this Session of Parliament—and I mean in this Session—substantive motions to enable the House to vote on the proposals contained in this report, which was unanimous. The Minister will recognise that there is substantial support on both sides of the House for the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report.
The Chairman and two Deputy Chairmen of Committees could be appointed as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the other Deputy Speakers are appointed. Such appointments can be put to the House to be agreed or otherwise. I liked the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I did not agree with her, but she was honest and direct. The House could have a say over who is appointed as Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Committees. The House could make appointments to all the Select Committees within a short time after a new Parliament came into being. Hon. Members from all parties would then have a vital role in holding the Government of the day to account.
Having gone through a rather sad experience in 1992, I do not believe that the House should tolerate any longer a system of selecting people for Committees that allows such abuse to occur. In a way I am quite proud that the Winterton rule, as it is now known, is part of parliamentary history, is in textbooks and is taught in universities in this country and elsewhere. What went on was condemned by those who value the role of the House of Commons. What the Government of the day did brought them no credit.
The Minister misunderstands the reference to an alternative career. Of course people who serve on Select Committees, and even become Chairmen, could go on to become Ministers of the Crown. Nothing in the report prevents that. Likewise, nothing in the report prevents
528
someone who has been a Minister of the Crown from becoming a member of a Select Committee—perhaps even a Chairman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who is currently an Opposition Whip, said to me, "Of course that is right, but such people must not be imposed on Committees. There must first be a voluntary decision by the House to appoint them as members; then the Committee must elect a Chairman."
I ask the Minister to understand what is being said in the report, and also in another report. I do not have a copy with me, but I think it was called—perhaps someone can remind me—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Independence or Control".] That report was our brief but, again, unanimous response to the Government's very inadequate reply to the Liaison Committee's initial report.
Both new and old Members have served on the Liaison Committee, providing a wealth of Back-Bench experience. Let us be fair: the present Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), was a very distinguished Treasury Minister in an earlier Labour Government. He does not bring just a Back-Bench perspective to the report; he brings to it the experience of having been a distinguished Minister in a Labour Government.
It is not a matter of Back Benchers versus the Government of the day, or the Executive. A Member of Parliament with many years service, together with his colleagues, has brought to the House a wealth of experience in trying to shift the balance of power back to Parliament in order to give it a meaningful role—and the alternative career structure to which I have briefly referred represents one way of doing that.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has been very honourable about expressing her opposition, even during Committee sittings. She says that we should not start talking about extra salaries or allowances. That may well have to come in due course, but I do not necessarily advocate it in the short term, either.
The hon. and learned Member for Medway, who is a practising lawyer and a man of great distinction, articulated his point—which he was right to make—in an incisive legal way. I listened to him with great respect. While being considered—like me—to be a maverick, the hon. and learned Gentleman is honest and honourable, and it is right for both honesty and honour to be part of this place.
Nowadays, more and more MPs are professional career politicians. We want MPs who do not just want preferment. We want MPs who will serve the House, not only on Select Committees but in other ways—MPs who believe that their role is important to Parliament, and to the role that Parliament itself plays.
We need an alternative career structure. I hope that both the Liaison Committee and the House will consider that. There will, I assume, be limited time before the Government table substantive motions—I suspect that the Minister will not tell us that they will be tabled before the end of the current Session—but let me make a plea. If the Government believe in democracy, and in Parliament's real role of being able to hold the Government of the day to account, will the Minister tell us that before the end of the current Parliament Members will have an opportunity to vote on the issues, principles and recommendations mentioned in today's debate? That will at least show that the Government believe that the House has a meaningful

529
role to play, that there are Members of Parliament who do not want become Ministers because they believe that they can fulfil other roles and that there are those in this House who are prepared to appeal not just to their parties.
I have sat on the Back Benches for 29 years, and I am proud of it. This is my 30th year as a Member. Some hon. Members may say that I do not have the ability to be a Minister, but I do not believe that that is the case. I have the ability, but I chose a particular way to fulfil the role of a Member of Parliament. I do not regret that; I do not want to push the water back under the bridges. I fervently love the House of Commons, and I want it to have more control over the Executive so that we produce not only better legislation but a better Government.
6.16 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Governments of all kinds—even the best intentioned—suddenly discover that power is very comfortable after they enter office, and they know what they want to do with it; they want get their way. Even those who have been completely committed to the House of Commons and the democratic system suddenly discover that the exigencies of day-to-day life are inconvenient when they have to return to the House to justify their actions. That is not a party political matter; it is true of every Government whom I have ever known. The reality is that the House allows its powers to slip away at its peril.
Life becomes more complex. More work is done and more decisions are taken outside the House. More people are unanswerable. There are more stand-alone agencies and more parts of Government that impinge on our lives in every way but answer to no one. I am sorry to say that it is not true that the report suggests a revolutionary return to an alternative centre of great power. Would that it were so. The Liaison Committee simply told us that if we continue down the current path, the House will consist of people who regard their constituency work as more important than legislation; who find time for many social occasions, but little for the detailed scrutiny of highly complex legislation; and, most importantly, who do not have access to sufficient informed and accurate back-up to be able to tell when legislation is not only wrong but dangerous. We have seen that with the use of secondary legislation and other measures that give Ministers enormous powers, which are then backed up outside or in subsidiary Committees.
The House must begin to make a stand. We should hold a Speaker's Conference to consider in detail the work that is necessary. While we wait for that, the Liaison Committee's recommendations should be put to the House in an understandable and acceptable way. I have never seen so many Guys put up as I have by the Government in relation to the report. All the details about whether or not people are paid or whether they have access to certain information are totally unimportant. The House can determine those details. However, we in Parliament must be able to tell people that, as life becomes more complex, we are ahead of the game and capable of scrutinising all those changes that affect them in every aspect of their lives. We have let some of that go in the most dangerous way. It is a matter not simply of drafting or organising, but of Select Committees having the time, information and sheer commitment to hold Ministers to account for their actions.
530
Of course, Ministers hate coming to our Committees. Of course, when we do too much work, they find it inconvenient. I found one of the comments in the Government reply vaguely amusing. It said, in effect, "The Committees are doing too much work. They are calling us forward too often. We have been called before the departmental Committee at least once every fortnight." Frankly, on occasions, I would prefer to have the senior civil servant. It is Ministers who are determined that I shall not have access to that source of information, not anyone else.
I say to the Government that, in the whole of politics, it is essential to have someone who stands at their shoulder and says, "You may take that decision, but the difficulties and implications are bad for democracy, bad for the country, but above all very bad for you. If you are clever, if you are a good politician, you will ask Parliament to perform the role of scrutiny because you need it." We all need it, but the Government need it more than we do. The Government need it as a protection against the almost unconscious arrogance that goes with the constant exercise of power. This is the place that needs to ask the awkward questions.
I say one thing very simply: put the Liaison Committee's report to the House of Commons. Give it the time to debate it. Do not get involved in absurd details, just accept that the principle is what matters. The principle is that Parliament needs to take back the right to speak for the people because Parliament's greatest enemy is not hatred, but apathy and lack of connection with what we are doing.
6.21 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Chair.
Having sat through the debate, I have decided more or less to change my speech. Some Members have suggested that, in the past, the House has had lots of powers, has been able to bring the Executive to account on its Budget and to be an effective scrutiniser. I challenge that idea. One of the reasons why I like the report is that it begins the process—it is a very small step—towards the radical constitutional reform that needs to happen to the House.
I quote from the 19th edition of "Erskine May" with respect to the process of supply and the scrutiny of Government Budgets.
The financial relations between the Crown and Parliament took shape during the period while the King still governed through ministers responsible to himself, and the House of Commons only exercised a negative control through its power to withhold supplies. These constitutional relationships have been maintained in essential continuity, despite the establishment of Cabinet government dependent upon the support of the House of Commons.
The House has had only a negative role in all the Budgets that have been passed over the centuries.
To give another example, the last time that the House told the Government of the day that they could not have the money that they requested was in 1919. The then Government had put forward an estimate requesting money in the royal palaces vote for a second bathroom for the then Lord Chancellor. The House of Commons decided in 1919 that the money for that second bathroom should not be granted. In the current Parliament, there was a hue and cry about a certain Lord Chancellor's expensive wallpaper. Members got up and made some criticism of that expenditure, but we did not vote it down.

531
I give that example simply to say that the House has been powerless for far too long. I do not think that it has ever had the power that it should have had. The Liaison Committee report begins to address that centuries-old problem.
Indeed, one of my criticisms of the Liaison Committee report is that it is too complacent about the current situation and therefore conservative in its proposals. The Select Committee system is not the great, wonderful scrutinising system that some colleagues have suggested. With a few honourable exceptions, many of our reports do not have the effect that they should have. They do not lead to changes in policies, to rethinks and to changes in expenditure priorities. They should lead to that because they are the result of an awful lot of work.
The only real effect of Select Committees tends to come from their hearings, when Ministers are giving evidence and the press are listening. If Ministers are given a hard time, they might have an embarrassing headline the next day. That is important and is part of Parliament's role in scrutinising the Executive, but it is hardly a major role. It defines "scrutiny" in a narrow way, relating just to asking a few difficult questions. My view of accountability and scrutiny is a rather more powerful one. I thought that we were elected to this place not just to ask the odd difficult question or give the Minister an embarrassing headline, but to scrutinise properly and attempt to amend or change the direction of Government policy. That is why I think that the report, excellent though many of its proposals are, is too conservative.
I accept that we have to begin somewhere. Page 2 of the white summary sheet to the report makes it clear that the Committee wants to recognise the reality of the current political situation and take a small step forward. It would be unwise of Ministers to suggest that there are hon. Members who would be happy with this rather timid set of recommendations. Many of us want to go much further so as to make this Chamber an effective and active participant in the formation of Government policy.
I shall give just one or two examples and leave some time for other colleagues to participate in the debate. I believe that we need to challenge Standing Order No. 48. For those who do not know that off by heart, it is the basis for the Crown financial initiative. It says that only Ministers of the Crown can propose spending. I believe that parliamentarians—Members of the House—should be able to propose spending plans; not just switches between expenditure heads, as the report suggests, but spending increases.
I am not suggesting legislative anarchy because I believe that the Executive should retain the ability to veto financial proposals. A few years ago, the New Zealand Parliament, which is very much like this Parliament, changed its Standing Orders to get rid of the Crown financial initiative. It has put in its place something slightly weaker, called the Crown financial veto. It has opened up the Budget process so that ordinary Members can make constructive and well-thought-through spending proposals. If a proposal would wreak havoc with the financial stability of the country, the Executive can table a certificate of financial veto, which is not debatable, and defend the viability of the Budget.
532
That change in Standing Orders would create a huge incentive for hon. Members to get their hands dirty and get involved in the nitty-gritty of scrutinising the Budget. I believe that the suggestions about changing our procedures and the way in which we scrutinise the Budget that are contained in this report and in the report from the Procedure Committee, on which I had the pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), do not go far enough. We need to ensure that hon. Members are given more powers, more training and greater resources to be able to undertake the scrutiny role.
I hope that, after looking again at the proposals and taking note of the arguments that we have heard today, the Government do not try to sit on this for years, or until after the election. I hope that they come back urgently and realise that there is a need for radical reform of the House. Perhaps they will be even braver than the Liaison Committee.
6.29 pm
Fiona Mactaggart: I welcome you to your new position, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is grand to see you in the Chair.
I welcome the Liaison Committee report, particularly its objectives of ensuring more effective scrutiny of legislation, more pre-legislative scrutiny and more effective work by the Select Committees. However, I was almost depressed by what sounded like a bit of hypocrisy from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who demanded a vote on the proposals. Although she claimed to support the report and its proposals, she was not convinced by some of the details. However, even if we were debating such motions and we all supported the report's main theme and objectives, we would not all agree with the precise recipe that the report offered to achieve those objectives.
As the Leader of the House said, the report highlights the danger of swapping the current system of patronage held by the Whips Office for one in which patronage is exercised by a committee of three wise men—and they probably would be men, would they not? Perhaps it would be sensible to determine whether we can create a procedure to select Select Committee members that really is transparent, really does reflect the composition of the House and really does involve Back Benchers.
Derek Fatchett—the former Member for Leeds, Central, who is sadly no longer with us—wrote a pamphlet for the Fabian Society in which he suggested that Select Committee members should be elected by hon. Members, excluding Ministers. I would like to go further than that. I think that there is much merit in the points made by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), on the importance of the party system and of maintaining the party tradition that underpins our democratic system.
Perhaps the best way forward would be to allow political parties to organise internal elections to choose Select Committee members. Such a system would certainly ensure greater eagerness to serve and greater commitment to Select Committees. It would also create a genuine alternative career structure.
Many people seem to think that one can have only one career at a time—that one can run along only one set of career "tram lines" now, only one set later, and that one

533
cannot jump at will from one set to another. I have had at least six different careers, and, on two occasions, I have had two careers at the same time. The opportunity for Members to serve on a Select Committee, and therefore to contribute even more than they do as Back Benchers, should not entail the exclusion of career alternatives.
The Committee's report offers some good challenges. In his pamphlet, Derek Fatchett urged us, when we came to power, not to do what Conservative Members had done. He said that the Conservatives will have had 17 years in power—he guessed that it would be that long, but was one year out—with their noses in the trough, but that we should not think that our time had come to do the same. He said that we should be bigger than that. He said that, to ensure and strengthen democracy and community, we need a Parliament that works well.
For four years of my life, I was a member of a local council, and for two of those years I led the opposition on the council. There were 31 members of the majority party and 30 members of the minority party. One consequence of that small majority was that fewer mistakes were made. As leader of the opposition, I helped that council to be a better council, and that helped it to become a very popular council.
Strong scrutiny produces better decisions and better government, regardless of who is in government. We need the courage and the bottle to admit that, and to create a democratic structure that can more effectively deliver it.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Fiona Mactaggart: I do not have time; I am sorry.
Mr. McWalter: It was going to be helpful.
Fiona Mactaggart: I am sure that it was.
Not all of the details in the report are right. I urge the Liaison Committee to do one more job. I think that we have to widen the debate so that it continues beyond this Adjournment debate, and include more hon. Members in it. I also think that the Committee should take evidence on how to develop the proposals. I think that it has got the principles right in respect of what we are trying to achieve, but in practice the transparency is not being delivered. If the Committee intends to propose that appointments are approved by Select Committees, as was proposed in the 1992 Labour party manifesto, it must be very clear about which Committees will be involved and how the system will work. There is more work still to do, but we have made a good start. Let us do the work as well as pressing the Government to act on some of these proposals.
6.35 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I declare an interest as a member of both the Liaison Committee and the Norton commission, although I recognise that the report of the latter is not part of today's debate. I should also declare that although I am a member of the Liaison Committee, I did not sign the early-day motion tabled by the right hon. Member for
534
Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). As a matter of principle, I never sign early-day motions, except when they are of a memorial nature. I did not think that this one was of a memorial nature, although having heard the speech by the Leader of the House, perhaps it is.
Select Committee reform—not modernisation—received a powerful stimulus 20 years ago when my noble Friend Lord St. John of Fawsley was Leader of the House. The Liaison Committee's reports are a further stage in that process. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne not only on the speech with which he opened the debate, but on the way in which he has led our collective endeavour. Just as the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms revolutionised our civil service 40 years ago, the St. John Stevas-Sheldon reforms will do the same for the scrutiny of the Executive by Parliament.
I shall not dwell on the circumlocutions by the Leader of the House on free votes, but her answers to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and myself at business questions today, let alone in the debate on 13 July, amounted to her saying, yes, there will be free votes but only if the Government agree that there should be substantive motions—or, in Marie Antoinette's words, "Let them eat cake. "
I am of a profoundly conservative disposition, even if not quite to the level of the Scottish judge who said that a change for the better was a contradiction in terms. Not least as a member of the Norton commission, I have been driven to the conclusion that we need to reform our ways in order to strengthen Parliament's scrutiny of the Executive, which is what the Liaison Committee's reports are also about.
I use again the word "reform" rather than "modernisation". The latter is a Humpty Dumpty word. It is a porous word, neither rigorous nor muscular. On 13 July I quoted the opening three paragraphs with which my noble Friend Lord Norton launched his eponymous report on 10 July. I shall now quote only the middle of the three. If I quote it again hereafter, I shall have fulfilled Humpty Dumpty's other dictum, "What I tell you three times is true."
Lord Norton said:
we identify the functions of Parliament and the purpose of parliamentary reform. Too often, reforms are proposed for different purposes. Some are designed to expedite the business of Government, some are for the convenience of Members of Parliament, some are designed to remove archaic practices. Others are designed to strengthen Parliament in calling government to account.
In his final paragraph, he went on to say that the Norton report was devoted purely to the last of these aims, and the same could be said of the Liaison Committee's report.
When we debated the report of the Modernisation Committee on Tuesday, I thought that its aims were devoted more closely to the other aims referred to in the paragraph that I have just quoted. I have yet to hear a speech by the Leader of the House explaining why her changes and proposals strengthen Parliament's scrutiny of the Executive.
The Leader of the House did seek to rubbish the Liaison Committee by flank attack, but in resisting our proposals—I agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that that was what she was doing—she has never offered any alternative vision of how scrutiny of the Executive might be strengthened.

535
I do give her credit for Westminster Hall sittings and the frequency of debates there on Select Committee reports, although ironically it weakens her case for resisting the Liaison Committee's proposal for an early half-hour debate on the Floor of the House on a Select Committee report. She said that the Minister replying to such a debate would be obliged to respond off the cuff. I have attended a debate in Westminster Hall where, months after the Government had given a considered response to a Select Committee report, the Minister replying to the debate in which half a dozen reasonable questions had been asked—again, no names, no pack drill—was scarcely able to answer any of them and could not have done worse off the cuff. Indeed, one had the impression that it was off the cuff. Had it been a debate on the Floor of the House, the Minister would have taken the trouble to be prepared.
Before I dwell briefly on the Select Committees, which understandably are at the heart of the Liaison Committee's report, let me turn briefly to the historic parliamentary role of scrutiny of the Executive and who chose to do it by a series of examples over the last quarter of a millennium from a variety of parties. If I had had more time, I would have described their careers. Burke, Fox, Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, Cobden, Bright and the late Enoch Powell had massive parliamentary reputations, yet they served in government for only 20 of their collective 225 years here. That is a tradition that we need to maintain, and the Select Committees are one vehicle for doing that.
I wanted to say something about the influence of the Whips on the composition of Select Committees, and specifically about the disappearance of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to be Mayor of London and the fact that he was not replaced by someone of comparable political views—the use of the Whips is extremely dangerous when it excludes people who could make a contribution to the Committee—but as we are pressed for time, I shall now sit down.
6.40 pm
Mr. Nigel EvansI, too, welcome you to your new position, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am loth to start a speech by paraphrasing Bill Clinton, but here goes. He said that, in the United States of America, the people had voted and spoken, but it would take a little time to work out what they had said. In this debate, by contrast, the House has spoken, but, because the Government know what it has said, it will not be allowed to vote. I do not see this as party political. Nearly 250 Members of Parliament have signed early-day motion 476, the vast majority from the Government Back Benches.
I may not have time to refer to all today's speeches, but I enjoyed the debate immensely and some of the speeches were very good. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that the House is dying on its feet and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said that it is in grave danger of losing its rationale and must think of some other role. They are both Government Members and they are both absolutely right.
The membership of the Liaison Committee reads like a roll call of the great and the good, plus one or two hopefuls for that accolade. It contains a wealth of
536
experience in the House. We have heard much of that from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I congratulate him and his Committee on an excellent report. It has been said that one of the reasons we cannot vote on it today is that we have not had enough time to consider it, but it has been out for eight months and the Government commented on it six months ago, so we are hardly rushing to judgment.
It is, however, right to give the report proper deliberation. It is timely and comes at a time when journalists are writing about how Parliament has changed. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) says that we must find a new role for it but, irrespective of our judgment of what the role of Parliament and the House of Commons has been, we can all agree that the changes suggested in the report are worth considering. I am not saying that we should adopt them all, but it is right for us to have the opportunity, hopefully in the near future, to say which of them we should take on board to strengthen the House of Commons.
The Opposition day debate on 13 July rehearsed the arguments well and clearly demonstrated the desire of hon. Members of all parties to strengthen Parliament. The fire for strengthening Parliament burns brightly among some Government Back Benchers, but not so brightly—indeed, it is flickering badly—among members of the Executive. This is all about bringing the Executive to account. That is a vital role for both Opposition and Government Back Benchers.
Like many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I break out in a cold sweat when I hear about changes that are to take place under the guise of modernisation. We all know what modernisation means. It is a euphemism for streamlining the House so that a quantity of legislation can be got through as quickly as possible. The quality of that legislation does not matter any more, and adding value is not deemed so important. As a result, we have longer recesses, truncated days, and timetabled or guillotined legislation.
I am not in favour of sitting through the night. I was elected in 1992, and was here for the deliberations on the Maastricht legislation, some of which went on through the night. Probably enough midnight oil was burned during those proceedings to heat a small city, but I should prefer to find ways to improve the strength of Parliament. Talking through the night will not do that, but neither will the changes made so far.
For example, last Tuesday we debated the separation of votes and debates. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) noted, that change that did not receive much deliberation, but was voted on none the less.
Mr. Ivor Caplin indicated dissent.
Mr. Evans: The Minister's Parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), is trying to make a sedentary intervention. I wish that he would keep quiet, as we are talking about the ability of Back Benchers to have their say. That is the change that we want implemented, but the Leader of the House said that we could not vote on the Select Committee report that is at the centre of this debate.
The right hon. Lady said that there had not been proper time for discussion of the report, but few of the changes that it contains are revolutionary: they are, rather,

537
evolutionary. The introduction of Select Committees in 1979 was a good idea, and they strengthened Parliament. We must build on that innovation.
I have served on three Select Committees. I was a member of the former Transport Select Committee with Robert Adley, who could be an absolute pain in the side of the Government of the day. We miss him. I also served on the Select Committee on Public Administration. I was asked to do so because the Whips were desperate. I enjoyed my time as a member of that Committee, and I hope that I contributed to its work, but we know that appointments can be a problem with some Committees.
I found serving on Select Committees a rewarding role. I am glad that I have never had to go before a Select Committee. That can be a harrowing experience, but Parliament is all about analysing, scrutinising and dissecting what is going on. Select Committees can be far more effective in that regard than the Chamber, and we must look for ways to improve that situation.
The recommendations in "Shifting the Balance" and in the Norton commission report build on what needs to happen to ensure that better legislation leaves the House. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne spoke eloquently about some of the changes that he thinks need to be made.
The proposal that Select Committees be given extra staff is absolutely right. I recall from my time as a Select Committee member that we needed more staff and resources to facilitate our work. I do not want to enter the debate about whether Chairmen ought to be paid an allowance, but their work should be recognised. That work can be very time consuming for those who do the job properly.
The report also recommends that hon. Members who do not turn up for hearings should be thrown off Select Committees. That is a jolly good idea. Any Members who do not pull their weight in Committees should make way for others who will make a difference.
I enjoyed many of the speeches in the debate, none more so than that made by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). He said that he was a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation of Bills, Etc. I wonder whether that was a punishment for him, or for the other members of that Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is, like the hon. and learned Member for Medway, a self-styled maverick. He is very independent. He is a relatively near neighbour of mine, and I know that people in his constituency who would vote Labour anywhere else vote for my hon. Friend because he is a person of independent spirit. He told the House about how the Whips treated him when he was Chairman of the Health Committee, a post from which he was ultimately turfed out. Perhaps that could be called the Winterton of discontent.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich —a great defender of Parliament—put it correctly when she said, "Put it to the House." That is all we are asking. We have a commitment from the Prime Minister that this matter would be given time in the House and that Members would be given a free vote. Irrespective of what the Leader of the House says, I have read the quotes from the Prime Minister on 13 July; what he said was quite clear, and it is incredibly difficult to twist it. It is one of the few straight answers that he has ever given to a straight question.
538
A lot of work has gone into the report; let us not put it on the back burner. The Government love timetabling; let us have a timetable for these recommendations. When will we have the second debate? When will we have substantive motions put before the House on free votes so that this House finally can have its say?
6.51 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): First, I apologise on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who anticipated being here for the wind-up. Clearly, she has been unavoidably delayed.
Unlike the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), I always thought that this was going to be a lively debate. It is clear that there is a difference of view between the Committee and the Government, as expressed by a number of Committee members tonight. I cannot pretend that divisions do not exist; they do. It is easy to concentrate on the divisions and the places where the Government and the Committee do not agree.
I want to sketch out areas where there is agreement between us, because there is a great deal of agreement, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said. Those agreements have sometimes been obscured by the big issues that divide us.
The Government could not agree more that
The 1979 select ctte system has been a success,
as the report points out. I wholeheartedly endorse the statements in paragraph 4:
At a bargain price, it has provided independent scrutiny of government. It has enabled the questioning of Ministers and civil servants, and has forced them to explain policies…Its very existence has been a constant reminder to Ministers and officials, and many others in positions of power and influence, of the spotlight that may swing their way when least welcome.
I agree even more wholeheartedly that the system
has shown the House of Commons at its best…with constructive co-operation rather than routine disagreement.
I was particularly impressed with paragraph 58, which states:
When Ministers and departments have got their act together, and are prepared to be co-operative rather than defensive, the results have benefited both Parliament and government. We will encourage this style of working.
The difference between the Government and Back Benchers centres on whether reforms would increase the Committees effectiveness or diminish it, and whether they would foster constructive co-operation or undermine it. The Government's position has been clearly set out and was commented upon tonight by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Liaison Committee could, and is likely to, take on some of the duties that it identified for the Select Committee panel. We have no problem with that. We welcome steps to spread best practice among Select Committees—and some of the practice is extremely good.
One of the examples of best practice that the Committee identifies is the examination of treaties. We have undertaken to send treaties to the relevant Select Committees and we will normally provide a debate on treaties of major importance if the Select Committee concerned and the Liaison Committee so request.
Another example of best practice—referred to by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells)—concerned the scrutiny of draft legislation. The

539
Government have undertaken that, in general, we will give Select Committees first refusal of Bills falling within their remit. The constraints on the production of draft legislation have been explained and the Liaison Committee welcomed that part of our response. However, I hope that in time the Government will produce more and better draft legislation.
Another example of best practice is the systematic monitoring of action on recommendations. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove mentioned that. Committees have begun this work, and a letter was sent from Sir Richard Wilson's office reminding Departments that the Government have undertaken to assist Committees in follow-up inquiries.
Mr. Tom King: The Intelligence and Security Committee also undertakes pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills. I am not in the least surprised at the Government's findings and the wish not to change the present arrangements. Unfortunately, the Liaison Committee did not bother to consult the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is the most senior Committee of parliamentarians in the House. I hope that the Government will be anxious for the Liaison Committee to consult the Intelligence and Security Committee, whose members have collectively given 200 years of service in the House, before making any change in the future.
Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is important to consult across the whole House on these profound matters.
The Liaison Committee wants Committees to have greater powers to work together. Its solutions rely on the existence of a Select Committee panel. We cannot accept those solutions, but we have indicated that we are willing to bring forward Standing Order changes to facilitate joint working. We have gone further: the Government's response to the Liaison Committee clearly states that
the Liaison Committee itself will be able to identify the need for any ad hoc committee and make a case for it to the Government. The Government would have to retain the right to choose whether to put such proposals before the House, but the presumption would be that reasonable requests would be granted, and repeated refusals would lead to political controversy.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned Select Committee staffing. This is, of course, a matter for the House of Commons Commission, not the
540
Government. However, we would be the first to agree that the Committee staff do a superb job with very limited resources, ably assisted by specialist advisers—experts drawn from many fields. Select Committees have differing practices. There is a case for extra resources. In its second report, the Liaison Committee notes at paragraph 66:
we are grateful for the consideration which the Commission has given to our submission.
An important point which the Liaison Committee makes is that the drive to work must be done through the Committee members rather than the staff. It is important for Committee members to thrust forward.
The report also recommends secondments. The Government have been happy to work with the House authorities to facilitate secondments both into and out of the civil service, and will do so in future.
Many people have spoken tonight, and some have said that the Government's concessions do not go far enough and that we cannot satisfy them. However, I hope that when the dust has settled, right hon. and hon. Members will reflect on everything that has been said today and accept that the Government have already made changes to improve matters for Select Committees. For our part, we too will reflect on this debate.
We have not agreed to debates on substantive motions, but we have provided more time in Westminster Hall than most reformers could ever have dreamed of. Westminster Hall is indeed a parallel Chamber. Ministers must take debates there as seriously as they do on the Floor of the House, and we will ensure that they do.
We have extended the European scrutiny system. We have agreed to the Procedure Committee's proposals on scrutiny of treaties. We have already eased restrictions on joint working at the request of the quadripartite Committee, and will do more. We have sent draft legislation to Select Committees for scrutiny, and we hope to do much, much more. I hope that this will be a defining moment—a defining task—of the Government.
Right hon. and hon. Members may not consider that the changes go far enough, but there has been more change in three years than in the previous 15. The balance may not have shifted far enough for everyone, but we must recognise that it is already shifting towards the Committees.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

NHS Services (Haemophiliacs)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
7 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: I want to draw to the Government's attention a number of important points about NHS services for people with haemophilia, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
The current situation is pretty inequitable, particularly across different postcodes. Recombinant factor 8 is being provided to all haemophiliacs in Scotland and Wales, regardless of age and viral status, but in England it is restricted to children under 16 and a few people whose health authority has a policy of prescribing it. The Government took an important step in 1998 in making recombinant factor 8 available to all children; they now need to extend that to adults, as in Ireland and other European countries.
Another example of the inequality of the present arrangements can be found in the English haemophilia centres in Liverpool and Manchester, to which patients from north Wales go for treatment. The policy adopted by the NHS commissioners in Wales means that all haemophiliacs living in north Wales are entitled to receive recombinant factor 8, irrespective of age, postal code or viral status, and attend the Manchester or Liverpool centres. However, many people in Manchester and Liverpool and the surrounding areas do not have the same rights and benefits. That is substantially unfair. The restrictive policy in England might have been valid two years ago when supply problems and shortages would have prevented wider use of recombinant products, but those considerations no longer apply, and the Government should look at the matter afresh.
The provision of comprehensive care centres is also uneven and subject to postcode rationing. Some NHS regions have several comprehensive care centres for haemophiliacs, while others are under-provided. The south-west, where I come from, has none at all, and for haemophiliacs living in Cornwall or Devon, the nearest centre is in Basingstoke in Hampshire. The Trent region, however, has four centres. I hope that the Minister will tackle the need for more generous use of recombinant factor 8 for haemophiliacs.
I know that some haemophiliacs have inhibitors to factor 8, and other products, including recombinant DNA novo 7, are now safe and can be prescribed. The Government need to consider the issue of blood products.
More than 4,800 haemophiliacs in the UK are estimated to have been infected with the hepatitis C virus through the use of contaminated NHS blood products. More than 1,200 of those people were co-infected with HIV. Almost all those who received treatment before 1986—when viral inactivation procedures were introduced—have been affected. Every patient over the age of 14 may have contracted hepatitis C or HIV.
That has impacted greatly on the haemophiliac community. Hepatitis C attacks the liver and is potentially life threatening. Although the prognosis is unclear, up to 80 per cent. of those infected will develop chronic liver disease; up to 25 per cent. will have the risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver, and between 1 and 5 per cent. have the risk of developing liver cancer. It is estimated that the
542
progression to severe liver disease can take from 20 to 30 years, but some haemophiliacs may have been infected for over 25 years.
Figures from the UK haemophilia centre doctors organisation show that up to 1999, more than 113 haemophiliacs have died from liver disease and liver cancer, both of which are related to the end stage of hepatitis C infection. The actual number of deaths related to hepatitis C is likely to be much greater. The Government need to think carefully about that.
The previous Government set up a fund for those with HIV, and the Haemophilia Society and many others would like the Government to consider whether more money and similar administrative arrangements should be provided for those with hepatitis C. Families who have the infection are experiencing problems dealing with it, and they need help now.
There is no national strategy to deal with hepatitis C, nor any national guidelines on management and treatment of those affected. The total lack of planning for hepatitis C services throughout the UK means that standards of management and care after diagnosis vary widely: in some areas, patients have to wait months, or even years, to see a hepatologist or hepatitis C specialist, and there are few counselling and support services. Hepatitis C is difficult to treat: interferon and ribavirin combination therapy was licensed last year and has been shown to clear the virus in about 30 per cent. of cases. It is a highly unpleasant treatment, so the decision to start therapy is not easy, but at least there is a way forward. The Haemophilia Society is extremely concerned that health authorities have so far denied the new combination therapy to those who have haemophilia on the grounds of cost. Now that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has recommended in favour of the use of the combination therapy, I hope that the Government will rapidly ensure that it is provided to patients with hepatitis C, where appropriate.
Many calls have been made for a public inquiry into how NHS blood products carried the infections. The Haemophilia Society has called for a public inquiry into the whole issue of blood products safety and infection by HIV and hepatitis C. No official inquiry or report has ever been carried out in respect of one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the NHS. The Scottish Executive is conducting an inquiry into events in Scotland, but the English Department of Health has so far refused to initiate such an inquiry. Internationally, the response has been very different: Canada has held a large-scale, four-year investigation and the Canadian red cross has set aside $70 million to $100 million to provide compensation to those infected with hepatitis C. In addition, the issue has been pressed, sometimes through court action, in France, Japan, Switzerland and other countries.
In 1987, the previous Government accepted the moral responsibility to compensate all those infected with HIV and established the Macfarlane trust in 1988 to fulfil that role. People with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C in the same way and at the same time as those who were infected with HIV, and they experience many of the same problems as those infected with HIV. Therefore, on moral grounds, they should be offered similar financial help. The best way forward would be to extend the role

543
of the Macfarlane trust, as a vehicle to assist those with hepatitis C. Last week, the Government decided, rightly, that there would be a no-fault package of compensation for those with variant CJD, yet, thus far, more people may well have died as a result of hepatitis C infection through NHS blood products.
Given that the previous Government set up the Macfarlane trust and the current Government have accepted that help should be given to families in distress who have been affected by variant CJD, there is a strong argument for helping those unfortunates who have been infected by hepatitis C. After all, more than 100 might already have died as a result of the infection.
In a recent issue of The Lancet, more research evidence regarding the theoretical risk of transmission of variant CJD through blood was discussed. In the same week, representatives of the Haemophilia Society attended a special expert seminar held by EMEA—the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products—on viral safety of plasma products with regard to non-enveloped viruses, particularly parvovirus B19 and hepatitis A. Taken together, the evidence from The Lancet report and from the EMEA seminar provide further justification for the Government's decision two years ago to ensure that all previously untreated under-16s with haemophilia should be treated with recombinant, as opposed to plasma-derived, products.
Although I am aware that there is, as yet, no evidence that either classical or variant CJD have ever been transmitted to people with haemophilia through blood products, new research shows that we cannot be certain that no risk of infection is associated with those products. Constituents of mine and others have told me that, although they were reassured in the past, their community has been badly affected, first, by HIV and, secondly, by hepatitis. They believe that if CJD rears its head, the haemophilia community is likely to be the first to feel the consequences. The significance of the findings, with the possible implication that blood donated by symptom-free vCJD-infected human beings might be infectious, is such that researchers chose to publish that finding immediately, without waiting for the completion of the study.
Considerable anxiety is generated in the community by fear of blood-borne viruses and diseases that might escape modern inactivation processes used in the manufacture of plasma products. The Haemophilia Society believes that it is most important that the Government take an early decision to ensure that recombinant blood products are given to everybody with haemophilia in England—not only to under-16s, but to adults as well.
There was criticism of the previous Government for the way in which they dealt with BSE. Certain products were banned for babies and children, but not for adults. We seem to have a similar situation in relation to the prescription of recombinant factor 8 and other recombinant products. As I have said, only children under 16 in England receive it. It is a matter of whether people are lucky to live in a particular area. That may depend on whether they receive the product. The Haemophilia Society wrote recently to the Department
544
of Health asking for a meeting to discuss its concerns. When the Department responds, I hope that it will make it clear that it would be happy to meet representatives of the society to discuss its concerns.
These are important issues. There are only a few haemophiliacs, but they have tremendous difficulties. They have suffered greatly because of their particular affliction through blood-borne products, which were provided by the national health service. They have to deal with these problems daily.
The Government should consider what they are doing. They should reflect on postcode rationing, especially as the standard of service in Wales and Scotland is now different from that in England. They should reflect on recombinant factor 8 and its provision to all those in need, including adults in England. There is the associated issue of comprehensive support for haemophiliacs. Many people think that haemophilia is external bleeding, but most of the worst damage is done by internal bleeding into joints. It is extremely important that physiotherapy or hydrotherapy is available quickly so that people's joints are not destroyed. A comprehensive means of service is vital to ensure that people's bodies can stand up to what happens.
The Government took a responsible view in 1998 when, because of CJD, they changed the way in which blood products were treated. That was done as a precaution. That was a good thing to do, but there is still great fear and much more research needs to be undertaken.
Even if the Minister cannot answer all the points that I have raised, I hope he will reflect carefully on what the Government can do to make life much easier for some unfortunate people. I look forward to hearing his reply.
7.12 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I welcome you to your new position, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing the debate. He has raised an important set of issues. There are about 11,000 people with inherited bleeding disorders registered with haemophilia centres in the UK. These include haemophilia A, which affects about one in every 10,000 men, the rarer haemophilia B, which affects one in every 50,000, and the milder von Willebrand's disease, which affects about in 10,000 people, both men and women.
Haemophilia is a lifelong, painful and debilitating condition. However, modern treatment is very effective, with patients able to look forward to an excellent quality of life. Sadly, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the majority of regularly treated patients with haemophilia were infected with either HIV or hepatitis C before it became possible to remove these viruses from clotting factors made from human plasma.
As a result, about 4,000 to 5,000 haemophiliacs are estimated to be infected with hepatitis C, and about 500 are still living with HIV. Most of those with HIV are also infected with hepatitis C, and this co-infection may accelerate the clinical course of both disorders as well as making the haemophilia more difficult to manage. They therefore face considerable medical and psychological problems over and above those faced ordinarily by people with haemophilia.

545
It is essential that the national health service is properly geared up to delivering the full range of clinical and support services needed by people with haemophilia and with treatment-acquired infections. These must include routine and emergency medical treatments, drug therapies, physiotherapy, counselling, genetic services and specialised services for HIV and hepatitis.
The treatment and care of haemophilia is provided by a network of comprehensive care centres and smaller haemophilia centres. Comprehensive care centres provide specialised care and support for patients and their families that is delivered by a multidisciplinary team. All haemophilia patients who need such support should have access to the facilities of a comprehensive care centre, although it may not be the facility nearest to them. I understand, for example, that many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents receive comprehensive care at St. Thomas' and Great Ormond Street hospitals and want to continue that arrangement.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that there is no comprehensive care centre in the south-west region. I hope that, over time, that will be addressed by the regional specialised commissioning group, whose role is to identify specialist services at a regional level. However, I am assured that all people with haemophilia in the south-west have access to the services that they need. There are a number of haemophilia centres in the region and Bristol and Southampton, while not designated as comprehensive care centres, provide a good range of services for people with haemophilia.
Earlier this year, we published the NHS plan. Our aim is to improve health, tackle health inequalities and modernise the NHS and social care. We want people with haemophilia to benefit from those improvements in the same way as other patient groups. There is evidence that greater consistency in the delivery of clinical care for haemophilia patients is needed across the country. The professional groups with an interest in haemophilia have recommended the development of a set of minimum standards for service delivery. That should be an effective way to help to standardise all aspects of haemophilia services in the longer term and get rid of unacceptable variations in care.
The Haemophilia Alliance, which includes the Haemophilia Society and the UK haemophilia centre doctors organisation, is developing a national service specification. That specification will outline the key components of a high-quality haemophilia service—whether that is provided in the larger comprehensive care centres or the smaller haemophilia centres—and it will go out to consultation shortly. The intention is to publish the specification by the end of the year.
The Haemophilia Alliance has asked my Department to circulate through our national networks information about its work on the service specification, and that is what we are doing. We have also identified haemophilia services as appropriate for specialist service commissioning and three regional specialised commissioning groups—in London, the west midlands and the south-east—are reviewing their services at present. That process will help to put haemophilia services at the top of their agendas and support them in performance managing services for people with haemophilia.
The lives of people with haemophilia were transformed in the 1970s by the development of clotting factors, which brought the prospect of a much improved quality of life.
546
Tragically, an infection was associated with that development. Since the mid-1980s, the human plasma used to make clotting factors has been treated to remove HIV and hepatitis. With the onset of variant CJD, as an additional precaution, all human plasma-derived clotting factors used by the NHS are made from imported plasma. Therefore, everything has been done to ensure that the products needed and used by people with haemophilia are as safe as possible.
As medicinal products, all clotting factors have to be licensed by the Committee on Safety of Medicines under the Medicines Act 1968. They are therefore subject to periodic review and the same rigorous assessment for safety, quality and efficacy as all other medicines. Manufacturers of blood products, such as the NHS-owned Bio Products Laboratory, are also required to meet very stringent requirements of good manufacturing practice regulated by the Medicines Control Agency. In addition, the agency has in place the widely known yellow card system to pick up adverse effects of drugs, including the clotting factors. That adds to the monitoring of product safety.
As the hon. Gentleman said, over the past 10 years, new recombinant, or synthetic, clotting factors have been developed. The Haemophilia Society and others have petitioned us to make recombinant factor 8 and factor 9 the treatment of choice for people with haemophilia, largely on the ground that recombinant products are regarded as free from the risk of transmission of as yet unknown viruses and the theoretical risk of variant CJD.
Our position continues to be that the clinical case for recommending the use of recombinant clotting factors has not yet been made. Plasma-derived clotting factors have had an excellent safety record since the introduction of viral inactivation in the mid-1980s and there is no evidence that the recombinant product is more effective as a treatment.
None the less, two years ago the Government responded to the fears expressed by people with haemophilia—particularly families with haemophiliac children—about the theoretical risk of variant CJD. We required NHS trusts to provide recombinant factor 9 for all new haemophilia patients and children under 16 from April 1998, and factor 9 from April 1999, as soon as it became available. The policy was worked out with the Haemophilia Society and the UK haemophilia centre doctors organisation, and I hoped that it eased the anxieties of many parents about their children's future well-being.
Clinicians are, of course, free to prescribe recombinant products for all their patients if they choose, although I acknowledge that many health authorities have decided not to fund the treatment, on the basis of the clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness relative to cost. Even so, it is estimated that more than 50 per cent. of the clotting factors prescribed in the NHS in England are currently recombinant.
I also acknowledge that in Wales and Northern Ireland all haemophilia patients are offered recombinant products. The same will be true in Scotland by the end of March next year. I understand that the decision that led to that situation came from individual health boards, and was not made at national level.

547
In recognising that individual health authorities have taken different decisions, it is important to note the lack of evidence that there is anything to choose between recombinant and plasma-derived products in terms of safety and effectiveness. Of course, I understand why many people with haemophilia, because of their past experience of infection from blood products, are genuinely concerned about potential future risks from those products.
In September, we received fresh representations from the Haemophilia Society putting the case for universal provision of recombinant clotting factors in England. I can inform the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend Lord Hunt will shortly be meeting the society and other members of the Haemophilia Alliance to discuss the issue.
Mr. Syms: I thank the Minister for giving way. One or two people have moved from England to Wales because they believe that they will get the product prescribed in Wales. The society told me that it knows of at least two such cases. It is important to get matters right, and I am glad that the meeting has been arranged.
Mr. Denham: My noble Friend leads on these matters and I await the outcome of those discussions. We have responded to the Haemophilia Society by recognising that we should hear it put its case.
I shall deal with some of the other issues that were raised. The first concerns a fund for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C. When we came to office, we met the Haemophilia Society and heard its arguments for a special payments scheme for people with haemophilia and hepatitis C, similar to the scheme for HIV. After long and careful consideration, we came to the conclusion that a special payments scheme should not be established.
Government policy remains that compensation or other financial help to patients is paid when the NHS or individuals working in it are at fault. The underlying principles are clear cut and independently established under common law. They apply to personal injury cases in general, not just those arising from health care. The same conclusion was reached by the previous Government, and the decision has been debated several times in both Houses. I am therefore unable to encourage the hon. Gentleman further on that issue this evening.
We must do what we can to enable people with haemophilia and hepatitis C to get on with their lives, and look constructively at how we can improve their health and well-being here and now. As the hon. Gentleman noted, until recently the only treatment available for hepatitis C was alpha interferon. That has a limited success rate—about 20 per cent.—in removing the virus and is not suitable for all patients.
The use of alpha interferon in combination with ribavirin appears to be significantly more effective, clearing the virus in about 40 per cent. of those treated.
Last year, we asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to assess urgently the interferon/ribavirin combination therapy. The guidance was published last week, and provides clear and authoritative advice for
548
clinicians and health care providers. In brief, combination therapy is recommended as the treatment of first choice for moderate to severe hepatitis C in previously untreated patients, and patients treated with interferon monotherapy, who have responded but relapsed. We accept NICE' s recommendations, and health authorities will be expected to implement its guidelines in the usual way.
NICE has also made two recommendations for implementation: viral genotyping facilities need to be upgraded, and counselling facilities need to be reviewed. We have noted and accepted the need to upgrade genotyping facilities and review counselling facilities. We will consider how best to carry out that work, and we will shortly formulate detailed plans.
For the longer term, several other therapeutic agents are in development, and they also show great promise. Treatment with pegylated interferon—a form of interferon that is modified to be slow release, more effective and possibly better tolerated—is likely to become available before too long. Other treatments, such as different combinations of drugs, are being researched. Significant developments and improvements in the treatments available are likely to occur in the next few years.
Before leaving hepatitis C, I shall deal briefly with the point that the hon. Member for Poole made about a public inquiry. He referred to an inquiry that was held in Scotland. The Scottish investigation was not a general inquiry into the history of hepatitis C and blood products. It specifically considered whether Scottish haemophilia patients were exposed to the risks of hepatitis C longer than they should have been, given the state of knowledge at the time and the fact that Scotland developed successful heat treatment later than England. I do not believe that there is a case on that basis for a similar investigation into circumstances in England.
Having considered the report, Scottish Ministers concluded that there was no evidence that the relevant authorities did other than their best for patients and that, consequently, the NHS should not pay compensation for non-negligent harm to the small number of haemophiliacs in Scotland who contracted hepatitis C during the period covered by the report.
The events of the 1970s and the 1980s are a complex story. However, all the information is in the public domain, and I do not believe that anyone's interest would be served by a public inquiry.
Professional guidance on the management of patients with HCV will also be available shortly. The Royal College of Physicians, the British Society of Gastroenterology and the Association for the Study of the Liver are now finalising evidence-based clinical guidelines for the treatment of HCV.
We are also developing a commissioning framework to ensure that specialist hepatology services are developed to uniform standards throughout the country. The regional specialist commissioning groups will be heavily involved in implementing the commissioning framework. An important element of that strategic approach is well-organised referral arrangements from primary care and centres that manage patients with that chronic viral infection, including people with haemophilia.

549
There is more that we can achieve by supporting and collaborating with the Haemophilia Society and professional bodies such as the UK haemophilia doctors organisation. Ministers have met both organisations this year to discuss services for people with haemophilia.
We provide an annual grant for the administration of the Haemophilia Society. We also provide some financial support to help with the excellent projects that it develops to support people with haemophilia.
550
The hon. Gentleman has raised many important issues. I hope that I have shown him our determination to make progress on several of them and assured him that discussions will take place on others. Doubtless I have had to disappoint him on one or two matters, but the debate has been useful.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Electronic Conveyancing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Touhig.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I welcome everyone to the debate this afternoon on electronic conveyancing. Conveyancing is not usually a word to set the pulses racing, but a conveyancing system is an important part of the fabric of modern life. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a free, modern society without a secure and trusted conveyancing system. We have only to consider two facts to realise how large a proportion of the population use a conveyancing system. First, almost 70 per cent. of the population of England and Wales live in owner-occupied accommodation and, secondly, more than 1 million residential sales are registered at Her Majesty's Land Registry each year.
From that perspective, the possibility of a quantum leap in the ability of the conveyancing system to deliver a quicker, simpler and more cost-effective service is an exciting prospect. New electronic conveyancing services could directly affect millions of people and businesses each year and, for that reason, I am pleased to announce that I have decided to create an interdepartmental steering group of senior officials to oversee and co-ordinate the development of the electronic conveyancing programme. The steering group will draw in representatives from several Departments with direct interest in the conveyancing system, including the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Inland Revenue, the National Assembly for Wales and the Law Commission. It will ensure that the best use is made of the opportunities offered by the introduction of electronic conveyancing.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I appreciate that the Minister is unlikely to give me an instant answer to my question, but would it not be wise to consider expanding the interdepartmental group to include representatives of the Institute of Legal Executives and those who specialise in conveyancing within the Law Society—bodies that are at the sharp end of such a process? In addition, it may be useful for the group to include someone from the Consumers Association or the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
Mr. Lock: E-conveyancing is all about giving instant answers to questions. Therefore, in the same spirit, I can give the hon. Gentleman an instant answer to his question. The next sentence that I was about to read from my brief says that the group will also provide a ready-made forum for consultation with outside stakeholders.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Those outside stakeholders should include estate agents.
112WH
It could benefit both the consumer and estate agents if a common system were adopted that could create a common platform of information technology.
Mr. Lock: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's observations. On Tuesday, I had the pleasure of speaking at a seminar on the subject in Birmingham, hosted by Wragge and Company. Among the audience was a large number of property agents, and their interest in e-conveyancing was made plain both by their attendance and by the fact that once the subject had been explained, they came up with many interesting, practical and relevant points that will have to be made to work if it is to operate in practice.
What then is electronic conveyancing? My working definition is that it is the result of crossing electronic commerce with conveyancing. There are therefore two elements to the definition. E-commerce needs little introduction and is in any case only the means to the desired end. Conveyancing may require a little more explanation. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives two meanings of the word. The first is "a deceitful contrivance", which might have made an interesting subject and secured a slightly better attendance for our debate, but I am pleased to say that that is not the meaning that I have in mind.
Mr. Hawkins: That is the meaning of the next Labour manifesto.
Mr. Lock: Unlike the hon. Gentleman's observation, the second meaning, which goes back to 1714, is more to the point. According to that, conveyancing is
the drawing of deeds and other instruments for the transference of property from one person to another; the branch of law which deals with titles and their transference.
Putting aside the Dickensian shades of Tulkinghorn, Heep, Marley and Scrooge—a fine name for a firm of solicitors if ever there was one—suggested by the words "drawing deeds" and "transference of property", that definition conveys the essence of conveyancing. In plain English, conveyancing would be defined as something along the lines of "the process of buying and selling land".
What happens in a typical conveyancing transaction? The property in question might be a house or flat but could equally be a factory, a shop, a shopping centre or a farm. There are usually at least three sides to any such transaction—buyer, seller and lender. For simplicity and brevity, I will explain matters from the viewpoint of a buyer's conveyancer. Typically, the conveyancer will be a solicitor or licensed conveyancer, but may be a buyer in person. There are four stages to the process—investigation and report, exchange of contracts, completion and registration.
The first stage, investigation and report, is the "subject to contract" phase. That means that, although heads of agreement have been set, each party remains legally free to withdraw. The buyer's conveyancer considers the information supplied by the seller's conveyancer and carries out searches with various bodies to obtain information on the property. The number of searches will vary depending on the nature of the property and its location. For example, if the property is in an active or former coalfield, a mining

113WH
search is usual. In the Cheshire plain, a brine search may be wise. In my constituency of the Wyre Forest, which has the River Severn running through it, information on whether the property is on the flood plain might be sought. A commons registration search, which I am pleased to say has nothing to do with declarations of interest, would be wise if there were a hint of common land or a village green. A comprehensive list of all the possible searches would fill a small book—and indeed, to the relief of many legal practitioners, has done so.
Typically, the principal documents for consideration by a buyer's conveyancer at that stage will be a draft contract identifying the buyer, seller and the property to be sold. It will also include details of any obligations that the seller is to impose on the buyer—and, in the fullness of time, vice versa—and replies to the inquiries about the property from the buyer's conveyancer. The answers will give information about disputes, third-party rights, fixtures and fittings, damp and timber guarantees and a host of other matters. The local authority search gives information, among other things, about highways, drainage and sewerage, planning and building regulation matters. A copy of the title register and filed plan of the property issued by the Land Registry sets out the name of the owner, a description of the property and the rights to which it is subject, and may refer to other documents that may also have to be inspected.
The object of that stage of the exercise is to enable the conveyancer to find out who owns the property, what people have rights over it, what rights it has over other property, what it may be used for or not used for, and so on, giving the conveyancer full knowledge of the nature of the property that the buyer is to buy.
Mr. John Burnett: When the Minister's Department considers the important matter of e-conveyancing, will it consider contractual provisions that vendors' solicitors often impose in order to extricate their clients from any liability in matters of title and of easements to property? In other words, in such matters it should be the duty of vendors to make full disclosure and not contract out.
Mr. Lock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. E-conveyancing is essentially about turning the existing conveyancing process into one which can be done much more efficiently in a world of electronic communications. It is a different policy issue to try to shift the balance in a conveyancing transaction between caveat emptor, disclosure and easements. The policy ramifications of shifting that balance are profound. Although a debate on that would be legitimate, it is not the same debate as the one that we are having today on the electronic transference of the existing process.
Mr. Burnett: I fully agree with the thrust of the Parliamentary Secretary's comments. I do not want to interfere with people's opportunities and abilities to make their own contracts. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the process might be rather swifter if there
114WH
was some sort of convention, perhaps of the Law Society, of full disclosure of title, easement and covenant matters?
Mr. Lock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, the germ of which contains part of the answer. The matter should not necessarily be pursued through legislation, but might be pursued through a Law Society code of practice. Having spent several years dealing with property litigation, I am conscious that disputes often arise over rights over property that the property owner either did not know that he had, or was not aware that he was subject to. Therefore a duty to provide disclosure of easements over a property of which the seller is unaware would have to be treated with some caution.
Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend refers to turning the existing process into an electronic one. I hope that by that he does not mean simply replicating an existing process electronically. It would be a shame if that were so. The steering group should investigate much more widely how greater efficiencies might be gained from the opportunities created by its deliberations.
Mr. Lock: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress, most of his anxieties will be dealt with later in my speech.
Gathering the information from its disparate sources takes time. Inevitably, the buyer will have to wait while the information is collected, interpreted and reported. A good deal of time can therefore be taken up waiting for someone else to do something, and the process can resemble a slow courtly dance. The length of the "subject to contract" period was identified as the source of most of the main problems in residential conveyancing in the extensive research carried out for the Government in 1998.
The second phase is exchange of contracts. Exchange is the moment when a legally binding contract to buy and sell land is created. Usually, a deposit is paid and a completion date fixed. Except in certain circumstances, such as a public auction, the contract must be in writing and signed by the parties involved. In arranging an exchange, co-ordination is the name of the game, especially in residential conveyancing, where chains of several dependent sales and purchases mean that no one can exchange until everyone is ready to do so. In those cases, the process is more akin to a courtly ball than a mere dance.
Conveyancers will want to be sure that all the financial arrangements for completion are in place. If there are transactions with or without mortgages, one can readily see the scale of the logistics. Again, the issues for the buyer and the seller are time and certainty. The buyers will want to be sure that the completion date proposed is practicable and suitable, and so on. The sellers will want to be sure that they have money available to meet their obligations on completion.
The third stage is less worrying. Everyone works to an agreed timetable. The problem, which is ironic considering what has gone before, is often that everyone is suddenly working to tight deadlines. Final searches are carried out, most importantly at the Land Registry, money is moved into place and documentation is prepared.

115WH
The fourth and final stage of this strange, eventful history is completion. Traditionally, the legal ceremony was done in person. The lawyers would gather and money would be swapped for the title documents. Once the ceremony was complete, the buyer would be informed and take the keys to the mansion of their dreams, or flat 37 Roehampton court, as the case may be, and take possession.
Taking possession used to be a ceremony in itself. A symbolic clod of earth might be handed over, or an actual entry onto the land might be staged. I am even told that, in some parts of the United States, a horseshoe would be thrown into the land accompanied by a loud yee-ha. However quaint, the object was to announce the new owner of the land to the world.
Nowadays, I am afraid, the romance has gone and there is very little ceremony. Completion is effected by electronic transfer of money, telephone and the posting of the title deeds from the seller's conveyancer to the buyer's conveyancer. They include a deed executed by the seller—executed in this case meaning signed in the presence of a witness and delivered as a deed. That is probably not a helpful definition, but it illustrates the fact that conveyancing has its own language.
Completion is usually the end of the process from the buyer's point of view, but the conveyancer is still not home and dry. Full ownership will pass to the buyer only on registration of the buyer at the Land Registry. The conveyancer must ensure that the application for registration is received at the proper district land registry before the expiry date of the pre-completion Land Registry search. As the application for registration can be made only when the buyer has received the transfer from the seller, the application is almost bound to be made at least a couple of days after completion. It then has to be checked and processed by the Land Registry. Only when the Land Registry is satisfied will the register be changed and, as I am sure hon. Members appreciate, the legal title vested in the buyer as from the date of receipt of the application. The gap between completion and receipt of the application at the proper office is the so-called registration gap, of which I shall speak more later.
Electronic conveyancing will not necessarily change those four stages, but it could revolutionise the internal workings of each. I shall start with the most generic change, which is the use of e-communications. Already, e-mail is a usual means of business communication. It speeds up communication. Think of the amount of correspondence that is carried about the country at any moment between the several players in a conveyancing transaction. Even the simplest transaction will probably involve buyer and seller supported by their respective lawyers or conveyancers; there could also be surveyors, estate agents, mortgagees and insurers and their respective brokers. Electronic communication enables them to keep in touch more easily. It will allow the progress of a transaction and any related transactions to be managed more effectively, not least because it will be possible to provide a single point of information for all concerned.
Electronic conveyancing, however, is about much more than substituting e-mail for the typed page, and the digital signature for the flourish of a fountain pen. Searches are about assembling information that, by definition, already exists. They are concerned with the
116WH
collation of information, not primary research. Imagine a world in which all searches could be carried out online, extracting information directly from databases that already hold the data and can communicate with the conveyancer directly. One might receive answers in minutes rather than weeks, perhaps with the option of an automatic electronic updating service. One can imagine a world where contracts, deeds and other key documents could be kept in secure permanent electronic form.
Mr. Hawkins: The Parliamentary Secretary will, no doubt, go beyond his imaginings of the world of the future and give some more precise detail. However, before he leaves the subject, will he tell us whether the inefficiencies of searches in local authorities, especially in the inner cities, will be addressed by the new technology in the near future? Is he aware that a local search from a Labour-controlled London local authority can take as long as 10 weeks, even for the simplest piece of conveyancing, in which there are no chains on either side? No great brave new world will result from the changes that he mentions, because local searches are too inefficient.
Mr. Lock: One day, in that brand new world, the hon. Gentleman will make a speech that does not have a party political sting in its tail. Clearly, there are efficient and inefficient authorities of all political persuasions. The Audit Commission would not agree with his equation of efficiency with one side of the political fence and inefficiency with the other. To answer his question without taking his pejorative tone, I can tell him that some significant steps are being made. If he gives me time to develop the subject, I will explain precisely what has happened, what can happen and what is happening.
One can imagine a world where completion of a purchase and an application for registration of the buyer and the mortgagee could be completed almost simultaneously—a world without a registration gap. A fully developed system of electronic conveyancing would have many advantages. The changes that we are discussing would put the conveyancing system at the service of the people who use and depend upon it. I shall briefly highlight how e-conveyancing will help to make easier the four stages of the typical conveyancing transaction that I described.
First, electronic databases and search facilities offer obvious advantages of speed and accuracy for investigation and report. Those advantages apply whether the information is available on a public register or in a private electronic data bank, as parts of the searches go to public authorities and parts to private companies, such as the water utilities.
Another area in which efficiency will be improved is that of exchange. The ability to find out where all the connected transactions are at the click of a mouse will prevent anxiety and decrease the need to chase people over the telephone. Making a contract need no longer depend upon the safe arrival of an exchanged document in the post.
Completion will also become easier and quicker for all concerned. No bulky packets of deeds will need to be shipped around the country and stored safely for ever after. If the registration stage could merge with the

117WH
completion stage, a simpler system would be created. However, even if registration remains a separate stage, electronic communication will prevent many errors that, at present, are corrected only after completion by the Land Registry. Electronic conveyancing can provide intelligent quality assurance.
A system offering all those advantages will not appear overnight. Electronic conveyancing is not a short-term project. The Land Registry, for example, is planning for a decade or so of progressive change. Advances will be made incrementally as experience is gained and methods tested. We must not prejudice the security and integrity of the land register, or any other public register, through undue haste. A big-bang approach would be a long time coming, out of date before it was launched and impossible to manage.
In case that gives the impression that electronic conveyancing is no more than a gleam in the eye, I shall explain what has happened so far, as well as what is planned for the future. There are four main strands of electronic conveyancing activity within Government at the moment. The first is the development of the National Land Information Service and the National Land and Property Gazetteer. The second is the introduction and continuing development of electronic services at the Land Registry. The third is the preparation of a draft order under section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 by the Law Commission, the Land Registry and my Department, with the prospect of further orders to follow. The fourth is the drafting of a new land registration Bill by the joint working group on land registration of the Law Commission and the Land Registry. I shall describe each in a little more detail and relate them to the four stages of the typical transaction that I have described.
Before I do so, it would be helpful to consider the private sector. There, complementing Government activities and, to some extent, making them worth while, electronic business techniques are being adopted by legal services providers and others connected with the property market. Already, property owners and their advisers are creating electronic data banks of documents for property management and disposal purposes. Firms offer secure virtual dealing rooms for transactions. Those practices may not yet have reached the mass market, but I expect that rising consumer expectations generally will find their way into the world of conveyancing. When they do, the competitive edge will lie with those who can offer the services that the public and business want.
In the Government context, the NLIS computer system will provide access to information from the Land Registry, local authorities, statutory undertakers, the Coal Authority, the British Geological Survey, the Ordnance Survey and others. NLIS will be underpinned by the NLPG, which will, in effect, be a definitive digital index of land and property. It will provide a unique digital identifier for each property to be searched. That will enhance the accuracy and speed of the searching process by giving the computers a geographical address and description for the property, be it a field, a factory or a flat.
118WH
NLIS is a joint initiative of central and local government. It was the first channel implementation project to be announced in the "Modernising Government" White Paper, and it was successfully piloted in Bristol in 1997. The success of the pilot was recognised by a major British Computer Society award and led not only to the pilot's continuation—it continues to this day—but to the injection of funds from the invest to save budget, which enabled the Land Registry and the improvement and development agency to carry forward the project at speed. A contract for the provision of the hub of the service was placed with MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates in July. Contracts are now being negotiated with service providers and it is planned that the service will go live in April next year, with a fully electronic service operating from July 2001.
Of course, bringing all the information held by all the different authorities and other bodies across England and Wales on to electronic databases is a long-term aspiration. It will be achieved piecemeal in the coming years. In the meantime, NLIS will provide an online search submission and handling service, obtaining information from data providers by the quickest means possible. Even that mix and match of new and old will provide a significant improvement on the present cumbersome and time-consuming system of preparing and submitting separate searches to every relevant authority or body.
NLIS has been proved in Bristol. I am sure that the ability to conduct all property searches at the speed of the click of a computer's mouse will be a great boon to everyone involved in the conveyancing process. It will change the face of the investigatory stage of conveyancing. It will also have benefits far beyond conveyancing by providing access to so much reliable information about property. Indeed, the system has been described as an online Domesday book. However, there are two key differences: first, NLIS information will be continually updated, and, secondly, unlike the Conqueror's inspectors, NLIS will not describe everything north of the Humber as waste.
Mr. Burnett: The Parliamentary Secretary has a good point and is not shying away from the fact that the task is huge. Has he dealt with the significant difficulties associated with keeping this register—or Domesday book—up to date, particularly given the plethora of different agencies that will have to contribute to it continually in respect of properties?
Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but we are dealing with information that, by definition, already exists, whether it is held by the Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water or a local authority. We are talking about providing access to existing information and tying it into the relevant property.
Mr. Burnett rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I call Mr. Burnett.
Mr. Burnett: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

119WH
I realise that this matter is at a rather inchoate stage, but is it envisaged that it will be the duty of the planning authority or the utility—or whichever body is responsible—to feed up-to-date information into this central computer network?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Lock.
Mr. Lock: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this exciting and interesting debate on electronic conveyancing, which you have, no doubt, looked forward to all week.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Immensely—for more than a week.
Mr. Lock: The question is an important one. Bodies that hold information that is required before a conveyancing transaction can take place are already obliged to store it in a way that allows a search. We are concerned with an obligation not to hold the data, but to provide access to data in an electronic form so that it can be searched. Changing to an electronic form offers considerable advantages for local authorities and private companies such as utilities. Apart from anything else, they will save considerable staff time, inquiries could be answered in a non-labour-intensive way, and they will be paid for providing that information. There are sound business and organisational reasons, therefore, why the existing duty to hold and make available such information should be translated into a duty to provide it in electronic form.
Mr. Burnett: I point out to the Parliamentary Secretary's Department and the interdepartmental group to which he referred that it would help to speed up such transactions if one body—probably the borough or district council to which the search is made—held all the information on a particular property. Those bodies already have most of the information, but it would help if they had it all and collated it. Purchasers or their representatives could thereby access it through one route rather than from a multiplicity of sources.
Mr. Lock: I am grateful for that suggestion, but it seems that I am not making myself clear. The purpose of NLIS is to be one hub. Data requests will come into that hub from those who seek the data. The hub will, in turn, have connections to local authorities, the Land Registry, Severn Trent and a variety of bodies such as the Environment Agency, which hold the necessary data. Once the returns are made by those bodies—either manually, to themselves, before being fed back into the system, or by electronically interrogating an existing database—the information is fed back to the hub, then from the hub back to the person who raised the original inquiry.
The information is, by definition, held by a wide variety of bodies, which update it from their own information sources. The purpose of NLIS is to provide an electronic communication system—a hub—to enable electronic interrogation to take place from one place, the hub, to the variety of bodies holding data relevant to a particular property.
Mr. Miller: Has not the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) a point, in that there
120WH
must be an appropriate duty of care on the data holder to act in the public interest? For example, I might wish to buy an acre of glorious Cheshire. Indeed, you or I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might well choose to do that. Let us say that there were 1.1 acres of land. The small matter of a decimal point might be missed out. Therefore, a clear duty of care would have to be established with the data holder to provide the correct information.
Mr. Lock: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying. Yes, those who provide information are under a legal duty to provide it accurately and in a timely fashion. We are concerned here with the more efficient discharge of existing duties by electronic means, not with a change in the nature of the duties. The existence of the hub would, I hope, enable the Environment Agency to update its computers with information on floods and developments, and on its own view as to what is on a flood plain. It would have its own computers interrogated through NLIS, when necessary, rather than have to collate that information itself and pass it to a third party, which would then provide it to others.
Mr. Burnett: The interdepartmental group will, no doubt, discuss this matter. Purchasers will have to have confidence in the hub—NLIS—which will have to be liable for any errors that it makes in giving property details to purchasers. The hub will also wish to recover any damages for negligence or omissions by statutory authorities, planning authorities or other bodies, which are—or should be—duty bound to provide such information to it.
Mr. Lock: The duties of care on information providers are a whole new subject. The providers are under obligations at present and the proposals for the electronic conveyancing system being developed through NLIS will provide a better way for them to discharge their existing obligations.
Any proposals for a series of new obligations relating to accuracy and timely provision would have to be considered extremely carefully, both from the perspective of framing those obligations to ensure that the maximum information was given in as timely a way as possible, and to ensure that the right division of risk and the right amount of exposure to that risk was managed. I am sure that the Local Government Association would have a considerable amount to say before any change in the law, because its member authorities are the holders of the majority of the information that is sought.
Hon. Members may be interested to know that of the many millions of transactions that take place each year, more than 80 per cent. occur in just 50 local authorities. It is quite a concentrated series of transactions. Most local authorities provide searches within two weeks. For searches to take as long as 10 weeks would be unusual and extreme.
The second aspect of electronic conveyancing activity to which I referred is the development of services by the Land Registry, which I have already mentioned numerous times. That is hardly surprising, because the future of electronic conveyancing and the future of the Land Registry are closely related.
The purpose of the Land Registry is summed up by its three principal aims, which are: to maintain and develop a stable and effective land registration system

121WH
throughout England and Wales as the cornerstone for the creation and free movement of interests in land; to guarantee, on behalf of the Crown, title to registered estates and interests in land for the whole of England and Wales; and, to provide ready access to up-to-date and guaranteed land information, enabling confident dealings in property and security of title. The registry was established in 1862. Since then, it has been quietly and effectively getting on with its business of registering title to freeholds and long leaseholds. It is a success story. There are now 17 million registered titles, of which more than 95 per cent. are computerised and available for online viewing.
For comparative purposes, I should add that there are thought to be around 4 million titles that are not registered. Perhaps the benefits of electronic conveyancing will encourage the owners of some of those unregistered titles to come forward for registration. However, even if they do not, England and Wales now comprise an entire area of compulsory first registration, so any sale of such property must be registered. The days of unregistered land may not yet be numbered, but the future is in registered property. We can look forward with optimism to the creation of a complete, or very nearly complete, register.
In parallel with the process of computerising the title registers, the Land Registry is computerising the title plans and the 6 million or so deeds and documents that are referred to in those registers. That process is well advanced and will, when complete, provide a fully integrated online register. The next stage of the computerisation project will be the computerisation of the general index map, which, as its name suggests, is a map that shows all the land in England and Wales, whether or not it is registered. Conveyancers use the map to find out whether land is, or is about to be, registered.
This computerisation is, of course, only a means to an end. The Land Registry is at the forefront of the Government's drive to electronic service delivery. In July this year, the registry launched a new internet browser-style version of its successful direct-access service. DAS was established in 1995 for telephone and fax access to services. The new service, Land Registry Direct, enables customers who are account holders to view the computerised register and the filed plan. It is already proving highly successful and it generated more than £450,000 of fee income in October alone. Land Registry Direct, which is directed at account holders, is complemented by Land Registry Online, which is targeted at the casual user. Payment is made by credit card.
The provision of information at the touch of a button is an important improvement in the conveyancing process. The creation of an integrated computerised register and the new access services will speed up the flow of information and the crucial pre-completion searches of the register. The Land Registry's information will form a key element of NLIS.
Mr. Burnett: The Parliamentary Secretary referred to pre-completion searches. I should declare an interest because some of the property that I own is unregistered
122WH
and is likely to remain so, because I hope that it will pass to my children on my death. However, I hope that the computerisation process will take account of the land charges register.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Lock, potential fee payer.
Mr. Lock: Is it not wonderful to be able to say, "some of the property that I own"? As I am not in that advantageous position, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me a little time before I reply to his interesting question.
These services cover the provision of information. Electronic conveyancing implies electronic dealings and moving from the inactive provision of static information to the active creation of transactions by electronic means. The first step in that direction was the piloting by the Land Registry of the electronic notification of discharge system; hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that that is abbreviated to ENDS. This project concerns the deletion of the entry of a mortgage from the register when it is paid off. It was piloted successfully in 1998 and it is expected that electronic notification will soon become the norm. Work is also progressing towards the introduction of real-time priority for substantive applications for registration. I have already referred to the need to get the application for registration to the proper district land registry before the time for the search expires to ensure that a transaction—for example, a first mortgage—is not overtaken by a later transaction, such as what should have been a second mortgage. In technical terms, the search enables the first mortgage to preserve its priority over the second. Without that facility, every completion would have to take place at the Land Registry.
At present, all applications for registration that arrive at a district land registry after 9.30 am are deemed to have arrived at 9.30 am on the next working day. This is clearly incompatible with and would, at the very least, make nonsense of an electronic system. The introduction of real-time priority, which we anticipate will be in 2001, is a vital building block for electronic conveyancing. Electronic conveyancing is, inch by inch, being introduced. NLIS and Her Majesty's Land Registry clearly show that we are on the road to a better system. However, there is still a lot to do and the Land Registry is working to identify how it can develop its services further.
Despite that progress, some limitations can be overcome only with legislation. I have mentioned that contracts for the creation or disposal of an interest in land must, in most cases, be in writing. That is a requirement of section 2 of the snappily named Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, but the basic policy can be traced to the Statute of Frauds, which was made in the reign of Charles II in 1677. Conveyances, mortgages, transfers and leases for terms of more than three years must be made by deed; the relevant legal requirements are found in the Law of Property Act 1925, although, again, the policy of the law is much older.
Deeds must be executed properly. For individuals, that includes signature in front of a witness who also signs the document. For companies, the company seal may be affixed and witnessed, or the document may be

123WH
signed by authorised signatories. I shall not go into details, because all that matters for present purposes is that there cannot currently be an electronic deed.
The Government are committed to removing those legislative obstacles to electronic communication and electronic data storage. We took powers to do so under section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 and we propose to use those powers to make orders to create a legal framework for electronic contracts for the sale and creation of interests in land and for electronic deeds. Work is already under way on drafting the first of the orders. When complete, the order will be issued for public consultation. We must also ensure that stamp duty on these virtual documents can be collected. I am pleased to say that, yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his pre-Budget statement that the enabling legislation will be included in next year's Finance Bill. We intend our proposals to be rigorously tested before they take effect. The order will be made subject to affirmative resolution procedure to ensure full parliamentary scrutiny. It is important that we get the product right and that nothing is permitted that might undermine the security of the land register or the confidence of the property market.
The section 8 order, which will amend primary legislation, will have to be supported by other legislation such as new land registry rules. We acknowledge that it will be vital to allow sufficient time for practitioners to come to grips with the new rules before they are introduced. The new framework under section 8 will coexist with the traditional framework.
The fourth area of Government activity that I mentioned was a draft land registration Bill, which is being prepared by the Law Commission and the Land Registry. I hope that they will publish it jointly next year. It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on the contents of the Bill until the Law Commission and the Land Registry have completed their work. I can say with confidence, however, that the Bill and the accompanying report are eagerly awaited.
The Bill will build upon the successful consultation document, "Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century", issued in September 1998 by the Land Registry and the Law Commission, which propose that the Bill should completely replace the Land Registration Act 1925. For those outside the property world, the year 1925 has little significance. However, for people who work with property day in, day out, 1925 is the defining year. The 1925 Act has been described as the poor relation to the giants of the great 1925 property legislation, which include the Settled Land Act 1925 and the Law of Property Act 1925. It was seen in some quarters as a bureaucratic variant of proper conveyancing. The new Bill will put matters to rights. It will be built upon sound land registration principles and will recognise that a registered title is not the same as an unregistered title with a registration number.
The Land Registry's 1998–99 annual report suggests that a central plank of the reforms will be that transfers of land and the creation of many rights and interests in or over land will be dealt with electronically. That proposal will fundamentally change the legal basis of much of the conveyancing system. As I heard it rather neatly described at Tuesday's seminar in Birmingham, we would move from a system of registration of title to
124WH
a system of title by registration. That would open the way to the fullest possible exploitation of the benefits of electronic conveyancing.
Whether the Government accept the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Land Registry and whether Parliament will enact the Bill, with or without amendment, remains in the future. I cannot prejudge matters. I should like, however, to pay tribute to the people who have carried this project so far in such a short time. In particular, I express my thanks to Charles Harpum, the property and trust law commissioner at the Law Commission, and to Chris West, who, although a barrister, is the solicitor to the Land Registry. They have led the work done since the establishment of the joint working group in 1996. They already have the Land Registration Act 1997 to their credit. Speaking personally, I hope that they will also chalk up the much greater prize of replacing the 1925 Act with land registration law fit for the 21st century.
A new Act would be supplemented by new land registration rules, which is where the detail of the new system for electronic conveyancing will be found. Placing the technical details in secondary legislation is necessary to ensure that we can keep pace with technological change and the needs of the development programme for e-conveyancing. To allay any fears that hon. Members may have, I must mention that there will be consultation before any new standards or procedures are created.
I have spoken so far about the electronic conveyancing process and the machinery to support it. I shall now refer briefly to some of the more generic issues applicable to acceptance by the public and business of e-commerce in our environment. Such issues are inevitably relevant to e-conveyancing. The essential ingredient to ensure the success of a new service is confidence: if users have confidence to take up the service and it is successful, others will be tempted to follow suit.
Confidence will be built on good interoperable technical IT systems, on user-friendly systems, and on the use of electronic—or more accurately, digital—signatures. We must bear in mind in conveyancing and e-commerce that people need to have confidence that they really are dealing with the people with whom they think they are. People need to know that the message they send is the electronic message that will arrive, they need to know that the message will not be corrupted at some date in the future, and they must be confident that private information will be treated confidentially.
The Government and industry are working together to deal with authentication, integrity, trust and security. Our approach is one of co-regulation with providers and users. In support of that aim, the law already provides that electronic signatures are admissible as evidence in legal proceedings. The probative value of the signature will be tested by evidence in the usual forensic way. It seems likely, however, that the electronic system will offer far stronger proof of authentication than exists with handwritten signatures.
We are working with the Alliance for Electronic Business to develop a co-regulatory certification system for digital signatures—the so-called t-scheme, "t" meaning trust. Should the t-scheme fail, the

125WH
Government have taken powers under part I of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 to set up a statutory scheme. The basic concept of a registration and certification system is, of course, tried and tested. Electronic systems already operate in many parts of the world. In the e-conveyancing context, it is likely that high levels of authentication and security will be required for electronic contracts and deeds.
Concepts such as algorithms, encryption and hashing, which underpin the creation of digital signatures, are a wonder of mathematical science. The people who devised them are very clever. For our purposes, the important thing is that they work. The technology required to deliver secure communication already exists. The task is to apply it in the best possible way. If we succeed in that, trust and confidence will follow.
In summary, electronic conveyancing is important and it is already here, in part. The Government are determined to use it to improve the conveyancing system. The electronic system will make great speed and accuracy possible, not a matter of Herculean effort, as is the case now. It will put people in charge of the process, not the other way round. All that will involve considerable change to the law and to conveyancing practice and business, and that will be all to the good.
3.28 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am glad to tell the few hon. Members who are present this afternoon that I shall be brief. The Minister spoke for only a fraction less than one hour, but he explained to us that he felt that it was incumbent on him to set out the picture in full. I can certainly say that he has sought to do that. In thanking him for setting out the Government's thinking on this important matter, I must say that, for people who wish to move house, any improvement in the conveyancing system is bound to be welcome. I raised earlier a particular concern that had been expressed to me by legal experts. Some of the things that the Minister set out in what he called his "brave new world" may not work out as he and his officials expect.
I was glad that the Minister responded to my intervention about his interdepartmental working group. I was reminded of some of the more arcane problems exposed to the public gaze by "Yes, Minister". Everyone knows that those programmes were based on the scriptwriters' civil service experience under a previous Labour Government. Those problems were exposed also in the Crossman diaries. I am greatly sceptical of interdepartmental working groups.
The Government have engaged in a great deal of rhetoric about joined-up government, but, in practice, it is not joined up; instead Ministers, their civil servants, political advisers and spin doctors are always fighting turf wars. I hope that this might prove to be the exception, but that will be only because those at the sharp end are involved. The Minister was kind enough to confirm that the professional bodies will be involved, including the Law Society and the Institute of Legal
126WH
Executives. I hope that consumers, the people who suffer the endless delays of the current system, will also be represented.
Mr. Burnett: I feel sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to omit it but, for completeness, I am certain that he will agree that the Council of Licensed Conveyancers should also be drawn into the regime.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of it. A welcome development under the provisions introduced by the previous Government was the great expansion in the numbers of licensed conveyancers. The fact remains, however, that the vast majority of people have their conveyancing done by solicitors or legal executives working for firms of solicitors.
As I said to the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), there is a certain irony in the fact that none of the three Front-Bench spokesmen participating in today's debate has done any conveyancing. At least the hon. Gentleman is on the right side of the profession, but I know from the valuable contributions that he regularly makes that he is a specialist on other matters, such as taxation. He might have done some conveyancing and he has certainly passed examinations on it, but the Minister and I, being on the other side of the profession, have not done any. However, the Minister may have had the same experience that I had in my time at the Bar. When a solicitor was accused of professional negligence in conveyancing, the matter was dealt with by members of the Bar. Unfortunately, members of the Bar sometimes found it difficult to judge whether there had been professional negligence, because they had not passed exams in conveyancing.
I may have one small advantage over the Minister in that, for the three years before being elected to the House in 1992, I ceased going into court from chambers every day and became a corporate barrister, acting as the group legal adviser for a public limited company, one of whose subsidiaries was a national chain of estate agents. In that position, I was instrumental in creating the legal framework for the first ombudsman scheme for corporate estate agents. I know that Governments of both parties welcomed the creation of the estate agency ombudsman scheme, because things sometimes go wrong, perhaps through negligence or the inadvertence of lawyers, because of mistakes at the Land Registry or—I hope rarely—because of fraud by estates agents.
The ombudsman scheme was an extremely welcome development, and I was pleased that my former colleague Mr. Peter Constable, who created the ombudsman scheme for corporate estate agents, was able to see it successfully brought into existence while he was still the most distinguished chief executive of the Black Horse estate agency. He had to retire shortly afterwards because of ill health, and it is only proper to pay tribute to his work and to say how much the estate agency profession, both corporate and independent, regretted his retirement. I also pay tribute to the work of the National Association of Estate Agents in raising standards in the profession of estate agency. We all welcome improved standards in that area of the law, because, as has been said many times, the vast majority of members of the public deal with lawyers, perhaps luckily for them, only when they move house.

127WH
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, 70 per cent. of housing in this country is owner-occupied. He might have paid tribute to the distinguished former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, for achieving a huge increase in the number of owner-occupied properties by introducing the sale of council houses, which was bitterly opposed by Labour in opposition, but subsequently adopted by them in a manner that would lead one to think that they had invented it. Nevertheless, I recognise that the fact that a large proportion of property in this country is owner-occupied inevitably means that the vast majority of people become involved in conveyancing at some time. Anything that speeds up that process is bound to be welcome.
My consultation with those who are at the sharp end of conveyancing has alerted me to some points that should be raised, although I do not ask the Minister to give a detailed reply this afternoon. With so few hon. Members present, it would not be appropriate to prolong the debate unduly, but I should explain what has been said to me by those experienced legal executives who are at the sharp end. I hope that the Minister and his officials, or both, will write to me and other hon. Members present this afternoon.
It has been suggested to me by those who carry out conveyancing regularly that the main problem is the slowness of local searches. When I raised that point, the Minister thought that it was politically partisan, but it is a real issue. The Minister recognised that the register of land is a vital part of what I am concerned about. My consultations suggest that what is most needed to speed up conveyancing is not only greater use of information technology, but a system in which there would be a logbook, rather like the registration document for a motor vehicle, for each parcel of property. If every change—every extension to a house, or sale of part of a parcel of land, for example—was entered in the logbook, which could be done electronically with IT, the process would be much quicker.
The other matter that has been pointed out to me is that the vast majority of properties in this country are subject to some sort of mortgage or legal charge. Not only does a chain of purchases frequently cause delay—for example, because it is not possible to ask one's solicitor, legal executive or licensed conveyancer to proceed to the next stage in the process until one's purchaser has received a mortgage offer—but the status inquiries of building societies or other mortgagees can take a long time. For example, it can take some time to obtain medical or other information from the employer of someone in the chain who has applied for a mortgage. Some large companies have efficient personnel or human resources departments that respond quickly, but other, small companies cannot treat those status inquiries with such urgency. Improving IT in the conveyancing system is not all that is needed; other problems jam the works. At a time when many people are moving house, there are inevitable problems such as chains and gazumping.
I had discussions with the Law Society about what it considers important. The Minister referred at length to developments at NLIS. A joint bid was made by the Law Society and MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, with Hays plc, Laser-Scan and the Halifax. That group won
128WH
the right to operate the United Kingdom's first online conveyancing service for the next 10 years. The then vice-president of the Law Society, Mr. David McIntosh, was enthusiastic, saying that:
Homebuyers and solicitors will benefit from this innovative online conveyancing system and the Law Society is delighted to be part of this exciting project.
When I asked people at the Law Society whether any firms were extensively using that facility, I was given the name of a go-ahead, information technology-oriented firm called Sykes Anderson. That firm was mentioned as a good example of one that has proceeded with the use of new technology. Clearly, it is welcome news that any firm—small, medium or large—is taking full advantage of that facility.
The Law Society has been at the forefront of encouraging the Government to use information technology to the full. The Minister and his colleagues will be aware that several Members are involved in the all-party group on information technology—PITCOM. That group is unusual because industry experts in IT have as firm a membership of it as parliamentarians. It is one of the strongest groups in the House and all of its members, including the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who has been involved in it for as long as I have, know what valuable work it does. We all want there to be greater use of IT, not merely in the legal, but in every field, for the benefit of the public.
The Law Society referred me to the work of Ken Byass, a member of the council of the Law Society. His name is spelt with a y, so it has no hint of a double meaning. His article on electronic conveyancing begins with the words:
In spite of anything you may have been told, e-conveyancing is not possible today.
He goes on to set out, as the Minister has, some of the legislative obstacles there have been in the past, and to welcome the changes that are being made.
I hope that at least some of those changes to which the Minister has referred will come to pass. I do not want to be a prophet of doom and gloom, because I welcome the use of IT in conveyancing as long as the public is properly safeguarded. However, those at the sharp end, not merely civil servants on an interdepartmental working party, should be involved. I join the Minister in his tribute to Mr. Charles Harpum; it is a pleasure to be able to pay tribute to that law commissioner twice in successive days, as we both referred to him in our remarks during the debate on the Trustee Bill.
It is a matter of some regret, although it is perhaps not surprising on a Thursday afternoon, that so few hon. Members are present. I totted up the number and I believe that 25 hon. Members are solicitors but, of the six of us present today, only the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon belongs to that profession. The issue is important, and I wish that it were being debated on the Floor of the House. I have expressed my reservations about Westminster Hall to the Leader of the House, because debates here are not usually well attended. Debates such as this, which should have a wider attendance, should take place on the Floor of the House.
3.44 pm
Mr. John Burnett: I do not know whether I am becoming a masochist, but I have found this debate interesting. I should declare the fact that, although I am a solicitor, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, I do not practice and I am not especially conversant with conveyancing. Although I did a bit of it in the past, I was, as has been mentioned, mainly a specialist in taxation. I declare also that I am not as computer literate as I should be.
I, too, pay tribute to Mr. Charles Harpum, as I did during the Committee stage of the passage of the Trustee Bill. Unfortunately, I was unable to participate on Report and Third Reading yesterday as I had to be present in my constituency. You will be delighted to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I opened a new primary school at Holsworthy.
I believe that electronic conveyancing will expedite the conveyancing process, although I understand that that is a huge task. Before I speak on it in more detail, however, I remind hon. Members that, as the Minister pointed out, some property information should be private to the property owner and/or the buyer.
For one reason or another, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the conveyancing process. It has arisen largely because of delays. It has always been my view that, if the vendor has no contingent purchase or the purchaser has no contingent sale, conveyancing should be pretty swift, especially if the property is registered. Problems and delays sometimes arise because of tight financing, but purchasers should have sorted that out before they made offers for property. Delays invariably arise either because the purchaser has a property to sell, or the vendor has a property to buy, or both. Delays can also arise in relation to local authority searches. It is important to ensure that most people manage to synchronise property purchases and sales. Most of them are selling their only dwelling and rightly want to complete and move into their new dwelling on the day when they complete and move out of their existing property.
We should not be concentrating today on delays caused by chains of transaction, but on the speed of the conveyancing process and how it can be assisted by electronic conveyancing. I should like to refer to some of the problems that arise in the first stage of the transaction, which precedes exchange of contracts—investigation and report, as the Minister called it. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to the delays that can occur with local authority searches. Even the most efficient local authorities—I count both Torridge district council and West Devon borough council in that category—will take about five working days to conduct a search, which is swift. Of course, local authorities have to collate a huge amount of information. It can relate to strategic plans—one hopes that under a new electronic regime, information about emerging local plans will be given to purchasers—and to land charges, planning agreement, enforcement notices, tree preservation orders and countless other matters.
It is costing a fortune for local authorities to collate those records and pay for the computer equipment, software and expertise necessary to do the work. I understand that information is brought together, collated and included in maps. Individual properties are
130WH
identified and the information is collated. As the Minister said, a gazetteer of all properties is being created. It is of great assistance to a buyer, as I said in an intervention, to get all the information from one source, which we called the hub and the Minister says is the National Land Information Service. I understand that a Canadian company called MacDonald Dettwiler is to make loans or other financial assistance available to local authorities. The local authority to which I have spoken is not aware of the terms of such loans, although it has been stated that £205 million will be made available to local authorities. I would be happy if the Minister would write to inform me of the terms and conditions on which the money will be lent to local authorities. What will be the duration of the loan? What interest rate will apply? A coach and horses will be driven through a swift, reliable electronic conveyancing procedure if timely information is not given to a central source, which can be accessed readily by purchasers and their representatives. That is one of the greatest sources of delay in the conveyancing process.
The stages of conveyancing are familiar to all hon. Members, and have been outlined by the Minister, and, to some extent, by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. As I said in an intervention, it would be wise to introduce a convention whereby proper and full disclosure must be made of problems relating to title, rights of way, covenants and encumbrances. I do not think that it is wise to change the rule of caveat emptor, but perhaps the matter can be resolved by a market solution of a title insurance policy, which could be assignable to purchasers. I concede that it is up to the purchaser, by survey or inspection, to be satisfied of the state and condition of the fabric of the property. However, it would speed up the title process, whereby the purchaser or his representative should be satisfied that there are proper easements of water, electricity and gas, if full disclosure was made on those matters, buttressed by a system of insurance. I believe that that is done in the United States, and I hope that the interdepartmental working group to which the Minister referred will consider the matter.
Mr. Lock: I want to respond to two of the hon. Gentleman's points.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Does the Minister wish to intervene on the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). Could not the Minister deal with the matter in winding up the debate?
Mr. Lock: I will take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In relation to the issue of post-exchange of contracts, I want to comment further on a matter that was touched on only lightly by the previous speakers—the swift movement of funds from building societies to conveyancers and from conveyancers to conveyancers. I have always been led to believe that CHAPS—clearing house automated payment systems—or at least the central clearing banking systems, are something of a cartel. Part and parcel of achieving a swifter system and

131WH
aiding electronic conveyancing should be the ability to move money in a matter of minutes. That means not only mortgage advances and completion money but, because of high property prices, deposit moneys. It is important in all commercial transactions to have the ability to move money fast. I hope that the interdepartmental committee will give its views on that matter and consider it carefully.
Electronic conveyancing will involve the purchaser or his representative being able swiftly to access details of title and up-to-date office copy entries from the Land Registry on computer. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the matter was in hand, and that the information could—if I understood him correctly—be accessed immediately in relation to some properties in the United Kingdom.
I hope that the Minister will respond to another point that I made about the land charges registry. The registry is a rather arcane institution that deals with the records and registration of entries in relation to unregistered property. There is still a considerable amount of such property. I dare say that there is quite a lot of it in or near Macclesfield, so you might have an interest in the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Electronic conveyancing will be involved in a third matter, that of local searches. Replies should be immediately accessible. There should be a duty of care on the hub or central authority to provide up-to-date and accurate information on the plethora of entries relating to property, from planning and enforcement notices to details of mining.
It is important that the public trust the electronic system. For them to do so, there must be a method by which the people who provide the information are liable for any mistakes, errors and delay. I believe that the proposals are exciting and interesting and will help the public. If the public are to have confidence in the system, institutions and organisations must take responsibility and stand by the information that they provide.
3.58 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: First, I want to praise the Lord Chancellor's Department. Contrary to the rather silly remarks of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), it is one of the most innovative bodies involved in the programme of modernising government. I know that it is a rarity for any of your constituents to find themselves in court in Chester, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, if they had done so before some of the changes made by the Lord Chancellor's Department, they would have found that the system required paper to chase itself around the town between the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the police and so on. That is coming to an end, so the Department deserves credit. I hope that that is another example of a progressive move from which industry, the consumer and, in the longer term, the state can benefit. Given the right level of early investment, it could drive down costs and time delays in the system.
I appear to speak today as the voice of the consumer, as lawyers outgun me. I can claim no expertise in conveyancing—other than that of a consumer—although I claim some expertise in the management of IT systems and the management of change. Irwin
132WH
Mitchells, the well-known firm of solicitors, conducted my last conveyance brilliantly. I give credit to the firm for its efficiency, but the purchase involved several unreasonable delays as a result of the rather stupid conveyancing system.
One cannot often use debates such as this to solve one's case work, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ponder the difficulties that Thornton-le-Moors parish council faces in its dialogue with the diocesan registrar of the Church of England in Chester. For some time, we have been discussing the problem of who owns the parish rooms and is responsible for their upkeep and modernisation. As a result of the earlier legislation to which my hon. Friend referred, the diocesan registrar finally managed to find the conveyance, which is dated 31 December 1896. It turned up in this morning's post, which was timely, as I can use it to illustrate my point.
I should be extremely grateful if my hon. Friend would translate it into English for me, because it is written in a language that nobody could understand without referring to expensive lawyers who charge by the yard. My hon. Friend would be slightly cheaper. I am making a serious point. We now have an opportunity to collect data in a form that ordinary, sensible human beings can understand—unlike the arcane language of the conveyance, from which I quote:
do hereby certify that the Rev Charles Coliwyn Richard Rector of the Parish of Thornton-in-the-Moors within the said Diocese being about to convey a portion of land situate in the Parish of Thornton-in-the-Moors for the purpose of a school under the powers of an Act passed in the fifth year of the Reign of her present Majesty Queen Victoria entitled "An Act to afford further facilities for the conveyance and endowment of sites for schools—
and so on. That is just a part of one sentence.
My hon. Friend's work will ensure that the key pieces of information to which he and the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and for Surrey Heath referred can be translated into English. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon about the duty of care that is required to ensure that those who have a statutory duty to provide information do so in language that is intelligible and accurate. The small example that I gave suggests that there cannot be any opposition to the case for change.
My hon. Friend the Minister touched on some of the technical issues, such as the registration gap. It is there because it has always been there, and it has always been there because it takes a long time for a horse and cart to travel around the country between legal firms. The delay seems to me, as a lay person, to be entirely unnecessary in these days of electronic mail. I shall return to the question of digital signatures, to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend also referred to real-time conveyancing and I want to raise a technical point with him. Does he mean absolute time, because conveyancing, especially for property in London, may take place between people in different time zones and on different days of the week, such as a transaction between someone here and someone in Hong Kong? Has that been thought through?
On digital signatures, my hon. Friend was right to refer to the mysteries of the science of mathematics. I commend to him and the House the brilliant book written by Simon Singh, "The Code Book", which has

133WH
recently been televised. It demystifies the matter and shows Britain in a good light because of our brilliant expertise in mathematics. I am sure that the t-scheme will provide a basis for a solution, because the industry has the will to achieve it.
I turn to what we want as consumers. I am sure that matters can be simplified. What do I want to know when I buy something? A reasonable starting point is to know who owns it, from whom it was bought, the history of that chain and the plethora of additional information that is held by different agencies. That presents an ideal opportunity to require agencies to participate imaginatively. My hon. Friend referred to the British Geological Survey, which has done some fantastic work to enable people to see on a website the geology surrounding their houses. Ordnance Survey is doing parallel work to show whether areas are at risk from flooding, which is particularly relevant today.
Many other agencies could be involved. The Environment Agency is subject to a statutory requirement to maintain information about ancient landfill sites and their safety, and that information could be included. The Health and Safety Executive in my constituency actively dissuades planning applicants from building domestic dwellings in some areas and it, too, should be included in the equation. Other bodies include the utilities, to which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon referred, and the Oil and Pipelines Agency, which is relevant to your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have a network of pipelines and much of the information is not in the public domain, for obvious security reasons. However, if I were about to buy a property and the largest gas pipelines in the country went through the next field or even through the property, it would be reasonable to want to unearth that information. The study should include a careful evaluation of all possible bodies that should be encouraged to participate and feed information into the hub in a form that is easily accessible to those with a legitimate need for access.
Every hon. Member will have experienced the problem, which always baffles me, of the constituent who visits one's surgery and says that a fence has been built that is 2 ft—sometimes, it is 2 in—inside his garden. I was somewhat intrigued by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that some form of logbook be used, and it is true that there are problems associated with defining parcels of land. Given the scale of the plans, the thickness of a pencil line can prove to be a couple of metres in real terms.
The Post Office address files that are used for purposes of definition are somewhat inaccurate—if they do not believe me, representatives of the Post Office may examine the errors on my database. Increased use of Ordnance Survey grid references might provide a good technical definition, or one could increase use of global positioning satellites. Much more simply—and slightly closer to earth—one could consult the millennium map of the UK that is being created from an aeroplane by photographic means. That might provide a better definition of a parcel of land, and the two parties concerned could thereby reach agreement before
134WH
entering into a contract. In terms of the necessary technology, it would not be particularly difficult to incorporate such information into a central website hub.
Mr. Burnett: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—it is very difficult to collate such information. As I understand it, local authorities have different references for a property: the electoral roll reference, the council tax reference and the land charges reference. That is a measure of the huge and exceptionally expensive task that falls on the shoulders of the various agencies.
Mr. Miller: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. At the moment, I am dealing with a case involving a single utility that cannot agree the proper definition of its metering service for a property because the meter is not located where the service claims that it is located. That seems bizarre, given that one can go and look at the meter, but such problems are not unusual.
Definitional issues can be dealt with through the simple application of technologies that are available today. For less than £200, professional walkers can buy a portable device that will locate their position to within a couple of feet anywhere in the British Isles. I am not talking about rocket science or the next generation of technology; such technology is available today. Ordnance Survey's high-quality work has resulted in a fantastic base map that, combined with better use of aerial photography and GPS, could alleviate silly problems. That is why I intervened on my hon. Friend the Minister. May we please, when examining the scope of the proposals, look for ways of improving the service to our constituents?
I hope that Opposition Members will accept that these matters cannot be rushed. We are dealing with the creation of a very complex database. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, it will not be a single database but a hub access mechanism. All the suppliers of data into the hub will have to operate within common standards, using common terminology that lay people can understand rather than silly sentences such as the one that I read earlier—I shall not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by reading it out again. It will require a lot of hard work to bring that about. I urge all parties in the House to work co-operatively on this exciting venture, which should, within a few years, provide a radically different form of conveyancing, giving the consumer more information more accurately, more quickly and more cheaply.
Those are worthy goals, and I hope that all parties will give the Minister every support in introducing these complex technical changes. However, I would also say to him that the measure of whether we succeed in this drive for greater efficiency will be whether the consumer gets a better deal. I am sure that that will happen if we adopt the right approach, and I wish the Minister every success with his endeavours.
4.17 pm
Mr. Lock: This has been a good debate. I shall not respond to every point that has been raised, but I assure hon. Members that the working party that I announced at the beginning will be improved by this debate and that its members will study it as part of their deliberations.

135WH
I assure the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that the interdepartmental group does not have the Orwellian overtones that he fears. It is the usual system that operates in government: no doubt, it operated before 1997, just as it has since. However, the group will consult and draw on licensed conveyancers, the Law Society, surveyors, estate agents, the Institute of Legal Executives, and representatives of others concerned with property—we must not forget the lenders, or the consumers. A wide constituency of stakeholders is involved, because most of us will, at some point in our lives, own a property—or, in the case of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), very considerable amounts of Devon.
Mr. Hawkins: I appreciate that the Minister is being helpful and I realise that he cannot deal with all the matters raised. However, the point that I was trying to make was a serious one. The process would be improved if all the bodies that the Minister mentioned, including consumers, lenders and professional bodies, were full members of the working party, rather than merely consultees.
I have a great fear of consultation processes in which the only people on the working party are civil servants. I am not attacking civil servants collectively; I am saying that, as a principle, I prefer Government consultation processes that involve consumer and professional organisations as full members of the discussion rather than as consultees.
Mr. Lock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. At present, we do not propose to include external members in the detailed working group. However, I can assure him that there will be full consultation. Any consultation in which I am involved means precisely that—listening to and taking careful note of views. However, in the end someone has to make a decision and, inevitably, not everyone who has been consulted will agree.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a logbook for properties. Several Governments have considered that as a possible way forward. There are several problems with the idea. First, a logbook would by its nature have to be updated. In the current system, information in one form or another is searched from its primary source. It would be a considerable administrative exercise to extract information from its primary source and effectively turn it into a logbook that would have to be continually updated. It is not clear that it would be preferable to locate that information in a logbook, rather than through an electronic interface used by a local authority, concessionary undertaking or private body for suitable inquiries relating to the property. The second problem is that, even if that system were possible within a local authority, because of the nature of the disparate groups that hold information on any property, different locations and properties will give rise to different inquiries, even within a local authority area, and there cannot be complete information.
Thirdly, I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that in conveyancing we are concerned with the transfer not of property, but of interests in property and, therefore, in the multiple layers of interests that can occur in regard to the same property. The concept of there being only a logbook for a house, which is a nice
136WH
idea in theory, might not work in practice where a freeholder, a head leaseholder, and a sub-leaseholder all own different parcels of land.
Mr. Hawkins: I recognise what the Minister says and agree that those are important issues. All I ask him to confirm now, particularly in the light of the comment of his hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), is that, as we have the opportunity to consider a new system—which, as his hon. Friend pointed out, is not rocket science—he will at least undertake to present it as one subject for consideration by his new working party and its consultees.
Mr. Lock: All that I can say now is that I will consider it.
Mr. Burnett: Having done some trust law, I take the point that there may be myriad interests in one block of property. That is a difficulty when it comes to a logbook. I think that we all understand that. However, will the Minister advert to the fact that there is every good reason for the existence of a central register, not of encumbrances in terms of mortgages, charges and so on—not title matters—but of the hub, for want of a better expression, around which all information can be accessed in relation to planning, mining and all the statutory information that can be obtained in regard to a property?
Mr. Lock: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is precisely what NLIS is. It is a hub that, while not holding the information itself, provides electronic links through to the various private and public bodies that hold it. If NLIS is working—the pilot in Bristol has been extremely successful—the fact that there is no one physical location where the information is held is not relevant. The joy and benefit of electronic communication is to access information from the different physical locations where it can be properly updated, given the core business of whoever is the holder of that information. For the purposes of the person who is inquiring and then receiving such information, it appears on the computer screen—in the solicitor's office in Torridge, say—as if all the information sought has come from a single source. That is how NLIS is designed to work.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the investment required downstream, particularly with regard to local authorities. They are undertaking considerable investment in their IT systems as a result of the NLIS programme. He asked for information about that, but the details of major contracts between the contractor and different local authorities are, unfortunately, subject to a veil of commercial confidentiality. I undertake to write to him and to other hon. Members who are in the Chamber setting out the information that I have available, but the majority of information on detailed costings and investment structures is not in the public domain.
Mr. Burnett: To help our local authorities, we want to know from where the loans can be obtained. Which companies are providing them and on what terms are they being made? The local authorities that I have

137WH
spoken to are not clear about where they can get financial assistance to cope with the huge cost of what we have been discussing.
Mr. Lock: I am grateful for that information and I undertake to give the best information that we have available.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the land charges searches are a feature of unregistered property conveyancing. I am pleased to say that searches can already be made electronically and, ever one for statistics, I can say that 42.6 per cent. of the searches undertaken last year were not processed by document exchange or post. I am sure that the majority of them were undertaken electronically and that that part of e-conveyancing is storming ahead.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to title insurance, which is a difficult and interesting topic. In their work on the housing market, the Government considered the option of title insurance as an alternative to an approved title. It is right that that is available and used widely in the United States. The extent of title insurance is essentially a matter for the market to develop, but the more effective and reliable it is and the more confidence we have in our system of title, the less room there is for the sort of risks that title insurance guards against. It is essentially a matter for the market, but we have a secure and established system of title from the land registration system. That may be one reason why the market in title insurance—in effect, insuring against the possibility that land is owned by someone else—has not developed here as it has in other places where establishing who owns land is not as easy.
Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments about insurance. Unfortunately, mistakes happen and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that not all the entries in the land register, or all office copies, are correct, for reasons that have already been referred to, such as the width of a pencil mark. Perhaps, to speed matters up, title insurance would be a valuable form of assistance. Will the interdepartmental group at least discuss the merits or otherwise of such assistance in the conveyancing process?
Mr. Lock: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall consider its suitability for reference to the group.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon and other hon. Members made a point about the relationship between electronic conveyancing and boundary disputes. It is not the job of the Land Registry to settle boundary disputes. The nature of land registration and the filed plans—and their degree of accuracy—is to provide indicators of the position of boundaries, but the existing land registration rules make it clear that they are not final evidence. It would not be right for the land register to be the final arbiter of 6 in here or there, or the route of a fence now as compared with 15 years ago. It is impossible to devise a system of land registration in which there is a duty on the land registrar to maintain that level of detail.
138WH
Of course, if a dispute arose about whether a field was in one farm or another, the Land Registry would be approached, if the land was registered, and would provide, to all intents and purposes, the definitive answer. However, I caution hon. Members not to try, through the process of changing from paper-based to e-conveyancing, or by any other means, to impose on the Land Registry duties that are not its business. A boundary dispute over 6 in of fence, or who is to maintain a wall, is a matter of property law, to be determined in accordance with the law between two neighbours and, if it cannot be resolved any other way, in the county court.
Mr. Miller: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point about the Land Registry, especially given the nature of the historic data that it keeps, in addition to the legislative provisions. However, does he agree that it would be beneficial to the conveyancing process if, where more modern and accurate definitions exist, those were considered as being among the spokes relating to the hub?
Mr. Lock: Certainly, computerisation of the map, which involved the use of many of the techniques to which my hon. Friend has alluded, will assist in resolving many disputes whose outcome would otherwise have been uncertain. However, my point is that it is not the Land Registry's function to resolve all disputes. By its nature, it cannot do so.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon mentioned the movement of money. Of course, on a tough Friday afternoon towards the end of the month, CHAPS, impressive as it has been at some times, creaks a little under the strain. I shall ask the group to examine the issue, although I fear that, as in many similar instances, and while the hon. Gentleman is right about the need to move money quickly, accurately and reliably, the problem goes far beyond the remit of e-conveyancing. It concerns the generation of a climate in this country's business environment in which e-commerce works much more widely than in the buying and selling of land. To the extent that the matter is an important part of the e-conveyancing system, I shall ask the group to consider it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) quoted the language of a conveyance that seemed perfectly straightforward to me as a lawyer. I could not see why it was unclear. Perhaps I have spent too many years in the Chancery Division and not enough in my hon. Friend's constituency. All professions have their language. The language of professionals has always been used as a barrier to the layman, and the legal profession is no different from the medical profession in that respect. I agree entirely that the language needs to be simplified. Hon. Members may have noticed that I have referred not to vendors and purchasers during the debate, but to buyers and sellers. We all understand that simple form, but using the words "vendor" and "purchaser" means getting into lawyers' language. We are taking steps the right direction, but I agree that further steps are necessary.

139WH
An awful lot has been and is being done to promote better conveyancing. A degree of co-operation has been established between all of the various players that are involved to achieve the prize of a better conveyancing system that is fast and reliable and cuts out a great deal of the uncertainty and pain of house buying and selling. I am grateful to have participated in this good debate, which has provided an opportunity to show how much
140WH
has been done, as well as to look ahead and see the prize that is before us: a conveyancing system that is accurate, which can work electronically and in which conveyancing will occur when people want it, rather than when the system gradually creaks into life.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Five o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes will be made to his Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limit for 2000–01. [138175]

  Mr. Rooker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XII, Vote 2 and Class XII, Vote 3, the Department of Social Security Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £399,594,000 from £3,190,745,000 to £3,590.339,000.

  The increase of Class XII, Vote 3 is the net effect of additional Comprehensive Spending Review funding of £86,000,000 (running costs), an increase of £112,000,000 (running costs) associated with the move to ACT as the method of payment for all benefits, a take up of £40,026,000 (running costs) from the Departmental Unallocated Provision (which will not change the gross running costs limit), an increase of £37,946,000 (running costs) and £1,118,000 capital under the End Year Flexibility Scheme as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Out-turn White Paper Cm 4812 published on 18 July, an increase of £6,670,000 (running costs) for the administration costs of additional pensions work, an increase of £18,500,000 for the administrative costs arising from Budget 2000 measures, an increase of £9,000,000 (running costs) resulting from the Debt Recovery Scheme, an increase of £6,000,000 (running costs) arising from initiatives contained in the Grabiner report, an increase of £4,320,000 (running costs) associated with the Civil Service Modernisation programme, an increase of £750,000 (running costs) towards the administrative costs of ONE, an increase of £75,000,000 (capital) from the Welfare Modernisation Fund to help speed up IT modernisation, and an increase of £11,542,000 (capital) arising from the proceeds of a development gain under the PRIME initiative.

  Other changes result from a transfer of £2,374,000 (running costs) towards the administrative costs of Decision Making and Appeals offset by a corresponding increase on Class I, Vote 3 (Employment Services), a transfer of £1,199,000 (running costs) and £1,328,000 capital for the Resettlement Programme in Scotland, offset by a corresponding increase in the Scottish Executive, a transfer of £400,000 (capital) for expenditure on the London Rough Sleepers Unit, offset by a corresponding increase on Class III, Vote 1 (Housing,
  290W
  construction, regeneration, regional policy, planning and countryside and wildlife, England) and a transfer of £11,000 (running costs) in respect of Better Government for Older People, offset by a corresponding reduction on Class III, Vote 2 (Planning, roads, local transport and vehicle safety), (£6,000) and Class XVII, Vote 1 (Cabinet Office: administration) (£5,000).

  There is also an increase of £20,970,000 (running costs) associated with services provided to other Government Departments on a repayment basis, an increase of £47,021,000 (running costs) arising from increased payments of Value Added Tax on contracted-out services, an increase of £15,153,000 (running costs) associated with expenditure on sub let accommodation and an increase of £168,000 to meet the costs of overseas medical examinations. Appropriation in Aid increases by £169,152,000.

  Changes in the Welfare to Work provision arise from an increase of £975,000 under the End Year Flexibility Scheme as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Out-turn White Paper Cm 4812 published on 18 July, a reduction of £7,367,000 offset by a corresponding increase on Class 1, Vote 3 (Employment Service), an increase of £15,000 offset by a corresponding reduction on Class 1, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services), an increase of £2,308,000 for costs associated with pilots and innovative schemes arising from the programme of measures to help people with a disability or long term illness move into or remain in work and an increase of £2,313,000 for expenditure on work focused interviews relating to the measures to help Lone Parents move from Welfare to Work.

  As a result of these changes the running costs limit of this Department will be increased by £277,792,000 from £2,941,730,000 to £3,219,522,000 and the running costs limit of the Welfare to Work programme will be reduced by £1,756,000 from £15,752,000 to £13,996,000.

  Changes to Class XII, Vote 2 arise from an increase of £37,430,000 under the End Year Flexibility Scheme as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Out-turn White Paper Cm 4812 published on 18 July and an increase of £2,500,000 associated with the administration cost of Budget 2000 measures.

  Increases will be offset by transfers or a charge to the DEL Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Government Actuary (Report)
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received the report from the Government Actuary's Department under section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. [138173]

  Mr. Darling
  The Report by the Government Actuary on the Cost of Uprating the Basic Retirement Pension in Line With the General Level of Earnings (Cm 4920) has been laid before Parliament today. Copies have been placed in the Library and are available for hon. Members in the Vote Office.

  Benefit Rates
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the new rates of benefit proposed from April 2001. [138174]

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Attendance Allowance

  higher rate

  53.55

  55.30

  lower rate

  35.80

  37.00

  Child Benefit

  only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable (couple)

  15.00

  15.50

  only, elder or eldest for whom child benefit is payable (lone parent)

  17.55

  17.55

  each subsequent child

  10.00

  10.35

  Child's Special Allowance

  see note on Child Dependency Increase

  11.35

  11.35

  Council Tax Benefit

  Personal allowances

  single

  18 to 24

  41.35

  42.00

  25 or over

  52.20

  53.05

  lone parent—18 or over

  52.20

  53.05

  couple—one or both over 18

  81.95

  83.25

  Dependent Children

  from birth to September following 16th birthday

  30.95

  31.45

  from September following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  31.75

  32.25

  Premiums

  family

  14.25

  14.50

  family (lone parent rate)

  22.20

  22.20

  pensioner

  single

  26.25

  139.10

  couple

  40.00

  157.30

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  28.65

  139.10

  couple

  43.40

  157.30

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  33.85

  139.10

  couple

  49.10

  157.30

  disability

  single

  22.25

  22.60

  couple

  31.75

  32.25

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  5.95

  111.05

  disabled child rate

  5.95

  111.05

  couple rate

  8.60

  116.00

  severe disability

  single

  40.20

  41.55

  couple (one qualifies)

  40.20

  41.55

  couple (both qualify)

  80.40

  83.10

  disabled child

  22.25

  130.00

  carer

  14.15

  124.40

  bereavement

  15.30

  119.45

  Non-dependant deductions

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  gross income: £269 and above

  6.95

  6.95

  gross income: £215–£268.99

  5.80

  5.80

  gross income: £125–£214.99

  4.60

  4.60

  292W
  Mr. Darling
  The information requested is set out in the schedule. The annual uprating of benefits will take place in the first full week of the tax year. In 2001, this will be the week beginning 9 April.
  293W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  gross income less than £125

  2.30

  2.30

  others, aged 18 or over

  2.30

  2.30

  Alternative maximum Council Tax Benefit

  25% of Council Tax

  second adult on IS or JSA (IB)

  25% of Council Tax

  second adult's gross income:

  under £125

  15% of Council Tax

  £125 to £162.99

  7.5% of Council Tax

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  amount disregarded o/60s

  6,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15.00

  20.00

  various specified employments

  15.00

  20.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  15.00

  20.00

  childcare charges (1 child) - maximum

  70.00

  70.00

  childcare charges (2 or more children) maximum

  105.00

  105.00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30 Hr Adult Allowance in DPTC

  11.25

  11.45

  30 Hr Adult Credit in WFTC

  11.25

  11.45

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.55

  Dependency Increases

  Adult Dependency Increases

  For spouse or person looking after children, with:

  retirement pension on own insurance

  40.40

  143.40

  long term incapacity benefit, unemployability supplement

  40.40

  41.75

  severe disablement allowance

  24.20

  25.00

  invalid care allowance

  24.15

  24.95

  short-term incapacity benefit if beneficiary over pension age

  38.80

  40.10

  maternity allowance/short-term incapacity benefit

  31.50

  32.55

  Child Dependency increases, with; retirement pension, widows benefit, short-term incapacity benefit at the higher rate and long term incapacity benefit, invalid care allowance severe disablement allowance, higher rate industrial death benefit, unemployability supplement and short-term incapacity benefit if beneficiary over pension age2

  11.35

  11.35

  Disability Living Allowance

  Care Component

  Highest

  53.55

  55.30

  Middle

  35.80

  37.00

  Lowest

  14.20

  14.65

  294W 295W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Mobility Component

  Higher

  37.40

  38.65

  Lower

  14.20

  14.65

  Earnings Rules

  Invalid Care Allowance

  50.00

  72.00

  Limit of earnings from councillor's allowance

  59.50

  60.50

  Therapeutic earnings limit

  59.50

  60.50

  Industrial injuries unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  3,094.00

  3,146.00

  War pensioners' unemployability supplement permitted earnings level (annual amount)

  3,094.00

  3,146.00

  Adult dependency increases with

  short-term incapacity benefit where claimant is

  (a) under pension age

  31.50

  32.55

  (b) over pension age

  38.80

  40.10

  maternity allowance

  31.50

  32.55

  retirement pension, long-term incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance, unemployability supplement where dependant

  (a) is living with claimant

  52.50

  53.05

  (b) still qualifies for the tapered earnings rule

  45.09

  45.09

  retirement pension where dependent not living with claimant

  40.40

  43.40

  long-term incapacity benefit and unemployability supplement where dependant not living with claimant

  40.40

  41.75

  severe disablement allowance where dependant not living with claimant

  24.20

  25.00

  invalid care allowance

  24.15

  24.95

  Child dependency increases level at which CDIs are affected by earnings of claimant's spouse or partner

  for first child

  145.00

  150.00

  for each subsequent child

  19.00

  20.00

  Guardian's Allowance

  11.35

  11.35

  see note on Child Dependency Increase

  Hospital Benefit

  Personal allowances

  single

  16 to 24

  41.35

  42.00

  25 or over

  52.20

  53.05

  lone parent

  under 18

  41.35

  42.00

  18 or over

  52.20

  53.05

  couple

  both under 18

  62.35

  63.35

  one or both over 18

  81.95

  83.25

  dependent children

  from birth to September following 16th birthday

  30.95

  31.45

  from Sept. following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  31.75

  32.25

  Premiums

  family

  14.25

  14.50

  family (lone parent rate)

  22.20

  22.20

  296W 297W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  pensioner

  single

  26.25

  139.10

  couple

  40.00

  157.30

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  28.65

  139.10

  couple

  43.40

  157.30

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  33.85

  139.10

  couple

  49.10

  157.30

  disability

  single

  22.25

  22.60

  couple

  31.75

  32.25

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  5.95

  111.05

  disabled child rate

  5.95

  111.05

  couple rate

  8.60

  116.00

  severe disability

  single

  40.20

  41.55

  couple (one qualifies)

  40.20

  41.55

  couple (both qualify)

  80.40

  83.10

  disabled child

  22.25

  130.00

  carer

  14.15

  124.40

  bereavement

  15.30

  119.45

  Non-dependant deductions rent rebates and allowances

  aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance

  aged 18 or over, not in remunerative work or gross income less than £84.00

  7.40

  7.40

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  gross income: less than £84.00

  7.40

  7.40

  gross income: £84 to £124.99

  17.00

  17.00

  gross income: £125 to £162.99

  23.35

  23.35

  gross income: £163 to £214.99

  38.20

  38.20

  gross income: £215.00 to £268.99

  43.50

  43.50

  gross income: £269.00 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Service charges for fuel

  heating

  9.25

  9.55

  hot water

  1.15

  1.20

  lighting

  0.80

  0.85

  cooking

  1.15

  1.20

  Amount ineligible for meals

  three or more meals a day

  single claimant

  18.65

  18.95

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  18.65

  18.95

  each child under 16

  9.40

  9.55

  less than three meals a day

  single claimant

  12.40

  12.60

  each person in family aged 16 or over

  12.40

  12.60

  each child under 16

  6.25

  6.35

  breakfast only—claimant and each member of family

  2.25

  2.30

  Capital

  upper limit

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  amount disregarded o/60s

  6,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit for permanent resident of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amount disregarded for permanent resident of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  298W 299W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Earnings disregards

  where disability premium awarded

  15.00

  20.00

  various specified employments

  15.00

  20.00

  lone parent

  25.00

  25.00

  where the claimant has a partner

  10.00

  10.00

  single claimant

  5.00

  5.00

  where carer premium awarded

  15.00

  20.00

  childcare charges

  70.00

  70.00

  childcare charges (2 or more children)—maximum

  105.00

  105.00

  Other income disregards

  maintenance disregard

  15.00

  15.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  30 Hr Adult Allowance in DPTC

  11.25

  11.45

  30 Hr Adult Credit in WFTC

  11.25

  11.45

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.55

  Incapacity Benefit

  Long-term Incapacity Benefit

  67.50

  69.75

  Short-term Incapacity Benefit (under pension age)

  lower rate

  50.90

  52.60

  higher rate

  60.20

  62.20

  Short-term Incapacity Benefit (over pension age)

  lower rate

  64.75

  66.90

  higher rate

  67.50

  69.75

  Increase of Long-term Incapacity Benefit for age

  higher rate

  14.20

  14.65

  lower rate

  7.10

  7.35

  Invalidity Allowance (Transitional)

  higher rate

  14.20

  14.65

  middle rate

  9.00

  9.30

  lower rate

  4.50

  4.65

  Income Support

  Personal Allowances

  single

  under 18—usual rate

  31.45

  31.95

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  41.35

  42.00

  18 to 24

  41.35

  42.00

  25 or over

  52.20

  53.05

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate

  31.45

  31.95

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  41.35

  42.00

  18 or over

  52.20

  53.05

  couple

  both under 18

  62.35

  63.35

  one or both 18 or over

  81.95

  83.25

  dependent children

  birth to September following 16th birthday

  30.95

  31.45

  from Sept. following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  31.75

  32.25

  300W 301W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Residential Allowance

  except Greater London

  61.30

  63.30

  Greater London

  68.20

  70.45

  Premiums

  family

  14.25

  14.50

  family (lone parent rate)

  15.90

  15.90

  pensioner

  single

  26.25

  139.10

  couple

  40.00

  157.30

  pensioner (enhanced)

  single

  28.65

  139.10

  couple

  43.40

  157.30

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  33.85

  139.10

  couple

  49.10

  157.30

  disability

  single

  22.25

  22.60

  couple

  31.75

  32.25

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  5.95

  111.05

  disabled child rate

  5.95

  111.05

  couple rate

  8.60

  116.00

  severe disability

  single

  40.20

  41.55

  couple (one qualifies)

  40.20

  41.55

  couple (both qualify)

  80.40

  83.10

  disabled child

  22.25

  130.00

  carer

  14.15

  124.40

  bereavement

  15.30

  119.45

  Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in

  residential care homes

  old age

  221.00

  225.00

  very dependent elderly

  256.00

  261.00

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  234.00

  238.00

  special criteria satisfied

  256.00

  261.00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  234.00

  238.00

  special criteria satisfied

  256.00

  261.00

  mental handicap

  266.00

  271.00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  303.00

  308.00

  (b) (over pension age)

  221.00

  225.00

  (c) (special criteria satisfied)

  256.00

  261.00

  others

  221.00

  225.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  46.00

  47.00

  nursing homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  331.00

  337.00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  331.00

  337.00

  mental handicap

  337.00

  343.00

  terminal illness

  330.00

  336.00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  373.00

  379.00

  (b) (over pension age)

  330.00

  336.00

  others (including elderly)

  330.00

  336.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  51.00

  52.00

  302W 303W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be purchased within the accommodation (Daily Rate)

  breakfast

  1.10

  1.10

  midday meal

  1.55

  1.55

  evening meal

  1.55

  1.55

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in

  private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes

  personal expenses

  15.45

  116.05

  dependent children

  (a) under 11

  6.15

  6.25

  (b) 11 to 15

  9.00

  9.15

  (c) 16 to 17

  10.40

  10.55

  (d) age 18

  15.00

  15.25

  local authority (Part III) accommodation

  67.50

  172.50

  of which, Personal Expenses

  15.45

  116.05

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in: the Polish home Ilford Park

  max. amount for accommodation and meals

  373.00

  379.00

  personal expenses for claimant

  17.35

  17.35

  personal expenses for partner

  17.35

  17.35

  personal expenses for dependant children

  (a) under 11

  6.15

  6.25

  (b) 11 to 15

  9.00

  9.15

  (c) 16 to 17

  10.40

  10.55

  (d) 18

  15.55

  15.55

  Housing costs

  deduction for non-dependants aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance aged 18 or over, not in work or gross income less than £84.00

  7.40

  7.40

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work:

  gross income: £81 to £124.99

  17.00

  17.00

  gross income: £125 to £162.99

  23.35

  23.35

  gross income: £163 to £214.99

  38.20

  38.20

  gross income: £215 to £268.99

  43.50

  43.50

  gross income: £269.00 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Deduction for direct payments arrears of housing, fuel and water costs council tax and fines default, and

  2.65

  2.70

  deductions for child maintenance (standard)

  5.30

  5.40

  deductions for child maintenance (lower)

  2.65

  2.70

  Arrears of Community Charge court order against claimant

  2.65

  2.70

  court order against couple

  4.10

  4.20

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments ordinary overpayments

  7.95

  8.10

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.40

  10.80

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  28.00

  28.50

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amt disregarded of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  upper limit o/60s

  12,000.00

  amount disregarded o/60s

  6,000.00

  304W 305W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Tariff income

  £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  couples earnings

  10.00

  10.00

  higher earnings

  15.00

  20.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.55

  Industrial Death Benefit

  Widow's pension

  higher rate

  67.50

  172.50

  lower rate

  20.25

  121.75

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Pension

  18 and over, or under 18 with dependants

  100%

  109.30

  112.90

  90%

  98.37

  101.61

  80%

  87.44

  90.32

  70%

  76.51

  79.03

  60%

  65.58

  67.74

  50%

  54.65

  56.45

  40%

  43.72

  45.16

  30%

  32.79

  33.87

  20%

  21.86

  22.58

  Under 18

  100%

  66.95

  69.15

  90%

  60.26

  62.24

  80%

  53.56

  55.32

  70%

  46.87

  48.41

  60%

  40.17

  41.49

  50%

  33.48

  34.58

  40%

  26.78

  27.66

  30%

  20.09

  20.75

  20%

  13.39

  13.83

  Maximum life gratuity (lump sum)

  7,260.00

  7,500.00

  Unemployability Supplement

  67.50

  69.75

  plus where appropriate an increase for early incapacity

  higher rate

  14.20

  14.65

  middle rate

  9.00

  9.30

  lower rate

  4.50

  4.65

  Maximum reduced earnings allowance

  43.72

  45.16

  Maximum retirement allowance

  10.93

  11.29

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  87.60

  90.40

  intermediate rate

  65.70

  67.80

  normal maximum rate

  43.80

  45.20

  part-time rate

  21.90

  22.60

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  43.80

  45.20

  Invalid Care Allowance

  40.40

  41.75

  306W 307W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Jobseekers Allowance

  Contribution based JSA—Personal rates

  under 18

  31.45

  31.95

  18 to 24

  41.35

  42.00

  25 or over

  52.20

  53.05

  Income-based JSA Single persons allowance

  under 18

  31.45

  31.95

  18 to 24

  41.35

  42.00

  25 or over

  52.20

  53.05

  lone parent

  under 18—usual rate

  31.45

  31.95

  under 18—higher rate payable in specific circumstances

  41.35

  42.00

  18 or over

  52.20

  53.05

  couple

  both under 18

  31.45

  31.95

  both under 18, one disabled

  41.35

  42.00

  both under 18, with resp. for a child

  62.35

  63.35

  one under 18, one 18–24

  41.35

  42.00

  one under 18, one 25+

  52.20

  53.05

  both 18 or over

  81.95

  83.25

  dependent children

  from birth to September following 16th birthday

  30.95

  31.45

  from Sept. following 16th birthday to day before 19th birthday

  31.75

  32.25

  Residential Allowance

  except Greater London

  61.30

  63.30

  Greater London

  68.20

  70.45

  Premiums

  family

  14.25

  14.50

  family (lone parent rate)

  15.90

  15.90

  pensioner

  single

  26.25

  139.10

  couple

  40.00

  157.30

  pensioner (enhanced)

  couple

  43.40

  157.30

  pensioner (higher)

  single

  33.85

  139.10

  couple

  49.10

  157.30

  disability

  single

  22.25

  22.60

  couple

  31.75

  32.25

  enhanced disability premium single rate

  5.95

  111.05

  disabled child rate

  5.95

  111.05

  couple rate

  8.60

  116.00

  severe disability

  single

  40.20

  41.55

  couple (one qualifies)

  40.20

  41.55

  couple (both qualify)

  80.40

  83.10

  disabled child

  22.25

  130.00

  carer

  14.15

  124.40

  bereavement

  15.30

  119.45

  308W 309W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Maximum amounts for accommodation and meals in

  residential care homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  234.00

  238.00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  234.00

  238.00

  mental handicap

  266.00

  271.00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  303.00

  308.00

  others

  221.00

  225.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  46.00

  47.00

  nursing homes

  mental disorder (not handicap)

  331.00

  337.00

  drug/alcohol dependence

  331.00

  337.00

  mental handicap

  337.00

  343.00

  terminal illness

  330.00

  336.00

  physical disablement

  (a) (under pension age)

  373.00

  379.00

  others (including elderly)

  330.00

  336.00

  maximum Greater London increase

  51.00

  52.00

  Amounts for meals where these cannot be purchased within the accommodation: (Daily Rate)

  breakfast

  1.10

  1.10

  midday meal

  1.55

  1.55

  evening meal

  1.55

  1.55

  Allowances for personal expenses for claimants in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes

  personal expenses

  15.45

  116.05

  dependent children

  (a) under 11

  6.15

  6.25

  (b) 11 to 15

  9.00

  9.15

  (c) 16 to 17

  10.40

  10.55

  (d) age 18

  15.00

  15.25

  local authority (Part III) accommodation

  67.50

  172.50

  of which, Personal Expenses

  15.45

  116.05

  Housing costs deduction for non-dependants

  aged 25 and over, in receipt of Income Support or income based Job Seekers Allowance

  aged 18 or over, not in remunerative work or gross income less than £84.00

  7.40

  7.40

  aged 18 or over and in remunerative work

  gross income: less than £84.00

  7.40

  7.40

  gross income: £84 to £124.99

  17.00

  17.00

  gross income: £125 to £162.99

  23.35

  23.35

  gross income: £163 to £214.99

  38.20

  38.20

  gross income: £215.00 to £268.99

  43.50

  43.50

  gross income: £269.00 and above

  47.75

  47.75

  Deduction for direct payments

  Deductions from JSA (IB) arrears of housing, fuel and water costs council tax and fines default

  2.65

  2.70

  Deductions for Child Maintenance

  deductions for child maintenance (standard)

  5.30

  5.40

  deductions for child maintenance (lower)

  2.65

  2.70

  Arrears of Community Charge court order against claimant

  2.65

  2.70

  court order against couple

  4.10

  4.20

  Deductions from JSA (Cont.)

  Arrears of Comm. Charge, Council Tax, fines and overpayment recovery

  Age 16–17

  10.48

  10.65

  Age 18–24

  13.78

  14.00

  Age 25+

  17.40

  17.68

  Max. deduction for arrears of Child Supp. Maintenance

  Age 16–17

  10.48

  10.65

  Age 18–24

  13.78

  14.00

  Age 25+

  17.40

  17.68

  310W 311W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Maximum rates for recovery of overpayments in JSA (IB)

  ordinary overpayments

  7.95

  8.10

  where claimant convicted of fraud

  10.40

  10.80

  Reduction in benefit for strikers

  28.00

  28.50

  Capital

  upper limit

  8,000.00

  8,000.00

  amount disregarded

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  child's limit

  3,000.00

  3,000.00

  upper limit of RC/NH

  16,000.00

  16,000.00

  amt disregarded of RC/NH

  10,000.00

  10,000.00

  amt disregarded o/60s

  6,000.00

  upper limit o/60s

  12,000.00

  Tariff income £1 for every complete £250 or part thereof between amount of capital disregarded and capital upper limit

  Disregards

  standard earnings

  5.00

  5.00

  couples earnings

  10.00

  10.00

  higher earnings

  15.00

  20.00

  war disablement pension and war widow's pension

  10.00

  10.00

  certain voluntary and charitable payments

  20.00

  20.00

  student loan

  10.00

  10.00

  student's covenanted income

  5.00

  5.00

  income from boarders:

  disregard the fixed amount (£20) plus 50% of the balance of the charge

  20.00

  20.00

  Expenses for subtenants

  furnished or unfurnished

  4.00

  4.00

  where heating is included, additional

  9.25

  9.55

  Maternity Allowance

  New standard rate

  60.20

  62.20

  MA threshold

  30.00

  30.00

  Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis, and Miscellaneous Diseases Scheme and

  The Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation)

  Total disablement allowance and major incapacity allowance (maximum)

  109.30

  112.90

  Partial disablement allowance

  40.40

  41.75

  Unemployability supplement

  67.50

  69.75

  plus where appropriate increases for early incapacity

  higher rate

  14.20

  14.65

  middle rate

  9.00

  9.30

  lower rate

  4.50

  4.65

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  87.60

  90.40

  intermediate rate

  65.70

  67.80

  normal maximum rate

  43.80

  45.20

  part-time rate

  21.90

  22.60

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  43.80

  45.20

  Lesser incapacity allowance

  maximum rate of allowance

  40.40

  41.75

  based on loss of earnings over

  53.55

  55.30

  Retirement Pension

  Category A or B

  67.50

  172.50

  Category B (lower)—husband's insurance

  40.40

  143.40

  Category C or D—non-contributory

  40.40

  143.40

  Category C (lower)—non-contributory

  24.15

  24.95

  312W 313W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Additional pension

  3.30%

  Increments to:

  Basic and additional pensions

  Increase by: 3.3%

  Contracted out deductions (CODs) (Pre Apr '88 earnings)

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (GRB)

  Increments to CODs (April 1988—March 1997 earnings)

  0.00

  0.30%

  [3.0 per cent, paid by schemes]

  0.00

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (unit)(pence)

  8.77

  9.06

  Graduated Retirement Benefit (Inherited)

  Increase by: 3.3%

  Addition at age 80

  0.25

  0.25

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Basic rate

  40.80

  42.15

  Age-related addition (from December 1990)

  Higher rate

  14.20

  14.65

  Middle rate

  9.00

  9.30

  Lower rate

  4.50

  4.65

  Statutory Maternity Pay

  Earnings threshold

  67.00

  72.00

  Lower rate

  60.20

  62.20

  Statutory Sick Pay

  Earnings threshold

  67.00

  72.00

  Standard rate

  60.20

  62.20

  War Pensions

  Disablement Pension (100% rates)

  officer (£ per annum)

  6,053.00

  6,251.00

  other ranks

  116.00

  119.80

  Age allowances

  40%–50%

  7.75

  8.00

  over 50% but not over 70%

  11.95

  12.35

  over 70% but not over 90%

  17.00

  17.55

  over 90%

  23.90

  24.70

  Disablement gratuity

  specified minor injury (min.)

  738.00

  762.00

  specified minor injury (max.)

  5,513.00

  5,695.00

  unspecified minor injury (min.)

  306.00

  316.00

  unspecified minor injury (max.)

  7,169.00

  7,406.00

  Unemployability allowance

  personal

  71.65

  74.00

  adult dependency increase

  40.40

  43.40

  increase for first child

  9.85

  9.70

  (See note on Child Dependency Increase)

  increase for subsequent children

  11.35

  11.35

  (See note on Child Dependency Increase)

  Invalidity allowance

  higher rate

  14.20

  14.65

  middle rate

  9.00

  9.30

  lower rate

  4.50

  4.65

  Constant attendance allowance

  exceptional rate

  87.60

  90.40

  intermediate rate

  65.70

  67.80

  normal maximum rate

  43.80

  45.20

  part-time rate

  21.90

  22.60

  Comforts allowance

  higher rate

  18.80

  19.40

  lower rate

  9.40

  9.70

  314W 315W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Mobility supplement

  41.70

  43.10

  Allowance for lowered standard of occupation (maximum)

  43.72

  45.16

  Exceptionally severe disablement allowance

  43.80

  45.20

  Severe disablement occupational allowance

  21.90

  22.60

  Clothing allowance (£ per annum)

  149.00

  154.00

  Education allowance (£ per annum)(max.)

  120.00

  120.00

  War widow's pension (further details in schedule WWP)

  Widow (private)

  87.55

  90.45

  Widow (NCO)

  87.55

  90.75

  Widow—Officer (£ p.a. max.)

  5,415.00

  5,594.00

  Childless widow u-40 (private)

  20.25

  121.75

  Childless widow (NCO)

  20.55

  121.75

  Childless widow (Officer max. £s pa)

  5,415.00

  5,594.00

  Supplementary Pension

  57.07

  58.95

  age allowance

  (a) age 65 to 69

  10.00

  10.35

  (b) age 70 to 79

  19.20

  19.85

  (c) age 80 and over

  28.60

  29.55

  children's allowance increase for first child (See note on Child Dependency Increase)

  14.35

  14.30

  increase for subsequent children (See note on Child Dependency Increase) Orphan's pension

  15.85

  15.95

  increase for first child (See note on Child Dependency Increase)

  16.20

  16.20

  increase for subsequent children (See note on Child Dependency Increase)

  17.70

  17.85

  Unmarried dependant living as spouse (max.)

  85.50

  88.40

  Rent allowance (maximum)

  33.10

  34.20

  Adult orphan's pension (maximum)

  67.50

  69.75

  Widower's pension

  private (max.)

  87.55

  90.45

  officer (£ per annum) max.

  5,415.00

  5,594.00

  Widow's Benefit

  Widow's payment (lump sum)

  1,000.00

  1,000.00

  Widowed mother's allowance

  67.50

  172.50

  Widow's pension

  standard rate

  67.50

  172.50

  age-related3

  age 54 (49)

  62.78

  167.43

  53 (48)

  58.05

  162.35

  52 (47)

  53.33

  157.28

  51 (46)

  48.60

  152.20

  50 (45)

  43.88

  147.13

  49 (44)

  39.15

  142.05

  48 (43)

  34.43

  136.98

  47 (42)

  29.70

  131.90

  46 (41)

  24.98

  126.83

  45 (40)

  20.25

  121.75

  316W 317W

  Social Security Benefit Rates

  (Weekly rates unless otherwise shown)

  Rates 2000

  Rates 2001

  Bereavement Benefit (from 9 April 2001)

  Bereavement Payment (lump sum)

  2,000.00

  Widowed Parents Allowance

  172.50

  Bereavement Allowance

  172.50

  age-related

  54

  167.43

  53

  162.35

  52

  157.28

  51

  152.20

  50

  147.13

  49

  142.05

  48

  136.98

  47

  131.90

  46

  126.83

  45

  121.75

  1 Benefit increased by more than RPI/Rossi

  2 NB—The Overlapping Benefits Regulations provide for the rate of child dependency increases, guardian's allowance and child special allowance to be adjusted where the increase or allowance is payable for the eldest eligible child for whom Child Benefit is also payable. The weekly rate of the increase or allowance is reduced by the differential (less £3.50 from April 2000) between the rate of Child Benefit payable for the oldest eligible child and that payable for a subsequent child.

  3 For deaths occurring before 11 April 1988 refer to age-points shown in brackets.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many additional households are entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment as a result of(a) eligibility being extended to men aged 60 to 64 years and (b) the inclusion of other groups of people not receiving a state pension or other benefit. [138205]

  Mr. Darling
  An estimated 900,000 households will be newly eligible for a Winter Fuel Payment this winter. Of these, an estimated 850,000 contain a man aged 60–64 and a further 50,000 contain someone of pensionable age who is not in receipt of a State Pension or other qualifying benefit.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are based on the 1998–99 Family Resources Survey.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 50,000.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households are entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment. [136319]

  Angela Eagle
  Last winter, 1999–2000, around 10 million pensioners in over 7.5 million households benefited from Winter Fuel Payments.

  Following a ruling by the European Court of Justice, on 16 December 1999, we changed the conditions of eligibility for the Winter Fuel Payment scheme. In essence, the scheme was extended and Winter Fuel Payments became payable to men as well as women from age 60, and the need to be in receipt of a qualifying benefit was removed.

  State Pension
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over the State Pension age(a) have no entitlement to the basic State Pension and (b) are not entitled to the full value of the basic State Pension. [138207]
  318W
  Mr. Darling
  An estimated 460,000 people of pensionable age in Great Britain have no entitlement to the basic State Pension. A further 890,000 people in receipt of the basic State Pension are not entitled to the full value of the Category A pension (in the case of men and single women) or the full Category BL rate (in the case of married women).

  Notes:

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

  2. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 10,000

  Source:

  Pension Strategy Computer System at 31 March 2000.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of 31 October 2000,Official Report, columns 349–50W, (a) how many people have been sent letters inviting them to apply for the Minimum Income Guarantee and of these (i) how many tear-off slips have been returned and (ii) how many of the letters have resulted in a successful claim and (b) how many people have contacted the Minimum Income Guarantee helpline and as a result (i) how many claims have been submitted as a result of a helpline inquiry and (ii) how many of the helpline inquiries have resulted in a successful claim. [137525]

  Mr. Rooker
  Around 500,000 pensioners have requested claim forms or contacted the Minimum Income Guarantee helpline. The campaign is still in progress so comprehensive data are not yet available on the complete number of successful claims awarded. Of those processed half have been successful.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the average award of Minimum Income Guarantee which has been paid to the
  319W
  pensioners who have started to receive the Minimum Income Guarantee as a result of his Department's current take-up campaign. [137408]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pensioners who have made successful claims as a result of the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign are better off by around £20.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the reasons for the fall (1) in new Housing Benefit claims determined within the statutorily required period of 14 days between 1998–99 and 1999–2000; and what plans he has to halt this decline; [137064]

  (2) in Housing Benefit renewal claims determined within the statutorily required period of 14 days, between 1998–99 and 1999–2000; and what plans he has to halt this decline; [137065]

  (3) in new Council Tax Benefit claims determined within the statutorily required period of 14 days, between 1998–99 and 1999–2000; and what plans he has to halt this decline. [137066]

  Angela Eagle
  Recently published summary statistics for Great Britain indicate that the number of claims for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit that have been determined within 14 days has fallen. We are determined to secure improvements in Housing Benefit administration and have introduced a number of measures which will help to achieve this.

  We have set Best Value performance indicators from this April designed to ensure that authorities provide their communities with a faster, more accurate Housing Benefit service which is more secure against fraud, and which provides value for money and takes account of the views and needs of clients. Authorities are required to set challenging targets against these indicators and demonstrate that they are achieving year on year improvements in the standard of service they provide.

  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is conducting an ongoing programme of inspections of local authorities, encouraging them to develop action plans to improve administration and tackle fraud and error. Best practice guidance, developed through this programme, has been made available to all local authorities. As at 3 November 2000, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate had published reports on over 70 local authorities. We have made it abundantly clear to all local authority Chief Executives that where the Inspectorate finds evidence of persistent failings, we will use our powers to direct the authority as to the improved standards it is to attain and the timescales for achieving them. We issued the first such Directions in August 2000.

  We are making better use of IT to speed up administration and reduce the scope for fraud and error. Many millions of paper forms previously sent by the Benefits Agency to local authorities through the post are now sent electronically, significantly reducing the time taken just to transfer information.

  We have made significant progress. Our Housing Green Paper, published in April, set out how we can take this further. We are currently studying the responses to the Green Paper and will announce our decisions shortly.
  320W
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the amount of Housing Benefit which is currently owing to housing associations as a result of delays in the administration of Housing Benefit. [136318]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: We keep in touch with the National Housing Federation about Housing Benefit owed to the tenants of housing associations and other registered social landlords. However, the Department does not hold information on the amount of benefit which might be involved. We are currently looking at what further steps might be taken to improve the administration of Housing Benefit.

  Maternity Benefits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been eligible for the maternity payment and the Sure Start maternity grant, and how many people have received each of these benefits, in each month since May 1997. [134552]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Maternity payment and Sure Start maternity grant awards

  Month

  Maternity payment

  May 1997

  16,700

  June 1997

  17,328

  July 1997

  17,914

  August 1997

  14,765

  September 1997

  17,042

  October 1997

  17,158

  November 1997

  15,058

  December 1997

  13,979

  January 1998

  17,277

  February 1998

  15,491

  March 1998

  15,733

  April 1998

  14,713

  May 1998

  14,488

  June 1998

  16,281

  July 1998

  16,568

  August 1998

  13,965

  September 1998

  16,052

  October 1998

  15,355

  November 1998

  14,774

  December 1998

  12,830

  January 1999

  15,593

  February 1999

  14,557

  March 1999

  16,050

  April 1999

  14,421

  May 1999

  14,155

  June 1999

  15,720

  July 1999

  14,530

  August 1999

  13,863

  September 1999

  15,069

  October 1999

  14,384

  November 1999

  14,819

  December 1999

  11,258

  January 2000

  14,978

  February 2000

  14,695

  March 2000

  13,935

  April 2000

  7,254

  May 2000

  5,217

  June 2000

  3,724

  July 2000

  2,233

  August 2000

  978

  September 2000

  165

  321W

  Maternity payment and Sure Start maternity grant awards

  Month

  Sure Start maternity grant

  April 2000

  3,583

  May 2000

  10,846

  June 2000

  13,954

  July 2000

  13,971

  August 2000

  15,117

  September 2000

  15,235

  Notes:

  1. Maternity payment figures May 1997 to March 1998 may contain very minor inaccuracies because of computer programming parameters.

  2. Figures from April 1998 to September 2000 represent the number of initial awards plus the number awarded on appeal, reduced by the number of payments returned to the Department.

  3. Maternity payments and Sure Start maternity grants must actually be claimed in order for an award to be made, therefore details of those who might have been eligible but did not claim are not available.

  Title

  Period of issue

  Period ending

  Date of release

  Imminent Publications

  Child Benefit Quarterly Statistics

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  9 November 2000

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  23 November 2000

  Fraud and error in claims for Income Support and JSA

  Annual

  October 1998 to September 1999

  29 November 2000

  Fraud and error in claims for Income Support and JSA

  Annual

  April 1999 to March 2000

  29 November 2000

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Quarterly

  September 2000

  7 December 2000

  Appeal Tribunal Statistics

  Quarterly

  June 2000

  7 December 2000

  Take-up of Income Related Benefits

  Annual

  1998–99

  8 December 2000

  Client Group Analysis—Quarterly Bulletin on the Population of Working Age on Key Benefits

  Quarterly

  May 2000

  14 December 2000

  Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  14 December 2000

  Social Security Statistics

  Annual

  2000

  14 December 2000

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  14 December 2000

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Quarterly Summary Statistics

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  21 December 2000

  Disability Care and Mobility Benefits

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  18 January 2001

  Client Group Analysis of the Population Over State Pension Age

  Bi-annual

  May 2000

  18 January 2001

  Statistical Summary

  Quarterly

  December 2000

  18 January 2001

  Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics

  Quarterly

  November 2000

  15 February 2001

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  November 2000

  22 February 2001

  Retirement Pension Summary of Statistics

  Bi-annual

  September 2000

  15 March 2001

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Quarterly Summary Statistics

  Quarterly

  November 2000

  29 March 2001

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Annual Summary Statistics

  Annual

  May 2000

  26 April 2001

  Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics

  Quarterly

  February 2001

  17 May 2001

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Quarterly Summary Statistics

  Quarterly

  February 2001

  21 June 2001

  Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics

  Quarterly

  May 2001

  16 August 2001

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Quarterly Summary of Statistics

  Quarterly

  May 2001

  18 October 2001

  Child Support Agency Quarterly Summary of Statistics

  Quarterly

  August 2001

  15 November 2001

  Provisional Publication Dates

  Child Benefit Quarterly Statistics

  Quarterly

  November 2000

  8 February 2001

  Abstract of Statistics for Social Security Benefits and indices of prices and earnings

  Annual

  2000

  22 February 2001

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Quarterly

  December 2000

  8 March 2001

  Appeal Tribunal Statistics

  Quarterly

  September 2000

  15 March 2001

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  November 2000

  15 March 2001

  Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance

  Quarterly

  November 2000

  22 March 2001

  Client Group Analysis—Quarterly Bulletin on the Population of Working Age on Key Benefits

  Quarterly

  August 2000

  29 March 2001

  Statistical Summary

  Quarterly

  March 2001

  9 April 2001

  Disability Care and Mobility Benefits

  Quarterly

  November 2000

  19 April 2001

  Child Benefit Quarterly Statistics

  Quarterly

  February 2001

  17 May 2001

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  February 2001

  24 May 2001

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  February 2001

  14 June 2001

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Quarterly

  March 2001

  14 June 2001

  Appeal Tribunal Statistics

  Quarterly

  December 2000

  14 June 2001

  Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance

  Quarterly

  February 2001

  21 June 2001

  Client Group Analysis—Quarterly Bulletin on the Population of Working Age on Key Benefits Working Age

  Quarterly

  November 2000

  24 June 2001

  Family Resources Survey report

  Annual

  1999–2000

  July 2001

  Statistical Summary

  Quarterly

  June 2001

  8 July 2001

  Disability Care and Mobility Benefits

  Quarterly

  February 2001

  19 July 2001

  Departmental Statistics
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 427W, if he will list the publication dates of statistics to be released by his Department and agencies in the next 12 months. [137176]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information in the table relates to statistics published by the Department under the National Statistics banner.

  Although many of the dates are provisional at this stage, final release dates will be notified in the National Statistics Update issued by the Office for National Statistics in the month prior to the publication. This is in line with DSS release practice.
  323W

  Title

  Period of issue

  Period ending

  Date of release

  Tax Benefit Model

  Annual

  2001

  29 July 2001

  Child benefit Quarterly Statistics

  Quarterly

  May 2001

  9 August 2001

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  May 2001

  23 August 2001

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  May 2001

  13 September 2001

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Quarterly

  June 2001

  13 September 2001

  Appeal Tribunal Statistics

  Quarterly

  March 2001

  13 September 2001

  Retirement Pension Summary of Statistics

  Bi-annual

  March 2001

  13 September 2001

  Client Group Analysis—Quarterly Bulletin on the Population of Working Age on Key Benefits

  Quarterly

  February 2001

  30 September 2001

  Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance

  Quarterly

  May 2001

  20 September 2001

  Statistical Summary

  Quarterly

  September 2001

  14 October 2001

  Disability Care and Mobility Benefits

  Quarterly

  May 2001

  18 October 2001

  Child Benefit Quarterly Statistics

  Quarterly

  August 2001

  8 November 2001

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  August 2001

  22 November 2001

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Quarterly

  September 2001

  6 December 2001

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry

  Quarterly

  August 2001

  13 December 2001

  Appeal Tribunal Statistics

  Quarterly

  June 2001

  13 December 2001

  Incapacity Benefit/Severe Disablement Allowance

  Quarterly

  August 2001

  13 December 2001

  Client Group Analysis—Quarterly Bulletin on the Population of Working Age on Key Benefits

  Quarterly

  May 2001

  16 December 2001

  Release Date to be Determined

  Pensioners Income Series 1999–2000

  Annual

  1999–2000

  To be determined within next 12 months

  Households Below Average Income Statistics

  Annual

  1999–2000

  To be determined

  Client Group Analysis of the Population Over State Pension Age

  Bi-annual

  November 2000

  To be determined

  Social Security Statistics

  Annual

  2001

  To be determined

  Take-up of Income Related Benefits

  Annual

  1999–2000

  To be determined sometime 2001

  Age Allowances
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the current value of the(a) Christmas Bonus and (b) 25p age addition for pensioners aged over 80 years would be if they had been uprated in line with prices since their first introduction. [137526]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answers I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 14 April 2000,Official Report, columns 301–04W.

  Benefits Expenditure
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 261W, on benefits expenditure, if he will reproduce the table on the assumption that working families tax credit is a means-tested benefit. [137300]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Contributory, means-tested with tax credits and other benefits as a proportion of total benefits and tax credits

  Percentage

  Contributory

  Means-tested

  Others

  1995–96

  46

  36

  18

  1996–97

  46

  35

  19

  1997–98

  46

  34

  20

  1998–99

  47

  33

  20

  1999–2000

  47

  32

  22

  Note:

  Working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit have been included in the means-tested benefits. This causes a 1 per cent. increase in the proportion of means-tested benefits for 1999–2000 to 32 per cent.

  Source:

  Departmental report 2000, Spending Review 2000.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people in each sub-region who were turned down for social fund budgeting loans in 1999–2000 on the grounds that they already had excessive levels of outstanding debt. [134514]

  Angela Eagle
  On 5 April 1999 we introduced major changes to the budgeting loan scheme, which have made it fairer, more objective and quicker and easier for customers to use. Applications are decided according to a few simple facts relating to the applicant's length of time on benefit and the size of their family, taking into account the level of budgeting loan debt they may already have. Because loans are repayable, applicants no longer have to justify their reasons for needing a loan or provide information about what they will spend it on.

  During 1999–2000 the scheme provided more help to more people than ever before. The number of applications for budgeting loans increased by 26 per cent. to almost 1.7 million. The number of successful applications increased by 9 per cent., with 82,000 more people receiving help than in 1998–99. Expenditure rose by 15 per cent. to almost £400 million, an increase of £52 million over the amount spent in 1998–99. And, for the first time since the fund started in April 1988, over 1 million budgeting loans were awarded in a year.

  The significant increase in applications inevitably led to an increase in the number that were refused a loan—38 per cent. of applications were refused compared to 33 per cent. in 1998–99—an increase of only 5 percentage points.

  As part of the April 1999 changes, the wide-ranging reasons for refusal, which had existed previously, were radically simplified and reduced. As a result, a new reason for refusal, which only applies to people with social fund debt, has been introduced. Those with existing debt of

  325W
  half or more of their maximum possible loan amount are restricted from having further loans until their outstanding debt drops below that level, at which point they are free to re-apply. The scheme therefore does allow limited access to further loans while previous loans are still being repaid but without encouraging people to run up and maintain high levels of debt. It would not be fair to allow the cash-limited budget to be monopolised by people continually topping-up their loans to the maximum at the expense of other applicants.

  By limiting access by those with existing social fund debt, the scheme is able to offer loans to all applicants who satisfy the qualifying conditions and who have no debt. While benefiting all family types this change has enabled more single people to access the scheme, the group most likely to have been refused a loan on priority grounds under the previous scheme.

  Budgeting loan applications refused between April 1999 and March 2000 because of the level of existing budgeting loan debt are given in the table by Benefits Agency Area Directorates. For completeness the table also includes the number of awards made.

  Budgeting loans: awards and refusals because of existing budgeting loan debt 1999–2000

  Benefits Agency Area Directorate

  Awards

  Number of refusals

  East London and Anglia

  79,195

  24,280

  Chilterns

  63,356

  18,986

  London South

  98,896

  28,754

  West Country

  56,713

  18,333

  Mercia

  75,515

  28,075

  West Midlands

  78,388

  26,778

  Wales

  70,917

  27,338

  North West Coast

  109,800

  38,231

  Greater Manchester

  76,537

  27,121

  Yorkshire

  99,980

  35,978

  Tyne Tees

  88,850

  34,283

  West of Scotland

  82,918

  32,105

  East of Scotland

  61,139

  22,167

  Total

  1,042,204

  362,429

DEFENCE

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if ex-gratia payments to former prisoners of war in the Far East will include civilians. [136528]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement in the House on 7 November 2000,Official Report, columns 159–170.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Far East prisoners of war are still living; and what estimate he has made of the numbers residing in East Lancashire. [136554]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces gave him on 18 January 2000,Official Report, column 398W.
  326W
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on compensation for former PoWs of the Japanese; and what estimate has been made of the numbers involved. [137344]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer my hon. Friend to my statement in the House on 7 November 2000,Official Report, columns 159–70.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future location of the Meteorological Office. [138176]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Met Office has recognised for some time that its existing accommodation in Bracknell is becoming increasingly expensive and unsuitable for its future business needs. The overwhelming conclusion of the business case, produced to examine the options, showed that a new site with purpose built accommodation was the best way of meeting its long-term needs and those of its customers. The Met Office plans to relocate by March 2003.

  Following a thorough search and careful evaluation of potential sites throughout the United Kingdom, the Met Office selected four—Beaufort Park in Bracknell, Shinfield Park in Reading, Exeter Business park and Norwich Research Park—that it felt could best meet its needs. After detailed consideration of many factors, including cost, staffing issues, proximity to customers and other key stakeholders, planning and environmental issues, Exeter Business Park has been chosen as the preferred site.

  This has not been an easy decision since all four shortlisted sites had obvious strengths. Nevertheless, the Met Office is certain that Exeter is the best location from which to build a secure and successful future.

  The two consortia with whom the Met Office is negotiating over the provision and ongoing maintenance of the new accommodation will now work up detailed proposals for the Exeter site; tenders are due to be submitted to the Met Office by the end of February 2001 and a contract is expected to be placed by June 2001.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Controls
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he received between November 1999 and November 2000 on(a) the timing and (b) the content of strategic export controls legislation from (i) non-Governmental organisations including voluntary and charitable groups, (ii) commercial interests, companies and trade organisations and (iii) other categories; and if he will make a statement. [136601]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have received a large number of representations, mostly from individuals and non-governmental organisations, but also from businesses and business organisations, in the period in question. Representations have supported proposals for new strategic export control legislation and called for that legislation to be introduced soon. A number of representations have raised different aspects of strategic
  327W
  export controls, including arms trafficking and brokering and licensed production overseas. The Government have undertaken a thorough review of proposals for new strategic export control legislation on the basis of the White Paper (Cm 3989) published in July 1998. We shall announce the outcome of that review shortly. In addition I have announced that the proposed new legislation will include a system of licensing for arms trafficking and brokering. This is a significant change and we are currently considering the details of this. We intend to announce the outcome in the near future.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is being taken to help people who are(a) aged 50 and over and (b) aged under 25 years, and who are not working to set up their own businesses. [136698]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: The Small Business Service was launched in April this year to provide information, advice, or access to experts, on all aspects of running a business. The services are available to anyone wishing to set up or run their own business irrespective of age.

  In addition, the SBS is working with PRIME (The Prince's Initiative for Mature Enterprise) with a view to supporting that organisation's plans to enhance access to finance for unemployed over 50s seeking to start in business.

  The Government also continue to provide support for programmes and initiatives to help the creation of an enterprise culture in the country. This includes support for schemes such as Young Enterprise which aim to double to 200,000 the number of pupils benefiting from enterprise courses in our schools and colleges.

  Consumer Policy Institute
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the Consumer Policy Institute. [137257]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: Last June I met with several members of the National Federation of Consumer Groups to discuss their future plans. One of their action points was the creation of the Consumer Policy Institute.

  Professor Geoffrey Woodroffe, who leads the Institute, was present at that meeting and gave me a briefing on the aims of the Institute. I understand that the Institute has now been established and wish it well in the future.

  Broadband Telecommunications
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he plans to put in place to limit potential interference from broadband telecommunications systems, such as an asymmetric digital subscriber line; and if he will make a statement. [138155]

  Ms Hewitt
  ADSL technology will allow broadband data services into people's homes and offices over the local telephone network. It is an important technology in the development of the information society and 328W
  e-commerce. However, because it operates at radio frequencies over cables which may become unbalanced and hence radiate, there is a risk of interference to medium wave broadcasting and to some aeronautical and other services. There is a difficult balance to strike as we want DSL and other similar broadband technologies to be deployable widely, but we cannot allow undue interference.

  My Department has therefore been consulting over a standard to be put in place to limit interference from these technologies. Taking due account of the various representations—and they have been strong on all sides—we have decided to adopt the limits in the so-called February draft standard published by the Radiocommunications Agency (RA). I will be making Regulations to implement this standard in due course. Safety of life radio services will be protected as the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 allows immediate close down of interference sources where the Regulations are breached. Officials will also be putting in place a complaints procedure for domestic consumers experiencing broadcast interference from DSL. This procedure will be worked up in consultation with the Radio Authority, the BBC and the radio industry. The Director General for Telecommunications proposes to place an obligation on the operators of DSL systems to take all reasonable steps to remedy any interference caused.

  The Government believe that this balanced package will provide a high level of protection to existing spectrum users while allowing deployment of new technology without undue constraint. We will undertake a review in two years—less if necessary—to assess whether the level in the standard has been appropriately set and to decide the timing of any future reviews. We will make the standard tougher if necessary. The review itself will cover the number of unresolved complaints. Further research is being undertaken by the RA on the cumulative effects of DSL as it rolls out and this will further inform our review.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost is of the projects approved under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation for(a) waste incineration, (b) offshore wind, (c) onshore wind, (d) solar power and (e) barriers; and if he will make a statement. [137395]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No payment is made under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) until approved projects are commissioned.

  Total project costs and costs to the Fossil Fuel Levy in the year to August 2000 for commissioned projects in these technologies were:

  £million

  Total costs

  Costs to Levy

  (a) Waste Incineration

  22.3

  10.1

  (b) Offshore Wind

  Nil

  Nil

  (c) Onshore Wind

  13.5

  7.0

  (d) Solar Power

  Nil

  Nil

  (e) Tidal Barriers

  Nil

  Nil

  329W
  No projects relating to solar power or tidal barriers have been approved under NFFO. One project relating to offshore wind has been approved under NFFO, but no expenditure under NFFO has yet arisen.

  There will be no further NFFO rounds as the Government plan to impose a new renewables obligation on all electricity suppliers, but existing contracts will be protected.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what position Her Majesty's Government have adopted on the definition of renewable energy being negotiated for the European Union Draft Renewable Energy Directive; and if he will make a statement. [137393]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Draft Directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market proposes an indicative UK target of 10 per cent. of electricity consumption to be generated from renewable energy sources by 2010. This indicative target is in line with the UK's policy as described in "The Renewables Obligation Preliminary Consultation" document, published on 5 October 2000. In negotiations the Government's position is to ensure that the Directive's definition of renewable energy is wide enough for the UK to achieve the Directive's indicative target within the UK's policy framework for renewables and the detailed mechanisms for the obligation on which we are currently consulting.

  Pirate Radio Transmitters
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each of the last five years, in respect of interference with aeronautical radio communications by pirate radio transmitters,(a) the number of reported cases, (b) the number of prosecutions brought by the Radio Communications Agency and (c) the sentences applicable to such offences; and if he will make a statement. [137572]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department's Radiocommunications Agency take seriously any interference to authorised radio communications. Where the interference has implications for the safety of life the Agency has a target to respond within 24 hours.

  Reports of interference to aeronautical radio communications are not usually specific as to the source. However, the Agency has seized pirate radio transmitters identified as being the source of interference to aeronautical radio communications on the following number of occasions in each of the past five years.

  Year

  Numbers

  1996

  5

  1997

  19

  1998

  10

  1999

  8

  20001

  2

  1 To date

  330W
  The number of persons prosecuted in each of the past five years where there was evidence that the pirate radio station had caused such interference is as follows:

  Year

  Numbers

  1996

  0

  1997

  2

  1998

  0

  1999

  2

  20001

  6

  1 To date

  The maximum penalty for the use of radio transmitting equipment contrary to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 is a fine of £5,000 and six months' imprisonment on conviction at the magistrates court and an unlimited fine and two years' imprisonment on conviction at the Crown court. In both instances the court can also order the forfeit of anything used in the commission of the offence. In 1999 one of those convicted was sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment and this year two of those convicted were sentenced to six months' and four months' imprisonment respectively.

  Road Fuel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is providing to ensure continuing availability of road fuels in the event of disrupted supplies. [137529]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 29 September that members of the Fuel Supply Task Force had signed a Memorandum of Understanding to put in place more robust systems to avoid disruption of fuel supplies. He further told the House on 2 November 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 disruption by local authorities and other essential users; the protection of food depots and other potential targets and the keeping open of major roads.

  The Task Force continues to meet to discuss whether further measures need to be taken to ensure that the disruption caused by the recent protests is not repeated.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes will be made to the Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs for his Department, British Trade International, the Office of Fair Trading, the Office of Telecommunications, and the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets. [138153]

  Mr. Byers
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Department of Trade and Industry will be increased by £87,800,000 from £3,503,716,000 to £3,591,516,000, the non-voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £11,885,000 from £118,752,000 to £130,637,000. In addition and the gross running costs limit will be increased by £11,913,000 from £401,002,000 to £412,915,000.
  331W
  The net provision of Class IX, Vote 1 will be increased by £87,799,000, which results from:

  (i) the take up of end-year flexibility of £64,154,000 comprising £7,654,000 for running costs and £56,500,000 for current expenditure, of which £11,500,000 will be added to the provision for Enemy Property and £45,000,000 to that for Nuclear Decommissioning;

  (ii) additional provision of £12,500,000 for compensation to distant water trawlermen;

  (iii) additional provision of £25,000,000 from the Government's Capital Modernisation Fund, of which £15,000,000 is for the Small Business Service Gateway project and £10,000,000 for the Information Society Initiative getting SMEs on line project;

  (iv) additional provision of £3,810,000 from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund of which £3,410,000 will be added to the running costs provision for Section D and £400,000 to that for Section G;

  (v) the transfer of £17,215,000 in gross provision and £15,000 in appropriations in aid to British Trade International, (Class IX, Vote 4) in respect of the programme expenditure of Invest UK, formerly the Invest in Britain Bureau;

  (vi) the transfer of £1,166,000 to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (Class III, Vote 1) in respect of the administrative costs of the Regional Development Agencies and the London Development Agency;

  (vii) the transfer of £536,000 in gross provision to the Innovation budget from the National Assembly for Wales, (Class XIV, Vote 1);

  (viii) the transfer of £165,000 in programme expenditure from the Home Office (Class IV, Vote 1) to the Innovation budget for crime reduction activities;

  (ix) the appropriation in aid of receipts from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (Class X, Vote 2) of £8,500,000 in respect of the Farm Business Advice Service and an equivalent increase in the gross provision of the programme budget of the Small Business Service who will be responsible for delivering this service;

  (x) an increase of £22,545,000 in the gross expenditure provision for the Radiocommunications Agency, which is offset by an equivalent increase in the appropriations in aid provision;

  (xi) other movements between sections of the Vote.

  The net provision of Class IX, Vote 2 will be increased by £1,000, which results from:

  (i) the take up of end-year flexibility of £11,850,000 for the Science Enterprise Challenge Scheme comprising £2,500,000 for capital expenditure and £9,350,000 for current expenditure. This is offset by a reduction in voted capital expenditure of £11,884,000 in respect of the Joint Infrastructure Fund;

  (ii) running costs transfers of £110,000 from the Home Office, (Class IV, Vote 1) to fund a foresight panel on crime reduction and £75,000 to the Department of Health, (Class II, Vote 2) for the Office of Science and Technology's share of the Human Genetic Commission's Secretariat.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the voted element of the Departmental Expenditure Limit for British Trade International, Class IX, Vote 4, will be increased by £18,233,000 from £67,410,000 to £85,643,000. This increase in net provision results from:

  (i) the take up of end-year flexibility entitlements of £1,033,000 for current expenditure, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in Table 7 of the 1999–2000 Public Expenditure White Paper (Cm 4812);

  (ii) the transfer from the DTI Programmes and Administration Vote (Class IX, Vote 1) of £17,215,000 in gross provision and £15,000 in appropriations in aid in respect of the programme expenditure of Invest UK, formerly the Invest in Britain Bureau, whose transfer to British Trade International from the
  332W
  Department of Trade and Industry was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on 24 May 2000, Official Report, columns 522–523.

  British Trade International is the joint responsibility of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In addition, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Office of Fair Trading, Class IX, Vote 8, will be increased by £6,824,000 from £25,676,000 to £32,500,000 and the gross running costs limit will be increased by £5,024,000 from £25,490,000 to £30,514,000.

  These changes result from:

  (i) the take up of end-year flexibility of £854,000;

  (ii) additional provision of £1,800,000 for work arising from the implementation of EC directives on Distance Selling and Injunctions, and Unfair Contract Terms;

  (iii) additional provision of £450,000 for changes to work on Mergers;

  (iv) additional provision of £750,000 for the review of the Professions;

  (v) additional provision of £1,800,000 for appropriations in aid resulting from the shortfall in notification fees arising from the Competition Act 1998;

  (vi) the transfer of £1,070,000 from the baseline of the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate in respect of the payment of rent for Fleetbank House;

  (vii) additional provision of £100,000 from the Cabinet Office Modernisation Fund in support of diversity awareness training for the Office of Fair Trading and the Office of Telecommunications.

  In addition, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary token Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Office of Telecommunications, Class IX, Vote 9, will be increased by £1,000 from £2,400,000 to £2,401,000 and the gross running costs limit will be increased by £559,000 from £12,589,000 to £13,148,000. These changes result from partial take up of end-year flexibility carry forward of £179,000 and an increase of £380,000 to address increased regulatory action. These increases will be offset by a compensating increase in appropriations in aid.

  Also, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, Class IX, Vote 10 will be increased by £671,000 from £1,000 to £672,000. The increase reflects the net effect of additional provision for expenditure on the introduction of the New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) and relocation costs, largely offset by higher VAT refunds and increased receipts from energy companies. The net increase represents the take up of end-year flexibility. The gross running costs limit for the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets will be increased by £13,300,000 from £62,115,000 to £75,415,000. The increase reflects the increase in expenditure on NETA, partially offset by the increase in VAT refunds.

  All of the above increases will either be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of (1) the effect of changes in heating oil costs on Government targets to reduce fuel poverty; [136919]

  (2) the role played by heating fuel oil costs in progress made on tackling fuel poverty. [137104]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The latest available figures1 suggest that about 3 per cent. of households in England have oil-fired central heating. The figures also indicate that 2 per cent. (around 80,000 households) of those in fuel poverty in 1996 had oil-fired central heating. In the four years from the second quarter of 1996 to the second quarter of 2000, there has been a 9.25 per cent. rise in real terms in the price of heating oils.

  The Government recognise that recent increases in heating oil prices may have adversely affected those households using this fuel, including those in rural or isolated areas. While the numbers affected are relatively small, compared to the total number in fuel poverty, the Government recognise that fluctuations in prices can take people in and out of fuel poverty.

  The Government will be consulting on its draft strategy to tackle fuel poverty later this year.
  1 English House Condition Survey 1996.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of UK electricity was provided by nuclear power stations for each of the last 10 years. [137216]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Nuclear power stations accounted for the following percentages of electricity supplied in the UK by major power producers:

  Year

  Percentage from nuclear

  1990

  21

  1991

  22

  1992

  24

  1993

  28

  1994

  28

  1995

  27

  1996

  28

  1997

  29

  1998

  29

  1999

  28

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics, 2000 (Electricity supplied is measured net of use for pumping at pumped storage stations)

  Oil Licensing Agreements
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the factors underlying his decision to announce a further round of oil licensing agreements. [137174]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The decision to announce the 19th round of offshore petroleum licensing was taken having regard to the United Kingdom's future energy needs and the investment and employment benefits that would derive from the development of any petroleum discoveries.
  334W
  The Secretary of State will consider and apply the EU Habitats directive when deciding whether to grant licences in the round. Licence awards will be based on an applicant meeting certain geological, technical and environmental criteria. The results of an extensive public consultation on an assessment of the impact of oil and gas activities on the marine environment of the area of the UK Continental Shelf between the Shetland and Faroes Islands will be taken into account in any decision-making.

  Industrial Diseases (Compensation Claims)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of(a) emphysema, (b) pneumoconiosis, (c) other respiratory illness and (d) vibration white finger claims (i) have been processed and (ii) are outstanding; and what assessment he has made of the length of time needed to complete the outstanding claims. [136960]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department has received over 124,000 claims for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which encompasses all regulatory disease claims, excluding those made solely for pneumoconiosis. Claims for COPD are continuing to come in at a rate of around 1,000 a week. In addition the Department has registered nearly 113,000 claims for vibration white finger (VWF).

  Claims for pneumoconiosis are made under a British Coal scheme which commenced in 1979, for which the Department assumed responsibility in April 1998. Under the scheme nearly 86,000 claims have been received.

  Of these, 3,300 claims for COPD; 85,600 claims for pneumoconiosis; and 17,500 claims for VWF have been settled in full and final settlement (includes both offers and denials).

  Not all aspects of compensation for COPD and VWF are settled—some are being negotiated with the solicitors representing the claimants, and some are with the Court. The Department is therefore not able to offer full and final settlements in many cases, but wherever possible, we are making interim payments. Some 22,300 interim payments have been made to COPD claimants, and a further 17,500 interim payments have been made to VWF claimants.

  In total the Department has made payments totalling nearly £260 million to COPD and VWF claimants. In addition, lump sum payments of over £137 million have been made under the British Coal scheme to pneumoconiosis claimants—some claimants also receive weekly payments.

  Some 120,000 COPD claims and 94,000 VWF claims remain outstanding. Claims for pneumoconiosis are processed on a continuing basis and only 350 claims remain outstanding.

  On COPD an original estimate of two to three years was given to assess all the existing claimants but this is kept under review in view of the escalating number of claims. We are giving priority to claims from those most old and ill, widows and those most likely (on the basis of initial testing) to have emphysema. If these claims were processed in the normal way through the courts it would take 10–15 years.
  335W
  On vibration white finger, we aim to have carried out initial assessments on the existing claimants by the end of next year. A further assessment may be required for those claimants seeking compensation for loss of services but this is still under consideration.

  EU Combustion Plants Directive
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the European Commission concerning the EC directive on large combustion plants. [137551]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department works closely with others, in particular the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to ensure that business interests are properly factored into the development of policy on the protection of the environment, at both national and European levels. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has represented the views of Her Majesty's Government in the process of reaching a Common Position on the revision of this directive at the June meeting of the Environment Council.

TREASURY

  Third-World Debt
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations his Department has received about the alleviation of the debts of countries with a large number of HIV/AIDS cases. [135964]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government receive frequent representations on this issue which was discussed along with other pressing development concerns, for example at the recent meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Malta where I represented the UK.

  Tragically HIV/AIDS is a serious problem, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. In response the Government continue to press for faster, wider and deeper debt relief, are significantly increasing our aid spending and, as announced in the pre-Budget Report, we will be doing urgent work into ways to encourage the research and development of new vaccines for HIV/AIDS and the other major diseases so badly affecting developing countries.

  Aggregates Tax (Glass Industry)
  Mr. Insley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the aggregates tax on the glass industry. [135965]

  Mr. Timms
  Since the sand used in the manufacture of glass will be relieved from the levy, I do not expect it to have an adverse impact on the glass industry. Indeed, the levy will encourage use of waste glass as an alternative to primary aggregate.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department' s plans to encourage the use of LPG fuel. [135966]

  Mr. Timms
  We support the use of liquid petroleum gas because of its environmental benefits over petrol and diesel. We do so in two ways—first, a substantially lower 336W
  rate of duty on LPG, the rate being frozen again for next year; and, second, support for the Powershift programme, helping people to convert their vehicles to LPG.

  Employment
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of full employment. [135967]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The modern definition of full employment is the Government's aim of employment opportunity for all. The Government's long-term economic ambition is that by the end of the decade there will be at least three quarters of the working age population in employment. Macroeconomic stability is a prerequisite to achieving this aim, combined with microeconomic policies to ensure an effective, secure transition from welfare into work.

  The Chancellor announced in Chapter 4 of pre-Budget Report 2000 a further range of measures, which build on existing employment programmes in order to reach full employment.

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from representative organisations of commerce and industry about his policies on business taxation. [135968]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We have received a number of representations from business organisations on the pre-Budget Report and Budget, including the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chamber of Commerce and the Institute of Directors.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policy for business taxation. [135975]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's policies on business taxation are set out in the Financial Statements and Budget Statements, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the consequences for business of tax changes since 1997. [135978]

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the additional taxes payable by businesses since May 1997. [135986]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All changes to the tax system are included in the relevant Budget Reports. These are available in the Library of the House.

  Higher Rate Tax
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much an increase in top-rate tax from 40p to 50p in the pound would raise if that were applied to those earning over £250,000 per annum. [135969]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year yield from raising the top rate of income tax to 50 per cent. on taxable income of over £250,000 is £1.5 billion in 2001–02.

  The estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and is consistent with the March 2000 Budget.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on negotiations with the Society of Registration Officers regarding its access to industrial tribunals in unfair dismissal cases. [135973]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Current legal proceedings may conclude that this access is available. If this does not transpire, the Government are committed to making such access available. The Registrar General will pursue an Order under the Employment Relations Act 1999 if this proves necessary to give registration officers access.

  Public Spending
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to relate the level of public spending to economic growth. [135974]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's expenditure projections are set out in Table B13 of the pre-Budget Report.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the revenue consequences of the changes in unemployment levels since May 1997. [135976]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The extent to which higher employment affects Government revenues will depend on a number of assumptions, in particular the extent to which higher employment reflects permanently higher output growth. Research published by the Treasury indicates that a 1 per cent. increase in output relative to trend increases the ratio of Government receipts to GDP by about 0.2 per cent. after one year. This is equivalent to an increase in receipts of about £6 billion.

  Low Pay
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he is taking to increase the take-home pay of those in low paid work. [135977]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Measures introduced during this Parliament have provided significant extra help for those in low-paid work.

  The National Minimum Wage, introduced in April 1999, is estimated to have increased the wages of 1.5 million low-paid workers.

  The new 10p starting rate of income tax has halved the marginal tax rate for 1.9 million low-paid working people, and reforms to employee National Insurance Contributions mean that one million people no longer have to pay NICs.

  Through the Working Families Tax Credit, the Government are giving additional support to over 1.1 million working families with children who are now receiving on average £30 more per week compared to old Family Credit.

  These measures demonstrate the Government's commitment to increase the incomes of people in low-paid work and to ensure that work pays more than benefit. By the end of this Parliament, a family on half
  338W
  average earnings—£12,500—and with two children will be £2,600 a year better off as a result of the tax and benefit reforms.

  Living Standards
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on changes in household living standards since April. [135979]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Living standards for a single-earner family on average earnings with two children are expected to increase by 10 per cent. in real terms over the Parliament. For a single-earner family on half average earnings with two children, living standards have increased by 18 per cent. in real terms over the last year.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the impact of increased fuel prices for people on low incomes and rural dwellers. [135980]

  Mr. Timms
  The Chancellor announced a package of measures in his pre-Budget Report which will be of benefit to both people on low incomes and those living in rural areas.

  Pensioners (Savings Limit)
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his review of financial support for pensioners with special reference to the savings limits disregard. [135981]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government announced in the Budget that the savings limit in the Minimum Income Guarantee will double next April from £3,000 to £6,000. Today the Secretary of State for Social Security is publishing a consultation document outlining plans for a Pension Credit from 2003 to reward low and modest income pensioners who have worked hard to save for their retirement.

  Family Taxation
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net change to tax on families payable in this Parliament as a result of his Budget measures so far. [135982]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures introduced during this Parliament, by April 2001, on average families with children will be £850 a year better off. The direct tax burden on a single-earner family on average earnings with two children is expected to fall from 20.9 per cent. in 1997–98 to 18.6 per cent. in 2001–02—it's lowest level since 1972.

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how any people in the north-west have claimed the Disabled Person's Tax Credit since October 1999. [135983]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of individuals and families in the north-west in receipt of the Disabled Person's Tax Credit at the end of August 2000 is
  339W
  provisionally estimated at 3,900. This compares with 2,800 in receipt of the Disability Working Allowance at its peak, in July 1999.

  Fiscal Intervention
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost to the UK of the intervention to purchase euros and the additional purchase of euros by his instruction to the Bank of England to sell gold. [135984]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The $2.1 billion proceeds from the gold auctions held to date have been reinvested in interest-bearing foreign currency assets broadly in the proportions 40 per cent. dollars; 40 per cent. euros; and 20 per cent. yen.

  The only intervention undertaken, since the euro was launched, was on 22 September 2000 when 85 million was purchased against sterling.

  To provide a short-term snapshot of the value of these investments would not be meaningful as it would reflect distortions arising from short-term fluctuations in asset prices and currencies.

  Pre-Budget Report
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impact his proposals in the pre-Budget statement will have on the incomes of women and children. [135985]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As a result of personal tax and benefit measures introduced over this Parliament, by April 2001:on average, women will be £400 a year better off, compared to £290 a year for all individuals;
  families with children will be £850 a year better off;
  a family with two young children on income support will be £1,500 a year better off;
  a lone parent with two young children in work on £12,500 a year will be £2,600 better off.

  Some of the major changes that affect women and children are:
  the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, which is already helping around 1.1 million families;
  changes to the National Insurance Contributions system which will remove around 750,000 women and 250,000 men from NICs liability by 2001–02;
  a 26 per cent. real terms increase in Child Benefit over the Parliament.

  Payroll Giving
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost to date of the give-as-you-earn scheme; and what estimate he has made of the likely cost over the next three years. [135950]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The cost of the Payroll Giving scheme since it was introduced in 1986 has been published in Inland Revenue Statistics on an annual basis. The total cost of the scheme up to April 2000 was £53 million. The estimated cost until April 2003 is around £60 million.
  340W
  The Economic Secretary launched a £2 million promotional campaign in October this year to encourage more employers and employees to become involved in Payroll Giving. We aim to double donations by April 2003 to more than £60 million a year.

  Family Incomes
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change there has been in the income of an average working family(a) before and (b) after tax since May 1997. [135951]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The before-tax income of a single-earner family on average earnings with two children is expected to increase by 6 per cent. in real terms over the Parliament. After tax, it is expected to increase by 10 per cent. in real terms.

  Tax Credits
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rates and thresholds to the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit will be from April 2001. [138179]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The main WFTC and DPTC rates and income thresholds will be increased in line with indexation from April 2001. There will be further increases aimed at helping disabled people. The information requested is contained in the table.

  Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC)

  £ per week

  2000–01

  2001–02

  WFTC—basic tax credit

  53.15

  54.00

  DPTC—single person basic tax credit

  55.15

  56.05

  DPTC—lone parent/couple basic tax credit

  84.90

  86.25

  30-hour tax credit (for both WFTC and DPTC)

  11.25

  11.45

  Child tax credits (for both WFTC and DPTC)

  Under 16

  25.60

  26.00

  16–18

  26.35

  26.75

  Disabled Child Tax Credit (for both WFTC and DPTC)

  22.25

  30.00

  Enhanced Disability Tax Credit (lone parent/couple)

  n/a

  16.00

  Enhanced Disability Tax Credit (single person)

  n/a

  11.05

  Enhanced Disability Tax Credit (child)

  n/a

  11.05

  WFTC income threshold

  91.45

  92.90

  DPTC income threshold—single person

  71.10

  72.25

  DPTC income threshold—lone parent/couple

  91.45

  92.90

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to his Department's departmental expenditure limits and running costs limits for 2000–01. [138054]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class XVI, Vote 1 (HM Treasury) and Class XVI, Vote 3 (HM Treasury: Office of Government Commerce), the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £17,230,000 from £246,793,000 to £264,023,000.
  341W
  The increase for Class XVI, Vote 1 (HM Treasury) is the net effect of the take up of end-year flexibility (EYF) of £1,000,000 comprising £980,000 for other current provision and £20,000 for capital, and provides for the drawing of £1,300,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for the continuing costs associated with the setting up for Partnerships UK; and an increase in running costs of £541,000 to draw down the monies allocated from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund. The running costs limit for HM Treasury will accordingly be increased by £541,000 from £63,523,000 to £64,064,000.

  The increase for Class XVI, Vote 3 (HM Treasury: Office of Government Commerce) is the net effect of the take up of EYF for PACE of £15,000,000 comprising £14,175,000 other current provision and £825,000 for running costs for expenditure related to the disposal of vacant property; the take up of EYF for CCTA of £797,000 comprising £686,000 other current provision and £111,000 for capital due to costs related to increased business; an increase in running costs of £325,000 to draw down the monies allocated from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund for OGC Headquarters; and a reduction in other current provision to record two transfers, of £663,000 for the cost of ownership of Harmsworth House to Class IV, Vote 3 (Charity Commission), and of £1,070,000 for the cost of ownership of Fleetbank House to Class IX, Vote 8 (Office of Fair Trading). As a result of take up of £825,000 EYF and drawing down £325,000 from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund, the running costs limit for HM Treasury Office of Government Commerce will accordingly be increased by £1,150,000 from £23,402,000 to £24,552,000.

  The increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Mortgage Repayments
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the average household in mortgage repayments were current interest rates at the average level between 1992 and 1997. [135971]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  If mortgage interest rates were now at their average level between 1992 and 1997, the average mortgage holder would be paying about £480 more a year in mortgage interest than they currently are.

  Fuel Duties
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the level of fuel duties; and if he will make a statement. [135970]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have received representation from many different organisations and groups as well as a large number of letters from members of the public.

  All were carefully considered in the run up to yesterday's pre-Budget Statement.
  342W

  Macdougall Report
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the Macdougall report regarding the share of GDP to be raised and spent centrally in any currency zone. [136416]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Agenda 2000 agreements confirmed that a ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of Community GNP would continue to apply for member states' contributions to the EC budget and this will remain.

  Tax Definitions
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will define the terms(a) tax harmonisation and (b) tax co-ordination. [136414]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The only reference to tax harmonisation in the European Communities Treaty is in Article 93 which provision formed part of the revised Treaty under the Single European Act signed in 1986.

  A reference to co-ordinated action to tackle harmful tax competition was contained in the ECOFIN Council conclusions of 1 December 1997. These conclusions followed a period of discussion initiated by the Commission at the Verona informal ECOFIN in April 1996.

  Endowment Policies
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of(a) how many endowment policies sold on the basis that they would on completion pay off home loans will now not do so and (b) the total shortfall; what steps he is taking to address this issue; and if he will make a statement. [136973]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The selling and marketing of endowment policies is regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). In a progress report published on 3 October, the FSA estimated that some 60 per cent. of the 11 million endowment policies in force might not meet their targets. The total value of the policies in force, and the projected shortfall, are not held centrally.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the number of recipients of the Working Families Tax Credit. [137388]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my right hon. Friend to my answer given to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 196W.

  Capital Gains Indexation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 1016W, on capital gains indexation, if he will revise his estimate (a) giving yields for the next five financial years assuming that asset values are constant in real terms, and (b) giving yields for the next five financial years assuming that retirement relief is reintroduced at its previous level and asset values are constant in real terms. [136296]
  343W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Consistent with the assumptions of the March 2000 Budget forecast, the net revenue yield from re-introducing indexation and abolishing taper is estimated to be £400 million for the first year, or £350 million if retirement relief were reinstated also, most of which would be received in the following year. Further information in the form requested on the yield for subsequent years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which recommendations of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review have not been fully implemented. [135877]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Sixty-four of the recommendations have been implemented, including 14 which have been implemented by other means than that directly envisaged in the report, and three of which have been implemented in part; four will not be progressed and work is continuing on a further 23. A schedule reporting progress on each of the recommendations has been placed in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  De-trunking Programme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional resources the Government will allocate to local authorities from 2003 following the Government's de-trunking programme. [136428]

  Mr. Hill
  De-trunking of non-core routes will be phased over a number of years with the first significant transfers taking place in 2001–02. We are committed to ensuring a fair transfer of resources from the Highways Agency to local authorities, which will take on responsibility for de-trunked roads. Arrangements have been agreed with the Local Government Association for ensuring such a transfer takes place. This will involve the making of special grants for routine maintenance and issue of supplementary credit approvals for capital maintenance when the roads are actually transferred. These arrangements will operate pending the outcome of the review of local government finance for which options were set out in our green paper "Modernising Local Government Finance" published on 19 September.

  Street Lighting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of street lighting columns that are unsafe and require replacement within the next 12 months. [136426]

  Mr. Hill
  DETR are aware that, of the 5 million street lighting columns in England, 27 per cent. (1.3 million) are more than 30 years old now. However, the Department does not currently have sufficient information to determine the number of columns which are unsafe.
  344W
  Local authorities have agreed that a national condition survey for street lighting should be introduced, and that information from this should be used to compile a national inventory. Progress on this is still at an early stage although local authority representatives have agreed to submit proposals to DETR.

  The Highways Agency consider that current funding levels are sufficient to allow them to maintain the condition of the trunk road network at a level where there is no backlog of maintenance (either for structural maintenance or for street lighting).

  Road Noise (A5)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the A5 at Wibtoft on the Warwickshire and Leicestershire border to be resurfaced to reduce traffic noise. [136284]

  Mr. Hill
  The A5 at Wibtoft was resurfaced about five years ago. I would not expect resurfacing to be required until around 2006. As announced previously, lower noise surfaces will be used for virtually all future surfacing work on trunk roads.

  Flooding (Lewes)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make available funds towards the repair of listed buildings and other buildings in the conservation area of Lewes affected by the recent flooding. [136569]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Emergency financial assistance is available for local authorities under the Bellwin scheme to help with uninsurable clear-up costs following a disaster or emergency in their area which involves destruction of, or danger to, life or property.

  Government compensation is not generally available to private household or businesses following storms and flooding. These are insurable risks, and successive Governments have taken the view that to underwrite insurable costs would remove any incentive for people to take out appropriate insurance cover and would penalise those who had acted prudently.

  Bellwin schemes are intended to prevent an undue burden falling on local taxpayers as the result of local authorities taking immediate action to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience, in their area or among its inhabitants. Grant is normally paid at a rate of 85 per cent. on authorities' qualifying expenditure above a threshold but for the present emergency grant will be paid at 100 per cent. of amounts above the threshold. The threshold is the provision that a prudent authority might reasonably be expected to make for contingencies and emergencies (approximately 0.2 per cent. of its revenue budget).
  345W
  In the case of the recent flooding the following adaptations to the Bellwin scheme will apply:
  assistance under Bellwin will be available for all authorities making valid claims resulting from the October/November floods and storms;
  Government support above the threshold will be increased from 85 per cent. to 100 per cent. but there is no change to the 0.2 per cent. threshold or to the definition of eligible costs;
  valid claims will be settled within 15 working days of receipt by the Department of a valid grant claim form;
  claims for payments in advance of audit reports being received by the Department may be made; and
  claims for grant of less than £10,000 will be accepted on presentation of details of expenditure certified by the Chief Financial Officer and will not require a separate audit report.

  Lewes District Council inquired about assistance under the Bellwin scheme the day following the initial floods. We are ready to trigger that assistance and officials await the detailed claim. We will consider all applications speedily and sympathetically against the criteria that apply in these circumstances.

  Hatfield Derailment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for how long the Health and Safety Executive has required its buffet carriage to be left on the railway at Hatfield. [137204]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive did not require the GNER buffet carriage to be left on the accident site at Hatfield. Inspectors gave instructions to Railtrack Ltd. on 19 October that the damaged carriage should be taken to Crewe for examination along with the other coaches and locomotive.

  Deprivation Indices
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the index of deprivation by ward as it relates to(a) the West Midlands area and (b) Coventry, South; and what plans there are to address the inequalities highlighted. [136578]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The Indices of Deprivation 2000 (ID2000) revises, extends and updates the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation. It is based on 33 ward level indicators of deprivation covering six domains: low income, employment deprivation, education and training deprivation, poor health and disability, poor housing and poor geographical access to services. Because it is based on ward level information it is more effective than previous indices in identifying pockets of deprivation across England and is a more effective means of targeting help at the most deprived areas. The indices show that there are 69 wards in the West Midlands in the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in England, of which five wards are in Coventry and two wards (St. Michael's and Binley and Willenhall) are in Coventry, South. The indices are considered to be the best means of measuring area deprivation currently, but will be kept under review and revised when significantly better information for small areas becomes available.
  346W
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recent deprivation indices produced by his Department, by ward. [136699]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him earlier today, column 345W.

  Damascus House
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government Office for London will make a decision on the planning application for Damascus House, Mill Hill. [136940]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State's decision on whether he should call in the planning application for his own determination is at an advanced stage and will be issued shortly.

  Oil Industry
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department made to the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the recent decision to hold a new round of oil licensing. [137173]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department will be making representations in due course in response to the consultation paper issued by the Department of Trade and Industry on 25 October.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 451–56W, concerning the single regeneration budget, if he will provide details of the geographical area covered by each bid. [137117]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the timetable is for developments in the National Air Traffic Services PPP from 3 November until the completion of the process. [137507]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government announced the three consortia to go forward to the next stage of the bidding process on 3 November. These three bidders for the role of Strategic Partner in the NATS PPP will have until early next year to prepare final and binding bids. The Government will then evaluate these bids with a view to selecting a preferred bidder. Subject to the passage of the Transport Bill, the Government's firm intention is to have the PPP in place in the spring of 2001.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria Raytheon failed to satisfy in their bid to be considered as the strategic partner under the National Air Traffic Services PPP. [137506]
  347W
  Mr. Mullin
  Raytheon's indicative bid to be considered as Strategic Partner in the NATS PPP was submitted to the Government on a confidential basis. As such it is not appropriate for the Government to release details of the content of that bid. All bids received were evaluated against a comprehensive set of evaluation criteria that were made available to bidders in the tender documentation. DETR officials and its advisers have subsequently discussed the evaluation exercise and the reasons behind its decision not to accept the indicative offer submitted by Raytheon with the company.

  The Government have in the past publicly stated that their firm intention was to select three bidders from those who submitted indicative offers to be taken forward to the next stage of the bidding process. That is what the Government have done and we announced our shortlist on 3 November 2000.

  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide an analysis of the component expenditure underlying the projected investment of £1,300 million required over 10 years for National Air Traffic Services. [137504]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government do not make forecasts for NATS' capital expenditure. Earlier this year NATS produced its first ten year investment plan, for the period 2000–10, and it is still consulting with its customers on this document. The views of the successful bidder for the role as NATS' strategic partner will of course be taken into account, and the form, timing and appropriateness of the plan will be reviewed by the CAA before it is approved. The final plan will be issued around the middle of next year.

  The Government believe that the Public/Private Partnership for NATS is the best way to deliver the investment needed. It will provide the additional management expertise to ensure that NATS' capital programme is achieved on time and on budget for the benefit of NATS' customers and for the Government as shareholder.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the incidents of NATS software and systems failure since 31 July 2000, indicating the duration and severity of their effects. [137528]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Flight Data Processing System (FDPS) at West Drayton has failed three times since 31 July. On none of these occasions was safety impaired. These failures were:

  (i) On 12 August 2000, FDPS was suspended for one hour and thirteen minutes following the rejection of an incorrect flight plan. This resulted in the imposition of short term restrictions which necessitated some flights being held at London airports;

  (ii) On 3 November 2000, FDPS was suspended for 17 minutes following the rejection of a flight plan. This resulted in six aircraft being delayed by 30 minutes; and

  (iii) On 4 November 2000, controllers noted FDPS was failing to print accurate data strips for flights using Stansted. A decision was taken to revert to a previous version of the software known to be free of faults. This took 2 hours and 10 minutes to install successfully and during this period aircraft experienced delays of up to one hour.

  NATS is planning to correct the failure in the software which caused the printing error as soon as possible. In
  348W
  spite of these failures, FDPS continues to perform well with both the performance and robustness of the system having been enhanced since the major failure on 17 June.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the basis of the funding formula for area cost adjustment in Kent for 2001–02 will be based on 1998 figures. [137377]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have not yet taken a decision on whether to update the area cost adjustment to reflect the data from the 1999 New Earnings Survey. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to amend the calculation of the area cost adjustment to reflect data from the 1999 New Earnings Survey. [137531]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have not yet taken a decision on whether to update the area cost adjustment to reflect the data from the 1999 New Earnings Survey. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many responses he has received to the Consultation Paper on Telecommunication Mast Development; and from whom; [136857]

  (2) if he will place copies of responses received to the Consultation Paper on Telecommunication Mast Development in the Library; [136858]

  (3) when he will announce the action he proposes to take following the public consultation on telecommunication mast development. [136859]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  By the end of the day, 7 November 2000, we had received 301 responses in total. Of these 45 were from members of the public; 230 were from local authorities and other public bodies; 18 were from mobile phone companies and associated businesses; and eight were from hon. Members. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We will announce any changes as soon as practicable. Copies of all responses, other than those where the respondent has indicated that the response is to be treated as confidential, will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Floods
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he was informed of the report into flood dangers by the Flood Hazard Research Centre at Middlesex University. [137400]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department received in July 2000 a copy of the "National appraisal of assets at risk from flooding and coastal erosion", a report produced for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by Halcrow Maritime, HR Wallingford and the Flood Hazard Research Centre. It was circulated at the same time to all Regional Flood Defence Committee Chairmen, Regional Directors of the Environment Agency and Chief Executives of all local authorities in England.
  349W
  The report presents a generalised overview of assets at risk in order to inform investment planning for flood and coastal defence. It demonstrates that some 10 per cent. of the population of England live within areas potentially at risk from flooding and property worth over £200 billion is also potentially at risk. It also confirms the value for money of past and present investment in flood and coastal defence but concludes that existing practices for undertaking and funding flood and coastal defence should be reappraised.

  The results were used to inform the Spending Review 2000 and have been taken into account in the revision of the new draft planning guidance on development and flood risk in PPG25, which we issued for consultation in April 2000 and hope to publish in final form in December this year.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had in the past six months with Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about flood defence; and if he will make statement. [137399]

  Mr. Mullin
  Policy responsibility for flood defence rests with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has had several recent discussions with Ministers from MAFF and other Departments to consider how the country can be better placed to deal with extreme weather events.

  "Are You Doing Your Bit" Campaign
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he plans to measure the success of the 'Are You Doing Your Bit' campaign; and if he will make a statement. [137396]

  Mr. Meacher
  Both quantitative and qualitative research, looking at awareness, motivation and actions by individuals, have been commissioned to measure the campaign's impact and inform the campaign's strategic approach.

  Monthly tracking research, in particular, helps us to measure public reaction carefully. Recent findings have been very encouraging and demonstrate that the campaign is raising public awareness of environmental actions with attitudes and actions becoming more positive:
  nine out of 10 people recognise the campaign;
  seven out of 10 said that the advertising made them think they should be doing their bit; and
  intentions to act are being converted into action with over seven out of 10 saying they have started or increased the frequency of campaign actions in the last 12 months.

  In addition to data from the more formal research activities outlined above, the campaign has also generated many successful partnerships with commercial organisations, with campaigners in similar fields, and with many local authorities. Feedback from these has been overwhelmingly positive, and the Government's commitment and approach are welcomed.

  Flooding (Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will 350W
  respond to the request by Devon county council in respect of the exemption from Council Tax penalties sums given to the Environment Agency for flood defence works in excess of the relevant SSA. [137527]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We will reply to Devon's request of 6 November when we have had time to consider the implications, particularly with regard to the Local Government Finance Settlement. The timetable for the Local Government Finance Settlement is expected to be similar to last year's.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will implement section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to require licensed taxi drivers to carry guide and hearing dogs in their taxis and to do so without charge. [138052]

  Mr. Hill
  I am pleased to announce that from 31 March 2001 all licensed taxi drivers in England and Wales will be under a duty to carry guide, hearing and other prescribed assistance dogs in their taxis and to do so without additional charge.

  From 1 December 2000 local licensing authorities will be able to consider applications from taxi drivers and to issue certificates of exemption to those applicants who they consider merit a medical exemption.

  I have laid before the House the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (Taxis) (Carrying of Guide Dogs etc.) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000. The Regulations prescribe three additional categories of dog to which Section 37 duties will also apply and deals with the notice which must be displayed by taxi drivers who are exempt on medical grounds from Section 37 duties.

  Full guidance is being sent to all local licensing authorities and a leaflet to all licensed taxi drivers informing them of these new duties and the arrangements for medical exemption. Copies of these documents will be placed in the House Library.

  I understand that the Scottish Executive will be introducing similar requirements for Scotland.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans there are to amend his departmental expenditure limits and running costs limit for 2000–01. [138178]

  Mr. Prescott
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class III, Votes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Departmental Expenditure Limits for 2000–01 will change as follows. All references to the take-up of end-year flexibility refer to the Public Expenditure 1999–2000 Provisional outturn White Paper presented to Parliament by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 18 July 2000 (Cm 4812).

  (a) The DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £253,541,000 from £10,861,342,000 to £11,114,883,000. This increase reflects the net impact of a take-up of end-year flexibility of £142,703,000; net transfers into the DETR Main

  351W
  Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit of £838,000 and a call on the DEL Reserve of £110,000,000. The changes are set out in greater detail as follows:

  (i) The changes for Class III, Vote I are as follows: take-up of End-Year Flexibility of £80,728,000 is to be distributed between a range of established and new programmes, including: £17,589,000 for the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and £8,477,000 for the Coalfields Enterprise Fund; Housing Corporation (£13,173,000 for the Major Repairs Initiative and £224,000 for the Approved Development Programme); £5,300,000 for Disabled Facilities Grants; £400,000 for housing defects grants; £5,000,000 for regeneration projects facilitated by the Social Exclusion Unit; £1,000,000 for 'Supporting People' (housing projects); £3,772,000 for English Partnerships; £3,800,000 for Housing Action Trusts; £850,000 for Rural Development Commission wind up costs; £40,000 for Nature Conservancy Council pensions; £202,000 for Single Regeneration Budget (mainly Manchester regeneration); £3,825,000 for private housing renovation grants; Regional Development Agencies (£3,000,000 for redundant building grant and £500,000 for restructuring costs); £2,500,000 to support the coal industry (regeneration costs); £2,000,000 for Neighbourhood Wardens; £1,762,000 for the Countryside Agency (including costs of £62,000 relating to Dacre House); £1,372,000 for Urban Development Corporations post-wind up costs; £1,111,000 for housing research; £1,500,000 for the launch of a register of competent and reliable builders and £1,000,000 for other construction-related expenditure (Partners in Innovation and advisory work in connection with the effects of Turkish earthquakes); £587,000 for home improvement agencies and £225,000 for the home improvement agencies' co-ordinating body; £545,000 for home buying and selling; £94,000 for City Challenge; £400,000 for EC spatial planning; £155,000 for grants to voluntary bodies through the Special Grants Programme; £50,000 for Gypsy Sites Grant; £50,000 for local authority funding of pilots for lettings; £20,000 for the Joint National Conservation Committee internet website; and £250,000 to cover planning costs related to the demolition of Sandown Hall.

  Additional calls on the DEL Reserve are required for Housing Corporation capital projects (£50.000,000) and for Regional Development Agencies (£60,000,000). A further net increase of £1,332,000 arises from the following inter-vote transfers; transfers into Class III, Vote 1 of £400,000 from Class VII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security, administration) to the Housing Corporation in respect of resettlement funding; £1,166,000 from Class IX, Vote 1 (Department of Trade and Industry: programmes and administration) for Regional Development Agencies' administration costs (including £70,000 specifically for the London Development Agency); £492,000 from Class IV, Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) for Rough Sleepers Unit administered private sector grants; and transfers out of Class III, Vote 1 of £426,000 to Class III, Vote 3 for the Energy Saving Trust, and £300,000 to Class III, Vote 2 for minicab licensing.

  (ii) The changes for Class III, Vote 2 are as follows: The take-up of end-year flexibility of: £53,824,000 for British Rail Grant (£18,000,000), civil aviation services
  352W
  (£15,000,000); multi modal studies (£3,000,000); Railtrack's Docklands Light Railway Royal Mint street claim (£14,500,000); London new year's eve celebration costs (£3,000,000); the transport statistics programme (£224,000); and the Mobility Unit (£100,000). A further net increase of £292,313,000 from the following inter-vote transfers: £278,325,000 from Class III, Vote 11 in respect of the Strategic Rail Authority; £14,390,000 from Class III, Vote 7 for multi modal studies (£10,000,000), road user charging (£1,500,000) and costs associated with London programmes which have transferred to Transport for London (£2,890,000). £300,000 from Class III, Vote 1 for the start up costs of minicab licensing; £150,000 from Class II Vote 1 (Department of Health) for Mobility Centres; £9,000 from Class IX, Vote 1 (Department of Trade and Industry) for VAT associated with the Framework 5 Helpline project; £784,000 to Class III, Vote 3 for various Environmental projects; £56,000 to Class IX, Vote 1 for the Framework 5 Helpline project; £6,000 to Class XII Vote 1 (Department of Social Security) for the National Listening Event for older people and £15,000 to the Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scottish Executive) for Scottish ports. An additional increase of £6,367,000 from non voted credit approvals for grant funding of the Sunderland Metro Main Extension (£5,417,000), World Squares (£650,000) and Mobility Centres (£300,000) partially offset by a transfer of £3,500,000 to non voted provision for Ports supplementary credit approvals.

  (iii) The changes for Class III Vote 3 are as follows: The take- up of end-year flexibility of £6,936,000 for the implementation of the Climate Change Levy (£1,750,000), the Mersey Basin Campaign (£136,000), for the computer upgrade work for pollution emergency response services (£200,000), for costs arising from the implementation of the European Groundwater Directive (£2,000,000), clearance of the navigation backlog (£1,000,000), the Financial Management and Policy Review efficiency study (£100,000), for the British Waterways for the effective launch of The Waterways Trust (£500,000) and for an out of court settlement of a personal injury case (£1,250,000). A further net increase of £1,310,000 arises from the following transfers into the vote: transfers from Class III. Vote 2 for research work undertaken on the Environmental Efficiency Best Practice Programme (£647,000) and on the Environmental Protection research and monitoring (£137,000), transfer from Class III, Vote 1 for work to be undertaken by the Energy Saving Trust (£426,000) and a transfer from non-voted contaminated land Supplementary Credit Approvals for training work (£100,000). There is also a transfer provision to Class VIII, Vote 1 for contribution to Environmental Know How Fund (£2,000,000).

  (iv) The changes to Class III, Vote 7 are as follows: A transfer of £14,390,000 to Class III Vote 2 made up of £10,000,000 for Multi-Modal Studies, £1,500,000 for Road User Charging Research and £2,890,000 settlement with the Greater London Authority. Draw down of £368,000 from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund, of which £348,000 is an increase in running costs provision and take-up of £200,000 of running costs end-year flexibility.

  (v) The changes in Class III, Vote 8 are as follows: An increase of £630,000 which comprises: £303,000 transfer from Class IV, Vote 1 (Home Office Crime Reduction

  353W
  Programme) to support DVLA's vehicle crime reduction initiatives, an allocation of £385,000 from the Civil Service Reform Modernisation Fund and an increase in Appropriations in Aid of £58,000 offset by a reduction in CFERS to reflect the reclassification of sale of anonymised data receipts.

  (vi) As a consequence of the changes to Class III, Vote 7 and 8, the DETR gross running cost limit has been increased by £1,226,000 from £700,928,000 to £702,154,000.

  (vii) The change to Class III, Vote 11 is a transfer of £278,325,000 to Class III, Vote 2 for the establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority.

  (viii) Provision within the non-Voted element of the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be decreased by £2,252,000 from £2,652,400,000 to £2,650,148,000. This reflects: £615,000 transfer to Class III Vote 3 for contaminated land work by the Environment Agency (£100,000), transfer of £500,000 from the Local Government DEL for Isles of Scilly water credit approvals, take-up of £215,000 end-year flexibility for air quality SCAs and £2,867,000 from Class HI Vote 2 comprising a transfer of £3,500,000 for Ports supplementary credit approvals and transfers to Class III Vote 2 of £6,367,000 for grant funding of the Sunderland Metro Main extension (£5,417,000), World squares (£650,000), Mobility Centres (£300,000). Also a take-up of £800,000 end-year flexibility transferred to DfEE for credit approvals issued to Derby City council.

  (ix) The net increase in the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit will be offset by transfers to; the Department of Trade and Industry Departmental Expenditure Limit, Department of Social Security Departmental Expenditure Limit, Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limit, Department for International Development Departmental Expenditure Limit; from the DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit, Department of Social Security Departmental Expenditure Limit, Department of Trade and Industry Departmental Expenditure Limit, Home Office Departmental Expenditure Limit, Department of Health Departmental Expenditure Limit and by a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  (b) The DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £8,430,000 from £35,352,718,000 to £35,361,148,000. This increase is the net effect of a take-up of end-year flexibility of £8,630,000, and a transfer of £500,000 to the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit, partially offset by transfers from DCMS of £300,000. The changes are set out in greater detail as follows:

  (i) The changes for Class III, Vote 4 are as follows: increased provision for the Local Government Commission (Section B) by £340,000 in respect of mapping costs and for Best Value Intervention by £1,410,000 (offset by a reduction in payments to the Audit commission for work in connection with Best Value Inspection and by drawing on the end-year flexibility entitlement for DETR's Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit in Cm 4812); increased provision for Local Government Research and Publicity (Section C) by £1,280,000, comprising publicity costs in relation to Best
  354W
  Value and grant distribution, offset by savings on Valuation services (Section A), Best Value Inspection (Section B) and an increase of £180,000 in Appropriations in Aid; increased provision for London governance by £4,400,000 (Section D) to reflect revised estimates for the costs of preparing for the Greater London Authority and associated bodies offset by drawing on the end-year flexibility entitlement for DETR's Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit announced in Cm 4812 and by £300,000 transferred from Department of Culture, Media and Sport; provision of £494,000 for emergency financial assistance to local authorities in connection with flooding emergencies (Section H) offset by saving on Section A and by drawing on the end-year flexibility for DETR's Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit announced in Cm 4812; reclassification of certain direct current expenditure in Section B as direct capital expenditure and certain capital expenditure in Section C as current grants and transfers.

  (ii) Provision within the non-Voted element of the Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit will be increased by £3,135,000 from £135,952,000 to £138,087,000. This reflects a take-up of end-year flexibility of £3,635,000 and the transfer of £500,000 to DETR's Main Programme DEL.

  (iii) The net increase in the DETR Local Government Departmental Expenditure Limit will be offset by a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  (c) The Office of Water Services Departmental Expenditure Limit will increase by £611,000 from -£45,000 to £567,000 and it's running cost limit will be reduced by £1,214,000 from £12,391,000 to £11,177,000.

  (i) This change for Class III, Vote 10 will be partly effected by the take-up £485,000 of end-year flexibility comprising £40,000 for capital and £445,000 for running costs etc. The supplementary also includes a claim on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve of £126,000 in respect of part of the pension costs of the former Director General of the Office of Water Services.

  The increase in the Office of Water Services Departmental Expenditure Limit will be offset by a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  (d) The Office of the Rail Regulator Departmental Expenditure Limit will increase by £78,000 from £1,000 to £79,000 and its running cost limit will be increased by £78,000 from £13,690,000 to £13,768,000.

  (i) This change for Class III, Vote 9 will be effected by the take-up of £78,000 running costs end-year flexibility to meet increased requirements associated with the Competition Act and Ladbroke Grove inquiry.

  The increase in the Office of the Rail Regulator will be offset by a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve and will therefore not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how
  355W
  many instances of illegal parking on Red Routes in London have been recorded, and how much was spent on policing them, in each year since their inception. [135911]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  I understand that the Metropolitan police have issued the following number of Fixed Penalty Notices for illegal parking on Red Routes in London:

  1992–26,136

  1993–22,130

  1994–22,166

  1995–23,362

  1996–37,303

  1997–50,235

  1998–98,289

  1999–108,659

  2000–48,197 (January-March).

  For the financial years 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the Metropolitan police have budgeted about £19 million for Red Route enforcement. Budget information for the previous years is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has to amend the Privy Council Office Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limit for 2000–01. [137634]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate for Class XVII, Vote 5, the Privy Council Office Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for 2000–01 will be increased by £373,000 from £2,578,000 to £2,951,000 and the running costs limit will be increased by £373,000 from £2,618,000 to £2,991,000.

  The increase in the DEL is to fund the new Business Co-ordination Unit (BCU) (£320,000) which I announced on 11 May 2000, Official Report, column 433W, and to take up money granted from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund (£53,000).

  The increase will be a charge on a DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

CABINET OFFICE

  Electronic Communications Act
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what use has been made of the powers in section 8 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000. [138177]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Electronic Communications Act 2000 contains in section 8 a power to amend legislation by statutory instrument, to authorise or facilitate electronic communication or storage. The first order laid before Parliament under this section is the Companies Act 1985 (Electronic Communications) Order 356W
  2000 amending company law, of which a draft was laid before the House on 23 October under the affirmative resolution procedure.

  The second order to be laid before Parliament is planned to be an order by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, to allow electronic communication between the Department of the Environment; Transport and the Regions (DETR) and local authorities of Housing Revenue Account subsidy determinations and decisions.

  In her memorandum submitted to Parliament during the passage of the Electronic Communications Bill in January 2000, my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce said:
  the Government envisage that the first Order would be subject to an affirmative resolution, but that Orders under clause 8 would normally be subject to a negative resolution. After the first Order therefore the affirmative resolution procedure would be used only exceptionally, with any Orders that raised major issues of principle.

  As no major issues of principle are raised by the DETR order, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions proposes to make it subject to the negative resolution procedure. This will enable it to come into force in time for the annual determination of Housing Revenue Account Subsidy. In this case it is likely to be made, and could come into force, before the company law order.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to change the 2000–01 Departmental Expenditure Limit or running cost limit for the Cabinet Office. [137363]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates:

  The Departmental Expenditure Limit for Cabinet Office (Class XVII, Vote 1 and Vote 3) will be increased by £51,988,000 from £194,960,000 to £246,948,000 and the gross running costs limit will be increased by £18,192,000 from £95,562,000 to £113,754,000. Also the net running costs limit will be decreased by £3,000,000 from £2,827,000 to -£173,000.

  This is mainly to take account of the following changes:

  (a) A transfer payment from Inland Revenue (Class XVI, Vote 5) (£15,000,000) towards development of the Government Gateway part of the Corporate IT Strategy for Government; and a payment to the Department of Social Security: administration (Class XII, Vote 3) (£5,000) in respect of Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People.

  (b) An investment in the Modernising Government agenda and Cabinet Office Action Plan (£2,788,000) to be funded from the Invest to Modernise Fund; an investment is the infrastructure for e-government, including the Knowledge Network, as part of the Corporate IT Strategy to be funded from the Capital Modernisation Fund (£21,000,000).

  (c) The Cabinet Office has taken up end-year flexibility (£13,205,000) from its entitlement (£24,388,000) as set out in the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper Cm 4812 published on 18 July 2000. This is to fund ongoing activities within the Cabinet Office including establishing the e-Envoy and funding slippage in programmes from the previous year.

  357W
  The increase will be offset by transfers or charged to the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Internet Access
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of the United Kingdom population has internet access at home; what plans she has to extend home internet access; and how she intends to achieve such goals. [135816]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Seven million UK homes, 28 per cent., are now connected to the internet with almost one million new homes going on line in the last quarter.

  We will continue to follow telecommunications competition policies that have helped the UK become the cheapest country in Europe for unmetered off-peak internet access, and among the cheapest for metered off-peak access. The rapid growth of digital TV in the UK—21 per cent. of UK households currently subscribe—will also increase home internet access.

  In addition, the Department for Education and Employment is piloting ways of providing low-cost recycled computers to unemployed people and those with low incomes.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will issue his strategic guidance to the new Learning and Skills Council. [138053]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have today sent my remit letter to Bryan Sanderson, the chairman of the Learning and Skills Council, setting out my strategic vision and the key priorities for the first three years of the LSCs operation. Copies of the remit letter have been placed in the Library.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the formula for Area Cost Adjustment for Kent schools for 2001–02 will be based on 1998 figures. [137378]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Ministers are currently considering a decision on this issue and will make an announcement in due course.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by LEA in descending order the percentage of(a) teaching posts currently vacant and (b) children attending schools in the LEA entitled to free school meals. [137371]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The number of regular teachers in maintained schools increased by 6,900 between January 1998 and January 2000.
  358W
  A DfEE survey of maintained secondary schools in England in the first week of September 2000 indicated that there were about 1,000 secondary teacher vacancies; the equivalent figure at January 2000 was 1,200.

  General information on schools has recently been published in a statistical volume 'Statistics of Education—Schools in England 2000', a copy of which is available from the Library, or alternatively can be accessed on the Department's statistical website www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2000,Official Report, column 100W, on the relocation of civil servants, when the contract with Cendant Relocation (UK) Ltd. was last renewed; where the contract was advertised; and what the length and value of the contract is. [137170]

  Mr. Wills
  The contract with Cendant Relocation (UK) Ltd. was last renewed on 23 March 2000. The contract was put out to competitive tender on the basis of nine national and locally sourced companies. The contract is for a period of three years. The contract value is dependent upon the number of departmental staff who use the service offered by Cendant.

  Teacher Contracts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he gives to local education authorities on providing written contracts; and what redress an employed teacher has against a local education authority that fails to provide a contract of employment. [137101]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend has not given any guidance to local education authorities on the provision of written contracts of employment. He has given guidance to school governing bodies about their obligation to provide a written statement each year to teachers of how their pay has been determined.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statutory provisions govern the provision of written contracts by local education authorities on the(a) part-time and (b) full-time employment of teachers. [137100]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Local education authorities are under the same requirements as other employers to provide written particulars of employment to employees. In addition, authorities, or the governing bodies of schools with delegated budgets, are required under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document to provide written statements each year to teachers of how their pay has been determined.

  Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with disaffected young people about the framework and curriculum of pupil referral units. [137084]
  359W
  Jacqui Smith
  Officials from my Department regularly meet disaffected young people, including as part of the recent review of the Social Inclusion: Pupil Support Standards Fund grant. We are also reviewing standards at pupil referral units (PRUs) and are arranging to meet pupils who have been excluded from school to find out from them what worked in PRUs. Ofsted inspection of PRUs usually includes discussion with students about the education they receive. The recently established Children's and Young People's Unit is considering how we can increase the involvement of children and young people in the design and delivery of policies and services that affect them.

  My officials are also working with a number of voluntary sector partners to develop innovative programmes for disaffected pupils.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidelines he has issued on pupil/teacher ratios in pupil referral units; [137083]

  (2) what guidance he has given pupil referral units about reintegrating pupils into mainstream education; [137080]

  (3) what special training is given to staff working in pupil referral units. [137078]

  Jacqui Smith
  As part of comprehensive guidance covering pupil attendance, behaviour and exclusion my right hon. Friend issued detailed guidance in July 1999 on staffing and training in Pupil Referral Units (PRUs) and re-integration into mainstream education of pupils attending PRUs.

  Staff in PRUs must be qualified teachers. Teachers in their induction year may require additional training in meeting the needs of difficult and disruptive children. A PRU's management committee should help identify staff development needs and the local education authority should provide opportunities for career development and in-service training. Training should include national curriculum courses, behaviour management and, where relevant, guidance from subject advisers on the curriculum.

  Following exclusion, an individual re-integration plan should be drawn up for the pupil. Where possible, excluded pupils should be re-integrated as quickly as possible. It is expected that primary pupils will be re-integrated within one term. By 2002 all excluded pupils must be offered full-time education.

  Staffing levels in PRUs should allow time to plan for individual pupils; helping pupils' re-entry into education or employment; building relationships with pupils and parents and administrative tasks. It is considered good practice for a PRU always to have at least two members of staff on site. In 2000 the pupil: teacher ratio in PRUs was 4.3 compared to 4.5 in 1999.

  The money available from the Social Inclusion: Pupil Support Standards Fund Grant to help schools and local education authorities tackle poor behaviour and provide education outside school for those who have been excluded will increase tenfold from £17 million in 1996–97 to £174 million in 2001–02.

  Copies of the guidance mentioned above, DfEE Circulars 10–99 (Chapter 7) and 11–99 (Chapters 4 and 5), are available in the House of Commons Library.
  360W
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many young people(a) are receiving and (b) have received an education in a pupil referral unit in each of the last three years; [137081]

  (2) how many pupil referral units there are in (a) England, (b) Nottingham and (c) Nottinghamshire. [137082]

  Jacqui Smith
  Provisional figures for 2000 show that there were 8,479 pupils registered at pupil referral units (PRUs). This compares with 7,530 in 1997, 7,740 in 1998 and 8,263 in 1999. This means an increase of nearly 1,000 places since 1997. In addition, the number of pupils dually registered at both school and PRU increased from 4,166 in 1998 to 4,586 in 2000.

  Latest figures show that there are nearly 300 PRUs in England. Nottingham City LEA has two PRUs. Nottinghamshire LEA has four PRUs. A number of LEAs are amalgamating pupil referral units to bring them under one management structure in order to rationalise and improve provision. As indicated above, there has been an increase in the scale of provision for pupils at PRUs.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria are used to evaluate the effectiveness of pupil referral units. [137079]

  Jacqui Smith
  OFSTED inspects pupil referral units (PRUs) using the framework of inspection for schools, adapted for PRUs. The inspection includes looking at quality of teaching; pupils' progress; management and value for money. Following an OFSTED inspection, the LEA must prepare a written action plan, in consultation with the management committee of the PRU and the teacher in charge. A recent OFSTED analysis of inspection reports from 38 inspections undertaken in 2000–01 highlights: improved teaching; improved pupil progress and achievement; better management; better value for money and some improved accommodation.

  Class Sizes (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that Leicestershire LEA meets his target that no infant is taught in a class size of 30 or more by September 2001. [137058]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  For the huge majority of infants, the Government have secured early delivery of their pledge to limit infant class sizes to 30 pupils. In September 2000, as few as 30,000 five, six and seven-year-olds remained in infant classes of 31 or more. The figure in January 1998 was 485,000. The pledge is supported by over £600 million, and allocations so far to Leicestershire LEA amount to nearly £4 million—enough to support 71 additional teachers this year, and 24 additional classrooms. This has enabled the authority to make steady progress towards meeting the pledge: in September 2000, over 94 per cent. of five, six and seven-year-olds in Leicestershire were in infant classes of 30 or below, compared with 89 per cent. in September 1999. The figure in January 1998 was 78 per cent.

  School Playing Fields
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown by region
  361W
  of the number of state schools which sought approval from his Department for the sale of playing fields between 1990–2000. [136752]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information is not available in the form requested.

  Prior to October 1998 only grant-maintained schools were required to seek consent from the Secretary of State before selling any land. Since the introduction in October 1998 of section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, local authorities and governing bodies of all maintained schools, including foundation schools, have been required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before disposing of playing fields or any part of a playing field. The Secretary of State will grant such approval only if the application meets the tough criteria against which all applications are considered.

  Before the change in the law, local authorities could and did sell playing fields as and when they chose to do so. An estimated 40 playing fields a month were sold in this way under the previous Government.

  Since October 1998 there have been 180 applications from local authorities and governing bodies to sell a playing field or part of a playing field. The following table provides a breakdown of these applications by local education authority.

  Table showing by local education authority the number of applications for consent to the sale of playing fields from 1 October 1998 to 6 November 2000

  Local education authority

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  —

  Barnet

  1

  —

  —

  Barnsley

  —

  —

  1

  Bath and North East Somerset

  —

  1

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  1

  —

  Bexley

  —

  —

  1

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  Blackburn with Darwen

  —

  —

  —

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  —

  Bolton

  —

  —

  —

  Bournemouth

  —

  —

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  —

  1

  Bradford

  —

  —

  1

  Brent

  —

  —

  —

  Brighton and Hove

  —

  —

  —

  Bristol

  1

  —

  —

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  4

  4

  Bury

  1

  1

  —

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  1

  6

  1

  Co. Durham

  —

  2

  2

  Cornwall

  —

  —

  1

  Coventry

  —

  1

  —

  Croydon

  —

  1

  —

  Cumbria

  —

  4

  1

  Darlington

  —

  —

  —

  Derby City of

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  1

  1

  2

  Devon

  —

  2

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  —

  1

  Dorset

  1

  —

  1

  Dudley

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  —

  1

  —

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  —

  1

  —

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  362W

  Table showing by local education authority the number of applications for consent to the sale of playing fields from 1 October 1998 to 6 November 2000

  Local education authority

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Essex

  1

  1

  1

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  2

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  Halton

  1

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  1

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  1

  5

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  Hartlepool

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  2

  3

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  4

  4

  Kingston upon Hull

  —

  —

  —

  Kingston upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  Kirklees

  —

  1

  —

  Knowsley

  —

  —

  —

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  1

  3

  1

  Leeds

  —

  1

  —

  Leicester, City of

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  London, Corporation of

  —

  —

  —

  Luton

  —

  —

  —

  Manchester

  —

  1

  2

  Medway Towns

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  —

  Milton Keynes

  1

  2

  —

  Newcastle

  1

  2

  1

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  1

  1

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  North Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  —

  North Somerset

  1

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  1

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  1

  3

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  1

  Northumberland

  —

  2

  1

  Nottingham

  —

  2

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  2

  1

  Oldham

  —

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  —

  2

  1

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  1

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  Poole

  —

  —

  —

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  —

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  Redcar and Cleveland

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale

  —

  1

  —

  Rotherham

  —

  —

  —

  Rutland

  —

  —

  —

  Salford

  —

  2

  —

  Sandwell

  —

  —

  —

  Sefton

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  —

  1

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  1

  —

  Slough

  —

  —

  —

  363W

  Table showing by local education authority the number of applications for consent to the sale of playing fields from 1 October 1998 to 6 November 2000

  Local education authority

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Solihull

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  —

  2

  —

  South Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  —

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  Southampton

  —

  1

  —

  Southend-on-Sea

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  St. Helens

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  2

  —

  Stockport

  —

  —

  —

  Stockton-on-Tees

  —

  —

  —

  Stoke-on-Trent

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  Sunderland

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  3

  6

  3

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  Swindon

  —

  —

  —

  Tameside

  —

  —

  2

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  1

  —

  Thurrock

  —

  —

  —

  Torbay

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  —

  —

  1

  Wakefield

  2

  2

  —

  Walsall

  1

  1

  2

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  Wandsworth

  —

  1

  —

  Warrington

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  1

  6

  4

  West Berkshire

  —

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  1

  3

  1

  Westminster

  —

  1

  1

  Wigan

  —

  3

  3

  Wiltshire

  —

  2

  1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  1

  —

  Wirral

  —

  —

  —

  Wokingham

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  1

  1

  —

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  York

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  23

  94

  63

  Note:

  School playing fields means school playgrounds and other pupil recreation and social areas as well as grassed playing fields. It also means small areas of playing fields as well as whole playing fields.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to include English and maths key skills qualifications within the curriculum 2000 programme at an equivalent level to GCSE English and maths for the purpose of initial teacher training. [135929]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for initial teacher training (ITT) providers to decide which qualifications meet the Secretary of State's entry requirements and can be accepted, including those relating to the key skills of communication and application of number. Qualifications must, however, be of the equivalent standard to a GCSE grade C, or above.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many trainee teachers were recruited to initial teacher training courses from 1995–96 to 2000–01, broken down between(a) primary and secondary trainees, (b) undergraduate and postgraduate
  364W
  and (c) secondary by subject; and if he will list the Government's target for teacher recruitment in each category. [134344]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Data on recruitment to initial teacher training (ITT) courses starting in 2000–01 for each provider in England are not yet available. I hope they will be shortly. I will write to the hon. Member with the information as soon as possible, and will place a copy of the response in the Library.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new teachers were recruited in the last academic year. [134713]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers of full-time and part-time teachers recruited to the maintained sector in England during the two most recent financial years for which data are available are shown in the table:

  1997–98

  1998–99

  New entrants

  23,000

  21,200

  Re-entrants

  29,300

  27,500

  Total entrants

  52,300

  48,700

  All numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  The number of retirements from teaching was unusually high in 1997–98 because of changes to the Teachers Pensions Scheme introduced by the previous Administration in 1997, which meant that more teachers than usual had to be recruited for September 1997.

  The number of regular teachers in the maintained sector has increased by 6,900 since January 1998 and by 3,400 since January 1999.

  The gap between the spending plans of the previous Administration and the increase in unavoidable pay, price and other pressures facing schools in 1998–99 was equivalent to employing 25,000 fewer teachers. But as a result of the extra £835 million increase in both education SSA and revenue support grant, teacher numbers (including supply teachers) increased by over 4,000.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many physics graduates were recruited into teacher training in 2000–01. [134348]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Data on recruitment to initial teacher training (ITT) courses starting in 2000–01 for each provider in England are not yet available. I hope they will be shortly. I will write to the hon. Member with the information as soon as possible, and will place a copy of the response in the Library.

WALES

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Welsh electricity supply was provided by nuclear power stations for each of the last 10 years. [137217]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.
  365W
  The electricity supply in Wales is mainly provided through the national grid and it is not possible to distinguish separately the source of the electricity.

  Electricity produced by the one nuclear station in Wales (Wylfa) (the second station, Trawsfynydd, closed in 1993) may be consumed in England while nuclear electricity generated in England, Scotland or France can be consumed in Wales. In 1999 Wylfa's output to the national grid was 7.2 TWh while electricity consumption in Wales is estimated to have been 16 and 17 TWh.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals there are to amend his Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01. [138051]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £114,572,000 from £7,693,663,000 to £7,808,235,000. The increase is a result of:

  (i) the take up of end-year flexibility entitlement of £94,895,000;

  (ii) net transfers to other government Departments of £252,000;

  (iii) additional support of £15,309,000 for Hill Farmers and agriculture resulting from the Agriculture Minister's statement of 30 March 2000; and,

  (iv) a final allocation from the Capital Modernisation Fund of £4,620,000.

  The increase includes the following transfers:

  (i) £1,100,000 to Class III, Vote 1 for cattle herd registration;

  (ii) £1,068,000 from Class I, Vote 1 for mature student bursaries;

  (iii) £150,000 from Class IV, Vote 1 for locks for pensioners;

  (iv) £536,000 to Class IX, Vote 1 for Sector Challenge; and,

  (v) £166,000 from Class IV, Vote 1 for Crime Prevention.

  The balance will be met by a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve for the take-up of end-year flexibility entitlement and the additional agriculture provision. The Capital Modernisation Fund monies will be met from the central CMF budget. None of these changes will therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the timetable and process of review of the UK/China human rights dialogue. [135766]

  Mr. Battle
  We conduct formal sessions of the UK/China human rights dialogue twice a year. The next session is scheduled to take place in February 2001.

  We keep the dialogue process under continuous and critical review. Our object is to develop the most effective way of helping to improve human rights in China. As far as the dialogue itself is concerned, we look for ways to make it more effective, and to identify areas where we can work with the Chinese to improve the observance of human rights in specific areas.
  366W
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government will reach a decision on sponsoring a resolution on human rights in China and Tibet at the 57 United Nations Commission for Human Rights. [135769]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government will review their position towards a resolution on China at the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (March 2001) following the next rounds of the UK/China and EU/China human rights dialogues, both scheduled to take place in February 2001.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the UK Government made to the troika concerning the human rights content of the EU/China summit. [135768]

  Mr. Battle
  The position taken by the troika on the question of human rights in China at the EU/China Summit on 23 October was based on discussions among partners in September ahead of the EU/China Human Rights Dialogue on 29 September. The Government play an active role in setting the direction for EU policy towards the human rights situation in China, including the identification of key concerns and strategy for meetings with the Chinese authorities.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy relating to (1)(a) the balance of responsibilities between the EU and UK Government and (b) the proposals to the change to qualified majority voting in relation to the choice of Common Foreign and Security Policy representatives (Article 23(2)); [136054]

  (2) (a) the balance of responsibilities between the EU and United Kingdom Government in relation to mixed agreements and (b) the proposals to change to qualified majority voting on mixed agreements (New Article 300 (8)); [136043]

  (3) (a) the balance of responsibilities between the EU and UK Government and (b) the proposals to the change to qualified majority voting in relation to the Common Foreign and Security Policy international agreements (Article 24); [136053]

  (4) (a) the balance of responsibilities between the EU and HM Government and (b) the proposals to the change to qualified majority voting in relation to association agreements (Article 300 (2)); [136047]

  (5) (a) the balance of responsibilities between the EU and UK Government and (b) the proposals to change to qualified majority voting in relation to the co-operation measures under Title IV (Article 66). [136052]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 30 October 2000,Official Report, columns 234–38W.

  Press Rebuttal Unit
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 6 March 2000,Official Report, column 499W, if he will estimate the cost to date of providing (a) rebuttals of press articles on Europe and (b) his Department's

  367W
  Euro-myths web page; who selects the items which require a rebuttal; and from where he obtains the information to be used in the rebuttals. [136102]

  Mr. Vaz
  I correct press articles which contain factual inaccuracies about Government policy towards Europe or our membership of the EU drawing on information held by the FCO and other Government Departments. These correctives are sent to the publication concerned and are now also published on the FCO website. There are no dedicated FCO staff assigned to this task. The only dedicated costs are of faxing or e-mailing the corrective letters, ie the cost of a local telephone call.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the constitutional issues relating to the euro; and on what dates. [136387]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State meets his Cabinet colleagues on a regular basis and discusses a wide range of issues.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account the Government will take of the results of the Danish referendum in the timing of a possible UK referendum on replacing the pound with the euro. [136256]

  Mr. Vaz
  As the Prime Minister has said, this decision is a matter for the Danish people and does not change the UK Government's position. We are in favour, in principle, of joining a successful single currency, but in practice the five economic tests must be met. Should Government and Parliament recommend joining, the final decision should be for the British people in a referendum.

  European Superpower
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date it became the Government's policy to support the creation of a European superpower. [136514]

  Mr. Vaz
  This Government have long supported a Europe which can be a superpower in its economic and political strength. The Government are firmly opposed to the establishment of a federal superstate, as the Prime Minister made clear in Warsaw in October.

  UN Human Rights Inquiry Commission
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to request that the Human Rights Inquiry Commission established by the UN Human Rights Commission(a) includes forensic and ballistic experts and (b) is given the means to conduct their investigations. [136454]

  Mr. Hain
  The Human Rights Inquiry Commission has yet to be endorsed by a special session of the Economic and Social Council to be convened in New York.

  (a) It is for the UNCHR Inquiry Commission to decide who the members should be and what skills will be required.
  368W
  (b) It is our understanding that a voluntary contribution has already been offered by a third party to ensure the investigations could be conducted successfully.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures Her Majesty's Government will take to support the investigation of the Human Rights Inquiry Commission established by the UN Human Rights Commission to collect information about violations of human rights and international law committed by the Israeli occupying power in the occupied Palestinian territories since 28 September. [136452]

  Mr. Hain
  The Human Rights Inquiry Commission has yet to be endorsed by a special session of the Economic and Social Council to be convened in New York.

  However, we strongly encourage both Israelis and Palestinians to take action on any human rights abuses that might have been committed during the recent troubles. We would expect both sides to co-operate fully with an internationally approved human rights inquiry.

  British Council
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future role of the British Council in Zambia. [136642]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Council has recently completed a strategic review of its operations around the world. It will continue to operate in Zambia with a focus on governance and education. The Council will retain its public information centre which, through modern internet facilities, will offer ready access to the widest possible range of information. Additional support services will be provided from a regional hub in Zimbabwe. Having recently visited Lusaka, I can vouch for the excellent work the Council is doing in Zambia.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future role of the British Council in Malawi. [136641]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Council has recently completed a strategic review of its operations around the world. It will continue to operate in Malawi with a focus on governance and education. The Council will retain its public information centre which, through modern internet facilities, will offer ready access to the widest possible range of information. Additional support services will be provided from a regional hub in Zimbabwe. Having recently visited Lilongwe, I can vouch for the excellent work the Council is doing in Malawi.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are applied when appointing the Chairman of the British Council, with particular reference to the political views of candidates. [136238]

  Mr. Hain
  No criteria are applied relating to the political views of candidates when appointing the Chairman of the British Council. The criteria used include: an impressive record of achievement in the candidate's chosen field: a high level of strategic and representational skills with the vision and flair to inspire and enthuse; an international perspective and sympathy
  369W
  with the Council's aims; and a personal presence commensurate with the international profile of the appointment.

  Whaling
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have for placing sanctions on Japanese vessels in connection with scientific whaling. [136803]

  Mr. Hain
  We have expressed our total opposition to the Japanese Government on numerous occasions. The UK would need to discuss any proposal for trade sanctions against Japanese vessels in connection with Japan's research whaling programme with our EU partners, since external trade matters fall within the competence of the EU. In addition, there are currently no Japanese fishing vessels operating within UK domestic waters.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the Government of Japan concerning their decision to expand the scientific whaling programme to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary; and if he will make a statement. [136938]

  Mr. Hain
  In our numerous discussions, the Japanese Government have been left in no doubt as to our total opposition to their expanded whaling programme in the North Pacific and their continued research whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. Both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have raised this issue with their Japanese counterparts. As Minister responsible for whaling issues, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food spoke very powerfully against the Japanese decision at the last IWC meeting in Adelaide in June.

  International Criminal Court Treaty
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken with other European Union member states to resist efforts by the United States to create an exception for US nationals in the International Criminal Court Treaty. [137324]

  Mr. Hain
  We have made clear to the US, both bilaterally and with our EU partners, our concerns about their proposal. We continue to hope the United States will come on board in support of the International Criminal Court. A court with the United States as a member would be very much stronger. However, any solution to their concerns must, if it is to receive support, respect the integrity of the Rome Statute and maintain the effectiveness of the court.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the military Government of Pakistan on its programme for returning to democracy. [137386]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to press Pakistan's military regime for the early and credible timetable for the restoration of democracy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues of the 370W
  Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group strongly underlined this to Pakistan's Foreign Minister during their meeting in New York on 15 September.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to amend his Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limit for 2000–01. [138156]

  Mr. Hain
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class VII Vote I, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £96,723,000 from £1,113,610,000 to £1,210,333,000 and running cost limit will be increased by £17,989,000 from £513,993,000 to £531,982,000. The increase is the net effect of:

  (i) additional provision of £73,935,000 on Section B for UK contributions to United Nations Missions in the former Yugoslavia (includes UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) and the former Soviet Union, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Iraq), United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission, United Nations Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara, United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor, United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Community Monitoring Mission and Western European Union Police Mission in Albania;

  (ii) take up of end year flexibility of £16,264,000 for running costs and £4,799,000 for capital expenditure;

  (iii) a successful bid of £1,725,000 against the Capital Modernisation Fund approved by the Chief Secretary.

  Belize
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken in response to recent territorial claims on Belize by Guatemala; and if he will make a statement. [137325]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK has encouraged both parties to remain in constructive talks under the auspices of the Organisation of American States, in order to find a peaceful resolution to the border dispute.

  The UK continues to support Belize's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will provide legal assistance in Belize's efforts to demarcate its land and maritime. We continue to make our views clear to both sides.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he received between November 1999 and November 2000 on(a) the timing and (b) the content of strategic export controls legislation from (i) non-Governmental organisations including voluntary and charitable groups, (ii) commercial interests, companies and trade organisations and (iii) other categories; and if he will make a statement. [136604]
  371W
  Mr. Hain
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry today. (UIN 136001)

  EU Enlargement
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries for which it is Government policy that they should ultimately be permitted to join the European Union. [136230]

  Mr. Vaz
  There are currently 13 candidates for membership of the European Union (Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Turkey).

  In addition, as Articles 49 and 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union make clear, membership of the European Union is open to any European state which respects
  the principals of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.

  This includes the countries of the Western Balkans who are all potential candidates for EU membership.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which relocation companies hold contracts with her Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [137196]

  Clare Short
  Crown Worldwide Ltd. provide relocation services to my Department for staff taking up or returning from assignments overseas. A three year contract, with the option of a two year extension, was signed in April 1998. It was advertised in October 1997 in the International Freight Weekly, EU Journal, Government Opportunities and the Daily Telegraph. The option for the two year extension was taken up in May 2000 and the contract will expire on 31 March 2003. The contract has no financial value, we pay for services provided. There is no contractual arrangement for relocation within the UK and staff are required to seek competitive tenders from three companies.

  Misuse of Aid
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of corruption in projects administered by the United Nations. [136627]

  Clare Short
  The Board of Auditors, whose membership currently includes the UK Comptroller and Auditor General, acts as external auditor of the accounts of the UN, its funds and programmes.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what changes will be made to the Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limit for her Department in 2000–01. [138012]
  372W
  Clare Short
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, for Class VIII, Vote 1: Department for International Development, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £8,546,000 from £2,113,186,000 to £2,121,732,000 for voted expenditure giving a total of voted and non-voted expenditure of £2,759,768,000. The running cost limit for the Department for International Development will be increased by £3,985,000. The increase is the net effect of:an increase of £2,560,988 in respect of the carry forward of underspends from 1999–2000 on the International Development Vote;
  a DETR transfer of £2,000,000 in respect of the environmental know how fund;
  an allocation of £485,000 under the civil service modernisation fund allocation to the running costs budget;
  the drawing down of £3,500,000 from our running costs entitlement to end-year.

  The increase will be met by transfers or from the DEL reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Great Lakes
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the development of a regional policy for the Great Lakes region of Africa. [136458]

  Clare Short
  We are strongly involved in supporting Rwanda's recovery and development and in supporting Uganda's development. We are also very supportive of the Lusaka peace process. We hope to support other countries' lead in Burundi. We have decided to undertake some analysis in the Department to deepen our understanding of the regional context. It would be an exaggeration to call this a regional policy.

  Horn of Africa (Drought)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the drought in the Horn of Africa region. [136623]

  Clare Short
  The UN Special Envoy of the Secretary General for the drought in the Horn of Africa, Ms Catherine Bertini, visited Kenya and Ethiopia between 17–23 September. She found that there has been progress in addressing the effects of drought in the Horn of Africa region since April; food and non-food assistance provided through the United Nations, non-governmental organisations and Government has prevented a famine and set the foundation for recovery. Almost 1 million tonnes of food was delivered to drought affected people in the Horn of Africa countries between January and August 2000. She reported that the crisis is not over and millions of people are still at risk, and recommended that relief needs in the region should be reassessed this month with a new Interagency Relief Drought Appeal for the Horn of Africa being issued in December. We continue to respond to needs as they arise.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department has given in each of the last three years to Cambodia,
  373W
  indicating the projects for which aid was given; what recent request she has received for aid for flood relief; and if she will make a statement. [137323]

  Cambodia

  1997–98 (£000)

  1998–99 (£000)

  1999–2000 (£000)

  Total (£000)

  Status

  Secondary English Teaching Project (CAMSET 1 and II)

  808

  764

  863

  2,090

  Active

  Phnom Penh Urban Poverty Project, Phase I

  281

  238

  280

  799

  Complete

  Health Sector Reform Project, Phase II and III

  256

  790

  964

  1,793

  Active

  Social Marketing of Contraceptives, Phase I and II

  252

  777

  239

  1,226

  Active

  Reproductive Health/Family Planning and Sexual Health

  800

  509

  55

  1,809

  Complete

  Malaria Project, Phase II

  362

  61

  —

  423

  Complete

  CONCERN Rural Development Project

  —

  —

  117

  117

  Active

  Support for Elections—UNDP Trust Fund

  —

  448

  40

  488

  Complete

  Support to Illegal Logging Unit

  —

  —

  200

  200

  Complete

  HIV/AIDS Care in the Community Support

  63

  12

  28

  28

  Active

  VSO EQIP (Education) Project

  —

  —

  11

  11

  Active

  Small Grants Scheme: Projects

  102

  120

  120

  342

  Active

  UNDP Reconciliation Project, Anlong Veng

  —

  150

  —

  150

  Complete

  Demining

  —

  200

  —

  200

  Complete

  Humanitarian Mine Action

  442

  693

  2,810

  3,945

  Active

  Joint Funding Scheme

  694

  629

  522

  1,845

  Active

  Other

  712

  171

  364

  1,247

  Active

  Total

  4,772

  5,562

  7,058

  17,392

  We have allocated £1.25 million to alleviate the suffering of flood victims in Cambodia. This includes £250,000 through the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC), £500,000 through UNICEF and £500,000 for international non-governmental organisations. In addition, Cambodia will benefit from a part of the £600,000 allocated to the IFRC flood appeal for the Mekong region. We have contributed a further £125,000 as our share of the EU humanitarian aid package.

  A detailed statement on our support for development in Cambodia is contained in the Country Strategy Paper published in March this year. A copy is in the House of Commons Library.

  Fishing (West Africa)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact of fishing by western countries off the coast of West Africa on development in that region. [136622]

  Clare Short
  The Government have provided substantial support to countries of the West African region for the implementation of the international Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. This is a five-year programme which is being delivered through a partnership with the FAO and countries of the region. It will strengthen West African countries' capacities to manage their coastal fisheries. It is focused on the needs of small-scale, artisanal fishers and programme resources will be available to support those communities' impacted by the activities of foreign vessels.

  We are also undertaking a series of studies of the impact of foreign fishing on West Africa.
  374W
  Mr. Foulkes
  The table provides the detail on our funding and projects in Cambodia:

HEALTH

  Synthetic Human Antibody Research
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how long he estimates it will take successfully to complete his Department's synthetic human antibody research; what is the estimated cost of completing the remaining research in the project; and if he will make a statement. [135691]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department is not undertaking synthetic antibody research.

  Rothbury Community Hospital, Northumberland
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the date by which work will have commenced on the new Rothbury Community Hospital, Northumberland. [136552]

  Mr. Hutton
  The new community hospital at Rothbury is part of Phase II of the redevelopment of Wansbeck General Hospital. The Full Business Case for the scheme is in the final stages of approval and a decision is expected very soon. Until then, however, a definitive start date cannot be given.

  Tinnitus
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the therapies and pharmacological solutions available on the NHS to counter the effects of tinnitus; and if he will commission research on this subject. [136202]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are a number of therapies available to treat tinnitus. While maskers are available, which emit sounds that counteract the tinnitus noises, treatment currently focuses on an cognitive approach to the problem such as relaxation techniques to reduce stress
  375W
  levels, and listening to surf sound tapes to cover the tinnitus noises. Many patients manage their condition without medical intervention.

  There is currently no pharmacological solution available to treat tinnitus.

  The main agency through which we support medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). MRC always welcomes high-quality applications for support into any aspect of human health and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health.

  The Department currently has no plans to commission any research on tinnitus in relation to its Policy Research Programme and National Health Service research and development programmes.

  NHS Patients
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct the Chief Executive of the NHS to provide patients with the option of a disclaimer allowing them to refuse treatment in private units. [137110]

  Mr. Denham
  The option of a disclaimer allowing patients to refuse treatment in private units is unnecessary.

  The concept of consent is implicit in the relationship between the general practitioner and the patient. The current Patient's Charter sets out the right
  to be referred to a consultant acceptable to the patient, when the GP thinks it is necessary.

  This means that the GP will advise of the consultant(s) he/she considers will give the best medical treatment, on the basis of clinical need and the expertise available, and the patient can choose which of those offered are acceptable.

  If a patient is offered National Health Service treatment, which the GP in his/her professional opinion considers necessary, in a setting which the patient finds unacceptable and the patient decides not to take up that treatment, that is their choice.

  Private Hospitals (Standards)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government are taking to ensure high standards of(a) medical care, (b) personal care and (c) hygiene and cleanliness in private hospitals. [136842]

  Ms Stuart
  Independent healthcare is currently regulated under the Registered Homes Act 1984. We recognise the deficiencies with the present system and that it has not kept pace with the developments in independent healthcare over the past two decades. We are therefore putting in place a new modern regulatory framework for the independent healthcare sector, through the Care Standards Act 2000. One of the main elements of the Act is to establish a new independent body, the National Care Standards Commission, which will regulate independent hospitals to proper modern standards. The Act will put in place a regulatory system that will ensure the delivery of quality services, proper accountability by the provider, and flexibility to allow the regulatory framework to respond to developments in the healthcare field.
  376W
  To ensure consistency and quality of service provision, the Commission will inspect against national minimum standards currently being developed for private acute hospitals having regard to those standards which already apply to National Health Service hospitals. This will ensure that patients can have confidence in the quality and safety of medical and personal care, hygiene and cleanliness. The development of the national minimum standards is being undertaken in consultation with patients, providers, inspectors, healthcare professionals and specialists. Once the standards are developed they will be the subject of a full public consultation in April 2001.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to amend his Department's and the Food Standards Agency's departmental expenditure and running costs limit for 2000–01. [138157]

  Mr. Milburn
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class II, Votes 1 and 4 the overall Departmental Expenditure Limit for Class II which includes the Department of Health and the Foods Standard Agency, will be increased by £61,213,000 from £45,029,542,000 to £45,090,755,000.

  Of this increase the Department of Health Departmental Expenditure limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £49,616,000 from £44,948,272,000 to £44,997,888,000. The increase is the net effect of changes to Class II, Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) of £48,357,000 made up £50,000,000 from HM Treasury's Capital Modernisation Fund for Modernising Coronary Heart Disease services. In addition the following transfers will take place; £1,357,000 from the Scottish Executive, (£47,000) for the High Security Infectious Diseases Unit and (£1,310,000) for Out of Area Treatments. The overall increase is partially offset by a transfer of £3,000,000 to Class I, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment) for the Queen Mary Westfield Tomlinson merger.

  An increase of £1,256,000 for Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) is the net effect of transfers (detailed below) and £6,500,000 take-up of end year flexibility (as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper "Cm 4812" published on 18 July 2000) and £1,795,000 (running costs) from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund, transfers of £75,000 (running costs) from Class IX, Vote 2 (Department of Trade and Industry: science) for the human genetics commission and £36,000 from Class IV, Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, immigration and other services, England and Wales) for central treatment fund pilot projects. The overall increase is partially offset by transfers of £4,000,000 to Class I, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services) for the standards fund, £3,000,000 to Class IV, Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, immigration and other services, England and Wales) for unaccompanied asylum seeking children and £150,000 to Class III, Vote 2 (Environment, Transport and regions: Planning, roads, local transport and vehicle safety) for mobility centres.
  377W
  Within the Departmental DEL there is also a transfer of £11,837,000 from Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) to Class II, Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England).

  The Department of Health's gross running cost limit will be increased by £1,870,000 from £300,620,000 to £302,490,000 as detailed above.

  The take-up of non-voted supplementary credit approvals for personal social services (DoH/LACAP) in England has increased by £3,000 from £18,700,000 to £18,703,000 in respect of take up of end-year flexibility entitlement as mentioned above.

  The Food Standards Agency Departmental Expenditure limit will also be increased by £11,597,000 from £81,270,000 to £92,867,000. The increase is the net effect of the take-up of end-year flexibility of £8,366,000 (of which £1,000,000 is running costs) from the Department of Health, an allocation of £375,000 (of which £280,000 is running costs) from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund and transfers of £2,856,000 from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food comprising £1,600,000 (of which £350,000 is running costs) to cover set up costs of the Agency which fell in 2000–01 rather than 1999–2000 as originally planned, and £1,256,000 (of which £1,125,000 is running costs) for the additional responsibilities taken on by the Agency

  The Food Standards Agency's gross running costs limit will increase by £2,755,000 from £104,835,000 to £107,590,000 as detailed above.

  All increases will either be offset by transfers to or from other Departmental Expenditure Limits (detailed above) or charges to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Social Services (Overspending)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received this year from the Association of Directors of Social Services regarding overspending by local authorities on personal social services; and what the conclusions were of these reports. [137122]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have not formally received a report from the Association of Directors of Social Services on this matter. However, the Department is in close touch with officers of the Association on a wide range of topics. The conclusions of any work by the Association on levels of spending on personal social services are a matter for the Association.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the role of community hospitals in the NHS 10 year national plan. [137404]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Plan announced a major programme of investment in intermediate care and related services to promote independence and improved quality of care for older people.
  378W
  As part of this investment, there will be 5,000 extra intermediate care beds by 2004, and the Plan makes it clear that some of these will be in community hospitals.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what consideration he gave to the PFI bid to build a new community hospital in Lymington as a separate project from other community hospitals; [137403]

  (2) for what reasons he rejected the PFI bid to build a new community hospital in Lymington; [137405]

  (3) if he will make a statement about the future of the proposed new community hospital at Lymington. [137402]

  Mr. Denham
  Each private finance initiative (PFI) scheme is considered on its own merits and will only be approved if it is clearly demonstrated that the PFI option delivers better value for money to the National Health Service and the taxpayer when compared to the publicly funded alternative.

  Despite intensive efforts by the NHS, the Lymington Community Hospital PFI proposal did not produce a viable value for money solution. It was therefore decided to terminate negotiations with the PFI preferred bidder.

  The local NHS will now conduct a review with all key stakeholders to assess possible options to deliver the required facilities in Lymington. The outcome will be announced as soon as possible.

  In-patient Treatment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for in-patient treatment for(a) cancer, (b) heart disease and (c) HIV and hepatitis in each of the last 10 years in the (i) Sutton and Cheam constituency and (ii) Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority. [134984]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 6 November 2000): We do not hold all of the information in the format required. Data are collated by health authority as opposed to parliamentary constituency.

  Waiting lists for in-patient treatment for heart disease are held under cardiothoracic surgery and cardiology waiting lists. The figures for Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth are as follows. Data were collected only from 1996–97 onwards.

  Total number of inpatients waiting for ordinary/daycase admission as at 31 March

  Year

  Cardiology

  Cardiothoracic surgery

  1996–97

  260

  84

  1997–98

  347

  194

  1998–99

  313

  156

  1999–2000

  350

  149

  Information on in-patient waiting times is collected by consultant speciality. Treatment for cancer, HIV and hepatitis is carried out in a number of specialities and the numbers waiting for treatment are therefore not identifiable separately.
  379W

  Fresh Fruit and Vegetables
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the access to fresh fruit and vegetables to those living in areas with limited shopping facilities. [136587]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The National Health Service Plan published in July set out our plans to increase access to fruit and vegetables and make a healthy diet a real choice for everyone. We will work with producers, retailers and others to increase provision and access to fruit and vegetables, particularly in deprived communities, schools and hospitals.

  Five local five-a-day pilot initiatives are already underway in Sandwell, Somerset, Airedale and Craven, County Durham and Hastings. These projects aim to increase access to fruit and vegetables across the whole population, but all have a particular focus on improving access to fruit and vegetables for the worst off. The pilots are being carefully evaluated. Based on the lessons from these pilots, and evidence of effective interventions to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, these local initiatives will be developed across the country.

  The National School Fruit Scheme will make a free piece of fruit available to school children aged four to six each school day. Pilots will examine the practicalities of the scheme before national roll-out begins.

  Hospital Mortuaries
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which organisation is responsible for setting the necessary minimum standard for hospital mortuaries. [137232]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) Ltd. (CPA) oversees accreditation of National Health Service pathology laboratories which include standards for mortuary and post mortem facilities. In addition, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) carries responsibility for mortuaries in the same capacity as for any other hospital facility. The HSE's Health Services Advisory Committee is currently revising its publication "Safe working and the prevention of infection in the mortuary and post-mortem room".

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS hospital mortuaries which fail to meet necessary minimum standards. [137236]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: Hospital mortuaries are accredited as part of the National Health Service pathology services and are not separately identified.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to establish that NHS hospital mortuaries meet the necessary minimum standard. [137233]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: National Health Service pathology laboratory services have responsibility for the standard of hospital mortuaries, as part of accreditation. The Department supported the development of Clinical Pathology Accreditation (CPA) Ltd., the main accreditation body in the United Kingdom.
  380W
  CPA sets standards for laboratory services, inspects laboratories, including mortuaries, against the standards and reports to hospital chief executives.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 603W, (1) when he expects remedial action to be taken to bring the mortuary at Trafford General Hospital to the necessary minimum standard; [137237]

  (2) what funding will be provided to achieve the necessary minimum standards at the mortuary of Trafford General Hospital. [137238]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: £8,550 was made available in 1998 to ensure that the mortuary at Trafford General Hospital met the minimum standards. As part of this process, work carried out included:

  internal and external decoration;

  work on the body stores (including replacement panels and thermometers);

  a full steam clean;

  a repair to the roof; as well as

  a revamp of the relatives' viewing area.

  Trafford Healthcare National Health Service Trust is now in the process of developing a business case for a new mortuary and has the support of the North West Regional Office of the NHS Executive, in doing so.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 603W, what inquiries he has made into the reasons why expenditure on the mortuary at Trafford General Hospital in 1998 failed to bring the facility to the necessary minimum standard. [137239]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: As a result of the funding made available in 1998, the current mortuary facilities at Trafford General Hospital do meet the minimum standards.

  Salford and Trafford Health Authority is satisfied that the facilities at Trafford General Hospital do not pose a risk to patients and staff alike. As in the rest of the hospital, infection control procedures are in place and are monitored regularly.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS hospital mortuaries which have been visited by Ministers in his Department since May 1997. [137240]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: None of the current Ministers at the Department have so far been able to visit an NHS mortuary as part of their visits to the service. We will though keep this possibility in mind for future visit programmes.

  Hospices
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what resources he plans to make available to help fund hospices.; [137251]
  381W
  (2) if hospices will be eligible for financial help as part of the Government's commitment to cancer services. [137252]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: We are committed to providing an additional £50 million for hospices by 2004 as announced in the National Health Service Cancer Plan published on 27 September. This will bring the total NHS spend on hospices to £150 million, which will be equal to the amount provided by the voluntary sector. The £50 million investment will be used to end inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and enable the NHS to make a more realistic contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service.

  In order to ensure that the additional funding is allocated effectively and equitably, we will work with hospices and the NHS to define the core components of palliative care services.

  In addition to the £50 million there will be a further New Opportunities Fund initiative for community palliative care services over the period 2001–05. A consultation document was be published on 8 November 2000.

  Osteopaths
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will review the working of the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the composition of the Council. [137118]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: Members of Parliament raised a number of concerns about the operation of the Osteopaths Act and the composition of the General Osteopathic Council during an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on 25 October 2000. I undertook to investigate these concerns and am now doing so.

  Cancer Screening Programmes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many lives are estimated to have been saved in each of the last three years in(a) Coventry, South and (b) nationally by (i) breast screening programmes, (ii) cervical screening programmes and (iii) cancer screening programmes. [136582]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: There are currently two national screening programmes, for breast cancer and cervical cancer, and a pilot study which is investigating screening for colorectal cancer.

  No statistics are available to show how many lives were saved by breast and cervical screening in Coventry, South in the last three years.

  Research published in 1999 estimated that the NHS Cervical Screening Programme saved over 8,000 lives between 1988 and 1997. It is estimated to have prevented up to 3,900 cases of cervical cancer each year.

  No information is available on how many lives have been saved in total by all the cancer screening programmes.
  382W

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions he has made official visits to(a) the opera and (b) the ballet since May 1997. [136392]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 I have attended 20 operas and six ballet performances in an official capacity. I have also attended numerous opera and ballet performances privately.

  Sports Clubs
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received about (1) tax relief and exemptions for community and amateur sports clubs; and if he will make a statement; [135649]

  (2) charitable status for community and amateur sports clubs; and if he will make a statement. [135648]

  Kate Hoey
  Since 21 June 2000, I have received representations from the following sports clubs and organisations regarding both tax exemptions and charitable status for community and amateur sports clubs; Sefton Sports Council, Thanet Local Sports Council, Waltham Forest Sports Council, Chelsfield Park Lawn Tennis Club, Blackpool and Fylde Fullbore Pistol and Rifle Club, Portcastrian Rugby Club, Saltash Rugby Football Club, Lymm Rugby Football Club, York Cricket & Rugby Union Football Club. I have also received a number of letters from members of the public. The CCPR and Sport England have also made representations on the benefits of tax exemptions as well as a number of MPs and sport people.

  Lee Valley Stadium
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions(a) he and (b) the Minister for Sport have had with (i) members and (ii) representatives of the International Olympic Committee about the suitability of the proposed Lee Valley Stadium as a venue for track and field athletics and the opening and closing ceremonies of a London Olympic Games; and if he will make a statement. [134844]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: Apart from discussions with Craig Reedie, in his capacity as Chair of the British Olympic Association, neither myself nor my right hon. Friend have discussed the proposed Lee Valley Stadium with representatives of the International Olympic Committee.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to amend his Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limit for 2000–01. [138172]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XI, Vote 1, the DCMS Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL)
  383W
  for 2000–01 will be increased by £15,679,000 from £1,014,886,000 to £1,030,565,000 and the running costs limit by £2,284,000 from £32,972,000 to £35,256,000.

  This is to provide for the use of £2,240,000 of the proceeds from the sale by the British Library of 25 Southampton Buildings for meeting commitments under the Comprehensive Spending Review to various national museums and galleries; and for the use of £521,000 of the sale proceeds for meeting commitments against research, surveys and other services; to provide £2,500,000 for the development of Culture On-Line; to take up DEL end-year flexibility of £10,405,000 on programme expenditure as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 4812) published on 18 July 2000; a transfer of £950,000 from the Department for Education and Employment (Class I, Vote 14) for awards to dance and drama students; a transfer of £300,000 to the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III, Vote 4) for the maintenance of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square following the transfer to the Greater London Authority from 1 October 2000; a payment of £210,000 from the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IX, Vote 1) for Sector Challenge funding of media projects; to take up DEL end-year flexibility of £1,448,000 on running costs expenditure as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper (Cm 4812) published on 18 July 2000; a transfer of £676,000 from the Cabinet Office for modernising Government expenses; and to provide for receipts of £1,816,000 from the National Lottery Distribution Fund to meet additional costs of the National Lottery Commission in the appointment of a new Lottery operator and the implementation of the licence.

  The increases will be offset by transfers, savings or a charge on the DEL Reserve, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals there are to amend the Scotland Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limit for 2000–01. [138204]

  Dr. Reid
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XIII, Vote I Scotland and Transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund, the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for 2000–01 will be increased by £428,073,000 from £14,877,655,000 to £15,305,728,000. As I previously announced to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee on 29 March 2000, the net running costs limit for the Scotland Office will be increased by £1,047,000 from £5,455,000 to £6,502,000 (net of receipts of £120,000).

  The changes in DEL include the take-up of end-year flexibility of £444,418,000, offset by a reduction of £32,583,000 for the recovery of European Structural Funds provision drawn forward from 2000–01 and other adjustments agreed in the context of Spending Review 2000; and transfers from the DEL reserve of £8,500,000 for additional funding for the Forestry Commission for lower than expected timber sales, and £150,000 for the Giving Age.
  384W
  Also included in the revised DEL are transfers to and from other Government Departments amounting to a net increase of £12,619,000. These include;

  (i) £13,454,000 from DfEE (Class I, Vote 1) for the Open University;

  (ii) £2,527,000 from DSS (Class XII, Vote 3) for resettlement programmes;

  (iii) £1,900,000 to MAFF (Class X, Vote 1) for cattle herd registration costs;

  (iv) £120,000 to DSS (Class XII Vote 2) for housing benefit for intercalating students;

  (v) £1,310,000 to DH (Class II, Vote 1) for the costs of Scottish residents treated in England.

  The increase in DEL will be offset by transfers from other Departmental Expenditure Limits or from the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to change the Cabinet Office: Security and Intelligence Services Vote Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01. [138154]

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate, the Departmental Expenditure Limit for Class XVII, Vote 2 will be increased by £18,486,000 from £771,100,000 to £789,586,000 and the gross running cost limit will be increased by £10,455,000 from £412,193,000 to £422,648,000.

  The change is to effect the transfer of £687,000 from the Modernisation of Government Fund, the take up of the Treasury contribution of £16,790,000 towards a capital project, the take up of running costs end-year flexibility of £500,000 and the take up of other current expenditure end-year flexibility of £509,000.

  There will be an increase in Appropriations in Aid of £2,968,000 and a net increase in other current expenditure of £6,877,000.

  The increases in provision will be offset by increased receipts or charged to the Reserve and therefore will not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Strategic Export Controls
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he received between November 1999 and November 2000 on(a) the timing and (b) the content of strategic export controls legislation from (i) non-Governmental organisations including voluntary and charitable groups, (ii) commercial interests, companies and trade organisations and (iii) other categories; and if he will make a statement. [136603]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  385W

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to amend his Department's Departmental Expenditure Limits and the Northern Ireland Office expenditure limits for 2000–01. [138027]

  Mr. Ingram
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XV, Vote 1 the Northern Ireland Office Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £96,362,000 from £1,025,202,000 to £1,121,564,000. The running costs limit will be increased by £37,490,000 from £227,371,000 to £264,861,000.

  An increase of £36,465,000 is required for costs associated with the implementation of the Patten Report, an additional £36,300,000 to cover prison officer redundancy costs, an increase of £1,390,000 in respect of costs arising from the Good Friday Agreement and £25,174,000 is required to cover increased costs of compensation payments under the various compensation schemes. Additionally £1,733,000 will be transferred from the Northern Ireland Departments DEL to cover costs incurred during the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Northern Ireland Departments DEL decreases from £5,201,636,000 to £5,199,903,000.

  At the time of the presentation of the Main Estimates the Northern Ireland Office DEL was overstated by £4,700,000 and this has been included in the revised DEL stated.

  These increases will be offset by a transfer from the Northern Ireland Departments DEL and a charge on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans he has to amend the Law Officers' Department's Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limit for 2000–01. [138194]

  The Solicitor-General
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class V, Vote 4 (The Crown Prosecution Service) and Class V, Vote 6 (HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor) the Law Officers' Departments' departmental expenditure limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £18,486,000 from £351,061,000 to £369,547,000.

  The Crown Prosecution Service's running costs limit will be increased by £15,540,000 from £229,625,000 to £245,165,000. This increase is required to fund diversity and equality issues, a performance improvement programme, training for the Human Rights Act 1998 and pilots on direct communication of prosecution decisions with victims. An increase in capital expenditure of £2,650,000 will be used to fund joint CPS/police criminal justice and trial units, modernisation of the CPS information technology infrastructure and better integration with police IT systems.
  386W
  HM Procurator General and Treasury Solicitor's running costs limit will increase by £260,000 from £6,172,000 to £6,432,000. The increase in running costs is to facilitate action being taken by Treasury Solicitor's Department as part of their Modernising Government Action Plan. The increase in capital expenditure of £36,000 will be used to fund continued expansion of the Department's IT systems.

  The increases will be partly offset by a transfer of £4,650,000 from the Home Office, an allocation of £1,500,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund, an allocation of £1,000,000 from the Invest to Modernise Fund and the surrender of £36,000 of the Law Officers' Departments' end year flexibility of £4,565,000 as set out in Table 7 of the Public Expenditure Outturn White Paper Cm. 4812 published 18 July 2000. The remainder of the expenditure will be charged to the Reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Road Noise (A5)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the noise nuisance level to local residents of the surface of the A5 at Wibtoft on the Warwickshire/Leicestershire border. [136945]

  Mr. Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  The noise level on the A5 at Wibtoft has been calculated at 75.77db(A). This is below the defined noise level of 80db(A) which forms part of the sift criteria for dealing with traffic noise on existing trunk roads. May I refer the hon. Member to the written answer on noise mitigation given on 22 March 1999, Official Report, columns 50–51W.

  GM Food
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to ensure that prohibited GM foods do not enter the UK market. [137349]

  Ms Stuart
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has written to food manufactures, retailers and local authorities pointing out that it is an offence under the Novel Foods and Novel Food Ingredients Regulations 1997 to sell foods containing non-approved genetically modified ingredients. Prosecution is a matter for local authorities.

  Flax and Hemp
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if subsidy for growing flax and hemp is paid to farmers on the basis of the area harvested or the area planted. [135502]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]: The amount of flax and hemp subsidy paid is based on the smallest total area declared by the grower on the following documents:

  the IACS declaration (area planted)

  the Cultivation Declaration (area emerged)

  the Harvest Declaration (area harvested).

  387W
  The areas declared may be subject to a reduction following field inspections by officials of the Agriculture departments.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the chemicals licensed for the purpose of dipping sheep; and what research he has carried out into the effects of each of these chemicals, and the solutions contained in them, used for dipping sheep, on(a) humans, (b) soil and aquatic life and (c) sheep, with particular reference to genetic damage caused. [136207]

  Ms Quin
  The exact formulations of veterinary medicinal products are subject to commercial confidentiality. The only active ingredients authorised for use in sheep dips in the UK are diazinon, flumethrin, cypermethrin, high-cis cypermethrin and amitraz.

  No veterinary medicine is authorised in the UK unless it meets statutory criteria for safety, quality and efficacy. This includes assessments of the risk to humans, to animals and to the environment. All of the active ingredients currently authorised for use in sheep dips have been through such assessments and have been shown to be non-genotoxic in a range of suitable assays.

  Baytril
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the resistance conferring antibiotic Baytril used in treating growing turkeys and chickens. [137179]

  Ms Quin
  Baytril 10 per cent. Oral Solution is an authorised veterinary medicinal product. It is used only under veterinary supervision to treat bacterial diseases of the respiratory and alimentary tracts in turkeys, broilers, broiler breeders and replacement chickens. No veterinary medicinal product may be marketed in the UK unless it meets stringent criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. For any new antibiotic, data are required to demonstrate the possibility of the development of resistance in susceptible organisms.

  The advice of the independent Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) will be sought urgently on the decision by the US Food and Drug Agency's Center for Veterinary Medicines to prohibit the use in poultry of enrofloxacin, the active ingredient of Baytril. Action will be taken on the advice of the VPC.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average farmer's income(a) in Wales and (b) broken down by the smallest regional level for which figures are available, in each of the last five years. [136839]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table. The data are not available at a smaller regional level.
  388W

  Table 1: Average net farm income for full-time farm businesses in Wales

  Net farm income (average per farm)

  £000

  1994–95

  11.6

  1995–96

  23.2

  1996–97

  18.7

  1997–98

  11.4

  1998–99

  5.8

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  Flooding (Lewes)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to aid the business community affected by the recent floods in Lewes. [136567]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I have the utmost sympathy for all those affected by the flooding but no Government assistance is available, either to householders or businesses, as flooding is an insurable risk.

  I have written to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to bring to her attention the concerns expressed by the hon. Member, during the Adjournment Debate on 25 October, about deadlines for VAT and tax returns.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to amend the Forestry Commission's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01. [138192]

  Mr. Morley
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class X, Vote 3 (Forestry Commission) the Forestry Commission's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £18,040,000 from £58,025,000 to £76,065,000 £12,600,000 of the increase is the net effect of a fall in receipts from sales of timber offset by savings in other net expenditure, and a further £740,000 has been awarded from the Civil Service Modernisation Fund. These increases totalling £13,340,000 will be a a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  An award of £4,700,000 from the Capital Modernisation fund brings the total additional requirement to £18,040,000.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes are proposed to the Departmental Expenditure Limit for his Department for 2000–01. [138191]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be increased by £205,550,000 from £1,157,390,000 to £1,362,859,000.

  The increase is the net effect of an Intervention Board (IB) increase of £5.393 million arising from delayed costs associated with IT systems and services, the introduction of facilities to UK traders across certain schemes to receive payment in euros in line with the ministerial statement of November 1998 and increased levels of charges paid to agents; and MAFF increases of

  389W
  £54.3 million to implement the Action Plan for Farming; £2.669 million for successful projects under Modernising Government initiatives; £30 million in lieu of End-Year Flexibility (EYF); transfers from the Scotland Office (SERAD) and the Wales Office (NAWAD) totalling £3 million relating to work on the Cattle Herd Registration Scheme; £13 million for implementing the Agenda 2000 reforms; and £9.735 million to repay advances from the Contingencies Fund and a further £90.309 million provision in respect of payments in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 arising out of the Factortame Judgment. These increases are offset by transfers to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) totalling £2.856 million, being their share of MAFF's EYF and funding for work transferred to the Agency following its formation in April 2000.

  Within the DEL there will be a transfer of £14 million from MAFF to IB to cover the costs of the Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme.

  Chardon LL Hearing
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) of 1 November 2000,Official Report, columns 472–73W, if he will make a further statement on the Chardon LL Hearing. [138193]

  Ms Quin
  In agreement with Agriculture Ministers in the devolved Administrations, we have asked Mr. Alun Alesbury—the person appointed to conduct the Hearing—to consider adjourning the Chardon LL Hearing until further notice pending further consideration of the testing system used by France to establish distinctness, uniformity and stability.

  Details of the French testing system were given in the MAFF press notice of 31 October. Other member states in the EU also rely on French data, and the views of the Commission on the status of the French procedures are being sought.

  Trawlers
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many trawlers operate under the UK flag with quota; and what was the figure in May 1997. [137418]

  Mr. Morley
  As of May 1997 there were some 7,546 licensed UK fishing vessels, of which 2,360 were over 10 metres in overall length. In October 2000 the number of licensed vessels was 6,690, of which 1,939 were over 10 metres.

  Cod Catch
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of cod caught in British waters is caught and landed by British trawlers. [137419]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is not recorded.
  390W
  The United Kingdom has 47 per cent. of the EC cod quota in ICES area IV (North Sea), 53 per cent. in ICES area VI (West Scotland), 43 per cent. in ICES area VIIa (Irish Sea) and 8 per cent. area VIIb-k (English Channel and Western approaches).

  Fish Conservation
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will take to conserve stocks of(a) John Dory, (b) anchovy, (c) pilchard and (d) bream. [137417]

  Mr. Morley
  The revised EC Technical Conservation Regulation 850/98 which came into operation on 1 January 2000 imposes the following requirements for the species named:

  Species

  Towed gear mesh size1 (mm)

  Fixed gear mesh size1 (mm)

  MLS2 (cm)

  John Dory

  80–99

  —

  —

  Anchovy

  16–31

  —

  —

  Pilchard

  16–31

  10–30

  11

  Bream

  80–99

  —

  —

  1 These bands represent the minimum mesh allowed

  2 Minimum landing size

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Far East Prisoners of War
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former prisoners of war in the Far East are still alive and reside(a) in the constituency of North West Norfolk and (b) the county of Norfolk. [136796]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces gave on 18 January 2000, Official Report, column 398W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for changes to the 2000–01 departmental expenditure limits and running costs limits within his responsibility. [138028]

  Mr. Straw
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates, the Departmental Expenditure limit, which covers Class IV Vote 1 (Home Office administration, police, probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales) and Vote 2 (Prisons, England and Wales), will be increased by £756,420,000 from £8,110,836,000 to £8,867, 256,000. The running costs limit will be increased by £177,549,000 from £2,176,135,000 to £2,353,684,000.

  The changes are the net effect of the following transfers: £1,000,000 from the DEL Reserve for a project to develop criminal justice IT interface systems; £273,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1) in respect of a project to develop criminal justice IT interface systems; £150,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund

  391W
  for funding criminal justice system interface development; £150,000 to the Crown Prosecution Service (Class V Vote 4) for criminal justice system interface development; £275,000 to the Department of Trade and Industry (Class IX Vote 1) in respect of crime reduction programmes; £166,000 to the Welsh Assembly (Class XIV Vote 1) for crime reduction teams; £3,000,000 from the DEL Reserve for confiscated assets; £45,000 to the Department for Education and Employment (Class 1 Vote 3) in respect of the evaluation of the progress drug project; £150,000 to the Department for Education and Employment (Class 1 Vote 3) in respect of the recovery employment project; £1,118,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for expenditure on DNA; £492,000 to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III Vote 1) for the rough sleepers initiative; £36,000 to the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) for central treatment fund pilot projects; £352,000 from the Capital Modernisation Fund for grant to the Police Information Technology Organisation for the interface development fund; £303,000 to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (Class III Vote 8) for improvements in the motor registration system; £150,000 to the Welsh Assembly (Class XIV Vote 1) in respect of locks for pensioners; £1,500,000 from the DEL Reserve in relation to the setting up of the Electoral Commission; £150,000 from the DEL Reserve in respect of cross funding for voluntary bodies; £5,556,000 from the DEL Reserve for the Kosovo humanitarian evacuation programme; £666,000,000 from the DEL Reserve for asylum support including unaccompanied asylum seeking children; £113,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department (Class V Vote 1) in respect of the Immigration Services Tribunal; £3,000,000 from the Department of Health (Class II Vote 2) for asylum support to unaccompanied asylum seeking children; £5,000,000 from the DEL Reserve for research relating to crime reduction programme and anti drugs strategy; £6,000,000 from the DEL Reserve for administrative support costs; £3,747,000 from the civil service modernisation fund; £16,000,000 from the DEL Reserve for the Kosovo special grant; £46,000,000 from the DEL Reserve for police modernisation.

  The increase in the Department's running costs limit is the net effect of the following transfers: £728,000 from the DEL Reserve for a project to develop criminal justice IT interface systems; £273,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of a project to develop criminal justice IT interface systems; £110,000 to the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of crime reduction programmes; £166,000 to the Welsh Assembly for crime reduction teams; £596,000 from the DEL Reserve in relation to setting up the Electoral Commission; £167,252,000 from the DEL Reserve for asylum support; £113,000 to the Lord Chancellor's Department in respect of the Immigration Services Tribunal; £6,000,000 from the DEL Reserve for administrative costs; £3,635,000 from the civil service modernisation fund.

  These changes will be offset by transfers or a charge on the Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  392W

  Controlled Drugs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to issue guidance to Ministers in his Department on disclosing information relating to the use of controlled drugs. [136481]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have no such plans.

  Myra Hindley
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing the continued imprisonment of Myra Hindley, since May 1997. [136388]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prison Service records show that since May 1997 a total of 754 letters have been received from members of the public about Myra Hindley's case. Information on the number of letters which have supported or opposed her continued imprisonment is not recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Visibility (Public Places)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with ACPO about improving the visibility of the police in public places. [136463]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I announced to the ACPO Rural Policing Conference in Lincoln on 6 November that I am discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, how each police authority might better inform the public about the steps it is taking to maintain and improve police visibility and effectiveness in all parts of England and Wales.

  Com (2000) 495
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards delineating along national lines areas of competence in which each state may determine future criminal law rules, in the context of 13.2 of Corn (2000) 495. [136470]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer to his previous questions about Corn (2000) 495 on 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 519W. At present, we see difficulty in laying down rigid or binding rules for preventing conflicts of jurisdiction between the European Union member states. The experience of Eurojust will help the member states to determine what action is required, if any.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the head of the Recruitment Task Force of the Metropolitan police about his policy on recruiting people previously rejected as below standard. [136477]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I can confirm that no Home Office Minister or official has had any discussions with the Head of the Metropolitan Police Recruitment Task Force.
  393W
  I understand however that the Metropolitan Police Service's (MPS) Recruitment Task Force has conducted a full review of the minimum standards applied to recruitment with the intention of bringing MPS standards into line with other police forces in the United Kingdom. This has resulted in significant changes being made to align standards to make them more focused to the current needs of the Service and address issues of equal opportunities.

  The MPS's guidelines on age, qualifications, convictions, debts, tattoos and employment history requirements have been amended. As a result, applications made during the previous 12 months have been revisited and a number of applicants previously rejected have been invited to resume their applications to join the MPS as a constable.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the(a) establishment and (b) actual available officer numbers for each Metropolitan police divisional force for the last year period for which statistics are available; and if he will make a statement. [134990]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service. Each division of the Metropolitan police has a Police Budgeted Workforce Total which is set at 1 April. The divisional strength figures are those for 31 October 2000. Actual divisional strength fluctuates because of wastage and recruitment variations.

  At the end of October 2000, the Metropolitan police had 25,267 police officers. Those not assigned to Divisions, of which there are 8,855, are on other duties, such as specialist squads, traffic division and other centralised operational support and organisational support functions. Many of these officers will in their other functions be available to enhance the policing of divisions.

  Metropolitan police: Budgeted workforce total and actual strength

  Division

  Police budgeted workforce total1

  Actual police numbers at 31 October 20001

  City of Westminster

  1,580

  1,519.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  557

  522.5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  517

  490.7

  Camden

  671

  646

  Islington

  554

  528.9

  Harrow

  295

  283.5

  Brent

  602

  584.2

  Barnet

  517

  483.3

  Ealing

  611

  593.3

  Hillingdon

  376

  356.5

  Haringey

  533

  529.2

  Hackney

  673

  644.7

  Tower Hamlets

  548.5

  524.3

  Waltham Forest

  453

  431.6

  Redbridge

  390

  381.3

  Havering

  320.2

  295.6

  Newham

  582.6

  566.7

  Barking and Dagenham

  278.5

  257.8

  Enfield

  478

  450.6

  Southwark

  801

  769.7

  Lewisham

  584

  571.2

  Bromley

  440

  415.8

  Greenwich

  586

  568.2

  Bexley

  310

  301.4

  Croydon

  549

  560.7

  394W

  Metropolitan police: Budgeted workforce total and actual strength

  Division

  Police budgeted workforce total1

  Actual police numbers at 31 October 20001

  Sutton

  254

  267.6

  Lambeth

  875

  849.2

  Richmond upon Thames

  260

  254.7

  Hounslow

  411

  400.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  257

  247.5

  Merton

  290

  275.5

  Wandsworth

  555.3

  541.6

  Total

  16,709.1

  16,113.7

  Heathrow Airport2

  304

  298.3

  Divisional Total

  17,013.1

  16,412

  1 Figures are full-time equivalents

  2 These police posts are paid for by Heathrow Airport Plc.

  European Elections
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reasons for the low turnout at the 1999 European elections. [136412]

  Mrs. Roche
  The 'Review of the European Parliamentary Elections 1999', published by the Home Office in May this year, includes a lengthy assessment of the causes of the low turnout at that election. A copy is available in the Library; it is also accessible on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  EU Administrative Law
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those areas of administrative law for which he supports the establishment of common minimum standards at EU level. [136467]

  Mrs. Roche
  Where the European Union (EU) Treaties provide for EU-level co-operation in areas of administrative law, the United Kingdom would support measures based on the establishment of common minimum standards on a case-by-case basis where they provided the most appropriate means of co-operation.

  Scarman Centre
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what links the Scarman Centre has with police forces in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [136466]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Scarman Centre has various formal and informal links with United Kingdom police services.

  The Scarman Centre provides accreditation and some academic input for the International Commanders Programme, which is run by the International Police Studies Department at National Police Training, Bramshill. The Centre also provides the academic framework for the new-style Accelerated Promotion Course (APC) which began in September 2000 and will be the awarding body for the MSc in Police Leadership and Management which may be awarded to students who successfully complete the whole APC programme.

  The Scarman Centre has links with West Midlands Police who are providing consultancy to a Department for an International Development funded research project

  395W
  being conducted in Russia on crime reduction. The Centre also has links with the Metropolitan Police who are providing consultancy to a Foreign Office funded research project being conducted in the Ukraine on community policing.

  The Scarman Centre maintains informal contacts for the purposes of research with a number of police forces in England and Wales.

  Under the terms of the Home Office contract with Ionann Management Consultants Limited for the provision of Community and Race Relations training to the police service, the Scarman Centre is providing independent research and evaluation of the effectiveness of the Community and Race Relations training and consultancy being provided by Ionann.

  In addition the Scarman Centre has police officers enrolled on its degree programme in policing, criminal justice, security management and risk, crisis and disaster management.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the average number of out of cell hours for juveniles and young offenders on remand in each young offenders unit in England; [136657]

  (2) what is the average number of out of cell hours for convicted juveniles and young offenders in Feltham Young Offenders Unit and for each of the other young offenders units in England. [136547]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service does not collect separately the number of out of cell hours for sentenced and remand prisoners.

  The table gives the average weekday time out of cell for September 2000 for all prisoners in those establishments in England which hold male juveniles or young offenders. Figures are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Establishment holding male juveniles or young offenders

  Average hours out of cell weekdays1

  Altcourse

  13

  Ashfield

  12

  Aylesbury

  8

  Brinsford

  6

  Castington

  9.9

  Chelmsford

  8

  Deerbolt

  10.1

  Doncaster

  11

  Dorchester

  11

  Dover

  8.3

  Exeter

  8

  Feltham

  8

  Forest Bank

  12

  Glen Parva

  5.1

  Gloucester

  9

  Guys Marsh

  8

  Hatfield

  13.3

  Hindley

  7.2

  Hollesley Bay

  2—

  Hull

  8.5

  Huntercombe

  9

  Lancaster Farms

  7.2

  Lewes

  9.3

  Moorland

  9

  Northallerton

  6.4

  396W

  Establishment holding male juveniles or young offenders

  Average hours out of cell weekdays1

  Norwich

  8.6

  Onley

  11.5

  Parc

  8.4

  Portland

  10.3

  Reading

  8.2

  Rochester

  8

  Stoke Heath

  10

  Swansea

  9

  Swinfen Hall

  10.1

  Thorn Cross

  12.5

  Wetherby

  10

  Werrington

  10.8

  1 September 2000

  2 Not appropriate—open prison

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the offences for which juveniles and young offenders on remand in Feltham Young Offenders Unit have been charged over the last two years. [136653]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not available.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is held on the previous convictions of remand and convicted prisoners in Feltham Young Offenders Unit. [136524]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of previous convictions are obtained either from the court or from the Police National Computer and held on the individual prisoner's file.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of juveniles and young offenders in Feltham Young Offenders Unit sharing a cell designed for one person(a) at the latest date for which figures are available and (b) for each quarter since 1999. [136659]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is in the table:

  Number

  September 1999

  78

  December 1999

  0

  March 2000

  26

  June 2000

  24

  2 November 2000

  24

  Only young offenders share cells designed for one person.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many juveniles were on remand in Feltham Young Offenders Unit in each quarter since January 1999; and what percentage they constitued of the total number of prisoners; [136651]

  (2) how many offenders between 18 and 21–years-old are on remand in Feltham Young Offenders Unit for each quarter year since January 1999 in (a) actual terms and (b) as a percentage of the total number of prisoners. [136667]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the table.
  397W

  Population1 of young offenders on remand2 at HMP Feltham

  Age

  Percentage of total population in HMP Feltham

  Date/last day of month

  15–17

  18–21

  15–17

  18–21

  1999

  31 March

  111

  275

  13

  33

  30 June

  126

  261

  16

  33

  30 September

  112

  337

  14

  41

  31 December

  100

  283

  13

  37

  2000

  31 March

  91

  286

  12

  38

  30 June

  164

  288

  23

  40

  30 September

  166

  293

  23

  40

  1 Provisional figures

  2 Includes untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has conducted into the benefits of staffing young offender units with officers specifically trained in child and youth care. [136548]

  Mr. Boateng
  There have been no formal studies of the benefits of training staff who work with young offenders in child and youth care. However, both the Prison Service and the Youth Justice Board recognise the value of ensuring that staff working with young offenders have appropriate training.

  Joint training, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, has been undertaken by staff working with young offenders in the juvenile secure estate. This included Youth Offending Team staff as well as those working in Prison Service establishments, Local Authority Secure Units and Secure Training Centres.

  The recruitment process for new prison officers to work in the under-18 estate has also been enhanced with additions to the competence questionnaire which forms part of the application form, and additional exercises at the job simulation assessment centres.

  The Prison Service also trains staff in understanding adolescence through a programme designed by the Trust for the Study of Adolescence.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department has issued on the sharing of cells by inmates in young offender institutions. [136658]

  Mr. Boateng
  Prison Service policy on cell sharing and the separation of different classes of prisoner remains as set out in Instruction to Governors 48–1995 issued on 11 May 1995, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Following the murder in March of a young offender in his cell by his cellmate in Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution Feltham, the establishment immediately introduced a risk assessment system to try to prevent a recurrence. The Prison Service has refined that system in the light of experience with a view to introducing it at other prison establishments.

  More generally, we are currently looking at several ways to make prison establishments as a whole safer places. The Prison Service will shortly be launching the safer prisons standard which emphasises this "whole prison" approach: it will not only set out required actions
  398W
  on the reduction of violence and bullying in establishments, but will also look at the care of prisoners and staff/prisoner relationships.

  The Prison Service has also improved the way in which the risk posed by individual prisoners is conveyed. The revised Prisoner Escort Record (PER), which accompanies every prisoner from court or when they are moved from another prison, is used to highlight different risk factors, including violence, potential hostage taking, racist behaviour or crimes such as stalking/harassing or sexual offences. The new guidance issued at the same time highlights the importance of ensuring this information is passed as soon as possible to the relevant staff and is used to inform decisions about, for instance, first night risk assessment and accommodation issues.

  Stasi (British Agents)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of whether all information relevant to British secret Stasi agents has been made available by the United States from its Operation Rosewood archive; [136248]

  (2) if he will make a statement about Security Service investigations into the monitoring of (a) pro-NATO activists and (b) the former Social Democratic Party by British Stasi agents; [136252]

  (3) what use was made of information gained in Operation Rosewood to acquire further evidence against British Stasi spies in order to pursue prosecutions; [136266]

  (4) if files obtained by the UK security services showing the identities of British agents of the Stasi will be preserved for the future use of historians; [136267]

  (5) for what reason no action has been taken against any British agents now known to have covertly worked for the East German Intelligence Service. [136250]

  Mr. Straw
  I can add nothing further to the written answer that I gave the hon. Member on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 610W. On the question of the release of Security Service files into the public domain, I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) on 29 July 1998, Official Report, columns 251–54W. It would not be appropriate to comment further on the work of the security and intelligence agencies.

  Police (Lancashire)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 445W, on Lancashire Police, what changes in (a) to (d) have occurred since 4 April. [136860]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Lancashire Constabulary does not have a target establishment. I understand from the Chief Constable that there were 3,229 police officers in the Lancashire Constabulary on 6 November 2000. She has also told me that on the same day, 165 police officers were recorded by the Constabulary as absent from duty through sickness and 135 officers had formal restrictions placed upon the range of duties they are physically or psychologically able to perform. This latter figure does not include temporary arrangements made locally within the force as and when required.
  399W
  The number of officers reported to be on light duties has changed significantly since the figure reported in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's answer to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 4 April 2000, Official Report, column 445W. The Chief Constable informs me that this is due to changes in the definition of light duties by the force, which now also defines recuperative and restricted duties as "light duties".

  Certificate of Identity
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in which countries with which the UK maintains diplomatic relations, the Home Office Certificate of Identity is accepted as a valid travel document by the relevant authorities; [135758]

  (2) if he will urgently replace, for grantees of exceptional leave to remain, the Home Office Certificate of Identity with a travel document accepted by all other EU member states. [135998]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Home Office Certificate of Identity (CID) is a travel document issued to foreign nationals, other than refugees, who are resident in the United Kingdom and cannot obtain a passport from their national authorities. This type of document is not issued under an international convention but on a discretionary basis. The CID, which guarantees the holder return to the United Kingdom, has traditionally been widely accepted for travel and, as far as I am aware, still is. However, it is for the authorities of each country to decide whether they will accept the CID as a valid form of travel document and, in this connection, I am aware that a number of European Union partners are no longer doing so. My officials are in discussion with colleagues from the European Union countries concerned in order to identify their particular concerns and, if possible, give assurances, which might encourage them to accept the CID for travel.

  There are no proposals to replace the CID, which was created specifically to meet the travel needs of that category of foreign national described. The issue is one of acceptability of the document rather than replacement and it is that which we are addressing with our European partners.

  Firearms
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action the Government are taking to reduce the availability and use of illegally held firearms; and if he will make a statement. [135808]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]The Government are committed to supporting the police and Her Majesty's Customs in their work to combat illegal firearms. Measures that form part of our strategy to deal with illegal firearms include:Good security of legally held firearms to prevent them from being stolen;
  Stricter controls on de-activated weapons to prevent them being restored to working order. The Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC) has put forward a range of proposals for improving controls on deactivated firearms;
  Proactive intelligence gathering on sources of weapons used in crime through the Forensic Science Service (FSS), the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and HM Customs and Excise;
  400W
  Stronger intelligence sharing between the enforcement authorities and the reputable gun trade;
  Targeted policing measures against particular groups of criminals associated with armed violence, for example known armed robbers;
  Local and possibly national amnesties to reduce the number of illegal guns in the 'grey market' which might fall into criminal hands;
  The establishment of a national database of certificate holders and the possibility of recording the registration details of all legally-held firearms.

  The Government are also supporting international efforts to negotiate a United Nations protocol against the illicit manufacture of and trafficking in firearms.

  While firearms crime is a serious problem, it remains a small proportion of overall crime figures. Action against illegal firearms should not and will not be taken in isolation from other criminal activities that may be linked with the illegal possession of firearms, for example the drugs trade.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage the return of Kosovans from the UK to Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [136797]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since the peace agreement was signed in Kosovo in June 1999, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has judged that it is safe for the majority of Kosovan Albanians to return to Kosovo.

  The focus of Government policy toward those Kosovan Albanians who came to the United Kingdom either under the Humanitarian Evacuation Programme (HEP) or independently has been and continues to be to encourage and assist their voluntary return to Kosovo. To this end a permanent Kosovan voluntary assisted return programme was funded which ran from 26 July 1999 to 25 June 2000. This has been followed by a general voluntary assisted returns programme open to all nationalities including Kosovans which provides returnees with advice and a return air ticket.

  Labour Conference, Brighton
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much grant was given to Sussex Police for the cost of policing this year's Labour Party Conference at Brighton. [136551]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Sussex Police Authority will receive a special grant of up to £1.6 million towards the additional costs they expect to incur in connection with the policing of this year's Labour Party Conference. The grant will be paid on receipt of the Police Authority's formal claim. This is normally received towards the end of the financial year.

  Travellers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the law relating to travellers. [136410]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Chapter 5 of the joint Home Office and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions guidance document "Managing Unauthorised
  401W
  Camping" has been revised and published in order to clarify the confusing issue of "toleration" of unauthorised encampments of travellers. Further research is being undertaken into the effectiveness of the guidance, which will inform any further changes.

  While I would not rule out new legislation if that proved necessary to deal with nuisance and crime associated with unauthorised encampments, I am not at present convinced that changes in the law are required.

  Money Laundering
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the organisations under his control which he will assign to the National Centre for Combating Money Laundering as set out in section B.8 of the Justice and Home Affairs Meeting on 17 October. [136472]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The joint Council of European Union Justice, Finance and Interior Ministers, held in Luxembourg on 17 October, endorsed the need for the fight against money laundering to be conducted on the basis of a multi disciplinary and co-ordinated preventive and repressive approach. The joint Council also concluded that, if this were appropriate, this objective should be achieved in Member States through the creation, or strengthening, of national multi-disciplinary bodies specifically dedicated to the fight against money laundering. The Government are satisfied that in the United Kingdom these objectives are fully met by the Economic Crime Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service and that no organisational or other changes will be necessary.

  Banking Secrecy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effect on banking secrecy of the conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 17 October. [136386]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The joint Council of European Union Justice, Interior and Finance Ministers on 17 October reaffirmed the view that bank secrecy should not be able to be invoked in the member states to frustrate criminal investigations. The Government fully share that view and, under United Kingdom law, evidence can be obtained, if necessary by means of a court order, regardless of any question of bank secrecy.

  Political Groups (Foreign Funding)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to investigate funding of political groups in the UK by foreign intelligence agencies, with particular reference to the former Communist Party of Great Britain. [136265]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill will ban the foreign funding of political parties in the United Kingdom.

  Cannabis
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had 402W
  with the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health on the advantages and disadvantages of legalising cannabis. [136233]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have had no such discussions.

  Hinduja Family
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account he took of the investigations into the involvement of members of the Hindiya family in the Bofors scandal in India, when he approved G. P. Hindiya's and S. P. Hindiya's applications for British citizenship in 1998 and 1999. [136264]

  Mrs. Roche
  I presume the hon. Member is referring to the applications for naturalisation made by Mr. G. P. Hinduja and Mr. S. P. Hinduja.

  We were aware of allegations involving members of the Hinduja family made in 1990 but no action had been taken regarding them, by the time the decisions were made.

  Freemasons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy that police officers must disclose whether they are freemasons. [136276]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend will make a decision about this following the current Home Office consultation of the police service about how to make acceptable arrangements for registration and disclosure of freemasonry membership by police officers. A copy of the consultation document has been placed in the Library.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce measures to regulate wheel clamping on private property. [136668]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In the White Paper "The Government's Proposals for Regulating the Private Security in England and Wales", issued last year, we announced proposals to regulate wheel dampers as part of a package of statutory measures for the private security industry as a whole. We have been considering the responses we received to the White Paper and will introduce legislation as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

  Race Relations (Amendment) Bill
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will alter the responsibilities of chief officers of police to ensure that ethnic officers and civilian staff have fair treatment and equal opportunities for promotion and for allocation to specialist units. [137205]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The provisions of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will, once enacted, impact upon the responsibilities of Chief Officers of Police in a number of ways. First, they will make it unlawful for them and their officers to racially discriminate when enforcing the law. They are already covered with regard to their employment function and to the extent to which they
  403W
  provide goods, facilities and services. Secondly, Chief Officers of Police will be made vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination by officers under their direction and control. Thirdly, Police Authorities are made subject in the Bill to the new duty to be placed upon specified public authorities to work towards the elimination of unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups. This duty will cover functions performed by Chief Officers' of Police other than operational ones by virtue of their implementation of Policing Plans under the Police Act 1996. Consideration is currently being given to whether Chief Officers of Police should be listed themselves in respect of their operational functions which fall outside those plans, using the order making powers contained at section 71(5) of the Bill.

  The Bill will therefore reinforce the responsibilities of Chief Officers of Police to ensure that ethnic minority police officers and civilian staff and, indeed, members of the public are not discriminated against on racial grounds.

  Duke of Buccleough
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available records relating to the wartime internment of the Duke of Buccleough; and if he will make a statement. [136949]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand that the Home Office does not hold any records relating to the Duke of Buccleough.

  Stop and Search Powers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each of the police forces which have declared areas for use of stop and search powers under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 during this year, what has been the largest area to which the powers have been applied. [137171]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collated centrally. Use of powers under section 60 is an operational matter for individual chief officers of police.

  Oakington Reception Centre
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum cases have been housed in Oakington reception centre; and what the outcome was of the decisions made in these cases. [136920]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since the Oakington reception centre opened on 20 March, it has housed 1,935 principal applicants and 310 dependants up to 27 October. At that date, 1,611 decisions had been made on the asylum claims lodged by the applicants, of which 1,595 were refused and 16 granted either refugee status or exceptional leave.

  Criminal Certificates
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the three new criminal certificates will be required by(a) a person seeking employment as a teacher in a primary school, (b) a person applying for employment with the police service and (c) a person seeking a position of responsibility within the Scout Movement; and if he will make a statement. [136801]
  404W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]Part V of the Police Act 1997, under which the Criminal Records Bureau is being established, does not impose a requirement for criminal record checks. The type of certificate for which a person will be eligible will essentially be determined on a case-by-case basis, measuring the particular circumstances of a position against the criteria. A school teacher would plainly be eligible for the highest level of certificate—an enhanced criminal record certificate—under the criterion of regularly caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of persons aged under 18.

  Many within the Scout movement would also be eligible for the enhanced level of certificate, although the matter would depend upon the precise nature of the duties and responsibilities. In practice, it is expected that police officers will continue to be subject to separate vetting arrangements, which include additional and more vigorous checks not appropriate to most other occupations.

  Criminal Offence Statistics
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminal offences were reported in(a) England and (b) Wales in each of the last 10 years in areas defined as rural and urban. [136745]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Details of crime reported to the police are not available. Figures of crimes recorded by the police are collected by police force area. These can include both urban and rural areas, and it is therefore not possible to give the figures requested for crime recorded by the police in rural and urban areas.

  However, the British Crime Survey (BCS) does draw a distinction between rural and urban areas. As the sample size in Wales is insufficient to provide a reliable estimate for the area, the figures given are for England and Wales as a whole. The BCS asked about crime reported to the police but estimates of these over time in rural and other areas would also be insufficiently reliable. The figures are on a per capita basis for selected offences since 1991, and are as follows:

  BCS incident rates 1991–99 for burglary, vehicle-related thefts and violent crime

  1991

  1993

  1995

  1997

  1999

  Burglary incidents per 10,000 households

  Rural

  368

  481

  468

  429

  343

  Non-rural

  781

  976

  938

  859

  662

  Vehicle-related thefts per 10,000 vehicle owning households

  Rural

  1,660

  1,983

  2,052

  1,503

  1,207

  Non-rural

  2,912

  3,152

  3,006

  2,368

  1,947

  Violent crime incident rates per 10,000 adults

  Rural

  396

  511

  621

  597

  462

  Non-rural

  739

  1,017

  1.108

  887

  876

  Note:

  For the purposes of BCS analyses, rural areas are identified by according ACORN—(A Classification of Residential Neighbourhoods) categories. ACORN classifies households according to the demographic, employment and housing characteristics of the surrounding neighbourhood. Rural areas are defined as those areas falling into Acorn types 1 to 9, and 27.

  Source:

  British Crime Survey 1992–2000
  405W

  Railway Vandalism
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with the railway operating companies about graffiti vandalism of rolling stock. [134996]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None. However, I understand there is regular liaison between the British Transport Police and train operating companies on this issue.

  Property Hot Spots
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police authorities have been classified as property hot spots as part of his plan to assist with police recruitment. [137414]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No such classification is used in relation to plans to assist police recruitment.

  Forces are receiving assistance through the Crime Fighting Fund, which will enable them to recruit 9,000 police officers over and above the number they had otherwise planned to recruit over the three years commencing April 2000.

  The first ever national advertising campaign aimed at supporting local police recruitment was launched on 30 August. It will be a three-year campaign.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Service
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what work has been undertaken since 1996 for the Court Service by(a) Information Initiatives and (b) Myriad. [137322]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since 1996, Information Initiatives and Myriad have undertaken the following work for the Court Service:

  (a) Information Initiatives: supporting specific IT projects in the Royal Courts of Justice; assisting in the project which set up the Court Service HQ network (SOAP); supporting the Court Service HQ network; assisting in the implementation of the Court Service managing agents system (MANIFEST); assisting the development of a word-processing interface for the Public Trust Office system (TARA); consulting on an Immigration Appeals system; and working on Y2K issues.

  (b) Myriad: advising on aspects of a PFI contract; providing support to the Crown court system (CREST); and to the County court system (CASEMAN); supporting the Court Service HQ network (SOAP); working on Y2K issues; assisting with the business case for the jury summoning system (JUROR); carrying out initial work on a bid for the Capital Modernisation Fund; and assisting with IT on the Crown Court Programme.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proposals he has to amend his Department's departmental expenditure limit and running costs limit for 2000–01. [138180]

  Mr. Lock
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class V, Vote 1, the Lord Chancellor's Department Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000–01 will be increased by £113,252,000 from £2,525,609,000 to £2,638,861,000. The increase is the net effect of take up of End Year Flexibility entitlement of; £10,000,000 to fund additional costs relating to new tasks undertaken by the Legal Services Commission; £6,000,000 to meet publicity and information costs for the Community Legal Service; £6,000,000 in respect of costs for the Public Trust Office Change Programme; £8,600,000 in respect of start up costs for the Children and Family Court Advisory Service and Support Service; £1,900,000 in respect of costs for the Libra project; £1,925,000 for the Invest to Save Budget payment to the Land Registry; £1,586,000 relating to asylum costs; a transfer from the Home Office of £113,000 in respect of contribution towards costs of the Immigration Services Tribunal; a transfer from the Home Office of £273,000 in respect of PHOENIX, a project funded by the Invest to Save Budget; £1,355,000 in respect of an award from the Invest to Modernise Fund; and £75,500,000 from the DEL Reserve to meet additional costs on asylum and immigration.

  The running cost limit for Lord Chancellor's Department Class V, Vote 1 will be increased by £53,409,000 from £541,908,000 to £595,317,000. The increase is caused by take up of End Year Flexibility entitlement of; £4,000,000 to meet publicity costs for the Community Legal Service; £6,000,000 in respect of costs for the Public Trust Office Change Programme; £5,300,000 in respect of start up costs for the Children and Family Court Advisory Service and Support Service; £1,900,000 in respect of costs for the Libra project; £1,586,000 relating to asylum costs; a transfer of £6,400,000 from capital grants expenditure to meet costs in respect of the Libra project; a transfer from the Home Office of £113,000 in respect of contribution towards costs of the Immigration Services Tribunal; a transfer from the Home Office of £273,000 in respect of PHOENIX, a project funded by the Invest to Save Budget; £1,355,000 in respect of an award from the Invest to Modernise Fund; £3000,000 in respect of a correction to the accounting treatment for sundry income and £26,182,000 from the DEL Reserve to meet additional costs on asylum and immigration.

  The increases will be offset by transfers from the Home Office Departmental Expenditure Limit, take up of End Year Flexibility entitlement, an award from the Invest to Modernise Fund and charges on the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Ashworth Hospital: Ian Brady
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the treatment of Ian Brady, who is serving a life sentence as a patient in Ashworth hospital, particularly in regard to visits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, patients are detained at Ashworth under the Mental Health Act 1983. Responsibility for patient care and treatment rests with Ashworth hospital, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In addition, the code of practice published by the Government in March 1999 provides guidance on how the Act should be applied and contains a chapter specifically advising on arrangements for detained patients to receive visitors. It is for Ashworth hospital to decide, in the light of the code guidance and other relevant factors, what visiting arrangements should be put in place for patients.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I express sympathy with a much esteemed Minister for having to provide such an unsatisfactory Answer. He knows perfectly well that he knows nothing about the subject. I put it this way—such an intelligent man will understand what I am saying—is he aware that Ian Brady, who has done the most terrible things, has been a mental patient in Ashworth for a number of years? He has been in custody for over 30 years altogether. Even now he is not allowed to see his mother without some officer sitting beside him to overhear what is going on. Is that humane? Is this man to be treated as a human being, in spite of what he has done?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that vote of confidence. I cannot, of course, comment on an individual case and the House would not expect me to do so. However, at the hospital all visits are directly observed and supervised, with the exception of those of any legally qualified person instructed by the patient to act as his legal adviser, any Member of either House of Parliament, members of the Mental Health Act Commission, solicitors and Mental Health Act Commission visitors. Visiting policy generally is determined by the hospital having regard to guidance in the code of practice I mentioned in relation to the Mental Health Act 1983. All patients' visits are subject to the safety and security directions which apply to all patients in all of the high
1678
security hospitals. Those directions are aimed at ensuring that visiting occurs in an environment that is safe for patients, visitors and staff.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that all the recommendations and actions suggested in the report on Ashworth have now been put into effect and that the culture and the regime of Ashworth have been improved?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Fallon inquiry made a number of recommendations in relation to the hospital. That was followed by the Tilt inquiry into aspects of security. We are determined to ensure that the hospital is managed effectively. There has been, and will be, investment to ensure that the recommendations we accepted are implemented. The management of the hospital has proved a considerable challenge over many years and no one can be complacent. However, I am satisfied that we have the framework in place in which to take forward improvements.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, what plans does my noble friend the Minister have to integrate Ashworth into the rest of the NHS?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the intention at Ashworth—as at Broadmoor and Rampton—is to endeavour to integrate as many services as possible into the NHS. At Ashworth hospital arrangements are being prepared at the moment to link the wider development of secure psychiatric services in the North West to the mental illness services provided at the hospital. We are also considering the personality disorder service and the possibility of establishing a joint management approach between Ashworth and Rampton hospitals. However, I certainly accept the premise of my noble friend that as far as possible integration between the special hospital services and the NHS must be the right way forward.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, certainly knows his onions. I doubt whether he would have tabled this Question were there not anxiety about the treatment of this patient. Will the noble Earl therefore take care to ensure that those immediately concerned with looking after Ian Brady are given a copy of our proceedings today?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course the proceedings are available. I assure the noble Lord that the issues which my noble friend raised originally with the Home Office some weeks ago—which have been transferred to the Department of Health—will be considered. I have written to the chair of the special health authority involved to make sure that they are investigated.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, does the Minister agree that some crimes are so horrendous

1679
that it is the symbolic nature of the sentence which is appropriate and that, therefore, Ian Brady is serving an appropriate sentence?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says. I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to comment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Elton, I once had brief ministerial responsibility for these matters. Can the Minister say when Ministers last visited Ashworth hospital or when they intend to do so?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no, I cannot say that. I shall be happy to provide that information when I have found it out.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister referred to the integration of Ashworth hospital with the broader range of NHS mental illness services, if I understood him correctly. Can he say a little more about how that matter can be taken further, in particular with regard to secure units at mental illness hospitals and the way in which those patients can be treated?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in relation to Broadmoor hospital, that authority will be dissolved on 31st March 2001. The new West London Mental Health NHS Trust will incorporate Broadmoor hospital and the Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham Mental Health Trust.
Rampton, too, will be dissolved on the same date. A new Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust incorporating Rampton hospital and the medium secure services within the Trent region will also become operational on 1st April 2001.
Integration arrangements in relation to Ashworth are still being considered and are tied up with a proposal that is being developed for a Mersey mental health NHS trust. We are very keen to make progress, to ensure that integration is developed where appropriate, and that personality disorder services are managed effectively.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is Ian Brady eligible to appear before a mental health review tribunal?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, there are a number of procedures in relation to the complaints processes. All complaints are first channelled through the complaints unit at the hospital itself.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not refer to complaints. I was a member of a mental health review tribunal. It is not a complaint. It is a right of anyone, certainly in Broadmoor, to appear before a mental health review tribunal to review whether he may leave that place.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are talking about two specific issues. I thought that the noble
1680
Baroness referred to the complaints system. A number of patients have been admitted to Ashworth hospital from prison under the section of Mental Health Act 1983 to which I referred.
I am happy to write to the noble Baroness with further details of the operation of the mental health review tribunal. There is a complaints unit at the hospital. We are and have been concerned about how effectively it operates. We have set targets for improving the speed with which it deals with complaints.

Early Retirement on Health Grounds
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government:
What response they will make to the Government Actuary's statement on 17th October concerning the economic effects of early retirement on health grounds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government will keep under review the complex issues surrounding earlier retirement on the ground of ill health.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am pleased that the Government are keeping these issues under review.
Does the noble Lord agree that alleged health grounds can be a cause for getting rid of people as a form of not-very-well-disguised age discrimination; and that the situation may become worse when the age for women to retire equals that of men in 2010?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. It is one of the issues which the Government Actuary addressed in his report. It was not a statement but a report of a lecture given at a think tank Politeia. There are major problems both for the protection of employees against age discrimination and as regards the public purse about the over-use of retirement on health grounds.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we need not only more action to prevent too much early retirement but also action so that people who retain their youth and vigour can continue to work, a concept for which your Lordships' House is an advertisement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should not be tempted to reply to that question, which is wide of the Question on the Order Paper. But I am tempted; and I agree with my noble friend.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is there not the paradox of trends to greater longevity at the same time as trends towards difficulty in financing pensions?

1681
Does the Minister agree that we have to put pressure on employers to reverse that trend? The alternative will be legislation on discrimination.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one of the continuing problems which public policy faces is that employers may be tempted to give early retirement on health grounds rather than on other grounds on the basis that those who are retired will become eligible for incapacity benefit and, therefore, less demanding on the pension fund of the employer. It is a problem which the Government are addressing.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government produced a report, Winning the Generation Game, in April of this year which covers all these issues in detail? It is a comprehensively researched report containing 75 recommendations. What progress has there been on implementing the recommendations in the report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indeed I am just about aware that the Government have produced a report on the subject, yes! I think that I could be expected to be aware of it.
The 75 recommendations in the report published only six months ago require careful consideration and consultation. We are keeping the matter under urgent review.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that far too many people who have led active and busy lives are forced prematurely into retirement on health grounds or otherwise and simply fade away and die? Will he assure the House that the Government will do what they can to encourage employers to keep on people who are suffering from ill health in a way that enables them to cope, perhaps on a part-time basis, to prevent the unnecessary loss of vigorous, active, experienced people and to enable those people to continue to lead active and useful lives?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend points out one of the dangers of early retirement on ill health grounds. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, it can be used as an excuse for unnecessary early retirement. The Government Actuary's report also pointed out that those who retire early on ill health grounds ought to be encouraged to go back to work if their health improves sufficiently. That is another issue that the Government need to address and are addressing.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 introduced a clawback provision under which half of any occupational ill health retirement pension above £85 a week is offset against benefit? Does not that demonstrate that the mounting crisis over ill health retirement is at least partly of the Government's making? More generally, although they made a manifesto commitment to encourage saving for retirement, is not the broad thrust of their pensions policy a huge disincentive to that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I draw the opposite conclusion from the provisions in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. I do not think that the noble Earl is entitled to draw his more general conclusion about pensions policy.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, does my noble friend have any information about which workers are currently the most likely to seek early retirement on health grounds?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that I should have such information, but I do not. I shall have to write to my noble friend on that point. I suspect that those who are under stress at work are among the most likely. That is a common cause of early retirement.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, given the spirit that has been evinced on all sides of the House in answer to the Question, including by the Minister, will he give an undertaking that if and when stage two of the reform of this place is introduced, there will be no question of there being a retirement age?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, although I answer on behalf of the Government, that exceeds my personal responsibility, and it does not follow from the Question.

Disqualifications Bill
3.23 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What organisations or political parties have made representations in favour of the provisions of the Disqualifications Bill or have welcomed the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government's reason for introducing the Disqualifications Bill is to reflect the special relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and Ireland since the coming into force of the British-Irish agreement. As such, it has been welcomed by the Irish Government. In drawing up the legislation, the Government have taken into account the views of all the parties—unionist, nationalist and republican.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for going considerably further than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, went the other day in Committee. He said that it was inappropriate to give such an answer. What has changed since then, that the Minister has been able to be more open?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my response reflects exactly the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on Monday, when we had the pleasant experience of discussing the detail of that Bill.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, can the Minister give a single example from anywhere else in the Commonwealth or the rest of the world in which members of one sovereign Parliament have sat simultaneously as members of another country's sovereign Parliament? Is it not the case that the Bill is opposed by the First Minister of Northern Ireland, has been criticised in the Irish press and is not welcomed by many Members of the Dail? The only reason for its introduction is that Sinn Fein has argued that all 18 Northern Ireland Members ought simultaneously to be Members of the House of Commons and of the Dail. It is not just the Bill that is disgraceful, but the Government's refusal to be frank about its purpose.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we have been entirely frank. We have made it plain that we believe that the Bill is justified on its merits and in its own terms. We believe that it could do a great deal of good in strengthening the close historical and cultural ties between our country and Ireland. For those reasons it is a very sensible measure. Talking of popular and unpopular measures, on Monday the noble Lord was kind enough to admit:
"I must confess that I introduced many measures for which there was no demand—indeed, there was positive opposition!".— [Official Report, 6/11/00; col. 1333.]
It is for the Government to decide whether something is right. That is what we have done.
Lord Rogan: My Lords, does the Minister accept that when my party, the Ulster Unionist Party, was consulted, we replied that we were definitely not in favour of the Bill? Will he take my assurance that when we independently consulted the major political parties in the south of Ireland, we did not find one which was interested in the measure or supported the Bill? Is it not a fact that the only party that organises in both Northern Ireland and southern Ireland—Sinn Fein/IRA—is the only party that supports the measure? If so, why?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought that I had made it plain in my opening Answer that we consulted the Irish Government and that they had commented favourably on the measure. The views of other parties are no doubt a matter for public record. We have listened carefully to the views offered by the official Ulster Unionist Party. They have been reflected in amendments that we have already passed to the Bill.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which dealt with the main measures for devolution under the Good Friday agreement, made provision for joint membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Senate in Dublin? I took that Bill through and I was not aware of any significant body of opposition to the measure, even though the issue of principle is very similar to that in the Disqualifications Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is exactly the case. We are extending the principle, which, in
1684
fairness, was rather more limited in the 1998 Act. That Act enabled joint membership of the Irish Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly. My noble friend is right to say that the provision was passed without much controversy or discussion and it is now embodied in Section 36(5) of that Act. It was not resisted by either House.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a difference between membership of a second sovereign Parliament and membership of a subsidiary Assembly? Will he confirm that the Disqualifications Bill was the result of a secret agreement between Sinn Fein/Provisional IRA and the Prime Minister, at which Sinn Fein undertook not to object to the Prime Minister's famous five hand-written pledges, given on the day before the referendum, in exchange for the later introduction of the Bill? Incidentally, those five pledges have not been honoured in any case.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount has embroidered history, as far as I understand it. The Bill stands on its own merits. The aim is to improve, strengthen and deepen the quality of our relationship with Ireland. I believe that it will make a significant contribution towards that end. That is why I believe that it is entirely justified. We should concentrate on the future and the positive improvements that we can continue to make to strengthen the existing peace agreement.
Noble Lords: Next Question.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we are now in the 24th minute and there is one further Question.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, this Question started two minutes late. Does the noble Lord agree—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are in the 24th minute. We have spent a good deal of time on this Question. In courtesy to the last questioner, I believe that we should move on.

Cancer Screening
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce pilot studies to assess the value of recently announced DR-70 blood test screening for cancer.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this test requires careful study. The UK National Screening Committee will discuss its appraisal of the available research evidence at its December meeting.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, which sounds better than

1685
many. However, is he aware that if this test is successful, as is claimed following independent tests carried out in China, Chile and Taiwan, we would be able to avoid the tragic situation of past years whereby, because of delays caused by NHS waiting lists, by the time people are admitted to hospital their conditions are inoperable? As the test has been welcomed as the "holy grail" of cancer, does he not believe that it is most important that people should be made aware of whether it is successful?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the only details I have concerning the test are probably those from the same newspaper articles the noble Baroness saw earlier this week. My understanding is that trials continue. I accept that we must make the most use of new and emerging technologies. That is why the National Screening Committee will be watching closely the progress of this particular test and will make recommendations in due course.
As to the specific issues the noble Baroness raised, she will be aware of the recently published national cancer plan which is designed to deal with the issue of waiting to which she referred.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, clearly it is important for the public that such screening tests are carried out quickly and authoritatively. Is there not a good case for passing responsibility for evaluating such tests to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—NICE—provided it has the appropriate resources?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not persuaded of that. The National Screening Committee has an excellent reputation internationally for the quality of its work. I believe that it is the appropriate body to whom we should refer such situations and tests. I am satisfied that when it reports and advises Ministers, it does so on the best available, robust evidence.
Earl Howe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the obstacles to meeting the Government's targets on cancer treatment is the shortage of cancer specialists? Is he concerned, for example, that a maximum two-month waiting time between referral and treatment of patients with breast cancer will be unattainable by the target date of 2002 because of the time that is currently needed to carry out the diagnosis?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I fully accept that issues of workforce are important in determining whether we shall meet the target set in the national plan. In relation to breast cancer, I understand that we have made great progress so far as concerns the two-month wait between an initial meeting with a GP to referral to a consultant. The success rate in meeting that particular target is over 90 per cent.
Overall, the NHS plan contains proposals for increasing the number of cancer specialists over the
1686
next few years. I am confident that we shall meet those targets. I also believe that we need to increase not only the number of consultants but the number of support workers involved in screening. Again, they are very much a part of our workforce planning.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister says that he has read newspaper reports. Does he know that a scientific report published in the Journal of Immunoassay states that more than 90 per cent accuracy has been achieved in the test? Will he also comment on the statement that the people who produce the blood test, which is simple and takes only a matter of minutes, say that they would like to launch it in the private sector first and that they intend to make an application to the Government for permission to do so? Is he sure that the cancer screening group, or whatever other group he suggests, will be confident that the test is successful before it is launched, even privately?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the information that she has provided and I should be glad to read the additional information to which she referred. My understanding is that the National Screening Committee will give this matter consideration at its December meeting. However, at present the test is still undergoing trials. Clearly, any decision made by the committee and any advice that it gives to Ministers must be based on the most robust evidence possible. I assure the noble Baroness that, whatever advice we receive, it will be given the utmost consideration. I share with her the desire to use screening and other tests wherever they are shown to be effective.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend able to give preliminary indications as to whether this new test would replace the more conventional forms of screening which now take place? If that were to happen, would there be a saving in NHS resources and a speeding up of the screening process?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that it would be very unwise for me to go into those matters before the National Screening Committee has considered this particular test. The whole purpose of the screening committee is to give the best possible advice to Ministers. However, it is worth saying that over the past few years in this country screening—particularly for breast cancer—has had a most beneficial effect. Indeed, I understand that through screening in 1998–99 breast cancer was detected and treated in nearly 8,000 women in England.
We need to build on the effectiveness of current tests. In the national plan and the cancer plan we made it clear that we shall undertake pilot studies of other cancer tests where they can be shown to be effective and will assess the effectiveness of those screening tests. As I said, we shall consider very carefully the advice from the National Screening Committee.

Business
3.37 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to ask a question of the Deputy Leader of the House about the order of business. We understand that the NAO report on the Dome was published this morning. I wonder whether the Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip can tell the House whether a request has been received for the noble and learned Lord the Minister for the Dome to come to the House to tell your Lordships about the Government's reaction; whether that request has been delivered; whether it was denied; and whether it was denied on the grounds that there would be an opportunity in the near future to question the noble and learned Lord on that matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, first, I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not here. She has official engagements elsewhere. I regret to say that, because I had not received notice of this question from the noble Viscount, I simply do not know the answer. Had I any information, I should of course want to share it with the House. However, in the absence of prior notification, I simply do not know the answer.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask a question that arises from that answer. In light of the fact that we have not had a Statement today and in light of the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has failed to reply to letters from me dated 14th September and 19th October raising important questions about information given to this House about the Dome at the end of July, can we at least be assured that we shall be given an early opportunity for the noble and learned Lord to answer for his responsibilities in this House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, again, I do not know of the letters of 14th September and 19th October. I was given no prior notice of that question and I simply do not know whether my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton was given notice. However, if your Lordships want distinct answers to particular questions, it is helpful if notice is given so that I can discharge my duty properly.
I see that a finger is being pointed at the Government Chief Whip. I am sure that if he had any information he would transmit it to me. But I repeat that I cannot know the answers to questions about correspondence between one of your Lordships and one of my colleagues unless I am told about them in advance. With the best will in the world, I cannot do everyone else's job as well as my own.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may help. This is a major report, as everybody knows. It has been issued publicly and is being debated by the media all over the place. My understanding is that Her Majesty's Opposition asked specifically for either a Statement or for a Private Notice Question and that was refused. That would be very surprising and, certainly, it would
1688
be a matter of interest to all of us. Somebody here must be able to answer whether or not that is so. Otherwise, we shall go away thinking that there is collusion between the two Front Benches, both of whom come out of the report very badly.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, everybody must sympathise with the difficult position in which the noble and learned Lord the Deputy Leader of the House finds himself. We all understand that, from time to time, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House must absent herself from this House on official duties. But it is rather strange that she did not advise the noble and learned Lord, as her deputy, of the decision that she took earlier today.
My noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns asked to table a PNQ on the Dome, requesting the attendance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in this House. That PNQ was turned down on the authority of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House herself. Does the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General find it rather strange that he was not advised of that?
Furthermore, does he also not find it rather strange that those of us who happened to turn on our televisions during the course of this afternoon saw the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, being interviewed by the press? This is not the first time that that has happened. Why is it that a government Minister in this House seeks to explain himself to the press but not to this House?
Finally, does the noble and learned Lord think that it would be appropriate for this House to debate the whole subject of the Dome at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the important question is the last one that the noble Lord put. That is a matter of the general interests of the House and I am trying to honour the interests of the House in dealing with the central question that the noble Lord put.
He asked me whether I think it is appropriate to have an opportunity to debate the matter in this House. The answer is that my personal opinion is yes, and I dare say that the usual channels will collude to ensure that a desirable outcome is brought about. I do not know whether or not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is on the television. He may be; he may not be. I am not a great television watcher myself, except for the parliamentary channel.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I do not wish to add at all to my noble and learned friend's difficulties and I appreciate them, but can he tell us where exactly my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer is? Knowing that this matter would arise, I am sure that he must have given a very good reason for not being present in this House this afternoon.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we becoming a shade unrealistic now. I do not know where my noble

1689
and learned friend Lord Falconer is. That is the danger with giving honest answers. I must reform myself! It is wholly unrealistic, to put it at its kindest and most neutral, to expect me to know where all my colleagues may he. Indeed, in many circumstances, I probably ought not to know.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we all understand the difficulty in which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General finds himself in not knowing where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is. Does he know where the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do.

Pension Credits and Benefits Uprating
3.44 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I should like to make a Statement, first, on the annual uprating of benefits and, secondly, on pensions and the new pension credit.
"First, on uprating, subject to the following exceptions, most national insurance benefits will rise by the retail prices index, which is 3.3 per cent, and most income-related benefits will rise by the Rossi index, which is 1.6 per cent, in the usual way. Details of the uprating will be placed in the Vote Office and will be published in the Official Report.
"The Government believe that it is right to do more to help people with disabilities and for carers. We know that it is particularly hard for families on low incomes who are bringing up children with disabilities. I am therefore proposing to increase the disabled child premium by £7.40 a week, on top of the normal uprating. So as part of our drive to end child poverty, around 80,000 children will see a rise in the disabled child premium from £22.25 a week to £30 a week over and above their basic entitlement to benefit.
"Just as we are committed to abolishing child poverty, we are also determined to provide greater security for those who are unable to work. That is why we announced in 1998 that we would introduce a disability income guarantee from April next year for people with severe disabilities.
"When it was first announced, we set the guarantee at £128 a week. But today I can announce that when it is introduced in April, it will not be £128, it will be £142—£14 more a week. And for couples, it will be £186.80.
"Thirdly, we want to do more for carers. We all owe a debt of gratitude to people who give up so much to care for their relatives. That is why in
1690
September I announced that we would extend the invalid carer's allowance to people over 65; raise the earnings threshold; and extend payments for eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for. I also announced a £2 a week increase in the carer premium, which is the extra supplement for carers on income support.
"Today I can go further. I have decided that the increase in the carer premium will, from next April, not be £2 a week, but £10 a week on top of the normal uprating. That means that the premium will rise from £14.15 to £24.40, helping over 200,000 carers on low incomes. In total, the Government will be spending nearly £200 million more on supporting carers and people with disabilities next year—and every year thereafter.
"I now turn to pensions. I confirm that the basic state pension will rise by £5 for single pensioners next year, and by £3 the year after. For married couples, the figures are £8 and then £4.80. I can also tell the House that the widows and bereavement benefits (which will go to men and women equally for the first time next year) will also rise by £5 next year and £3 the year after.
"And for this winter, I can confirm that pensioners will start receiving their £200 winter fuel payment from Monday.
"Today I am also publishing a consultation paper on the new pension credit. Copies will be available from the Vote Office following my Statement.
"There is a fundamental fault in the system we inherited. Saving should be rewarded, not punished. So the pension credit will, for the first time, reward the thrift of millions of people who have worked hard to save for their retirement. The credit builds on the long term reforms the Government have already made. We are building block by block, a coherent and sustainable strategy for pensions.
"For tomorrow's pensioners we are reforming the state second pension, giving greater security in retirement to 18 million people on low incomes. And for moderate and higher earners, we are introducing the new stakeholder pensions from April.
"Not only will the pension credit help millions of today's pensioners on modest incomes; it will also complement these long term reforms by rewarding people for saving. The message is clear: whatever you can afford to put by, it will always pay to save. Our aim is both to end pensioner poverty and to ensure that all pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the nation.
"When we came into office, the inequality of pensioner income had grown dramatically under the last government. This means that the old approach—an across-the-board increase, whether linked to prices or earnings—is inadequate. It would not do nearly enough for the poorest pensioners. Nor would it do enough to reward thrift. A new approach is required which deals with the reality of pensioner incomes today.

1691
"First, there are now many more pensioners retiring on very good pensions, mainly thanks to occupational pensions and of course SERPS. One in six pensioner couples are now retiring on £20,000 a year, and that proportion will grow steadily over time. While those pensioners are sharing in the rising prosperity of the nation, for those who come within the scope of the tax system, we are determined to give them a fairer deal.
"We have already halved the rate of tax on savings income from April 1999 and increased pensioner tax allowances. And today I can announce further proposals to raise those allowances. At the moment most pensioners have no income tax to pay. But for those who do, in 2003 the Government propose to raise the age-related allowances by £240 that year over and above indexation. On current forecasts, that will take the allowance to £6,560 a year for those aged 65 to 74, and to £6,850 for those aged 75 or more. And throughout the remainder of the Parliament we propose to carry on raising the allowances in line with earnings. Over 3 million pensioners will gain from this.
"Secondly, we inherited a situation where in Britain—the fourth largest economy in the world—there were too many pensioners living in poverty. Pensioner poverty has no place in a civilised society. That is why the Government were right to make ending pensioner poverty their first priority, and why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which is already helping nearly 2 million pensioners. Now we want to go further to tackle pensioner poverty.
"As the Chancellor announced yesterday, we are increasing the minimum income guarantee over and above the planned earnings increase. So from next April, no single pensioner need live on less than £92.15 a week. For 285,000 of our poorest pensioners, that is a £14 a week rise between now and next April. And when we introduce the new system in 2003, the minimum income guarantee will be set not at £92, but at £100 a week; that is £22 a week more than today. For the first time a single pensioner will be guaranteed at least £100 a week. And for every subsequent year in the next Parliament, the guarantee will be raised in line with earnings.
"But the next stage of our reforms is to help the millions of pensioners who worked hard all their lives, saved for their retirement and rightly believe that they are being punished, and not rewarded, for their thrift. All of us are familiar with the pensioner who feels let down by a system that has not rewarded their thrift. A pensioner with £20 of occupational pension on top of her state pension can find herself just a pound or two better off than someone who saved nothing. That is unfair, unjust and it is going to stop.
"That is why we are introducing the pension credit—to help pensioners with savings or a modest income in retirement. So, for the first time in the
1692
history of the welfare state, saving will be rewarded, not punished. I can confirm that when it is introduced in 2003, the credit will reward all those with weekly incomes up to £135 for single pensioners, or £200 for couples. Today I can tell the House that 5.5 million pensioners—that is half of all pensioner households in this country—will be better off as a result of the new credit.
"Not only will the new system ensure that pensioners are better off when they retire, it will also ensure that the support they get from the state will keep up with the rises we are seeking in family incomes over their retirement. Because not only will the minimum income guarantee rise in line with earnings; but so will the new pension credit.
"Let me explain how the credit will work. First, we will guarantee a minimum income, which by 2003 will be at least £100, or £154 for couples. Secondly, on top of that, for every pound saved, pensioners will receive an additional cash credit. This will mean extra cash on top of the basic state pension; sums of between £1 and £23 a week. The amount of that reward will depend on the amount of savings and other income. Take, for example, a pensioner in 2003 who is on the basic state pension, which we then expect to be £77, and with income from savings or an occupational pension of, say, £20 a week the total weekly income will be £97. With the credit, her income will be raised to the minimum income guarantee of £100. But on top of that, she will receive a credit of £12 extra for her saving. So her income will not be £97, but £112. The pension credit will mean she is £15 a week better off—that is her reward for saving.
"The changes we are making will be of particular advantage to women. On average, women have smaller occupational pensions than men. And because they are likely to live longer, they are more at risk from the falling value of their pension income over their retirement. As a result, two-thirds of those who will benefit from the credit are women. The credit also allows us to make a number of changes. First, we have always recognised the unfairness of someone losing out simply because they have modest savings in a bank or building society. We have already announced that from next April, as we prepare for the pension credit, we are raising the capital limits for the first time in 10 years. As a result, 500,000 pensioners will gain an average of £5 a week, and many will find themselves entitled to extra support for the first time.
"But from 2003 we are going further. As part of the credit we are scrapping the capital limits completely. Instead, we will look at the income pensioners receive from their savings. Not only are we abolishing the capital limits, but we are also getting rid of the rules on tariff income for pensioners. So we will no longer assume that pensioners can get a ludicrous 20 per cent return on their savings.
"And the second change is that we will make it easier for pensioners to get the money they are entitled to and get rid of the weekly means test.

1693
Now, there are some who weep crocodile tears at means testing for pensioners, but who did nothing in 18 years to change it. We will. At the moment we ask all tax-paying pensioners to tell us about their income just once a year, if that. But we ask poorer pensioners to tell the benefit system about changes every week. There is no good reason for that. So instead, the credit will be based on an income assessment that is more like the tax system.
"When we retire, a calculation has to be made about our basic state pension. At the same time, we can work out how much a pensioner is entitled to under the minimum income guarantee and the pension credit. We know that most pensioners have stable incomes. So after the initial award at retirement, any adjustments will only need to be made when circumstances change significantly; and we are making it easier for pensioners to claim their entitlements by introducing a dedicated new service for pensioners. People will be able to claim by phone, giving pensioners the better service they want.
"Although most pensioners have stable incomes, there are of course pinch-points during the year when pensioners need to meet the costs of lump sum bills. That is why pensioners have welcomed the extra help they receive from the winter fuel payment and the free TV licences for over-75s—more help when it is most needed. We promised to make sure that all pensioners would share fairly in the rising prosperity; and the measures we have announced deliver on that promise. As a result of our reforms, all pensioners will gain. We are spending £8.5 billion more on pensioners over this Parliament; that is £5 billion more than an earnings link.
"We promised to do more for those who most need it. That is why, next year, the poorest third of pensioners are getting five times more than they would have done under the earnings link. We promised to do more to reward saving; that is why under the tax changes I announced today 3 million pensioners will be better off; and the new pension credit will mean that 5.5 million pensioners will be better off.
"So, from next week: the £200 winter fuel payment; from next April the £5 and £8 increases in the basic state pension and the minimum income guarantee goes up to £92.15; from the following April a further £3 and £4.80 on the basic pension; and from 2003 a guaranteed income of at least £100; and the introduction of the new pension credit and higher tax allowances to reward saving.
"So there is a clear choice for the future. We are increasing the winter fuel payment, not abolishing it. We are building on the basic state pension, not undermining it or privatising it. We are tackling pensioner poverty, not ignoring it. And we are rewarding saving, not penalising it.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
"I commend this Statement to the House".
4 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. Noble Lords will be particularly appreciative of the fact that she read it as though it were her own. It is easier to understand such complex matters if that is so rather than ripping through a Statement at high speed.
We on this side of the House welcome a number of aspects of the Statement. First, we welcome in particular the proposals for helping the disabled and carers, and for the projected abolition of the capital limit. We also welcome the proposed increase in the basic state pension. However, for 30 years I represented a constituency with the oldest population in the country and therefore I know well how pensioners think. I know that they will be asking themselves how it is that last year they were told that the maximum increase the Chancellor could possibly offer was 75p when suddenly this year it can be increased to £5. It may cross their minds that there may be an extraneous factor such as the timing of other events which they do not fully understand. No doubt the Minister will enlighten us on how it is suddenly possible to make such a massive increase compared with the measly, insulting increase of last year.
Secondly, as regards the basic pension, is the Minster aware that we on this side of the House believe that in addition to the increases which the Government have announced it is right to roll up the gimmicks on television licences, winter fuel payments, Christmas bonuses and so forth in order to save the heavy administrative costs and inefficiencies in delivering them and to devote the money instead to an increase in the basic pension? In that context, suitable adjustments should be made in relation to taxation and those receiving lower-level benefits. That would ensure that as regards the basic pension everyone would be better off than under the Government's proposal.
Finally, with regard to the basic state pension, does the Minister believe that there is a slight inconsistency in the Government's reaction to the proposal for linking pensions with earnings, so eloquently put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle? They replied that much of the money would go to people who did not need it, but at the same time they increased the winter fuel allowance which also goes to many people who, in the Government's sense of the words, do not need it. Is not that a strange and inconsistent policy for the Government to adopt? No doubt the Minister will be able to give an explanation, but it is difficult to understand how these two parts of the policy can be reconciled.
The noble Baroness has, both in opposition and in government, made such statements on a number of occasions. The normal practice with regard to upratings is to state what they will be and what the corresponding increase in national insurance contributions will be. Surprisingly, in the Chancellor's Statement yesterday no reference was made to that and, more to my surprise, no reference was made to it

1695
in the noble Baroness's Statement today. If my understanding of a report in today's Times is correct, an additional £2,000 a year will be collected in national insurance contributions from those with incomes of more than £30,000 a year. That is an increase of 7.5 per cent; three times the rate of inflation. If that is correct—and no doubt the noble Baroness will tell us—it is extraordinary that no mention of it was made by the Chancellor yesterday or by the noble Baroness today. Clearly, as regards those with incomes of more than £30,000 a year, it is yet another stealth tax.
That brings me to the next point we need to question. The Government, as usual, pay tribute to the important role of occupational pensions. Once again, I must declare an interest as chair of an occupational pension fund. They are still suffering severely for the most notorious stealth tax; namely, that which was the result of the Chancellor's first Budget when he changed the rules on advance corporation tax and removed some £6 billion from occupational pensions.
In that context, perhaps I may raise another point with the noble Baroness. It would seem that the Chancellor's policy is to tax in order to repay debt. The effect of that is significant in relation to the gilt-edged market. If the Government are borrowing less, the supply of gilt-edged assets is less and the yield on gilt-edged assets will fall. So, too, will the rate on annuities. Therefore, the effect of the Government's policy in that respect is to reduce the level paid on annuities, even below the dramatic fall over the past two years. There are implications for those who will still be forced to take an annuity at the age of 75. Despite our having raised the matter on many occasions on the Floor of your Lordships' House, that has not been dealt with in the Statement. There are implications for the minimum funding requirement of such funds, on which the Government have made no comment and appear to be procrastinating in reaching a decision.
I turn next to the minimum income guarantee which is to be increased in line with earnings. Contrary to the Government's declared policy of wanting to reduce the number of people submitted to means testing, will not the effect be to increase the number? Perhaps the Minister would quantify that for us. The Social Security Select Committee of another place pointed out an inconsistency in the Government's policy in that respect. The change is likely to discourage those who might otherwise go into stakeholder or other pensions because for reasons of which we are aware it tends to discourage savings. That will be the case despite the proposal as regards pensioner credits. We shall study carefully what the Government now propose, but it would seem that the level of income at which the change will be effective will not be much higher. A superficial reading of the Government's White Paper suggests that the pensioner credit fades out at an income of £7,000 per year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, for a single pensioner.
Lord Higgins: Yes, my Lords, for a single pensioner. In order to avoid going through the appalling
1696
arithmetic, I have dealt throughout with the case of a single pensioner. The proceedings would be considerably delayed if one were to deal also with pensioner couples.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as the noble Lord is making that point, is he aware of the provision in the Companion that the time for the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and the Minister's reply to them is limited to 20 minutes?
Lord Higgins: Yes, my Lords; I believe that to be the case. No doubt the noble Lord is more familiar with these matters than I; he has been in the House a great deal longer. None the less, the fact that we have a long Statement needs to be taken into account. I am coming almost to my conclusion, but it would appear that the pensioner credit fades out at that level of income and that the amount of credit will be capped. However, we shall examine all the proposals most carefully.
The noble Lord who intervened and then walked out—perhaps he was distraught at my response—said recently in answer to a Question that the Government's intention was to halve pensioner poverty in 10 years. I have been worried by that undertaking—if that is the right expression, or words to that effect. The Government are committed to reducing pensioner poverty, which is common ground between us. I have had great trouble trying to ascertain which definition of "pensioner poverty" is to be used in deciding the extent to which the Government succeed in their objective. In a Question for Written Answer, the noble Baroness referred me to a recent publication by the Government which set out a whole series of definitions of "pensioner poverty". We must understand clearly the definition against which the Government propose to be judged.
4.11 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, looking at the Chamber, I recall reading many years ago a novel by the late Maurice Edelman which described a visit by a foreigner to another place. The visitor commented on the extreme emptiness of the Benches and asked what was being discussed. He was told that the subject was pensions. His response was that he would have thought that the Chamber would be very full as pensions concerned so many people. No. That story comes to mind when one compares the populousness of the Chamber now with the position a few minutes ago when we were busy blowing bubbles in Greenwich.
I welcome the basic uprating. I also welcome, as crumbs from the rich man's table, the small improvements in disability benefits and benefits for carers. I seek clarification of the figures. One is told that there is to be £200 million more for carers. As always, I should like to know: more than what? Does the figure combine a real terms increase with an uprating, or is it all a real terms increase, and what is the base line?
Obviously, the pensioner package is the main point of comment. If the Government had done something like this a year ago they would have avoided a great

1697
deal of trouble, but there is force in the proverb that hope deferred maketh the heart sick. The price of settlement tends to increase over the passage of time, and it is possible that it may not create the degree of satisfaction now which it could perfectly reasonably have done a year ago. According to the Pre-Budget Report, the total for the pensioner package is £2.5 billion. I shall not make any comparison with our proposals which would have cost £3.5 billion—I am not here to say that mine is bigger than yours—but I am concerned about how well the money is targeted to particular needs.
Before I deal with that, I should like to raise one question which arises from paragraph 54 of the Statement. The Government claim to have spent £8.5 billion more on pensions since 1997. More than what? Is this figure all real terms, or does it include uprating increases? Above all, does it take account of the £3 billion undershoot in public spending in the first year of this Government which the Treasury, with consummate brilliance, wrote into the totals on which future uprating was based? Is it based on the figure as it was on the day John Major went off to watch cricket at the Oval, or is it an increase on the figure £3 billion lower after the first year's undershoot? The answer to that would be interesting.
I have always been concerned about the problem of take-up of the minimum income guarantee. The Minister may remember that yesterday at the time of the Treasury Statement I asked what was the budgeted expenditure for the cost of implementing the increase in the minimum income guarantee. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was unable to answer. I referred that matter to my honourable friends, and perhaps I may now tell the Minister the answer to that question. According to the report of the Government Actuary, which was published a few minutes ago, the cost is expected to be £600 million for 2001–02 and £750 million for £2002–03. It is not a very large part of a £2.5 billion package and suggests that some of my doubts about the take-up of the minimum income guarantee are shared on the government Benches.
I must declare an interest in the winter fuel payment as I am eligible for it. But, simply because I am eligible, I wonder whether it is as well targeted as it might be. It is a difficult question because, in the light of today's figures on the increase in winter deaths, the need for a fuel payment is clearly urgent. On the other hand, lack of food as well as lack of heat contributes to the risk of hypothermia. I wonder whether the case for concentrating the money on those in need may be more relevant here.
I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has decided that he would take the money away from these things and put it into the basic pension. That was what the voters told us. On the other hand, I remember meat being given to the lions in Philadelphia Zoo. They did not like it and roared in protest. The keeper took away the meat and the lions roared twice as loud. I fear that in the months to come the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, may have cause to remember that story.
1698
Next year there is to be an increase of £3 in the basic state pension. Is that an increase in real terms, or does it include the ordinary uprating? If it is the latter, it is not very remarkable; if it is a real terms increase, it is wholly to be welcomed.
I shall not go through all the arguments about our age-related additions of which the Minister is perfectly well aware. However, apropos paragraph 25 of the Statement, if the Government are so condemnatory of age-related additions, why did they accept them in the income tax system but not for the basic pension? To ask the question that a pupil once asked me about a contradiction in my index: where are the Government right? I look forward to the answer of the noble Baroness.
I regard the pensioner tax credit with interest. We on these Benches believe that this is basically a new name for a taper. I recall a number of arguments with the Minister in the early years of this Parliament when the Government set their face firmly against taper increases. No doubt something has led the Government to change their mind. That is often welcome, but one should like to know what has persuaded them.
Paragraph 49 of the Statement refers to the adoption of the family credit system and fixing it for a longer time. I can understand both sides of the argument. It fits better here than with people in inflexible part-time employment, but there are problems with people whose benefit is fixed for any length of time. I hope that some attention has been paid to them.
The Minister's claim to set out to abolish child poverty is a little optimistic while the Government have not given up the idea of disentitling people to benefit. There is nothing on that subject in the Statement; nor is there anything about mending the holes in the safety net, the problems of verification, the tightening of the conditions of eligibility, housing benefit, or the links between poverty and transport and services. There are no doubts about the use of compulsion. I am afraid that there is a good deal of evidence—the Minister need not incriminate herself by answering this—of the shift of control of social security policy away from the Department of Social Security towards the Treasury. I deplore that, but I do not ask the Minister to say whether she agrees.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. I have one minute to answer all the questions from the two Front Benches, otherwise I shall be in flagrant breach of the rules. I shall write to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked why the TV licence and winter fuel payments were not rolled up in the basic state pension. A recent survey by Saga of 5,000 people showed that they preferred the Labour Party's approach by three to one. The noble Lord asked whether the winter fuel payments would be universal. Fifty per cent of those suffering from fuel

1699
poverty are pensioners. As a result, that contributes about 50,000 extra deaths from hypothermia. We are also seeking to tackle that.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that MIG would actually discriminate against savings. That is precisely why we are introducing the pensioner credit which builds in savings.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether the £200 million for carers is new money. Yes, it is. He asked whether the £8.5 billion more on pensions was over and above RPI or included RPI. It is over and above RPI. I have made the 20 minutes.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: I, too, am concerned by what is happening to the uprating of the basic state pension, as, I am sure, are many in this House. Do we understand that the £5 addition last week is a one off—a great defect of the Conservative Party's pensions proposals—or does it reflect a permanent change in the principle underlying the operating of the basic state pension? Why is that £5 reduced to £3 in the second year? Above all, what is going to happen in the third and subsequent years? What is to be the principle underlying and governing the uprating of the basic state pension? Will the Minister tell us? If she cannot, why not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the £5 and the £8 are from next April. The additional sum of £3 is for the following year. Given the prudent management of the economy, we believe that this is now the right time to make the money available to all pensioners. But through our minimum income guarantee and through our pension credit, what we are also doing is making sure that the poorest pensioners gain most. Something like one half of all the Government's new money is being spent on the poorest pensioners. Therefore, the bottom 20 per cent and the next 20 per cent get three times as much as the rest. I am sure that my noble friend would wish to see such redistribution in favour of the poorest pensioners.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, can the Minister answer the final question asked by my noble friend Lord Higgins and tell us precisely which definition of "pensioner poverty" is being used in the Statement? I think we need to know that.
The Chancellor tells us that he has been very prudent and wants to avoid stop-go. The noble Baroness has explained to us that the pensioner income guarantee and the pensioner credit will both be earnings-related. I think she said that some five and a half million people are involved. That must be a large sum involved every year. If these matters are earnings-related, it means that if earnings rise very fast in an inflationary way, too much money will be chasing too few goods. That problem will be enormously added to by what the pensioners get through the earnings-related addition. Does the noble Baroness not think
1700
that this will be extremely inflationary? Does she not think that this is perhaps contrary to the Chancellor's policy of being prudent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there are many definitions of "pensioner poverty" because poverty is multi-faceted. But the Government's broad definition of "poverty" tends to be either 50 per cent of mean or 60 per cent of median. It may be that the noble Baroness was slightly misled by the noble Lord's suggestion that there is a commitment to a statistic in terms of pensioner poverty. To my knowledge, that commitment has not been made. I should certainly support such an effort. But the commitment is to tackling child poverty and the statistics relate to that, not to pensioners. Perhaps there was something of a red herring there.
The noble Baroness asked whether extra money going into the pensioner credit would be inflationary. I am sure that the noble Baroness does not mean to suggest that the position on her side of the House is that one should not increase pensioners' income because one may fuel inflation. I am sure she would wish to dissociate herself from that suggestion.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not speaking for the Opposition; I am speaking for myself. I want to know whether or not this will be inflationary. Of course I understand the position. I am a pensioner myself. I have an interest. I am just asking whether it will be inflationary.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not a Treasury Minister. But my understanding is that if one is investing additional income in some of the poorest members of society, that is less likely to be inflationary—in the sense that the income is totally spent on food, housing and basic goods—than if one is investing additional income in those with higher disposable incomes. Let me remind the noble Baroness of what we are doing. At the moment, someone on a minimum income guarantee gets something like £77. From next April that will increase to £92 income for a single person and up to £100 when the new pensioner credit is in position. That is roughly speaking the bottom 20 per cent of our population profile—for the most part, older single women who are poor now, either because they did not work or because they had interrupted work careers. We need as a result to help them. Any increase in the basic state pension does not help them because for the most part they do not have complete state pension records. Therefore, to raise their pension by an earnings link will not help them. They have to be targeted in this way through MIG.
There is the second group who may have saved £20 to £30 which as a result barely lifts them above the MIG floor. That is the group we are trying to seek—the next 20 per cent—with the pensioner credit which has been warmly welcomed. Of course there are many questions—some raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—that we have not yet answered because this is a consultative scoping document and we want people's responses on it. What we are seeking to do is to ensure

1701
through MIG that we help the poorest 20 per cent; through the pensioner credit we help the next 20 per cent. At that point the stakeholders and occupational pensions kick in for the rest, who will be floated above that level. In that way, for the longer as well as the shorter term, we shall be addressing pensioner poverty.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I warmly welcome the increases for disabled people and for carers. These are nothing like as derisory as has been made out by noble Lords opposite. I am particularly pleased about the amount paid to carers. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who brought the issue of carers before the House. Her work has no doubt resulted in the Government's move.
Although I welcome the increases in pensions, they should not be going only to older people; they should be going also to severely disabled people of working age. Their problems are the same as those of older people.
Lastly, perhaps I may refer to the winter fuel payment, which is not a gimmick as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made it out to be. The winter fuel payment is a n extremely important payment of £150 per year. Pensioners over 60 years of age get it. I believe that severely disabled people are entitled to the same kind of payment because they suffer the cold as much as old people. In the main they are poor and cannot afford to warm their houses. Will the Government consider as a matter of urgency the payment of the winter fuel payment to severely disabled people?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords. I shall take that point back, but I would not like my noble friend to be under any misapprehension about the degree of support that we are offering disabled people in this package today. Of the £200 million new money—not recycled or reannounced money—something like £100 million is going to increase the carers' premium, which the noble Lord welcomed. Of the other £100 million nearly half is going to disabled children. That is the disabled child premium on income support. Half of the rest is a disability income guarantee for the poorest disabled families. So half of that £100 million is already going to disabled children and people of below pensioner age. I believe that their needs too are being properly addressed in this Statement.
Lord Rix: My Lords, as president of Mencap, I was both amazed and delighted that the very first part of the Statement on the annual uprating of benefits was concerned with families who have children with disabilities. It then went on to a subject which is often well below the title—those disabled people who are unable to work and their carers, which unfortunately includes many people with a learning disability. The disability income guarantee is to have a considerable uprating while carers, too, are to share in this long-overdue largesse. No doubt the reason for this decision to spend £200 million more next year on supporting carers and people with disabilities is largely due to the undoubted charm, diligence and expertise of the noble
1702
Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, in persuading her right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security to act with such munificence. But I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness and inquire whether the promise of support for every year up to 2001 is but a harbinger of even better things to come.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has welcomed our measures. Given the position of responsibility he has held and the way he has fought for a particular and sometimes overlooked constituency, I am particularly glad about the way the carer premium and the disabled child premium will interlock. It means that a parent—perhaps a lone parent—who is on basic income support and cares for a child who has severe learning difficulties or possibly cerebral palsy will gain riot only from the increase in the carers premium, which will go up not by £2 but by another £8, which means £10, but also from the increase in the disabled child premium—so that family may enjoy a cash increase of nearly £20 and a real increase of around £17 or £18 next April, which will make a significant difference to their ability to lead better quality lives. I am delighted that the noble Lord felt able to welcome it.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, while there are clearly very welcome aspects of the Minister's Statement, a great many of the benefits really amount to jam tomorrow. Perhaps I may take the Minister back to her example of personal credit. As I understood her, she instanced the person on £77 of pension who has an occupational pension of £20. Then, by some device, that £97 became £100; and not just simply £100, but there was a further payment of £12 in respect of savings. Is that £12 related to the level of occupational pension for which the person has qualified after, presumably, working for it, and to what is the extra £3, which makes the £100, related?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is an extremely technical system. People will need to spend a little time with the documents which have only just become available. Perhaps I may give a simpler example. Let us roll forward to 2003 and assume for these purposes that the basic state pension is £77 and that the minimum income guarantee is £100. Someone has an occupational pension or income from savings of £30. At present, if he had that £30, he would end up with £77 state pension and £30 occupational pension, giving an income of £107. So he would be only £7 better off for his occupational pension than if he was on the minimum income guarantee as he had never saved or contributed towards a pension. That is why, at the moment, the system discourages thrift. In future, if someone has an occupational pension and the full state pension of £77, he will be credited with the MIG level—so he will go from £77 to £100—and then he keeps 60 per cent of his occupational pension. So he will keep 60 per cent of £30, which is, say, £18, up to the figure of £200 for the couple. It means that that person would therefore have £100 plus 60 per cent of £30, which equates to £118, instead of the original £107.

1703
For that extra £30 he will receive a full £18 extra and more than he would have received under the existing scheme. That is why we believe that it is so much more generous to people who have a modest occupational pension; and, as I said, two-thirds of the gainers will be women.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's announcement of an extra £200 million a year for disabled people and carers. That will provide greater security for those disabled people who are unable to work. Does my noble friend agree that in future much greater security needs to be provided for those disabled people who need personal care but who have managed to find work? They feel insecure about the future because they face losing a large proportion of their income to the cost of their care.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, the Government have introduced the disabled person's tax credit. Together with the disablement income guarantee, that will represent a significant increase in the basic floor of income for disabled families. We are talking about a figure of £ 182 a week for the disability income guarantee. In addition to that, people enjoy, rightly, tax free, as a universal benefit, disability allowance. But I suspect that my noble friend is concerned not so much with those groups on people on low incomes who go into work but who have rather lower care needs, but with those who have severe care needs which are currently being met by the Independent Living Fund. Discussions are underway with the Independent Living Fund. My noble friend has made representations on that subject. So I would suggest that she joins us in those discussions. I am sure that she will be able to make her point very fully and very forcefully there.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the noble Baroness did not have time to answer an important question asked by my noble friend Lord Higgins. What will be the increase in the national insurance contribution next year and in subsequent years?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I did not answer it because national insurance has nothing to do with the Department of Social Security.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, like many noble Lords, I very much welcome the pension increases, the increase in the minimum income guarantee and the introduction of the pensioner credit. While for some that will not be enough, for very many people, particularly the poorest pensioners who are women, this will be a very welcome package. What are the Government doing to respond to those pensioners who complain, sometimes with justification, that the bureaucracy involved in obtaining benefits is still too much for them? Perhaps my noble friend will take this opportunity to talk about how the Government are approaching the issue of bureaucracy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. If we are to use a targeted
1704
approach to respond to pensioner poverty, we have to ensure that pensioners who are eligible for help not only know about it but claim it. There is agreement all around the House on that. So far, so good. Around 600,000 people have responded to the campaign for take up. We have processed about 60,000 of those claims and so far half of those have been successful. We will know the full sums only when we have processed all of those claims. As part of our efforts to make more pensioners willing to come forward, we have introduced the new telephone system. People can make claims on the telephone. For the future, once we have carried out what I would call the initial audit of a pensioner's income at the point of retirement, we would hope thereafter to be able to produce a system which is much more user friendly—perhaps much more akin to the tax system—and in which the pensioner will need to notify us only if there is a significant change in his or her income subsequent to retirement; perhaps due to bereavement or inheritance. In that way, with the support, I am sure, of the entire House, we hope to see all pensioners claiming every penny to which they are entitled and which we owe them.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
4.39 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of 2nd November.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of 6th November.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Transport Bill
4.40 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Transport Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 38 [Directions in interests of national security etc.]:
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara moved Amendment No. 1:
Clause 38, page 24, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may give to any person holding shares in a licence holder a direction requiring him to do or not to do a particular thing (which may include transferring a share or shares in that licence holder to such person and on such terms as to compensation and otherwise as the Secretary of State may direct), if the Secretary of State considers it necessary or expedient to give the direction in the interests of national security.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, now that the European Commission has referred the legality of the BAA golden share to the European Court of Justice there must be a real possibility that the rights given to the golden shareholder by the NATS articles of association will be rendered unenforceable. On this side of the House, our interest in the rights attaching to the golden share are not in retaining control of the company, but in protecting national security.
The treaty recognises the right to override the provisions as to establishment and free movement of capital in the interests of public security and it is important that the Bill includes full powers for the Government to do, in the interests of national security, what they could have done by exercise of rights attaching to the golden share. In this way, if the rights attaching to the golden share are struck down, at least there will be a comparable power in the Bill for the Government to act on grounds of national security. That should not be challengeable by the Commission as it relies on one of the permitted exceptions.
The powers contained in subsections (1) and (2) of the clause to give directions to a licence holder or holders cover some of the rights attaching to the golden share, for example, those such as issue of shares and appointment or voting rights of directors. But the major protection afforded by the golden share is the right to restrict an individual holding to 15 per cent and, judging by the Commission's press release, this is also the Commission's main target. That right is not covered by subsections (1) and (2) because, if that provision in the articles is found to be in breach of the treaty, the right to claw back any holding in excess of 15 per cent—the only way a licence holder can force a shareholder to transfer shares—will not be enforceable. A licence holder will therefore be powerless to enforce any direction the Secretary of State makes to a licence holder to claw back shares. The power the Secretary of State needs is to direct the shareholder to transfer the excess—or indeed any—shares. The amendment is designed to give the Secretary of State this power.
It would be dangerous for the Secretary of State to rely on provisions in the partnership agreement. There is nothing in the wording of the relevant treaty provisions to suggest that a partnership agreement is immune from attack by the Commission any more than articles of association. In any event, if there were a subsequent flotation—and the provisions of the articles of association are clearly geared to provide protection in that event—any safeguards in the partnership agreement will fall away.
It would be equally dangerous for the Government simply to sit back and say they will fight off the challenge by the Commission to the comparable provisions in the BAA articles. The duty of the Government is to make proper provision in the Bill to safeguard national security in the event that the European Court rules against the United Kingdom in the BAA case. At present, there is a yawning gap and this amendment is intended to fill it. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I understand the objectives of the noble Lord in moving this amendment. However, we have already made clear that it is the duty of the Government to safeguard national security and the amendment would not override that. It is not simply the golden share which safeguards national security in this structure.
We have taken great care to ensure that national security is protected throughout the PPP proposals. It may be helpful to the House if I set out the different layers of protection for national security which are already in place. Clause 38(2) of the Bill provides that the Secretary of State may, at any time, give such directions to a licence holder as he considers necessary in the interests of national security. Clause 94(1) provides that the Secretary of State may give directions to any listed person in any time of actual or imminent hostilities or of severe international tension or of great national emergency.
Clause 28 provides that the Secretary of State may apply to the court for an air traffic administration order, so that an administrator can take control of the assets of a licence company in various circumstances. Such circumstances include a situation where the company has been or is likely to be in contravention of the Section 8 duty to provide a safe system for the provision of air traffic services, or where the company is, or is likely to be, in breach of an enforcement order. In either case it would be inappropriate for that company to continue to hold its licence.
In the licence, schedule 3 provides for its revocation in various circumstances, including, first, where a licensee fails to notify the Secretary of State of any change, transaction or arrangement of which it becomes aware which would enable a person or group of persons directly or indirectly to control or materially to influence the policy of the licensee, or would enable that person or group of persons to do so to a greater degree; or, secondly, that such a change, acquisition, transaction or arrangement takes place despite the Secretary of State issuing a notice of objection that, in his opinion, it would be against the interests of national security or relations with the government of another country.
The strategic partnership agreement, which is a contractual agreement between the Government and the strategic partner, will require the approval of government directors for the raising of loans and the acquisition or disposal of material assets. It will

1707
require the prior consent of government directors for the appointment of the strategic partner's executive directors and ensure that the strategic partner must offer first refusal to the Government if it proposes to sell any of its shares in NATS.
That range of protections deals with the issue of national security. The special share is therefore only one of a network of controls which ensures a high level of protection for the public interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, pointed out, the articles of association also provide, under the special share, the principal right to veto certain events, including amendments to certain articles and the issue of any shares by NATS. In addition, those articles will prevent any shareholder, other than the Government and the strategic partner, holding more than 15 per cent of voting share capital. In any case, this will only be of relevance following a flotation of NATS. At present, of course, the Government have no intention of permitting such a flotation.
In addition to those powers attaching to the special share is the further range of protections in relation to national security which are provided in the legislation itself, in the licence and in the strategic partnership agreement. The real motivation behind this amendment may be concerns that the ultimate owner of NATS or of the strategic partner or part of the consortium which forms the strategic partner could at some future date turn out to be unsuitable. It is clear that we have a number of powers under the Bill to prevent them taking action or not taking action which would be against the national interest. Those include acquisitions, buying in and raising loans from sources that would be inimical to the national interest.
Although I agree that the protections offered by the golden share are important and will be liable to any challenge in the European Court, I can also assure the noble Lord that there are several other protections for national security. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed reply, particularly for his reference to the fact that the special share, or golden share, is only one of the protection measures and that national security does not rely solely upon that. The noble Lord must admit, at least, that there is a danger that the Commission may adopt the same stance on this golden share as it has on the BAA articles of association. I know that the European Court will take some little while to make a decision on that issue, but I hope that the Government are right to be confident that they can withstand challenge on this matter. We have had many experiences where the Government—of whatever party—have thought that was going to be the case, but in the end it has turned out not to be.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question about the strategic partnership agreement to which he referred. Will that agreement be made public? Will we be able to
1708
see it when it comes into existence? If the noble Lord cannot answer at this stage, perhaps he will write to me on the matter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall be very happy to write to the noble Lord on this point. A straight "yes" or "no" answer is not appropriate in these circumstances. It would be in part, but I shall lay out the answer in a letter, if I may.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful. I would rather the Minister wrote to me than gave me an answer now which might not be quite correct. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 108 [Local transport plans]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 2:
Clause 108, page 67, line 19, at end insert ("in a manner consistent with their environmental responsibilities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4.
When I think back to that rather distant past when I was young man, one of the problems I had when I was growing up was that my father and I almost always found it easy to agree as to ends but had huge difficulty in agreeing as to means. I sometimes feel that that situation fairly aptly delineates the differences between the two Front Benches in this House. Perhaps it is not surprising that now and again we box and box with our ideas. I say that because the Minister will perhaps tweak me for seeking to insert these amendments into the Bill when he knows that, in principle, I am not in favour of laying down too much legislation, particularly in regard to local government.
This is the era—so the Government tell us—of joined-up thinking and joined-up government. While I understand that, and give them credit for trying, it does not appear that that joining-up gets as far as the field of legislation. My first amendment seeks to rectify what I see as that particular deficiency.
Part II of the Bill is about nothing if it is not about environmental improvement. Integrated transport systems are about nothing if they are not about environmental improvement. This part of the Bill makes it a requirement for local transport authorities to produce transport plans with the specific aim of trying to smooth transport flows, reduce environmental pollution, reduce noise, reduce congestion—all the little decisions that local authorities can take to improve matters and to make the environment better for their communities. If they succeed at this micro level they will also succeed at the macro level of atmospheric pollution.
But in this era of joined-up thinking and joined-up government, somehow the words "environmental improvement" are omitted from the face of the Bill. Of course, the Minister will say—and he will be correct in saying it—that other environmental legislation applies to local authorities and they have to take note of it. So they do. But it seems to me—and this is where we have

1709
the debate about means—that if we are dealing with legislation that is aimed at improving the environment, we should say so. The Bill is deficient without it.
My second amendment concerns the need to coordinate transport plans with structural planning or unitary development planning where it is appropriate. The issue here is somewhat different but of equal importance and concerns the question of joining-up systems. Planning legislation is voluminous, complex and separate, but there should be some mention in the Bill of the need to pull the two together.
It is a serious issue. Is transport a constraint on development, or is it simply a technical problem which has to be resolved subsequently? We get no idea from this legislation, which deals with the transport side of the issue, of what is or might be the relationship between the two. My experience is that transport is not considered as a constraint on development but as a problem to be resolved subsequently. I should like to think that the two issues will be rather better coordinated than that. One only has to think of the huge amount of development—however real or ephemeral the figures may be—that it appears the Secretary of State in another place wishes to impose on the southeast of England to realise what are the transport implications. One can begin to see the absolute necessity for thinking very carefully about the transport issues involved in that kind of intensification of the development of the South East.
This is not the appropriate time to go into the validity of those figures but we all, as a society, have to face those issues. We should be looking at the face of the Bill —again simply as a matter of what I would call the unifying psychology of the Bill—to bring the mention of transport planning and the mention of development planning into the same phrase. The Bill would be the better for it.
These are two simple amendments. I do not think that the Minister will disagree with either of them in principle—but, like my father, he disagrees with the means.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I sympathise profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. How can he work the word "environment" into this issue? As he said, it is all implied, and what is implicit in the legislation is very clear. We could mention all kinds of things. I think that the noble Lord has worked incessantly, probably over midnight lamps with his Front Bench, asking, "How can we establish our environmental credentials?". There is no better way than mentioning the word "environment"—but the noble Lord has not used his best endeavours today.
As I was responsible for environmental affairs in Europe, no one can complain that I am not concerned about environmental matters. I am; but I do not see any sense in introducing the word "environmental" in this context. No one will look more carefully than I at the issue of environmental protection where necessary. But to include the reference at this point in the Bill is not necessary; it is implicit in the existing provision.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have never seen the Bill as overriding authorities' responsibilities in regard to the environment, nor, indeed, the requirement for them to put matters with which this part of the Bill is concerned in the context of—and make them subject to—local structure plans.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the present regime ensures that the issues raised by the noble Lord are at the top of the agenda. We recently passed the Local Government Act 2000, which places a duty on local authorities to prepare strategies for promoting and improving the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas. The reason for imposing such a duty was to ensure that such considerations overarch and encompass the plans that each local authority is required to introduce.
Noble Lords may recall that some 40 duties were referred to. Admittedly, we did not have this Bill before us at the time, but it seems to me that in that sense it is no different. I hope that in the year 2000 the creation of local and structure plans is totally integrated with transport. The plans would fail if they did not have complete regard to transport.
It would worry me to insert a reference to the environment in such a way as to suggest that, where there is no reference to the environment, it is not an issue. I hope that we are moving towards the position where our legislation ensures that we have regard to environmental matters at all times.
Clause 108 requires local authorities to develop policies to promote efficient transport facilities and services. I hope that it is the case that the term "efficient" now encompasses "efficient environmentally". The current much discussed examples—and I admit that there are different views—relate to global warming; namely, emissions and the effect on climate (flooding, for example). If transport policy is such that its use of fuels allows emissions to increase, which is what I assume the noble Lord has in mind, that means that it is not efficient because of the other effects on the way in which we operate.
If the Minister can use this opportunity to confirm the definition of "efficient" these days, the noble Lord may have achieved something. Other than that, I do not think that the amendment before the House is necessary.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, despite the familiarity that we have developed during the course of the Bill, it was slightly odd to be cast in the role of the noble Lord's father!
The noble Lord is right to some extent. We all have the same objectives. But there is a difference between what is provided in legislation and how that piece of legislation goes towards forming the bigger picture. We do not duplicate in legislation—legislation is long and complex enough for us not to rewrite in each piece of legislation parts of other legislation.
As was stated by the noble Baroness., Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, to write in the word "environmental" at this point in the

1711
Bill would be an attempt to bring other legislation into it; and, as the noble Baroness said, every local authority is already required to fulfil the statutory obligations placed on it, in, for example, the Local Government Act 2000 or Part IV of the Environment Act 1985. That piece of the legislative jigsaw is provided by provisions in those Acts, and there is no need for duplication.
Clearly, we need to bring all these matters together. The guidance that we shall provide for this Bill, as we do for other Acts, will achieve that. The administrative procedure is such that it tries to pull those things together. Indeed, one could argue that the whole raison d'être of my department is to bring together transport, environment and planning considerations. I am all in favour of consistency, but I am not in favour of the duplication of legislation.
Amendment No. 4 also relates to consistency—in this case between the local transport plan and the relevant development plan. Again, I am seized of the importance of consistency between the two planning regimes. Indeed, it was this Government who recognised the importance of the linkage between land use, planning and the provision of a truly integrated transport system. I take issue with the noble Lord in terms of what is now the regime. Everyone who is familiar with transport knows that previously these matters were followed up after all the planning decisions had been taken. Now, under planning policy guidance—in particular under Clause 112—that is all brought together in the way we expect planning authorities to operate.
Again, the guidance that we provide for those planning operations, and for local transport plans, very much emphasises this point. Simply to insert the word "environmental" at this point in the Bill is not an effective way of doing so. To go further would lead to duplication. Consistency is provided by fitting together the different pieces of legislation and following that through with appropriate guidance. We are clearly of one view as regards the ends; I hope that the noble Lord will take at least some of my points in relation to the means.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. In his way, he made precisely the point that I was making. I do not want to get into trying to discuss what our relationship might be—that would lead to complete confusion, just as it would between myself and the Minister—but it does make the point.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her comments. There is a danger that in reading the Bill one could misinterpret the word "efficiency" and leave out "environmental". The Minister did not answer that specific point.
I am well aware—as I should be after serving a long time in local government—of the statutory duties of local government. I am completely in favour of not rewriting legislation that is already written elsewhere. However, I return to my point: one needs to keep all
1712
the ideas flowing together. That was the reason why I brought those thoughts together in the amendments. Local authorities do this in their management structure, disregarding the guidance that is provided by government. They recognise the need for this.
I am not convinced that we have got the balance of this legislation completely right. However, I hear what the Minister has said. For now—indeed, as we are finishing the Bill, for ever—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 3:
Clause 108, page 67, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) In developing policies in respect of transport facilities and services of the kind mentioned in subsection (2)(a), each local transport authority shall take account of the need to secure that proper arrangements are made—

(a) to enable persons who are disabled to transfer in safety and comfort between different modes of transport; and

(b) to ensure that such persons have safe, comfortable and effective access to stations and other transport interchange facilities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. I shall leave the noble Lord, Lord Addington, to address Amendment No. 26, which has also been included in this group. I moved a similar amendment to Amendment No. 14 in Committee on recommitment but subsequently withdrew it. At that time it was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, who, unfortunately, cannot be here this afternoon. I understand that he is in Australia.
Amendment No. 3 is purely a paving amendment for Amendment No. 14. However, it would clarify Clause 108 as regards people with disabilities. It would ensure that local transport authorities must consider the particular safety and comfort problems caused by disability when developing their policies. It would also ensure proper access for disabled people where there is interchange between different types of transport.
Amendment No. 14 requires that train station operators provide facilities for licensed taxis at their stations. Licensed taxis either already, or soon will, provide spacious wheelchair facilities for all passengers, as well as a regulated fare and a well-trained driver, who must have local knowledge. They are a vital part of the transport network, not just for disabled people but also for many sections of the community, as the Government recognised in their integrated policy.
The amendment is a straightforward measure that has widespread support among the disability community and would ensure consistent and fair treatment for all those who need to use an accessible vehicle as part of their public transport journey. The amendment would prevent train station operators from signing exclusive contracts with minicab operators. As the House may know, although licensed taxis are subject to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, minicabs are not. Already, in areas such as Cambridge and Eastbourne, passengers can get off a train to find that the services

1713
of a licensed taxi are not available within the station, as exclusive contracts have been signed with minicab operators.
In Committee on re-commitment the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, argued that this proposed new clause is unnecessary, as, in the Government's view, the implementation of Sections 21 and 33 of the Disability Discrimination Act will ensure that there are wheelchair-accessible vehicles available at railway stations. My understanding from advice that I have received is that that is not the case. The Government seek to rely on the implementation of the DDA through individual court cases being brought against specific station operators. This would clearly be costly and ineffective; indeed, it could lead to inconsistencies across the country. I have been advised by parliamentary agents to the London Taxi Board that, to quality as an offence under Section 21 of the DDA, it must be shown that it is "impossible or unreasonably difficult" for disabled passengers to make use of a service. The board advises—not surprisingly—that on account of this wording a successful claim under the Act is,
"only likely to occur in the most extreme cases".
Section 33 of the Act states that the Minster has powers to designate transport facilities where a station operator has entered one of these inclusive contracts. But the implementation of that section will not be sufficient. Unless the Minister concerned is aware of all the cases where there are no accessible vehicles available and is able immediately to designate facilities to provide similar services to the local taxi fleet, there will be inconsistencies across the country. The situation would surely be unacceptable. Therefore, this amendment is the only way that an equality of service for the elderly and disabled can be guaranteed.
If the Government are genuinely committed to ensuring that accessible transport is available to those who need it, when they need it, surely the obvious solution is to accept this simple amendment and thereby guarantee a universal provision of wheelchair-accessible vehicles at railway stations throughout the country. The Government's proposed solution to the issue is really no solution at all: it will leave elderly and disabled passengers with no guarantee that there will be a suitable vehicle for them on arrival at train stations. That surely goes against the spirit of the Disability Discrimination Act, which is intended to provide equality for all.
The Government are also aware that there is tremendous support for this measure from all sides in both Houses, and from many disability organisations. The amendment also has cross-party support in this House, as well as the support of members of the All-Party Disablement Group. An Early-Day Motion on the issue was signed by 124 Members of the other place, many of whom, I understand, have written to the Minister urging him to accept this amendment. It is also supported by a number of disability organisations, whose names I shall not mention this evening. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I support the amendment. However, I must confess that I am most puzzled by this whole debate. If ever I saw an open-and-shut case, this is it. Yet the Government seem to be resisting it time and time again. My noble friend Lord Whitty seems to be digging in his heels and insisting on rejecting this amendment. I have read the Hansard reports on the previous debates very carefully. I am sorry that I was unable to be present for them.
As I say, I am most puzzled because I begin from the premise that disabled people today are no longer living in back rooms and afraid to go out. They have raised their expectations and now travel wherever they want to go. Increasing numbers of them travel by train and visit all sorts of places because they are entitled to do so; they want to do so; and, indeed, they are going to do so. So the picture has changed. It is not a matter of a few eccentric disabled people travelling around: many disabled people are travelling by train. There is no point in beginning a journey if you cannot complete it. Goodness knows, enough people have been deterred from travelling by a few floods because they have made the trains late. People have decided not to travel because of the delays—some have said that they could not come to this House—and so on. But here we have the Government expecting disabled people to travel on a train and, on arrival at their destination, find that there is no accessible licensed taxi. I do not understand that kind of thinking. It is beyond me.
There is evidence to show that these station organisations are in fact creating such contracts with firms that cannot carry disabled people. What is the point? What is the reason for it or, indeed, the rationality? My noble friend Lord Whitty says that the Disability Discrimination Act will cover the situation. I fought for years for the DDA. In fact, if I may say so, I brought forward the first Bill in the House of Commons that led to the introduction of that legislation. I had great hopes for it. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, the DDA is not the solution because it is cumbersome and controversial. Moreover, any time that people to go to court under the legislation—it is, by definition, almost controversial—they cannot be sure of winning. So, in the minds of disabled people, that increases anxiety instead of certainty. Why cannot the Government accept the amendment? It would ensure that accessible taxis were available outside railway stations. It is as simple as that.
I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House, so I shall conclude my remarks. There are 8.5 million disabled people in Britain. If my noble friend is not careful, he will find that every time a disabled person takes a train and finds that he cannot get off without encountering difficulty and problems—like carrying suitcases to distant taxis—I am afraid that his name will be taken in vain. He will be held responsible

1715
for all these difficulties because, as has been said, we shall not have another transport Bill for some time. This is the time for my noble friend to think again.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I rise to support both amendments. I think the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was slightly underplaying his amendment, because it is actually a good one, but the substantive amendment does guarantee an important link between the train stations and other forms of transport. It is one link in a chain—I realise it is a cliché—and if you break one of those links, the whole thing fails: end of story.It does not really matter how good the train is if you cannot get from the station to your destination. Certain minicabs may well be able to accommodate certain people, but it cannot be guaranteed.
Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen pointed out, if you are in a wheelchair you may just about be able to get into certain types of cab. The same argument applies if you happen to have a bad leg or have a pram with you, but let us leave that aside for the moment. You may just about be able to get into a certain type of cab if you are prepared to go through the indignity of being bundled into the back and having the wheelchair pushed around, and so on. As to trying to go to court over it, I suggest that that might be something of a nightmare. Do we have to feed the lawyers any more?
Let us consider the position of the licensed taxi operators. They have acquired expensive vehicles, which are accessible. They are required to make sure that you can actually get into the cab. That is part of the deal imposed on them. In many parts of the country they originally operated from saloon cars. A little fairness here is justifiable, I think.
My Amendment No. 26 comes towards the end of the group and suggests that the operators of licensed taxis should have sufficient training to enable them to help people in and out of their special vehicles. It was inspired by conversations with several taxi drivers who simply did not know what to do or how to give appropriate help. When a new taxi is acquired, I suggest that a few hours' training, as a condition of the licence to operate, would enable a driver to give appropriate help. I suggest that this amendment is a very useful add-on to the main amendment, Amendment No. 14; but it is consequential.
Amendment No. 14 would guarantee that such a link between stations would apply to everybody and not just to a few. I would suggest that arguments to the contrary are undoubtedly inspired by a degree of commercial greed, or potential greed. I commend the amendments to the House.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I have the most enormous sympathy with what lies behind these amendments. What has been said by the three previous speakers is exemplary and I commend their sentiments wholeheartedly. I am a great fan of the black cab in London—those driven by members of the London Taxi Board—and I agree very much with the first sentence of the briefing paper which the taxi board has
1716
produced for this debate. It says that the licensed taxi is a vital part of any successful integrated transport policy. It provides a unique link between other forms of public transport, fulfilling demands that cannot be met by the bus, train or tube, especially late at night.
However, I am very unconvinced that Amendment No. 14 achieves what noble Lords seek. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to the Early-Day Motion in another place, which repeated the assertion that licensed taxis had been excluded from forecourts at some stations, such as Cambridge and Eastbourne. Those are rather curious examples. Towards the end of the time that I was working for the British Railways Board I remember a very bitter dispute between the board and the Cambridge licensed taxi owners' association over the level of charges levied for the right to ply on the station forecourt. In 1995 that resulted in taxis moving to a local authority rank 50 yards from the station entrance. That meant they were obviously providing a much worse service than previously.
The situation now is that there is an agreement between the train operating company which manages Cambridge station, the West Anglia Great Northern Company, and the same licensed taxi owners' association, which allows all licensed taxi drivers who are members of the association back on to the forecourt. That agreement specifies that 30 per cent of the taxis have to be accessible to disabled people. I am told by the train operating company that it would have preferred all taxis serving the station to be accessible, but at the moment in Cambridge there just are not enough licensed vehicles to be able to provide such a service.
In addition to specifying a minimum proportion of accessible taxis, the agreement also allows the train operating company to impose other standards, such as controls on fares for longer journeys out of the city centre and the requirement that taxis are there to meet trains during quieter parts of the day and not just at peak times. This last requirement is extremely important and is very much in line with what my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke was saying. By entering into contractual arrangements of this sort, the train operators can attempt to match the provision of taxis to the full train services which they run.
A reference has been made to Eastbourne, where another curious choice has been made, if I may say so. There the train operating company has an agreement with Sussex Taxis Ltd, which issues individual permits in respect of taxis. It provides that the association must provide at least 50 per cent of the permits to taxi drivers other than those who are members of the association, and that any hackney carriage which applies must be issued with a permit. Again, there are minimum standards for the levels of service provided.
I am afraid that if Amendment No. 14 were to be accepted, it would, first, create a statutory regime which would be inconsistent with the Disability Discrimination Act. It would also limit and severely curtail the ability of train companies to control the supply of taxis at stations and to provide or maintain levels of service and reassurances which are already in

1717
place around the country. As a result of that, we could paradoxically find ourselves giving the general travelling public a poorer deal, and indeed make the situation worse for disabled people. For this reason, although I sympathise so much with what lies behind the amendment I cannot support it this evening.
Baroness David: My Lords, can I just say that the taxis are back on the forecourt at Cambridge?
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I support warmly Amendments Nos. 3 and 14, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, so clearly and comprehensively. As we now all know, these provisions would ensure that accessible taxis are available at stations for elderly and disabled passengers. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, says, but the agreements he talks about are all individual, are they not? It is not an overall policy. I feel that it is necessary to ensure that accessible taxis can use station forecourts. This amendment is necessary to avoid a break in what would otherwise be a seamless door-to-door journey. As I understand it, this amendment would not stop any other arrangements being made with other cabs as well.
My noble friend Lady Masham supports wholeheartedly these amendments. I am glad to say that she was transferred yesterday to Stoke Mandeville Hospital, where I hope she will make a good recovery following her accident which, as your Lordships probably know, was precipitated by canine interaction rather than by a road traffic accident.
The fully accessible black cab—I am delighted that the whole London fleet is now accessible—has made a huge difference to the lives of many people with disabilities, particularly those with arthritis and those who are wheelchair users. Many, including myself, simply cannot manage to get into a minicab unaided. It may be possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and others have said, that, given an easy car, various bits of equipment and given a strong, good-tempered driver, you may be able to transfer with help; but you cannot guarantee that such a person and car will turn up.
I do not like talking personally, and I try very hard never to overstate the case, but it does need to be said that we are not just talking about comfort and convenience: we are talking about health and safety. If a paraplegic, for instance, gets a bruise or a scrape from a bad transfer when getting into or out of a car, it may take a long time to heal and it can turn into a pressure sore. That will cause problems for many months.
I turn now to Amendment No. 26. A clear case has been made for the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I was rather dumb not to add my name to it as it concerns a matter close to my heart. I find that many taxi drivers do not know how to use the small y-shaped strap which anchors a wheelchair to the floor. Usually they claim that they have not seen it or do not have it. I try to persuade them to find it. Someone told me that a taxi driver had at first claimed that he did not have such a strap. He then found it and was shown
1718
how to use it. He said, "That is fine. Now that I understand how to use it I shall use it with other people". It is simply ignorance and, therefore, fear that prevents people using these straps.
If accessible taxis cannot enter stations that will scupper the idea of the seamless journey. I do not think that Theseus would ever have got out of the labyrinth if his ball of string had a break in it. "Seamless" means just that—without a break. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is a listening Minister, and has shown that on other disability issues. I very much hope that he will be able to accept the amendments. If not, and if the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, decides to test the opinion of the House, I urge noble Lords to support him.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I add my voice to the "heavyweights" in your Lordships' House who have tabled these amendments. The quality of life of many disabled people is, as we all know, dependent on their ability to travel independently. If disabled people are able to access employment, education, leisure and other everyday activities, it is essential that they must have the means to reach them. They must have access to transport services and the choice of services to meet their individual travel needs. The need for accessible services, especially taxi services in rural areas, is particularly acute. Provisions on accessible vehicles should be reinforced and enshrined in this Transport Bill. I therefore support the three amendments and trust that the Government will see fit to accept them.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the concept behind the amendment of the noble Lord. Lord Swinfen. He is trying to achieve seamless journeys. I do not know whether he will achieve that: we shall have to explore the matter. The integrated transport White Paper, A New Deal for Transport, published two years ago, states at paragraph 3.93 on page 56:
"We are bringing into effect the requirements for new rolling stock on the railway from the end of this year".
I am sure that many noble Lords will have seen the new rolling stock. I believe that it offers many good facilities for disabled people. I hope that soon the insulting practice of making people in wheelchairs travel in the guard's van on some of the old trains will come to an end. That is an insulting practice and it is also jolly uncomfortable and cold for the people concerned. However, the seamless journey continues beyond the railway. Paragraph 3.93 further states:
"For buses and taxis the implementation dates are being set following consultation. We have consulted on an implementation date of 1 January 2002 for taxis and a range of dates according to different bus and coach types".
That paragraph appears to indicate that the consultation went well and that implementation dates have been set. I shall be interested to hear whether the implementation dates are still valid. If something goes wrong, will disabled people have to go to court to

1719
secure what I consider are their rights in this regard, or is there some other means of securing them? I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's response.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken, I sympathise greatly with the sentiment behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I hope that the Minister can reply to a few questions on this issue. First, what are the advantages—the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has to some extent already mentioned this—and disadvantages to the travelling public of the contracts which have been drawn up between train operating companies and local taxi operators? No doubt all of us, whether disabled or not, have arrived at a station only to find that there are no taxis available. The travelling public, whether disabled or not, need to be certain that taxis will be available at stations. My understanding is that the contracts I have mentioned impose requirements upon the taxi operators concerned to make taxis available at all times of day, not just at peak periods. I hope that the Minister will comment on that matter and say whether those arrangements have helped both disabled and non-disabled passengers.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, also mentioned the situation at Eastbourne and Cambridge. I have received briefing from the Association of Train Operating Companies. The briefing informs me—as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said—that licensed taxis (that is, those which are wheelchair accessible) are certainly not prohibited from entering station forecourts and must be issued with a permit if they apply for one.
Further, I understand that the rail regulator is in the process of providing a code of practice on train and station services for disabled passengers. Will that code of practice—which must be obeyed by the train operating companies as a licence condition—be expanded to cover facilities for accessible taxis? That would be a totally secure means of solving the problem as the issue of the licence is dependent on abiding by the code of practice.
The amendment would guarantee the provision of accessible vehicles at stations. Reference has been made to the powers of the Disability Discrimination Act. Does Section 33—I understand that that is the relevant section—apply to railway stations? If that is the case, surely it would meet the problem. I am sure that we all have great sympathy with the case that has been made. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to my questions and to other points that have been made.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in the debate and I shall be brief. I too have been lobbied, quite properly, by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC). I have co-operated with that body on a number of occasions in terms of putting across its point of view here. But it seems to me that the proposition here is a simple one; namely, that it should not be possible for
1720
a station manager or owner to issue an exclusive contract to groups of ordinary cars, or to groups of companies providing them. Outside London there are hackney carriages which comprise ordinary cars, as well as the black top variety. Only if black top cabs are able to enter a station forecourt are people with disabilities likely to be able to get a taxi which suits their needs. That is what this matter is all about. If the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is satisfied with the Minister's response, that is one thing. However, if he is not, we shall be tempted to support him.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I add my support to these three amendments which would enable disabled people to rest secure in the knowledge that they could complete their journeys rather than be abandoned at a station late at night at which point it is impossible to go further. I urge the Government to accept the amendments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is probably sensible if I concentrate most of my remarks on Amendment No. 14. There has today been a wide range of representations in favour of the amendment from inside and outside the Chamber. I recognise the strong feelings. I do not believe that any noble Lord is against the objectives of the clause: effectively to provide guaranteed accessible transport at stations for people with mobility problems. However, there is also a significant degree of misunderstanding and, in some cases, misinformation in relation to how the contracts against which the amendment is directed would work.
I need, therefore, to address some central points. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked me to indicate the advantages and disadvantages of allowing such exclusive contracts. I bow to no one in my respect for the taxi trade and the efforts which the taxi trade in London and elsewhere have made in converting their vehicles into accessible vehicles. There is a clear trade interest here, as well as the interests of the disabled. They do not always entirely overlap although they have much in common. But in relation to the exclusive contracts, there can be significant benefit, whether that is for the licensed taxi operation or a minicab operation. Although there are not many of these exclusive contracts around the country at present, banning them would deny the public as a whole, including disabled people, possible improvements in service.
First, a contact can ensure that taxis or minicabs would be available at all times of day—not just the peak hours which suit most drivers. At the busiest times there will always be a decent supply of taxis. However, as we all know, off-peak that is not the case. Yet passengers, in particular disabled passengers, need to be guaranteed that there is a vehicle present. These exclusive contracts are one way—it is probably the most effective way—to ensure that every time a train turns up at the station there will be a vehicle available for that passenger.
Lord Addington: My Lords, that is interesting, but what happens if one cannot use the taxi available?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall come to that point, if I may.
The first point is that an exclusive contract can, for the general public, provide a service which is not guaranteed in other circumstances. A contract enables the train operator to impose the condition of a proper supply of vehicles throughout the day at all times when trains arrive at the station.
An exclusive contract can also affect the question of fares. As noble Lords will know, fares are controlled by the local authority; but in many stations— Cambridge, for example—one may well be going outside the area controlled by the immediate local authority to one of the villages in Cambridgeshire. As an aspect of that contract, an operator can require control of fares which go beyond local boundaries which otherwise are not controlled. Noble Lords will be familiar with this: at times there is exploitation of that situation.
A contract can also be helpful to passengers in setting clear standards for vehicles on presentation and accessibility. That is where an exclusive contract could benefit disabled people in particular. A contract can be used to require the provision of accessible vehicles— taxis or minicabs—to serve railway stations. For example, a train operator could require that a specified proportion of vehicles should be accessible.
Several noble Lords referred to the situation at Cambridge. I understand that the train operator's contract requires that a minimum of 30 per cent of the total number of vehicles must be wheelchair accessible. It is also my understanding that that 30 per cent is a higher proportion of accessible cabs than operates in the fleet of licensed taxicabs overall in Cambridge. A survey by my department of local licensing authorities as at the end of December showed that of 147 licensed taxicabs in Cambridge only 30 were accessible to people with disability—that is a lower proportion than that required through exclusive contracts. That situation may well have improved since December. Nevertheless, that was the situation then. Therefore disabled travellers can benefit and can continue to benefit because the number of accessible vehicles can be increased over time until the figure approaches 100 per cent.
Noble Lords need to ask themselves what would happen if the amendment were passed. In the immediate situation, nothing would happen. If the amendment became law today there would be no change. That is because the amendment defines an accessible taxi as one,
"which conforms to or is exempt from taxi accessibility regulations made under section 32 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995".
That is a perfectly sensible definition. However, many noble Lords will be aware that, so far, regulations under the DDA have not been made. The amendment would not come into effect until those regulations are made and that will not be until after we have consulted on proposals for the regulations. That will take place during next year. Until those regulations come into
1722
force with proper arrangements for transition, taxi accessibility requirements (or the lack of them) are entirely the decision of local taxi licensing authorities. The position inevitably varies from place to place.
If the amendment were passed, the number of accessible taxis will not increase. That number is a matter for local authority requirements now. When the regulations for the DDA come into force, it will be a matter for those regulations. Until that point— perhaps somewhat paradoxically given the views of the supporters of the amendment—the only exception where it could be enforced now is where there is an exclusive contract of the kind the amendment seeks to avoid setting down specific requirements for accessible vehicles made by train operators under contract. Those train and station operators can impose requirements going beyond those of the local authorities.
Nevertheless, noble Lords may say that when the DDA regulations and the amendment come into effect they will guarantee accessible vehicles at railway stations. If we do not do that, is there a similar assurance? This is a more complex issue than may have been made out in the debate. There may be a contract with a taxi company. In that case, the vehicles would of necessity conform with the DDA regulations irrespective of the amendment. As an alternative, if the train company makes an agreement with the operator of minicabs because that seems to give the best service, the question of accessible vehicles becomes very relevant. I take the point that the DDA does not apply to minicabs. However, the DDA comes in in a different respect, under this amendment and amendments made during the passage of the DDA in this House.
Section 33 of the DDA expressly provides that the Secretary of State can designate transport facilities where the operator has made a contract with a private hire vehicle operator; and the Secretary of State can make regulations applying any taxi accessibility requirements to the private hire vehicles used under the contract. So an answer is already provided after the DDA comes into effect. Where a train operator judges that it is in the best interests of the passengers to let a contract to a minicab operator, the interests of disabled passengers would need to be taken into account. Under Section 33 the Secretary of State would be able to ensure that that is what happens. He could designate the station and impose taxi accessibility requirements on those vehicles. In that way the benefit of the contract would be achieved and accessibility could be ensured.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, will the Minister clarify one point? Are we talking about taxis that someone can use in their wheelchair in all cases, or about taxis that are adapted so that the seats swivel out, allowing people to transfer into them from their wheelchair?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Secretary of State will be able to impose the DDA taxi requirements on minicabs operating under such contracts. He can

1723
designate that any cabs operating under an exclusive contract from a station operator have to meet the same accessibility requirements as licensed taxis.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, does that mean that people have to be able to enter the taxi in their wheelchair?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords.
Some may wonder whether the Secretary of State would designate every station that entered into such an exclusive contract. That is a fair question. I cannot bind every future Secretary of State, because every case needs to be examined on its merits, but I am sure that the various legislative requirements on the Secretary of State to take into account the interests of disabled people would result in Section 33 being used when accessibility was not provided under any contract that excluded other operators providing accessibility. The section imposes a legal requirement on taxis, so the Secretary of State has only limited room for manoeuvre on the requirements that he can frame under the regulations. Noble Lords can be reassured that the Secretary of State will operate in that direction.
The Government fully understand the concerns behind the amendment, but we feel that the combination of measures already provided in the Bill and the DDA meet the interests of disabled people and that in almost all circumstances they should enhance the availability of accessible vehicles. The ability to reach an exclusive contract means that the presence of an appropriate proportion of accessible vehicles can be ensured. The station authority cannot ensure that if taxis are generally plying for hire.
Access to public transport for the disabled is a key part of the philosophy of the Bill and the Disability Discrimination Act. We believe that we have come up with a combination of measures that will ensure the availability of such vehicles.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend assure us that, after the enactment of the Bill, he or another Minister in his department will see the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and anyone else who put their name to the amendment to ensure that the regulations address their concerns, as he has said that they will?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am willing to talk to anyone who is concerned about the issue. We have to take a decision on the amendment today. Passing it might make the situation worse for disabled passengers and travellers and for the general public. We have consulted our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. It shares our view that the amendment would not achieve what we all want. Your Lordships should take DPTAC's view seriously. It is keen for accessible taxis to be available at stations. We have agreed to explore with the shadow Strategic Rail Authority the scope for ensuring that train operating companies include a requirement on the proportion of accessible vehicles in
1724
any contract. That would be an interim measure in advance of the introduction of the DDA taxi regulations, which will address the issues more fully, and the other provisions that would enable the Secretary of State to require the application of such requirements in exclusive contracts with minicab companies.
The amendment has further defects. It would impose a different duty from that proposed by the DDA. There is also an assumption that the regulator will be responsible for disability issues, whereas that responsibility rests with the Strategic Rail Authority.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Minister consider whether the objectives, instructions and guidance that are issued to the franchising director might be amended to make the nature of the exclusive agreements clear and to ensure that they fully reflect the points made in tonight's debate?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we shall discuss that option with the SRA. That is one means of exerting SRA and regulator leverage on the issue. I shall certainly take that option seriously in those discussions. There may also be other options, but we shall look at that one seriously.
I have probably said enough about Amendment No. 14 for it to be clear that we share the motives of those who support it, but we do not believe that its full implications have been understood. I accept that the existing provisions are somewhat complex, but the amendment does not take them fully into account.
I have some sympathy with the objectives of Amendment No. 26 on training, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. My department and DPTAC have issued advice to the licensing authorities and the trade on the issue. To answer my noble friend Lord Berkeley, the consultation on the regulations under the DDA will take some time, but we shall engage on it soon. When we introduce them, we shall also issue guidance on meeting the new duties. That will include references to training, subject to consultation with the trade. Training is obviously an ongoing process. We hope that all those who operate in the area have a commitment to training to meet the requirements of the DDA and other interests of the disabled traveller. I hope that that process meets with the noble Lord's approval and that he will not pursue the amendment in its present form.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to Amendment No. 3 as a paving amendment. I believe that, on its own, the amendment would have some attraction for us. Nevertheless, without the linkage to Amendment No. 14, it contains problems.
I make two points. First, the wording in the Bill is deliberately wide-ranging—over-arching is a word that I have often used—when it applies to our responsibilities to disabled travellers. The wording applies to all transport policy. Therefore, it would apply to transfer between modes, access to stations, as is covered here, and transport interchange facilities.

1725
Indeed, the matters which are the subject of this amendment are already referred to elsewhere in the Bill.
Of course, the noble Lord may argue that a few extra words in relation to interchanges would do no harm. However, this wide-ranging approach is quite deliberate. The problem with making specific references to particular points is that it is implied that if a matter is not mentioned at various points within the Bill, it is riot relevant. We hope to avoid such an implication. We believe that the broader, over-arching provisions within the Bill in relation to the obligations to disabled passengers should be the vehicle by which we meet the obligations that the noble Lord's amendment seeks to address. Therefore, there could be a downside to accepting Amendment No. 3 as it stands.
As the noble Lord linked the amendment as a package deal with Amendment No. 14, my slight temptation to accept the amendment is probably not appropriate. I should have to oppose that amendment as well. However, the main amendment in this group is clearly Amendment No. 14. I hope that noble Lords will accept both the Government's good will in this matter and the rather complex arguments that I have perforce been required to make in order to explain why I do not believe it appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue these amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group of amendments. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said about Cambridge and Eastbourne. I am delighted that the situation there appears to have been resolved. However, that does not stop such a situation occurring at other stations in the future.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that banning exclusive contracts could mean that there would not necessarily be a certain supply of vehicles at stations to collect passengers. However, there is not a certain supply of vehicles to collect passengers at the moment. Last night my wife arrived at Canterbury East station and waited for half an hour. Still no taxi came, and no mini cab would have come either because it happened to be a busy time of the evening. Nothing in life is that certain.
The noble Lord also said that the exclusive contract, particularly in relation to cab firms, would mean that fares could be controlled. Fares for taxis are already controlled by the licensing authorities. So far as I am aware, that includes out-of-area fares. However, controlling fares is not always so easy with regard to minicab firms.
I know that at present not all taxis are accessible. However, more are becoming available as vehicles are replaced by those which are accessiblle. That is the not the case with regard to minicabs or ordinary hire vehicles, There is no way that the Minister can guarantee that in future minicabs will be accessible; nor can he guarantee what will appear in exclusive contracts, either for taxis or minicab firms.
1726
I am always very happy, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, suggested, to meet with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I enjoy his company and at times he talks a lot of sense. However, I am afraid that I still disagree with him about this group of amendments. He said that they contained technical difficulties. If this amendment is accepted, it will go to the other place where they will have an opportunity to correct any technical difficulties. I am sorry but I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 92.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Alderdice, L.

Maddock, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L. [Teller]

Newby, L.

Barker, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Blackwell, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Bradshaw, L.

Palmer, L.

Caithness, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Parkinson, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Patten, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Redesdale, L.

Craigavon, V.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Rennard, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Renton, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rix, L.

Elton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Erroll, E.

Roper, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Sandberg, L.

Ferrers E.

Sandwich, E.

Flather, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Freeman, L.

Sharman, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Greaves, L.

Strange, B.

Hamwee, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taverne, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Tenby, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jacobs, L.

Tordoff, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Listowel, E.

Walmsley, B.

Liverpool, E.

Weatherill, L.

Lyell, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Bragg, L.

Alli, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Amos, B.

Brookman, L.

Andrews, B.

Burlison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Bach, L.

Chandos, V.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Berkeley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Billingham, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Blackstone, B.

Crawley, B.

Borrie, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

1727

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Mitchell, L.

Filkin, L.

Molloy, L.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Paul, L.

Gilbert, L.

Peston, L.

Goudie, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grabiner, L.

Puttnam, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Harrison, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hayman, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hoyle, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thornton, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Turnberg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Turner of Camden, B.

Warner, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whitaker, B.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Whitty, L.

Layard, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.15 p.m.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 110 [Bus strategies]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 5:
Clause 110, page 68, leave out lines 34 to 41 and insert ("develop bus services in their area on behalf of their communities having regard to the economic and social well-being of their area").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have tabled Amendment No. 5 because I find the wording of Clause 110 at best unfortunate and at worst potentially damaging and misleading. Clause 110(1) states:
"Each local transport authority must prepare a document to be known as the bus strategy … in order to secure that —

(a) bus services meet such of the transport requirements of persons within the authority's area as the authority consider should be met by such services,

(b) bus services meeting such requirements are provided to the standards to which the authority consider that they should be provided".

The Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not have difficulties with paragraph (c).
The first two paragraphs would be appropriate if the whole bus service were to be run under a quality contract system; but that is not what the Government envisage. They envisage that, wherever possible, bus services will run commercially. Where they do not run commercially, the next line of defence to ensure that bus services run where they are provided would be that
1728
there would be quality partnerships. Only as a last resort does one go into the business of quality contracts.
If one is dealing with a commercial service—a local authority's transport plan must take into account and provide commercial services, and the same would apply as regards quality partnerships—surely the operator of those services must have a very strong say in relation to the service that he is going to provide and what its frequency and quality will be. Equally, passengers—customers, curiously enough—should have a very strong influence over which bus services are provided or required in their locality.
Therefore, my own problems with Clause 110 are plain because Clause 110 makes the authority the arbiter of those matters in all circumstances. That clearly should not be the case. So I find myself in some difficulty.
I accept entirely that when one gets into subsidising bus services, the authority comes into the business and at that point—and certainly in relation to quality partnerships—the business of the authority is to decide the level of the subsidy. It should be left to the person running the service, perhaps in the light of that subsidy, to decide exactly what the quality and frequency will be of the service which he is going to provide and the price at which he will provide it. He will be taking a commercial decision in the light of what he thinks he can generate by way of income in addition to the subsidy that he has already received.
My feeling is that the wording of the clause as drafted is, at best, unfortunate. The purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to remove paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) from the face of the Bill and replace them with,
"develop bus services in their area on behalf of their communities having regard to the economic and social well-being of their area".
That means that the authorities have to look out instead of in; they have to look to their communities and at what they require. That is a far more positive definition of "purpose" than the present wording of the Bill provides.
The Minister will of course say that my intention is also that of the Government. I do not doubt that that is the case, but anybody sitting quietly and reading the Bill would be forgiven for thinking otherwise. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am slightly surprised at this amendment. First, Clause 110 does not bear the slightly sinister implications suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. It does not define or redefine the local authorities' bus powers in relation to the operators; nor does it introduce additional powers.
The provision deals with the bus strategy dimension of the local transport plans. It is surely the local authorities which should decide what should and should not be contained in that strategy. Of course, they are required to consult and take into account the views of the customers, operators, businesses and others who are concerned with the provision of transport. But at the end of the day it is what the local

1729
authority considers right that is important. Therefore I do not see it being logical to delete that requirement in the way that Amendment No. 5 seeks to do.
Moreover, the amendment sweeps away the useful provisions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), which are rather more specific requirements on the local authority in its bus strategy than the broad-ranging,
"social and economic well-being of their area".
As with an earlier amendment, other government legislation requires that to be taken account of in any case. So Amendment No. 5 will neither improve the Bill nor be a logical expression of what we want local authorities to do. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. It illustrates a difference of approach rather than a difference of intention and purpose. That does not surprise me, but I find it disappointing, and I find the wording of the Bill unsatisfactory. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 139 [Information about bus services]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 6:
Clause 139. page 86. line 13, after ("area,") insert—
("( ) infcrmation about fares for journeys on such local services,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we agreed on Report to make it absolutely clear that a determination under Clause 139 in relation to bus information to be made available to the public should include information about bus fares. That was always our intention. Amendment No. 6 puts it beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 144 [Civil penalties for bus lane contraventions]:
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 7:
Clause 144, page 87, line 43, leave out ("bus lane").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a similar amendment to Amendment No. 7 was moved on Report. At that stage we drew attention to the need to help the bus industry, which is facing a serious revenue crisis. That was underlined in the bus industry over the past year when we saw turnover rising slowly and costs no longer falling.
The bus industry is struggling. Wages and fuel costs are rising and it received little help in the Pre-Budget Report—in fact, none that I can see. There was mention of £13 million being added to the rural bus service grant. But such issues as possibly reducing the amount and scope of fuel duty rebate were not addressed. The object of bringing forward this amendment again is to underline to Ministers the plight: of the industry. It is often referred to, as it was
1730
in the Chancellor's Statement yesterday, as being important. But, interestingly, bus fares have increased enormously compared with the cost of motoring.
The Government listened carefully to motorists. They listened to the hauliers who used, in my view, undemocratic means to bring their plight to the notice of the country. Bus operators are too busy trying to run their services in accordance with the regulations to take part in blockades and otherwise inconvenience the public. But I wish to underline that, unless something is done to give buses better, unobstructed access to the public highway, within the next couple of years the Government will face a situation where many bus services which are now run commercially will require subsidy, and many will have to be curtailed. I am sure that that is not an end the Government seek.
Therefore, I ask the Minister again to consider how that priority might be enhanced. This series of amendments was tabled in consultation with local government. It was the one thing they wanted, second only to camera enforcement of bus lanes, to ensure that buses can move on the streets of our cities. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the principle behind these amendments, as I did on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has a point about the pre-Budget announcement yesterday. I was overwhelmed by the paragraph on introducing a green transport package where the first measure was a proposal to remove VAT from the purchase of cycle helmets. I am a cyclist and usually wear a helmet, and that provision will no doubt help me. But I am not sure that it is in quite the same league as sorting out the problems of yellow box junctions and buses. I cycle round London a lot and am really irritated by cars which stop in yellow box junctions. It is dangerous for cyclists and everyone else. But, more importantly, it stops the buses running.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned the plight of the bus industry—he is right to do so—but there is also the plight of the customers to be considered. The customers are not using the buses and therefore the industry cannot deliver the central plank of the Government's transport policy; that is, to get more people out of their cars and on to buses. I urge my noble friend, therefore, to see whether he can find a way of getting the same enforcement measures for yellow box junctions as for bus lanes. I am convinced that if people were fined £30 or £60 if they stopped in a yellow box junction and stopped the bus going through, they would not do it again. So I support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I accept that the future prosperity of the bus industry, as well as the contribution that it makes to transport, particularly in our urban areas, depends on buses having unimpeded access through bus lanes and through the streets. We therefore provided an extension of local authorities' powers to allow them to enforce non-endorsable

1731
moving traffic offences. That included the issue of local authorities enforcing the yellow box junctions about which an amendment was tabled on Report.
But we are talking here about camera enforcement in an area which has not previously been subject to camera enforcement.
We believe that local authority enforcement represents a significant step change in the enforcement of road regulations law by bodies other than the police and that such an enforcement of bus lanes will make a significant difference. However, at this point we would not wish to take the further step of extending that to the more complex question of camera enforcement at yellow box junctions.
We know of only one limited experiment in which cameras were used by the Metropolitan Police to enforce yellow box junctions at Euston Road. We do not believe that that provides a basis for moving local authority camera enforcement into areas proposed by the noble Lord. In any event, as I pointed out at the Report stage, the amendments are defective. Amendment No. 9 defines a box junction by reference to a traffic order but the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 1994 revoke the earlier requirement for box junction markings to be backed by an order. The amendment also attempts to define box junctions in primary legislation. Noble Lords have tried to do so by reference to the use of road markings described in specific diagrams in secondary legislation which is due to be superseded by a revised statutory instrument next year.
Primary legislation needs to be a little more flexible than that. We have all kinds of problems with previous road traffic legislation which has proved to be inflexible to the changing nature of roads. Therefore, it is not sensible to include these specific provisions in primary legislation.
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. Perhaps at some point we will go down that road, but we do not have the experience that would enable us to do so immediately, nor is there the definition in the amendment. Allowing enforcement of bus lanes as proposed in the Bill is already a big step forward. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I hope that there will be an early opportunity to revisit the issue, perhaps when road traffic law is again reviewed. I realise that the subject is highly technical but, in withdrawing the amendment, I emphasise that it is an extremely urgent matter if we are to have reasonably priced, attractive public transport in towns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 145 [Mandatory concessions outside Greater London]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 11:
Clause 145, page 90, line 10, after ("person") insert ("or young person under the age of 19 years and undergoing full-time education and training").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 145 will add to those receiving concessionary fares young people between the ages of 16 and 19 who are in full-time education. We tabled the amendment in Committee and would have debated it again at Report. However, the groupings rendered it technically unavailable for discussion.
The benefits are obvious. Pupils who find the bus fares a problem would pay a lower fare, thereby encouraging them to stay on at school. Young people without their own cars would be better able to interact socially with their peers because of the lower cost of travelling by bus. There would also be a beneficial effect on transport policy. It is most important to encourage younger people to travel by public transport. An excellent example of that is the young person's rail pass, which encourages young people to travel by rail. Indeed, it is no drain on the resources of the rail companies and the overall effect of the card is beneficial to turnover, profits and so forth. Encouraging people of that age group to travel by public transport rather than by car will contribute to lowering congestion and perhaps accidents because they are particularly susceptible to them. The amendment may have the additional benefit of encouraging more people to use the bus services established by the Government's rural bus grant and other subsidised bus services maintained by local government.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, suggested that the cost of the extension would be prohibitive. Since then, we have worked to estimate the costs. Without going into a detailed consideration of the final figure, it suffices to say that a major bus company commissioned research on subsidising travel for people in this age group. The conclusions showed that if government policy were to extend half-fare bus passes to everyone in the age group the total subsidy in England and Wales would be £50 million. While that sounds a large sum, it is probably reasonable because in Derbyshire, a large county which runs such a subsidy, the cost is about £1 million. That shows that the two figures are in the same ball park. We believe that it would be a rational investment in achieving an important result.
In Committee, the Minister drew our attention to what is now Clause 147 under which the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales has powers to amend the details of the concessionary fares scheme. Will the Minister say when the Government might reconsider the proposal? In answer to an amendment tabled by us at Report, he told us that it was his intention regularly to assess the cost and effectiveness of the concessionary fares scheme. We believe that a

1733
good time to reconsider the people who might benefit from an extension of the scheme would be after an assessment. We should be interested to know whether the Government have in mind a structured reconsideration of who might have the benefit of the concession and, in particular, if and when they will consider its extension to the age group we have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, this is an extremely good idea. The noble Baroness mentioned £50 million as being the total cost of extending the scheme to everyone in the age group in England and Wales. However, as her amendment is confined to those in full-time education acceptance of it would cost a great deal less.
As the scheme is run across the age group on the trains, it is logical to extend it to buses. Although in many towns bus fares are reasonably cheap, they can be much higher when travelling out to the countryside—probably because the journeys are longer. However, young people who have just bought a car, or who are thinking of doing so, will find that a reasonably priced gallon of petrol and a bus fare compare badly. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend says about the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand why both the noble Baroness and my noble friend argue the matter in this way, but there are significant costs involved. Our estimate is that for the whole age group the cost would be somewhat higher than £50 million, although I accept that if it is confined to young people in full-time education the figure might be different. Nevertheless, it is a large sum. That figure would double our commitment in relation to pensioners and the disabled where we have already provided a guaranteed entitlement. In this House we have added the entitlement to people with disabilities. They are important steps, and inevitably there is an element of priority here.
The noble Baroness asked when I would review the situation and persuade the Chancellor to give me another £50 million. I cannot give a straight answer tonight, but clearly these matters will be kept under review. However, as the noble Baroness rightly says, under Clause 147 the Secretary of State has power to extend eligibility to such groups by statutory instrument. That is provided deliberately in order to be able to add particular groups, such as this one, when it is appropriate and additional finance is available. We believe that our immediate priorities are correct.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I should like to go back to the review to which we referred. Will consideration of the eligibility of other groups extend also to what might be termed operational issues, for example, whether it is practical to operate the scheme on the basis of district council boundaries? As I said in Committee—it seems like many months ago—there is widespread concern in rural areas that the kinds of services to which people
1734
may want access are not available within their own district council boundary. Therefore, the value of the scheme may be limited.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this clause relates to local authority-based schemes, as in the case of the concessions for pensioners and the disabled. Therefore, any extension under this legislation will apply also to local authority-based schemes. As far as concerns the particular operational aspect to which the noble Baroness referred, we would not have statutory hacking to do that under the clause. However, without recourse to further primary legislation, under this Bill we would have the ability to extend the same provisions which now apply to pensioners and the disabled to this group, if such a decision was taken and the resources were available. Those resources, which are significant, would probably include the transfer of some private resources onto the public purse, because some private operators already provide reduced rate or free passes to schoolchildren. We would need to take that decision at a later point, but under Clause 147 it is possible to extend the provision under primary legislation.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he provide the Government's own estimate of the cost of the proposal in the amendment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness suggested that, according to one operator, the estimated cost would be £50 million for all young persons. We believe that the cost would be significantly more than £50 million. The exact figure depends slightly on how many of the existing facilities are taken onto the public purse, but it would be significantly more than £50 million. If it was restricted to those in full-time education, the cost would probably be half of that.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, the argument of the Government is that the costs are significantly more than the amount that my noble friend puts forward, which is based not simply on an estimate but a study with which she has been provided. Perhaps I may press the Minister for further information. This matter is material to the implementation of the provisions of Clause 147 to which the Minister referred.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot be more precise. It would involve a substantial sum and a new decision by government to extend it to the whole of this group, or those in full-time education. I cannot give any commitment to do that today or state the exact net expenditure required. All I say is that the primary power to do it is already available.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I listened with interest, and a certain amount of disappointment, to the Minister's response. This is an

1735
important group of people who should be encouraged to use public transport, and there are good reasons for looking at the extension of the scheme at the earliest possible opportunity. However, I am unable to press my amendment at the moment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 178 [Preliminary]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 178.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 178 seeks to introduce the workplace parking levy. My amendment proposes to remove that clause. I was moved to table the amendment when a fellow toiler at the cliff face of government legislation, who was also studying transport legislation in Scotland, discovered that the smooth monolithic face of the Labour Government on this issue had cracked. A long time ago he tabled an amendment to the transport legislation in Scotland, which is now in Committee, which would have removed the workplace parking levy. Miracle of miracles, within the past few days the Labour-led Government in Scotland have decided that my colleague's proposal is a wise one. They have accepted the amendment and tabled the appropriate consequential amendments in order for that to take effect.
The Minister may well argue that in the United Kingdom where there is devolved government some matters may be treated differently in different parts of the country. We have had that kind of debate in the past. Equally, it is true that an argument which has validity in one part of the United Kingdom almost certainly has validity in another. I believe that the concerns of Scottish trade unions would be shared by their English counterparts if they thought about this matter objectively. We believe that the amendment will help the Bill move forward.
I do not believe that we should treat Scottish opinion lightly. Slightly further on in the Marshalled List one finds a government amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, which deals with a little matter of rural speed limits. That particular amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall consult Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales. Clearly, the Minister takes Scottish opinion quite seriously. I believe that in the interests of the Bill we should agree with Scotland on this particular issue and remove the workplace parking levy from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith drew my attention to this issue the other day and so I thought I might join in the debate. I am semi-disappointed—but only semidisappointed—to see that it is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the all-purpose Minister, who is to reply. Goodness knows what the Government would do if the noble Lord ever left the Government. They would have to appoint four new Ministers to take his place. I had rather hoped that it would be the
1736
noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who, like myself, lives in Scotland. In his previous capacity the noble Lord would have driven his car—although I suspect he was driven—to the headquarters of the Scottish Media Group. That might have been subject to a workplace parking levy if it had not been for the actions of the Scottish Parliament. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is a Scot of second generation, if I can call him that, from the great McIntosh clan, I am happy to see him answering the debate, although he will not be quite as affected by these decisions as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald.
Yesterday the Scottish Parliament dealt with a transport Bill. Murray Tosh, a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament, had tabled an amendment to remove from the Bill the workplace parking levy, on which one or two people in Scotland are keen. The Executive, in the person of Sarah Boyack, accepted the amendment. It was not a case of the Parliament voting against the Government; the Government accepted the amendment. It split the Liberal Democrats because those in the coalition—for example, those who have ministerial cars—agreed with Sarah Boyack in agreeing with the Conservative amendment to take the levying of workplace parking out of the Bill. But at least two of their colleagues—who clearly do not have Mondeos—actually voted with the Scottish National Party against the amendment tabled by my friend Murray Tosh. It will he interesting to hear whether the Liberal Democrats in this House have any views on the subject; whether they agree with Jim Wallace and his friends, or with Donald Gorrie and his friend or friends.
If we are not careful businesses operating on a UK-wide basis will be affected by different provisions in Scotland from those applying in England and Wales. I know that the Government will say, "Well, that is devolution", but we are talking about businesses which think that they operate on a UK-wide basis. I think that business will find it odd. It may make Edinburgh and Glasgow marginally more attractive than English cities as places for businesses to set up. So maybe I should not complain too much. But it seems to me to be odd. If there are too many divergent positions like this, the United Kingdom will begin to be less like one country and more like two separate countries. Perhaps the Government should consult Sarah Boyack and ask her why she decided, along with her colleagues, to abandon the idea of workplace parking levies; and perhaps the Government should consider doing likewise in England.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is useful to have the candid admission that this is a wrecking amendment; or at least wrecking with regard to Chapter II of Part III of the Bill. One would he hard put to have a wrecking amendment for the whole Bill. I think that in the 18th century the Scots objected very strongly to being called North Britain. Now it looks as if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, wishes England to be thought of as South Britain, or South Scotland even; and for us slavishly to follow the example of the Scottish Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay,

1737
rightly said—I am in danger of taking on a Scots accent, but I shall try to avoid it—this is devolution. Indeed, that is what it is about. My understanding is that Scottish local authorities have expressed little interest in bringing forward workplace parking schemes in contrast with this country—may I call England "this country"?—where 26 local authorities have already joined our Charging Development Partnership. The Bill empowers local authorities outside London to bring forward a scheme in their area. It gives local authorities the discretion they want. It gives them the powers for which they have been asking. It is entirely appropriate that where that is the case we should continue to give them the discretion they want. They do not have to bring forward schemes, but if they want to—and it appears that they do want to—it is right that we should keep Chapter II of Part III of the Bill.
The analogy with the speed limit legislation is entirely false. Speed limits are a matter for GB legislation. It is not a devolved matter and could not be. It would be extremely confusing if there were different general speed limits in different parts of the country. On the other hand, workplace parking schemes are entirely different. We believe that it is right to continue with this proposal, as is the wish of local authorities in England.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Mackay for his support in this matter. I am also, surprisingly perhaps, grateful for the reply of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, although I do not agree with it. I would not suggest that England should slavishly follow anyone—if one may refer to "England" rather than "the United Kingdom". I still think of myself as being British and I find the distinction difficult. This is devolution. I can understand that some English local authorities might well be seduced by what appears to be an attractive idea, but it has some fairly severe downsides.
I did not mention the question of the speed limit legislation specifically to draw a parallel with it, but merely to emphasise that there are points at which consultation and the views of other parts of the United Kingdom have to be taken into account. In all government administration and in all politics one needs to be well aware of the perspective of what one is doing. The question is whether this idea, which is deemed appropriate elsewhere, might be deemed appropriate here also. The Minister has not given a sufficient answer to whether this part of the Bill is as all-singingly, all-dancingly good as he would like it to be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord decides what he wants to do with his amendment—he is clearly gearing himself up for a Division—will he reflect on the fact that not once in the course of the consideration of the Bill has he divided the House against workplace parking levies?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. When I tabled this
1738
amendment I specifically asked the Public Bill Office whether it was in order so to do. Having been told that I could—I would have accepted it if the Public Bill Office said that I could not—I have. We have discussed other amendments which sought to amend this part of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. This is quite a new factor. When the Scottish Parliament—run by the Labour Party, which I believe is a fully paid-up branch of the British Labour Party—makes a decision that runs counter to the Bill, surely my noble friend is right to ask whether the Labour Party should not follow suit down here.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I thought that I had covered that point by implication when I referred to the perspective one should take when dealing with these matters. I had better not waste any more words. I wish to test the view of the House on the matter.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 105.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Howe, E.

Attlee, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Biffen, L.

Laird, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lyell, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Burnham, L.

Northbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Northesk, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Onslow, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Palmer, L.

Crathorne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Flather, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skidelsky, L.

Glentoran, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hanham, B. [Teller]

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.[Teller]

Wakeham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Borrie, L.

Addington, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Alderdice, L.

Bragg, L.

Amos, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Andrews, B.

Burlison, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Bach, L.

Chandos, V.

Barker, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Berkeley, L.

Crawley, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Billingham, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

1739

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Eatwell, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

McNally, L.

Falkland, V.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Molloy, L.

Filkin, L.

Monson, L.

Gale, B.

Nicol, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gilbert, L.

Rendell of Babergh B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Richard, L.

Grabiner, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Greaves, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hamwee, B.

Sawyer, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Harrison, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hayman, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hoyle, L.

Tenby, V.

Hughes of woodside, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Thornton, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Tomlinson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Warner, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Whitaker, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whitty, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Wilkins, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Lipsey, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Lockwood, B.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.9 p.m.
Clause 207 [Manner of exercise of functions]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 13:
Clause 207, page 124, line 17, at end insert —
("( ) The Authority may further its purposes, in accordance with any strategies it has formulated with respect to them, by means of competitions and tenders for the purpose of encouraging innovation and otherwise, provided that such competitions and tenders, where they relate to matters of material importance to the Authority's exercise of its functions, are conducted in accordance with rules that have first been approved by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on Report, I moved Amendment No. 313, which suggested that the maximum gross train weight of a cement tanker vehicle should be 48 tonnes. The Minister who replied to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, thought that I was seeking to maintain the weight advantage enjoyed by intermodal operators in the age of the 44 tonner. I made it clear that I would be in very deep trouble if the Minister accepted my amendment. His reply covered all the points for that debate. However, it is evident that the Minister's onerous duties prevented him from avidly reading the specialist trade press, which covered the background to my
1740
amendment. If he had done so, he would have realised that my amendment covered the SRA's recent intermodal competition.
On Report, the Minister graciously and generously agreed to write to me on all the questions that I posed to him when moving my amendment, and before this stage of the Bill. Unfortunately, I have yet to receive a letter from the Minister. On one hand, I have to say that I am extremely surprised that the Minister's officials have let him down in this way. But, on the other hand, it is perhaps not so surprising, as the questions were certainly not part of a fishing expedition. It may be that the Minister will give us some of the answers when he comes to reply. That would be helpful, but I think that your Lordships would have preferred to study his letter carefully as it would have been drafted.
Perhaps it would help the House if I ran over the questions again. First, I asked whether it was correct that the winner of the competition was selected without ensuring that the safety case could be made to the relevant authorities. Secondly, I asked the Minister whether he was confident that the cement tanker trailer was robust enough for road, let alone rail use. Thirdly, I asked about the status of the Mega 3 rail wagon; in particular, whether it is registered with Railtrack, how many of the wagons are in existence and whether there are any technical difficulties with the wagon.
On Report, I mentioned that I had received some worrying briefing material about the competition. Experienced Members of your Lordships' House are well aware of the need for caution in such situations. It is disturbing that I have not yet received a letter. It is clear that credible competitions of this kind will involve substantial sums of public money. It would therefore be appropriate for the Secretary of State to exercise some form of control. If he did not, the SRA would determine the need for the competition, its rules, the size and number of the prizes and then judge who was the winner. This would not compare well with the principles of, say, public procurement. Can the Minister give me an assurance that this did not occur in the inter-modal competition?
I believe that it is important to make it clear that I see no problem with holding competitions per se; we need only to insert the appropriate controls. My amendment seeks to do just that. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Earl that he has not received a letter from the department. I thought that we had written to him. Indeed, I have here a copy of what I had thought had been sent to the noble Earl. However, given that the noble Earl said that he was repeating the questions he had put to me, I am not entirely sure that the letter, as drafted, would answer all of them, although it would respond to some. However, I am not certain whether that is of any help as regards the amendment before the House, because the amendment confers a wider application. It would give a permissive power to the SRA to further its purposes by means of competitions and tenders. The noble Earl has specifically asked

1741
questions in relation to a past competition. I hope that, when the noble Earl eventually receives it, my letter will clarify the past position.
In relation to the amendment, I should point out that substantial powers are already on the face of the Bill. The SRA will, in effect, have a "tool box" of powers and duties which it will exercise. Clause 207(4) also contains a "value for money" duty. Furthermore, the Secretary of State can give directions and guidance to the SRA. as to what it should do to achieve its purposes in a way best calculated to balance the various considerations contained in Clause 207. However, the SRA's duty to obtain value for money in the financial assistance it gives cannot be overridden by any directions and guidance.
Competitions and tenders may well prove to be the best way of securing value for money in a particular case. The authority certainly does not need a separate enabling power such as this amendment would provide. For that reason, there is no real need for Amendment No. 13.
With regard to franchising, the Bill already provides a detailed framework for a competitive process. The House debated this framework when we considered the amendments tabled to Section 26 of the Railways Act 1993. The Bill provides the assurance of a competitive process, either by a formal invitation to tender at the expiry of an existing franchise or by an equivalent process. However, this approach may not be appropriate in all circumstances, for example, in relation to awarding freight grants. There, the SRA will measure applications for grants against the appropriate criteria rather than testing the market.
As regards the wider issues raised by the amendment, the SRA will encourage innovation. It will work in partnership with the private sector. The shadow SRA's current approach to franchise replacement already demonstrates this. Our objective is to secure the earliest possible delivery of better rail services while providing value for money both to the passenger and to the taxpayer.
The amendment also suggests that the Secretary of State should lay down the precise procedures under which the competition process should operate. That is slightly at odds with the approach normally adopted by the Opposition in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State both in this Bill and elsewhere. I find that a little confusing. I hope that the noble Earl will feel that I have addressed the intention of his amendment and that he will agree that the Bill already provides for the SRA to act in the way he seeks. I hope, too, that my letter will address his concerns in relation to the past procurement process. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will not seek to pursue his amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his interesting response. Of course, the Bill concerns the establishment of the SRA. This amendment relates to what has happened with the SRA in its shadow form.
1742
Can the Minister tell the House how large were the prizes in the competition and whether they have been distributed to the winners? If not, why not?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I cannot respond to the noble Earl at this point. I am quickly reading through what I now feel is the "phantom" letter—which also will not provide the answer.
I promise to write another letter to the noble Earl. This time, I shall deliver it by hand.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am more worried about Civil Service procedures here rather than the issue of the Minister delivering letters by hand. However, I thank the Minister for his reply and for the way he has taken on board the intention of my amendment. We may return to the issue by other means. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Clause 247 [Standards]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 15:
Clause 247, page 162, line 13, after ("of") insert ("technical").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 to 22. On Report I moved Amendment No. 285, which, had it been agreed, would have deleted Clause 245 from the Bill. Now that I understand the purpose behind what is now Clause 247, such a drastic course of action is not necessary. However, a problem still exists here.
The clause is designed to give the Secretary of State the power to implement the EU directive on the inter-operability of high-speed railways. My difficulty here is that the clause is drafted far too widely. It gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations for any standards, not merely technical standards, and far less technical interoperability standards. What is in place to stop a future Secretary of State from using the powers conferred in this clause to solve the railway problem of the day, which might not even be a technical problem?
I should have liked to restrict the clause to only technical interoperability standards rather than standards. In the end, however, I recognised that this would have been unduly restrictive, so I have merely inserted the word "technical" in the appropriate places. There may be other reasons why the Secretary of State might wish to introduce technical standards. On this point, I should like to make it clear that I have no difficulty as regards the Secretary of State setting standards, even if they emanate from Europe. That must make sense.
In his response to my amendment on Report, the Minister indicated that the 1996 directive goes wider than the existing directive and includes staffing and operational aspects. This realises our worst fears. It could allow the Secretary of State to say how the

1743
railway staff are trained, dressed and even what their working hours might be. Are there not other provisions in our railway legislation that cover safety and other operational aspects?
I find these provisions very unsatisfactory. I am sorry that I did not pick up on these difficulties in advance of Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I oppose these amendments. The clause is absolutely essential in the move towards encouraging more efficient, more frequent and generally more cross-Channel freight and, I suspect, passengers as well.
The big problem of the European rail freight industry and the rail passenger industry—I shall not give a long lecture at this time of night—is that each member state has done its own thing. I certainly commend the European Commission for the initiative it has taken. Technical standards are a major part of it, but not the only part. The amendments would constrain the clause to "technical" standards. It must cover everything—including some of the matters mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—if it is to be at all effective.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, interoperability is very much in the interests of the British rail industry and our whole approach to integrated transport. I understand the noble Earl's concerns, but it is necessary to go beyond the word "technical" because we cannot pick and choose which part of the legislation we implement. We have to transpose the directives in full and it is necessary for regulations to be made which allow all of the standards promulgated under these directives to be given effect in the UK.
The term "technical specification for inter-operability" used to describe the standards being produced under these directives—as it would be as a result of the noble Earl's amendment—is a bit of a misnomer. Although the scope of the high-speed rail interoperability directive is primarily concerned with what everyone would understand as technical matters, the standards thereunder will also include operational matters. The scope of the conventional rail directive is wider still and does include matters such as staffing, operational and telematic aspects, in addition to the technical standards for infrastructure and rolling stock.
As the noble Earl suggested, there are other safety regulations and powers, but they do not necessarily cover the whole spectrum of interoperability standards. It is essential therefore that we legislate for the wider powers. Many of these subjects are outside the scope of existing health and safety at work powers and, to ensure that the implementing regulations can cover all of them and that offences and penalties can be created for non-compliance, we must ensure that the regulation-making powers are not limited to technical matters in the narrow sense envisaged by these amendments.
1744
An additional benefit of the clause as drafted is that it will give further powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations to cover areas of the railway industry where a need for standards has been identified. For example, it is possible that recommendations may arise from the Cullen inquiry that are not covered by existing health and safety at work powers, and we could use these powers to put those recommendations into effect.
The noble Earl is right to say that these are wide powers. They are wide because they are necessary to implement the directives. They also give the additional flexibility that is appropriate in this context. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the need for cross-Channel rail freight. It is very desirable. I am grateful for the Minister's reply. I shall study his comments carefully. I shall obviously have no opportunity to bring back this matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 22 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 23:
Clause 247, page 162, line 29, leave out subsections (6) to (9).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, some may think that this amendment deals with exactly the same issue as the previous amendment. It does not. The amendment deals with the new attempt by officials to goldplate yet another perfectly sensible EU directive and further alienate the people from the EU.
I do not believe that it is necessary to create any specific offences. No person manufacturing, installing or even operating railway equipment would not want to adhere to the technical interoperability standards. First, there would be no point, as the objectives of the directive are laudable; secondly, the persons involved are highly responsible, and if they were not they would be experiencing severe difficulties with the regulatory authorities; and, finally, if there was a management failure which caused a problem, the HSE would get involved, which has available a wide range of sanctions—and it has sharp teeth.
For the Minister to convince the House that the directive has not been goldplated, he will have to tell us where in the directive it states that the member states must create criminal offences. I have studied the directive very carefully and I cannot find where it suggests that member states should create criminal offences. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, many regulations implementing European Community new approach directives, of which the interoperability directive is an example—other railway directives may also be examples—contain a free-standing regulatory regime which specifies offences and penalties. If the subsections in the amendment were to be deleted, the Government would be restricted to creating offences and penalties only to the extent permitted under the European Communities Act in relation to the

1745
implementation of directives. In relation to any wider use of these powers, there would be no such powers except in the areas already covered by the health and safety legislation.
As I said at Report stage, we envisage that these penalties will be at a similar level in respect of offences created under regulations made under this clause to those which are already available for enforcement of railway safety, in particular the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The wide scope for the penalties that can be imposed is because existing legislation provides for unlimited fines to be imposed in certain cases. The Government consider it essential, therefore, that similar offences should carry the same penalty, irrespective of which set of legislative provisions apply.
The proper implementation of EU directives requires appropriate steps to be taken to enforce them. That may include criminal sanctions—it frequently does—in relation to directives which deal with safety.
I hope that I have convinced the noble Earl that provisions on penalties and enforcement are necessary in order to fulfil the requirements under this, and potentially other, railway directives. I hope that he will not pursue his amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. As it is unlikely that anyone will be charged with any of these offences, I see little point in pursuing the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 24:
After Claus 263, insert the following new clause—
"Type approvals: exemptions

Transport Bill

  TYPE APPROVAL: INDIVIDUAL EXEMPTIONS
  . In section 63 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (obligatory type approval certificates, certificates of conformity and Minister's approval certificates), for subsection (5) (power to make exemptions by regulations) substitute—
  "(5) The Secretary of State may make provision for securing that, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified by or under the instrument by which the provision is made—

  (a) the use of vehicles is exempted from all or any of the preceding provisions of this section for purposes specified in the instrument or in such an area as is so specified,

  (b) goods vehicles are exempted from the provisions of subsection (2) above, and

  (c) there are issued in respect of vehicles or vehicle parts, in such circumstances as may be specified in the instrument, certificates of temporary exemption exempting the vehicles or vehicle parts from the provisions of subsection (1) above for such period as may be provided in the certificate.

  (6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the power conferred by subsection (5) above is exercisable by regulations.
  (7) That power is exercisable by order in relation to—

  (a) specified vehicles, or

  (b) vehicles of specified persons;

  and an order under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order of the Secretary of State."").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been brought forward in response to representations on type approval made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, at Report stage.
  The current wording of the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to exempt vehicles from type approval only through regulation. Type approval is a system that is used to harmonise vehicle safety and environmental standards, thereby reducing technical barriers to trade. It is gradually being extended to cover many more vehicle types and more vehicle components.
  The amendment, which would replace Section 63(5) of the 1988 Act, gives extra flexibility by adding to the existing regulating power an order making power. This has been limited to specified vehicles and specified persons, thereby distinguishing when regulations and orders should be used. I believe that it meets the noble Earl's concern that specialised vehicles would be caught by type approval.
  The added flexibility to exempt vehicles by issuing an order will help ensure that as many generic classes of vehicle as possible are included within the scope of type approval. But where specialised vehicles—for example, prototypes or vehicles which are constructed for specific purposes, such as carrying abnormal loads—could not meet all the type approval requirements, they could be exempted by order. I believe that was the objective of the noble Earl's intervention last time. I thank him for bringing the point to our attention and I trust that the amendment will meet with his approval. I beg to move.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the amendment, and for his detailed explanation. In the overall scheme of things, it is a very small change; but it is a very useful change, and I thank the Minister.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 25:
  After Clause 263, insert the following new clause—

  COMPULSORY GOODS VEHICLE WEIGHING SCHEME
  (" . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, after section 41 insert—
  "Compulsory goods vehicle weighing scheme.
  41ZA.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the weighing of any goods vehicle using a major road freight facility, port or premises and the provision of a weight report to the driver of the vehicle.
  (2) In particular regulations made under subsection (1) may make provision with respect to—

  (a) the method of weighing such goods vehicles;

  (b) the form and contents of the weight report;

  (c) the number of such reports that must be provided to the driver;

  (d) the driver signing and returning a prescribed number of such reports to the operator of the facility:

  (e) the keeping of copies of such reports by the operator of the facility; and

  (f) the production of such copies by the operator on the request of prescribed public authorities.

  (3) Regulations made under subsection (1) may provide for exemptions from the requirement under subsection (1) for—

  (a) specified classes of goods vehicles;

  (b) specified classes of major road freight facility, port or premises; and

  (c) specified circumstances.

  (4) A weight report provided in accordance with regulations made under this section may be produced in evidence in any proceedings for an offence under this Part relating to the weight of a goods vehicle.
  (5) In this section "major road freight facility, port or premises" means any such facility, port or premises—

  (a) having facilities for the carriage of goods by road, and

  (b) having an annual throughput of more than 25,000 goods vehicles each exceeding 30,000 kilograms gross vehicle weight,

  or more than one such facility, port or premises where they are under common management, control or ownership, share a common access to the highway and together have that annual throughput.".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
  I have altered the amendment since I brought it forward on Report, to make it even more flexible: to permit under subsection (3) regulations to provide exemptions for places where heavy lorries are weighed. The purpose of the scheme is to reduce accidents and damage to roads and bridges from overweight lorries. In the context of some 3,500 road deaths a year, the best estimate is that about one in five involves a heavy lorry—so we are talking about 700 deaths a year, plus all the serious injuries that are caused. It is clear that overweight lorries cause a disproportionate number of accidents, because they are not capable of stopping and manoeuvring in the same way as those that are not overweight.
  It is worth pointing out that road damage goes up to the fourth power of the weight of a vehicle: so, if my maths is correct, a 50-tonne lorry causes 2½ times the amount of damage that a 40-tonne lorry causes. It is significant. In addition, it is unfair on those who obey the law that those who do not can carry extra weight and therefore receive more payload and revenue.
  The purpose of the scheme would be to ensure that, where premises have more than 25,000 lorries a year through the gate, all lorries leaving would have to be weighed and the drivers given a print-out of the weight. If the driver chose to continue driving and was stopped by a member of the inspectorate or the police, he could be charged with knowingly driving an over-weight vehicle.
  I suspect that, given modern equipment (a dynamic bridge) the weighing can probably be done in much less than a minute. How much would such a system cost? As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said on Report, it would cost about £20,000 to install. So, spread over 20,000 lorries a year, at £1 per lorry, it would almost be paid for in the first year. It is very cheap.
  How many weighbridges would be needed to cover the sites? I have done a check on the major ports, and about 15 ports or port areas would be covered. The best estimate that I can obtain from the industry is that there would be a further 150 to 300 other sites in the UK. Of that number, some, like quarries, already have weighbridges, because they sell their material by weight, as do oil companies. They have a means of measuring the weight because, obviously, they do not want to supply more than they sell. I suspect that such places as supermarket distribution centres would not need them at all and would be given an exclusion, because virtually all their lorries would bulk out before they weighed out. So, I think that in the end quite a small number of weighbridges would be needed. Some of those who operate common user facilities could probably make some money by providing facilities for those whose lorries were found to be over-weight to unload some of their goods and store them for future collection.
  So such a scheme is practical. The question is: is it necessary? In 1997, there were about 15,000 convictions nationwide relating to light and heavy vehicles that were overweight. If we take as an example the biggest port, Dover, about 1½, million trucks go through it. I recently heard that, about five years ago, Kent County Council set up a weighbridge in Dover for quite a short time. Over the period of those checks, 40 per cent of lorries that came through the port were found to be overweight. On 20 per cent of those, the county council took action. Even taking a figure of 20 per cent, if it is multiplied by 1½million, that makes 300,000 convictions a year, had the scheme continued for a year. That is roughly 20 times the number of convictions for the whole of the UK in 1997. The reason the council did not continue the scheme for very long was that, when the Treasury heard about it, I am told that it said, "Ha, ha, we'll have all the fines. We're not even going to allow you to offset the cost of the operation", which was quite significant. So, after a few weeks, the county council thought that it was on a hiding to nothing and that there was no point in continuing.
  Dover and other ports are special cases. But according to a Written Answer that I have received, at least 5 per cent of lorries at other sites would be found to be overweight. If we take away those that do not overweigh, it leaves a higher figure.
  In response to my amendment on Report, my noble friend Lord McIntosh basically said that such a provision was not necessary and that the Government were doing this anyway. He told us about the design weight compared with the legal limits and about bulking out and weighing out. It is true that 70 per cent of lorries bulk out—which leaves 30 per cent which do not; they weigh out. My noble friend talked about reputable operators, of which there are a great many—though not always, I suggest, through Dover! But there are certainly a large number of reputable operators overall.
  I agree with my noble friend that a balance has to be struck. This amendment provides an effective way of doing so. It is cost-effective. If we are looking at a site

  1749
  in Dover, and if one machine were enough, if my calculation is right, it would cost less than 10p per conviction. That is good value for money.
  What my noble friend did not say last time—this is my reason for tabling the amendment again—was what, if the Government did not like my amendment, they intended to do instead, apart from continuing to talk to the industry. There has to be an alternative. Whatever the commitments in the Government's excellent White Paper, they are being diverted. The commitment to reducing damage to roads and road accidents is being overtaken by the need to placate the truckers. It is ironic that the truckers will probably see very little of the 8p that the Chancellor is alleged to have offered them yesterday. I suspect that it will end up with the major customers; it will probably also end up with the oil companies, which will put up their prices to compensate.
  I hope that the Government will at least consider this proposal. If they will not accept my amendment, perhaps they will offer proposals or a timetable for bringing forward some other provision which will enable the large number of overweight lorries to be put in check and brought to justice. I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I support the amendment. It seeks to bring some much-needed discipline to road haulage, particularly international road haulage. I have read the effectiveness report of the Vehicle Inspectorate. It is a long and detailed document. It indicates that, of vehicles stopped—which, I accept, are a selected proportion of vehicles, because many that are thought to be compliant are not stopped—up to 20 per cent are overloaded. When that is set against the fact that, of the defects found by the Vehicle Inspectorate when heavy lorries are inspected, the top three categories, which far outweigh the rest are brake defects. So we have lorries that are overloaded, with faulty brakes. That is completely unacceptable. I find it rather strange that society and government, which seek to impose onerous standards on rail and air operators, are so reluctant to act in this area where it is known that there is gross abuse of the law.
  In designing the amendment, we sought to deal with the places where it is known that abuse is greatest; namely, at ports. However, we were advised that to single out ports, even if we weighed British and foreign lorries equally, would still be regarded as discriminatory under European law. Therefore, in order to comply with European law, we had to add some inland depots. We chose some of the larger depots that do not automatically weigh vehicles. Some places, like quarries, weigh in any event. They have to do so because that is part of the bill of sale relating to the contents of a lorry.
  Weighing lorries is not a very onerous business. The lorry is driven over a weighbridge and the weight of each axle is clocked up on a clock that everyone can see—like a big digital clock that you might find at a railway station. It would only be necessary to detain any lorry that was found to be overweight. Therefore, most lorries would pass automatically.
  1750
  A study of the vehicle inspectorate's reports shows that lorries that prove to be overweight almost always have other faults. Lorries whose drivers have worked over the hours' limit, which are badly maintained and otherwise in breach of regulations, almost always come from among the population that weigh heavy. Those concerned disregard all the regulations. They are not selective. They do not just overweigh; they do everything that is wrong.
  In the interests of fair competition, road safety and the protection of our road network—which is in a pretty poor state—I believe that the Government ought to take the matter in hand. The Government have gone to a great deal of trouble on the question of vehicle excise duty for lorries. The consultation document on reform of vehicle excise duty was published today, with a questionnaire for everyone to fill in about VED. I am sure that many people would like a consultation on road safety for vehicles, especially as regards the weight of vehicles. I urge the Government to consider this amendment most carefully. This proposal has widespread support among reputable haulage companies, as well as among the population at large who suffer from the effects of overweight lorries and the damage that they cause to the environment and to health.
  7.45 p.m.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, although I have much sympathy for this amendment—indeed, I was involved in its gestation—I sometimes wish that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would locate his lorry-bashing mode switch and turn it to the "off" position. However, there is a real problem in this area. An effective targeting of enforcement effort is the objective of the noble Lord's amendment.
  Ports are large generators of lorry traffic operating at or near maximum gross weight. In particular, the ISO shipping container transport business is extremely competitive. The necessary skeletal trailers are in abundant supply, second-hand and are very cheap, simple and robust. A high standard of livery is not required in this industry, which contrasts strongly with other sectors of the industry such as the parcels business. To put it simply, it is a cut-throat business with many operators ready to step into the market and sail very close to the wind.
  In that market situation, what is an operator to do if he is invited to move a container that he suspects is overloaded? Unless there is a reasonable prospect of being detected or stopped, many would just cross their fingers rather than lose a customer. A similar argument can be applied to the unaccompanied ro-ro trailer business. However, if this amendment were agreed to, it would be impractical to move an overloaded vehicle out of the port area, or, for that matter, any other freight facility covered. But perhaps more importantly, those consigning goods to the UK would be rather more careful about sending an overloaded vehicle or a container which could not legally be moved by industry standard equipment.

  1751
  There will naturally be concerns that this amendment could result in a considerable amount of unnecessary and time-consuming weighing. I do not believe that that will happen. If I did, I would be opposing the amendment on the grounds that it would be unnecessarily burdensome on industry. The usual type of weighbridge now in use is of the dynamic axle type, described by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. There is, of course, the question of the cost of the equipment. But I believe that that would be negligible compared to the total cost of a major freight facility of the type that your Lordships are discussing.
  Further, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has responded to the suggestion that I made on Report; namely, to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain facilities. He would have to be careful not to end up with only the ports being affected. Noble Lords also need to be aware that it is fairly standard practice for facilities such as supermarket distribution centres, parcel company hubs, steelworks, large factories and quarries all to have their own weighbridge facilities. I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about supermarket distribution centres because they generally have a dynamic axle weighbridge to ensure that none of the vehicles leave the centre overloaded. They have such facilities, first, to ensure that they do not fall foul of the law; and, secondly, in order to maximise payload.
  There is a problem with smaller goods vehicles being overloaded. But this amendment is targeted at larger and heavier vehicles. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a considerable traffic of heavy vehicles that have been loaded to capacity by volume rather than by weight. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned that fact. However, it would be possible for the Secretary of State's regulations to provide that weighing is unnecessary if no axle on the vehicle weighs more than, say, seven tonnes. That could be very easily determined by a "Go or No-Go" weighbridge. As that weighbridge would not be used for enforcement purposes, it would not need to be of evidential accuracy and, therefore, it would not need to be very expensive. I shall not weary the House at this hour by describing how that could be done. However, I can assure noble Lords that it would not be difficult.
  Finally, we may be forgetting about the driver. An experienced driver should be able to detect if his vehicle is seriously overloaded. But if he was just running near, or possibly slightly over, the maximum weight, he would spend the whole journey worrying about the situation. That would not be good for his health, nor would it be good for road safety. He would inevitably tire faster and might lack concentration. However, if he had a clean weighbridge ticket, he could relax in the knowledge that he was operating within the law, because most of the other things that can go wrong are within his control.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall start by recognising that the scheme set out in this amendment is very different from that which we considered earlier. I am grateful for the consideration
  1752
  that has gone into its framing. It is much less all-embracing and, of course, it is permissive. I do not believe that it goes as far as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, would wish us to believe. I do not think that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to make exceptions and say that one major facility should be covered by the scheme and that another should not. That would be going too far. Indeed, if that were to be done, it would almost certainly be challenged in the courts. Similarly, for reasons that are self-evident, it is not possible to have a scheme that covers only the ports, as recognised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
  My noble friend has repeated the points that I made in response to the earlier amendment and I do not feel disposed to rehearse them again. However, I should emphasise that road safety is enormously important to this Government. We are proud that we have the best record on road safety, but we are not complacent about it. We are always looking for better ways of improving safety. When we are looking at ways to improve safety, it is important for us to consider the best use of resources. Clearly we are concerned with road safety, with issues of road damage and with issues of unfair competition—especially between good operators and less-good operators.
  Perhaps I may summarise the fundamental trouble with this amendment without repeating what I said previously. The very locations that would be covered by the scheme are those where it is least likely that there will be overloading. The locations with over 25,000 movements a year are fundamentally those locations used by the larger operators. We said last time, and I think it was generally agreed, that the larger operators are much less likely to be guilty of overloading than the smaller and more dodgy operators, who will simply not appear on the weighbridges to be set up under this amendment.
  My fundamental objection to this amendment is that it is an indiscriminate approach to weighing all lorries of a certain kind. Those lorries of a certain kind are the least likely to be guilty of overloading. In that case, targeted enforcement of the law is much more appropriate.
  The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked a legitimate question: what would we do instead of the amendment? I think I said last time that we are working with the Road Haulage Forum and we are looking at the possibilities of mobile weighpads. We do not have a timetable on it yet but we hope to move quickly and we want to follow the excellent advice of the Commission for Integrated Transport and establish a modern, intelligence-based enforcement system, involving better targeting of inspections and additional tools. This makes efficient use of resources and will minimise disruption to responsible hauliers. The amendment would affect all lorries indiscriminately and particularly those of responsible hauliers, which would make things difficult.
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that explanation. I do not accept some of his comments. It certainly is not targeting the good and responsible hauliers or the experienced drivers. I

  1753
  suspect that those who are overweight will at some stage have to go into one of these big facilities, because that is the way life goes. It does not actually stop anybody doing spot checks on the motorway but the problem is: will they get done?
  I was a little hurt by the comment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, about "lorry bashing". If I am bashing lorries, they are illegal lorries. I wanted to make it clear that they are unfair on the competition and this also has a serious road safety implication, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said. I have no problem with that: I am pleased to continue to do it. However, regarding the large number of responsible lorries and experienced drivers, we have all encouraged them and must continue to do it. That was something mentioned yesterday by my right honourable friend the Chancellor as something which should contribute significantly to that aspect.
  I think we have debated this quite enough. It is tempting to talk about dividing the House, but it will not do any good. I shall read with great interest what my noble friend has said, because this is something we should take forward and keep pressing the Road Haulage Forum and the Government to achieve the end result that more lorries will be checked, particularly those suspected of being overweight, so that they may be brought to justice. One good way of doing that would be for those who do the checking to have hypothecation of the charges and not to suffer from Treasury-imposed cutbacks. In the light of these remarks I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
  Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 27:
  After Clause 264, insert the following new clause—

  POWERS TO CHARGE FOREIGN GOODS VEHICLES AND LARGE PASSENGER VEHICLES ENTERING THE UNITED KINGDOM
  (" .—(1) The Secretary of State may by order implement a scheme for the charging of foreign lorries and large passenger vehicles on entering the United Kingdom.
  (2) The scheme may apply different charges for different classes of vehicle.
  (3) Before implementing a scheme under this section the Secretary of State shall consult United Kingdom local authorities, road haulage and passenger vehicle operators, the European Commission and any other bodies which appear appropriate.
  (4) The effects of the scheme must be reviewed annually.
  (5) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27. I am enormously grateful to the Minister for drawing my Britdisc Report stage amendment to the attention of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has of course seen the value of it and hopes that it will pacify the haulage industry somewhat. That is why he announced it yesterday; but that is all he did. There does not appear to be much detail available.
  In Committee I moved a similar amendment, which applied only to vehicles carrying abnormal loads. In his reply at col. 553 on 26th July, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew the Committee's attention to the eurovignette directive, which would limit the maximum cost of a vignette to 1,250 euros: about £800. Does he believe this will be enough to have the desired effect of making foreign hauliers pay their full track costs, and is that the objective of having the Britdisc? To be fair to the Minister, the proposed reduction in VED will be welcome and I am sure that the Minister will say that both have to be considered together. Will the Minister seek a relaxation of the vignette regime from our EU partners or will he adhere to the current EU maxima?
  Some of the extra costs arising from increased foreign lorry flows fall disproportionately upon certain local authorities. Will any of the receipts from these charges go directly to them or will they all be kept by the Chancellor?
  The brief Statement by the Chancellor yesterday in another place was stated to be an intention, but little in the way of a timescale was given. As we know, time travels very fast. The Britdisc has been our policy on these Benches since April 1999. When will the Britdisc be implemented? It would seem that there is no chance of getting the scheme off the ground before the next election. I hope we shall see it in the election manifesto of the party opposite. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right. I summoned the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my office immediately after the debate, and demanded that a Britdisc should be put in place. He, as he always does, listened very carefully to what I said and agreed to it. No—you cannot do that sort of thing from the Dispatch Box: irony never works!
  Of course the noble Earl is right in saying that the Chancellor only gave the barest outline of his proposals in his pre-Budget report. It was already a very long report and it is difficult to include all the detail. However, I can confirm a number of points which he may find helpful. First, as I said last time, we are not talking here about a eurovignette; we are talking about something more comparable to the individual scheme which Austria operates. Even so, we would first have to conform to the maximum limits of charges, which have only been in force since last year. They were agreed after several years of difficult negotiations between member states, and they may he renegotiated at a future date, although currently there are no plans to do so.
  The second point is that any vignette or Eurodisc of this kind would have to apply to UK lorries as well. I rather teased the noble Earl last time by asking if it really was his policy to add the eurocharge to the existing VED. He will be aware of the Chancellor's announcements on VED yesterday and he will also be aware that in repeating the Statement in the debate following the repetition of the pre-Budget report Statement I said that it would be our intention to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. In other words, we

  1755
  would be looking at the possibilities of reducing VED to UK hauliers to compensate for the fact that they would have to pay this extra amount.
  The noble Earl asked me about timing. This is a proposal, as the Chancellor made clear, for consultation. It requires consultation with the haulage industry of course, but it also requires consultation with our European partners and I cannot give him any date for the implementation of it, any more than I can give him any more details at present of the options on which we will be consulting. There is no point in making up our minds about the details if we know we are going to be consulting about them. I believe that the eurovignette scheme took at least 18 months to come into force, even though there were already detailed plans in place when a decision to go ahead with the scheme was taken. We are not at that stage yet and I do not wish to mislead the noble Earl by encouraging him to think that it is going to happen very quickly. We are not at that stage yet. I do not wish to mislead the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, by encouraging him to think that it will happen quickly. He may know better than I when the next election will occur, but even so, as I say, I do not think that it will happen quickly.
  I am grateful for the noble Earl's welcome to the Chancellor's proposals. The Chancellor will be grateful to him for that. I hope that I have eased his mind on such details as can be given. I hope therefore that he will not press the amendment.
  8 p.m.
  Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. He said as much as he could at this stage. We look forward to the consultation on the proposal. One day it will come to fruition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 28:
  After Clause 266, insert the following new clause—
  ("Quiet lanes and home zones and rural road speed limits

  QUIET LANES AND HOME ZONES
  .—(1) A local traffic authority may designate any road for which they are the traffic authority as a quiet lane or a home zone.
  (2) The appropriate national authority may make regulations authorising local traffic authorities who have designated roads as quiet lanes or home zones to make use orders and speed orders of such descriptions as are prescribed by the regulations in relation to any roads designated by them as quiet lanes or home zones.
  (3) A use order is an order permitting the use of a road for purposes other than passage.
  (4) But a use order may not permit any person—

  (a) wilfully to obstruct the lawful use of a road by others, or

  (b) to use a road in a way which would deny reasonable access to premises situated on or adjacent to the road.

  (5) A speed order is an order authorising the local traffic authority by whom it is made to take measures with a view to reducing the speed of motor vehicles or cycles (or both) on a road to below that specified in the order.
  (6) The appropriate national authority may make regulations specifying procedures for the making, variation and revocation of—

  (a) designations, and

  (b) use orders and speed orders,

  including procedures for confirmation (whether by the appropriate national authority or any other body).
  (7) The appropriate national authority may give guidance to local traffic authorities about matters to which they must have regard in determining whether or not to designate a road as a quiet lane or home zone.
  (8) In this section—

  "the appropriate national authority" means—

  (a) the Secretary of State as respects England, and

  (b) the National Assembly for Wales as respects Wales,

  "cycle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988,

  "local traffic authority" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,

  "motor vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads, and

  "road" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  (9) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and may make different provision for different cases or areas.
  (10) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 29.
  Both these new clauses have been prepared in response to Liberal Democrat amendments which were withdrawn at Report stage on the understanding that the Government would bring forward our own amendments at Third Reading. We were sympathetic to the objectives of the Liberal Democrat amendments.
  In the case of quiet lanes and home zones we have, I hope, achieved the essential objectives of the Liberal Democrat amendment, though with some significant differences. I think that we would agree that in terms of achieving the road safety targets which the Government set themselves in the road safety strategy, the creation of home zones in urban and residential areas and tackling the problems of speed in our rural lanes and villages are an important part of that.
  Amendment No. 28 would give legal status to the concept of home zones. It gives the appropriate national authority power to make regulations which in turn would enable local traffic authorities to make use orders and speed orders. Use orders will be particularly valuable in home zones because they will give legal status to uses of the road for purposes other than the traditional one of "passing and repassing". Speed orders would enable the local traffic authority to introduce speed limits in individual quiet lanes and to reduce speed limits below the current levels.
  Amendment No. 29 which concerns the rural road hierarchy is slightly less complex. It embraces the essence of the amendment tabled by the Liberal

  1757
  Democrats at an earlier stage. It commits the Secretary of State to undertake a review of all the considerations required to implement the rural road hierarchy; to address the problem of speed which is a hazard and inflicts environmental pollution on much of our countryside and, after consultation, to publish a report within 12 months. I believe that these amendments will make a major contribution to road safety. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the amendments in response to the amendments I brought forward on Report. I am particularly pleased to see legal identity being given to home zones and quiet lanes. I welcome the flexibility which the proposed new clauses give to local authorities in this important area of road safety. However, the devil, as always, will be in the detail. Much will hinge on the regulations and guidance. Will the Minister say when that will be forthcoming?
  I would appreciate some clarification of subsection (6) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 28, which states,
  "procedures for confirmation (whether by the appropriate national authority or any other body)".
  I feared that this might mean that the Secretary of State's approval would be required for each individual scheme.
  I am rather disappointed that the issue of precedence has not been covered in the Government's amendments. On Report, the Minister said that he would redraft my amendments to meet his quibbles. I suppose that I am quibbling at his use of the word "quibble" because precedence is fundamental to the concept of home zones. That is certainly the experience of our Continental neighbours. We were keen to see the enabling powers put on the face of the Bill and are therefore disappointed to note that they are not included in the amendment. Earlier this evening when we discussed a workplace parking levy, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—rightly, in our view—said that the purpose of workplace charging was to give local authorities a tool and that it had been included in the Bill in response to the demands of local authorities. After consultation has taken place and after representations are made, if it becomes clear that there is a demand on the part of local authorities for powers to change the precedence, will the Government consider including that matter in guidance in the future?
  I particularly welcome the rural road hierarchy and the commitment to a 12-month review and the publication of the results of that review. I was interested to note that the Bill refers to a link between speed limits and accidents. That measure will be welcomed by many rural dwellers for whom that matter is a constant concern. Does the Minister see lower speed limits on minor rural roads as a desirable outcome of the review? Once the review is completed,
  1758
  will primary legislation be required to change the hierarchy, or can that be done by statutory instrument?
  Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for bringing it forward. It is good to see quiet lanes and home zones included on the face of the Bill. I have two questions. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, mentioned priority for pedestrians. Can the use order be used to specify or designate priority for pedestrians, or does that matter require primary legislation? Secondly, an interesting road sign has been approved by the European Union. I believe that it is called E30. It depicts an attractive little house and kids playing football. Would local authorities require approval to erect such signs when home zones are established, or could they erect them anyway? I think that would be rather nice. I hope that my noble friend will comment on that.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome for the amendments. I hope that I can respond to some of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked what authorities other than local authorities would be involved. In London it could be the GLA. Although, initially, individual consents may be given, that may change in time.
  We hope to issue guidance as soon as possible. That almost certainly means next year. As regards my view on speed limits in rural lanes, the road safety strategy, and my frequent elaboration of it, indicate that I believe that in many cases 60 miles an hour—that is the default speed on single carriageway roads—is not appropriate in many rural lanes. However, each local authority can assess the appropriate speed for an individual rural road or lane.
  As regards the issue of priority or precedence, I accept that our amendment differs in this respect from that tabled by the Liberal Democrats at an earlier stage. We believe that we can achieve that objective through existing powers. We believe that the absolute priority that is established in some Continental legislation is not appropriate. We are considering the position, say, on a zebra crossing where pedestrians have the right of way but they are expected to cross in a reasonable time. Where children are playing in a home zone, clearly one would expect the car to slow down. However, one would also expect a provision whereby the children would make way in order for the car to reach its destination.
  To lay down precedence in absolute terms would not be appropriate. We are talking here about the obligation on the car driver and other road users to act reasonably in the context of the road that they were using. A home zone would be marked by clear signs. Whether or not they would be the signs described by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, such zones would have designated low vehicle speeds which could be 10 miles per hour or lower. All the existing important provisions as regards due care and attention, consideration for other road users and so on would

  1759
  apply. If one adds all that up, creating a new offence of failure to give precedence, given the difficulty that might arise in certain situations, would not add very much.
  We are proposing that there would be a special reference and special supplement to the Highway Code explaining how road users should behave in home zones. I hope that that answers most of the questions. I commend the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 29:
  After Clause 266, insert the following new clause—

  REPORT ON RURAL ROAD SPEED LIMITS
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State shall review the operation in relation to rural roads of the provision made by and under—

  (a) Part VI of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits), and

  (b) Schedule 9 to that Act (orders) so far as relating to orders under that Part.

  (2) The review shall in particular include consideration of whether (and, if so, how) the law should be amended to facilitate the introduction of rural road hierarchies.
  (3) A rural road hierarchy is a system under which rural roads are categorised by a local traffic authority (by reference to the ways in which they are used) for the purpose of subjecting different categories of rural roads to different speed limits.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) the Scottish Ministers, and

  (b) the National Assembly for Wales,

  when carrying out the review.
  (5) The Secretary of State shall publish a report of the review before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
  (6) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.
  (7) In this section "local traffic authority" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 272 [Commencement]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 30 and 31:
  Clause 272, page I77, line 16, leave out second ("and").
  Clause 272, page 177, line 16, at end insert ("and section (Report on rural road speed limits)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 276 [Extent]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 32 and 33:
  Clause 276, page 178, line 23, leave out ("and 266 to 268") and insert ("266 and (Quiet lanes and home zones) and 267 and 268").
  Clause 276, page 178, line 26, leave out ("section 265") and insert ("sections (Type approval: individual exemptions), 265 and (Report on rural road speed limits)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 12 [Road user charging and workplace parking levy: financial provisions]:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 34:
  Schedule 12, page 235, line 2, at end insert (", a London traffic authority's and the Greater London Authority's").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 to 39.
  The Bill provides that local authorities shall have the power as a tool in their transport planning to raise either congestion charges or workplace parking levies. One might have thought that in that situation one was discussing a local tax raised locally for local purposes. It is a matter of regret that that is not what Schedule 12 provides. Schedule 12 provides that these local taxes set and determined locally for local purposes may remain so for 10 years. After that period, it is an option and the Government will review the situation. Of course, they may do the honourable and decent thing and allow the situation to continue; but they may not. That seems to me to be a new departure in local taxation which is somewhat different from the situation which arises over fines—they tend to find their way into the Government's hands—which are the product of traffic offences committed locally and the result of local procedures.
  As we heard earlier, sometimes local authorities are not even allowed to keep the costs of collecting those revenues. In this instance, this is a purely local affair for 10 years after which the Government can get their sticky fingers on the money if they so choose. That is a novel principle in local government taxation which I find to be thoroughly wrong and obnoxious.
  The purpose of this group of amendments is so to amend Schedule 12 that we make it possible for the product of this revenue to remain with the local authorities for the long-term future. We provide that, if the original purpose for which the money was required ceases—it has to be transport related initially—that money can be kept locally in aid of the local rate fund.
  The question was raised as to whether we could include London. London is included, whether it is the Greater London Authority or one of the boroughs which raises the charge.
  At this hour, I do not wish to go beyond the basic principle. The ramifications are extremely dangerous. I do not think that we should accept the dangerous principle that it is proper for the Government administratively to decide that the product of a local taxation decision should be drawn into the Government's coffers after a period of time. These amendments would make it possible for the revenue to remain locally. I beg to move.
  8.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, the novel part of these provisions is that the revenue from such road user charging would be totally hypothecated. It would be hypothecated for public transport purposes for 10 years or for any scheme started within the 10 years. That is an important principle of charging, in delivering our integrated transport policy at the local level, and of giving effect to the local transport plans on which so many local authorities are now enthusiastically engaged.

  1761
  As drafted, the noble Lord's amendments would depart from that principle. They would offer local authorities the option of using the revenue from new charges, for example, to reduce council tax—not after 10 years but from the moment a charging or licensing scheme is introduced. That is not appropriate. From the way the noble Lord moved the amendment I do not think that it was his intention. We believe that this situation has to be reviewed in 10 years' time because ultimately under hypothecation one may well run out of appropriate transport expenditure in which to engage. But that hypothecation should stand for a significant period of time. Ten years seems to be the most appropriate.
  We discussed this issue during some lengthy discussions on the Greater London Authority Bills. We accepted that 10 years is an appropriate period. We believe that that should be the case more generally in this Bill for all local authorities. Clearly, if there are transport needs to be addressed after 10 years, the hypothecation could well continue. But we need to build in a review period. It is not an interference in local judgment. It will be up to the local authority whether it continues the scheme and what it spends the money on from the scheme within the framework of its local transport plan.
  I believe that the noble Lord's anxieties are misplaced. The amendment would lead almost to the opposite of what the Bill is about; namely, the delivery of an effective integrated transport system at local level. I hope that he will not pursue the amendment.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, if he will give me an assurance that, in the event that the local authority has nothing to spend these charges on in the transport field, the charges can then cease, I have no difficulties with what he suggests and would be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, when we discussed the matter earlier, that did not appear to be the situation. Once the charges start, they run. There is a difficulty.
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, no, there will be a review after 10 years as to whether the charges are still
  1762
  needed. Charges are needed on the one hand for funding; and on the other hand to achieve certain changes in the traffic behaviour to fit in with an integrated transport plan. It may well be that the funding element may diminish over time. I suspect that the period will be considerably longer than 10 years, but the traffic management dimension is unlikely to diminish. I cannot, therefore, give the noble Lord that assurance.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, there is a fundamental difference between us on the issue of when a local tax is not a local tax. What local authorities are being asked to introduce is a national tax which may be applied for a time for local purposes. I do not think that that is proper. It is too late in the evening to divide the House, although I am immensely tempted to do so, because there is an important principle involved.
  I am not satisfied with the Minister's answer, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 35 to 39 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Whitty.)
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may place on record our thanks to the staff for the long hours that they have worked on this Bill and all this week. In particular I thank the Hansard writers, who have worked very long hours.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past eight o'clock.

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Expenditure and Running Costs Limits
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office Expenditure and Running Costs Limits
  European Court of Human Rights
  European Court of Human Rights
  British Tourists in the EU: Safety
  British Tourists in the EU: Safety
  Indonesia: Ministerial Visit
  Indonesia: Ministerial Visit
  Eritrea/Ethiopia Conflict: Algiers Talks
  Eritrea/Ethiopia Conflict: Algiers Talks
  Sierra Leone: War Crimes Special Court
  Sierra Leone: War Crimes Special Court
  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  European Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Inter-Governmental Conference
  Inter-Governmental Conference
  European Constitution
  European Constitution
  Burma
  Burma
  North Korea: Diplomatic Relations
  North Korea: Diplomatic Relations
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Learning and Skills Council: Strategic Guidance
  Learning and Skills Council: Strategic Guidance
  Ministerial and MPs' Salaries and Allowances
  Ministerial and MPs' Salaries and Allowances
  Health Care and the Third Way
  Health Care and the Third Way
  Rehab: Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocation Centre
  Rehab: Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocation Centre
  NMEC: County Court Judgments
  NMEC: County Court Judgments
  Peers' Subsistence and Secretarial Allowances
  Peers' Subsistence and Secretarial Allowances
  Chardon LL Maize Hearing
  Chardon LL Maize Hearing
  Lord Chancellor's Department: Expenditure and Running Costs Limits
  Lord Chancellor's Department: Expenditure and Running Costs Limits
  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987: Charges
  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987: Charges
  Human Rights: Protocol No. 12
  Human Rights: Protocol No. 12
  Northern Ireland: Immigration Detention
  Northern Ireland: Immigration Detention
  Immigration Detainees: Prison Service Accommodation
  Immigration Detainees: Prison Service Accommodation
  Major Road Schemes
  Major Road Schemes